Playing Politics
from CNN, Clarke bats down the notion that his book was timed to coincide with the election season:
"Clarke said it was the White House itself that was responsible for the book's timing.
'I wrote the book as soon as I retired from government,' Clarke said. 'It was finished last fall. And it sat in the White House for months because as a former White House official, my book has to be reviewed by the White House for security purposes.'
'They're saying, 'Why is the book coming out at the beginning of the election?'' Clarke said. 'I didn't want it to come out at the beginning of the election. I wanted it to come out last year. They're the reason, because they took so long to clear it.'"
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Monday, March 22, 2004
Explanations we can understand
from the WSJ (sub. may be required):
"Shortly after a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers raced back to the military headquarters from a meeting on Capitol Hill. The four-star general, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that day, went directly to the Pentagon's command center. With smoke spreading into the cavernous room, he ordered the officer in charge, Maj. Gen. W. Montague Winfield, to raise the military's alert status to Defcon III, the highest state of readiness since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. . . . In the months after Sept. 11, President Bush had a different public explanation about who put the military on high alert. The president said publicly at least twice that he gave the order. During a town-hall meeting in Orlando on Dec. 4, 2001, Mr. Bush said that after the attacks, "one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."
Regarding Mr. Bush's statements that he had ordered troops to a higher alert status himself, Mr. Bartlett (White House Communications Director) said the president provided a 'description that the public could understand' and spoke in 'broad strokes.'"
"I did" is pretty hard to understand, he's right. I had to look it up. I wonder what they would have done to Al Gore if he had spoken in such "broad strokes."
from the WSJ (sub. may be required):
"Shortly after a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers raced back to the military headquarters from a meeting on Capitol Hill. The four-star general, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that day, went directly to the Pentagon's command center. With smoke spreading into the cavernous room, he ordered the officer in charge, Maj. Gen. W. Montague Winfield, to raise the military's alert status to Defcon III, the highest state of readiness since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. . . . In the months after Sept. 11, President Bush had a different public explanation about who put the military on high alert. The president said publicly at least twice that he gave the order. During a town-hall meeting in Orlando on Dec. 4, 2001, Mr. Bush said that after the attacks, "one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."
Regarding Mr. Bush's statements that he had ordered troops to a higher alert status himself, Mr. Bartlett (White House Communications Director) said the president provided a 'description that the public could understand' and spoke in 'broad strokes.'"
"I did" is pretty hard to understand, he's right. I had to look it up. I wonder what they would have done to Al Gore if he had spoken in such "broad strokes."
Burden of Proof
If Richard Clarke's allegations about the Bush White House are false, they should be demonstrably so. Dr. Rice should be able to produce documents that show that her meeting with Clarke wasn't the first time she ever heard of al Qaeda. Paul Wolfowitz should be able to point to memos and minutes correcting the charge that he did not take the threat of Osama bin Laden seriously and was more concerned about non-existent Iraqi terrorism against the US. Richard Hadley should be able to show, with official directives and memos and follow-ups, that the White House did indeed hear and respond to Clarke and Tenet's warnings about al Qaeda as they claim they did.
The response we are getting instead strikes me as further evidence that Clarke must be correct, and they must be covering up. Attacking his motives, and feeding the press snide one-liners ("This is Dick Clarke's American Bandstand. He just keeps changing his tune," spokesman Scott McClellan said.) should send a red flag up to those covering this story. If they had the goods to refute him, we would hear about it. This is not a case where the prosecution bears the burden of proof. With the nature of the allegations, if he's wrong and they were in fact taking terrorism seriously, not pushing war with Iraq, there should be the records to prove it.
If Richard Clarke's allegations about the Bush White House are false, they should be demonstrably so. Dr. Rice should be able to produce documents that show that her meeting with Clarke wasn't the first time she ever heard of al Qaeda. Paul Wolfowitz should be able to point to memos and minutes correcting the charge that he did not take the threat of Osama bin Laden seriously and was more concerned about non-existent Iraqi terrorism against the US. Richard Hadley should be able to show, with official directives and memos and follow-ups, that the White House did indeed hear and respond to Clarke and Tenet's warnings about al Qaeda as they claim they did.
The response we are getting instead strikes me as further evidence that Clarke must be correct, and they must be covering up. Attacking his motives, and feeding the press snide one-liners ("This is Dick Clarke's American Bandstand. He just keeps changing his tune," spokesman Scott McClellan said.) should send a red flag up to those covering this story. If they had the goods to refute him, we would hear about it. This is not a case where the prosecution bears the burden of proof. With the nature of the allegations, if he's wrong and they were in fact taking terrorism seriously, not pushing war with Iraq, there should be the records to prove it.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Trappings of Wealth
If my lifetime salary caps were in place, we wouldn't have to watch someone blow good money this way:
"Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, one of the richest men on Earth, pledged Friday to donate $13.5 million for the research into extra-terrestrial life."
I'm all for putting money into science and research, but this is just a man with more money than he knows what to do with. I could have bought a steak dinner, a fancy car and 13 million lottery tickets with that money.
If my lifetime salary caps were in place, we wouldn't have to watch someone blow good money this way:
"Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, one of the richest men on Earth, pledged Friday to donate $13.5 million for the research into extra-terrestrial life."
I'm all for putting money into science and research, but this is just a man with more money than he knows what to do with. I could have bought a steak dinner, a fancy car and 13 million lottery tickets with that money.
Putting the Fine Point on it
Josh Marshall articulates the big picture that ties together everything wrong about Bush's foreign policy from inauguration through the invasion of Iraq:
"The first months of the Bush administration were based on a fundamental strategic miscalcuation about the source of the greatest threats to the United States. They were, as Clark suggests, stuck in a Cold War mindset, focused on Cold War problems, though the terms of debate were superficially reordered to make them appear to address a post-Cold War world.
That screw up is a reality -- their inability to come clean about it is, I suspect, is at the root of all the covering up and stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. And Democrats are both right and within their rights to call the White House on it. But screw-ups happen; mistakes happen. What is inexcusable is the inability, indeed the refusal, to learn from them.
Rather than adjust to this different reality, on September 12th, the Bush war cabinet set about using 9/11 -- exploiting it, really -- to advance an agenda which had, in fact, been largely discredited by 9/11. They shoe-horned everything they'd been trying to do before the attacks into the new boots of 9/11. And the fit was so bad they had to deceive the public and themselves to do it."
Josh Marshall articulates the big picture that ties together everything wrong about Bush's foreign policy from inauguration through the invasion of Iraq:
"The first months of the Bush administration were based on a fundamental strategic miscalcuation about the source of the greatest threats to the United States. They were, as Clark suggests, stuck in a Cold War mindset, focused on Cold War problems, though the terms of debate were superficially reordered to make them appear to address a post-Cold War world.
That screw up is a reality -- their inability to come clean about it is, I suspect, is at the root of all the covering up and stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. And Democrats are both right and within their rights to call the White House on it. But screw-ups happen; mistakes happen. What is inexcusable is the inability, indeed the refusal, to learn from them.
Rather than adjust to this different reality, on September 12th, the Bush war cabinet set about using 9/11 -- exploiting it, really -- to advance an agenda which had, in fact, been largely discredited by 9/11. They shoe-horned everything they'd been trying to do before the attacks into the new boots of 9/11. And the fit was so bad they had to deceive the public and themselves to do it."
Stupefying and Scandalous
The 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism in the Bush White House, who served Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, was mind-blowing. Americans should be enraged at this President and his advisors. I'm not sure how much more evidence we need, or why the desire to like and believe him outweighs so much that should lead in the opposite direction. The entire interview was damning. Here's a bit from the excerpts on the CBS website:
"'I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years.'
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'"
[SNIP]
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
Like with Paul O'Neill, I only wish we didn't have to wait for these guys to write books before we hear what's happening at the highest levels of our own government. What if Clarke had resigned in protest back in the summer of 2001 over the lack of attention being given to the threat of terrorism? Is it too much to ask just one official to be angry enough at the time to say "to hell with loyalty?"
The 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism in the Bush White House, who served Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, was mind-blowing. Americans should be enraged at this President and his advisors. I'm not sure how much more evidence we need, or why the desire to like and believe him outweighs so much that should lead in the opposite direction. The entire interview was damning. Here's a bit from the excerpts on the CBS website:
"'I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years.'
Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.
For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'"
[SNIP]
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
Like with Paul O'Neill, I only wish we didn't have to wait for these guys to write books before we hear what's happening at the highest levels of our own government. What if Clarke had resigned in protest back in the summer of 2001 over the lack of attention being given to the threat of terrorism? Is it too much to ask just one official to be angry enough at the time to say "to hell with loyalty?"
Forest versus Trees in Presidential Politics
Jonathan Alter warns that Democrats' constant harping about every misstep by the Bush Administration might have the effect of overhype and leave serious charges about a major scandal toothless. He also believes that scandal to be upon us, in the story of the President's Medicare bill:
"The Democrats are in danger of losing perspective on mendacity in the Bush administration, crying wolf so often that voters stop noticing the real abuses. That's what was wrong with John Kerry's off-mike comments about the Republicans' being a bunch of liars and crooks. To be believable, he has to go to real cases with real culprits, like the Big Medicare Con now coming to light."
[snip]
"You might think this is standard operating procedure in Washington. It is not. Every White House sends the press secretary out to spin the numbers that emerge on a weekly or monthly basis from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies. But applying political pressure to cook the numbers themselves is a true scandal."
I think he's right. But there is a broader, more important goal in pointing to the "real cases." The upcoming debate has to be framed around the idea that this administration is dishonest, inept and fails the American people generally. And you do that with a catalogue of errors, not just one or 2 major cases. We win not just by saying that serious errors have been made--people get over those--but by convincing people, as early as possible, that the leadership of this country is fundamentally flawed. The Iraq War has already been accepted by voters, and the tax cuts will too if unemployment turns around. But lying and cover-up to get their way will not, especially if it's a pattern.
Jonathan Alter warns that Democrats' constant harping about every misstep by the Bush Administration might have the effect of overhype and leave serious charges about a major scandal toothless. He also believes that scandal to be upon us, in the story of the President's Medicare bill:
"The Democrats are in danger of losing perspective on mendacity in the Bush administration, crying wolf so often that voters stop noticing the real abuses. That's what was wrong with John Kerry's off-mike comments about the Republicans' being a bunch of liars and crooks. To be believable, he has to go to real cases with real culprits, like the Big Medicare Con now coming to light."
[snip]
"You might think this is standard operating procedure in Washington. It is not. Every White House sends the press secretary out to spin the numbers that emerge on a weekly or monthly basis from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies. But applying political pressure to cook the numbers themselves is a true scandal."
I think he's right. But there is a broader, more important goal in pointing to the "real cases." The upcoming debate has to be framed around the idea that this administration is dishonest, inept and fails the American people generally. And you do that with a catalogue of errors, not just one or 2 major cases. We win not just by saying that serious errors have been made--people get over those--but by convincing people, as early as possible, that the leadership of this country is fundamentally flawed. The Iraq War has already been accepted by voters, and the tax cuts will too if unemployment turns around. But lying and cover-up to get their way will not, especially if it's a pattern.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Bad News/Insult to Injury/Good News on a Saturday Morning
The bad news is that within 50 years roughly half of all species will be lost, as we are in the midst of a great extinction--one of only six, now,that the world has ever seen. Ever. As in, the-last-one-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs ever, according to analysis of 2 new British studies that finally confirm statistically what has been predicted for several years: raiding the rainforest is a bad idea.
Adding insult to injury is that, to no surprise, this development is not the fault of overzealous coyotes just killing for power, or a special new bird with a voracious appetite for butterflies, or a lazy young generation of rabbits that simply don't take the time to procreate. No in fact it is human activity that has put us on pace to grow old in an ecologically "boring" world, in which "areas of the tropics that have lost their forests will have the same damn weeds, bushes and scrawny eucalyptus trees so that you don't know if you're in Africa or the Americas."
The good news is that we humans know how to do some things right. Here's proof of that. If that doesn't inspire you to want to leave the world in better shape, maybe nothing will. I have to believe that with enough sparks like young Ian, and enough smiles like young Spencer's we may just find the collective will to not screw the whole place up in pursuit of, mostly, profit and power. Maybe that kind of hope is what would lead a journalist, on learning that the 6th great loss of species in the history of the world is underway, to give his article one of my new favorite headlines: "Mass Extinction Not Inevitable."
The bad news is that within 50 years roughly half of all species will be lost, as we are in the midst of a great extinction--one of only six, now,that the world has ever seen. Ever. As in, the-last-one-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs ever, according to analysis of 2 new British studies that finally confirm statistically what has been predicted for several years: raiding the rainforest is a bad idea.
Adding insult to injury is that, to no surprise, this development is not the fault of overzealous coyotes just killing for power, or a special new bird with a voracious appetite for butterflies, or a lazy young generation of rabbits that simply don't take the time to procreate. No in fact it is human activity that has put us on pace to grow old in an ecologically "boring" world, in which "areas of the tropics that have lost their forests will have the same damn weeds, bushes and scrawny eucalyptus trees so that you don't know if you're in Africa or the Americas."
The good news is that we humans know how to do some things right. Here's proof of that. If that doesn't inspire you to want to leave the world in better shape, maybe nothing will. I have to believe that with enough sparks like young Ian, and enough smiles like young Spencer's we may just find the collective will to not screw the whole place up in pursuit of, mostly, profit and power. Maybe that kind of hope is what would lead a journalist, on learning that the 6th great loss of species in the history of the world is underway, to give his article one of my new favorite headlines: "Mass Extinction Not Inevitable."
Speaking of Journalism 101
From Drudge come links to 2 stories, one about a major crappy newspaper failing even worse than we knew:
"USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories.
'As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley's problems. For that I apologize,' publisher Craig Moon said."
The other, from a couple years ago, provides all the signs they should have needed to know there was a problem:
"'Journalism is a calling," (Jack Kelley) explains. 'I feel God's pleasure when I write and report. It isn't because of the glory, but because God has called me to proclaim truth, and to worship and serve him through other people.' His role models, he says, are four of 'the greatest journalists of all time'; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Thus, my theory that anytime a person claims to "feel God's pleasure" they're up to no good.
From Drudge come links to 2 stories, one about a major crappy newspaper failing even worse than we knew:
"USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories.
'As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley's problems. For that I apologize,' publisher Craig Moon said."
