Moveon.Org would like the administration to become more accountable, and set up a time-line for withdrawing U.S. troops.
These days it is hard for us to distinguish between really being stuck in Iraq, and being TOLD our presence there is unavoidable.
Moveon worries about US bases becoming permanent in Iraq, and so do I. They would like to turn the training of the Iraqis and general rebuilding of Iraq to the international community.
France, Egypt and a few other places have offered to board and train Iraqis in their own countries. But Bush refused.
His argument against that was, " It wouldn't turn the tide of the war." But that's not the point.
We need to leave Iraq as quickly as is humanely possible, and help from other countries would help quicken the pace a lot.
It makes you wonder if Bush and his people are bent on staying past the time that the Iraqi police are ready.
What happened to, "If you're not with us you're against us?"(the single quote by Jesus in the Bible that I can't quite
support and Bush decideds to choose THAT one for his foreign policy).
I understand Bush might not want to turn the US mission in Iraq over to the UN, paranoid as this particular administration is of the UN having any possible say over something our soldiers are involved in; but refusing all offers of help makes it look like we're not serious.
Accountability, a time-line, and definitely the Resolution to Withdraw U.S. Troops(HJ Res. 55) would be
helpful and not overtly radical statements of intent to get out. Some on the left might even find these
proposed measures not to be strong enough. They would still leave wiggle room for the Army.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
Action Notice: Counties to Pick New Voting Machines:
FYI: "The New York State Legislature has given county governments the authority to decide what kind of voting machines to purchase. The companies that make voting machines, are pushing ATM-like machines called DREs, because they are the most profitable. But DREs would be the wrong choice. Recently, Miami-Dade County decided to scrap their DREs because of hundreds of lost votes and high cost. Miami will replace the DREs with optical scanners. Optical scanners are easier to use and use a paper ballot which is easy to recount, less expensive and more reliable.
Fight the Computer Voting Machine Companies: County legislators and election officials need to hear from county residents now. We need to make this a local issue, with local lobbying and letters to local newspapers. County officials are a lot more able to be influenced than state legislators. But now county officials are only hearing lies and sales pitches from voting machine companies.
1)Meet with as many county legislators as you can. Look for legislators who will fight for you at the County Legislature or Board of Supervisors.
2)Meet with county election officials and insist they hold a public hearing on what kind of machine to purchase.
3) Join or organize a local group to press for optical scanners in your county. The League of Women Voters and other groups are working to fight DREs and support optical scanners. We'll try to link you up with others in your county who want to protect our votes. Email your name and county to Bo Lipari (contact@nyvv.org) at New Yorkers for Verified Voting and he will link you up with other activists." --Richard Kirsch, Citizen Action
Fight the Computer Voting Machine Companies: County legislators and election officials need to hear from county residents now. We need to make this a local issue, with local lobbying and letters to local newspapers. County officials are a lot more able to be influenced than state legislators. But now county officials are only hearing lies and sales pitches from voting machine companies.
1)Meet with as many county legislators as you can. Look for legislators who will fight for you at the County Legislature or Board of Supervisors.
2)Meet with county election officials and insist they hold a public hearing on what kind of machine to purchase.
3) Join or organize a local group to press for optical scanners in your county. The League of Women Voters and other groups are working to fight DREs and support optical scanners. We'll try to link you up with others in your county who want to protect our votes. Email your name and county to Bo Lipari (contact@nyvv.org) at New Yorkers for Verified Voting and he will link you up with other activists." --Richard Kirsch, Citizen Action
Democracy for NYC Asks Me for a Yes or No Answer
Dear ---,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it's clear that we have been
deceived about the reasons for going and the reasons for staying in Iraq.
My personal view is that any pressure we can put on our elected officials to
find an exit strategy and work to stop the killing and bring our troops
safely home is something we should do. However, Democracy for NYC is trying
to determine if we have a consensus among our members to support the
bipartisan Iraq Troop Withdrawal Resolution introduced by Rep. Walter B.
Jones, Jr.
