The most important perspective on the Kerry nomination in the NYT opinion pages today isn't from David Brooks; it's from Licorice.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
What Strain on the Middle Class?
If Bush's fiscal policies were hitting the middle class, wouldn't we hear about it? Maybe we are -- Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge is telling colleagues he's thinking about resigning from his $175K/yr job to enter the private sector, back home to Pennsylvania and his $900,000 home, to put his two sons through college.
Then again, maybe it's not the money. Maybe he just can't run away from Bush fast enough.
Then again, maybe it's not the money. Maybe he just can't run away from Bush fast enough.
Why Powell Will Not Be VP
I've long been speculating that Colin Powell would take Cheney's place on the Republican ticket. But now, I have an argument for why he will not.
Powell's goal is to be elected President in 2008. Bush is -- to my view -- in the process of crashing and burning in 2004. So, if Powell joined the ticket, and won, Bush would continue to use him -- just as he does now -- as a red-headed step-child, making him take the bullets while Bush gets the credit. And, Bush is going to continue to make enemies, while accruing few new friends, so that by the end of 2008, if Powell would be seen as the establishment candidate, that would hardly work in his favor. It's not worth the benefit of having held one elective office, which would improve his credibility not one whit. AND, if Bush lost -- well, Powell would have as much chance in 2008 as Lieberman did in 2004.
So why risk it? He can sit on the outside, and, even if Bush/Cheney or Bush/McCain won, he can still run credibly as the new Republican in 2008.
When there's nothing to gain, there's no reason to take the step.
Powell's goal is to be elected President in 2008. Bush is -- to my view -- in the process of crashing and burning in 2004. So, if Powell joined the ticket, and won, Bush would continue to use him -- just as he does now -- as a red-headed step-child, making him take the bullets while Bush gets the credit. And, Bush is going to continue to make enemies, while accruing few new friends, so that by the end of 2008, if Powell would be seen as the establishment candidate, that would hardly work in his favor. It's not worth the benefit of having held one elective office, which would improve his credibility not one whit. AND, if Bush lost -- well, Powell would have as much chance in 2008 as Lieberman did in 2004.
So why risk it? He can sit on the outside, and, even if Bush/Cheney or Bush/McCain won, he can still run credibly as the new Republican in 2008.
When there's nothing to gain, there's no reason to take the step.
When Bush attacks...
One reason why it's good to be the King: You can deliver a manifest untruth in your campaign speech:
When, in turn, the average citizen of your country reads in the paper (NYT or otherwise) that you have said this, without any contradiction in the article or elsewhere in the paper, they will assume that you are telling the truth, and marvel at the venality of your opponent - even when said opponent has done nothing like what you accuse him of doing.
In other words, you can lie without consequence.
During eight years on the Senate intelligence committee, [my opponent] voted to cut the intelligence budget, yet he had no record of reforming America's intelligence capability.And get it picked up in the fourth (or fifth) paragraph of a wire service article that in turns runs in a place of prominence (lead story when I saw it) at the NYT, the nation's paper of record, without any caveats or qualifications.
When, in turn, the average citizen of your country reads in the paper (NYT or otherwise) that you have said this, without any contradiction in the article or elsewhere in the paper, they will assume that you are telling the truth, and marvel at the venality of your opponent - even when said opponent has done nothing like what you accuse him of doing.
In other words, you can lie without consequence.
The Village **WITH SPOILERS***
I saw THE VILLAGE tonight.
Whatever.
Here's Night's main innovation in film: discovering that, if you include a plot turn which, if revealed, ruins the entire effect of the movie, people will not talk about the film. Even reviewers. And you cannot criticize a film which you cannot talk about. ***So I have spoilers below***. And you know, it's not difficult to fabricate such plot twists. Good ones are hard to come by.
THE VILLAGE contains such a twist, which may have taken all of 30 seconds to come up with. So what? What do we get out of the film otherwise? A bare inspection of the nature of fear and cowardice.
The village is, actually, a village built by modern people, escaping from the modern world into a fabricated preserve, because each of them had someone they love die violently. They apparently resolved to raise their children ignorant of the outside modern world, pretending it is 1897, and enforce this by fabricated bogeymen in the surrounding woods. Every so often, they costume up at night to freak the little ones out, and make red a "forbidden" color. So when one of the boys is stabbed by the village idiot, the woman who loves him (although blind) resolves to go through the woods "to the towns" to get "some medicines". Odd that people ignorant of the outside world should somehow have faith in the quality of their medicines.
Anyhoo, her father reveals all to her before she goes, so she would not be scared. Nonetheless, in the woods, she's briefly confronted by a bogeyman ("there were stories of beasts in the woods", her father had explained), who she kills (it was the village idiot, escaped and in costume), nonetheless proving that courage can overcome fear.
In short, not nearly as good as THE SIXTH SENSE, but not as bad as UNBREAKABLE -- but close.
Whatever.
Here's Night's main innovation in film: discovering that, if you include a plot turn which, if revealed, ruins the entire effect of the movie, people will not talk about the film. Even reviewers. And you cannot criticize a film which you cannot talk about. ***So I have spoilers below***. And you know, it's not difficult to fabricate such plot twists. Good ones are hard to come by.
THE VILLAGE contains such a twist, which may have taken all of 30 seconds to come up with. So what? What do we get out of the film otherwise? A bare inspection of the nature of fear and cowardice.
The village is, actually, a village built by modern people, escaping from the modern world into a fabricated preserve, because each of them had someone they love die violently. They apparently resolved to raise their children ignorant of the outside modern world, pretending it is 1897, and enforce this by fabricated bogeymen in the surrounding woods. Every so often, they costume up at night to freak the little ones out, and make red a "forbidden" color. So when one of the boys is stabbed by the village idiot, the woman who loves him (although blind) resolves to go through the woods "to the towns" to get "some medicines". Odd that people ignorant of the outside world should somehow have faith in the quality of their medicines.
Anyhoo, her father reveals all to her before she goes, so she would not be scared. Nonetheless, in the woods, she's briefly confronted by a bogeyman ("there were stories of beasts in the woods", her father had explained), who she kills (it was the village idiot, escaped and in costume), nonetheless proving that courage can overcome fear.
In short, not nearly as good as THE SIXTH SENSE, but not as bad as UNBREAKABLE -- but close.
Soak the Rich!
It's a bad week for those whose yearly incomes are above $200k.
I don't have references: but, the NYTimes had an article earlier this week loudly proclaiming that income was down by 5% since 2000. However, a closer look at the numbers showed that, for people who made less than $200K in 2003, their incomes either went up (a few percent, corrected for inflation) or held steady since 2000. It was the people who had incomes above $200K who took huge hits -- 20-40% -- which fed into an overall decline of 5%.
The biggest hits percentage-wise were those unfortunate souls who made in excess of $10M/year. They saw their incomes drop by 40%. The bit they made on the margin from the Bush tax cut is cold comfort compared to their income drops. Want some more?
And then, last night at the Democratic National Convention -- zing! -- Kerry announced that he would give a middle-class tax cut, but roll back the Bush tax cut on incomes above $200K. This, to pay off the $400B budget deficits Bush has been wracking up.
Where should the big money go this election cycle? Big money-earners should learn to not back politicians who can't do sums -- and get out from behind Bush. Bush's bad fiscal policies caused their incomes to drop.
I don't have references: but, the NYTimes had an article earlier this week loudly proclaiming that income was down by 5% since 2000. However, a closer look at the numbers showed that, for people who made less than $200K in 2003, their incomes either went up (a few percent, corrected for inflation) or held steady since 2000. It was the people who had incomes above $200K who took huge hits -- 20-40% -- which fed into an overall decline of 5%.
The biggest hits percentage-wise were those unfortunate souls who made in excess of $10M/year. They saw their incomes drop by 40%. The bit they made on the margin from the Bush tax cut is cold comfort compared to their income drops. Want some more?
And then, last night at the Democratic National Convention -- zing! -- Kerry announced that he would give a middle-class tax cut, but roll back the Bush tax cut on incomes above $200K. This, to pay off the $400B budget deficits Bush has been wracking up.
Where should the big money go this election cycle? Big money-earners should learn to not back politicians who can't do sums -- and get out from behind Bush. Bush's bad fiscal policies caused their incomes to drop.
Another First for Bush!
Let it not be said that Bush is not a President to be remembered. Today, the White House announced a record budget deficit of $445 billion dollars. Sure, it's $76B below what they predicted in February -- but that just goes to show that Bush can't figure out a budget 4 months in advance, much less the 10 years he did during election 2000, when he said we'd have balanced budgets out to 2010.
I can't wait for the Bush presidency to be a memory.
I can't wait for the Bush presidency to be a memory.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
As If It Never Happened
In the 2002 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary, Janet Reno lost to Bill McBride, by 4794 votes, in the first election using electronic voting machines (ones which lacked an audit paper trail). The ACLU found that 8 percent of votes cast in that election -- about 1544 -- were lost on the touch-screen machines.
So the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition asked for all the records
taken during the election by those electronic machines.
Turns out, all those records were accidentally erased.
So the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition asked for all the records
taken during the election by those electronic machines.
Turns out, all those records were accidentally erased.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
That's no moon... that's a battlestation!
Uhh... then again, maybe it is a moon, after all. My bad.
Brand spankin' new images courtesy the Cassini mission.
Brand spankin' new images courtesy the Cassini mission.