The other, from a couple years ago, provides all the signs they should have needed to know there was a problem:
"'Journalism is a calling," (Jack Kelley) explains. 'I feel God's pleasure when I write and report. It isn't because of the glory, but because God has called me to proclaim truth, and to worship and serve him through other people.' His role models, he says, are four of 'the greatest journalists of all time'; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
Thus, my theory that anytime a person claims to "feel God's pleasure" they're up to no good.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Taking it to Wolf Blitzer
I'd like to see more of this, where spinless shills like Blitzer are taken to task. This is Richard Holbrooke, on Wolf's CNN show, earlier this week about the nonsense surrounding Kerry's remarks about leaders who hope he defeats the President:
"HOLBROOKE: John Kerry said something everybody knows is true. And, Wolf, you know it's true.
And why don't I say just one other thing. Why don't you, instead of staging a silly he said/he said between the White House, which is throwing all this mud at John Kerry after he said something true. Why don't you poll your foreign correspondents on CNN. And ask them who the population and leaderships in the world would prefer to see elected? Very simple.
BLITZER: That may be for future course of action. But there's no doubt that when the president of the United States says to John Kerry, you make this charge, back it up, what's wrong with that? Why can't he say this leader said this to me, this leader said that to me. Why can't he just explain what he meant?
HOLBROOKE: I have been in the last six months in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. I have met with leaders and members of the leadership that lead in every one of those countries.
BLITZER: Be specific.
HOLBROOKE: Look, Wolf, if you want me to say that such and such a foreign minister...
BLITZER: I do, if that's what they said to you.
HOLBROOKE: Wolf, you've been a foreign correspondent for many years, you don't reveal your sources when they're said in confidence. And it would be inappropriate and wrong -- these foreign ministers -- and you know this perfectly well as a very distinguished foreign correspondent.
These foreign leaders say something to you in confidence. They have to work with the incumbent administration. The Bush administration knows that you as a journalist have protect sources. It is self-evident.
John Kerry simply said the truth. Everyone knows it."
Now, how hard was that?
I'd like to see more of this, where spinless shills like Blitzer are taken to task. This is Richard Holbrooke, on Wolf's CNN show, earlier this week about the nonsense surrounding Kerry's remarks about leaders who hope he defeats the President:
"HOLBROOKE: John Kerry said something everybody knows is true. And, Wolf, you know it's true.
And why don't I say just one other thing. Why don't you, instead of staging a silly he said/he said between the White House, which is throwing all this mud at John Kerry after he said something true. Why don't you poll your foreign correspondents on CNN. And ask them who the population and leaderships in the world would prefer to see elected? Very simple.
BLITZER: That may be for future course of action. But there's no doubt that when the president of the United States says to John Kerry, you make this charge, back it up, what's wrong with that? Why can't he say this leader said this to me, this leader said that to me. Why can't he just explain what he meant?
HOLBROOKE: I have been in the last six months in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. I have met with leaders and members of the leadership that lead in every one of those countries.
BLITZER: Be specific.
HOLBROOKE: Look, Wolf, if you want me to say that such and such a foreign minister...
BLITZER: I do, if that's what they said to you.
HOLBROOKE: Wolf, you've been a foreign correspondent for many years, you don't reveal your sources when they're said in confidence. And it would be inappropriate and wrong -- these foreign ministers -- and you know this perfectly well as a very distinguished foreign correspondent.
These foreign leaders say something to you in confidence. They have to work with the incumbent administration. The Bush administration knows that you as a journalist have protect sources. It is self-evident.
John Kerry simply said the truth. Everyone knows it."
Now, how hard was that?
Article 19 Movie Rating: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
***************** 1/2 (17 1/2 out of 19)
Wow is it good. I haven't seen anything I liked as much as this in a while. I liked Adaptation alot - didn't love it - and loved Being John Malkovich. Starting to think that Charlie Kaufmann really knows what he's doing (even if he doesn't know that he knows). I expect to live my entire life without a single idea as good as any of those 3 premises. But what makes him great is that the films are more than a gimmick. I think this one's every bit as good as those other 2. Go see it and tell me what you think.
***************** 1/2 (17 1/2 out of 19)
Wow is it good. I haven't seen anything I liked as much as this in a while. I liked Adaptation alot - didn't love it - and loved Being John Malkovich. Starting to think that Charlie Kaufmann really knows what he's doing (even if he doesn't know that he knows). I expect to live my entire life without a single idea as good as any of those 3 premises. But what makes him great is that the films are more than a gimmick. I think this one's every bit as good as those other 2. Go see it and tell me what you think.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Matthew 7:3-5
From the people that brought you The Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount:
"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'let me take the speck out of you eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hyocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
That isn't exactly what I had in mind for framing important issues in religious terms, but it's all I can think of when I read mind-boggling (mind-blogging?) snippets like this from team Bush (via Spencer Ackerman):
"In a morning meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Bremer warned the Iraqi leaders that they risked isolating themselves and their country if they continued to snub the United Nations."
Maybe they heard of my search for irony and are just trying to help out.
From the people that brought you The Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount:
"Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'let me take the speck out of you eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hyocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
That isn't exactly what I had in mind for framing important issues in religious terms, but it's all I can think of when I read mind-boggling (mind-blogging?) snippets like this from team Bush (via Spencer Ackerman):
"In a morning meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Bremer warned the Iraqi leaders that they risked isolating themselves and their country if they continued to snub the United Nations."
Maybe they heard of my search for irony and are just trying to help out.
Democracy for America
That's the name of Dean's new organization. Read about it here.
"To help defeat George W. Bush and his agenda in 2004, Democracy for America will focus on key battleground states, mobilizing our supporters and the groundbreaking organizing tools we developed during our campaign – planting seeds on the Internet, meeting face to face at the grassroots, bringing new people into the process. We will use these same tools to support congressional, state, and local candidates across America who stand for our principles."
If the group stays together, and keeps growing, it could be a really powerful force, I believe. I think they need to start a very specific project as soon as possible to keep people coming around. So far, the plans are still very general.
That's the name of Dean's new organization. Read about it here.
"To help defeat George W. Bush and his agenda in 2004, Democracy for America will focus on key battleground states, mobilizing our supporters and the groundbreaking organizing tools we developed during our campaign – planting seeds on the Internet, meeting face to face at the grassroots, bringing new people into the process. We will use these same tools to support congressional, state, and local candidates across America who stand for our principles."
If the group stays together, and keeps growing, it could be a really powerful force, I believe. I think they need to start a very specific project as soon as possible to keep people coming around. So far, the plans are still very general.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Pot, meet kettle
From yesterday:
"Q: Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think if you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts."
Hmmm, backing accusations up with facts...now there's an idea. As Kevin Drum wrote: "Next up: President Bush advises John Kerry on the proper pronunciation of 'nuclear.'"
From yesterday:
"Q: Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think if you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts."
Hmmm, backing accusations up with facts...now there's an idea. As Kevin Drum wrote: "Next up: President Bush advises John Kerry on the proper pronunciation of 'nuclear.'"
philipglass.com
Kenny commented that he enjoyed Philip Glass's music from the Fog of War. He has been one of my favorite composers (Glass, not Kenny)--if a bit smooth around the edges in his older age. It may not be your cup of tea, but even if you don't enjoy his music, I thought you might be impressed by his web site. When you get there, launch "The Glass Engine" (the impressive part). You can hear any piece he's recorded through 2002. Every track, from every recording. Sort chronologically, or by tempo, density, level of joy, sadness (really)...
It is the greatest musician's web site that I know for providing music. If every artist did exactly this, I'd never leave my computer. Oh wait, I never do. What are your favorite, most impressive web sites we should know about?
Kenny commented that he enjoyed Philip Glass's music from the Fog of War. He has been one of my favorite composers (Glass, not Kenny)--if a bit smooth around the edges in his older age. It may not be your cup of tea, but even if you don't enjoy his music, I thought you might be impressed by his web site. When you get there, launch "The Glass Engine" (the impressive part). You can hear any piece he's recorded through 2002. Every track, from every recording. Sort chronologically, or by tempo, density, level of joy, sadness (really)...
It is the greatest musician's web site that I know for providing music. If every artist did exactly this, I'd never leave my computer. Oh wait, I never do. What are your favorite, most impressive web sites we should know about?
MoveOn.org's new campaign
If you read the Face the Nation transcript I linked to yesterday, you already know this, but Tom Friedman was prepared when Rumsfeld said some foolish things and it made the secretary look pretty bad, though Friedman stopped short I think when he could have really hammered it home. Now, Moveon.org has picked up on that section of video and is using it to urge congress to censure Bush for misleading the public about Iraq. Link to the video is here.
They can Clintonize their way around most of these apparent contradictions, but they sure did hate it when Bill did that.
If you read the Face the Nation transcript I linked to yesterday, you already know this, but Tom Friedman was prepared when Rumsfeld said some foolish things and it made the secretary look pretty bad, though Friedman stopped short I think when he could have really hammered it home. Now, Moveon.org has picked up on that section of video and is using it to urge congress to censure Bush for misleading the public about Iraq. Link to the video is here.
They can Clintonize their way around most of these apparent contradictions, but they sure did hate it when Bill did that.
Up to Here
Gay Republicans have had enough. And they're doing something about it.
"The Log Cabin Republicans this week launched a $1 million TV advertising campaign in swing states targeting President Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. [SNIP]
'The radical right wanted a culture war. They’ve got it now,' (LCR Executive Director) Guerriero said during a news conference announcing the campaign. 'This is our line in the sand. We were forced by a sense of history and responsibility to respond immediately and harshly.
Our membership demanded it, and our integrity demanded it. The exclusion and discrimination embodied in this amendment violates the principles upon which the Republican Party is founded.'”
Without trying to be critical, I will just say that I don't understand the process by which a gay person becomes Republican. So, I don't know how large a group they can be, but I'm glad to know they're willing, for now, to put this self-interest above whatever other issues drive them. I hope if I ever found myself under similar attack from the Democrats, I would take them on publicly as well.
Maybe Kerry should arrange a meeting with Log Cabin Republicans? Could he manage an endorsement? Would that even be a good thing?
Gay Republicans have had enough. And they're doing something about it.
"The Log Cabin Republicans this week launched a $1 million TV advertising campaign in swing states targeting President Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. [SNIP]
'The radical right wanted a culture war. They’ve got it now,' (LCR Executive Director) Guerriero said during a news conference announcing the campaign. 'This is our line in the sand. We were forced by a sense of history and responsibility to respond immediately and harshly.
Our membership demanded it, and our integrity demanded it. The exclusion and discrimination embodied in this amendment violates the principles upon which the Republican Party is founded.'”
Without trying to be critical, I will just say that I don't understand the process by which a gay person becomes Republican. So, I don't know how large a group they can be, but I'm glad to know they're willing, for now, to put this self-interest above whatever other issues drive them. I hope if I ever found myself under similar attack from the Democrats, I would take them on publicly as well.
Maybe Kerry should arrange a meeting with Log Cabin Republicans? Could he manage an endorsement? Would that even be a good thing?
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Senate Update
DailyKos reports that anti-abortion conservative crazy Pat Toomey is closing in and making a race of it in the Republican primary against Arlen Specter. If Toomey can win, that would be great news to Democratic candidate Joe Hoeffel. Still, Pennsylvania right-wingers seem excited about getting rid of the long-serving Senator:
"A Hoeffel poll gave Specter a weak 44 percent approval rating. But it was a partisan internal, so easy to discount. Then a second poll, featured in the Wall Street Journal, gave Specter a weak 47-37 lead and an even more anemic 37 percent reelect rating. But that poll was sponsored by Club for Growth, who has a reason to hype their candidate Toomey.
But now we have an independent poll, courtesy of SurveyUSA, and the results are even worse for Specter.
Specter 47
Toomey 38
Other/Undecided 15"
I noticed that Bush's introduction of Specter at an event in PA earlier today was a bit weird, even for him:
"I'm honored that Senator Arlen Specter is with me today. Arlen, thank you for coming. I consider Arlen Specter an ally and a friend. Oh, he doesn't do everything you ask him to do all the time, but when you need him -- when you need him, he's there."
DailyKos reports that anti-abortion conservative crazy Pat Toomey is closing in and making a race of it in the Republican primary against Arlen Specter. If Toomey can win, that would be great news to Democratic candidate Joe Hoeffel. Still, Pennsylvania right-wingers seem excited about getting rid of the long-serving Senator:
"A Hoeffel poll gave Specter a weak 44 percent approval rating. But it was a partisan internal, so easy to discount. Then a second poll, featured in the Wall Street Journal, gave Specter a weak 47-37 lead and an even more anemic 37 percent reelect rating. But that poll was sponsored by Club for Growth, who has a reason to hype their candidate Toomey.
But now we have an independent poll, courtesy of SurveyUSA, and the results are even worse for Specter.
Specter 47
Toomey 38
Other/Undecided 15"
I noticed that Bush's introduction of Specter at an event in PA earlier today was a bit weird, even for him:
"I'm honored that Senator Arlen Specter is with me today. Arlen, thank you for coming. I consider Arlen Specter an ally and a friend. Oh, he doesn't do everything you ask him to do all the time, but when you need him -- when you need him, he's there."
Recounting the Death of the Public Domain
Professor Lessig (When was the last time a legal scholar became such a cult hero to young people?) argued the Eldred v. Ashcroft case (re the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act) before the Supreme Court. Though few think he could have won, he disagrees and blames himself in an essay in the new Legal Affairs magazine. To a non-lawyer at least, this reads like there are valuable lessons to be learned here. It's a fascinating, self-critical account of an important argument, one year after the fact.
"My anger with the conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with my view of the law as it is.
Most lawyers and law professors have little patience for idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a much more pragmatic view. As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked power will cause could have been made clear to this court. Kennedy in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his question. Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the logical point. I had shown them how they could strike down this law of Congress if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue."
I'm really anxious to read the new book.
Professor Lessig (When was the last time a legal scholar became such a cult hero to young people?) argued the Eldred v. Ashcroft case (re the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act) before the Supreme Court. Though few think he could have won, he disagrees and blames himself in an essay in the new Legal Affairs magazine. To a non-lawyer at least, this reads like there are valuable lessons to be learned here. It's a fascinating, self-critical account of an important argument, one year after the fact.
"My anger with the conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with my view of the law as it is.
Most lawyers and law professors have little patience for idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a much more pragmatic view. As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked power will cause could have been made clear to this court. Kennedy in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his question. Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the logical point. I had shown them how they could strike down this law of Congress if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue."
I'm really anxious to read the new book.
Living up to my expectations
While Rummy claims he and Powell have been ordered out of the business of Presidential politics (and Powell didn't get the memo I guess), Pandagon pulls out of Time Mag. a buried paragraph that should have been a headliner, showing that Rove has other intentions for Tom Ridge's outpost:
"Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month."
I guess so long as we're at yellow the guys have some extra time on their hands?
While Rummy claims he and Powell have been ordered out of the business of Presidential politics (and Powell didn't get the memo I guess), Pandagon pulls out of Time Mag. a buried paragraph that should have been a headliner, showing that Rove has other intentions for Tom Ridge's outpost:
"Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month."
