The US began a major attack on Fallujah today, starting with aerial bombing. Major troop movements in the next few days, with battles in the streets of Fallujah.
Oh, gosh, do we have an election on Tuesday?
It is a cynical, manipulative tactic for Bush to launch a major offensive just days before the election. Yet again, he abuses the lives of our soldiers for his political gain. Here, we have the Election Offensive -- an offensive attack timed to coincide with the presidential election, with the cynical intent of shoring up Bush's support.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
President John Edwards
This NYTimes OpEddescribes a not-that-far-fetched electoral scenario --- with only a single flyer.
If the electoral college deadlocks 269-269, the Senate elects the Vice President while the President is elected in the House. It is not far-fetched that the Dems take the Senate (Edwards is elected VP there), while the Republicans retain the house. In the House, however, the voting is one vote per state, and Minnesota and Wisconsin are evenly divided Dem/Republican (deadlocked votes, meaning no votes). If there is just *one* more deadlocked state, then the House election would be tied.
And the Constitution stipulates that, in the event that a President is unable to take the oath of office come late January, the Vice President acts as President until such time that a President is qualified.
If the electoral college deadlocks 269-269, the Senate elects the Vice President while the President is elected in the House. It is not far-fetched that the Dems take the Senate (Edwards is elected VP there), while the Republicans retain the house. In the House, however, the voting is one vote per state, and Minnesota and Wisconsin are evenly divided Dem/Republican (deadlocked votes, meaning no votes). If there is just *one* more deadlocked state, then the House election would be tied.
And the Constitution stipulates that, in the event that a President is unable to take the oath of office come late January, the Vice President acts as President until such time that a President is qualified.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
BushWired: Best foot forward
Salon has a short piece up on the latest BushWired development: A NASA/JPL physicist has performed a science-level analysis of images of Bush's back from the first debate. Conclusion? It is not a wrinkled shirt. It is not Bush's shoulder blades. There is definitely something there, but it also does not look much like a box. This is a relief in a way, since all of the audio techs agree that "between the shoulder blades" is a strange place to put a wireless transceiver unit.
What the processed images definitely reveal is some sort of arrangement of wires snaking up and down Bush's back, between the shoulder blades. Recall, now, that the best-technology in-ear units use magnetic induction to power the in-ear speaker; this requires a wire loop to be laid around the subject's head.
I had thought the case was closed; instead, Dr. Robert Nelson has just blown it wide open. Don't forget: (1) Bush team insisted on no video from behind (and have never explained that request); (2) Bush demanded "Let me finish!" 15 seconds into a 60-second response during this debate.
What the processed images definitely reveal is some sort of arrangement of wires snaking up and down Bush's back, between the shoulder blades. Recall, now, that the best-technology in-ear units use magnetic induction to power the in-ear speaker; this requires a wire loop to be laid around the subject's head.
I had thought the case was closed; instead, Dr. Robert Nelson has just blown it wide open. Don't forget: (1) Bush team insisted on no video from behind (and have never explained that request); (2) Bush demanded "Let me finish!" 15 seconds into a 60-second response during this debate.
A Shred of Proof: The Missing Explosives on Video
Bush, Limbaugh, and other right-wing blowhards have been screeching the Kerry doesn't have any proof that the 370 tons of munitions were stolen before, or after the US invasion of Iraq. Never mind that a munition stolen before the invasion kills American soldiers just as well as ones stolen after -- they're all focussed on whether Bush is to Blame.
Turns out, Bush is to blame. A EXCLUSIVE:
San Francisco Bay Area news station had an embedded reporter, who videotaped the munitions that have now turned up missing.
ANOTHER example of Bush's lack of planning making Iraq a more dangerous place, and putting our troops in harm's way.
Turns out, Bush is to blame. A EXCLUSIVE:
San Francisco Bay Area news station had an embedded reporter, who videotaped the munitions that have now turned up missing.
ANOTHER example of Bush's lack of planning making Iraq a more dangerous place, and putting our troops in harm's way.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Hawaii as Future Swing State
Robin asked me to comment today on the latest polls which show the Presidential race approaching too close to call in... Hawaii (4 electoral votes). Which went for Dukakis in '88. By 9 points. And had Gore over Dubyah by 19 points a mere four years ago. It's a pretty stunning development if true, but is it true, and if so what does it mean?
Well, I don't honestly think the suggestion can be taken at face value. Hawaii will go for Kerry in '04, have no fear. The fact that some organizations are coming close to suggesting otherwise is - to that degree - merely an indication of their own biases (Gallup, I'm looking at you here).
However, I do believe we will come to look back on the 2004 election in Hawaii as the end of an era. The Democrats have had their way with Hawaii ever since Statehood. We finally got a Republican governor in '02 (go Linda!), and she has been able to turn things around locally. She has made the health of the State's economy - above and beyond the usual soaking of tourists (11.5% hotel room tax) - a priority. In addition, she and my Dad have been working hard to improve public schools via devolution of power to local districts. This surprises people from the mainland, but in Hawaii it has been the Republicans (and my Dad) fighting for fair (=progressive) taxation, and against Democratic proposals to raise the sales tax (which applies to gasoline and food). No, I'm not kidding. The Democrats over the years became too invested in the bureaucracy and programs of the State government, such that they were willing to tax anything and everything in sight to keep the budget in balance.
It was only natural that the people of the State would eventually tire of these shenanigans (Remember how great that 90's boom was? Not in Hawaii!) and give the Republicans a chance. For the last few years, though, they have remained strongly on the Democratic side in national politics.
And yet, nothing lasts forever. Here as in America's traditional South, there is a religious majority that can be won over with a morality-based appeal. Intriguingly, the religion in question is not strictly evangelical Christian, but includes a large admixture of Buddhist and associated East Asian beliefs. None of these faiths much cottons to homosexuality, though - hence the resounding passage of our State Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in 1998 (first in the US!). That referendum was a real surprise to me, who had been out of state since the start of the controversy, and while away had been caught up in the post-AIDS surge towards full and unremarkable equal rights for gays. How was this happening in my Hawaii? Who were these people?
I'm still not completely sure, but whoever they are, they ceased being down-the-line Democrats (in the national sense) with that vote six years ago. And it does not surprise me that, in the years that have passed since then, they have been pulling the state closer to the center of our national politics, as well.
Who knows? In 2008 we may even get a couple of Presidential campaign photo-ops.
Well, I don't honestly think the suggestion can be taken at face value. Hawaii will go for Kerry in '04, have no fear. The fact that some organizations are coming close to suggesting otherwise is - to that degree - merely an indication of their own biases (Gallup, I'm looking at you here).
However, I do believe we will come to look back on the 2004 election in Hawaii as the end of an era. The Democrats have had their way with Hawaii ever since Statehood. We finally got a Republican governor in '02 (go Linda!), and she has been able to turn things around locally. She has made the health of the State's economy - above and beyond the usual soaking of tourists (11.5% hotel room tax) - a priority. In addition, she and my Dad have been working hard to improve public schools via devolution of power to local districts. This surprises people from the mainland, but in Hawaii it has been the Republicans (and my Dad) fighting for fair (=progressive) taxation, and against Democratic proposals to raise the sales tax (which applies to gasoline and food). No, I'm not kidding. The Democrats over the years became too invested in the bureaucracy and programs of the State government, such that they were willing to tax anything and everything in sight to keep the budget in balance.
It was only natural that the people of the State would eventually tire of these shenanigans (Remember how great that 90's boom was? Not in Hawaii!) and give the Republicans a chance. For the last few years, though, they have remained strongly on the Democratic side in national politics.
And yet, nothing lasts forever. Here as in America's traditional South, there is a religious majority that can be won over with a morality-based appeal. Intriguingly, the religion in question is not strictly evangelical Christian, but includes a large admixture of Buddhist and associated East Asian beliefs. None of these faiths much cottons to homosexuality, though - hence the resounding passage of our State Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in 1998 (first in the US!). That referendum was a real surprise to me, who had been out of state since the start of the controversy, and while away had been caught up in the post-AIDS surge towards full and unremarkable equal rights for gays. How was this happening in my Hawaii? Who were these people?
I'm still not completely sure, but whoever they are, they ceased being down-the-line Democrats (in the national sense) with that vote six years ago. And it does not surprise me that, in the years that have passed since then, they have been pulling the state closer to the center of our national politics, as well.
Who knows? In 2008 we may even get a couple of Presidential campaign photo-ops.
13 Dickinson St: 1000 Posts Old.
Folks, we just passed the 1000 posts mark.
And the Sox won the world series on a night with a lunar eclipse.
Happy Anniversary.
And the Sox won the world series on a night with a lunar eclipse.
Happy Anniversary.
Kos raising money for terrorists?
Tom Delay sez:
"LaRouche is a con felon and all I can tell you is that Mr. Morrison has supported and campaigned with LaRouche followers and Mr. Morrison also has taken money and is working with the Daily Kos, which is an organization that raises money for fighters against the U.S. in Iraq,"
Wow. Now DeLay can add defamation to the list of charges against him.
"LaRouche is a con felon and all I can tell you is that Mr. Morrison has supported and campaigned with LaRouche followers and Mr. Morrison also has taken money and is working with the Daily Kos, which is an organization that raises money for fighters against the U.S. in Iraq,"
Wow. Now DeLay can add defamation to the list of charges against him.
October Surprise: American Officers Report Falluja Rapidly Slipping into Chaos
"The city is chaotic" says a leader of a local tribe paid off by Allawi. "There's no presence of the Allawi government."
Looks like we're gonna have to invade, big time, with big bombs, lots of shock and awe. All that chaos, need for shock and awe.
Surprised?
Looks like we're gonna have to invade, big time, with big bombs, lots of shock and awe. All that chaos, need for shock and awe.
Surprised?
The Sox Overcome The Curse, During a Total Lunar Eclipse?
Game 4 of the world series starts in 25 min and with the Sox up 3-0, and with heavy momentum, there's a strong chance they'll whup the Cards tonight. If so, they'll do it during a lunar eclipse -- totality begins about 10:30, peaks at 11:00pm, and ends at 11:45pm EDT.
Get out there and stand those eggs on end!
Get out there and stand those eggs on end!
Election Fatigue
Everybody who's got election fatigue, and just want the thing over with (as long as Bush is out of office).
RAISE YOUR HANDS!
RAISE YOUR HANDS!
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bush: the anti-business president
I heard on AirAmerica radio this morning that in a poll of foreign consumers, 20% are now actively avoiding American products.
Of course, that could just be slightly up from the usual 18%.
It also may have been skewed because the poll was done entirely in France.
Who knows?
Besides, who doesn't avoid Starbucks and McDonalds when they can help it?
Of course, that could just be slightly up from the usual 18%.
It also may have been skewed because the poll was done entirely in France.
Who knows?
Besides, who doesn't avoid Starbucks and McDonalds when they can help it?
Monday, October 25, 2004
About I Heart Huckabees
If you're in the mood for something apolitical (election? what election?), I humbly recommend this entry at Meimei & Dale's bomad.com, in which I identify some of the sources of inspiration for David O. Russell's latest venture, I Heart Huckabees, which Erica and I saw on Friday.
(Some modest spoilers, if you read all the way through.)
(Some modest spoilers, if you read all the way through.)
He forgot Poland!
8 days before the election and this is what Republicans are pinning their hopes on.
Bush:
Bush:
- WMD not there, then there, then lost again.
- Condi not told about it for 18 months. Maybe she should get back behind her desk and stop stumping.
- Human rights/Geneva conventions violations.
- Cheney still up for indictment in France.
- May not have met with the entire security council.
- "Outs" Mary Cheney to a number of people in the US equal to the number in the world population that don't know that a product as delicious as Coke exists.
- He forgot Poland.
Colorodo's Amendment 36: CO as Florida 2004?
[Slate]. Colorodo's Amendment 36, on the ballot Nov 2, will divide the state's electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote, making it the first state to abandon the "all or nothing" rubric which insures presidential largess, pork, and a lot of focussed attention. If it passes, it applies retroactively to *this* year's vote. And, if the final tally is within the margin of this division (likely, the difference between each candidate getting 4-5 votes, or the full 9), then ConLaw lawyers stand at the ready to challenge the Amendment's constitutionality.
Thi could hold up the results of the 2004 election, for weeks.
Thi could hold up the results of the 2004 election, for weeks.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Cheney Orders Skipping Over Rice and Powell
Seems that when the Administration crafted its military justice guidlines, it was Dick Cheney who ordered the group who crafted the policy to skip passing it by the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.
This was in Nov 2001, when newspapers were all agog at how Rice seemed to be the President's advisor in-general.
Rather than the President's advisor "out-of-the-loop".
This was in Nov 2001, when newspapers were all agog at how Rice seemed to be the President's advisor in-general.
Rather than the President's advisor "out-of-the-loop".
This Week: Remind Your Bush-Supporting Friends
"Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin.
Bush threw into the trash can our right of not being arrested and held indefinitely without charge by the government, while offering the illusion of safety. This is repugnant to all who believe in the American constitution. Those who are comfortable with it will find brothers in the ashes of history, in 1930s Germany and 1940s Soviet Russia.
Bush threw into the trash can our right of not being arrested and held indefinitely without charge by the government, while offering the illusion of safety. This is repugnant to all who believe in the American constitution. Those who are comfortable with it will find brothers in the ashes of history, in 1930s Germany and 1940s Soviet Russia.
"Says what he believes, does what he says": The Hope for an American Dictator
How many times have you heard this as the primary virtue of President Bush? Usually, it is said not by his financial backers, but by normal folks, who would otherwise be natural Democrats.
This statement, as a reason to vote for someone, should scare the freaking bejeezus out of us all. It reveals more about the voter, and where they would let our country be led, than it does about the candidate.
A voter to whom veracity is a primary virtue is someone who is mired in uncertainty and chaos -- whose life is so disrupted by unpredictables, misrepresentations, and resulting confusion that they want only a leader who will give them stable ground. This is a voter so jostled in life they want only someone to stop the jostling -- they don't have the time or luxury of thinking through the issues, extrapolating from past polices into future debacles, working out where they will take us. They want only: certainty, certainty, certainty.
This is exactly how democratic dictators are elected -- a population beset by crippling financial uncertainties and national psychological setbacks screams for a strong leader to put them on firm ground. The reason those elected become dictators is not only because they are inclined that way --- and yes, here, I'm implying that Bush is inclined to democratic dictatorship -- but because those who elect him to power are willing to sacrafice their rights (habeous corpus, for example) to someone who they think can restore certainty to their world.