Ballot Fraud with Electronic Machines
Paul Krugman gives another real-life example of how what looks like fraud, but cannot be verified as such, serves to undermine confidence in an election.
Monday, July 26, 2004
The Truth Behind "The Poseidon Adventure"
That's right, it turns out that rogue waves are for real. They have been observed from space and systematically characterized by a group of European researchers using the ERS Earth-observing satellites of the European Space Agency.
Over a three-week period of study they detected ten "rogue waves" with heights of more than 25 meters - well above the height of all the waves around them. Prior to this, some had estimated the rogue waves' frequency (in the absence of earthquakes or undersea avalanches) to be as low as one or two per century. To the contrary, now, all those salty tales of "walls of water" coming out of nowhere cannot, in fact, be chalked up to ready availability of distilled spirits and the tedium of long sea voyages. Such waves may even be responsible for the great majority of ship sinkings that occur each year.
That ought to liven up your next cruise vacation.
Over a three-week period of study they detected ten "rogue waves" with heights of more than 25 meters - well above the height of all the waves around them. Prior to this, some had estimated the rogue waves' frequency (in the absence of earthquakes or undersea avalanches) to be as low as one or two per century. To the contrary, now, all those salty tales of "walls of water" coming out of nowhere cannot, in fact, be chalked up to ready availability of distilled spirits and the tedium of long sea voyages. Such waves may even be responsible for the great majority of ship sinkings that occur each year.
That ought to liven up your next cruise vacation.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
9-11 Commission Report Quick-Read
The 9-11 Commission report has been nicely excerpted at Kottke.org.
Worth a read, if you weren't planning to page through the whole thing.
Worth a read, if you weren't planning to page through the whole thing.
Richard Clarke Weighs In On the 9/11 Commission Report.
NYTimes OpEd: Among the stunning statements:
- What the commissioners did clearly state was that Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda and no hand in 9/11. They also disclosed that Iran provided support to Al Qaeda, including to some 9/11 hijackers. These two facts may cause many people to conclude that the Bush administration focused on the wrong country. They would be right to think that.
- But at the F.B.I. and C.I.A., the key posts are held almost exclusively by those who joined young and worked their way up. This has created uniformity, insularity, risk-aversion, torpidity and often mediocrity.
- We must also place the C.I.A.'s analysts in an agency that is independent from the one that collects the intelligence.
- The commission properly identified the threat not as terrorism (which is a tactic, not an enemy), but as Islamic jihadism, which must be defeated in a battle of ideas as well as in armed conflict.
- The commission failed to admit the obvious: we are less capable of defeating the jihadists because of the Iraq war.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
You do not get to choose what others are fighting you for.
NoteDavid Brooks' take on a codicil of the 9/11 report, in which the Senators state that, while this war has been called a "War on terror", Terror is not what we fight against. In fact, those who attack targets in the US have a specific ideology -- Islamic extremism -- with the goal of wiping out ours (secular capitalism and democracy).
Quite right. "Terror" is a technique; the US is no more in a war against terror than minutemen of 1776 were in a war against ball and powder. If one is beat up by a bully on a playground, one is not in a fight against fists, but in a fight against a bully and irrational domination. When attacked, one does not get to choose the attackers reasons. To fight back, and fight the right opponents, we must fight back over the same reasons we are attacked.
In a defensive war, we do not get to choose the reasons to fight it. We have been attacked by Islamic extremists with the purpose of destablizing our society. The war we have to fight must be against Islamic extremists who would attack us to destablize our society.
Oh -- and not against secular middle-eastern dictators who have never attacked the US, nor have any capability of doing so, nor any capability of helping others do so. That too.
Quite right. "Terror" is a technique; the US is no more in a war against terror than minutemen of 1776 were in a war against ball and powder. If one is beat up by a bully on a playground, one is not in a fight against fists, but in a fight against a bully and irrational domination. When attacked, one does not get to choose the attackers reasons. To fight back, and fight the right opponents, we must fight back over the same reasons we are attacked.
In a defensive war, we do not get to choose the reasons to fight it. We have been attacked by Islamic extremists with the purpose of destablizing our society. The war we have to fight must be against Islamic extremists who would attack us to destablize our society.
Oh -- and not against secular middle-eastern dictators who have never attacked the US, nor have any capability of doing so, nor any capability of helping others do so. That too.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Bush Protects his Friends, Edwards protects average Americans.
I was just reading the John Edwards biography at the johnkerry.com website. He makes an issue out of the fact that it took 3 years for Ken Lay -- who made thousands of his employee's pensions worthless, bankrupted his company, and zero-d out the accounts of anyone who held Enron stock -- to come to trial. John Edwards says he'll take back America from corporate crooks like Ken Lay.
And there's your answer to Bush's Trial Lawyer sneer. Everytime Bush brings up the trial-lawer sneer, you simply point out that it's trial lawyers who bring corporate crooks like Bush's buddy Ken Lay to account -- even when they aren't breaking any technical laws, just when the betray the trust of people who give them their money. Bush protects his friends, but Edwards protects average Americans.
Ta da.
And there's your answer to Bush's Trial Lawyer sneer. Everytime Bush brings up the trial-lawer sneer, you simply point out that it's trial lawyers who bring corporate crooks like Bush's buddy Ken Lay to account -- even when they aren't breaking any technical laws, just when the betray the trust of people who give them their money. Bush protects his friends, but Edwards protects average Americans.
Ta da.
Bloomberg gets it: No Payroll Record = Bush Didn't Show Up For Guard Duty
First: a correction -- Reuters broke the story (Derek commented on it first). A.P followed up with the clarifying point that there among the payroll records, no payments went to Bush. Even so, both were wrongly saying "no new information" -- that what was being shown was nothing new.
But the Bloomberg news service gets it. Pointing out that there's no record of payments to Bush, they conclude that he did not show up for flying hours between July and Sept 1972 (no word on the other months of May-Oct 1972, where the gap in Bush's military records had been).
But the Bloomberg news service gets it. Pointing out that there's no record of payments to Bush, they conclude that he did not show up for flying hours between July and Sept 1972 (no word on the other months of May-Oct 1972, where the gap in Bush's military records had been).
Bush Bailed on his Vietnam National Guard Commitment, and where's the press?
It's 9:35 -- 4 hours after the story broke (AP, below) that Bush's Nat'l guard payroll records for summer of '72 had been found, and there's no record of payment -- and where's the press? The NYTimes even pulled the AP wire story link off it's website.
What's ridiculous is they are repeating a refrain: "no new information" -- when clearly, the fact that he wasn't paid for service in summer of 1972 means he was either the first freebie national guardsman, or he didn't show up.
Our President didn't show up for his National Guard Duty.
What's ridiculous is they are repeating a refrain: "no new information" -- when clearly, the fact that he wasn't paid for service in summer of 1972 means he was either the first freebie national guardsman, or he didn't show up.
Our President didn't show up for his National Guard Duty.
Bush "kept his commitments"
I guess I could have read the story before blogging, but where's the fun in that?
1. Bush kept his commitments because he was honorably discharged. This is putting the cart before the horse, my friends. Everyone knows that W was honorably discharged - that is a matter of proven, written (never mysteriously almost-destroyed) record. The issue, rather, is whether this politically well-connected young man of draftable age was given special treatment. No - I take that back. Everyone knows he was given special treatment. The question is whether he looked the gift-horse of National Guard flyer-boy duty square in the mouth and told it to go fuck itself. Coincidentally at or around the time that the Guard instituted mandatory drug-testing. While John Kerry was getting shot at and pulling men out of a jungle river in Vietnam. And still got an honorable discharge (early - no less - so that he could attend HBS).
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush kept his service commitments, pointing to the fact that Bush was honorably discharged in 1973.Let's examine these two statements.The White House says Bush attended enough training during other months in 1972 to fulfill his service commitment for that year.
1. Bush kept his commitments because he was honorably discharged. This is putting the cart before the horse, my friends. Everyone knows that W was honorably discharged - that is a matter of proven, written (never mysteriously almost-destroyed) record. The issue, rather, is whether this politically well-connected young man of draftable age was given special treatment. No - I take that back. Everyone knows he was given special treatment. The question is whether he looked the gift-horse of National Guard flyer-boy duty square in the mouth and told it to go fuck itself. Coincidentally at or around the time that the Guard instituted mandatory drug-testing. While John Kerry was getting shot at and pulling men out of a jungle river in Vietnam. And still got an honorable discharge (early - no less - so that he could attend HBS).
2. Bush attended "enough training" during other months in 1972 to fulfill his service commitment for that year. This is a new argument, and one worth paying attention to. Specifically, I would like to see commentary from an actual National Guard officer on whether this is satisfactory behavior for a Guardsman who has been ordered to report for duty to a new unit.
Bush wasn't paid = Bush didn't serve
This has been a fast-developing story (for late on the Friday afternoon before the Democratic National Convention), but I appreciate Bob's not taking me up on the offer in my previous post.
I was thinking that if the Pentagon found the documents, that must mean W actually did get paid. But Bob has the better angle: They don't show W getting paid, and that's why they're being released now.
Now, I have as little faith in our national media as the next citizen, but I can't believe we won't see continuing coverage of this story throughout next week. How is W going to respond to this? How is McClellan? There is really no spin that they can give this - it is a given at this point that W did not serve a day of Guard duty in Alabama during that famous summer of '72. They will have to fall back to the next level of defense: That in spite of not serving a day of duty during that summer, W still managed to "fulfill his obligations."