I guess so long as we're at yellow the guys have some extra time on their hands?
Why Would He Guess That?
Rumsfeld clarified the plan today for replacing the impending loss of Spanish forces in Iraq:
"My guess is, you'll find other countries reacting just the opposite. You'll find countries stepping forward and saying, 'Well, if that's what that country's going to do, we'll do just the opposite. We'll add some troops'. And, we'll see what happens."
I'm sure there are countries that have been just itching to get in, but holding back because Spain was there. Now's their chance!
If he had said he's heard from leaders (instead of just guessing) who are planning to do just that, do you think people would be all over him to name names like they are on Kerry? The difference is, we've known foreign leaders to be against Bush all along (right? I mean, what's the story there, really?), but we don't know anyone begging to get in on that Iraq action...but still our Secretary is guessing there will be some.
The man is totally ridiculous. Is this the plan for jobs as well? Some companies will step forward and say, "well if laying off employees is what that company's going to do, we'll do just the opposite."
{UPDATE: As for Kerry, Hugh Hewitt thinks credibility is the story. I think it's a whole lot of nothing. I'm sure Kerry's talked to governmental figures all over the world as Senator and they've told him what we already know: Bush is not well-regarded abroad. So we're going to parse the word "leaders" and the word "met" and decide it's a scandal of credibility, when Bush lied about why we went to Iraq?}
Rumsfeld clarified the plan today for replacing the impending loss of Spanish forces in Iraq:
"My guess is, you'll find other countries reacting just the opposite. You'll find countries stepping forward and saying, 'Well, if that's what that country's going to do, we'll do just the opposite. We'll add some troops'. And, we'll see what happens."
I'm sure there are countries that have been just itching to get in, but holding back because Spain was there. Now's their chance!
If he had said he's heard from leaders (instead of just guessing) who are planning to do just that, do you think people would be all over him to name names like they are on Kerry? The difference is, we've known foreign leaders to be against Bush all along (right? I mean, what's the story there, really?), but we don't know anyone begging to get in on that Iraq action...but still our Secretary is guessing there will be some.
The man is totally ridiculous. Is this the plan for jobs as well? Some companies will step forward and say, "well if laying off employees is what that company's going to do, we'll do just the opposite."
{UPDATE: As for Kerry, Hugh Hewitt thinks credibility is the story. I think it's a whole lot of nothing. I'm sure Kerry's talked to governmental figures all over the world as Senator and they've told him what we already know: Bush is not well-regarded abroad. So we're going to parse the word "leaders" and the word "met" and decide it's a scandal of credibility, when Bush lied about why we went to Iraq?}
One way to make a living as a writer
Great moments in online entrepeneurship. It's surreal and would seem to not be a joke:
For less than 50 dollars, you can hire an imaginary girlfriend for 2 months. The girl is real. The relationship is not.(via Making Light)
"When the stated time period is over, you can break up with your Imaginary Girlfriend for any reason you wish. She will write you a final letter begging you to take her back. Of course you can continue your "relationship" by renewing [your subscription], or start over and find a new Imaginary Girlfriend of your choice!"
Insert clever remark below.
Great moments in online entrepeneurship. It's surreal and would seem to not be a joke:
For less than 50 dollars, you can hire an imaginary girlfriend for 2 months. The girl is real. The relationship is not.(via Making Light)
"When the stated time period is over, you can break up with your Imaginary Girlfriend for any reason you wish. She will write you a final letter begging you to take her back. Of course you can continue your "relationship" by renewing [your subscription], or start over and find a new Imaginary Girlfriend of your choice!"
Insert clever remark below.
Monday, March 15, 2004
A New Liberal-Religious Strategy
In earlier threads we've talked about how best to communicate with people who should be voting their economic interests but are swayed in the opposite direction by religious issues. I wondered if we couldn't frame some of the issues of economic justice in religious terms since we know that if God cares about things human at all, it is a diverse range of things, not just hating abortion and gay people.
But now I have a new strategy, a truly inspired vision. First, we develop a cult hero among the ranks of evangelicals and religious conservatives...maybe in the entertainment industry, not one of those wishy-washy Arnold Schwarzzenegger (sp?) kind of California Republicans but a real serious one. Then at the peak of his popularity, having shown his mettle as a committed Bible literalist, unafraid to engage in God-talk on major networks, we'll have him turn against President Bush.
Oh, wait, apparently Mel Gibson has already done it. Well, almost. I guess Howard Dean was right yesterday: lying to the American people is not a good idea.
In earlier threads we've talked about how best to communicate with people who should be voting their economic interests but are swayed in the opposite direction by religious issues. I wondered if we couldn't frame some of the issues of economic justice in religious terms since we know that if God cares about things human at all, it is a diverse range of things, not just hating abortion and gay people.
But now I have a new strategy, a truly inspired vision. First, we develop a cult hero among the ranks of evangelicals and religious conservatives...maybe in the entertainment industry, not one of those wishy-washy Arnold Schwarzzenegger (sp?) kind of California Republicans but a real serious one. Then at the peak of his popularity, having shown his mettle as a committed Bible literalist, unafraid to engage in God-talk on major networks, we'll have him turn against President Bush.
Oh, wait, apparently Mel Gibson has already done it. Well, almost. I guess Howard Dean was right yesterday: lying to the American people is not a good idea.
Just Being Polite
Remember that big pre-war meeting between Bush, Blair and Aznar? The one that showed we were all 3 big powerful important allies in this multi-lateral effort? It will be fun to see how quickly the Bush team starts reassuring us that the effectiveness of the "international" coalition will not be diminished, now that Spain is getting out of Dodge. Under charges that the Iraq war was a unilateral invasion, Spain was one of the first 2 words out of Rumsfeld's mouth trying to convince us otherwise, as if they played a major role militarily and diplomatically. But now the Pentagon won't want us feeling any more vulnerable than we already know we are, so they'll have to convince us that we're not hurt by their absence, that Spain was an inessential bit player, which really was the truth all along. We were just inflating their role to be polite, right?
On a similar topic, Calpundit is afraid that the weekend election results in Spain could be a victory for terrorists:
"If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists."
Remember that big pre-war meeting between Bush, Blair and Aznar? The one that showed we were all 3 big powerful important allies in this multi-lateral effort? It will be fun to see how quickly the Bush team starts reassuring us that the effectiveness of the "international" coalition will not be diminished, now that Spain is getting out of Dodge. Under charges that the Iraq war was a unilateral invasion, Spain was one of the first 2 words out of Rumsfeld's mouth trying to convince us otherwise, as if they played a major role militarily and diplomatically. But now the Pentagon won't want us feeling any more vulnerable than we already know we are, so they'll have to convince us that we're not hurt by their absence, that Spain was an inessential bit player, which really was the truth all along. We were just inflating their role to be polite, right?
On a similar topic, Calpundit is afraid that the weekend election results in Spain could be a victory for terrorists:
"If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists."
Get Lessig's Book
Professor Lawrence Lessig, whose blog is linked on the left, and whose book, The Future of Ideas, is one of three Kenny has on his shelf, is giving away said book in exchange for a donation of at least 5 dollars to Creative Commons. He also has a new book coming out in a couple weeks. FYI. Take him up on the offer here.
Professor Lawrence Lessig, whose blog is linked on the left, and whose book, The Future of Ideas, is one of three Kenny has on his shelf, is giving away said book in exchange for a donation of at least 5 dollars to Creative Commons. He also has a new book coming out in a couple weeks. FYI. Take him up on the offer here.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Community, Activism and Media
Ever since Al Gore invented the Internet, chronic worriers have been concerned that the medium would encourage anonymity and isolation and greatly deteriorate community. Professor Norman Nie delivers the classic criticism: "The Internet could be the ultimate isolating technology that further reduces our participation in communities even more than television did before it."
But blogs (especially those with even greater tools for community than this one) are making the opposite case, making the Internet a medium that invites participation, that challenges lazy journalism in real time, and at its best a place for conversation, not just expression (though even that makes it more participative than television). What moveon.org and the Dean campaign demonstrate is that it's also becoming a venue that can inspire action. So, with liberals looking for a proper response network to the wall of conservative talk radio, Oliver Willis believes that the world of blogs, not Al Franken's newly announced radio network, is best poised to claim that role:
"The stuff on the slate from Air America is nice and all, but I think that blogs are the real 'alternative media' for the left. JFK 2.0 [John Kerry] just raised $10 million in 10 days largely via the web, and other progressive organizations are starting to tap in big time (The DNC, The DCCC, The DSCC) because they see what's happening via the grassroots."
I agree with him, even though a radio network will be entertaining, and will reach offline audiences. The blogosphere is decentralized, accessible and allows group communication (even if it has to be a bit surface at times, or is limited to 1,000 characters) in a way that only the Internet can. Perhaps a Rush Limbaugh-based media model allows for more coordinated, controlled political themes, but with tens of thousands of conversations going on, not just a single one-way directive, blogs have a better chance of creating and maintaining community and participation. That makes it a better fit as a media network for progressives and independents, as well as a positive contribution to our democracy.
And it keeps me off the streets.
What do you think? Does the Internet build community, or threaten it?
Ever since Al Gore invented the Internet, chronic worriers have been concerned that the medium would encourage anonymity and isolation and greatly deteriorate community. Professor Norman Nie delivers the classic criticism: "The Internet could be the ultimate isolating technology that further reduces our participation in communities even more than television did before it."
But blogs (especially those with even greater tools for community than this one) are making the opposite case, making the Internet a medium that invites participation, that challenges lazy journalism in real time, and at its best a place for conversation, not just expression (though even that makes it more participative than television). What moveon.org and the Dean campaign demonstrate is that it's also becoming a venue that can inspire action. So, with liberals looking for a proper response network to the wall of conservative talk radio, Oliver Willis believes that the world of blogs, not Al Franken's newly announced radio network, is best poised to claim that role:
"The stuff on the slate from Air America is nice and all, but I think that blogs are the real 'alternative media' for the left. JFK 2.0 [John Kerry] just raised $10 million in 10 days largely via the web, and other progressive organizations are starting to tap in big time (The DNC, The DCCC, The DSCC) because they see what's happening via the grassroots."
I agree with him, even though a radio network will be entertaining, and will reach offline audiences. The blogosphere is decentralized, accessible and allows group communication (even if it has to be a bit surface at times, or is limited to 1,000 characters) in a way that only the Internet can. Perhaps a Rush Limbaugh-based media model allows for more coordinated, controlled political themes, but with tens of thousands of conversations going on, not just a single one-way directive, blogs have a better chance of creating and maintaining community and participation. That makes it a better fit as a media network for progressives and independents, as well as a positive contribution to our democracy.
And it keeps me off the streets.
What do you think? Does the Internet build community, or threaten it?
Dean on Meet the Press
Dean was fabulous on MTP this morning, following Condoleeza Rice. Be sure to watch Dean on Larry King on Wednesday, and follow his announcement on Thursday about the future of the grassroots organization. Here are some highlights from this morning:
"TIM RUSSERT: Dr. Rice said that Saddam Hussein was the most dangerous regime in the world.
DR. DEAN: That was ridiculous. This is a pathetic old man who we'd been containing for 12 years by overflights. We had sanctions on him that were paralyzing him. It turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as the administration--although the administration said otherwise. It turned out that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda or the killing of the 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, even though the administration tried to lead us in an opposite direction. The administration simply did not tell the truth about Iraq. The debate is not about whether we should fight terrorism. I supported the war in Afghanistan because I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan, although I think the conduct of the war is not being very well-managed, after the fact. But fighting Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism."
[snip]
"George Bush got into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore got. And for the first two years, we all laid down in front of him, we let him get away with all this stuff, and we passed his right-wing program. Furthermore, he governed far further to the right than I ever thought he would, knowing him as governor of Texas. I was just shocked by the stuff that he has passed. The Medicare prescription bill, imagine having your administration order somebody not to testify that it's going to cost $140 billion more than you thought. I mean, if this was going on in the Clinton administration, there would be all kinds of inquiries and hearings and people being fired. What is going on in this Capitol and what is going on in this country?"
I think the issue of Richard Foster, ordered not to tell the true cost of the Medicare prescription bill is, as Johnny Cochran would say, outrageous, and demands more attention. The DNC blog points to his confirmation that his job was repeatedly threatened if he disclosed true costs of the bill before its passage. Dean is right: if Clinton's White House had done this a special counsel would already be appointed.
Dean was fabulous on MTP this morning, following Condoleeza Rice. Be sure to watch Dean on Larry King on Wednesday, and follow his announcement on Thursday about the future of the grassroots organization. Here are some highlights from this morning:
"TIM RUSSERT: Dr. Rice said that Saddam Hussein was the most dangerous regime in the world.
DR. DEAN: That was ridiculous. This is a pathetic old man who we'd been containing for 12 years by overflights. We had sanctions on him that were paralyzing him. It turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, as the administration--although the administration said otherwise. It turned out that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda or the killing of the 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, even though the administration tried to lead us in an opposite direction. The administration simply did not tell the truth about Iraq. The debate is not about whether we should fight terrorism. I supported the war in Afghanistan because I think we did the right thing in Afghanistan, although I think the conduct of the war is not being very well-managed, after the fact. But fighting Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism."
[snip]
"George Bush got into office with 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore got. And for the first two years, we all laid down in front of him, we let him get away with all this stuff, and we passed his right-wing program. Furthermore, he governed far further to the right than I ever thought he would, knowing him as governor of Texas. I was just shocked by the stuff that he has passed. The Medicare prescription bill, imagine having your administration order somebody not to testify that it's going to cost $140 billion more than you thought. I mean, if this was going on in the Clinton administration, there would be all kinds of inquiries and hearings and people being fired. What is going on in this Capitol and what is going on in this country?"
I think the issue of Richard Foster, ordered not to tell the true cost of the Medicare prescription bill is, as Johnny Cochran would say, outrageous, and demands more attention. The DNC blog points to his confirmation that his job was repeatedly threatened if he disclosed true costs of the bill before its passage. Dean is right: if Clinton's White House had done this a special counsel would already be appointed.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Why church/state mingling is bad for both
Church-state separationists have to choose their battles, so references to God in the pledge and on money and buildings have not been a high priority; neither have invocations that open official government proceedings, as the Senate and the House do with each day.
In the Tennessee Senate on Thursday, before debate on a controversial constitutional amendment related to abortion, guest minister Clifton Fox apparently didn't know that he was expected to pray generically:
"Fox prayed for the 'innocent babies and innocent mothers' within minutes of debate starting on a proposed anti-abortion constitutional amendment. . . . that senators be protected from 'civil liberty lawyers and lobbyists against life.'