Do you think dfnyc should support this resolution and encourage our
congressmembers to vote in favor and even add their names to the resolution?
....
Thank you for your help with this issue.
http://www.DemocracyforNYC.org
[I told her I was for it. For the text of the Homeward Bound Bill, type "HJ Res. 55" in the search engine at
http://www.thomas.loc.gov
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it's clear that we have been
deceived about the reasons for going and the reasons for staying in Iraq.
My personal view is that any pressure we can put on our elected officials to
find an exit strategy and work to stop the killing and bring our troops
safely home is something we should do. However, Democracy for NYC is trying
to determine if we have a consensus among our members to support the
bipartisan Iraq Troop Withdrawal Resolution introduced by Rep. Walter B.
Jones, Jr.
Do you think dfnyc should support this resolution and encourage our
congressmembers to vote in favor and even add their names to the resolution?
....
Thank you for your help with this issue.
http://www.DemocracyforNYC.org
[I told her I was for it. For the text of the Homeward Bound Bill, type "HJ Res. 55" in the search engine at
http://www.thomas.loc.gov
Response to dfnyc.org: Sources That Affect My Opinion
Dear Bev(sic),
In response to the question about what I think about the Homeward Bound Bill
and what sources affect it:
My husband put it best when he said that Bush has put us in an untenable
situaiton with NO good options.
....
3) There had been a Times article saying the Iraqi police training has been
slow and that it might take years. But Friday night on Washington Week in
Review, Martha Shaddaz said the Iraqi trainees are doing much better.
4) And in today's NY Times, it is reported that military officials in Iraq
now think the training will take about two years, after which they will
reconsider how long to stay and in what numbers.
5) Today's Wall Street Journal editorial(Monday--6/27/05) has a good case,
that actually isn't transparently tendentious, for staying. They say 100 Iraqi
units are now able to handle their own operations.
I'm concerned about the war spreading: If the U.S. perceives that Syria is
supporting terrorists to go into Iraq, we might use this as justification to
stop respecting it's borders and go in there after terrorists. I don't
think we want to export the war.
Bush raises the fear that if we pull out we only encourage insurgents and
terrorists. Its' hard to argue with that. Pulling out is never pretty.
That's the ugly situation he's left us.
Best,
--
In response to the question about what I think about the Homeward Bound Bill
and what sources affect it:
My husband put it best when he said that Bush has put us in an untenable
situaiton with NO good options.
....
3) There had been a Times article saying the Iraqi police training has been
slow and that it might take years. But Friday night on Washington Week in
Review, Martha Shaddaz said the Iraqi trainees are doing much better.
4) And in today's NY Times, it is reported that military officials in Iraq
now think the training will take about two years, after which they will
reconsider how long to stay and in what numbers.
5) Today's Wall Street Journal editorial(Monday--6/27/05) has a good case,
that actually isn't transparently tendentious, for staying. They say 100 Iraqi
units are now able to handle their own operations.
I'm concerned about the war spreading: If the U.S. perceives that Syria is
supporting terrorists to go into Iraq, we might use this as justification to
stop respecting it's borders and go in there after terrorists. I don't
think we want to export the war.
Bush raises the fear that if we pull out we only encourage insurgents and
terrorists. Its' hard to argue with that. Pulling out is never pretty.
That's the ugly situation he's left us.
Best,
--
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Party of the Outside?
My friend Jim Heffler has been listening to Air America Radio a lot. [It's fascinating stuff, but I can't process
as much of it as day as I'd be glued to, if it were on.] Although before the 2004 election Jim felt the democrats
were far from the interests of the people, he now thinks that the Air America speakers are purists, and that as
long as they stay so far left of the mainstream they will never have a say in the workings of US politics.
Bill and Hillary Clinton do have centrist tendencies, without which they probably wouldn't have made
it to the White House. It doesn't seem likely that Howard Dean would become more conciliatory. The
question, Jim says, is whether the democrats want to remain as critics on the outside. Any takers?
as much of it as day as I'd be glued to, if it were on.] Although before the 2004 election Jim felt the democrats
were far from the interests of the people, he now thinks that the Air America speakers are purists, and that as
long as they stay so far left of the mainstream they will never have a say in the workings of US politics.