I was thinking that if the Pentagon found the documents, that must mean W actually did get paid. But Bob has the better angle: They don't show W getting paid, and that's why they're being released now.
Now, I have as little faith in our national media as the next citizen, but I can't believe we won't see continuing coverage of this story throughout next week. How is W going to respond to this? How is McClellan? There is really no spin that they can give this - it is a given at this point that W did not serve a day of Guard duty in Alabama during that famous summer of '72. They will have to fall back to the next level of defense: That in spite of not serving a day of duty during that summer, W still managed to "fulfill his obligations."
Pentagon Releases HUGE story at 5:30pm on a Friday before the Democratic National Convention
Remember how earlier the Pentagon said that they couldn't honor a Freedom of Information Act request by the A. P. for Bush's military payroll records in 1972, because they had been accidentally destroyed?
Turns out -- you're going to laugh at this -- that was wrong. They had the payroll records all along! Ooops. So the records have been released. Ummmmm.... but, Bush doesn't seem to have any payroll slips for the summer in question when supposedly he showed up for duty in the Alabama National Guard (that is, while he wasn't helping a friend of his father's campaign in Alabama).
Considering that the Pentagon is a bit of a stickler for paperwork, the absence of any payroll records for Bush can only mean he never showed up.
Turns out -- you're going to laugh at this -- that was wrong. They had the payroll records all along! Ooops. So the records have been released. Ummmmm.... but, Bush doesn't seem to have any payroll slips for the summer in question when supposedly he showed up for duty in the Alabama National Guard (that is, while he wasn't helping a friend of his father's campaign in Alabama).
Considering that the Pentagon is a bit of a stickler for paperwork, the absence of any payroll records for Bush can only mean he never showed up.
Bush pay records found
Reuters story. I guess those formerly lost records weren't really lost so much as misplaced.
How lucky to have found them before Election Day! Who wants to bet they show W getting paid like an honest guardsman?
How lucky to have found them before Election Day! Who wants to bet they show W getting paid like an honest guardsman?
Republicans still not happy; putting even more people out of work
A group of monkey-like, newly-exclusive bipeds took some time out from watching CSI: Miami (see Bob's reference below) to vote in a poll run by Continental Features on whether or not to drop Doonesbury. It wasn't an "overwhelming" vote to drop Doonesbury says Continental Features President Van Wilkerson, but it was "a majority opinion". 38 Continental-produced papers will no longer carry Doonesbury as a result.
The reason for the vote was because Doonsbury created more "controversy" than other comics that Continental carried.
They are currently polling clients to find out if they want to replace it with "Agnes", "Get Fuzzy", "Pickles", "Zits", or something else that is almost, but not quite, as edgy as "The Family Circus".
The reason for the vote was because Doonsbury created more "controversy" than other comics that Continental carried.
They are currently polling clients to find out if they want to replace it with "Agnes", "Get Fuzzy", "Pickles", "Zits", or something else that is almost, but not quite, as edgy as "The Family Circus".
If Re-elected....
Bush is in Detroit, talking to the Urban League, where he is promising that, if re-elected, he will hug one black child every day of his second term. Hugging black children, it turns out, was one of the most successful urban programs of his first term.
Evolution in Action
A monkey in a zoo near Tel Aviv, after having a severe stomach flu, recovered and has since started walking exclusively on two legs. Monkeys usually switch between 2 and 4 legs, but this one no longer is.
The monkey has also recently shown inclinations toward voting Republican, although he still refuses to wear pants and enjoys watching "CSI: Miami". "I'm a Bush supporter," the monkey has been heard to say. Workers speculate the evolutionary step was the result of brain damage during illness.
The monkey has also recently shown inclinations toward voting Republican, although he still refuses to wear pants and enjoys watching "CSI: Miami". "I'm a Bush supporter," the monkey has been heard to say. Workers speculate the evolutionary step was the result of brain damage during illness.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Missed Opportunities
The Senate's 9/11 Commission will release its report in 1 hour -- but already some major chunks of meat have spattered out of the grinder. For one:
they cite 10 missed oppornities which would have avoided the tragedy -- four under Clinton's watch, six under Bush.
Seems the only proper thing to do is to vote both Clinton AND Bush out of office.
they cite 10 missed oppornities which would have avoided the tragedy -- four under Clinton's watch, six under Bush.
Seems the only proper thing to do is to vote both Clinton AND Bush out of office.
Bush Concedes He's Going Down in Defeat
In his usual manner of speaking, Bush conceded that he has no chance at winning the November election.
Latinos and Bush
We've heard the hype: Bush is the Latino's guy. Bush is from Texas -- with a sizable Latino population -- and was strongly backed by them there. He speaks several words of Spanish.
But, if you look at the national Latino vote, it turns out he's only supported by abut 35%.
But, if you look at the national Latino vote, it turns out he's only supported by abut 35%.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
The NYTimes Editorial Board Leaps to Ronstadt's Defense
An editorial decries Ms. Ronstadt's firing.
The firing came because some patrons got up, started shouting, threw drinks, and ripped down posters. Management took the wrong approach: they should have ejected the patrons, says the NYTimes, not Ms. Ronstadt.
Here here.
The firing came because some patrons got up, started shouting, threw drinks, and ripped down posters. Management took the wrong approach: they should have ejected the patrons, says the NYTimes, not Ms. Ronstadt.
Here here.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Damn the Big-Money Party?
We all know how the big-money party is in the pocket of big business, special interest, blah blah blah. The money comes flowing in, the favors go flowing out. So, we take the big club, and smack around those wily Republicans, right?
Well, wrong. For the first time since 1992, the Democrats have out-raised funds during a 6-month period -- $292M vs. $272M.
Well, wrong. For the first time since 1992, the Democrats have out-raised funds during a 6-month period -- $292M vs. $272M.
Republicans Cause Loss of Another Job
Former Clinton Advisor Sandy Berger is under Justice Department investigation for taking documents from the national archive while studying memos he wrote during the Clinton Administration, in preparation for the 9/11 commission. As a result, he's stepped down from being an advisor to John Kerry. Never mind that the documents were copies.
That's three jobs this week. Looks like those Republicans are not happy unless they are putting people out of work.
That's three jobs this week. Looks like those Republicans are not happy unless they are putting people out of work.
Microsoft Cashes Out
Microsoft is shedding its cash. For years, MS has sat on billions in cash -- while many other companies are used to servicing debt -- striking fear in the hearts of start-ups, as the money-man could come in at any time, buy them out, or finance the competing division to wipe them off the map.
They are now going to take their cash hoard and give it directly to shareholders.
No word on if this will take major shareholder Bill Gates from the second richest man in the world (behind the IKEA founder) to the first richest.
They are now going to take their cash hoard and give it directly to shareholders.
No word on if this will take major shareholder Bill Gates from the second richest man in the world (behind the IKEA founder) to the first richest.
Republicans Still Not Happy Unless Someone Is Losing A Job.
Why look -- Linda Ronstandt was ejected from a Casino gig because she referred to Michael Moore as a "great American patriot... spreading the truth" during her on-stage act at Aladdin Las Vegas. She was barred from entering her hotel room, and escorted off the property.
Following on Whoopi's loss of job last week (with Slimfast, division of Unilever) for being unkind to President Bush during a Democratic fundraiser, the beat goes on. Republicans just are not happy unless someone is loosing a job. Ever since the upsurge in jobs changed last August, so that Bush has now only lost the country 2M jobs, the Republicans have to get where the getting is good.
Following on Whoopi's loss of job last week (with Slimfast, division of Unilever) for being unkind to President Bush during a Democratic fundraiser, the beat goes on. Republicans just are not happy unless someone is loosing a job. Ever since the upsurge in jobs changed last August, so that Bush has now only lost the country 2M jobs, the Republicans have to get where the getting is good.
Did the Chinese Authorities Release Dr. Jiang Because They Do Not Understand His Metaphors?
Don't let it be said Comp. Lit is unimportant -- fail to grasp a metaphor, and you could
make an enormous political blunder.
That seems to be the case with the military authority in China which took to "re-educating" Dr. Jiang. According to this NYTimes report: "Dr. Jiang's supporters grew optimistic about the prospects for his release earlier this month. On July 7, two officers from the military's General Logistics Department visited Dr. Jiang's wife, Hua Zhongwei, and informed her that Dr. Jiang had 'shown progress in his thoughts.' Ms. Hua was shown a seven-page statement written by Dr. Jiang that contained reflections that authorities argued were confessional in tone. The doctor, this person said, wrote that he had learned that the 'Communist Party confronted by the student protests was much like a patient with complicated colorectal cancer where, without emergency surgery, death was imminent.' The statement suggests that Dr. Jiang acknowledged the threat the party perceived in the student-led protests. It does not directly endorse the decision to crush dissent."
Ummmmmmmm..... actually, that statment suggests Dr. Jiang diagnoses the Chinese governement with a terminal disease, being eaten up by cancer from the inside. It doesn't imply anything about his regard for the protests -- although he may have regarded the protests as a symptom of the disease, the inevitable outcry of the offended body politic.
Whooopsy.
make an enormous political blunder.