Everyone was shocked and outraged. Democrat Jerry Cooper marvelled: "You don't take a side when you're praying. What about separation of church and state?''
How about, in the name of that separation, we not pray at all, Jerry? It's an affront to both the Constitution and to ministers, who essentially have their prayers censored (and rightfully so, in this arena). If more religious folks realized the constraints placed on religion when it participates in the public sphere, maybe fewer would be so eager to be there.
Church-state separationists have to choose their battles, so references to God in the pledge and on money and buildings have not been a high priority; neither have invocations that open official government proceedings, as the Senate and the House do with each day.
In the Tennessee Senate on Thursday, before debate on a controversial constitutional amendment related to abortion, guest minister Clifton Fox apparently didn't know that he was expected to pray generically:
"Fox prayed for the 'innocent babies and innocent mothers' within minutes of debate starting on a proposed anti-abortion constitutional amendment. . . . that senators be protected from 'civil liberty lawyers and lobbyists against life.'
Everyone was shocked and outraged. Democrat Jerry Cooper marvelled: "You don't take a side when you're praying. What about separation of church and state?''
How about, in the name of that separation, we not pray at all, Jerry? It's an affront to both the Constitution and to ministers, who essentially have their prayers censored (and rightfully so, in this arena). If more religious folks realized the constraints placed on religion when it participates in the public sphere, maybe fewer would be so eager to be there.
What is ETA?
If you're like me (lucky you), one of the things you have not kept up with in life is who hates whom in Spain. Amid the speculation that a separatist movement I've never heard of may have been responsible for Europe's second most deadly terrorist attack since WWII, I did a little quick research and found that the group has existed since about 1960:
"(ETA) wants to establish an independent socialist Basque state straddling northern Spain and the southern end of France's Atlantic coast. The Basques consider their culture distinct from those of their neighbours and speak a language unlike any other in Europe. The Basque language (called Euskara) is believed to predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages to the continent, of which French, Spanish, German, Icelandic, Welsh, Serbo-Croat and almost all others are the modern descendants. The Basque region... has historically been one of the richest in Spain."
Guardian's interactive guide to Basque Nationalism in the form of ETA is here. Leaders of the Basque Country (one of the 17 independent Spanish communities) have distanced themselves from ETA and seek independence, or at least greater autonomy through political means. But by my reading, they would seem to have little or no chance of success.
From the why-do-they-hate-the-United-States department? They're still a little touchy about our support for Franco during the 50s, as they had assumed independence would follow the end of the second World War. Most experts seem to think they are not responsible for the bombs on the 11th, but they are still suspected.
If you're like me (lucky you), one of the things you have not kept up with in life is who hates whom in Spain. Amid the speculation that a separatist movement I've never heard of may have been responsible for Europe's second most deadly terrorist attack since WWII, I did a little quick research and found that the group has existed since about 1960:
"(ETA) wants to establish an independent socialist Basque state straddling northern Spain and the southern end of France's Atlantic coast. The Basques consider their culture distinct from those of their neighbours and speak a language unlike any other in Europe. The Basque language (called Euskara) is believed to predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages to the continent, of which French, Spanish, German, Icelandic, Welsh, Serbo-Croat and almost all others are the modern descendants. The Basque region... has historically been one of the richest in Spain."
Guardian's interactive guide to Basque Nationalism in the form of ETA is here. Leaders of the Basque Country (one of the 17 independent Spanish communities) have distanced themselves from ETA and seek independence, or at least greater autonomy through political means. But by my reading, they would seem to have little or no chance of success.
From the why-do-they-hate-the-United-States department? They're still a little touchy about our support for Franco during the 50s, as they had assumed independence would follow the end of the second World War. Most experts seem to think they are not responsible for the bombs on the 11th, but they are still suspected.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Polls and more Polls
National Polls:
Rasmussen Tracking (5/3): Kerry 46, Bush 43
NYT/CBS(3/30-4/1) Kerry 48, Bush 43 (4-28) Bush 43, Kerry 41, Nader 5
Fox News (4/21-22) Bush 42, Kerry 40, Nader 2
IDB/CSM Poll (4/14-19) Bush 44, Kerry 40, Nader 4
Gallup(3/25-28) (4/16-18) Bush 49 50, Kerry 47 44, Nader 5 4
ABC/WaPo (4/15-18) Bush 48, Kerry 43, Nader 6
Zogby(4/1-4) (4/15-17) Bush 46 45, Kerry 45 45, Nader 3 3
Pew (3/22-28): Kerry 47, Bush 46
Newsweek(3/18-19) (4/8-9) Bush 45 42, Kerry 43 46, Nader 5 4
ARG(3/9-11) (4/6-9) Kerry 48 48, Bush 42 43, Nader 2
AP(3/19-21) (4/5-7) Bush 46 45, Kerry 43 44, Nader 5 6
Various State Polls
Alabama (3/15-18): Bush 59, Kerry 27
Arizona:(3/19) Bush 51, Kerry 42 (4/23-26) Bush 41, Kerry 38, Nader 3
Arkansas:(4/14-15) Bush 47, Kerry 45 (5/2) Bush 45, Kerry 45
California:Kerry 53, Bush 40 (4/17-24) Kerry 51, Bush 40
Colorado:(3/31-4/1) Bush 49, Kerry 40, Nader 4 (4/14) Bush 49, Kerry 44
Connecticut:Kerry 49, Bush 36 (3/25-28) Kerry 52, Bush 33, Nader 4
Florida:(4/13) Kerry 47, Bush 46 (4/18-21) Bush 47, Kerry 46, Nader 3
Idaho (3/10-12): Bush 57, Kerry 23, Nader 4
Illinois:Kerry 54, Bush 36 UPDATE (3/8-10): Kerry 47, Bush 39, Nader 2
Indiana: Bush 51, Kerry 45
Iowa:(3/23) Kerry 51, Bush 41 (4/18-21) Kerry 47, Bush 46, Nader 3
Kansas: Bush 57, Kerry 39
Kentucky: Bush 57, Kerry 41
Maryland:Kerry 47, Bush 38 Kerry 48, Bush 43
Massachussetts: Kerry 57, Bush 28
Michigan:Kerry 45, Bush 43, Nader 3 (4/30-5/2) Kerry 47, Bush 43
Minnesota:(3/23) Kerry 47, Bush 44 Kerry 50, Bush 38, Nader 2
Missouri:Kerry 49, Bush 46 Bush 49, Kerry 42
Nevada:Bush 49, Kerry 48 Bush 49, Kerry 38, Nader 4
New Hampshire:Bush 45, Kerry 39, Nader 8 (4/21) Kerry 47, Bush 45
New Jersey:(4/3-10) Bush 48, Kerry 44, Nader 5 (4/20) Kerry 51, Bush 39
New Mexico: (3/30-4/1) Bush 46, Kerry 45, Nader 3
New York: (4/5-12) Kerry 53, Bush 36
North Carolina: Bush 53, Kerry 42
Ohio:(3/10-22) Kerry 46, Bush 44, Nader 5 (3/23-31) Bush 45, Kerry 43, Nader 3
Oregon:(3/19-4/7) Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 1 Kerry 46, Bush 45
Pennsylvania:(4/13-19) Bush 45, Kerry 39, Nader 8 (4/16-25) Bush 42, Kerry 42, Nader 5
Rhode Island: Kerry 53, Bush 31
South Dakota: Bush 50, Kerry 39
Tennessee: Bush 48, Kerry 44
Utah: Bush 64, Kerry 31
Washington:Kerry 55, Bush 43 (4/2-5) Kerry 46, Bush 41, Nader 2
Wisconsin(4/28): Kerry 46, Bush 40, Nader 8 Kerry 45, Bush 41, Nader 8
West Virginia(3/24) Kerry 46, Bush 46, Nader 2 (4/15) Bush 46, Kerry 41
(5/3) If we assume victory in any state with a 5 or more percentage point advantage for one candidate right now, the electoral vote looks like this (with 270 needed to become Pres.): Kerry - 176, Bush - 91 (PA and AZ have recently moved out of this strong lead category for Bush)
If we use common sense on the presumably lopsided states that I haven't seen polls for (Bush: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska; Kerry: Vermont, Delaware, DC, Hawaii), the total is: Kerry 189, Bush 171.
Despite only small leads in the most recent polls in these states, Bush is likely to claim Ark, TN, VA, AZ, OK and LA (though I'm tempted to move Arkansas into the toss-up category because they're tied there in the most recent poll), and Kerry is likely to claim Wisconsin (though polls have been all over the place). That makes it 227-199 for Bush.
That leaves Pennsylvania, Florida, Oregon, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio and Michigan uncounted. Under this scenario, Kerry must win Florida and 2 of the other big three, PA, MI, OH, and win a couple of the rest, OR Florida and 1 of the other big three and run the table on the rest--NH, NM, IA, OR, ME to become President. The polls in those last nine states are very close, 1 or 2 points. But if they fall the way they slightly lean now, Bush wins, 300-234 (with ME uncounted, no poll), because of his small lead in FL, OH, and having led before the present tie in PA. Turning 2 of those 3 gives Kerry the Presidency.
National Polls:
Rasmussen Tracking (5/3): Kerry 46, Bush 43
NYT/CBS
Fox News (4/21-22) Bush 42, Kerry 40, Nader 2
IDB/CSM Poll (4/14-19) Bush 44, Kerry 40, Nader 4
Gallup
ABC/WaPo (4/15-18) Bush 48, Kerry 43, Nader 6
Zogby
Pew (3/22-28): Kerry 47, Bush 46
Newsweek
ARG
AP
Various State Polls
Alabama (3/15-18): Bush 59, Kerry 27
Arizona:
Arkansas:
California:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
Florida:
Idaho (3/10-12): Bush 57, Kerry 23, Nader 4
Illinois:
Indiana: Bush 51, Kerry 45
Iowa:
Kansas: Bush 57, Kerry 39
Kentucky: Bush 57, Kerry 41
Maryland:
Massachussetts: Kerry 57, Bush 28
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Missouri:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:
New Mexico: (3/30-4/1) Bush 46, Kerry 45, Nader 3
New York: (4/5-12) Kerry 53, Bush 36
North Carolina: Bush 53, Kerry 42
Ohio:
Oregon:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island: Kerry 53, Bush 31
South Dakota: Bush 50, Kerry 39
Tennessee: Bush 48, Kerry 44
Utah: Bush 64, Kerry 31
Washington:
Wisconsin
West Virginia
(5/3) If we assume victory in any state with a 5 or more percentage point advantage for one candidate right now, the electoral vote looks like this (with 270 needed to become Pres.): Kerry - 176, Bush - 91 (PA and AZ have recently moved out of this strong lead category for Bush)
If we use common sense on the presumably lopsided states that I haven't seen polls for (Bush: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska; Kerry: Vermont, Delaware, DC, Hawaii), the total is: Kerry 189, Bush 171.
Despite only small leads in the most recent polls in these states, Bush is likely to claim Ark, TN, VA, AZ, OK and LA (though I'm tempted to move Arkansas into the toss-up category because they're tied there in the most recent poll), and Kerry is likely to claim Wisconsin (though polls have been all over the place). That makes it 227-199 for Bush.
That leaves Pennsylvania, Florida, Oregon, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio and Michigan uncounted. Under this scenario, Kerry must win Florida and 2 of the other big three, PA, MI, OH, and win a couple of the rest, OR Florida and 1 of the other big three and run the table on the rest--NH, NM, IA, OR, ME to become President. The polls in those last nine states are very close, 1 or 2 points. But if they fall the way they slightly lean now, Bush wins, 300-234 (with ME uncounted, no poll), because of his small lead in FL, OH, and having led before the present tie in PA. Turning 2 of those 3 gives Kerry the Presidency.
Melissa Rowland: Troubling story of the day
from the Salt Lake Tribune:
"An obstetrician-gynecologist who saw Rowland at LDS Hospital on Jan. 2 recommended an immediate Caesarean section because of problems with the fetal heart rate and an ultrasound that indicated low amniotic fluid, the statement says. However, Rowland left after signing a statement indicating that she understood that leaving the hospital could result in death or significant brain injury to the babies, according to the statement.
Later the same day, Rowland showed up at Salt Lake Regional Hospital and told a nurse that she left LDS Hospital because a doctor there wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and this would "ruin her life," according to court records. In addition, she allegedly told the nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
Now, Ms. Rowland is charged with criminal homicide for refusing to have a c-section.
The blog Body and Soul leads the way in questioning the press's (mis)handling of the story:
"A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges."
Read the whole thing.
from the Salt Lake Tribune:
"An obstetrician-gynecologist who saw Rowland at LDS Hospital on Jan. 2 recommended an immediate Caesarean section because of problems with the fetal heart rate and an ultrasound that indicated low amniotic fluid, the statement says. However, Rowland left after signing a statement indicating that she understood that leaving the hospital could result in death or significant brain injury to the babies, according to the statement.
Later the same day, Rowland showed up at Salt Lake Regional Hospital and told a nurse that she left LDS Hospital because a doctor there wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and this would "ruin her life," according to court records. In addition, she allegedly told the nurse that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
Now, Ms. Rowland is charged with criminal homicide for refusing to have a c-section.
The blog Body and Soul leads the way in questioning the press's (mis)handling of the story:
"A frightened, mentally ill, pregnant woman, living on Social Security disability benefits, facing eviction, the father of her children gone, went from hospital to hospital looking for help, and no one knew what to do for her or how to reach her. And because of that, she has been in jail for nearly two months and faces murder charges."
Read the whole thing.
Go-Go Salary Caps
I'm endorsing a new economic model today that works like this: there is a limit to how much money you can make. In your lifetime. The limit will be high, like, I don't know 100 million dollars. But it's understood that once you reach the salary cap you really needn't make any more. Get out of the way, and let other people try their hand at your high-paying job, and don't blow your stash on extravagant spending.
Who is the model and inspiration for my proposal? Who will now start offering his services for free or for donations to charity? Who recently decided:
"I've been very well remunerated, as they say, for my talents over the years, so I really don't need the public's money."?
Why, ex-Wham singer George Michael of course.
I'm endorsing a new economic model today that works like this: there is a limit to how much money you can make. In your lifetime. The limit will be high, like, I don't know 100 million dollars. But it's understood that once you reach the salary cap you really needn't make any more. Get out of the way, and let other people try their hand at your high-paying job, and don't blow your stash on extravagant spending.
Who is the model and inspiration for my proposal? Who will now start offering his services for free or for donations to charity? Who recently decided:
"I've been very well remunerated, as they say, for my talents over the years, so I really don't need the public's money."?
Why, ex-Wham singer George Michael of course.