This voter should scare the bejeezus out of us all, because they are asking for an American Dictator.
This statement, as a reason to vote for someone, should scare the freaking bejeezus out of us all. It reveals more about the voter, and where they would let our country be led, than it does about the candidate.
A voter to whom veracity is a primary virtue is someone who is mired in uncertainty and chaos -- whose life is so disrupted by unpredictables, misrepresentations, and resulting confusion that they want only a leader who will give them stable ground. This is a voter so jostled in life they want only someone to stop the jostling -- they don't have the time or luxury of thinking through the issues, extrapolating from past polices into future debacles, working out where they will take us. They want only: certainty, certainty, certainty.
This is exactly how democratic dictators are elected -- a population beset by crippling financial uncertainties and national psychological setbacks screams for a strong leader to put them on firm ground. The reason those elected become dictators is not only because they are inclined that way --- and yes, here, I'm implying that Bush is inclined to democratic dictatorship -- but because those who elect him to power are willing to sacrafice their rights (habeous corpus, for example) to someone who they think can restore certainty to their world.
This voter should scare the bejeezus out of us all, because they are asking for an American Dictator.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Cheney Jumps the Shark
Dick Cheney suggested today that, if Kerry had been President in the 1980s instead of Ronald Reagan, that the Soviets would still be around.
When the lies get dumb enough, who will believes anything he says?
When the lies get dumb enough, who will believes anything he says?
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog in the Spin Room after the AZ Debate
Triumph makes fun of the spinners after the debate. My favorite moment: he asks Greta "Hey, can I get Bill O'Relly's cell phone number? I'll bring the vibrator."
He takes on Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii -- and she's about the only one who does not come off horribly, although Triumph wishes her "A safe trip back to Stepford".
A good laugh.
He takes on Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii -- and she's about the only one who does not come off horribly, although Triumph wishes her "A safe trip back to Stepford".
A good laugh.
This Election Day, Let's All Think
I still don't like David Brooks for his typical apologist stance toward the Bush administration -- but here, he manages to say something original and interesting.
He states that the fundamental divide between Republicans and Democrats today is not policy based, it is based on different conceptions of the leader. Republicans want someone to lead with their soul -- morally above the executive branch ("you can't imagine Reagan as a cabinet secretary") not narcissitically introspective, and resolute in a crisis with a broad vision. Democrats want a thoughtful leader with whip-smart knowledge of the working of Government (though I take exception that it's easy to see Clinton or Kerry as cabinet secretaries -- but, sure, Carter or Mondale).
This reflects two types of people in the US -- thinkers and feelers. As the saying goes, most of life's miseries are caused by feeling when you should think, and thinking when you should feel.
This election day, let's all think.
He states that the fundamental divide between Republicans and Democrats today is not policy based, it is based on different conceptions of the leader. Republicans want someone to lead with their soul -- morally above the executive branch ("you can't imagine Reagan as a cabinet secretary") not narcissitically introspective, and resolute in a crisis with a broad vision. Democrats want a thoughtful leader with whip-smart knowledge of the working of Government (though I take exception that it's easy to see Clinton or Kerry as cabinet secretaries -- but, sure, Carter or Mondale).
This reflects two types of people in the US -- thinkers and feelers. As the saying goes, most of life's miseries are caused by feeling when you should think, and thinking when you should feel.
This election day, let's all think.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Redeem the Vote
Reported here, a video log of Christian Rock groups attempting to sign up voters.
Most disturbing: 1:30 into the first video, the band, "Barlow Girl" is singing "Have Your Way With Me, Jesus". I am not making this up.
Is being sexually conquered by the symbol of adoration really an apt metaphor, for anything?
Most disturbing: 1:30 into the first video, the band, "Barlow Girl" is singing "Have Your Way With Me, Jesus". I am not making this up.
Is being sexually conquered by the symbol of adoration really an apt metaphor, for anything?
How Many More Children With Physical Disorders Under the President's Health Plan
Why is Bush so concerned about medical lawsuits when they can just ask Congress to pass bills protecting entire companies from litigation.
This protection was inserted into the Homeland Security Act under section 1715 (only sections up to 907 can be found at the whitehouse.gov website) but can be seen in a summary here.
Bush argues that to bring health care costs under control, his plan is to reduce litigation. The logical deduction is that they're giving carte blanche to drug companies so that they can do what they want without fear.
This protection was inserted into the Homeland Security Act under section 1715 (only sections up to 907 can be found at the whitehouse.gov website) but can be seen in a summary here.
Bush argues that to bring health care costs under control, his plan is to reduce litigation. The logical deduction is that they're giving carte blanche to drug companies so that they can do what they want without fear.
Wolves
Robin writes (without blogging):
Guardian story. I assumed they had it prepared for months; they did. Our ad? "Eagle versus Ostrich." Though the AP piece makes it seem that it's not explicitly clear which is whom.
Comparisons are being made to Daisy (1964) and Bear (1980). I'm trying to find a link to Wolves itself. I really don't want to go to the Bush-Cheney website, but that might be the only way.
Josh Marshall has seen it; his idea that it's "not that scary" doesn't really leave me thinking that it will be ineffective, despite his punditry. 92% of Americans who list fighting terrorism as their top priority say they will vote for Bush (WP, 10/19). This is poweful, emotion-driven politics. straight to the amygdala, bypassing the neocortex. It's briliant, terrifying campaigning.
Guardian story. I assumed they had it prepared for months; they did. Our ad? "Eagle versus Ostrich." Though the AP piece makes it seem that it's not explicitly clear which is whom.
Comparisons are being made to Daisy (1964) and Bear (1980). I'm trying to find a link to Wolves itself. I really don't want to go to the Bush-Cheney website, but that might be the only way.
Josh Marshall has seen it; his idea that it's "not that scary" doesn't really leave me thinking that it will be ineffective, despite his punditry. 92% of Americans who list fighting terrorism as their top priority say they will vote for Bush (WP, 10/19). This is poweful, emotion-driven politics. straight to the amygdala, bypassing the neocortex. It's briliant, terrifying campaigning.
The Messianic Bush
If Maureen Dowd's observation that our President thinks of himself as the embodiment of God's will has you worried (and it should), then you should also see this short column by Michelle Goldberg at Salon. In it she compares Ron Suskind's observations of our faith-based President (his NYT Magazine piece) to Hannah Arendt's observations of Hitler and Stalin. Terrifyingly enough, the shoe fits.
No, I'm not kidding.
No, I'm not kidding.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Duck-Girl on Bush
Maureen Dowd makes the following astounding thesis: That George Bush believes that his own desires are the will of God.
Let's repeat that: Maureen Dowd -- Pulitzer prize winning columnist in the NYTimes -- is surmising that our President cannot distinguish between his own will and the will of God.
Even more shocking is the only rational response to her column: no duh.
Let's repeat that: Maureen Dowd -- Pulitzer prize winning columnist in the NYTimes -- is surmising that our President cannot distinguish between his own will and the will of God.
Even more shocking is the only rational response to her column: no duh.
Rice on the Road
I'm not saying she she shouldn't get out once in a while but WHAT THE HELL IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DOING CAMPAINING? I'm sure it isn't because the Cleveland Browns needed a security briefing.
Maybe the reason we haven't gone to code Ernie is because Bush put Tom Ridge to work mailing out fliers, and he's just too busy.
Maybe the reason we haven't gone to code Ernie is because Bush put Tom Ridge to work mailing out fliers, and he's just too busy.
China Buying Up Canadian Assets; delineates "Four Rights of Man"
In a politically controversial move up here, China is being permitted to purchase Canada's largest mining company, at $7B. And, the Chinese foreign minister says, to Canadians who reacted against this: get ready for more of the same.
Most interestingly, he argued that, actually, China and Canada are politically very similar. I am not making this up: "'On human rights, I believe, our two peoples have a lot in common,' he said.
'Liberty, democracy, freedom and whatever, we share a lot. What is democracy? Democracy is a way in which people enjoy their rights according to law. "
You know you're dealing with someone sincerely interested in the Rousseau's Rights of Man when he's able to delinieate four of them: "Liberty, democracy, freedom and whatever." Now, the first three are pretty limited (although, see the Chinese foreign minister's definition of Democracy, and it might not appear that constraining.)
But "Whatever" is a big umbrella. If we Americans could get behind having "Whatever" enshrined in our Constituion, that would open up our civil rights to a whole slew of behaviors which previously did not enjoy constitutional protections -- like strolling down the street in your tighty-whities. This is a freedom, I'll point out, not presently protected under that "Liberty, democracy, freedom" rubric we're hanging ourselves with.
When I was a kid, there was a guy on my paper route -- Mr. Anderson -- who, when I delivered papers on Saturday and Sunday morning, could usually be found on the median, walking his Shit-zu, in his blue terry-cloth robe, brushing his teeth. Now, I'm pretty sure this is all protected behavior under our present Constitutional freedoms. It didn't matter that Mr. Anderson was a 55-year-old 50 lbs overweight balding nut-job on a median with his dog and toothbrush; he was going to exercise his Constitutional Rights. Now, that's Patriotism. But, I could see the pain in Mr. Anderson's eyes, the shame of wanting something more for himself, something better for his children. He yearned for the freedom of "Whatever", so he could walk his Shit-zu, brush his teeth, and do so happily in the freedom of his tighty-whities -- and maybe a wife-beater. This was a man who wanted to live in China.
I'm sure Mr. Anderson joins me in thanking China for bearing forth the torch of "Whatever".
Most interestingly, he argued that, actually, China and Canada are politically very similar. I am not making this up: "'On human rights, I believe, our two peoples have a lot in common,' he said.
'Liberty, democracy, freedom and whatever, we share a lot. What is democracy? Democracy is a way in which people enjoy their rights according to law. "
You know you're dealing with someone sincerely interested in the Rousseau's Rights of Man when he's able to delinieate four of them: "Liberty, democracy, freedom and whatever." Now, the first three are pretty limited (although, see the Chinese foreign minister's definition of Democracy, and it might not appear that constraining.)
But "Whatever" is a big umbrella. If we Americans could get behind having "Whatever" enshrined in our Constituion, that would open up our civil rights to a whole slew of behaviors which previously did not enjoy constitutional protections -- like strolling down the street in your tighty-whities. This is a freedom, I'll point out, not presently protected under that "Liberty, democracy, freedom" rubric we're hanging ourselves with.
When I was a kid, there was a guy on my paper route -- Mr. Anderson -- who, when I delivered papers on Saturday and Sunday morning, could usually be found on the median, walking his Shit-zu, in his blue terry-cloth robe, brushing his teeth. Now, I'm pretty sure this is all protected behavior under our present Constitutional freedoms. It didn't matter that Mr. Anderson was a 55-year-old 50 lbs overweight balding nut-job on a median with his dog and toothbrush; he was going to exercise his Constitutional Rights. Now, that's Patriotism. But, I could see the pain in Mr. Anderson's eyes, the shame of wanting something more for himself, something better for his children. He yearned for the freedom of "Whatever", so he could walk his Shit-zu, brush his teeth, and do so happily in the freedom of his tighty-whities -- and maybe a wife-beater. This was a man who wanted to live in China.
I'm sure Mr. Anderson joins me in thanking China for bearing forth the torch of "Whatever".
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
The Dems continue to Mary Cheney the Election
Teresa Heinz-Kerry "pledges to make gay tolerance a centerpiece of her First Lady duties," an online media company reported.
Boston Win Good For Kerry
We're already hearing peeps that a Boston win tonight in game 7 to break the 3-3 tie in the American League playoffs will be good for Kerry in the national election -- a blog mention here, an NPR reference there.
But the pro-Kerry resolution comes from both sides: if Boston wins, maybe this is the year for Bostonians. Also, if you're a Yankees fan, if the Yankees can't even make it into the World Series, cleary the country is on the wrong footing, and a change is needed.
On the other hand, if the Yankees win, perhaps we should just let the next president be chosen by the NY electoral college delegates (what? NY is firmly in the Kerry column? hmmmm).
But the pro-Kerry resolution comes from both sides: if Boston wins, maybe this is the year for Bostonians. Also, if you're a Yankees fan, if the Yankees can't even make it into the World Series, cleary the country is on the wrong footing, and a change is needed.
On the other hand, if the Yankees win, perhaps we should just let the next president be chosen by the NY electoral college delegates (what? NY is firmly in the Kerry column? hmmmm).
A Campaign of Fear
Following up on Robin's piece -- Bill Safire is angry. He's angry that this year's campaign is being turned into a campaign of fear.
Funny thing though -- he thinks the campaign doing this is the -- get this -- Kerry campaign.
That's right -- Safire says the fear is not being mongered by the people who gave us "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Bill says the fearmonger's pitch tries to scare oldsters that Bush will privatise Social Security (skipping past the fact that Bush has said, if elected to a second term, he will privatise social security).
It's not a fear, so much as it is a fact. Seems Safire confuses fearmongering with telling the facts.
Oh, and he's blaming Kerry for talking too much about the flu vaccine shortage -- which is a failure of our public health people. By the way, we're all too young to remember what happens before we had the flu vaccine. But what happens is this: millions of people die. And that was in 1918, before we had international airplane travel. We bloody well should be freaked out that there's a shortage of vaccine, and we should also bloody well take notice that this is a public health issue -- meaning it's one that has to be lead on by governments. And the US failed, here. Yeah, so, the onslought of a global pandemic, wrought by poor public health planning in our government halls -- that seems a legitimate concern -- the kind which people ought to respond to by moving to northern Greenland.
Funny thing though -- he thinks the campaign doing this is the -- get this -- Kerry campaign.
That's right -- Safire says the fear is not being mongered by the people who gave us "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Bill says the fearmonger's pitch tries to scare oldsters that Bush will privatise Social Security (skipping past the fact that Bush has said, if elected to a second term, he will privatise social security).
It's not a fear, so much as it is a fact. Seems Safire confuses fearmongering with telling the facts.
Oh, and he's blaming Kerry for talking too much about the flu vaccine shortage -- which is a failure of our public health people. By the way, we're all too young to remember what happens before we had the flu vaccine. But what happens is this: millions of people die. And that was in 1918, before we had international airplane travel. We bloody well should be freaked out that there's a shortage of vaccine, and we should also bloody well take notice that this is a public health issue -- meaning it's one that has to be lead on by governments. And the US failed, here. Yeah, so, the onslought of a global pandemic, wrought by poor public health planning in our government halls -- that seems a legitimate concern -- the kind which people ought to respond to by moving to northern Greenland.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A guy with a blog
What can a guy with a blog do?