That seems to be the case with the military authority in China which took to "re-educating" Dr. Jiang. According to this NYTimes report: "Dr. Jiang's supporters grew optimistic about the prospects for his release earlier this month. On July 7, two officers from the military's General Logistics Department visited Dr. Jiang's wife, Hua Zhongwei, and informed her that Dr. Jiang had 'shown progress in his thoughts.' Ms. Hua was shown a seven-page statement written by Dr. Jiang that contained reflections that authorities argued were confessional in tone. The doctor, this person said, wrote that he had learned that the 'Communist Party confronted by the student protests was much like a patient with complicated colorectal cancer where, without emergency surgery, death was imminent.' The statement suggests that Dr. Jiang acknowledged the threat the party perceived in the student-led protests. It does not directly endorse the decision to crush dissent."
Ummmmmmmm..... actually, that statment suggests Dr. Jiang diagnoses the Chinese governement with a terminal disease, being eaten up by cancer from the inside. It doesn't imply anything about his regard for the protests -- although he may have regarded the protests as a symptom of the disease, the inevitable outcry of the offended body politic.
Whooopsy.
Chinese Dissident Doctor Jiang Yanyong Released
Reuters reports that China has released Doctor Jiang, held without charge since June 1 because he wrote a letter to the Chinese government calling for them to reassess the 1989 Tinanmen Square protests.
About damned time.
About damned time.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Bush is a Liar
Talking with Derek just now, we came upon what should be a MAJOR Democrat's theme.
Bush is a liar. Iraq, Medicare, Tax Cuts -- you name it, he lies about it. Everything he says -- he just LOOKS like he's lying. "I'll have the cheeseburger." It's a LIE. Look at the face!
Say it. Liar liar liar. It just rolls off the tongue. Get a couple of commercials out there. "I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message. Bush is a liar. George Bush is a liar. He lies to you. He lies."
Show it a couple hundred times on TV. Lying is a moral issue. Show commercials during children's shows. Tell them Bush is a liar, what he lied about. Have them go ask mom and dad who they are voting for, and if it's Bush, why is it okay to lie? "Is it okay for me to lie?" asks the 7 year old girl in pony tails.
Bush wants to make this election about values: okay. He's a liar. Bush values lying.
Bush is a liar. Iraq, Medicare, Tax Cuts -- you name it, he lies about it. Everything he says -- he just LOOKS like he's lying. "I'll have the cheeseburger." It's a LIE. Look at the face!
Say it. Liar liar liar. It just rolls off the tongue. Get a couple of commercials out there. "I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message. Bush is a liar. George Bush is a liar. He lies to you. He lies."
Show it a couple hundred times on TV. Lying is a moral issue. Show commercials during children's shows. Tell them Bush is a liar, what he lied about. Have them go ask mom and dad who they are voting for, and if it's Bush, why is it okay to lie? "Is it okay for me to lie?" asks the 7 year old girl in pony tails.
Bush wants to make this election about values: okay. He's a liar. Bush values lying.
Frist -- Crusader for the Federal Marriage Amendment -- Reverses Himself
Apparently, Bill Frist, only last week leading the fight for an amendment to the US Constitution excluding the possibility of gay marriage or, in some interpretations, even for civil marriages, now says he believes civil unions are within the purview of the states.
Way to go Bill. Thanks for almost enshrining in our constitution a principle you apparently don't believe (this week). What's next week?
Bush To Attack Iran?
Bush is now saying he's going to pursue any terror link in Iran.
Next, we'll hear that "Clearly, Iran knew they were helping terrorists to attack us."
Anyone want to place a bet that Bush attacks Iran prior to the election? Anyone? I'm not offering -- just polling.
Next, we'll hear that "Clearly, Iran knew they were helping terrorists to attack us."
Anyone want to place a bet that Bush attacks Iran prior to the election? Anyone? I'm not offering -- just polling.
Turns out, Scott is just deaf
From a press Briefing by Scott McClellan:
"Q Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.
Q Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?
MR. McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat.
Q There was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the threat.
Q Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.
MR. McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --
Q The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late.
Q So the President doesn't take full responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.
Q Personal responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead."
=======================================
So, when is 'not a threat' actually 'a threat'? When you're Scott McClellan -- and President Bush.
"Q Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.
Q Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?
MR. McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat.
Q There was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the threat.
Q Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.
MR. McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --
Q The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late.
Q So the President doesn't take full responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.
Q Personal responsibility?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead."
=======================================
So, when is 'not a threat' actually 'a threat'? When you're Scott McClellan -- and President Bush.
First Oregon, now Michigan
According to the WaPost, the Michigan Republican Party submitted 40,000 signatures last week to put Ralph Nader on the state ballot for President.
A more cynical electoral strategy, I have never head of in the US. When John Kennedy's father countered his son's opposition in his first congressional run, by putting a third person on the ballot with the same name as the opposition -- at least he lied about it.
It is way past time for Nader to remove himself from this contest.
A more cynical electoral strategy, I have never head of in the US. When John Kennedy's father countered his son's opposition in his first congressional run, by putting a third person on the ballot with the same name as the opposition -- at least he lied about it.
It is way past time for Nader to remove himself from this contest.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Sci-Fi Channel Hoax goes unnoticed.
Apparently nobody gave a flying fig about a hoax-unapproved-documentary about M. Night Shama-lama-ding-dong this Sunday -- made with Night's approval as part of a "guerrilla" marketing campaign for "The Village". So, now they're releasing press releases on it, complete with parent company NBC's stern denials of any knowledge that the Sci-Fi channel had gone so crazy-go-nuts.
Knock yourselves out, guys.
Knock yourselves out, guys.
A Frontal Assault
Robert C. Byrd, a Senator for 45 years was on Meet the Press today, to promote his book "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency".
Byrd calls Bush "A dangerous leader in a dangerous time." Things he doesn't like about Bush: "He doesn't like to answer questions, he doesn't like to like to consult, he doesn't like compromise. He says he governs by instinct. The United States should not have a President who governs by instinct."
He goes on to describe how the Presidency has circumvented separation of powers, and violates the constitution, and has never seen anything like it among the other 10 presidents he served concurrent with.
Byrd calls Bush "A dangerous leader in a dangerous time." Things he doesn't like about Bush: "He doesn't like to answer questions, he doesn't like to like to consult, he doesn't like compromise. He says he governs by instinct. The United States should not have a President who governs by instinct."
He goes on to describe how the Presidency has circumvented separation of powers, and violates the constitution, and has never seen anything like it among the other 10 presidents he served concurrent with.
An Interesting Phenomenon
In this slashdot article, people discuss a problem at Orkut. Orkut is an online community which grew by user invitations (you have to be invited by another user to join). Founded by the folks at Google, it now has 769,000 members. The phenomenon? Over 40% are Brazilian (24% are Americans), so many groups are now speaking in Portuguese.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
The Million Dollar Hotel
When this movie cam out in 2000, I marked it to watch, but it was in and out of the art-house before you could cough. What was strangest about it was that it had huge pedigree: produced by Icon (Mel Gibson's production company), directed by Wim Wenders, written by Bono. Mel Gibson had a major role in it, and it included Milla Jovovich, Jimmy Smits, Peter Stormare and Amanda Plummer. That's not a bad amount of talent behind a film, and I wondered what could be wrong with it to chase it out of the theaters so quickly.
Gibson is an FBI man sent to the eponymous hotel -- a way-past its heyday flophouse in East LA, sheltering mentally ill people too poor to afford medical care. A man -- the son of a wealthy businessman -- had lived there, and jumped/fell of the roof. Gibson was sent to figure out who killed him -- if he was killed. But the film is not so much a whodunnit as a characters film.
Well, I saw it tonight. And it could stand to be re-edited. It ran a long, by about 30 minutes (122 min), dragging quite a bit, thanks to a self-indulgent script. But there were some nic e performances by Jovovich, and the film's star Jeremy Davies (who, nonetheless, manages to be a bit annoying after a while -- again, an editing problem). It's not a blockbuster film, but it's at least as interesting to watch as any other film on the shelf. The film is kind of interesting, because there was very little style in it -- it was almost untouched -- but just enough that it couldn't have been a TV drama.
Gibson is an FBI man sent to the eponymous hotel -- a way-past its heyday flophouse in East LA, sheltering mentally ill people too poor to afford medical care. A man -- the son of a wealthy businessman -- had lived there, and jumped/fell of the roof. Gibson was sent to figure out who killed him -- if he was killed. But the film is not so much a whodunnit as a characters film.
Well, I saw it tonight. And it could stand to be re-edited. It ran a long, by about 30 minutes (122 min), dragging quite a bit, thanks to a self-indulgent script. But there were some nic e performances by Jovovich, and the film's star Jeremy Davies (who, nonetheless, manages to be a bit annoying after a while -- again, an editing problem). It's not a blockbuster film, but it's at least as interesting to watch as any other film on the shelf. The film is kind of interesting, because there was very little style in it -- it was almost untouched -- but just enough that it couldn't have been a TV drama.
Values, man.
This morning David Brooks bitches and bitches about how Kerry says "values" a lot, while Brooks doesn't believe he shares middle-class values. It's typical Brooks screed - whine whine whine about the other guy. Ignoring that the difference between Kerry and Bush here is that Kerry speaks in calm, even tones about his personal beliefs, while Bush pushes Amendments in a Constitutional gang-rape, Abu Ghraib style.
Thomas Frank pointed out that conservatives win this kind of food-fight, because they are willing to lead a fight on questions which rile the blood of people who should vote against them -- whose economic self-interests are not the conservatives'. Because it wins their votes.