Beating Expectations: A Local Update
If they can't ban all abortions, they will just ban none at all. The Tennessee State Senate voted for an amendment that would add rape, incest, and health of the mother exceptions to a proposed constitutional amendment 18-15, surprising its sponsor who then withdrew the bill. It would have passed had he left the amended bill out there, but apparently if you can't force a child who's been raped and impregnated by her father to carry the baby to term, it takes all the fun out of being pro-life.
If they can't ban all abortions, they will just ban none at all. The Tennessee State Senate voted for an amendment that would add rape, incest, and health of the mother exceptions to a proposed constitutional amendment 18-15, surprising its sponsor who then withdrew the bill. It would have passed had he left the amended bill out there, but apparently if you can't force a child who's been raped and impregnated by her father to carry the baby to term, it takes all the fun out of being pro-life.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Inept Leadership = One-Term Presidency
I am more optimistic than ever that Bush will be defeated. The political team is reeling, and the policy team seems unable to handle adversity, or even recognize bad news when they hear it. New evidence is so plentiful this evening, I can't decide which makes the best case. For your late-night (or early morning) reading pleasure, I leave you with the choice of 4 satisfying hints as to the way the Bush-Kerry election will turn out.
1. Secretary of Education Rod Paige: "I think you stumped me with that question."
2. Richard Foster, Chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: "I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired."
3. Bush's new negative ad: Muhammad Horton?
4. Anthony Raimondo, one-time probable nominee for "manufacturing czar": "It's going gangbusters!"
The best news here is not just that Bush's team is showing its incompetence more clearly, but that the opposition party is starting to act like one. Kerry's team is on the ball, the DNC has their act together, and people are just not putting up with the crap.
Pick a story and wear a smile on your face Friday.
{UPDATE: OK, one more thing to make you smile. Political advertising in the blogosphere is everywhere. Democrats have embraced the Internet and it is paying off. One of my favorite ads is for Doug Haines, a Democrat running for congress in Georgia. I don't think he'd mind that I copied it to post here for your pleasure.}
I am more optimistic than ever that Bush will be defeated. The political team is reeling, and the policy team seems unable to handle adversity, or even recognize bad news when they hear it. New evidence is so plentiful this evening, I can't decide which makes the best case. For your late-night (or early morning) reading pleasure, I leave you with the choice of 4 satisfying hints as to the way the Bush-Kerry election will turn out.
1. Secretary of Education Rod Paige: "I think you stumped me with that question."
2. Richard Foster, Chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: "I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired."
3. Bush's new negative ad: Muhammad Horton?
4. Anthony Raimondo, one-time probable nominee for "manufacturing czar": "It's going gangbusters!"
The best news here is not just that Bush's team is showing its incompetence more clearly, but that the opposition party is starting to act like one. Kerry's team is on the ball, the DNC has their act together, and people are just not putting up with the crap.
Pick a story and wear a smile on your face Friday.
{UPDATE: OK, one more thing to make you smile. Political advertising in the blogosphere is everywhere. Democrats have embraced the Internet and it is paying off. One of my favorite ads is for Doug Haines, a Democrat running for congress in Georgia. I don't think he'd mind that I copied it to post here for your pleasure.}
Part of me likes it (the money/fame/power part), Part of me worries (the totally lacking integrity part)
President Bush spoke to the National Association of Evangelicals this morning. His remarks remind me of how difficult it is to hold a governmental power in check when it believes the nation to be (not unlike the Blues Brothers) on a mission from God. Striving to achieve the will of the Almighty sure does help justify and excuse any damage that may be done en route (Jake and Elmore smashed a bunch of cars).
Honestly, until recently I didn't believe George W felt that way himself, only that he recognized how much his base of support did. But I am more and more convinced that he's a card-carrying 700 Club member. Do they have cards? Can we use that in the election, like his Dad used Dukakis' ACLU card?
Today, 3 sentences after using the old-time-religion word, "calling," to describe the NAE's dispensation from God, he uses the same word to describe America's relationship to the world:
"America is a nation with a mission. We're called to fight terrorism around the world, and we're waging that fight. As freedom's home and freedom's defender, we are called to expand the realm of human liberty. And by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 50 million people have been liberated from tyranny, and they are reclaiming their dignity as free people."
He was introduced today by the NAE President, Ted Haggard. Ted presides over the largest church in Colorado (10,000 members), and is President of the World Prayer Center, the (not making this up) "spiritual NORAD," which is in Colorado I presume because of it's elevated proximity to God.
Ted is an interesting character, and I'm no social scientist, but I believe he has more than a few issues of guilt and self-loathing doubt. In a recent article entitled "Maybe We're Not Christians," he seems to somewhat seriously wonder just that. He said it, not me:
"We have a credibility problem. We have some wonderful churches, but increasingly, people do not seek to be connected. We have some outstanding para-church leaders, but others are seen as self-satisfied right-wing crusaders who wouldn’t hesitate to banish the Supreme Court, establish a Christian theocracy, and use the power of the state to force the non-compliant into godly living. . . .
It is no wonder that the secular world is hesitant to look to Christian leaders for realistic answers to today’s problems. They think that we are just another special interest group, and I doubt that they see us as bastions of wisdom and insight. Salt and light we are not.
Maybe we’re not Christians. Maybe we’re just the most popular religion of the day, using the power of persuasion, the force of our numbers, and the strength of our money to advance our ideology.
Maybe we just believe whatever makes sense to us by default, and we don’t truly—as individuals and as communities of Christians—seek to be genuine disciples and to do God’s work of caring for the fatherless and the widow of our day.
Could we be Pharisees? Our own books, television programs and prophecies should make us wonder.
When we preach, write, lobby, raise money, build, broadcast, threaten, sue and spin, we present conflicting images that don’t stand up very well against the tests of time and scrutiny. We are confusing the world, other Christians, and our families. . . .I know we love God, and we often talk about our love for Him, but the culture of modern ministry indicates that our hearts are far from Him.
If you are like me, you are conflicted. I don't like this column. Granted, there is a part of me that does. But most of me likes the comforts of the church I serve, the way I travel, the way I'm treated by both the public and the body of Christ. I enjoy the political platform we Christians are given.
But at the same time, there is a dark cloud in the back of my mind. . . .We need to ensure that we are not the whitewashed tombs and snakes of our day. We need to be sure."
Wonder how he's going to be sure of that in a way that doesn't make him actually have to stop any of that fun stuff he's worried about? While he waits for God to tell him he's ok, the spiritual NORAD is up and running! Take a 360-degree virtual tour!
President Bush spoke to the National Association of Evangelicals this morning. His remarks remind me of how difficult it is to hold a governmental power in check when it believes the nation to be (not unlike the Blues Brothers) on a mission from God. Striving to achieve the will of the Almighty sure does help justify and excuse any damage that may be done en route (Jake and Elmore smashed a bunch of cars).
Honestly, until recently I didn't believe George W felt that way himself, only that he recognized how much his base of support did. But I am more and more convinced that he's a card-carrying 700 Club member. Do they have cards? Can we use that in the election, like his Dad used Dukakis' ACLU card?
Today, 3 sentences after using the old-time-religion word, "calling," to describe the NAE's dispensation from God, he uses the same word to describe America's relationship to the world:
"America is a nation with a mission. We're called to fight terrorism around the world, and we're waging that fight. As freedom's home and freedom's defender, we are called to expand the realm of human liberty. And by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 50 million people have been liberated from tyranny, and they are reclaiming their dignity as free people."
He was introduced today by the NAE President, Ted Haggard. Ted presides over the largest church in Colorado (10,000 members), and is President of the World Prayer Center, the (not making this up) "spiritual NORAD," which is in Colorado I presume because of it's elevated proximity to God.
Ted is an interesting character, and I'm no social scientist, but I believe he has more than a few issues of guilt and self-
"We have a credibility problem. We have some wonderful churches, but increasingly, people do not seek to be connected. We have some outstanding para-church leaders, but others are seen as self-satisfied right-wing crusaders who wouldn’t hesitate to banish the Supreme Court, establish a Christian theocracy, and use the power of the state to force the non-compliant into godly living. . . .
It is no wonder that the secular world is hesitant to look to Christian leaders for realistic answers to today’s problems. They think that we are just another special interest group, and I doubt that they see us as bastions of wisdom and insight. Salt and light we are not.
Maybe we’re not Christians. Maybe we’re just the most popular religion of the day, using the power of persuasion, the force of our numbers, and the strength of our money to advance our ideology.
Maybe we just believe whatever makes sense to us by default, and we don’t truly—as individuals and as communities of Christians—seek to be genuine disciples and to do God’s work of caring for the fatherless and the widow of our day.
Could we be Pharisees? Our own books, television programs and prophecies should make us wonder.
When we preach, write, lobby, raise money, build, broadcast, threaten, sue and spin, we present conflicting images that don’t stand up very well against the tests of time and scrutiny. We are confusing the world, other Christians, and our families. . . .I know we love God, and we often talk about our love for Him, but the culture of modern ministry indicates that our hearts are far from Him.
If you are like me, you are conflicted. I don't like this column. Granted, there is a part of me that does. But most of me likes the comforts of the church I serve, the way I travel, the way I'm treated by both the public and the body of Christ. I enjoy the political platform we Christians are given.
But at the same time, there is a dark cloud in the back of my mind. . . .We need to ensure that we are not the whitewashed tombs and snakes of our day. We need to be sure."
Wonder how he's going to be sure of that in a way that doesn't make him actually have to stop any of that fun stuff he's worried about? While he waits for God to tell him he's ok, the spiritual NORAD is up and running! Take a 360-degree virtual tour!
Jay Carson in the news...
Kenny, Judith, Stevie T, Trotter,
Deb pointed me to this item in a top-10 kind of list in ABC News' The Note yesterday:
"Things about which Howard Dean was right (from which John Kerry and George Bush can learn):
6. Jay Carson is as smart as he is sexycool."
He's still listed as Dean spokesman in news stories today, so he must be still on the team.
Kenny, Judith, Stevie T, Trotter,
Deb pointed me to this item in a top-10 kind of list in ABC News' The Note yesterday:
"Things about which Howard Dean was right (from which John Kerry and George Bush can learn):
6. Jay Carson is as smart as he is sexycool."
He's still listed as Dean spokesman in news stories today, so he must be still on the team.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
New Feature: what's on the shelf or in the player
I think it's fun to know what books and CDs are in a person's life. Also it helps give me ideas of what to get next. Use this thread to let us know what you're reading (or most recently read) and what you're listening to in heavy rotation these days. Maximum 3 CDs and 3 Books. I'll put Amazon links and thumbnail pictures up in the left column. Mouse over the image to read titles. This seems more interesting than just the music we've worked into conversation. It will seem less interesting if no one actually lets me know what they're listening to and reading.
Feel free to update regularly.
I think it's fun to know what books and CDs are in a person's life. Also it helps give me ideas of what to get next. Use this thread to let us know what you're reading (or most recently read) and what you're listening to in heavy rotation these days. Maximum 3 CDs and 3 Books. I'll put Amazon links and thumbnail pictures up in the left column. Mouse over the image to read titles. This seems more interesting than just the music we've worked into conversation. It will seem less interesting if no one actually lets me know what they're listening to and reading.
Feel free to update regularly.
"The O'Franken Factor" ...no, really!
Drudge (sorry) is reporting that the new liberal talk radio network is ready to go on March 31, with Al Franken hosting an afternoon show Monday-Friday:
"'I’m so happy that Air America Radio will be on in three battleground states, New York, Illinois and California….no wait…those aren’t battleground states. What the hell are we doing?' said Franken.
Air America Radio has signed actress and comedienne Janeane Garofalo, hip hop icon Chuck D, radio personality Randi Rhodes, and political humorist Sam Seder to join Franken at the network. Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 'The Daily Show' co-creator Lizz Winstead, and business-of-the-media analyst on the public radio program 'Marketplace' Martin Kaplan will also join the network."
Apparently Al's show will really be called "The O'Franken Factor." Will this network make it? I'm hopeful but have my doubts.
Drudge (sorry) is reporting that the new liberal talk radio network is ready to go on March 31, with Al Franken hosting an afternoon show Monday-Friday:
"'I’m so happy that Air America Radio will be on in three battleground states, New York, Illinois and California….no wait…those aren’t battleground states. What the hell are we doing?' said Franken.
Air America Radio has signed actress and comedienne Janeane Garofalo, hip hop icon Chuck D, radio personality Randi Rhodes, and political humorist Sam Seder to join Franken at the network. Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 'The Daily Show' co-creator Lizz Winstead, and business-of-the-media analyst on the public radio program 'Marketplace' Martin Kaplan will also join the network."
Apparently Al's show will really be called "The O'Franken Factor." Will this network make it? I'm hopeful but have my doubts.
Should we just say no to "just say no"?
In a lively comments thread (!), Judith indicates STDs are indeed on the rise among young people, prompting Doug to lament "I guess we can't assume pregnancies are down because of responsible condom use."
I guess not, but do you know who's responsible for much of that? The crack staff at Article 19 has identified a primary culprit to be social conservatives, of course.
"Bearman (co-author of the study) said that telling teens to "'just say no,' without understanding risk or how to protect oneself from risk, turns out to create greater risk." "After they break their pledge, the gates are open, and they catch up." Bearman said, "These [virginity pledge] movements that are ignorant of social science research defeat the purpose they set out to solve." He also said, "It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex," adding, "It is the combination of hidden sex and unsafe sex that creates a world where people underestimate the risk of STDs."
On the other hand, apparently whatever they're getting, it's not Herpes. Somebody's doing something right. I don't pretend to know who or what. I know they are getting better at treating that one (I mean, uh, that's what I've heard). So maybe it's because of that.
In a lively comments thread (!), Judith indicates STDs are indeed on the rise among young people, prompting Doug to lament "I guess we can't assume pregnancies are down because of responsible condom use."
I guess not, but do you know who's responsible for much of that? The crack staff at Article 19 has identified a primary culprit to be social conservatives, of course.
"Bearman (co-author of the study) said that telling teens to "'just say no,' without understanding risk or how to protect oneself from risk, turns out to create greater risk." "After they break their pledge, the gates are open, and they catch up." Bearman said, "These [virginity pledge] movements that are ignorant of social science research defeat the purpose they set out to solve." He also said, "It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex," adding, "It is the combination of hidden sex and unsafe sex that creates a world where people underestimate the risk of STDs."
On the other hand, apparently whatever they're getting, it's not Herpes. Somebody's doing something right. I don't pretend to know who or what. I know they are getting better at treating that one (I mean, uh, that's what I've heard). So maybe it's because of that.
Culture war's all they've got
"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects the right to an abortion or the funding thereof"
Sorry to get local on you, but that's the proposed amendment to the Tennessee constitution, poised to pass the State Senate on Thursday. Some Democrats are fighting hard, but most have simply tried to add language that would provide exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. As reasonable as that is (it failed), it cedes the fundamental argument, so now instead of talking about whether to amend the constitution, we're talking about how to amend it.