Plenty.
Between the time I mentioned this blog a week ago, Sinclair has lost $100M in market capital, and 80 advertisers have pulled their advertising (according to the blog). The companies that have pulled are not disclosed on the website, so the potential damage to Sinclair's advertising revenue is anyone's guess.
Plenty.
Between the time I mentioned this blog a week ago, Sinclair has lost $100M in market capital, and 80 advertisers have pulled their advertising (according to the blog). The companies that have pulled are not disclosed on the website, so the potential damage to Sinclair's advertising revenue is anyone's guess.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Adam Cohen Worst Case Scenario: 2004-2008 Bush Appoints a Scalia-Thomas Court
The New York Times >[NYTimes OpEd] If Bush is re-elected, he will probably have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments to make. It's entirely reasonable that he'll appoint justicies like the two he has said he admires the most: Scalia and Clarence Thomas, giving their views a majority. Cohen reviews some of their written (minority) opinions and considers the ramifications if those become majority opinions.
My favorite, unexpected one: maybe the separation of church and state only applies at the federal level, and states are unencumbered by proscription against establishment. So, states can pick a religion, back it, give money to it, merge with a religion.
My favorite, unexpected one: maybe the separation of church and state only applies at the federal level, and states are unencumbered by proscription against establishment. So, states can pick a religion, back it, give money to it, merge with a religion.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
More Blow-Hards in the Republican Attack Machinery
Leave it to the Republican attack machinery -- of which Bill Safire is a founding member -- to get exercised about Kerry and Edwards pointing out that, in fact, Dick Cheney is not a homophobic bigot.
Alan Keyes is Against Adoption
Keyes says incest awaits kids of gays.
Basically, he says that if you don't know who your biological parents are, you can later accidentally meet and have sex with a brother or sister. Thus, incest. (Yes, this is the plot of the movie LONE STAR ).
What Keyes apparently forgot while he was busy gay-bashing, was that this is true of all adoptive children. So, he's basically against adoption.
Basically, he says that if you don't know who your biological parents are, you can later accidentally meet and have sex with a brother or sister. Thus, incest. (Yes, this is the plot of the movie LONE STAR ).
What Keyes apparently forgot while he was busy gay-bashing, was that this is true of all adoptive children. So, he's basically against adoption.
One word: Pakistan
If Bush wins, within four years we will be battling hostile troops on the ground in Pakistan, as we attempt to prevent that country from becoming a nuclear-armed extremist state.
(Couldn't get comments to work on your post, Bob, so here it is.)
(Couldn't get comments to work on your post, Bob, so here it is.)
What's the Worst That Can Happen?
Few of us would have imagined four years ago that, before 2004, we would have launched two wars, bringing down two governments -- one of them fully justified and with broad international support, the other on the basis of a tissue of intelligence, now fully discredited. Few would have guessed that we would have put 4M out of work and, with 2.4M new jobs, still have a net loss of 1.6M jobs -- the first job loss in 70 years, since just before the Great Depression. Few would have guessed that the President and his administration would suspend one of the fundamental rights of man -- habeous corpus -- thereby arresting and holding indefinitely without charge or review before a court. Few would have guessed that we would have accumulated over 1 Trillion dollars in new debt, and are running deficits as far as the eye can see, at a rate of $400B per year -- and that, in response, our President would suggest more tax cuts.
So: Be one of the Few! Things can get much, much worse under a Bush administration, and I don't think they would under Kerry. So, let's hear in the newly annointed comments section, comments of the following structure:
If (name) is elected, I can imagine that, within four years, (worst case scenario).
So: Be one of the Few! Things can get much, much worse under a Bush administration, and I don't think they would under Kerry. So, let's hear in the newly annointed comments section, comments of the following structure:
If (name) is elected, I can imagine that, within four years, (worst case scenario).
Mary Cheney The Election
In 2000, 4 million evangelical Christians stayed home from voting, speculated to be due in part to the final-weekend revelation that Bush had once been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (see this WaPost article on Karl Rove, and the Rove Doctrine of turning out your base).
According to this WaPost poll , 64 percent of voters thought that mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian was "inappropriate". (I've already said I thought the comments are appropriate: Mary Cheney is out, and there's nothing shameful about a strong father/daughter bond, or with being a lesbian. It would only be inappropriate if you thought being a lesbian is immoral and shameful -- like drunk driving with kids in the car. Oh, and Mary Cheney is in charge of Dick Cheney's election effort -- so clearly he felt her lesbianness would be an advantage in this election).
But break down the numbers: only 40 percent of Kerry voters thought it was "inappropriate". That means fully 90 percent of Bush voters thought it was "inappropriate". Does that energize Bush's base, or does it keep them at home?
It keeps them at home. When Bush supporters respond about the inappropriateness of it, they don't say "Mary Cheney has every right to be a lesbian, and her rights as a full citizen shall not be denied by Kerry." They don't get activist -- they get defensive. Their response is "that's a private issue, and you should not bring up private issues."
In other words, "Shut up, I don't want to talk about it."
The only correct response to homosexuality for evangelical Christians -- a big base for the President -- is to condemn it as immoral. They vote for Bush because they believe he shares these values. Given an example of how the bottom half of the ticket does not share these values, it softens their resolve.
Bringing up Mary Cheney's sexuality softens the Bush/Cheney base.
According to this WaPost poll , 64 percent of voters thought that mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian was "inappropriate". (I've already said I thought the comments are appropriate: Mary Cheney is out, and there's nothing shameful about a strong father/daughter bond, or with being a lesbian. It would only be inappropriate if you thought being a lesbian is immoral and shameful -- like drunk driving with kids in the car. Oh, and Mary Cheney is in charge of Dick Cheney's election effort -- so clearly he felt her lesbianness would be an advantage in this election).
But break down the numbers: only 40 percent of Kerry voters thought it was "inappropriate". That means fully 90 percent of Bush voters thought it was "inappropriate". Does that energize Bush's base, or does it keep them at home?
It keeps them at home. When Bush supporters respond about the inappropriateness of it, they don't say "Mary Cheney has every right to be a lesbian, and her rights as a full citizen shall not be denied by Kerry." They don't get activist -- they get defensive. Their response is "that's a private issue, and you should not bring up private issues."
In other words, "Shut up, I don't want to talk about it."
The only correct response to homosexuality for evangelical Christians -- a big base for the President -- is to condemn it as immoral. They vote for Bush because they believe he shares these values. Given an example of how the bottom half of the ticket does not share these values, it softens their resolve.
Bringing up Mary Cheney's sexuality softens the Bush/Cheney base.
Friedman Today, for violent stomach seizures.
Read Tom Friedman. He describes 3 problems barreling at us in the next 10 years -- any one of which should be seen as challenge, and combined cause violent stomach seizures.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Bush, Bloomberg and the Homophobes
Bob, I think it's a little more subtle than that. What Bush, (Lynne) Cheney, and Bloomberg are after is to alienate Kerry from that portion of the population that would feel embarrassed about having a gay child, and would not want that fact broadcast on national TV (viz. Robin's mother). This is a substantial portion of the electorate, and importantly, it overlaps with the portion that Kerry has specifically targeted in putting forward his "no gay marriage, but domestic partnerships" compromise position.
What does it say about your personal beliefs if you would feel embarrassed about having a gay child? Does it mean you hate your child? No, I think you probably still love them, very much... in particular, for most parents this is a purely hypothetical question, so it is easy to say/think you would. Does it mean you are a homophobe? Yes, I think it probably does. But comparing this background-cultural homophobia to the institutionalized racism we had throughout the country within living memory overstates the case against homophobia. The white people who hated black people were meeting and interacting with black people every day - walking right past them on their way to the whites-only lunch counter, as it were. The straight people who feel a bit queasy about homosexuals, on the other hand, go about their daily lives without knowingly interacting with any gay people at all. The first person, then, must consciously think that whites are superior to blacks and be willing to argue that in order to justify his seat at the lunch counter ("States' rights!"). The second person, however, can think, "If I'm not allowed to marry a woman, and gay women aren't either, that's equal rights, right?"
(N.B. - This is why I think the path forward for gay marriage lies simply in letting gays marry. Once people see the sky not falling they will be able to make their own decisions, independent of what their church leaders and family-values politicians are saying.)
Politically then, Bush-Cheney are on the winning side of this so far (no surprise, they have been pounding the table on it for four news cycles). Even if you think that their attempt to shame Kerry over his mention of Mary is homophobic divisiveness - and I agree that it is - this still puts Kerry in a losing position. What is he going to do, accuse Bush-Cheney of homophobia? Accuse their supporters of being homophobes? That gains him Zero Votes. So he is in a bind.
What he and Edwards and their spokespeople need to do is explain that Mary Cheney is a co-director of the Vice President's campaign, therefore in the public eye. Everyone knows she is a lesbian. Few people know that she has a prominent role in the Republican campaign - and fundamentally, this is what makes her fair game.
Alternatively, as William Rubinstein points out today in the NYT, they can make the case that Bush-Cheney are fighting to enshrine the inequality of one of their own daughters in the Constitution of the United States.
What does it say about your personal beliefs if you would feel embarrassed about having a gay child? Does it mean you hate your child? No, I think you probably still love them, very much... in particular, for most parents this is a purely hypothetical question, so it is easy to say/think you would. Does it mean you are a homophobe? Yes, I think it probably does. But comparing this background-cultural homophobia to the institutionalized racism we had throughout the country within living memory overstates the case against homophobia. The white people who hated black people were meeting and interacting with black people every day - walking right past them on their way to the whites-only lunch counter, as it were. The straight people who feel a bit queasy about homosexuals, on the other hand, go about their daily lives without knowingly interacting with any gay people at all. The first person, then, must consciously think that whites are superior to blacks and be willing to argue that in order to justify his seat at the lunch counter ("States' rights!"). The second person, however, can think, "If I'm not allowed to marry a woman, and gay women aren't either, that's equal rights, right?"
(N.B. - This is why I think the path forward for gay marriage lies simply in letting gays marry. Once people see the sky not falling they will be able to make their own decisions, independent of what their church leaders and family-values politicians are saying.)
Politically then, Bush-Cheney are on the winning side of this so far (no surprise, they have been pounding the table on it for four news cycles). Even if you think that their attempt to shame Kerry over his mention of Mary is homophobic divisiveness - and I agree that it is - this still puts Kerry in a losing position. What is he going to do, accuse Bush-Cheney of homophobia? Accuse their supporters of being homophobes? That gains him Zero Votes. So he is in a bind.
What he and Edwards and their spokespeople need to do is explain that Mary Cheney is a co-director of the Vice President's campaign, therefore in the public eye. Everyone knows she is a lesbian. Few people know that she has a prominent role in the Republican campaign - and fundamentally, this is what makes her fair game.
Alternatively, as William Rubinstein points out today in the NYT, they can make the case that Bush-Cheney are fighting to enshrine the inequality of one of their own daughters in the Constitution of the United States.
Via Doonesbury: George Will Says Why You Should Not Vote For President Bush
George Will's column, from July 2003.
Sure, he has different reasons from my own. But our goals are the same: Unseat President Bush.
Sure, he has different reasons from my own. But our goals are the same: Unseat President Bush.
Mary Cheney is a Lesbian: the Meme continues with Bush, Mayor Bloomberg
Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan said: The President of the United States does not believe it was appropriate for Sen. Kerry to bring [up] Mary Cheney at the debate.
Same article, Mayor Bloomberg said: "I think it was inappropriate. I think everybody's orientation is their own business.... Nobody should be talking about that."
Entire genres of literature are dedicated to exploring what happens when people cannot say aloud what everyone agrees is true. Summary: It ends badly.
The uncomfortableness felt by Republicans about speaking a universally known truth shows Republicans -- the Cheneys --- do not regard gays and lesbians as their equals. To Dick Cheney, George Bush, Mayor Bloomberg, and the rest of the Republican leadership, gays and lesbians must be treated as being regrettably immoral. Any whiff of acceptance by Dick Cheney of his daughter would smell to his base of odious acceptance of gays in general. Perhaps, his base may worry, he secretly hopes for gay marriage? He's against the constitutional amendment!
Some call Kerry and Edward's statements "gay-baiting" -- the reprehensible practice of pointing out a fact about someone as an epithet. It was not gay-baiting; both Kerry and Edwards spoke respectfully and glowingly of Cheney's relationship with his lesbian daughter. In a world where gays are equals, this is a compliment -- a far cry from the race-baiting epithet-spitting "his sister married a black man". The confusion comes because the effect is the same -- racists or homophobics are turned off to Dick Cheney. The cause, however, is importantly different: respectful speech, vs. epithets. In an ideal world, all politicians would use respectful speech; none would use epithets.
Dick Cheney wants the homophobes to vote for him. And that's why he, and his wife, and president Bush, and Mayor Bloomberg are out this week, showing their bona fides that they think "lesbian" is a word too horrible to be said aloud.
Same article, Mayor Bloomberg said: "I think it was inappropriate. I think everybody's orientation is their own business.... Nobody should be talking about that."
Entire genres of literature are dedicated to exploring what happens when people cannot say aloud what everyone agrees is true. Summary: It ends badly.
The uncomfortableness felt by Republicans about speaking a universally known truth shows Republicans -- the Cheneys --- do not regard gays and lesbians as their equals. To Dick Cheney, George Bush, Mayor Bloomberg, and the rest of the Republican leadership, gays and lesbians must be treated as being regrettably immoral. Any whiff of acceptance by Dick Cheney of his daughter would smell to his base of odious acceptance of gays in general. Perhaps, his base may worry, he secretly hopes for gay marriage? He's against the constitutional amendment!
Some call Kerry and Edward's statements "gay-baiting" -- the reprehensible practice of pointing out a fact about someone as an epithet. It was not gay-baiting; both Kerry and Edwards spoke respectfully and glowingly of Cheney's relationship with his lesbian daughter. In a world where gays are equals, this is a compliment -- a far cry from the race-baiting epithet-spitting "his sister married a black man". The confusion comes because the effect is the same -- racists or homophobics are turned off to Dick Cheney. The cause, however, is importantly different: respectful speech, vs. epithets. In an ideal world, all politicians would use respectful speech; none would use epithets.
Dick Cheney wants the homophobes to vote for him. And that's why he, and his wife, and president Bush, and Mayor Bloomberg are out this week, showing their bona fides that they think "lesbian" is a word too horrible to be said aloud.