This is going to be typical of this election: Republicans will talk values -- because that wins votes of the middle-class people who they impoverish through tax cuts for the wealthy and a suicidal fiscal policy which fueled the loss of 3 million jobs under Bush. Democrats will want to talk about Bush's knife-fight economy, and the national failure of Iraq.
Yesterday -- in an issue off the American radar -- Bush denounced Fidel Castro's government for sex tourism. What Americans does this affect? None -- since the US has had a travel embargo against Cuba for decades. But, it infuriates middle-class people against Castro, and sets Bush up as the "values" candidate. All while Bush raises their taxes and puts them out of work.
The great thing about values as an issue is that it wins you votes -- and scares voters out to vote -- all for an easy afternoon's work, and no new laws passed, no changes in policy needed. What that kind of equation -- why talk about something as complicated as medical insurance or tax law? I mean, other than it's the right thing to do, which our country needs?
Further on the values issue, more states will try to get gay marriage amendments on the Nov ballots. However, most of the states where this is happening (save 1) are already in the Bush column. Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah, already have it on the ballots. Of those, all are "solid Bush" or "likely Bush" states (according to the Cook Report's July 6 Electoral College Scorecard), with 53 electoral college votes between them in the bank (Missouri, with 11 EC votes is a "toss up"). Ohio (20 votes, "toss up") and North Dakota (3 votes, "solid Bush") are still collecting signatures.
The Republicans want to talk values, man.
Thomas Frank pointed out that conservatives win this kind of food-fight, because they are willing to lead a fight on questions which rile the blood of people who should vote against them -- whose economic self-interests are not the conservatives'. Because it wins their votes.
This is going to be typical of this election: Republicans will talk values -- because that wins votes of the middle-class people who they impoverish through tax cuts for the wealthy and a suicidal fiscal policy which fueled the loss of 3 million jobs under Bush. Democrats will want to talk about Bush's knife-fight economy, and the national failure of Iraq.
Yesterday -- in an issue off the American radar -- Bush denounced Fidel Castro's government for sex tourism. What Americans does this affect? None -- since the US has had a travel embargo against Cuba for decades. But, it infuriates middle-class people against Castro, and sets Bush up as the "values" candidate. All while Bush raises their taxes and puts them out of work.
The great thing about values as an issue is that it wins you votes -- and scares voters out to vote -- all for an easy afternoon's work, and no new laws passed, no changes in policy needed. What that kind of equation -- why talk about something as complicated as medical insurance or tax law? I mean, other than it's the right thing to do, which our country needs?
Further on the values issue, more states will try to get gay marriage amendments on the Nov ballots. However, most of the states where this is happening (save 1) are already in the Bush column. Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah, already have it on the ballots. Of those, all are "solid Bush" or "likely Bush" states (according to the Cook Report's July 6 Electoral College Scorecard), with 53 electoral college votes between them in the bank (Missouri, with 11 EC votes is a "toss up"). Ohio (20 votes, "toss up") and North Dakota (3 votes, "solid Bush") are still collecting signatures.
The Republicans want to talk values, man.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Frank on Conservatives
In an OpEd Piece in the NYTimes, Thomas Frank points out that the reason conservatives fight big, noisy, public battles on moral issues in ways they cannot win (Constitutional ammendments on flag burning, public school prayer, gay marriage) is that it attracts attention of poor and working class people who share those values, but whose economic self-interests are directly opposed to those of the conservatives. As Frank (author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?") says:
In this way, the conservatives win votes easily, without *any change* in the way we are governed. They rely on the rational to stop them, scooping up the votes of the many who can understand the simplicity of "gay marriage bad", but who have neither the time nor inclination of finding out that Kerry's medical plan would cover 26.7M of the 44M Americans who are uninsured, while Bush's plan covers only 2.1M and creates a new tax break for the wealthy (at least, according to Krugman).
This implies something horrific to contemplate, and difficult to employ: Democrats must stop seeing these constitutional amendment battles as an opportunity to stand up for values, and instead as a strategy for votes from people who -- on economic grounds -- should be voting Democrat.
It's either that, or figure out how to make tax law and medical insurance a viscerally important issue.
Losing is prima facie evidence that the basic conservative claim is true: that the country is run by liberals; that the world is unfair; that the majority is persecuted by a sinister elite. And that therefore you, my red-state friend, had better get out there and vote as if your civilization depended on it.
In this way, the conservatives win votes easily, without *any change* in the way we are governed. They rely on the rational to stop them, scooping up the votes of the many who can understand the simplicity of "gay marriage bad", but who have neither the time nor inclination of finding out that Kerry's medical plan would cover 26.7M of the 44M Americans who are uninsured, while Bush's plan covers only 2.1M and creates a new tax break for the wealthy (at least, according to Krugman).
This implies something horrific to contemplate, and difficult to employ: Democrats must stop seeing these constitutional amendment battles as an opportunity to stand up for values, and instead as a strategy for votes from people who -- on economic grounds -- should be voting Democrat.
It's either that, or figure out how to make tax law and medical insurance a viscerally important issue.
Allawi really does "annihilate" the insurgents
Just days before Iyad Allawi was made Prime Minister, people witnessed him executing suspects at a Baghdad police station.
Slaves to the Man.
The New York Times > Education > The National Labor Relations Board says that graduate students at private universities have no right to unionize.
I have no idea when a union should, or should not, exist --- as a theoretical ethical question. However, as an economic and political question, unions seem to exist when:
a) there is significant threat that an individual laborer can be singled out for mistreatment by management, in a way in which all laborers of the same class can be mistreated (so the mistreatment of one threatens mistreatment of all);
b) or, the entire class of laborers are treated equally poorly, and can be replaced singly (if they object) but not as a whole (i.e. laborers are a commodity with a definable marginal cost of replacement).
In other words, unions are simply a method of power politics -- like armies and political parties.
If graduate students seek power politics to improve their position, it says nothing bad about the graduate students, but it says something important about higher education. Colleges have largely -- over the last 50 years -- become homogenized and commodified. The benefits of taking statistical mechanics at Harvard are not so great over taking statistical mechanics at, say, University of Vermont. It's like high school -- same text books everywhere, same education everywhere.
What should alarm administrators is not that the graudate students have almost succeeded in unionizing (and I predict they will finally succeed, on short order; say, <10 years), but that they are asking for it at all. As Marx said, this occurs when workers recoginze their commonality. The universities where this happens are those where there is little differentiation between what they have to offer and others have to offer. Graduate students -- very reasonably -- have perceived and expressed that they are no longer the unique and annointed successor generation of academics, they are hired like cannon fodder to deal with the massive teaching load inexpensively. This teaching is not central to their own education -- it is just cheap, available labor for hire.
There used to be "Harvard men" (and women) as they used to be called. Having attended a specific university used to single one out as a specific type of person. That kind of branding still exists in diminished form, and in some places, it is enormously diminished.
That is usually a step which occurs just prior to industry consolidation. So, is graduate student unionization a harbinger for university consolidation? I argue it would be, if there were economic benefits to scaling operations and obtaining geographic diversity (i.e. consolidating University of Virginia with USC would benefit both only if one could centralize administration; but I don't think that's possible).
I have no idea when a union should, or should not, exist --- as a theoretical ethical question. However, as an economic and political question, unions seem to exist when:
a) there is significant threat that an individual laborer can be singled out for mistreatment by management, in a way in which all laborers of the same class can be mistreated (so the mistreatment of one threatens mistreatment of all);
b) or, the entire class of laborers are treated equally poorly, and can be replaced singly (if they object) but not as a whole (i.e. laborers are a commodity with a definable marginal cost of replacement).
In other words, unions are simply a method of power politics -- like armies and political parties.
If graduate students seek power politics to improve their position, it says nothing bad about the graduate students, but it says something important about higher education. Colleges have largely -- over the last 50 years -- become homogenized and commodified. The benefits of taking statistical mechanics at Harvard are not so great over taking statistical mechanics at, say, University of Vermont. It's like high school -- same text books everywhere, same education everywhere.
What should alarm administrators is not that the graudate students have almost succeeded in unionizing (and I predict they will finally succeed, on short order; say, <10 years), but that they are asking for it at all. As Marx said, this occurs when workers recoginze their commonality. The universities where this happens are those where there is little differentiation between what they have to offer and others have to offer. Graduate students -- very reasonably -- have perceived and expressed that they are no longer the unique and annointed successor generation of academics, they are hired like cannon fodder to deal with the massive teaching load inexpensively. This teaching is not central to their own education -- it is just cheap, available labor for hire.
There used to be "Harvard men" (and women) as they used to be called. Having attended a specific university used to single one out as a specific type of person. That kind of branding still exists in diminished form, and in some places, it is enormously diminished.
That is usually a step which occurs just prior to industry consolidation. So, is graduate student unionization a harbinger for university consolidation? I argue it would be, if there were economic benefits to scaling operations and obtaining geographic diversity (i.e. consolidating University of Virginia with USC would benefit both only if one could centralize administration; but I don't think that's possible).
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Bush Twins Pix
The Washington Post carried it as a "news" item. Bob provided some excellent contextual commentary.
So I guess it's left to me to bring you the actual pictures.
If you want to debate the burning question of how they rate vis-a-vis the Kerry daughters though, I'm afraid, you'll have to head over to a different blog entirely.
So I guess it's left to me to bring you the actual pictures.
If you want to debate the burning question of how they rate vis-a-vis the Kerry daughters though, I'm afraid, you'll have to head over to a different blog entirely.