This is exactly the kind of election-year "wedge issue" we have to overcome to build a proper Democratic coalition that will attack economic injustice as its number one priority. Let's face it: God is the trump card, down here especially. Do we need to start spelling out those economic concerns in a religious frame to compete? Would that work?
Local nut-job columnist Tim Chavez predicts that House Speaker Naifeh will be tempted to try to kill the bill in committee, but warns he will have a hard time:
"Naifeh can't now risk being uncovered so prominently for who and what he really serves."
And who/what would that be? What, is Planned Parenthood now a big-contributing money machine? Is there an abortion contracts boondoggle out there ready to line the pockets of the Speaker's friends? Of course not. Naifeh's no saint, but there's only one reason for him to kill this, and I hope he does: because it's a bad idea, aimed at defeating Democrats in November, and eroding the right to abortion that one constitution sure enough does secure. The US Supreme Court says so.
"Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects the right to an abortion or the funding thereof"
Sorry to get local on you, but that's the proposed amendment to the Tennessee constitution, poised to pass the State Senate on Thursday. Some Democrats are fighting hard, but most have simply tried to add language that would provide exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. As reasonable as that is (it failed), it cedes the fundamental argument, so now instead of talking about whether to amend the constitution, we're talking about how to amend it.
This is exactly the kind of election-year "wedge issue" we have to overcome to build a proper Democratic coalition that will attack economic injustice as its number one priority. Let's face it: God is the trump card, down here especially. Do we need to start spelling out those economic concerns in a religious frame to compete? Would that work?
Local nut-job columnist Tim Chavez predicts that House Speaker Naifeh will be tempted to try to kill the bill in committee, but warns he will have a hard time:
"Naifeh can't now risk being uncovered so prominently for who and what he really serves."
And who/what would that be? What, is Planned Parenthood now a big-contributing money machine? Is there an abortion contracts boondoggle out there ready to line the pockets of the Speaker's friends? Of course not. Naifeh's no saint, but there's only one reason for him to kill this, and I hope he does: because it's a bad idea, aimed at defeating Democrats in November, and eroding the right to abortion that one constitution sure enough does secure. The US Supreme Court says so.
Monday, March 08, 2004
It's not a Lie, it's an "incorrect characterization"
This is one of my favorite stories in politics. Ralph Hall was a Democrat representing the 4th Congressional District in Texas. When the Republican leadership refused, late last year, to add spending that would help his district into the Appropriations bill, Tom Delay told Rep. Hall that the reason for the snub was that he is a Democrat.
So did he hold an outraged press conference decrying the partisanship of the majority? No. He switched parties.
Now seeking reelection as a Republican, he's got plenty of support from the same leadership that turned him down before, eager to show how easily re-election comes when you switch to their side. But they're a little over-zealous. So when a young Republican decided to challenge the newly-GOP octagenarian congressman for the nomination, he got calls full of threats from big names in the National Republican Congressional Committee telling him to drop out.
This kid's got no chance anyway, by all accounts. But he does have a tape recorder. So when the RCCC communications director denied elements of his story, the Dallas Observer played him the tape.
"He said he hadn't fibbed; the talks between Murphy and the party honchos had been incorrectly 'characterized,' which led to a 'misunderstanding.'"
Why didn't Martha Stewart use the incorrect characterization defense I wonder?
This is one of my favorite stories in politics. Ralph Hall was a Democrat representing the 4th Congressional District in Texas. When the Republican leadership refused, late last year, to add spending that would help his district into the Appropriations bill, Tom Delay told Rep. Hall that the reason for the snub was that he is a Democrat.
So did he hold an outraged press conference decrying the partisanship of the majority? No. He switched parties.
Now seeking reelection as a Republican, he's got plenty of support from the same leadership that turned him down before, eager to show how easily re-election comes when you switch to their side. But they're a little over-zealous. So when a young Republican decided to challenge the newly-GOP octagenarian congressman for the nomination, he got calls full of threats from big names in the National Republican Congressional Committee telling him to drop out.
This kid's got no chance anyway, by all accounts. But he does have a tape recorder. So when the RCCC communications director denied elements of his story, the Dallas Observer played him the tape.
"He said he hadn't fibbed; the talks between Murphy and the party honchos had been incorrectly 'characterized,' which led to a 'misunderstanding.'"
Why didn't Martha Stewart use the incorrect characterization defense I wonder?
Using Tragedy in Politics
It will be a while before I forgive James Carville for his savaging of Dean (and Begala will never get off my list), but he did have the quote of the day, on Meet the Press, putting into context the Bush-Rove decision to use images from the World Trade Center tragedy in political ads:
"I would be the first person to say the president did a fine job after September 11th. I also find it interesting--and I did some preliminary research on this, more needs to be done. I don't think President Roosevelt ever used Pearl Harbor in the '44 campaign. I know President Clinton did not use the Oklahoma City bombings in the 1996 campaign. I think what you have here is the question of the president's got nowhere else to go. So you're going to see more and more of this. I think we ought to just stipulate, Mr. President, you did a fine job in the wake of September 11th. We've got other things we need to talk about right now..."
What was that line they used in 2000, "bringing honor and dignity back to the White House?" I'm starting to think Rove's not such a brilliant guy after all.
{UPDATE: Speaking of using tragedy in politics, JonBenet's dad wants to run for office.}
It will be a while before I forgive James Carville for his savaging of Dean (and Begala will never get off my list), but he did have the quote of the day, on Meet the Press, putting into context the Bush-Rove decision to use images from the World Trade Center tragedy in political ads:
"I would be the first person to say the president did a fine job after September 11th. I also find it interesting--and I did some preliminary research on this, more needs to be done. I don't think President Roosevelt ever used Pearl Harbor in the '44 campaign. I know President Clinton did not use the Oklahoma City bombings in the 1996 campaign. I think what you have here is the question of the president's got nowhere else to go. So you're going to see more and more of this. I think we ought to just stipulate, Mr. President, you did a fine job in the wake of September 11th. We've got other things we need to talk about right now..."
What was that line they used in 2000, "bringing honor and dignity back to the White House?" I'm starting to think Rove's not such a brilliant guy after all.
{UPDATE: Speaking of using tragedy in politics, JonBenet's dad wants to run for office.}
Young and Irresponsible?
No matter what influences kids to do whatever they do (clearly I have no idea what does), this is good news:
"The teenage pregnancy rate in America, which rose sharply between 1986 and 1991 to huge public alarm, has fallen steadily for a decade with little fanfare, to below any level previously recorded in the United States."
I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? I don't even care if the abstinence forces want to take the credit. But if they do, won't they have to stop claiming today's teenagers (and today's parents) lack virtue and responsibility?
No matter what influences kids to do whatever they do (clearly I have no idea what does), this is good news:
"The teenage pregnancy rate in America, which rose sharply between 1986 and 1991 to huge public alarm, has fallen steadily for a decade with little fanfare, to below any level previously recorded in the United States."
I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? I don't even care if the abstinence forces want to take the credit. But if they do, won't they have to stop claiming today's teenagers (and today's parents) lack virtue and responsibility?
Sunday, March 07, 2004
More Grey-Album Related Info
Showing how little I know about rap music, my post below, on the Grey album, didn't include this important aspect from today's NYT, because I had no idea:
"Jay-Z didn't just announce his retirement from hip-hop with "The Black Album." He also left a going-away present by making available the unaccompanied raps from all 14 of the album's songs. While other rappers regularly include a cappella raps on their singles, Jay-Z challenged would-be producers to remake the entire album, and they have taken him up on it."
It's hard not to be excited by the musical and artistic possibilities offered by the growing aesthetic of composition-by-community. When major artists are willing to let go of their creations, it's good for art. I suspect they'll find it's ultimately good for their careers as well.
Showing how little I know about rap music, my post below, on the Grey album, didn't include this important aspect from today's NYT, because I had no idea:
"Jay-Z didn't just announce his retirement from hip-hop with "The Black Album." He also left a going-away present by making available the unaccompanied raps from all 14 of the album's songs. While other rappers regularly include a cappella raps on their singles, Jay-Z challenged would-be producers to remake the entire album, and they have taken him up on it."
It's hard not to be excited by the musical and artistic possibilities offered by the growing aesthetic of composition-by-community. When major artists are willing to let go of their creations, it's good for art. I suspect they'll find it's ultimately good for their careers as well.
A big Sunday night for a couch potato:
8 PM EST CNN: Documentary on the Dean campaign
9 PM EST HBO: The Sopranos Season Opener (which is getting some good reviews)
What did you think of either? I'll be looking for common themes.
8 PM EST CNN: Documentary on the Dean campaign
9 PM EST HBO: The Sopranos Season Opener (which is getting some good reviews)
What did you think of either? I'll be looking for common themes.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Jobs in Context
{UPDATE: Job report specifics (thanks for the comment Dayvoe!) show this:
"The biggest job gains in February came in temporary help, which added 32,000 jobs. That suggests that companies aren't willing to hire full-time workers. Government payrolls added 21,000 jobs, mainly at the state level.
Construction led the losers, falling by 24,000 jobs. Harsh winter weather may have been partly to blame. America's factories lost jobs for the 43rd straight month, though the small decline of 3,000 jobs signaled that the worst may be over."
More raw numbers on the Bureau of Labor Statistics release.
Memo/good news for Dayvoe: Pirates are still in first place!}
The recurring theme: How dumb do they think we are?
Only one month ago, financial analysts were buzzing about the White House "forecast," that the Bush economy would create at least 300,000 new jobs per month. Let's not forget also that the job-seeking population base is growing not waiting, so we need anywhere from 140,000 to 200,000 a month just to stay even.
So how many did February bring? 21,000. Will they use the "February-is-the-shortest-month" excuse? Really, the report was even worse than 21,000 since they reduced the Dec. and January job creation numbers down by 24,000.
Unemployment sticks at 5.6%
So today in Crawford with Mexican President Fox, Bush said: "We've got a pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur, pro-small business agenda that is making this economy stronger."
Watch how excited they will be the first time (probably right before the election) they manage 150,000 new jobs a month, just keeping up with population growth. Will they remember they were over 100,000 jobs short in February?
It is time for Americans to begin voting their economic interests; for a political alliance to re-emerge that takes economic injustice to be the number one priority we must address. It will take some compromise on some issues, but this is the alternative: an administration that believes tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans create jobs, and that if they don't, it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts (because tax cuts create jobs...).
I've been reading and thinking alot about just such an alliance lately, and I feel another epic post coming. So beware.
{UPDATE: Job report specifics (thanks for the comment Dayvoe!) show this:
"The biggest job gains in February came in temporary help, which added 32,000 jobs. That suggests that companies aren't willing to hire full-time workers. Government payrolls added 21,000 jobs, mainly at the state level.
Construction led the losers, falling by 24,000 jobs. Harsh winter weather may have been partly to blame. America's factories lost jobs for the 43rd straight month, though the small decline of 3,000 jobs signaled that the worst may be over."
More raw numbers on the Bureau of Labor Statistics release.
Memo/good news for Dayvoe: Pirates are still in first place!}
The recurring theme: How dumb do they think we are?
Only one month ago, financial analysts were buzzing about the White House "forecast," that the Bush economy would create at least 300,000 new jobs per month. Let's not forget also that the job-seeking population base is growing not waiting, so we need anywhere from 140,000 to 200,000 a month just to stay even.
So how many did February bring? 21,000. Will they use the "February-is-the-shortest-month" excuse? Really, the report was even worse than 21,000 since they reduced the Dec. and January job creation numbers down by 24,000.
Unemployment sticks at 5.6%
So today in Crawford with Mexican President Fox, Bush said: "We've got a pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur, pro-small business agenda that is making this economy stronger."
Watch how excited they will be the first time (probably right before the election) they manage 150,000 new jobs a month, just keeping up with population growth. Will they remember they were over 100,000 jobs short in February?
It is time for Americans to begin voting their economic interests; for a political alliance to re-emerge that takes economic injustice to be the number one priority we must address. It will take some compromise on some issues, but this is the alternative: an administration that believes tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans create jobs, and that if they don't, it would have been worse if not for the tax cuts (because tax cuts create jobs...).
I've been reading and thinking alot about just such an alliance lately, and I feel another epic post coming. So beware.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Chicago Sun-Times presents: Great Moments in Headline-Writing
"Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush"
(via Instapundit)
"Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush"
(via Instapundit)
My Question to Pat Robertson
Dear Pat,
I watched you on TV (I don't need my remote any more; I just leave it on CBN! Praise Jesus!) explaining why Haiti is in such a world of hurt. I heard you say that many years ago Haiti (which sounds alot like "hades" when you think about it...) made a deal with the devil to get rid of the French. So the devil had his way down there and still does. My question is, does that mean God was on the side of the French, or at least their friend since they got run out by the devil and all? And if God is a friend of the French, why are they so bad at warring?
Sincerely,
Don B.
Two Rivers Baptist Church
Nashville, TN
Send your question to Pat Robertson at "Ask Pat" and let us know what you asked, just for fun. It will brighten your day.
{UPDATE: Maybe someone should ask him why God is angry at John Ashcroft.}
Dear Pat,
I watched you on TV (I don't need my remote any more; I just leave it on CBN! Praise Jesus!) explaining why Haiti is in such a world of hurt. I heard you say that many years ago Haiti (which sounds alot like "hades" when you think about it...) made a deal with the devil to get rid of the French. So the devil had his way down there and still does. My question is, does that mean God was on the side of the French, or at least their friend since they got run out by the devil and all? And if God is a friend of the French, why are they so bad at warring?
Sincerely,
Don B.
Two Rivers Baptist Church
Nashville, TN
Send your question to Pat Robertson at "Ask Pat" and let us know what you asked, just for fun. It will brighten your day.
{UPDATE: Maybe someone should ask him why God is angry at John Ashcroft.}
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Divine Judgment by Google
I had a conversation earlier today with a friend who is a frustrated gay Christian, for reasons that are probably obvious (the frustrated part). Especially upsetting is the intense devotion some have to a passage in Leviticus that is often used to prove that God hates gay people. My friend told me that Leviticus also has all kinds of bad things to say about shrimp, but that no one seems too concerned about that.
So just now I googled "Does God Hate Shrimp?"
And I found this affirmative answer.
I had a conversation earlier today with a friend who is a frustrated gay Christian, for reasons that are probably obvious (the frustrated part). Especially upsetting is the intense devotion some have to a passage in Leviticus that is often used to prove that God hates gay people. My friend told me that Leviticus also has all kinds of bad things to say about shrimp, but that no one seems too concerned about that.
So just now I googled "Does God Hate Shrimp?"
And I found this affirmative answer.