An 18 point Gender Gap
In the WaPost daily tracking poll, results of the past 3 days show an 18 point gender gap. If America were entirely populated by men, Bush would win with 53% (vs. Kerry's 43%) of the vote. If the US were all women, Kerry would win with 52% (vs. Bush's 44%) of the vote.
That's an 18 percent swing in the vote, depending only on the gender of the voters. Never mind what it means about the candidates, here's what it means about the US: we are far from being a place of gender equality. In a place where genders are equal, their needs, aspirations -- politics -- should be identical. An 18% gap shows that's not the case in the US (and perhaps no where, but ne'er mind that).
The WaPost isn't tracking voting trends based on religious observance -- the single strongest determinent of how one voted in 2000. A big oversight.
That's an 18 percent swing in the vote, depending only on the gender of the voters. Never mind what it means about the candidates, here's what it means about the US: we are far from being a place of gender equality. In a place where genders are equal, their needs, aspirations -- politics -- should be identical. An 18% gap shows that's not the case in the US (and perhaps no where, but ne'er mind that).
The WaPost isn't tracking voting trends based on religious observance -- the single strongest determinent of how one voted in 2000. A big oversight.
After the Journalists: Karl Rove
We've all heard about the many journalists brought in to testify before the grand jury in the Valerie Plame affair. Judith Miller is looking at a stretch of prison, Tim Russert cooperated fully, and nobody seems to know what's happened with Bob Novak. But, it was after the fact-finding with the journalists had played out that Karl Rove was brought in to testify, on Friday. Since many suspect him as behind the affair, it seems appropriate that he comes after the majority of the fact-finding.
But, sure, now 2 weeks before the election -- it's looking like that investigation will not be completed prior to deciding to put back into office an administration staffed with at least one felon who won't come clean -- in spite of Bush's direct order for them to do so.
But, sure, now 2 weeks before the election -- it's looking like that investigation will not be completed prior to deciding to put back into office an administration staffed with at least one felon who won't come clean -- in spite of Bush's direct order for them to do so.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Bush rallies the sycophants
Have you listened to the audio from some of these recent Bush rallies? Something odd is going on - the rhythms of Bush's speech, and the crowd's vocal responses, are just weird. They remind me of a TV show in-studio taping more than a political speech.
I first noticed this in the audio of Bush's major policy address that wasn't last week Wednesday. Now, we all know that the Bush rallies are packed with sycophants - some of his speeches have even required signed loyalty oaths to attend. But audience roars of applause, raucous laughter, and torrential boos are intervening routinely and with only the slightest regard for the usual political tropes. If you heard the side-by-side clips from Bush and Kerry rallies on today's Morning Edition, you know what I'm talking about. In the Kerry clip, the usual rhythms of political speech are obeyed, with audience reaction following predictable applause lines. In the Bush clip, on the other hand, Bush says "As a Massachusetts senator for 23 years, my opponent has compiled the record... of a senator from Massachusetts," and the audience laughs (OK, fine). The next line, "During his time there, my opponent voted for tax increases 98 times," then triggers a huge "Booo..." from the audience (Huh?). "98 times," he repeats, and gets another chorus of boos (Wha?). It goes on from there.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush rallies are outfitted with APPLAUSE lights and block-lettered cue cards on 3'x4' poster board, but one has to wonder. In particular, I have strong suspicions about what the pre-Bush "warm-up" speakers and/or ground-level operatives are telling these crowds about the need to be "vocal" and "support the President". If they're not accomplishing this unanimity with cue cards or audience plants, they must be delivering some pretty specific instructions, and I am curious to know what those are.
Anyone been to a Bush rally lately? I would go myself but the last time Bush was sighted in California the trees were blooming in Taxachussets.
I first noticed this in the audio of Bush's major policy address that wasn't last week Wednesday. Now, we all know that the Bush rallies are packed with sycophants - some of his speeches have even required signed loyalty oaths to attend. But audience roars of applause, raucous laughter, and torrential boos are intervening routinely and with only the slightest regard for the usual political tropes. If you heard the side-by-side clips from Bush and Kerry rallies on today's Morning Edition, you know what I'm talking about. In the Kerry clip, the usual rhythms of political speech are obeyed, with audience reaction following predictable applause lines. In the Bush clip, on the other hand, Bush says "As a Massachusetts senator for 23 years, my opponent has compiled the record... of a senator from Massachusetts," and the audience laughs (OK, fine). The next line, "During his time there, my opponent voted for tax increases 98 times," then triggers a huge "Booo..." from the audience (Huh?). "98 times," he repeats, and gets another chorus of boos (Wha?). It goes on from there.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush rallies are outfitted with APPLAUSE lights and block-lettered cue cards on 3'x4' poster board, but one has to wonder. In particular, I have strong suspicions about what the pre-Bush "warm-up" speakers and/or ground-level operatives are telling these crowds about the need to be "vocal" and "support the President". If they're not accomplishing this unanimity with cue cards or audience plants, they must be delivering some pretty specific instructions, and I am curious to know what those are.
Anyone been to a Bush rally lately? I would go myself but the last time Bush was sighted in California the trees were blooming in Taxachussets.
Bush: The Irrelevant Ex-President
Kerry/Edward's is neck-and-neck, and gaining momentum, projected forward to Nov 2, placing the presidence well within reach. Now's a good time to ask: what kind of ex-president will George W. Bush make?
In the pantheon of ex-Presidents, we can see:
Where will George W. Bush fit into this? Probably somewhere between Ford and Bush Sr. Too noisy to go quietly, he hasn't learned anything in office that he might credibly pontificate on out of office (similar to, for example, Dan Quayle), and -- compassionate conservative moniker to the contrary -- has never exhibited the kind of care and belief in fundamental human rights which have made Carter an international figure. Reporters won't be calling him for quotes, because he has no insights. Politicians won't be calling him for support, because he doesn't represent an over-arching ideology, as Reagan did. He controls no one. His golf score is worse than Ford's.
Who wants him to even come to funerals? Never showing an inclination for magnanimity, he's likely to show up at Carter's funeral, and dance a funny monkey-jig on his grave.
George W. Bush will set new standards for the irrelevancy of an ex-president. Perhaps this will give him the opportunity to read all those newspapers he's been skipping for the past 4 years.
In the pantheon of ex-Presidents, we can see:
- Richard Nixon -- resigned in disgrace but, without power, made a credible commentator on international issues. Seems that only Nixon knew China.
- Gerald Ford -- irrelevant in office, rose to fill the roll of ex-Presidential golf-player.
- Jimmy Carter -- his presidency associated with a period of national malaise, he is now a Nobel-prize winning figure of international stature, fixing troubled democratic governments, observing elections, providing long-term support for Habitat for Humanity, founding the Carter Center ("Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope").
- Ronald Reagan -- out of office only long enough to remain a becon to conservatives, until he withdrew from public life with Alzheimers.
- George H. W. Bush -- serving as an international consultant, pulling down the big bucks, when he's not jumping out of planes, only to tease us by pulling a chute at the last second (dang! where'd he get that thing?)
- Bill Clinton -- what is he doing now? Most likely, playing a support role for his wife's political aspirations --- like a good husband should.
Where will George W. Bush fit into this? Probably somewhere between Ford and Bush Sr. Too noisy to go quietly, he hasn't learned anything in office that he might credibly pontificate on out of office (similar to, for example, Dan Quayle), and -- compassionate conservative moniker to the contrary -- has never exhibited the kind of care and belief in fundamental human rights which have made Carter an international figure. Reporters won't be calling him for quotes, because he has no insights. Politicians won't be calling him for support, because he doesn't represent an over-arching ideology, as Reagan did. He controls no one. His golf score is worse than Ford's.
Who wants him to even come to funerals? Never showing an inclination for magnanimity, he's likely to show up at Carter's funeral, and dance a funny monkey-jig on his grave.
George W. Bush will set new standards for the irrelevancy of an ex-president. Perhaps this will give him the opportunity to read all those newspapers he's been skipping for the past 4 years.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Bush's Back Bulge is Back
Salon.com is claiming that Bush's Back bulge was visible, again, on Wednesday night.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Lynne Cheney is Ashamed Her Daughter is a Lesbian.
Lynne Cheney called out John Kerry for calling her daughter a lesbian. She said his doing that was a "cheap and tawdry political trick."
Trick's on Lynne.
Someday, in the not so distant future, mentioning that someone is a lesbian, will not be considered by their mother to be an attack, an epithet, or a "cheap and tawdry political trick." It will be like mentioning their hair is blonde. Just a fact, not unlike any other.
How can you conclude anything else but that Ms. Cheney is ashamed of her daughter?
Trick's on Lynne.
Someday, in the not so distant future, mentioning that someone is a lesbian, will not be considered by their mother to be an attack, an epithet, or a "cheap and tawdry political trick." It will be like mentioning their hair is blonde. Just a fact, not unlike any other.
How can you conclude anything else but that Ms. Cheney is ashamed of her daughter?
Bush's Mouth Cheese
Of the many unbelieveable things which came out of Bush's mouth during tonight's debate, by far the most incredible was -- eeeeeeewwwwww --- mouth cheese.
In the right corner of his mouth, for about 15-20 minutes, he had this foamy spittle. Like, he's drooling. What's that all about? Is he doddering? Have difficulty holding his saliva? Too busy focusing on that big post-debate steak?
In the words of one onlooker -- "WAY gross."
In the right corner of his mouth, for about 15-20 minutes, he had this foamy spittle. Like, he's drooling. What's that all about? Is he doddering? Have difficulty holding his saliva? Too busy focusing on that big post-debate steak?
In the words of one onlooker -- "WAY gross."
My Public Shame
I, BobR, hereby declare my public shame at mis-estimating the post first-debate bounce that Kerry would receive. I felt certain that, after that, within one week, Kerry would overcome the 8 point deficit he was at before the debates, to top Bush by 5 points. Clearly, I was wrong, as they are presently only neck-and-neck in the polls.
Much depends on tonight.
Also, I owe Derek an LCB.
Much depends on tonight.
Also, I owe Derek an LCB.
Kerry's Busy, so I'm answering questions for him.
Today on the NYTimes OpEd pages published questions in advance of tonight's third and final debate between Kerry and Bush by Charles Murray, Christine Todd Whitman, and Stephen Carter. The questions are for John Kerry.
Softballs! Kerry's busy preparing a snappy answer to Bush's shoulder-shrugging chortles, so here, I answer them.
By CHARLES MURRAY, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, most recently, of "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950"
It's fair because that 5 percent of Americans earned nearly the same proportion of all income. Earn 50% of all income, pay 50% of all income taxes. Fair's fair. In fact, they should be paying much more than that -- because they disproportionately benefited from our governmental infrastructure. Big businesses actually benefit -- and not suffer, like you are always saying you do -- from governmental regulations, like the court systems we provide to make sure people pay their bills, the roads we build to bring goods to markets, the defense department we make to insure that we live in a world safe enough to do business. When you take home a million dollar paycheck, you're sure benefiitting from these services a lot more than people who take home a $20,000 paycheck. Which is why I'm going to bring a middle-class tax-cut, while rolling back the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. It's time for those of us -- and I think you and I are the only people in the room I'm talking about -- to give back.
Absolutely. The country would benefit if everyone used common sense. Have that legislation on my desk in the morning.
As a Senator, I do not go through the same excruciating choices as do the small business owners in this country -- struggling to get by in this struggling economy. One point six million jobs have been lost under George Bush's watch -- the first president in seventy years to lose jobs while in office. We have fallen behind in creating jobs in this country -- not just where we should be, but where we were the first day George Bush showed up to work in 2001 -- which, if you believe Michael Moore, was sometime in August, after vacation.
The fact of the matter is that, creating even one job is an excruciating decision for each small business owner. But it's a much easier decision if our economy is not suffering like it is now -- and it is a decision that I will make easier, not just for one business owner, but for millions of business owners, so that businesses can grow, and ad millions of jobs to this economy -- not remove millions of jobs, such as George Bush has done.
By CHRISTIE WHITMAN, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003
The United States cannot solve the world's environmental problems alone -- which is a difference between George Bush and myself. George Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto treaty in 2001, which has now been signed or ratified by over 100 countries -- including England, Germany, France, Austrailia, Russia, Japan, China -- as well as developing economies like South Korea, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Oh, and Poland.
In 1997, the US congress examined terms very similar to those in the Kyoto protocol, and we asked ourselves, what would happen if the US tried to go it alone in saving the world's environment. We all realized -- and really, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize this -- that if we forced companies in the US to stick to tough environmental standards, they'd simply pick up and go to another country.
You see, we simply cannot do this alone. That's why, in 1998, the Kyoto protocol was founded, and why in 1998, the United States become one of the first signers of the Kyoto protocol -- to insure that these laws protecting the envioronment are enforced everywhere. That's also why it was bad for the United States for George Bush to change course, and remove us from Kyoto protocol in 2001 -- second thing he did in office, I think, after taking a vacation, if you believe Michael Moore.
You quote one of the important contributions the Clear Skies proposal would actually make a difference on -- Mercury. In fact, many people, for many years, have fought to have better standards for mercury made Environmental policy, and this Administration --- I think you were in charge of some of this while you were head of the EPA under George Bush, Ms. Whitman -- blocked those initiatives. Now, the President wants to make it easier for factories to pollute US skies, as a giveaway to his friends, and he tries to make it palatable by calling it "Clear Skies", and by including one single improvement which he has blocked time and time again.
When I am President, we will push forward board changes in improving US environmental regulations, to protect the air and water of all our citizens. If you're interested Christy, I'll invite you back to head up that effort, so you can see what it feels like to be in an administration where the EPA improves the air and water for all our citizens, and not be ordered to protect the polluters, who happen to be the President's friends.
By STEPHEN L. CARTER, a professor of law at Yale and the author, most recently, of "The Emperor of Ocean Park," a novel
Professor Carter, our nation's educational system is in a bad way. It is not a time to squander opportunities to fix it, and it is not a time to trample on the good will of the millions of educators, administration and parents -- stakeholders in our nation's school systems -- as well as the children whose futures depend on it. We had an opportunity in 2001 to improve the nation's schools, and the country came together behind the President's bi-partisan proposal, called "No Child Left Behind". What's happened, after that sweeping change was passed, was the President has refused to pass into law over $40B in support for carrying it out. Pass the bill, but don't fund i so that it fails -- that's what George Bush has done for education in this country. And now we're left with a long-term problem.