Bill and Hillary Clinton do have centrist tendencies, without which they probably wouldn't have made
it to the White House. It doesn't seem likely that Howard Dean would become more conciliatory. The
question, Jim says, is whether the democrats want to remain as critics on the outside. Any takers?
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Questions about Torture
I have been told that when we interrogated the japanese in WWII, the model was much more along the lines of appearing to befriend prisoners with the hope of winning thier trust. A study in the UK showed that torture-lite
and more humane behavior, each studied separately, yielded the same amount of information. Bill Clinton said recently
that when you put people in pain they are more likely to agree to whatever the accusation is, so the torture will stop.
and more humane behavior, each studied separately, yielded the same amount of information. Bill Clinton said recently
that when you put people in pain they are more likely to agree to whatever the accusation is, so the torture will stop.
Human Rights Situation at Guantanamo
Naive me read in the paper that no human rights groups have been allowed in Guantanamo yet. Yikes!
I sure don't want to stir this up again, but a recent documentary reported that Anne Frank herself was
in contact with Red Cross nurses(I believe they spoke through a wall) at one of the camps she was in.
[Update(7/07/05): The Red Cross has been to Guantanamo, says a New Yorker article, and there are other
medical personnel present, but not all of them are there to help. See this week's incredibly creepy story.
Both FBI agents and Navy interrogators were shocked!]
So, yes human rights groups should be allowed in, including Amnesty International. Rumsfeld was totally
fine with this organization when it gave him some justification to prosecute the first Iraq war.
It was brought to my attention that Guantanamo is no way as bad as the russian gulags; and Human Rights
Watch felt that Amnety International, in making that comparison, hurt the overall fight for human rights by exaggerating so much. I tend to agree with this, because neither do I want to be imprecise about language nor do I want to hurt the case of those legitimately protesting.
On the other hand, while AI, and Howard Dean, have gone too far at times, they never-the-less have also brought attention
to situations in this country that would otherwise have been ignored. Amnesty International produces a yearly catalog of the
humans rights abuses of just about every one of the world's countries. A two-line item reporting that AI decried
human rights abuses in Guantanamo might not have picked up much interest.
I sure don't want to stir this up again, but a recent documentary reported that Anne Frank herself was
in contact with Red Cross nurses(I believe they spoke through a wall) at one of the camps she was in.
[Update(7/07/05): The Red Cross has been to Guantanamo, says a New Yorker article, and there are other
medical personnel present, but not all of them are there to help. See this week's incredibly creepy story.
Both FBI agents and Navy interrogators were shocked!]
So, yes human rights groups should be allowed in, including Amnesty International. Rumsfeld was totally
fine with this organization when it gave him some justification to prosecute the first Iraq war.
It was brought to my attention that Guantanamo is no way as bad as the russian gulags; and Human Rights
Watch felt that Amnety International, in making that comparison, hurt the overall fight for human rights by exaggerating so much. I tend to agree with this, because neither do I want to be imprecise about language nor do I want to hurt the case of those legitimately protesting.
On the other hand, while AI, and Howard Dean, have gone too far at times, they never-the-less have also brought attention
to situations in this country that would otherwise have been ignored. Amnesty International produces a yearly catalog of the
humans rights abuses of just about every one of the world's countries. A two-line item reporting that AI decried
human rights abuses in Guantanamo might not have picked up much interest.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Lone Voice Crying in the Wilderness
When are the gloves going to come off among democrats and we finally answer the republicans' charge of irreligion?
Their policies are so glaringly the opposite of christian belief, or of any other core beliefs of the world's great religions.
Dean did it last night on the Daily Show. He's no biblical scholar but he has a good grasp of the original intent
of Christianity: "Love your neighbor, and you don't get to choose who your neighbor is. We're all in this together!"
"It's not enough to state the facts," Dean told Jon Stewart, " because the republicans turn it around. We have to get out our message." Which is?