Will Kerry Capture the Fundraising Magic of the Internet?
A prominent blog, Eschaton, designated Thursdays "John Kerry Thursdays," encouraging readers to make a contribution to the campaign that day. The Dean campaign taught me that giving money to a particular fundraising drive builds tremendous loyalty and sense of ownership of the campaign. And also that I'm a big dumb sucker for that kind of thing (oooh, watching the numbers go up...). Worse than any kid the APA was worried about.
But maybe I'm not alone and more adults than just me are join-the-club suckers too. Apparently, Atrios had a bigger day than he expected helping Kerry raise money online. I wonder if success will be the rule and not the exception for Kerry in the blogosphere? Would be a good sign.
Even though I'm fully on board, I don't know when my Dean grief will allow me to actually give money. Deb, maybe the key is to contribute first, and the love will follow?
A prominent blog, Eschaton, designated Thursdays "John Kerry Thursdays," encouraging readers to make a contribution to the campaign that day. The Dean campaign taught me that giving money to a particular fundraising drive builds tremendous loyalty and sense of ownership of the campaign. And also that I'm a big dumb sucker for that kind of thing (oooh, watching the numbers go up...). Worse than any kid the APA was worried about.
But maybe I'm not alone and more adults than just me are join-the-club suckers too. Apparently, Atrios had a bigger day than he expected helping Kerry raise money online. I wonder if success will be the rule and not the exception for Kerry in the blogosphere? Would be a good sign.
Even though I'm fully on board, I don't know when my Dean grief will allow me to actually give money. Deb, maybe the key is to contribute first, and the love will follow?
My eternal search for the definition of irony may be
http://www.wftv.com/news/2897982/detail.html
People Are Angry
I watched the new Bush commercials played on Hardball last night and I thought they were nicely done and annoying, but no more so than everything else about Bush. As it turns out, there's more to be angry about than met my eye if you lost a relative on September 11, 2001, or if you are a firefighter. Heck, even Howard Stern is angry at George W. Bush. Can Kerry start advertising on his show?
I watched the new Bush commercials played on Hardball last night and I thought they were nicely done and annoying, but no more so than everything else about Bush. As it turns out, there's more to be angry about than met my eye if you lost a relative on September 11, 2001, or if you are a firefighter. Heck, even Howard Stern is angry at George W. Bush. Can Kerry start advertising on his show?
Why can't other children be more like Norah?
The LA Times has an opinion about why 24-year-old Norah Jones' new album is so popular: it's one generation's wishful thinking about another.
"Jones' success can be seen as an expression of this musical generation gap. While Jones' contemporaries are busy downloading Jay-Z songs to their iPods, their parents are buying tens of thousands of 'Feels Like Home' CDs every day, comforted by the sound of a young performer — a certifiable member of the hip-hop generation — so skillfully embracing rock-era musical values. Indeed, more than a few commentators have hailed Jones for bringing back the 'real music' that has been missing in action since rappers and DJs crashed the party."
I haven't heard her new one yet, and am not a big fan, but don't believe you can just reduce her to "merely recapitulating the work of torch singers of the past." I do agree with Jody that "...the kids have usually been right. When it comes to identifying the day's vital music, don't trust anyone over 30."
So my 30-something opinion's no good anyway
The LA Times has an opinion about why 24-year-old Norah Jones' new album is so popular: it's one generation's wishful thinking about another.
"Jones' success can be seen as an expression of this musical generation gap. While Jones' contemporaries are busy downloading Jay-Z songs to their iPods, their parents are buying tens of thousands of 'Feels Like Home' CDs every day, comforted by the sound of a young performer — a certifiable member of the hip-hop generation — so skillfully embracing rock-era musical values. Indeed, more than a few commentators have hailed Jones for bringing back the 'real music' that has been missing in action since rappers and DJs crashed the party."
I haven't heard her new one yet, and am not a big fan, but don't believe you can just reduce her to "merely recapitulating the work of torch singers of the past." I do agree with Jody that "...the kids have usually been right. When it comes to identifying the day's vital music, don't trust anyone over 30."
So my 30-something opinion's no good anyway
The hill gets steeper for Democrats in 2004
More math. Thanks for bringing this up, Doug. Comparing the electoral votes Gore won in 2000, with the electoral map distribution in 2004, after the 2000 census, shows that Gore states lost 7 electoral votes in the process (meaning that Bush-won states gained 7). Just adding New Hampshire or West Virginia won't do it anymore.
Change in Gore-won states from 2000 to 2004:
California +1
Connecticut -1
Illinois -1
Michigan -1
New York -2
Pennsylvania -2
Wisconsin -1
Total change = -7
If you want to play with possible outcome models, here's a good electoral map game.
More math. Thanks for bringing this up, Doug. Comparing the electoral votes Gore won in 2000, with the electoral map distribution in 2004, after the 2000 census, shows that Gore states lost 7 electoral votes in the process (meaning that Bush-won states gained 7). Just adding New Hampshire or West Virginia won't do it anymore.
Change in Gore-won states from 2000 to 2004:
California +1
Connecticut -1
Illinois -1
Michigan -1
New York -2
Pennsylvania -2
Wisconsin -1
Total change = -7
If you want to play with possible outcome models, here's a good electoral map game.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
For kids....to deal with?
In comments, Doug pointed us to the very reasonable EPA global warming site. They divide scientific knowledge about global warming into 3 neat categories: What we know for certain, what's likely but not certain, and the big unknowns. I guess I missed the day they started admitting many of these things.
I can't say that I know if things are placed in the correct category, but I do know that this image they use on the web site is, well, disturbing. Maybe I'm easily disturbed these days.
In comments, Doug pointed us to the very reasonable EPA global warming site. They divide scientific knowledge about global warming into 3 neat categories: What we know for certain, what's likely but not certain, and the big unknowns. I guess I missed the day they started admitting many of these things.
I can't say that I know if things are placed in the correct category, but I do know that this image they use on the web site is, well, disturbing. Maybe I'm easily disturbed these days.
Now, it's on
I made the case for Dean as strongly, and for as long as I could. I made the case for Edwards after that. Since it's down to 2, John Kerry is the candidate representing me now. His ascendency to the White House is the only acceptable outcome. We must relish the fight on his behalf, and hope that he does the same on ours. I've bemoaned things about him before, criticized some of his positions and his manner of expressing them, but that was like scrutinizing which Red Sox starting pitcher to send to the mound to face the Yankees. Now, the game is on. My pitcher wasn't selected, but I'm still going to root like hell against the evil empire. The only way for Bush to lose is for Kerry to win. It's as simple as that.
I've spoken my last ill word of John Kerry, until and unless he screws up AS President of the United States. No candidate is perfect. But participating in this democracy means picking one. So I will do whatever I can with my time and my money and my effort to help him win. I will explain away mis-statements, cast the fairest possible light on his record, take him at his word, and everything else you do when you believe in someone. I will start right now believing in John Kerry. As of now, he is worth believing in. That's because his opponent is George W. Bush, a disastrous President, whose reelection offers a frightening future that would greatly cost Americans many of the things that make us just, secure and free, and would prevent us any hope of becoming moreso.
Holding a President John F. Kerry accountable would be a pleasure compared to this. The record of this present Administration we simply cannot abide. Let's not lose sight:
Jobs--2.9 million jobs lost, unemployment is up, and long-term unemployment has tripled.
Budget Deficit--Fiscal 2003 saw a deficit of over 500 Billion (with a B) dollars, and it's only getting bigger.
Uninsured--more than 15% of Americans, 43.6 million, including more than 8 million children, were without health insurance throughout the entire year in 2002, the 2nd consecutive year that percentage increased (stats on 2003 are coming...).
Health Care Costs--For 3 straight years, health care premiums have increased by double-digit percentages.
5 to 4--How many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that we've won in the past will be lost if Bush gets 4 more years?
Special Interests--Unprecedented (and that's saying something) policy influence to large contributors.
Animosity toward Science--They stubbornly throw out facts they don't like.
Disrespect Toward Veterans--Cutting Benefits and Extending tours of duty.
Lies--Including, but not limited to, the kind that got us into Iraq.
Hates Treaties--Has Bush found an international treaty or organization he can support?
Threatens Environment--Weakens or eliminates standards that protect wildlife and humans.
Ashcroft attacks Privacy Rights--The Patriot Act.
Ashcroft attacks Abortion Rights--Subpoenas Hospital Records.
Whatever our thoughts about Kerry the candidate for nomination, I say we cannot resist the Bush record lightly. So I will support the Senator as strongly as I can. What say you?
I made the case for Dean as strongly, and for as long as I could. I made the case for Edwards after that. Since it's down to 2, John Kerry is the candidate representing me now. His ascendency to the White House is the only acceptable outcome. We must relish the fight on his behalf, and hope that he does the same on ours. I've bemoaned things about him before, criticized some of his positions and his manner of expressing them, but that was like scrutinizing which Red Sox starting pitcher to send to the mound to face the Yankees. Now, the game is on. My pitcher wasn't selected, but I'm still going to root like hell against the evil empire. The only way for Bush to lose is for Kerry to win. It's as simple as that.
I've spoken my last ill word of John Kerry, until and unless he screws up AS President of the United States. No candidate is perfect. But participating in this democracy means picking one. So I will do whatever I can with my time and my money and my effort to help him win. I will explain away mis-statements, cast the fairest possible light on his record, take him at his word, and everything else you do when you believe in someone. I will start right now believing in John Kerry. As of now, he is worth believing in. That's because his opponent is George W. Bush, a disastrous President, whose reelection offers a frightening future that would greatly cost Americans many of the things that make us just, secure and free, and would prevent us any hope of becoming moreso.
Holding a President John F. Kerry accountable would be a pleasure compared to this. The record of this present Administration we simply cannot abide. Let's not lose sight:
Jobs--2.9 million jobs lost, unemployment is up, and long-term unemployment has tripled.
Budget Deficit--Fiscal 2003 saw a deficit of over 500 Billion (with a B) dollars, and it's only getting bigger.
Uninsured--more than 15% of Americans, 43.6 million, including more than 8 million children, were without health insurance throughout the entire year in 2002, the 2nd consecutive year that percentage increased (stats on 2003 are coming...).
Health Care Costs--For 3 straight years, health care premiums have increased by double-digit percentages.
5 to 4--How many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that we've won in the past will be lost if Bush gets 4 more years?
Special Interests--Unprecedented (and that's saying something) policy influence to large contributors.
Animosity toward Science--They stubbornly throw out facts they don't like.
Disrespect Toward Veterans--Cutting Benefits and Extending tours of duty.
Lies--Including, but not limited to, the kind that got us into Iraq.
Hates Treaties--Has Bush found an international treaty or organization he can support?
Threatens Environment--Weakens or eliminates standards that protect wildlife and humans.
Ashcroft attacks Privacy Rights--The Patriot Act.
Ashcroft attacks Abortion Rights--Subpoenas Hospital Records.
Whatever our thoughts about Kerry the candidate for nomination, I say we cannot resist the Bush record lightly. So I will support the Senator as strongly as I can. What say you?
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Looks like Kerry rolls, and says something strange
Exit polls highlighted at Drudge show Kerry romping, so any lingering suspense is likely to be over soon. Meanwhile this story contains one of the strangest quotes of the day, from the presumptive nominee:
"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."
In the end, Kerry's kind of a weird guy isn't he?
Only the VP sweepstakes remain. I'm not ruling out Edwards, even though, apparently, they're not exactly getting along these days. My money's on Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Gephardt's a possibility, too. Funny how nobody's talking Wes Clark anymore.
Exit polls highlighted at Drudge show Kerry romping, so any lingering suspense is likely to be over soon. Meanwhile this story contains one of the strangest quotes of the day, from the presumptive nominee:
"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second."
In the end, Kerry's kind of a weird guy isn't he?
Only the VP sweepstakes remain. I'm not ruling out Edwards, even though, apparently, they're not exactly getting along these days. My money's on Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Gephardt's a possibility, too. Funny how nobody's talking Wes Clark anymore.
What Counts as Speculation? What Counts as Science?
A loyal, ahem, reader pointed me to the recent story of the Pentagon-funded report on climate change and national security. Its rather stark suggestions about a cataclysmic change in the very near future and our total unpreparedness for such a development are eye-opening. It's also fueled a huge debate over whether it's based on "science" or "speculation" (though isn't speculation part of science? I always thought so). Once again, the mere fact that speculation plays any role at all will keep Bush-Cheney from doing anything about it (from the people that brought us the "evolution-is-just-a-theory" mantra).
Should the evidence begin to tip the scales more toward the science end of the spectrum, this report suggests the US has alot of work to do, and not very much time (maybe we shouldn't wait until then?):
"It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an immanent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable. . . .In that event the United States will need to take urgent action to prevent and mitigate some of the most significant impacts. Diplomatic action will be needed to minimize the likelihood of conflict in the most impacted areas, especially in the Caribbean and Asia. . . .In short, while the US will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life."
Maybe more striking, and receiving no press attention, are the statements affirming without question things that climate change nay-sayers like the Bush Administration never admit. While this report is concerned with abrupt change that will "likely come regardless of human activity," it reminds us:
"It's important to understand human impacts on the environment-both what's done to accelerate and decelerate (or perhaps even reverse) the tendency toward climate change. Alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts are worthwhile endeavors."
Since when did they believe that? And then there's my personal favorite, on page 15:
"Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. . . . With 815 million people receiving insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we're living well above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to sustain our behavior."
Some would say?
As for whether this report is pure science or pure speculation (as if there is such a thing as either), the crack staff at Article 19 has tracked down a copy of the report, so you can read it for yourself, and I highly recommend it. Come back here and tell everybody what you think.
A loyal, ahem, reader pointed me to the recent story of the Pentagon-funded report on climate change and national security. Its rather stark suggestions about a cataclysmic change in the very near future and our total unpreparedness for such a development are eye-opening. It's also fueled a huge debate over whether it's based on "science" or "speculation" (though isn't speculation part of science? I always thought so). Once again, the mere fact that speculation plays any role at all will keep Bush-Cheney from doing anything about it (from the people that brought us the "evolution-is-just-a-theory" mantra).
Should the evidence begin to tip the scales more toward the science end of the spectrum, this report suggests the US has alot of work to do, and not very much time (maybe we shouldn't wait until then?):
"It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an immanent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable. . . .In that event the United States will need to take urgent action to prevent and mitigate some of the most significant impacts. Diplomatic action will be needed to minimize the likelihood of conflict in the most impacted areas, especially in the Caribbean and Asia. . . .In short, while the US will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life."
Maybe more striking, and receiving no press attention, are the statements affirming without question things that climate change nay-sayers like the Bush Administration never admit. While this report is concerned with abrupt change that will "likely come regardless of human activity," it reminds us:
"It's important to understand human impacts on the environment-both what's done to accelerate and decelerate (or perhaps even reverse) the tendency toward climate change. Alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts are worthwhile endeavors."