Anything to be President
Don't let it be said Bush isn't pulling out the stops. To get some sort of connection to young voters, Bush is whoring out his daughters who appear in a Vogue fashion shoot this month. Draped over couches in ball gowns, the girls had previously promised to "do something for the campaign."
Oh, I'm sure they'll be handed a script at some point. But let's be specific: the purpose behind parading presidential families is to provide a point of identification and fantasy projection for prospective voters. Young voting women are meant to look at the Vogue shoots, drool over the dresses, the surroundings, and see themselves aspirationally; voting men are meant to drool at the Presidential daughters-cum-Maxim models in gravity-defying strapless numbers.
When was the last time a president used his big, chesty daughters for re-election?
Oh, I'm sure they'll be handed a script at some point. But let's be specific: the purpose behind parading presidential families is to provide a point of identification and fantasy projection for prospective voters. Young voting women are meant to look at the Vogue shoots, drool over the dresses, the surroundings, and see themselves aspirationally; voting men are meant to drool at the Presidential daughters-cum-Maxim models in gravity-defying strapless numbers.
When was the last time a president used his big, chesty daughters for re-election?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Cheney-Nigerian Scandal Story About To Blow
We've been hitting on the Nigerian Scandal quite a bit. If you want the main details, read the 400 websites which come up from the Google Search for Cheney and "Jeffrey Tesler" .
The brief: Nigeria awarded a $6B contract to build a natural gas plant to a consortium led by Halliburton in 1999 (Cheney was CEO 1995-2000). As part of the deal, part of that ($180M) was paid as a "finder's fee" to Jeffrey Tesler, an English Lawyer. Tesler has now testified under oath to a French investigative magistrate that he paid $5M to a Halliburton Executive Albert Stanley (into a numbered Zurich account) with the personal approval of Dick Cheney. Thus, France is about to indict him for misuse of company funds and bribery of foreign officials (see below). On June 18, the SEC -- finally realizing they were going to look stupid and biased --- opened an investigation on Cheney's actions while he was CEO at Halliburton (it was this that Sen. Patrick Leahy was joshing about with Cheney when Cheney told him to commit an anatomical impossibility).
Who's Tesler? He's been a consultant to Halliburton for 30 years, and, more importantly, a 'financial advisor' to Nigerian Dictator Sani Abacha (who died at the age of 54 in 1998 due to a Viagra-induced heart failure while in the company of Indian prostitutes). Germany has just charged him with taking a "finders fee" from Germany company Julius Berger -- for getting them a multi-billion dollar contract building roads and gov't buildings in Nigeria, for no work. In short: Tesler is the Nigerian power-structure's bagman, taking the kickback cash, managing it in Swiss accounts, and distributing it as convenient to his people. So, question for Halliburton: What work has Tesler been doing for them for 30 years, how much have they paid him, and how much in finders fees has he been paid for Halliburton contracts? And since it's obvious that he is doing the kickbacks, how is it that Halliburton's CEO Cheney approved the $180M payment to him in 1999, since that would violate US laws against bribing foreign officials?
Finally, this story is about to break big. Cheney is going to step down as the VP candidate in 2004. Who is it going to go to? Obviously: Colin Powell. Look for the announcement just prior or during the Democratic Convention. Like I predicted back in January (although in February I did say he killed his chance by saying he didn't know if he would have supported the Iraq war if there were no WMD.
The brief: Nigeria awarded a $6B contract to build a natural gas plant to a consortium led by Halliburton in 1999 (Cheney was CEO 1995-2000). As part of the deal, part of that ($180M) was paid as a "finder's fee" to Jeffrey Tesler, an English Lawyer. Tesler has now testified under oath to a French investigative magistrate that he paid $5M to a Halliburton Executive Albert Stanley (into a numbered Zurich account) with the personal approval of Dick Cheney. Thus, France is about to indict him for misuse of company funds and bribery of foreign officials (see below). On June 18, the SEC -- finally realizing they were going to look stupid and biased --- opened an investigation on Cheney's actions while he was CEO at Halliburton (it was this that Sen. Patrick Leahy was joshing about with Cheney when Cheney told him to commit an anatomical impossibility).
Who's Tesler? He's been a consultant to Halliburton for 30 years, and, more importantly, a 'financial advisor' to Nigerian Dictator Sani Abacha (who died at the age of 54 in 1998 due to a Viagra-induced heart failure while in the company of Indian prostitutes). Germany has just charged him with taking a "finders fee" from Germany company Julius Berger -- for getting them a multi-billion dollar contract building roads and gov't buildings in Nigeria, for no work. In short: Tesler is the Nigerian power-structure's bagman, taking the kickback cash, managing it in Swiss accounts, and distributing it as convenient to his people. So, question for Halliburton: What work has Tesler been doing for them for 30 years, how much have they paid him, and how much in finders fees has he been paid for Halliburton contracts? And since it's obvious that he is doing the kickbacks, how is it that Halliburton's CEO Cheney approved the $180M payment to him in 1999, since that would violate US laws against bribing foreign officials?
Finally, this story is about to break big. Cheney is going to step down as the VP candidate in 2004. Who is it going to go to? Obviously: Colin Powell. Look for the announcement just prior or during the Democratic Convention. Like I predicted back in January (although in February I did say he killed his chance by saying he didn't know if he would have supported the Iraq war if there were no WMD.
London Lawyer says Cheney Approved $5M in Kickbacks to Haliburton Executive
Further to Steve's point below , you'll recall that the kickback funds of $180M, in the Swiss bank account filled up by the Nigerian government , were controlled by London-based lawyer Jeffrey Tesler.
Tesler testified under oath in May to the investigating French magistrate, as reported in this Capital Blue article, that the $5M payment to Haliburton KBR executive Albert Stanley was personally approved by Dick Cheney, while Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. Cheney had approved the $6B Haliburton KBR contract in 1999, which resulted in the creation of the $180M kickback fund.
The SEC opened an investigation June 18 -- the day that Haliburton announced it is "severing all ties" with Stanley due to his illegal activities.
Oh, by the way, it was about these activities that Sen. Patrick Leahy was asking Cheney about on the Senate floor, when Cheney instructed Leahy to commit an anatomical impossibility.
Our Vice President, thus, is close to being indicted in France for bribery; and is under investigation for these same activities in the US. Why isn't this stuff being reported by our press? Why do we only hear that he swears like a sailor, rather than what he was swearing about?
Tesler testified under oath in May to the investigating French magistrate, as reported in this Capital Blue article, that the $5M payment to Haliburton KBR executive Albert Stanley was personally approved by Dick Cheney, while Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. Cheney had approved the $6B Haliburton KBR contract in 1999, which resulted in the creation of the $180M kickback fund.
The SEC opened an investigation June 18 -- the day that Haliburton announced it is "severing all ties" with Stanley due to his illegal activities.
Oh, by the way, it was about these activities that Sen. Patrick Leahy was asking Cheney about on the Senate floor, when Cheney instructed Leahy to commit an anatomical impossibility.
Our Vice President, thus, is close to being indicted in France for bribery; and is under investigation for these same activities in the US. Why isn't this stuff being reported by our press? Why do we only hear that he swears like a sailor, rather than what he was swearing about?
Federal Marriage Amendment Dies its First Death
A vote for cloture failed on the Senate floor, meaning that the proposed amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage is effectively filibustered.
Here is the information about this bill from the Senate's website. There were 19 co-sponsors including some famous names, like: Elizabeth Dole, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Trent Lott, Zell Miller, Rick Santorum, and Jeff Sessions. The text of the now dead amendment (for this year) read:
These co-sponsors, and their attempt here, will be remembered for at least a generation, as attempting to write their prejudices into the Constitution. It is as embarrassing to the country as Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat racism.
Here is the information about this bill from the Senate's website. There were 19 co-sponsors including some famous names, like: Elizabeth Dole, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Trent Lott, Zell Miller, Rick Santorum, and Jeff Sessions. The text of the now dead amendment (for this year) read:
`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'
These co-sponsors, and their attempt here, will be remembered for at least a generation, as attempting to write their prejudices into the Constitution. It is as embarrassing to the country as Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat racism.
Hatch Ignorant of History
In this wire story on the Federal Marriage Amendment -- the constitutional amendment going down to defeat in the Senate this morning, which would ban marriage between two people of the same sex -- we hear: "'I don't know of a more important debate in our country's history,' said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican.
Orrin, here's a few:
So, there's four.
The hyperbole is astronomical.
Orrin, here's a few:
- Slavery.
- Whether women are humans or property, and therefore have human rights, like the right to vote.
- Wars. Like, whether or not sending our best young people off to die by the hundreds -- or hundreds of thousands, like Vietnam -- is justified. I think that's a pretty important debate.
- The color of the tapestries in the Senate chambers.
So, there's four.
The hyperbole is astronomical.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Bush to Cheney: "Fuck 'em all"
In a follow-up to Bob's posting, Dick Cheney is facing indictment in France for criminal activities while CEO of Halliburton and for paying bribes to Nigerian officials to secure a $6 billion bid for a petrochemical plant.
On June 18th, the SEC formally opened an investigation against Halliburton for funnelling $180 million into a slush fund to pay bribes.
Jeffrey Tesler, a consultant to Halliburton, admitted under oath to a Frech magistrate that at least $5 million in payments to Jack Stanley were personally approved by Cheney. These were "commissions" of 3 percent of the deal from the the slush fund.
I think some of Bob's questions can now be answered: Who made the $5M payment? Cheney. Why? Bribes.