"We're going to re-establish moral values in this country!"
This is all to the best of my recollection. No exact quotes.
NB: There IS an anti-gay reference in Leviticus(Dean couldn't find any in the Bible): 18:22:" Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind, it is abomination." But again there's a context thing. Are you then going to obey ALL of Leviticus? There
are echoes of this in Romans 1:27(NT), concerning the apostasy of the gentile world. After that, I'm with Dean. I haven't found others.
Their policies are so glaringly the opposite of christian belief, or of any other core beliefs of the world's great religions.
Dean did it last night on the Daily Show. He's no biblical scholar but he has a good grasp of the original intent
of Christianity: "Love your neighbor, and you don't get to choose who your neighbor is. We're all in this together!"
"It's not enough to state the facts," Dean told Jon Stewart, " because the republicans turn it around. We have to get out our message." Which is?
"We're going to re-establish moral values in this country!"
This is all to the best of my recollection. No exact quotes.
NB: There IS an anti-gay reference in Leviticus(Dean couldn't find any in the Bible): 18:22:" Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind, it is abomination." But again there's a context thing. Are you then going to obey ALL of Leviticus? There
are echoes of this in Romans 1:27(NT), concerning the apostasy of the gentile world. After that, I'm with Dean. I haven't found others.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
More Context: Dean on Republicans
I no longer agree Dean should make ad hominem speeches. He should limit himself to attacking policy he doesn't like, but for the record, here's more about what he meant by "Republicans 'never made an honest living in their lives.'":
As reported by FactCheck.org, that tries hard to be objective and scolds both parties evenly:
"Dean's actual comments referred to "a lot of" Republicans and not, as the ad implies, all Republicans. Dean was speaking to the Campaign for America 's Future about election reform, arguing that long waits at the polls might discourage voters who can't take much time away from their jobs:
Howard Dean, June 2:The idea that you have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida , there's something the matter with that. You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or whatever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?
Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives. But for ordinary working people who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they've got to get home to those kids--the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong . . ."
As reported by FactCheck.org, that tries hard to be objective and scolds both parties evenly:
"Dean's actual comments referred to "a lot of" Republicans and not, as the ad implies, all Republicans. Dean was speaking to the Campaign for America 's Future about election reform, arguing that long waits at the polls might discourage voters who can't take much time away from their jobs:
Howard Dean, June 2:The idea that you have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida , there's something the matter with that. You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or whatever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?
Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives. But for ordinary working people who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they've got to get home to those kids--the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong . . ."
Durbin Flap Wrap
Senator Durbin's very round-about allusion: "you might be inclined to think that this was" is so far from
being a direct simile. Never-the-less, I DO think that glib comparisons to Hitler, of which there are so many these days,
are offensive, tasteless, and just plain lazy.
But look how the republicans turned that around, all out of proportion, like a scrappy kid at school, who when you discipline him/her, he/she complains to his/her parents on a trumped-up charge. And now the continuous buzz you hear on TV is
more about semantics than it is about the real problem: the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. These republicans are masters of spin.
being a direct simile. Never-the-less, I DO think that glib comparisons to Hitler, of which there are so many these days,
are offensive, tasteless, and just plain lazy.
But look how the republicans turned that around, all out of proportion, like a scrappy kid at school, who when you discipline him/her, he/she complains to his/her parents on a trumped-up charge. And now the continuous buzz you hear on TV is
more about semantics than it is about the real problem: the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. These republicans are masters of spin.
Correction on Senate Certification of 2004 Election Results
When i said that the Durbin flap recalls the Senate vote certification of the 2004 election, I screwed that one up just a bit.
It was actually Senator Barabara Boxer who challenged the certification of the vote in the state of Ohio. And THEN
you should have heard the hooting and hollering of the sore winners. Hillary Clinton was the voice of compromise
when she said that no one was contesting that Bush won, but that vote fraud should be investigated and remedied
on a national scale. How we're complying in NY State these days is a whole other story in itself. If you're interested
you can check out this site: http://www.wheresthepaper.org/PostStar04_25Counties_MakeUpYourMindAlready.htm
(I guess you'd have to copy and paste that into your browser).