Since when did they believe that? And then there's my personal favorite, on page 15:
"Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. . . . With 815 million people receiving insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we're living well above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to sustain our behavior."
Some would say?
As for whether this report is pure science or pure speculation (as if there is such a thing as either), the crack staff at Article 19 has tracked down a copy of the report, so you can read it for yourself, and I highly recommend it. Come back here and tell everybody what you think.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Whose Vote Is Worth the Most? Fun with Numbers, Part II
{Sorry this is so long. The headline is this: While there is well-documented discrepancy in the electoral college in average weight assigned each voter from state to state, this discrepancy is 15 times larger in the Democratic nominating process. }
The electoral college is controversial because, as a national election, not everyone's vote counts equally. The number of electors representing a state are pre-determined, and even though they are distributed proportionally based on population, variables of turnout generate some disproportion in the number of voters on average represented by each electoral vote. I know you all know this. But how much difference is there really? Is it substantial?
Taking the results of 2000, those lowest 6 and their ratios (numerator in thousands) were:
1. DC (67:1)
2. WY (73:1)
3. HI (91:1)
4. AK (95:1)
5. ND (96:1)
6. VT (98:1)
So in effect an elector in DC represents 67,000 voters. An elector from VT represents 98,000. The Vermont elector represents about 1.5 times the amount of people the DC elector does.
The top 6 ratios were:
1. MN (243:1)
2. FL (238:1)
3. WI (236:1)
4. MI (235:1)
5. WA (226:1) [Washington's high turnout giving Nader the support to claim his candidacy effectively won the Senate seat for Democrats as Cantwell barely squeaked by there]
6. MA (225:1)
So, a voter in Wyoming is almost 4 times as powerful as one in Minnesota in terms of their effect on the electoral college. Minnesota had more than 12 times as many voters. You'd think they have 12 times the electors, but really receive only 3.3 times as many. Still that is really as wide as the margin gets. I still think it's the wrong way to go, but I understand the arguments for the electoral college, and can at least hear the idea that the bad, in that ratio, is outweighed by the good.
But....here's how we decide the Democratic nominee. States are apportioned delegates based on population, but have the freedom to determine for themselves how those delegates are awarded. Every state has some superdelegates: elected officials and others that are official delegates but can vote for whomever they choose at the convention, no matter how their state voted. Every state also has some delegates that are proportionally allotted based on the state's vote. The proportion of super-delegates to delegates that actually represent the people's vote varies from state to state. Widely.
Here's where I get irked. The widest ratio spread in the electoral college we found in 2000 was about 4 to 1 (from Minnesota to DC); but, in the 2004 Democratic primary, a Michigan voter counted 10 times what the Wisconsinite did. Hawaiian caucus-goer's vote effectively counted 62 times what the Wisconsin primary voter's did. A delegate is a delegate. They get the same vote at the convention toward naming a nominee, and should represent the same basic number of people. But one of them will represent 11,353 of the people that voted for Dean in Madison, WI and one of them will represent
about 1,254 of the people that voted for Edwards in Detroit, MI. One of them will represent 254 Kerry voters in Idaho. They all get an equal vote in the convention: the 11,353-voter guy and the 254 voter guy.
299,000 people voted in Oklahoma and they select 40 delegates. 160,000 people voted in Michigan and they select 128. How screwed up is that?
People are pissed about the electoral college but the discrepancy in the primary, reaching over 60:1 from Wisconsin to Hawaii, is over 15 times as big as the Minnesota-Wyoming spread in the general election in 2000.
I think we need a new system. One Democrat's vote should count as much as any other Democrat in naming our nominee. Or should come darn close. We should be able to do that and still honor the retail politics of Iowa and NH. Would it have made a difference this time? No - not with Kerry so far ahead. But one of these times it, along with the super-delegates, will make all the difference. We will have a nominee who has more delegates and fewer votes. Maybe many more.
Am I just crazy? Here the good can not possibly outweigh the bad. What am I missing? You all are smart. Tell me. Is it no big deal? Why not apportion delegates at least partly based on previous voter turnout? Why should 817,000 voters in Wisconsin be represented by 72 delegates, while 416,000 from Missouri are represented by 74?
{Sorry this is so long. The headline is this: While there is well-documented discrepancy in the electoral college in average weight assigned each voter from state to state, this discrepancy is 15 times larger in the Democratic nominating process. }
The electoral college is controversial because, as a national election, not everyone's vote counts equally. The number of electors representing a state are pre-determined, and even though they are distributed proportionally based on population, variables of turnout generate some disproportion in the number of voters on average represented by each electoral vote. I know you all know this. But how much difference is there really? Is it substantial?
Taking the results of 2000, those lowest 6 and their ratios (numerator in thousands) were:
1. DC (67:1)
2. WY (73:1)
3. HI (91:1)
4. AK (95:1)
5. ND (96:1)
6. VT (98:1)
So in effect an elector in DC represents 67,000 voters. An elector from VT represents 98,000. The Vermont elector represents about 1.5 times the amount of people the DC elector does.
The top 6 ratios were:
1. MN (243:1)
2. FL (238:1)
3. WI (236:1)
4. MI (235:1)
5. WA (226:1) [Washington's high turnout giving Nader the support to claim his candidacy effectively won the Senate seat for Democrats as Cantwell barely squeaked by there]
6. MA (225:1)
So, a voter in Wyoming is almost 4 times as powerful as one in Minnesota in terms of their effect on the electoral college. Minnesota had more than 12 times as many voters. You'd think they have 12 times the electors, but really receive only 3.3 times as many. Still that is really as wide as the margin gets. I still think it's the wrong way to go, but I understand the arguments for the electoral college, and can at least hear the idea that the bad, in that ratio, is outweighed by the good.
But....here's how we decide the Democratic nominee. States are apportioned delegates based on population, but have the freedom to determine for themselves how those delegates are awarded. Every state has some superdelegates: elected officials and others that are official delegates but can vote for whomever they choose at the convention, no matter how their state voted. Every state also has some delegates that are proportionally allotted based on the state's vote. The proportion of super-delegates to delegates that actually represent the people's vote varies from state to state. Widely.
Here's where I get irked. The widest ratio spread in the electoral college we found in 2000 was about 4 to 1 (from Minnesota to DC); but, in the 2004 Democratic primary, a Michigan voter counted 10 times what the Wisconsinite did. Hawaiian caucus-goer's vote effectively counted 62 times what the Wisconsin primary voter's did. A delegate is a delegate. They get the same vote at the convention toward naming a nominee, and should represent the same basic number of people. But one of them will represent 11,353 of the people that voted for Dean in Madison, WI and one of them will represent
about 1,254 of the people that voted for Edwards in Detroit, MI. One of them will represent 254 Kerry voters in Idaho. They all get an equal vote in the convention: the 11,353-voter guy and the 254 voter guy.
299,000 people voted in Oklahoma and they select 40 delegates. 160,000 people voted in Michigan and they select 128. How screwed up is that?
People are pissed about the electoral college but the discrepancy in the primary, reaching over 60:1 from Wisconsin to Hawaii, is over 15 times as big as the Minnesota-Wyoming spread in the general election in 2000.
I think we need a new system. One Democrat's vote should count as much as any other Democrat in naming our nominee. Or should come darn close. We should be able to do that and still honor the retail politics of Iowa and NH. Would it have made a difference this time? No - not with Kerry so far ahead. But one of these times it, along with the super-delegates, will make all the difference. We will have a nominee who has more delegates and fewer votes. Maybe many more.
Am I just crazy? Here the good can not possibly outweigh the bad. What am I missing? You all are smart. Tell me. Is it no big deal? Why not apportion delegates at least partly based on previous voter turnout? Why should 817,000 voters in Wisconsin be represented by 72 delegates, while 416,000 from Missouri are represented by 74?
Baseless Predictions
1. Denied last night, Elvis Costello will win one of the next 2 best song Oscars.
2. We'll find Bin Laden around mid-July.
3. Belmont makes the NCAA Tournament this weekend.
4. Big announcement about life on Mars will come soon. Ok, that's not baseless, but who knows the track record of NASA leaks like this one? The only question left for me is, will it be truly amazing and underreported? Or truly trivial and overreported?
Any baseless predictions you'd like to share?
1. Denied last night, Elvis Costello will win one of the next 2 best song Oscars.
2. We'll find Bin Laden around mid-July.
3. Belmont makes the NCAA Tournament this weekend.
4. Big announcement about life on Mars will come soon. Ok, that's not baseless, but who knows the track record of NASA leaks like this one? The only question left for me is, will it be truly amazing and underreported? Or truly trivial and overreported?
Any baseless predictions you'd like to share?
I should be your President because...
In the New York Times today are Op-Eds by both Johns (no, sadly not Flansburgh and Linnell): Edwards and Kerry. They are both attempts at connecting on a personal and emotional level, to inform us of their deepest motivations, and to embrace the most potentially controversial aspects of their pre-Senate lives. The fact that you would never know from reading them that they were written by (or for) Presidential candidates is both interesting and a tiny bit disturbing. I'm a little shocked that either would use the precise material they did to make their case.
I also think Kerry's is a sign that my friend Ram is right about this upcoming election, even though I haven't thought so until now: this election will be about Vietnam. It will be a chance really for the first time for the United States to have an electoral referendum on that war, knowing the extent of the deception that kept it going.
Read these if you get a chance. I'm curious what you all think. Personally, I think that--in the case of Edwards--claiming the courage and wisdom it took to turn down a settlement offer of 3/4 of a million dollars, thinking he could get more, and--for Kerry--the way that the deaths of friends in war, amid the assassination of American leaders at home motivated him to fight against that war more than 30 years ago make kind of bizarre cases that one should be elected President in 2004. But maybe it's just me. If Clinton had lived either of their lives, are these the stories he would have told?
A quote from Edwards' piece:
"I was telling this ruined man to turn his back on what must have seemed to him a fortune. I was claiming to know what the jury was thinking. If I was wrong, E. G. would suffer even more for the rest of his life — and I'd go home to my wife and children and on to my next case. I was all he had, and God help him, he trusted me.
That's when I really understood what I was doing. Even though I had written an essay when I was 11 years old titled, "Why I Want to Be a Lawyer," I did not truly understand what I would do as a lawyer until that night. While I had worked my way through law school, clerked for a judge, worked in a law firm, I understood that night how much E. G. and hundreds like him would count on me to make sure that the law protected them..."
and from Kerry's piece:
"It is hard still to explain the clashing feelings. There was the deep and enduring bonds forged among crewmates, brothers in arms from all walks of life fighting each day to keep faith with one another on a tiny boat on the rivers of the Mekong Delta. And there was the anger I felt toward body-counting, face-saving leaders sitting safely in Washington sending to the killing fields troops who were often poor, black or brown. . . .
I found understanding only in the shared experience of those for whom the war was personal, who had lost friends and seen brothers lose arms and legs, who had seen all around them human beings fight and curse, weep and die. At times it seemed that we were the only ones who really understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors."
In the New York Times today are Op-Eds by both Johns (no, sadly not Flansburgh and Linnell): Edwards and Kerry. They are both attempts at connecting on a personal and emotional level, to inform us of their deepest motivations, and to embrace the most potentially controversial aspects of their pre-Senate lives. The fact that you would never know from reading them that they were written by (or for) Presidential candidates is both interesting and a tiny bit disturbing. I'm a little shocked that either would use the precise material they did to make their case.
I also think Kerry's is a sign that my friend Ram is right about this upcoming election, even though I haven't thought so until now: this election will be about Vietnam. It will be a chance really for the first time for the United States to have an electoral referendum on that war, knowing the extent of the deception that kept it going.
Read these if you get a chance. I'm curious what you all think. Personally, I think that--in the case of Edwards--claiming the courage and wisdom it took to turn down a settlement offer of 3/4 of a million dollars, thinking he could get more, and--for Kerry--the way that the deaths of friends in war, amid the assassination of American leaders at home motivated him to fight against that war more than 30 years ago make kind of bizarre cases that one should be elected President in 2004. But maybe it's just me. If Clinton had lived either of their lives, are these the stories he would have told?
A quote from Edwards' piece:
"I was telling this ruined man to turn his back on what must have seemed to him a fortune. I was claiming to know what the jury was thinking. If I was wrong, E. G. would suffer even more for the rest of his life — and I'd go home to my wife and children and on to my next case. I was all he had, and God help him, he trusted me.
That's when I really understood what I was doing. Even though I had written an essay when I was 11 years old titled, "Why I Want to Be a Lawyer," I did not truly understand what I would do as a lawyer until that night. While I had worked my way through law school, clerked for a judge, worked in a law firm, I understood that night how much E. G. and hundreds like him would count on me to make sure that the law protected them..."
and from Kerry's piece:
"It is hard still to explain the clashing feelings. There was the deep and enduring bonds forged among crewmates, brothers in arms from all walks of life fighting each day to keep faith with one another on a tiny boat on the rivers of the Mekong Delta. And there was the anger I felt toward body-counting, face-saving leaders sitting safely in Washington sending to the killing fields troops who were often poor, black or brown. . . .
I found understanding only in the shared experience of those for whom the war was personal, who had lost friends and seen brothers lose arms and legs, who had seen all around them human beings fight and curse, weep and die. At times it seemed that we were the only ones who really understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors."
One of the greatest pie graphs you'll ever see
Sorry, Fun with Numbers Part II really is coming and I think there are some disturbing things about the way we select a nominee that may surprise you. But while I put it all together, let me introduce you to another of my favorite blogs, Uggabugga. It is well known for the "helpful" visual aids, charts and graphs. The most recent post, a pie graph, compares: a) Bush's time he's planning to spend helping the 9/11 commission understand what went wrong, with b) the amount of time he spent on vacation prior to September 11, 2001. If you like that, maybe you'll like one of his simple flow charts, to make things clear, like this one diagramming Kevin Phillips' book on the Bush dynasty .
Other than The Onion, what other funny sites do you all read that I should keep up with?
Sorry, Fun with Numbers Part II really is coming and I think there are some disturbing things about the way we select a nominee that may surprise you. But while I put it all together, let me introduce you to another of my favorite blogs, Uggabugga. It is well known for the "helpful" visual aids, charts and graphs. The most recent post, a pie graph, compares: a) Bush's time he's planning to spend helping the 9/11 commission understand what went wrong, with b) the amount of time he spent on vacation prior to September 11, 2001. If you like that, maybe you'll like one of his simple flow charts, to make things clear, like this one diagramming Kevin Phillips' book on the Bush dynasty .
Other than The Onion, what other funny sites do you all read that I should keep up with?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)