The long term solution is not vouchers to private schools. We could issue those, and for 4-5 years, they'd work great. But in 4-5 years, private tuition would go up -- and we'd see politicians like George Bush refusing to fund it -- just like he did when he got the bill for "No Child Left Behind". Those kids, 4-5 years down the line, would be stuck with a tuition bill which they couldn't pay -- and politicians like George Bush would simply shrug their shoulders, like he does by not paying for "No Child Left Behind", and the public schools -- which are Americas promise to all its citizens to provide a good education -- would in the meantime be wrecked by loosing all those students. There would be no public schools for students to go back to 4-5 years down the line.
The short-term solution is indeed vouchers -- but it is not vouchers to private schools, but vouchers to public schools. Parents should be able to pick what public schools they go to. This will permit us to send money to the schools which are successful, while remaining committed to our promise of a good education to all of America's citizens.
I will do one better, Prof. Carter, I will demand that our public schools be so good that everyone -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- will demand entry into them. I'm not talking about supporting a weak system by showing up, I'm talking about making a strong system which everyone will want to be a part of.
Absolutely. Improving the nation's educational system takes money, lots of it, and we cannot pay for that if George Bush's $400B tax deficits continue, and increase for another four years. I'm going to address it by rolling back Bush's tax cut for people earning over $200,000, and by bringing our economy back onto sure footing. What I call upon middle-class Americans to do, if they want to see this happen, is to show up and vote for me on November 2.
Softballs! Kerry's busy preparing a snappy answer to Bush's shoulder-shrugging chortles, so here, I answer them.
By CHARLES MURRAY, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, most recently, of "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950"
Five percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all personal income taxes. They do not use more government services than other Americans; they use fewer. Why is this fair?
It's fair because that 5 percent of Americans earned nearly the same proportion of all income. Earn 50% of all income, pay 50% of all income taxes. Fair's fair. In fact, they should be paying much more than that -- because they disproportionately benefited from our governmental infrastructure. Big businesses actually benefit -- and not suffer, like you are always saying you do -- from governmental regulations, like the court systems we provide to make sure people pay their bills, the roads we build to bring goods to markets, the defense department we make to insure that we live in a world safe enough to do business. When you take home a million dollar paycheck, you're sure benefiitting from these services a lot more than people who take home a $20,000 paycheck. Which is why I'm going to bring a middle-class tax-cut, while rolling back the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. It's time for those of us -- and I think you and I are the only people in the room I'm talking about -- to give back.
Would you be willing to sponsor tort reform that requires plaintiffs to have used common sense before being eligible for damages?
Absolutely. The country would benefit if everyone used common sense. Have that legislation on my desk in the morning.
You promise to create millions of jobs, but many people who run businesses say that nothing in your life has taught you how much effort, risk and sometimes heartbreak goes into creating one real job. Could you describe your experiences when you last had to meet a payroll, or when your boss had to meet a payroll?
As a Senator, I do not go through the same excruciating choices as do the small business owners in this country -- struggling to get by in this struggling economy. One point six million jobs have been lost under George Bush's watch -- the first president in seventy years to lose jobs while in office. We have fallen behind in creating jobs in this country -- not just where we should be, but where we were the first day George Bush showed up to work in 2001 -- which, if you believe Michael Moore, was sometime in August, after vacation.
The fact of the matter is that, creating even one job is an excruciating decision for each small business owner. But it's a much easier decision if our economy is not suffering like it is now -- and it is a decision that I will make easier, not just for one business owner, but for millions of business owners, so that businesses can grow, and ad millions of jobs to this economy -- not remove millions of jobs, such as George Bush has done.
By CHRISTIE WHITMAN, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003
You have been critical of President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, yet in 1997 you joined 94 of your Senate colleagues in effectively rejecting its terms. What has changed to make you accept now what you then rejected?
The United States cannot solve the world's environmental problems alone -- which is a difference between George Bush and myself. George Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto treaty in 2001, which has now been signed or ratified by over 100 countries -- including England, Germany, France, Austrailia, Russia, Japan, China -- as well as developing economies like South Korea, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Oh, and Poland.
In 1997, the US congress examined terms very similar to those in the Kyoto protocol, and we asked ourselves, what would happen if the US tried to go it alone in saving the world's environment. We all realized -- and really, you'd have to be an idiot not to realize this -- that if we forced companies in the US to stick to tough environmental standards, they'd simply pick up and go to another country.
You see, we simply cannot do this alone. That's why, in 1998, the Kyoto protocol was founded, and why in 1998, the United States become one of the first signers of the Kyoto protocol -- to insure that these laws protecting the envioronment are enforced everywhere. That's also why it was bad for the United States for George Bush to change course, and remove us from Kyoto protocol in 2001 -- second thing he did in office, I think, after taking a vacation, if you believe Michael Moore.
The president's Clear Skies proposal calls for a 70 percent reduction in some of the worst air pollutants, including mercury, over the next decade. While the current Clean Air Act has made a difference, it is cumbersome, it almost always involves lengthy litigation that delays any benefits, and it doesn't set any specific level for the reduction of mercury. Why haven't you led the fight to avoid lawsuits and instead demand the results the president has advocated?
You quote one of the important contributions the Clear Skies proposal would actually make a difference on -- Mercury. In fact, many people, for many years, have fought to have better standards for mercury made Environmental policy, and this Administration --- I think you were in charge of some of this while you were head of the EPA under George Bush, Ms. Whitman -- blocked those initiatives. Now, the President wants to make it easier for factories to pollute US skies, as a giveaway to his friends, and he tries to make it palatable by calling it "Clear Skies", and by including one single improvement which he has blocked time and time again.
When I am President, we will push forward board changes in improving US environmental regulations, to protect the air and water of all our citizens. If you're interested Christy, I'll invite you back to head up that effort, so you can see what it feels like to be in an administration where the EPA improves the air and water for all our citizens, and not be ordered to protect the polluters, who happen to be the President's friends.
By STEPHEN L. CARTER, a professor of law at Yale and the author, most recently, of "The Emperor of Ocean Park," a novel
During the long period it would take to carry out your plan to improve the public schools, would you, in the interest of racial justice, support a system of vouchers to enable the parents of poor inner-city children to pay for private schooling to cover the transitional years? Throughout the five or more years that your plan envisions, many inner-city children will continue to receive substandard educations, and to suffer in other material and spiritual ways.
Professor Carter, our nation's educational system is in a bad way. It is not a time to squander opportunities to fix it, and it is not a time to trample on the good will of the millions of educators, administration and parents -- stakeholders in our nation's school systems -- as well as the children whose futures depend on it. We had an opportunity in 2001 to improve the nation's schools, and the country came together behind the President's bi-partisan proposal, called "No Child Left Behind". What's happened, after that sweeping change was passed, was the President has refused to pass into law over $40B in support for carrying it out. Pass the bill, but don't fund i so that it fails -- that's what George Bush has done for education in this country. And now we're left with a long-term problem.
The long term solution is not vouchers to private schools. We could issue those, and for 4-5 years, they'd work great. But in 4-5 years, private tuition would go up -- and we'd see politicians like George Bush refusing to fund it -- just like he did when he got the bill for "No Child Left Behind". Those kids, 4-5 years down the line, would be stuck with a tuition bill which they couldn't pay -- and politicians like George Bush would simply shrug their shoulders, like he does by not paying for "No Child Left Behind", and the public schools -- which are Americas promise to all its citizens to provide a good education -- would in the meantime be wrecked by loosing all those students. There would be no public schools for students to go back to 4-5 years down the line.
The short-term solution is indeed vouchers -- but it is not vouchers to private schools, but vouchers to public schools. Parents should be able to pick what public schools they go to. This will permit us to send money to the schools which are successful, while remaining committed to our promise of a good education to all of America's citizens.
If the answer to the first question is no, would you call on well-to-do Democrats to show their support for public education, and for the poor, by voluntarily sending their children to the schools that the inner-city parents are required to use? After all, a sudden influx of middle-class families might force a cure for many of those schools' deficiencies.
I will do one better, Prof. Carter, I will demand that our public schools be so good that everyone -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- will demand entry into them. I'm not talking about supporting a weak system by showing up, I'm talking about making a strong system which everyone will want to be a part of.
If the answer to the second question is no, are there any sacrifices that you would call upon middle-class Americans to make for the sake of improving the condition of the worst-off among us?
Absolutely. Improving the nation's educational system takes money, lots of it, and we cannot pay for that if George Bush's $400B tax deficits continue, and increase for another four years. I'm going to address it by rolling back Bush's tax cut for people earning over $200,000, and by bringing our economy back onto sure footing. What I call upon middle-class Americans to do, if they want to see this happen, is to show up and vote for me on November 2.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Roundup
I'm sure that in previous elections, many of these things have happened before, but now receive wider attention due to the Internet:
In Nevada: Democratic voter registrations possibly trashed by a private company Voters' Outreach of America. This company was also hired to solicit signatures to get Nader on the ballot in Arizona.
In TV Land: A better late than never reference to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. They plan on having their affiliates pre-empt prime time TV to air a "news program" about how Kerry betrayed American POWs entitled "Stolen Honor". What does Sinclair get out of this? Well, they do have a major investment in Jadoo Power Systems which is working on a government contract to develop military power systems.
Suggestions for protesting Sinclair:
1. If your mutual fund owns shares of Sinclair, pressure your fund to dump it. Here's a partial list
2. Boycott their advertisers. There is already a website dedicated to listing their advertisers and how to contact them.
3. Send a protest to the FCC. Of course, these letters end up in the hands of Colin Powell's son Michael, and even if the FCC fines SBG a record amount (as of today $1.2M is the record), I'm sure that SBG will consider it money well spent.
In Iraq: Seymour Hersh told a story about a lieutenant in Iraq who had witnessed American soldiers massacring Iraqis.
In Nevada: Democratic voter registrations possibly trashed by a private company Voters' Outreach of America. This company was also hired to solicit signatures to get Nader on the ballot in Arizona.
In TV Land: A better late than never reference to the Sinclair Broadcast Group. They plan on having their affiliates pre-empt prime time TV to air a "news program" about how Kerry betrayed American POWs entitled "Stolen Honor". What does Sinclair get out of this? Well, they do have a major investment in Jadoo Power Systems which is working on a government contract to develop military power systems.
Suggestions for protesting Sinclair:
1. If your mutual fund owns shares of Sinclair, pressure your fund to dump it. Here's a partial list
2. Boycott their advertisers. There is already a website dedicated to listing their advertisers and how to contact them.
3. Send a protest to the FCC. Of course, these letters end up in the hands of Colin Powell's son Michael, and even if the FCC fines SBG a record amount (as of today $1.2M is the record), I'm sure that SBG will consider it money well spent.
In Iraq: Seymour Hersh told a story about a lieutenant in Iraq who had witnessed American soldiers massacring Iraqis.
BushWired: Phantom voices hypothesis
The "phantom voices" preceding Bush's on certain CNN and other station feeds - most famously, during D-Day celebrations and the subsequent press conference with Jacques Chirac - were what convinced me to take the BushWired story seriously at the start.
Now at IsBushWired.com we have a possible UnWired explanation for those voices: "Revoicing" of the event for the sake of the automated voice-recognition system that delivers closed-captioning to the outgoing television feed. I had figured the networks used stenographers, typists or court reporters to do closed-captioning, but apparently not. Instead, they have an individual re-voice the action on-screen. The person speaks directly into a microphone that is attached to a voice-recognition system which then produces the text. You can understand why they would do this: The actual live audio feed will have the voice of interest mixed in with background noises and other confusions; putting a human in the loop dodges these obstacles and allows for a smoothing-out of the (rather choppy, for most of us) rhythms of spoken text.
Here's the kicker: Since the voice-recognition system takes a second or two to do its magic, inserting the closed-captioning requires a few-second delay of the live feed so that the captions will be in synch. This means that somewhere along the line between (1) that microphone in front of Bush and (2) your television set, someone is re-voicing the text that Bush is speaking into (3) a live microphone, one or two seconds ahead of the delayed Bush AV signal. That re-voicing is not supposed to make it to your TV, but frankly, if it didn't happen every once in a while that might be even more surprising than the alternative.
Folks, I think this story has just peaked.
Now at IsBushWired.com we have a possible UnWired explanation for those voices: "Revoicing" of the event for the sake of the automated voice-recognition system that delivers closed-captioning to the outgoing television feed. I had figured the networks used stenographers, typists or court reporters to do closed-captioning, but apparently not. Instead, they have an individual re-voice the action on-screen. The person speaks directly into a microphone that is attached to a voice-recognition system which then produces the text. You can understand why they would do this: The actual live audio feed will have the voice of interest mixed in with background noises and other confusions; putting a human in the loop dodges these obstacles and allows for a smoothing-out of the (rather choppy, for most of us) rhythms of spoken text.
Here's the kicker: Since the voice-recognition system takes a second or two to do its magic, inserting the closed-captioning requires a few-second delay of the live feed so that the captions will be in synch. This means that somewhere along the line between (1) that microphone in front of Bush and (2) your television set, someone is re-voicing the text that Bush is speaking into (3) a live microphone, one or two seconds ahead of the delayed Bush AV signal. That re-voicing is not supposed to make it to your TV, but frankly, if it didn't happen every once in a while that might be even more surprising than the alternative.
Folks, I think this story has just peaked.
Pakistan: Nuclear Ready. Just one election away from handing it to Islamic Extremists?
Most of us have forgotten by now that Pakistan's president Musharaff took power a few years ago in a military coup. It would be petty to point out that he's put elections again, and again. It looks like countries we've toppled with his help -- Afghanistan, Iraq -- will be having elections before he does.
Is that a good idea? Well, Bush probably thinks so. Because, if Musharaff were taken out in a democratic election by Islamic extremists -- who seem to have a lot of sway in Pakistan -- then those extremists would both have the nuclear bomb Pakistan developed a few years ago, as well as the missle they've just tested. And that would mean they've got the whole package.
Is that a good idea? Well, Bush probably thinks so. Because, if Musharaff were taken out in a democratic election by Islamic extremists -- who seem to have a lot of sway in Pakistan -- then those extremists would both have the nuclear bomb Pakistan developed a few years ago, as well as the missle they've just tested. And that would mean they've got the whole package.
Monday, October 11, 2004
US "disappears" 11 Detainees
It seems that Human Rights Watch is concerned that there are 11 detainees the US has in custody, but won't tell anyone where they are, and who can't get access to the Red Cross -- an organization which traditionally provided support and comfort to prisoners of war, from all sides.
The US doesn't usually take prisoners and make them disappear.
The US doesn't usually take prisoners and make them disappear.
So Bush Uses Political Code Words? Who Should Care?