It was actually Senator Barabara Boxer who challenged the certification of the vote in the state of Ohio. And THEN
you should have heard the hooting and hollering of the sore winners. Hillary Clinton was the voice of compromise
when she said that no one was contesting that Bush won, but that vote fraud should be investigated and remedied
on a national scale. How we're complying in NY State these days is a whole other story in itself. If you're interested
you can check out this site: http://www.wheresthepaper.org/PostStar04_25Counties_MakeUpYourMindAlready.htm
(I guess you'd have to copy and paste that into your browser).
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
John Bolton: Have You Heard
There may be a glitch in that confirmation. The Senate just voted 54-38 to end the debate on Bolton
so that they can have an up-or-down vote on the question of his ambassadorship to the UN. But they
needed 60 votes to end the debate(Bush had demanded and up-or-down vote "now"). What's News(WSJ-6/21/05)
so that they can have an up-or-down vote on the question of his ambassadorship to the UN. But they
needed 60 votes to end the debate(Bush had demanded and up-or-down vote "now"). What's News(WSJ-6/21/05)
Is This U.S.?
The Thursday Daily Show had footage of republican James Sensenbrenner (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), cutting off speakers mid-sentence, when the usual practice is that people are told when they're about to be cut off and then allowed to finish their sentences. They also turned of Congressman Gerald Nadler's mike when he piped up about a rule of order, that you can not end a meeting without first calling a vote to end it. You can't just bang the gavel and go home when things get uncomfortable. Category: talking to children, and not in the good sense.
I think history books will say that the republicans mistakenly treated the close 2004 election as a mandate, and then took so much joy in gradually over-stepping the bounds of democracy, that they lost all sense of what the american people would tolerate(if they found out about it).
I think history books will say that the republicans mistakenly treated the close 2004 election as a mandate, and then took so much joy in gradually over-stepping the bounds of democracy, that they lost all sense of what the american people would tolerate(if they found out about it).
Monday, June 20, 2005
Re: Dean: Have You Heard?
Well, the democrats voted 4 to 1 to keep Dean as the chairman of the DNC, despite or maybe
even because of his controversial sayings. But word has it that the dems recent strategy is to
keep Dean moderately quiet and let Bush 43 stew in his own juices.
Dean's having a fundraiser in Washington, I think Tuesday PM, and the little publicized
guest of honor is the much criticized Senator Durbin!
even because of his controversial sayings. But word has it that the dems recent strategy is to
keep Dean moderately quiet and let Bush 43 stew in his own juices.
Dean's having a fundraiser in Washington, I think Tuesday PM, and the little publicized
guest of honor is the much criticized Senator Durbin!
Bill Clinton Weighs In on Iraq
On Friday's Al Franken Show)on Air America Radio and the Sundance TV channel), Persident Clinton, among many
other meaty topics he got into, essentially said that we should be less concerned abotu the Downing Memo and who
planned what, when(i.e., Bush had always planned to invade Iraq way before the question about WMD's was publicly aired);
and try to help finish training the Iraqi Police to defend the Iraqis. When you weigh that against Richard Clarke's
column of yesterday(6/19/05--NY Times, Sunday Magazine), it's a lot to consider.
According to another NY Times article last week, training is going very slowly. In one case the Army described,
trainees were supposed to be securing the perimeter of a building, but scattered when they heard the first sound
of attack. I'd run, too. The Army says the process will take years.
other meaty topics he got into, essentially said that we should be less concerned abotu the Downing Memo and who
planned what, when(i.e., Bush had always planned to invade Iraq way before the question about WMD's was publicly aired);
and try to help finish training the Iraqi Police to defend the Iraqis. When you weigh that against Richard Clarke's
column of yesterday(6/19/05--NY Times, Sunday Magazine), it's a lot to consider.
According to another NY Times article last week, training is going very slowly. In one case the Army described,
trainees were supposed to be securing the perimeter of a building, but scattered when they heard the first sound
of attack. I'd run, too. The Army says the process will take years.