At the very least, it is looking like we are going to have a one-term Vice-President.
On June 18th, the SEC formally opened an investigation against Halliburton for funnelling $180 million into a slush fund to pay bribes.
Jeffrey Tesler, a consultant to Halliburton, admitted under oath to a Frech magistrate that at least $5 million in payments to Jack Stanley were personally approved by Cheney. These were "commissions" of 3 percent of the deal from the the slush fund.
I think some of Bob's questions can now be answered: Who made the $5M payment? Cheney. Why? Bribes.
At the very least, it is looking like we are going to have a one-term Vice-President.
Bush to screw with elections
Election postponement does not necessarily violate the Constitution. The Constitution has no guarantee for a presidential vote, because it is presidential electors, and not the general population that selects the president. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was selected as the date (for various reasons) in 1845 for actually selecting the electors who vote for President. The method for Electors to select the President and Vice President are set down in the 12th Amendment.
The only limitations in the Constitution is the term (4 years set in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1). Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 states that Congress determines the time of choosing the Electors. The time of selecting Senators and Representatives are prescribed by the Legislature of each State (Article 1, Sec 3, Clause 7).
Certainly, a Constitutional crisis would occur if Bush held office beyond January 20th, 2005, but there is NOTHING in the constitution which gives you or I the right to select the President. If Bush decided to postpone the elections, constitutionally there is no recourse. Given that the White House doesn't feel particularly compelled to actually follow law when set down, I have no doubts that they'll use a heightened terror alert (Ernie or even Elmo) as an excuse to hold off elections. The FUD generated by that event will almost certainly earn Bush the White House for another 4 years.
I'm taking bets now that the elections DO NOT OCCUR on the first Tuesday after the first Monday this year. Pro: me, con: you. The bet is one luxury caffeinated beverage. Any takers?
The only limitations in the Constitution is the term (4 years set in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1). Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 states that Congress determines the time of choosing the Electors. The time of selecting Senators and Representatives are prescribed by the Legislature of each State (Article 1, Sec 3, Clause 7).
Certainly, a Constitutional crisis would occur if Bush held office beyond January 20th, 2005, but there is NOTHING in the constitution which gives you or I the right to select the President. If Bush decided to postpone the elections, constitutionally there is no recourse. Given that the White House doesn't feel particularly compelled to actually follow law when set down, I have no doubts that they'll use a heightened terror alert (Ernie or even Elmo) as an excuse to hold off elections. The FUD generated by that event will almost certainly earn Bush the White House for another 4 years.
I'm taking bets now that the elections DO NOT OCCUR on the first Tuesday after the first Monday this year. Pro: me, con: you. The bet is one luxury caffeinated beverage. Any takers?
Monday, July 12, 2004
Will the Bush Administration Provoke a Constitutional Crisis?
Seeing that the Bush Administration is looking into what it would need to legally justify and carry out delaying the November elections, the question is raised: why do we let the Bush administration bend laws so far that they effectively rip up the constitution? The claim that "people were instructed not to break the law", as Bush stated when confronted with evidence his administration permit torture in Gitmo and Abu Grhaib, rings hollow when his administration is clearly breaking the law -- such as denying Americans rights to habeas corpus. To Bush, the law is whatever they can get away with without being reigned in.
And it's not even clear what they consider "being reigned in" is. Sure, when an enraged electorate got whiff of torture in Gitmo, they backtracked -- but we are now 2 weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo prisoners have rights of habeas corpus, and the Administration has still not stated they will comply with the ruling.
The Bush Administration is not playing by the rules -- the rules being our Constitution. They have already violated fundamental rights. If they intend to move on to a massive violation of citizens' rights -- suspending our constitutional Democracy, a nice exercise which put Hitler in power earlier last century -- they have another thing coming.
And it's not even clear what they consider "being reigned in" is. Sure, when an enraged electorate got whiff of torture in Gitmo, they backtracked -- but we are now 2 weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo prisoners have rights of habeas corpus, and the Administration has still not stated they will comply with the ruling.
The Bush Administration is not playing by the rules -- the rules being our Constitution. They have already violated fundamental rights. If they intend to move on to a massive violation of citizens' rights -- suspending our constitutional Democracy, a nice exercise which put Hitler in power earlier last century -- they have another thing coming.
This seems odd.
This Canadian citizen, 21-year old Abdurahman Khadr, had been taken by his family to live in Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan in the 90's. Captured by Americans, he was taken to Guantanamo, and freed -- he claims -- to act as a US spy in Bosnia. If true, then camp X-ray could have been used as a means to press Afghan fighters into service on the US side.
Khadr is in the press today in this Globe and Mail article because the government has invoked a rarely used power tied to the Monarchy to deny Khadr and his family a Canadian passport.
Khadr is in the press today in this Globe and Mail article because the government has invoked a rarely used power tied to the Monarchy to deny Khadr and his family a Canadian passport.
What Did DeLay Do Wrong?
Tom DeLay has been charged by a Texas Congressman with ethics violations. Why? It's complicated. DeLay raised money from corporate donors for his PAC -- Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) -- telling the donors it would be used for the recent (successful) Texas House elections, taking the first Republican majority in Texas in 130 years (recall, this election was immediately followed by the unusual redistricting effort in Texas, which will strip 5 Texas Dems of their Congressional seats come November). What's wrong with that? It's illegal in Texas for corporate donations to be used for state offices.
Did TRMPAC spend the money? Well, not exactly: they sent a blank check to their parent organization (Americans for a Republican Majority), which filled it in for $190K, and then sent seven smaller checks off to the Republican campaigns of seven Texas House candidates.
All this according to this WaPost article.
Did TRMPAC spend the money? Well, not exactly: they sent a blank check to their parent organization (Americans for a Republican Majority), which filled it in for $190K, and then sent seven smaller checks off to the Republican campaigns of seven Texas House candidates.
All this according to this WaPost article.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
The Insidious Threat to Western Civilization
A major security threat -- unnoticed by the Administration, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and which even was not noted by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- threatens to undermine our civilization. Garfield: The Movie has grossed $67M in just five weeks of release, all but insuring a sequel. Can our nation -- can our world -- stand to two of these movies? What does Bush intend to do to stop it? Remember, Bush's inaction gave us the first Garfield movie -- why should we trust him and Cheney to stand against this new threat, when they failed to stop the first one?
A Little Death
Here, we have the NYTimes OpEd account of a 19-year old translator -- Hyder Akbar, a Bay-Area native born son of an Afghan governor -- for an Afghan native who was later beaten to death by a CIA contractor.
Sounds like it was all one big misunderstanding. He turned himself in, wanted for questioning, to the translator's father.
During questioning, the CIA contractor convicted of his murder became enraged, seemingly due to the Afghan's poor relationship with a calendar meant he couldn't account for his whereabouts 2-3 weeks prior.
The interrogation Hydar Akbar witnessed is also described by him in Episode 254 (Dec 12 2003) of This American Life .
Sounds like it was all one big misunderstanding. He turned himself in, wanted for questioning, to the translator's father.
During questioning, the CIA contractor convicted of his murder became enraged, seemingly due to the Afghan's poor relationship with a calendar meant he couldn't account for his whereabouts 2-3 weeks prior.
The interrogation Hydar Akbar witnessed is also described by him in Episode 254 (Dec 12 2003) of This American Life .
Friday, July 09, 2004
Bush military pay records "inadvertently destroyed"
If you made this stuff up, people would call you loony. But it's true!
This discovery put together with Tom Ridge's warning of a major impending Al Qaeda attack, on the very day the House of Representatives was asked to affirm its support for the USA PATRIOT act, has put me in a really paranoid frame of mind.
Paging Michael Moore: Was that agreement with Lion's Gate a multi-picture deal, or are you still looking for distribution on that sequel?
This discovery put together with Tom Ridge's warning of a major impending Al Qaeda attack, on the very day the House of Representatives was asked to affirm its support for the USA PATRIOT act, has put me in a really paranoid frame of mind.
Paging Michael Moore: Was that agreement with Lion's Gate a multi-picture deal, or are you still looking for distribution on that sequel?
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Prudential Planning
Given all this terrorist chatter about impending big attacks, aimed as close to the elections as possible, you have to figure it would only be prudent to go to an Orange Alert Level (=Ernie) near the end of October.
Oh yeah, and maybe during the Democratic National Convention, as well.
Those crafty terrorists sure know how to manipulate our political system, don't they?
Oh yeah, and maybe during the Democratic National Convention, as well.
Those crafty terrorists sure know how to manipulate our political system, don't they?
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
F9/11 Pros and Cons
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last week, and agree with my fellow 13Ders that it is a must-see. Some thoughts:
In other words, the answer to the question, "What else could the President have done during those seven minutes?" is this: "Get in touch with his counter-terrorism team in the White House situation room and grant the Air Force shoot-down authority for commercial airliners threatening civilian targets." With a sufficiently rapid response, this could have prevented the potential attack of the fourth plane, and any attacks from whatever other planes might also have been hijacked that morning (as many as 12, in Osama's initial plans). Because remember, at the time that our President was listening to the recitation of "My Pet Goat" in a Florida kindergarten, no one had any idea how many hijacked planes there were or might be.
- The $1.4 billion figure reflects investments in firms associated with Bush & Co, not income. I do not believe it is fair to compare that figure (due to Craig Unger) to the income derived from being President.
- I do not believe one has to appeal to sinister motives to understand why Saudis would invest in Texas oil companies. Oil is obviously a market they feel competent in.