You should. Code words are used in politics when a politician wants to send a message to his unpopular minority voters that he's secretly with him -- if only they'll work for his election. It permits him to embrace an extreme position, while keeping plausible deniability.
When Bush uses code words like "Dred Scott", he signals to his religious-right backers that he intends to appoint judges to the bench who will overturn Roe v. Wade. But attack him on this, and he can respond "Wha? Roe v. Wade! I'm talking about Slavery! We will never allow Slavery back into the US! No matter what John Kerry Says! Strict constructionist interpretation!"
He embraces an unpopular political position, without having to defend it. And that's not right. If he declares his intention to use the litmus test of Roe v. Wade in his appointments -- and, by using the well known code words "Dred Scott", he has declared it -- he should have to defend that now.
When Bush uses code words like "Dred Scott", he signals to his religious-right backers that he intends to appoint judges to the bench who will overturn Roe v. Wade. But attack him on this, and he can respond "Wha? Roe v. Wade! I'm talking about Slavery! We will never allow Slavery back into the US! No matter what John Kerry Says! Strict constructionist interpretation!"
He embraces an unpopular political position, without having to defend it. And that's not right. If he declares his intention to use the litmus test of Roe v. Wade in his appointments -- and, by using the well known code words "Dred Scott", he has declared it -- he should have to defend that now.
Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade; Bush looking to overturn Roe v. Wade
Wondering what that Dred Scott reference by Bush in the second debate was all about? I thought it was just Bush petulantly demonstrating that, there, he DID pay attention in his high school civics class. He would not appoint judges who would turn in a decision like Dred Scott -- where the Supreme court affirmed that slave remained property of their owners, even when they travelled to free states. Timothy Noah points out that, actually, the Dred Scott decision is code to anti-abortionists for Roe v. Wade.
He was semaphoring that he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
He was semaphoring that he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Running Average Poll
The [WaPost] is publishing a daily, running average poll, from now until election day. The way it works is, every day, the poll by phone 350 people. On any given day, they give the percentage for Bush, Kerry, and Nader averaged over the past 3 days (1050 people), which has a margin of error of 3%. However, the values for the last 3 days are *correlated* (because the same vote go into producing numbers) -- but, a poll like this can reveal movements on >3 day timescales.
Is Kerry Rope-a-Doping Bush?
Bush is famously "with us or against us". It's black and white, right or wrong. Kerry is famously nuance. What is is unless it isn't, in which case it very well may not be.
An important question is: which message attracts the most voters?
Bill Safire quoted Bush roundly mocking Kerry during Debate 2, asking in reference to world summits in Iraq: "'And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? 'Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place'?'" (Bill was arguing that Bush won the second debate, because "pro-Kerry people declared it a draw". Ain't necessarily so that everyone is disingenuous, Bill).
That's not an effective argument for Bush, failing to convey in his one-side-of-the-guilliotine-or-the-other form of argumentation, that there are principles behind words. It's not inconsistent to say we should never have entered this Iraq war, while working hard to do something to bring it to a responsible end, and repairing our shredded alliances while doing so. Just as it is not inconsistent to say we absolutely should have invaded Iraq, and screw those who would stand in our way. Of course, those two positions are inconsistent with each other.
You see the problem here? Bush is mistaking someone who disagrees with him for someone who is wrong. Bush doesn't get that there is a battle of principles, here. As such, it's not a convincing argument to simply ridicule the opposition. You have to make a case that their principles are wrong.
There, I can't help him. The country is coming around to the view that Iraq was not a well-justified war, it was launched for reasons other than what Bush said at the time, and it's making the country less safe, rather than more safe. Black-and-white ain't doing it for us.
Because Kerry can very credibly go out and say, "Join me in *fixing* the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." That would definitely make us more friends than Bush's approach, would ease the burden of Iraq on our troops and our tax system, and invest more countries in the outcome in Iraq than the US and England.
(Poland quit the place last week).
An important question is: which message attracts the most voters?
Bill Safire quoted Bush roundly mocking Kerry during Debate 2, asking in reference to world summits in Iraq: "'And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? 'Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place'?'" (Bill was arguing that Bush won the second debate, because "pro-Kerry people declared it a draw". Ain't necessarily so that everyone is disingenuous, Bill).
That's not an effective argument for Bush, failing to convey in his one-side-of-the-guilliotine-or-the-other form of argumentation, that there are principles behind words. It's not inconsistent to say we should never have entered this Iraq war, while working hard to do something to bring it to a responsible end, and repairing our shredded alliances while doing so. Just as it is not inconsistent to say we absolutely should have invaded Iraq, and screw those who would stand in our way. Of course, those two positions are inconsistent with each other.
You see the problem here? Bush is mistaking someone who disagrees with him for someone who is wrong. Bush doesn't get that there is a battle of principles, here. As such, it's not a convincing argument to simply ridicule the opposition. You have to make a case that their principles are wrong.
There, I can't help him. The country is coming around to the view that Iraq was not a well-justified war, it was launched for reasons other than what Bush said at the time, and it's making the country less safe, rather than more safe. Black-and-white ain't doing it for us.
Because Kerry can very credibly go out and say, "Join me in *fixing* the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." That would definitely make us more friends than Bush's approach, would ease the burden of Iraq on our troops and our tax system, and invest more countries in the outcome in Iraq than the US and England.
(Poland quit the place last week).
John Eisenhower, Arch Republican Conservative, Voting for Kerry
Eisenhower is a 50-year Republican, who believes in fiscal responsibilty, sober appraisal and cautious acting within the community of nations. Oh, and protecting individual freedoms and privacy. He sys: "I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Bush Wired? Ha ha, say spokesmodels
Bush Aides Laugh Off 'Wired Debate' Rumor
: "'Some people have been spending too many hours looking at left-wing conspiracy Web sites,' Stanzel said. 'Did you hear the one about Elvis moderating the third debate?''
In fact, they're not even sure the bulge existed.
: "'Some people have been spending too many hours looking at left-wing conspiracy Web sites,' Stanzel said. 'Did you hear the one about Elvis moderating the third debate?''
In fact, they're not even sure the bulge existed.
BushWired makes NYT
Link. Okay, now we're talking.
Let's get some analysis of those CNN feeds, people! This is what we need a traditional media for!
Let's get some analysis of those CNN feeds, people! This is what we need a traditional media for!
Send Judith Miller to Prison -- and Bob Novak after her.
There's a public debate going on about whether or not journalists should have an absolute right to protect the confidentiality of their sources. This is a principle established in the 60s, during the Vietnam era, when newspapers were revealing Secret and Top Secret information. Then, to own the means to publish required mulitple millions of dollars. The government could easily shut you down, if it wanted -- just send in the police, on some trumped up charge. If a reporter used a confidential source to reveal secret information, the courts ruled that the confidentiality was protected absolutely --- doesn't matter if a law was violated in providing the information to the journalist. That rule made sense, as newspapers held a special position in our society, owning the expensive means for distribution of information -- that free flow of information being key to the openness of our democracy, and how easily that flow could be threatened by an angered government.
What does that protection mean in an age of blogs? The means of distributing information are now as widely owned as computers. Bloggers like DailyKos and wonkette have as much distribution as many national papers, and if they get taken down, there are millions of other places where someone wishing to leak the secret that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent in order to exact political revenge on her husband can do so.
This blanket journalistic privilege no longer makes sense. Protection of confidential sources should change in our legal system -- the confidentiality can be allowed by the courts if a societal good served by the information being distributed outweighs the violation of the law against revealing top secret information. The courts will be called on to decide that the source of certain information can be protected by a pledge of confidentiality -- by co-conspirators, in this age of blogs, since the "professional journalist" tag is fuzzified --- if the revealed information serves an important societal good.
Like the whistle-blower laws which protect government employees, or the laws permitting violence when it happens in self-defense, this would permit Top Secret information to come out when the leaker (Scooter Libby? Karl Rove? we still don't know) decides that they must serve a societal good. If the courts agree, then, fine, their identity is safe. If the courts don't agree -- and I think they won't in this case -- then off to prison with them, and with anyone who protects them.
We let police shoot people. We just don't let them shoot anyone, anytime they want to. We even offer them deference -- the benefit of the doubt -- when they do shoot people. But they don't get an absolute free pass to shoot anyone anytime they want to. Neither should journalists -- anymore, in the age of blogs -- have an absolute right to protecting the confidentiality of their sources. The information they reveal should have to serve a societal good.
Throw Judith Miller in prison, until she's willing to cooperate with our courts and law enforcement, in figuring out who vindictively and with malice outed Valerie Plame. And throw Robert Novak in after her.
Oh, and if you have any interesting top-secret leaks which serve a greater societal good, send them to me. If I agree, I'll publish them here, and argue "societal good" up to the Supreme Court.
What does that protection mean in an age of blogs? The means of distributing information are now as widely owned as computers. Bloggers like DailyKos and wonkette have as much distribution as many national papers, and if they get taken down, there are millions of other places where someone wishing to leak the secret that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent in order to exact political revenge on her husband can do so.
This blanket journalistic privilege no longer makes sense. Protection of confidential sources should change in our legal system -- the confidentiality can be allowed by the courts if a societal good served by the information being distributed outweighs the violation of the law against revealing top secret information. The courts will be called on to decide that the source of certain information can be protected by a pledge of confidentiality -- by co-conspirators, in this age of blogs, since the "professional journalist" tag is fuzzified --- if the revealed information serves an important societal good.
Like the whistle-blower laws which protect government employees, or the laws permitting violence when it happens in self-defense, this would permit Top Secret information to come out when the leaker (Scooter Libby? Karl Rove? we still don't know) decides that they must serve a societal good. If the courts agree, then, fine, their identity is safe. If the courts don't agree -- and I think they won't in this case -- then off to prison with them, and with anyone who protects them.
We let police shoot people. We just don't let them shoot anyone, anytime they want to. We even offer them deference -- the benefit of the doubt -- when they do shoot people. But they don't get an absolute free pass to shoot anyone anytime they want to. Neither should journalists -- anymore, in the age of blogs -- have an absolute right to protecting the confidentiality of their sources. The information they reveal should have to serve a societal good.
Throw Judith Miller in prison, until she's willing to cooperate with our courts and law enforcement, in figuring out who vindictively and with malice outed Valerie Plame. And throw Robert Novak in after her.
Oh, and if you have any interesting top-secret leaks which serve a greater societal good, send them to me. If I agree, I'll publish them here, and argue "societal good" up to the Supreme Court.
Single? Not Sure You're Going To Vote? Go Votergasm
What better way to say that you're both politically and socially ambivalent, than Votergasm?
David Brooks Confuses Hussein with Haliburton
In today's column Brooks seems to have read through the Duelfer report, and -- where everyone else saw massive intelligence failure, which fueled a needless war -- he saw The Report That Nails Saddam. Usually, when someone sees something that no one else can see, he has vision. Or he has visions. Brooks is of the latter, seeing what he wants to see, missing the forest through the trees, wandering aimlessly in the woods in the atrium at the NYTimes.
"Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal." I'm sorry --- is this Saddam Hussein? Or Haliburton? Because I'm pretty sure Haliburton had that bribe list -- except theirs also included Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. And they also send out folks to curry favor with oil producing nations. And had illicit trading relations, but with Iraq, and Iran.
Are we at war with Haliburton now? Somebody should tell their employees it's a bad time to plan a wedding.
"Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal." I'm sorry --- is this Saddam Hussein? Or Haliburton? Because I'm pretty sure Haliburton had that bribe list -- except theirs also included Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. And they also send out folks to curry favor with oil producing nations. And had illicit trading relations, but with Iraq, and Iran.
Are we at war with Haliburton now? Somebody should tell their employees it's a bad time to plan a wedding.
The US War on Weddings Continues
Yet another wedding is bombed out. It's become so cliche, so having-had.
I guess bombing funerals would be redundant. And Baptisms and Bar/bat Mitzvahs? Hardly fair! When life is just starting! So many apple-cheeked children, blushing under the doting aunt's pinches!
Sure, it's a pre-emptive war, and I'm told some marriages should never have happened. But it seems rude to point this out by exploding the wedding party.
Even so, if we're in this with the whole hypothalamus, why focus on weddings? There are so many other things to pre-emptively bomb. Like junior high school dances. The salon where Michael Beschloss gets that monochromatic dye-job. Harvard. Cat shows. The next Alanis Morissette album.
Maybe the wedding-bombings are just Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz acting out against their wives. Do you really think Cheney loves the woman who gave us the refrain, "Dick did not"? Which I'm convinced, by the way, is a sentence containing a second verb by implied self-reference. I don't think Cheney has a sense of humor about that.
And so, the the wedding bombings continue.
I guess bombing funerals would be redundant. And Baptisms and Bar/bat Mitzvahs? Hardly fair! When life is just starting! So many apple-cheeked children, blushing under the doting aunt's pinches!
Sure, it's a pre-emptive war, and I'm told some marriages should never have happened. But it seems rude to point this out by exploding the wedding party.
Even so, if we're in this with the whole hypothalamus, why focus on weddings? There are so many other things to pre-emptively bomb. Like junior high school dances. The salon where Michael Beschloss gets that monochromatic dye-job. Harvard. Cat shows. The next Alanis Morissette album.
Maybe the wedding-bombings are just Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz acting out against their wives. Do you really think Cheney loves the woman who gave us the refrain, "Dick did not"? Which I'm convinced, by the way, is a sentence containing a second verb by implied self-reference. I don't think Cheney has a sense of humor about that.
And so, the the wedding bombings continue.
Bush's Enormous Ego Problem
The Washington Post is running an interesting column following last night's debate, called "debate referee", where they fact check the statements.
For example: Bush claimed that at a meeting in the White House, he asked "those Generals 'Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?' ..... And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals.'
The WaPost says Bush is "skating close to the line here", because Gen. Shinsheki was at that meeting, and he said there were not enough soldiers. Not by a long shot.
Shinsheki was retired for contradicting Bush (and by "retired", I mean the Defense Department leaked the name of his replacement 14 months before Shinsheki's actual retirement date, making him irrelevant in the military). That's not "skating close to the line" -- Bush had sprinted past that line and was in the next county. Bush didn't listen to his Generals -- he basically fired those who contradict him. Because of Bush's enormous ego problem.
For example: Bush claimed that at a meeting in the White House, he asked "those Generals 'Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?' ..... And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals.'
The WaPost says Bush is "skating close to the line here", because Gen. Shinsheki was at that meeting, and he said there were not enough soldiers. Not by a long shot.