The Flap Around Senator Durbin(D-Illinois)
Rule:
It's precisely BECAUSE we're not the Nazis, that we have to hold ourselves to a higher humanitarian standard.
Bush thought he could get away with people finding out about so-called torture-lite, but the americans won't have it.
Attorney General Gonzales had to retract an earlier memo on torture that anyhting short of death or organ failure
was OK, but the fact it was ever sent at all shows you the cold crulety of this administration. A lot of people say Bush 43
is stupid. Those are innocent lambs. I wish it were all that simple and less ominous for the US and the world.
Did anyone hear that the US EPA got the G-8 member-nations to remove a lot of language about the dangers of global
warming that they were going to be discussing in their upcoming annual meeting? It has gone from paragraphs detailing this imminent global threat to a somewhat interesting challenge. What kind of stick did we use to accomplish that?
Amid some congressional democrats calls to close Guantanamo, Senator Durbin said, of an incident where a prisoner
was exposed to extremes of hot and cold temperatures and loud rock music 'til he tore his hair out,something like, if
an FBI agent were describing practices at Guantanamo and you didn't know it was about the US, you might be inclined to think he or she was talking about some terrible dictatorship like the Nazis, or Pol Pot, that had no regard for human beings. [We may not get to hear that description, as the US Army has been sitting on their report into Gitmo since April 1st! Anyway, I'm not saying it has to close. Just stop torturing people, tell the prisoners what charges they're facing, if any; and give them a trial. "Even Eichmann had a trial," says John McCain, speaking of the man repsonsible for the Nazi death-camps.]
Well you wouldn't believe the hooting and hollering on Fox News, and from many places in Washington! In order to
defend themselves when they had no leg to stand on, the republicans mangled grammar and language to whine that
Durbin had compared us to the Nazis. Durban then released a statement of regret that the parallel had been misinterpreted,
but I don't think it was even a direct parallel.
This reminds me of when Hillary Clinton got up in the wake of the 2004 election to complain about the vote fraud.
[I'm going to clarify this in a 6/23/05 post.]
Since the republicans knew the Ohio vote was in doubt for many of us, you wouldn't believe the amount of angry
spewing they did to defend Bush's win. Sore winners. And they totally missed the point: Hey! A lot of the election fraud seemed to accrue to George Bush.
Senator Durbin was trying to tell us something. Things are seriously wrong. You don't defend the existence of the camp
(I might grant you that it could still exist), by getting as hysterical as hyenas. I saw a video of the offending speech and I thought Durbin seemed every bit as reasonable as any civilized old democrat of the last century, a group which today's WSJ professes to miss.
It's precisely BECAUSE we're not the Nazis, that we have to hold ourselves to a higher humanitarian standard.
Bush thought he could get away with people finding out about so-called torture-lite, but the americans won't have it.
Attorney General Gonzales had to retract an earlier memo on torture that anyhting short of death or organ failure
was OK, but the fact it was ever sent at all shows you the cold crulety of this administration. A lot of people say Bush 43
is stupid. Those are innocent lambs. I wish it were all that simple and less ominous for the US and the world.
Did anyone hear that the US EPA got the G-8 member-nations to remove a lot of language about the dangers of global
warming that they were going to be discussing in their upcoming annual meeting? It has gone from paragraphs detailing this imminent global threat to a somewhat interesting challenge. What kind of stick did we use to accomplish that?
Amid some congressional democrats calls to close Guantanamo, Senator Durbin said, of an incident where a prisoner
was exposed to extremes of hot and cold temperatures and loud rock music 'til he tore his hair out,something like, if
an FBI agent were describing practices at Guantanamo and you didn't know it was about the US, you might be inclined to think he or she was talking about some terrible dictatorship like the Nazis, or Pol Pot, that had no regard for human beings. [We may not get to hear that description, as the US Army has been sitting on their report into Gitmo since April 1st! Anyway, I'm not saying it has to close. Just stop torturing people, tell the prisoners what charges they're facing, if any; and give them a trial. "Even Eichmann had a trial," says John McCain, speaking of the man repsonsible for the Nazi death-camps.]