- I do not believe the Saudis - much less Bush & Co. - stood to gain from the 9/11 attacks. I do not even believe it makes sense to believe this.
- Richard Clarke personally approved the escape flights for the Saudis; Moore references a WaPo article citing "White House approval" but there is no evidence it rose higher than Clarke.
- In general, I believe that Moore has been flat-out inconsistent, if not disingenuous, on the question of whether we should have invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.
- I believe that our President is in over his head (see also this post).
- I believe that this is demonstrated irrefutably by the seven minutes our President spent reading "My Pet Goat" after he was informed that the nation was "under attack."
- I fully credit Moore with bringing the President's utter lack of preparation or capacity for his job to the attention of a broader public.
In other words, the answer to the question, "What else could the President have done during those seven minutes?" is this: "Get in touch with his counter-terrorism team in the White House situation room and grant the Air Force shoot-down authority for commercial airliners threatening civilian targets." With a sufficiently rapid response, this could have prevented the potential attack of the fourth plane, and any attacks from whatever other planes might also have been hijacked that morning (as many as 12, in Osama's initial plans). Because remember, at the time that our President was listening to the recitation of "My Pet Goat" in a Florida kindergarten, no one had any idea how many hijacked planes there were or might be.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Monday, July 05, 2004
Can you hear Rice now?
I can hear Condoleezza Rice now:
"Dr. Rice, wasn't the President briefed on the fact that family members of Iraqi scientists reported that the program for WMD in Iraq had been abandoned?"
"Senator, there might have been a briefing on that, but it was old intelligence -- just a rehash of interviews with a few relatives."
"And what was the title of that briefing?"
"Senator, I think the title might have been: Program of Weapons of Mass Destruction Abandoned by Iraq, but I -- "
"And Dr. Rice, isn't it also true that you, for years, had an intimate relationship with former Astronaut Sally Ride, while you were provost at Stanford University?"
"-- No, wait Senator, I'd like to finish answering the first question. And I don't see what my personal life has to do with the subject of these hearings."
"Well Dr. Rice, as far as the Senate Intelligence Committee's view goes, it's nobody's business what anybody's sexual orientation is -- unless you're a celebrity, in which case it's dish! dish! dish!"
"Dr. Rice, wasn't the President briefed on the fact that family members of Iraqi scientists reported that the program for WMD in Iraq had been abandoned?"
"Senator, there might have been a briefing on that, but it was old intelligence -- just a rehash of interviews with a few relatives."
"And what was the title of that briefing?"
"Senator, I think the title might have been: Program of Weapons of Mass Destruction Abandoned by Iraq, but I -- "
"And Dr. Rice, isn't it also true that you, for years, had an intimate relationship with former Astronaut Sally Ride, while you were provost at Stanford University?"
"-- No, wait Senator, I'd like to finish answering the first question. And I don't see what my personal life has to do with the subject of these hearings."
"Well Dr. Rice, as far as the Senate Intelligence Committee's view goes, it's nobody's business what anybody's sexual orientation is -- unless you're a celebrity, in which case it's dish! dish! dish!"
Rice On Chinese Political Prisoner: What Political Prisoner?
Condoleezza Rice is heading to China July 8-9, to talk about North Korea.
No word on why now, while China has imprisoned Dr. Jiang (see below) for over a month for writing a letter to party leaders asking them to take responsibility for the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. Who's holding him (again, see below)? Arrested by the highest military command in China, he is now under the control of high party officials -- not even *formally* arrested or charged.
I mean, people, it was a letter. Must have been a hell of a letter.
Which reminds me, I need to write my parents.
No word on why now, while China has imprisoned Dr. Jiang (see below) for over a month for writing a letter to party leaders asking them to take responsibility for the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. Who's holding him (again, see below)? Arrested by the highest military command in China, he is now under the control of high party officials -- not even *formally* arrested or charged.
I mean, people, it was a letter. Must have been a hell of a letter.
Which reminds me, I need to write my parents.
The Chinese Government is Asks For it.
A man regarded as a national hero in China -- Jiang Yanyong -- has been detained since June 1 (one month) in a brainwashing camp at the orders of the China's supreme military body with the consent of the party's most senior leaders. He's a hero becaue he forced -- through moral will -- the Chinese government to go public about the SARS epidemic. He's imprisoned and being brainwashed because he wrote a letter to the party's leadership urging them to admit the 1989 Tiananmen massacre was wrong.
[WaPost Article]. From the article: "One senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was broad support for Jiang even within the party and that it will be increasingly difficult for the leadership to hold him as news of his detention spreads. 'I consider him a man of honesty and courage,' he said. 'Ninety-nine percent of the people support him.'"
It sounds like they've imprisoned Tom Hanks for saying what everyone knows to be true. Do they expect their billion population to let it ride?
[WaPost Article]. From the article: "One senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was broad support for Jiang even within the party and that it will be increasingly difficult for the leadership to hold him as news of his detention spreads. 'I consider him a man of honesty and courage,' he said. 'Ninety-nine percent of the people support him.'"
It sounds like they've imprisoned Tom Hanks for saying what everyone knows to be true. Do they expect their billion population to let it ride?
Nader Makes Goofball Statements
I used to give Nader credit for being willing and able to believe so strongly in his left-wing positions to stand for them in a Presidential election, but
not any more.
Nader has become willfully blind to the fact that he is being helped onto ballots in places such as Oregon by conservative groups -- whose help he gleefully accepts -- which state openly that their purpose is to bleed votes from Kerry.
He is now also saying that Democrats who want him to drop out are "afraid of Democracy."
Hold on. This means Nader doesn't understand the calculus of voting. If candidate Tush had 48% of the vote and candidate Berry had 52%, then Berry wins, with support of more than half the people. If Tush gets his buddies to financially support candidate Spader, who is similar enough to Berry to pull 5% of the vote from him, then Tush takes it -- even though Tush had less than half the country behind him. That's not a fair exercise of democracy, that's a trick of the ballot box to deprive the country's majority of a leader they are behind. This exactly, for example, how John F. Kennedy's dad got him elected to the House the first time (in Boston's Irish/Italian race politics, Kennedy pere funded a third opponent with the same name as Kennedy's competition, and split the vote).
And just because that's the way the system works, and we have the opportunity to change it (yeah, right), doesn't mean we should admire or back those who manipulate it -- such as Nader is now doing.
The simple fact is, polls show Kerry with a landslide if Nader is out of it, and neck-and-neck if Nader is in. Nader is no where near winning, and it's time for him to acknowledge that his staying in the race will give us 4 more years of constitutional-shredding Bush leadership, and get out of the race.
not any more.
Nader has become willfully blind to the fact that he is being helped onto ballots in places such as Oregon by conservative groups -- whose help he gleefully accepts -- which state openly that their purpose is to bleed votes from Kerry.
He is now also saying that Democrats who want him to drop out are "afraid of Democracy."
Hold on. This means Nader doesn't understand the calculus of voting. If candidate Tush had 48% of the vote and candidate Berry had 52%, then Berry wins, with support of more than half the people. If Tush gets his buddies to financially support candidate Spader, who is similar enough to Berry to pull 5% of the vote from him, then Tush takes it -- even though Tush had less than half the country behind him. That's not a fair exercise of democracy, that's a trick of the ballot box to deprive the country's majority of a leader they are behind. This exactly, for example, how John F. Kennedy's dad got him elected to the House the first time (in Boston's Irish/Italian race politics, Kennedy pere funded a third opponent with the same name as Kennedy's competition, and split the vote).
And just because that's the way the system works, and we have the opportunity to change it (yeah, right), doesn't mean we should admire or back those who manipulate it -- such as Nader is now doing.
The simple fact is, polls show Kerry with a landslide if Nader is out of it, and neck-and-neck if Nader is in. Nader is no where near winning, and it's time for him to acknowledge that his staying in the race will give us 4 more years of constitutional-shredding Bush leadership, and get out of the race.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Toppling of Saddam statue staged
The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that the "Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue."
Kudos to the mainstream US media for finally "uncovering" what we knew about over a year ago.
Kudos to the mainstream US media for finally "uncovering" what we knew about over a year ago.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Marlon Brando is Dead at 80
NYTimes Obituary Here. If you don't think this is a big deal, go see a few movies made before "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront". And think about having to watch THAT now.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Spiderman 2 > Spiderman 1
After going to the A's game on Tuesday night, I took a detour on the way home to catch the midnight showing of Spiderman 2. While watching the opening credits, I saw the name of the screenplay writer: Michael Chabon. It appears that since computer effects don't cost as much as they did 3 years ago, they can splurge on story and content once again.
Spiderman 1 was a decent movie for considering it was a blockbuster (blockbusters usually meaning great effects, mediocre story), but Spiderman 2 far surpassed its predecessor. Great story, comical moments, moments of indecision, and touching at points which make Spiderman appear more human than superhuman. These are areas not normally covered in other superhero movies (except maybe the scene where the cat licks Wolverine's claw in X2).
Bottom line: go see it. It will be well worth your time.
Spiderman 1 was a decent movie for considering it was a blockbuster (blockbusters usually meaning great effects, mediocre story), but Spiderman 2 far surpassed its predecessor. Great story, comical moments, moments of indecision, and touching at points which make Spiderman appear more human than superhuman. These are areas not normally covered in other superhero movies (except maybe the scene where the cat licks Wolverine's claw in X2).
Bottom line: go see it. It will be well worth your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)