Shinsheki was retired for contradicting Bush (and by "retired", I mean the Defense Department leaked the name of his replacement 14 months before Shinsheki's actual retirement date, making him irrelevant in the military). That's not "skating close to the line" -- Bush had sprinted past that line and was in the next county. Bush didn't listen to his Generals -- he basically fired those who contradict him. Because of Bush's enormous ego problem.
How I Missed The First 30 Minutes of the Second Debate
It started promisingly for Bush. He walks out smiles and winks -- as if everybody in the audience is his friend. Kerry's smile --- even bigger, teeth tall like his hair.
Okay, let's get something straight: Americans should not re-elect Bush. The first administration in 72 years, since Hoover ushering in the Depression, to loose net jobs. Bush brags about "creating" jobs in the last year, while forgetting the greater number of jobs he lost in the previous three years. Jobs aren't like favors -- you don't get credit for the ones you do, while no one knows about the ones you don't. They're like money -- losing $4M dollars and earning $2.4M is still a $1.6M loss -- and every one of those 1.6M in losses in an American family in desparate straights -- where does the food come from? Who pays the rent? The kids can't go to college and lose their opportunities in life, have no new shoes for the school year, every trip to the grocery store is a trip in tears and desparation, sizing up doorways, fields and underpasses where your family can sleep after you lose the house.
Bush launched a war using the promise of security from a real threat -- but the only effect was to take out someone who posed us no threat, wasting $200 Billion Dollars (what can be done for $200B? How about a mission to the nearby stars?) and over 1000 American lives -- all to feed his enormous ego. Oil is above $50 a barrel. And because oil is how all the goods get to market, when oil goes up, everything goes up. Hellloo, inflation.
And Bush is a disingenuous person -- he promises to help kids by passing "No Child Left Behind", and he brags about it, while giving it no money; he gets the credit, and it costs him nothing. Brag, and it costs him nothing.
There's turning the 6 Trillion dollar surplus for the next decade into a 2 trillian deficit. Bush turned the Budget surpluses under Clinton into $400B deficits every year. He did so by giving tax cuts to people who, if you ask them, say they don't need it --- the very wealthiest Americans. Please they say in the polls, please don't run the country into the ground. We can help pay the bills.
We have Bush who never worked a day in his life before becoming President, dodging the draft and changing his service to help out a friend of Dad's in a re-election campaign in Alabama. Who lost money in all his ventures. Was personally irresponsible -- drinking, coke, drunk driving -- until his wife threatened to leave him, and he used the church to get rid of his worst behavior. And we have Kerry. By all accounts, a responsible man, and has been so for the decades he has given himself to public service. Steady, reliable.
When there's a tornado outside -- find the nearest shelter and go in. Bush is the tornado ripping the sides off of houses, and Kerry is the nearest shelter. Go in, America.
This is what I was thinking of when Kerry and Bush walked onto the stage, all smiles. A man who wouldn't be dog catcher if his dad weren't a former CIA director, UN delegate, President, and heir to a manufacturing fortune 4 generations old. And a man who would be exactly where he is, because of the strength of his character, not in spite of it.
Americans are a forgiving people -- but martyrdom as forgiveness is a foolishness we can't afford.
After 30 minutes of Bush yelling at the audience -- all high-pitched and angry voices -- he calmed down enough to smile and wink at people again. His old self.
Okay, let's get something straight: Americans should not re-elect Bush. The first administration in 72 years, since Hoover ushering in the Depression, to loose net jobs. Bush brags about "creating" jobs in the last year, while forgetting the greater number of jobs he lost in the previous three years. Jobs aren't like favors -- you don't get credit for the ones you do, while no one knows about the ones you don't. They're like money -- losing $4M dollars and earning $2.4M is still a $1.6M loss -- and every one of those 1.6M in losses in an American family in desparate straights -- where does the food come from? Who pays the rent? The kids can't go to college and lose their opportunities in life, have no new shoes for the school year, every trip to the grocery store is a trip in tears and desparation, sizing up doorways, fields and underpasses where your family can sleep after you lose the house.
Bush launched a war using the promise of security from a real threat -- but the only effect was to take out someone who posed us no threat, wasting $200 Billion Dollars (what can be done for $200B? How about a mission to the nearby stars?) and over 1000 American lives -- all to feed his enormous ego. Oil is above $50 a barrel. And because oil is how all the goods get to market, when oil goes up, everything goes up. Hellloo, inflation.
And Bush is a disingenuous person -- he promises to help kids by passing "No Child Left Behind", and he brags about it, while giving it no money; he gets the credit, and it costs him nothing. Brag, and it costs him nothing.
There's turning the 6 Trillion dollar surplus for the next decade into a 2 trillian deficit. Bush turned the Budget surpluses under Clinton into $400B deficits every year. He did so by giving tax cuts to people who, if you ask them, say they don't need it --- the very wealthiest Americans. Please they say in the polls, please don't run the country into the ground. We can help pay the bills.
We have Bush who never worked a day in his life before becoming President, dodging the draft and changing his service to help out a friend of Dad's in a re-election campaign in Alabama. Who lost money in all his ventures. Was personally irresponsible -- drinking, coke, drunk driving -- until his wife threatened to leave him, and he used the church to get rid of his worst behavior. And we have Kerry. By all accounts, a responsible man, and has been so for the decades he has given himself to public service. Steady, reliable.
When there's a tornado outside -- find the nearest shelter and go in. Bush is the tornado ripping the sides off of houses, and Kerry is the nearest shelter. Go in, America.
This is what I was thinking of when Kerry and Bush walked onto the stage, all smiles. A man who wouldn't be dog catcher if his dad weren't a former CIA director, UN delegate, President, and heir to a manufacturing fortune 4 generations old. And a man who would be exactly where he is, because of the strength of his character, not in spite of it.
Americans are a forgiving people -- but martyrdom as forgiveness is a foolishness we can't afford.
After 30 minutes of Bush yelling at the audience -- all high-pitched and angry voices -- he calmed down enough to smile and wink at people again. His old self.
Friday, October 08, 2004
BushWired: Salon gets campaign responses
First, let me point out that the Salon piece I linked to yesterday is now their top story.
Meanwhile, over at the Salon War Room, we have two query-response iterations:
I have to say, I think the campaign (=McKinnon, above) have let themselves be suckered into a demonstrable falsehood here. Bush using a wire to give speeches, in lieu of a TelePrompTer, is no big deal and if he does that they should admit it. Bush using a wire during the Presidential Freakin' Debates is a big deal, but seems on the face of it unlikely (too risky). Bush using a wire during Press Conferences and presentations with foreign leaders (Jacques Chirac) is in a gray area - on the one hand he probably does this, and most voters probably wouldn't consider it a big deal, but at the same time they don't want to admit it. And so they deny the whole kit and kaboodle.
Leaving us with the challenge: Prove them wrong.
Meanwhile, over at the Salon War Room, we have two query-response iterations:
- Mark McKinnon of the Bush campaign says a lot of cute stuff, and then, "The President has never been assisted by any audio signal."
- Joe Lockhart from the Kerry campaign says he thinks a BushWire during the first debate is a near impossibility, and there's a direct denial from the Bush campaign's Matthew Dowd.
I have to say, I think the campaign (=McKinnon, above) have let themselves be suckered into a demonstrable falsehood here. Bush using a wire to give speeches, in lieu of a TelePrompTer, is no big deal and if he does that they should admit it. Bush using a wire during the Presidential Freakin' Debates is a big deal, but seems on the face of it unlikely (too risky). Bush using a wire during Press Conferences and presentations with foreign leaders (Jacques Chirac) is in a gray area - on the one hand he probably does this, and most voters probably wouldn't consider it a big deal, but at the same time they don't want to admit it. And so they deny the whole kit and kaboodle.
Leaving us with the challenge: Prove them wrong.
More Promptergate material
Isbushwired.com is a good site that is serving as a clearinghouse for information and links.
I didn't listen to the whole debate. Did Bush really say "Let me finish!" when he still had time on the clock?
I didn't listen to the whole debate. Did Bush really say "Let me finish!" when he still had time on the clock?
Bush is Wired, AKA Promptergate
More than you wanted to know. Okay, this guy has gone a bit further down the rabbit-hole than I would have preferred. But he is providing the best single collection of commentary & evidence and is therefore worth giving a once-over.
And Robin: He debunks the body-armor theory for the dorsal bulge.
And Robin: He debunks the body-armor theory for the dorsal bulge.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Bush is Wired makes Salon
Link. Several new twists, including this: If you have the right equipment, the speaker unit in your ear can be wireless & so far down the ear canal it is effectively invisible.
The Bush "Major Policy Address" that wasn't
A few days ago, I pointed out that Bush's announcement of a forthcoming "major policy address" showed that he - and Karl Rove - were running scared in the wake of his widely-mocked performance in the first debate.
As it turns out, that speech by Bush was the major policy address that wasn't - no new policies were presented, and no new answers were given to the pressing questions of the day (Why Iraq? Still don't know). However, by trumpeting the speech ahead of time to major news organizations, the Bush campaign did manage to get CNN and MSNBC to air the amped-up stump speech in its entirety. Slim hope of equal time for Kerry though - he's just going to have to suck it up, I guess.
Over at Slate, Fred Kaplan has some commentary on the debacle.
As it turns out, that speech by Bush was the major policy address that wasn't - no new policies were presented, and no new answers were given to the pressing questions of the day (Why Iraq? Still don't know). However, by trumpeting the speech ahead of time to major news organizations, the Bush campaign did manage to get CNN and MSNBC to air the amped-up stump speech in its entirety. Slim hope of equal time for Kerry though - he's just going to have to suck it up, I guess.
Over at Slate, Fred Kaplan has some commentary on the debacle.
The New York Times > AP > Books > Austrian Writer Wins Nobel in Literature
And today, a Nobel prize in Literature.
Bang bang bang. Every day, a new Nobel Prize. What happened to the leisurely pace of a prize, day-off, prize, day-off, prize, day-off.....
Ooooh! I wonder if Holobroke will get Peace this year!
Bang bang bang. Every day, a new Nobel Prize. What happened to the leisurely pace of a prize, day-off, prize, day-off, prize, day-off.....
Ooooh! I wonder if Holobroke will get Peace this year!
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
...Great Britain...Poland
No wonder Kerry kept forgetting Poland in the debates. The White House has removed the list of "The Coalition".
Could it be because Poland is "winding down" and/or possibly leaving the coalition before 2005?, and they need to revamp the list now, so the President doesn't look..........
...what's worse than utterly stupid? Supremely stupid?
Meebe.
Could it be because Poland is "winding down" and/or possibly leaving the coalition before 2005?, and they need to revamp the list now, so the President doesn't look..........
...what's worse than utterly stupid? Supremely stupid?
Meebe.
Hilarious
How to you convince a Washington journalist that you're not slapping him in the face?
Tell him you're not.
Tell him you're not.
Cheney points to factcheck.com which THEN points to George Soros
When telling the audience that Edwards was wrong, and they should check the facts at factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org, he was just being ironic.
Delicious, delicious irony.
Delicious, delicious irony.
Cheney points to anti-Bush site
During the VP debate, Cheney said Edwards was wrong on his facts, and referred to a website which had the correct facts. But, Cheney gave the website anemas a ".com", when in fact it should have been a ".org". The result? Cheney sent people to a site titled "Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush: A Personal Message from George Soros". (Cheney points to anti-Bush site).
What are the odds of giving a wrong site name, and accidentally ending up at a site which proves that Bush is a screw-up? About the same as hitting an elephant with a handfull of rice while standing on top of him.
What are the odds of giving a wrong site name, and accidentally ending up at a site which proves that Bush is a screw-up? About the same as hitting an elephant with a handfull of rice while standing on top of him.
Who is Controlling what Bush Says and Thinks?
Derek wants to know what it is that's being said over Bush's earpiece -- assuming it is, as many have sworn, a speaker so that a remote person can talk to him.
Forget what's being said -- I want to know *who* it is that control what Bush says in public. Is it Karl Rove? Is it Dick Cheney? Who feeds Bush the answers that he cannot produce on his own?
Forget what's being said -- I want to know *who* it is that control what Bush says in public. Is it Karl Rove? Is it Dick Cheney? Who feeds Bush the answers that he cannot produce on his own?
Whose Lifeboat would you want to be in?
Political question of the week:
Whose lifeboat would you want to be in? Bush/Cheney? or Kerry/Edwards?
In a Kerry/Edwards lifeboat, I'd figure, "Here we are, all in this together."
In the Bush/Cheney lifeboat, they'd be sizing me up as a piece of meat and a water source.
Whose lifeboat would you want to be in? Bush/Cheney? or Kerry/Edwards?
In a Kerry/Edwards lifeboat, I'd figure, "Here we are, all in this together."
In the Bush/Cheney lifeboat, they'd be sizing me up as a piece of meat and a water source.
Bush is Wired - So What?
In this fast-developing 13D story, we have moved from posing the question to analyzing the evidence to securing confirmation from a major media outlet, all in under 12 hours.
We now know that it is common knowledge among the White House Press Pool that the President wears an earpiece during speeches and other public appearances. Why does this matter? Simple: We want to know what is being said to him over that earpiece. I think, as his employers, we have a right to know. Transcripts of all Presidential speeches are organized and archived at the White House web site. The text itself, as well as audio and video when available, are committed to the public domain for anyone to use, in any way they wish (including, e.g., Kerry campaign commercials).
I hereby argue that anything said to the President, over that earpiece, when the President is at a public event in front of a live microphone, must similarly be committed to the public domain. We have a right to know.
On top of this claim rides a secondary issue. The President has no right to secret off-stage prompting during Presidential debates - on the contrary, we the citizens of the country that he serves as Chief Executive have a right to see the President answer questions on the major issues of the day in his own voice, using his own words. If the President was wearing an earpiece during last Thursday's debate, I would consider that a severe abrogration of trust on his part - whether or not we ever get to see that transcript.
We now know that it is common knowledge among the White House Press Pool that the President wears an earpiece during speeches and other public appearances. Why does this matter? Simple: We want to know what is being said to him over that earpiece. I think, as his employers, we have a right to know. Transcripts of all Presidential speeches are organized and archived at the White House web site. The text itself, as well as audio and video when available, are committed to the public domain for anyone to use, in any way they wish (including, e.g., Kerry campaign commercials).
I hereby argue that anything said to the President, over that earpiece, when the President is at a public event in front of a live microphone, must similarly be committed to the public domain. We have a right to know.
On top of this claim rides a secondary issue. The President has no right to secret off-stage prompting during Presidential debates - on the contrary, we the citizens of the country that he serves as Chief Executive have a right to see the President answer questions on the major issues of the day in his own voice, using his own words. If the President was wearing an earpiece during last Thursday's debate, I would consider that a severe abrogration of trust on his part - whether or not we ever get to see that transcript.
Bush's "earpiece"?
WaPost White House Breifing: I've been looking for images which support the contention that Bush was even *wearing* an earpiece during the debate and I can't find one. However, the mention of Bush's Earpiece made the WaPost's White House Briefing's "Tinfoil Hat Watch". The column implies -- as in, yeah, of course, everybody knows it -- that Bush does indeed wear an earpiece.
She Rolls Over. "Who Are You"?
Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards. Turns out they've met, three times before.
Is Cheney senile?
Is Cheney senile?
Is Bush Wired? 2: The President As Manchurian Candidate
Following up Derek's post: In reading the Is Bush Wired? website, it started off like consipracy theorists. Voices were heard by some viewers watching CNN while Bush gives a speech. Voices were heard by other viewers while Bush gives another speech speech. It's classic: a lot of people hearing voices. Uh huh. Whatever, turn the page.
And then there's this:
Woah, wait a sec, "Everybody knows it?" No, everybody does not indeed know that the President of the United States is being fed his words by someone else, off stage, when he answers questions, when he gives speeches, in his public appearances.
It is not reasonable that our President is not thinking and speaking for himself when he talks. It is not acceptable that our President is not thinking and speaking for himself when he answers debate questions. If it is true that the President goes out to these occaisions -- like the first debate -- wired up so that he can have voices whisper in his ear what he should say, then we have a Manchurian Candidate on our hands -- a President who is not himself, who is not his own man, but who simply mouths the words given him by someone else who controls him.
And then there's this:
"'Sure, Bush uses an earpiece sometimes,' a top Washington editor for Reuters said to me last spring. 'State of the Union -- he had an earpiece for that. Everybody knows it,' he said, or assumes it. But everybody doesn't know it, I said. Why hadn't Reuters investigated? The editor shrugged and said it wasn't so different from using a teleprompter.
Except that a teleprompter isn't a secret. And Americans have the right to know if the president can't or won't speak in public without covert assistance.
"
Woah, wait a sec, "Everybody knows it?" No, everybody does not indeed know that the President of the United States is being fed his words by someone else, off stage, when he answers questions, when he gives speeches, in his public appearances.
It is not reasonable that our President is not thinking and speaking for himself when he talks. It is not acceptable that our President is not thinking and speaking for himself when he answers debate questions. If it is true that the President goes out to these occaisions -- like the first debate -- wired up so that he can have voices whisper in his ear what he should say, then we have a Manchurian Candidate on our hands -- a President who is not himself, who is not his own man, but who simply mouths the words given him by someone else who controls him.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Is Bush Wired?
I was going to do an Instanalysis of the Veep Debate - Cheney wins for having better counterattacks to Edwards attacks than vice versa - but then I ran across this site (linked from BoingBoing).
Does Bush wear an earpiece so that he can be prompted or fed lines wirelessly during public appearances - including press conferences, public speaking engagements, and last Thursday's Presidential debate? It's a serious question.
Does Bush wear an earpiece so that he can be prompted or fed lines wirelessly during public appearances - including press conferences, public speaking engagements, and last Thursday's Presidential debate? It's a serious question.
Bush running scared
So scared, he's scheduled an impromptu televised address for tomorrow night. For a nation at war, the bait is irresistable: Tune in to hear the real reasons why we invaded Iraq!
Why is this significant? Simple. Karl Rove's modus operandi is one of sublime confidence - even in the nail-biter of 2000 - off-handedly mentioning to reporters on the trail how they are taking the battle to Democratic strongholds like New Jersey and no longer worrying about the likes of Florida (500 votes? Pah!). In this fashion he aims to create an aura of inevitability around his candidate - the theory being that swing voters like to vote for a winner.
It's a good theory, and Bush's speech tomorrow is its complete opposite - making it clear that he is, in fact, quite evitable.
Why is this significant? Simple. Karl Rove's modus operandi is one of sublime confidence - even in the nail-biter of 2000 - off-handedly mentioning to reporters on the trail how they are taking the battle to Democratic strongholds like New Jersey and no longer worrying about the likes of Florida (500 votes? Pah!). In this fashion he aims to create an aura of inevitability around his candidate - the theory being that swing voters like to vote for a winner.
It's a good theory, and Bush's speech tomorrow is its complete opposite - making it clear that he is, in fact, quite evitable.
Rumsfeld washes his hands of the Iraq debacle
After Rumsfeld said he had never seen a hard link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, he later posted that, what he meant to say is, whenever anyone asks him about the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, he says he's not in the business of figuring that out, but here's what the CIA says (and then pulls out a piece of paper).
Its not credible that the issue's never crossed his mind, or that he never really thought to look into it, preferring to get his marching orders from others, and just do his simple duties.
But it certainly is telling that he'd prefer we thought so. Rumsfeld is washing his hands of the Iraq debacle.
Its not credible that the issue's never crossed his mind, or that he never really thought to look into it, preferring to get his marching orders from others, and just do his simple duties.
But it certainly is telling that he'd prefer we thought so. Rumsfeld is washing his hands of the Iraq debacle.
Body of Rumsfeld's Daughter Washes Up on Florida Beach; Rumsfeld Retracts "No Iraq-Al Qaeda Link" statement
A few minutes after the body of 'Kiki' Rumsfeld was discovered -- the apparent victim of an unfortunate and regrettable 'boating accident' while a guest on RNC Chairman Ed Gillespi's yacht -- the Secretary of Defense called press conference to retract his statement earlier in the day that he hadn't seen any hard link between Iraq and Al Qaeda: "I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq,' Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday. 'Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks' and I read it'.'"
Gillespi had this to say: "We regret the very sad and sudden snuffing out of a light in Donald's life. We expect that this unfortunate and unavoidable accident won't keep Donald's wife from attending the planned election week cruise of the Carribean, as we'd already discussed." Gillespi went on to say, "Hopefully, this is the last such news conference Rumsfeld will have to have."
Asked to clarify, Gillespi said "I mean, news conference acknowledging the sad death of a close and treasured family member."
Gillespi had this to say: "We regret the very sad and sudden snuffing out of a light in Donald's life. We expect that this unfortunate and unavoidable accident won't keep Donald's wife from attending the planned election week cruise of the Carribean, as we'd already discussed." Gillespi went on to say, "Hopefully, this is the last such news conference Rumsfeld will have to have."
Asked to clarify, Gillespi said "I mean, news conference acknowledging the sad death of a close and treasured family member."
Monday, October 04, 2004
Rumsfeld, then Bremer disclaim parentage.
First Rumsfeld says he's not seen hard proof of a connection between al Qaeda and Hussein.
And now, Paul Bremer says the low troop levels caused the initial lawlessness in Iraq, which later gave way to the attacks now ongoing.
Success has a thousand fathers. Failure is an orphan.
And now, Paul Bremer says the low troop levels caused the initial lawlessness in Iraq, which later gave way to the attacks now ongoing.
Success has a thousand fathers. Failure is an orphan.
Monday Poll Roundup
From a roundup:
All told, this is (approximately) Bush: 47.4, 46.8, +/-1.7% (approximately). Bush leads by 0.6+/-1.7%. The two candidates are neck and neck.
Much depends on how well Edwards can take Cheney. The momentum will either build, or halt. Tommorrow night.
- Poll, Bush, Kerry, +/-%
- Gallup, 49, 49, 4
- Zogby, 46, 45, 3
- CBS, 47, 47, 4
- ABC/Wapost, 49, 44, 4
- Newsweek, 46, 49, 4
All told, this is (approximately) Bush: 47.4, 46.8, +/-1.7% (approximately). Bush leads by 0.6+/-1.7%. The two candidates are neck and neck.
Much depends on how well Edwards can take Cheney. The momentum will either build, or halt. Tommorrow night.
Rumsfeld demonstrates a grip on reality
Today, Rumsfeld admitted that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. I can't say that I've heard anyone else besides Powell admit this.
Rumsfeld then trumpets the new Republican mantra that the world is better off with Saddam Hussain in jail. This is just longhand for their real statement: "The ends justify the means."
Rumsfeld then trumpets the new Republican mantra that the world is better off with Saddam Hussain in jail. This is just longhand for their real statement: "The ends justify the means."
CIA Exec Director Nominee Withdraws Over $2.13 worth of Bacon
It seems that Goss's appointee had, 20 years ago, shoplifted $2.13 worth of bacon while a CIA case officer. As a result, he resigned as a case officer, and sought counseling. I guess it was thought that, after 20 years, a misdimeanor shoplifting charge would be forgotten. It wasn't.
Bacon's GOOD. Pork chops are GOOD.
As a result, Goss had to go to his second choice nominiee for the Exec. Directory: Winona Ryder.
Uh oh......
Bacon's GOOD. Pork chops are GOOD.
As a result, Goss had to go to his second choice nominiee for the Exec. Directory: Winona Ryder.
Uh oh......
Revealing choice of words, Mr. President
Over at Slate, William Saletan is taking a close look at the language Bush has been using, since the debate, to distinguish his preemptive-war stance from Kerry's. The choice of words is, as Saletan points out, quite revealing.
Supremes: Do Not Call Means Don't Call
Justices Affirm Do-Not-Call Ruling (washingtonpost.com)
With the advent of internet telephony, I wonder if the easy way to get around this is by calling US phones from Canada. Because, when I was apartment hunting, all those showing apartments commented on how so many of the prospects worked in telephone marketing.
With the advent of internet telephony, I wonder if the easy way to get around this is by calling US phones from Canada. Because, when I was apartment hunting, all those showing apartments commented on how so many of the prospects worked in telephone marketing.
Wine, Wine Not Yet Everywhere
The Supreme Court is finally considering the state-by-state prohibitions against imports of wine from other states. Some states (like, New York) don't let wine to be mailed directly from out-of-state wineries directly to consumers (bypassing middlemen). Why? Protects the middlemen! The Supreme Court looks set to strike down these laws. Look forward to a huge surge in wine shipping nationally. About time.
No Joke: Daily Show Viewers Follow Presidential Race
Now that it's been strongly established that people who watch the Daily Showtend to be better informed about news issues -- such as the Presidential race -- than the average population , how pissed do you think the folks at "Wait, Wait.... Don't Tell Me" are?
Why Five Percent for Kerry is a Conservative Guess
The NYTimes article about the aluminum tubes appeared on Slashdot this morning.
There is no new information in this article ("old news", as Condi Rice might put it), but it's the first time that the story of how the administration got the full head of steam it did for passing the war powers resolution against Iraq, even while the nation's top nuclear experts were saying "There's no there, there" (answer: Bush and Co. were getting an answer they wanted from a low-level CIA analyst, and not from the nuclear experts).
But, the reason this story has traction is that people are now hearing it again after -- for many -- Bush's credibility has been destroyed (by the discovery of no WMD in Iraq, among other things). People are seeing it for the first time, and he'll get no slack, as he did previously.
There is no new information in this article ("old news", as Condi Rice might put it), but it's the first time that the story of how the administration got the full head of steam it did for passing the war powers resolution against Iraq, even while the nation's top nuclear experts were saying "There's no there, there" (answer: Bush and Co. were getting an answer they wanted from a low-level CIA analyst, and not from the nuclear experts).
But, the reason this story has traction is that people are now hearing it again after -- for many -- Bush's credibility has been destroyed (by the discovery of no WMD in Iraq, among other things). People are seeing it for the first time, and he'll get no slack, as he did previously.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Gallup: Presidential race is dead tie
Bush Kerry are split at 49% each.
That's a very sudden evaporation of Bush's 8 point lead. So much for a lack of undecided voters out there.
The WaPost has an article on how the VP debate Tuesday has assumed new importance, in light of the sudden momentum to Kerry. It will be a sit-down debate: the Dems had demanded a town-hall style debate, but this was conceded to the Republican's preference for a sit-down, in return for insuring there would be 3 presidential debates. That the format was such a big bargaining chip attests to the fear of Edwards lawyerly charisma. Nonetheless, Dems have lots to fear from Cheney, who has a very respectable cool style of presenting zingers in a debate format.
My favorite example: during the debate on whether or not we should go to war in Iraq, an interviewer asked Cheney: "Many in the congress don't see the logic in going to war. Do you know something they don't?" Cheney's answer: "Probably."
The answer leaves me breathless. In a single word, he leaves intact the doubt and deference congress and the American people offered to permit the administration to go to war, while completely walking away from any responsibility to explain his reasoning. The arrogance is astounding. In one word: Why should I have to explain to you why we will commit $200B in treasure and thousands of American lives in order to go to war? I'm the Vice President, I know better than you, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to know what I know, so that we can agree and go into this together.
If I could do that, my blog entries wouldn't be so long.
That's a very sudden evaporation of Bush's 8 point lead. So much for a lack of undecided voters out there.
The WaPost has an article on how the VP debate Tuesday has assumed new importance, in light of the sudden momentum to Kerry. It will be a sit-down debate: the Dems had demanded a town-hall style debate, but this was conceded to the Republican's preference for a sit-down, in return for insuring there would be 3 presidential debates. That the format was such a big bargaining chip attests to the fear of Edwards lawyerly charisma. Nonetheless, Dems have lots to fear from Cheney, who has a very respectable cool style of presenting zingers in a debate format.
My favorite example: during the debate on whether or not we should go to war in Iraq, an interviewer asked Cheney: "Many in the congress don't see the logic in going to war. Do you know something they don't?" Cheney's answer: "Probably."
The answer leaves me breathless. In a single word, he leaves intact the doubt and deference congress and the American people offered to permit the administration to go to war, while completely walking away from any responsibility to explain his reasoning. The arrogance is astounding. In one word: Why should I have to explain to you why we will commit $200B in treasure and thousands of American lives in order to go to war? I'm the Vice President, I know better than you, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to know what I know, so that we can agree and go into this together.
If I could do that, my blog entries wouldn't be so long.
A Good Time For A Conclusion
So, I hope you've read the NYTimes Article on the Bush Administration's willfull blindness, getting wrong that Hussein had a nuclear weapons program active in 2002.
History will have to conclude that the Bush administration willfully manipulated intelligence, and threw at the Congress an intelligence report designed to whip them into a fear of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the days before the vote giving the President authorization to invade. Bush lied his way to war.
History will have to conclude that the Bush administration willfully manipulated intelligence, and threw at the Congress an intelligence report designed to whip them into a fear of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the days before the vote giving the President authorization to invade. Bush lied his way to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)