Well you wouldn't believe the hooting and hollering on Fox News, and from many places in Washington! In order to
defend themselves when they had no leg to stand on, the republicans mangled grammar and language to whine that
Durbin had compared us to the Nazis. Durban then released a statement of regret that the parallel had been misinterpreted,
but I don't think it was even a direct parallel.
This reminds me of when Hillary Clinton got up in the wake of the 2004 election to complain about the vote fraud.
[I'm going to clarify this in a 6/23/05 post.]
Since the republicans knew the Ohio vote was in doubt for many of us, you wouldn't believe the amount of angry
spewing they did to defend Bush's win. Sore winners. And they totally missed the point: Hey! A lot of the election fraud seemed to accrue to George Bush.
Senator Durbin was trying to tell us something. Things are seriously wrong. You don't defend the existence of the camp
(I might grant you that it could still exist), by getting as hysterical as hyenas. I saw a video of the offending speech and I thought Durbin seemed every bit as reasonable as any civilized old democrat of the last century, a group which today's WSJ professes to miss.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Bob Dylan on Defense, through the past darkly
Dylan sang, "You have to pay to get out of going through all these things TWICE!"
Of course Bush 43 isn't the history buff we would have hoped for in a president, but
it should be obvious to everyone that one of the main reasons for the fall of the roman empire
was that it spread its armed and governmental forces to thin. And the U.S.S.R. collapsed partly
from over-spending to try to match us on defense. Just once could we not pay TO go through
this stuff twice?
Of course Bush 43 isn't the history buff we would have hoped for in a president, but
it should be obvious to everyone that one of the main reasons for the fall of the roman empire
was that it spread its armed and governmental forces to thin. And the U.S.S.R. collapsed partly
from over-spending to try to match us on defense. Just once could we not pay TO go through
this stuff twice?
The Recruitment Crisis
I don't have to tell you either 1)how the armed forces, which have thinned out at home and abroad, have become
drastically weakened or 2)how parents are refusing in droves to let their children sign up to fight in Iraq. Some
conservatives(and Charlie Rangel) ask us how we'd feel about a draft. Richard Clarke claims the Army wouldn't
be too thrilled because then the general level of commitment and expertise would be compromised. He
also let fly the fact that our forces in South Korea are growing so sparse, that in a 2002 review, the pentagon
was thinking of using nuclear weapons on North Korea. Are we going crazy for crazy with Kim Jong Il?
drastically weakened or 2)how parents are refusing in droves to let their children sign up to fight in Iraq. Some
conservatives(and Charlie Rangel) ask us how we'd feel about a draft. Richard Clarke claims the Army wouldn't
be too thrilled because then the general level of commitment and expertise would be compromised. He
also let fly the fact that our forces in South Korea are growing so sparse, that in a 2002 review, the pentagon
was thinking of using nuclear weapons on North Korea. Are we going crazy for crazy with Kim Jong Il?
Iraqi Insurgent Terrorism
I wonder if we understand how some of these insurgents might feel, fighting an invasion on their own turf.
"10,000 Heroes" Reconsidered AGAIN(re: Richard Clarke)
In my post on the "10,000 Heroes" editorial, which makes the simplistic point that insurgent terrorism
is worse than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I forebore to address the roots of terrorism.
The September 11th terrorists came from people who were upset about 1)the U.S. being mixed up in the Saudi Government
at the highest levels, 2) the perception that U.S. policy is pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, and 3) U.S. interference wherever wwe
are in the mid-east. When these people had no voices to speak to us, this was the only way they felt they could be heard. But God knows, we haven't gotten a simple message if we're sitting around simply saying that insurgent terrorism is bad.
Richard Clarke, the former Bush 43 security advisor, has written something in his monthly New York Times Magazine
column(6/19/05), that I think clarifies a lot. We enjoyed his book, Against All Enemies, before the 2004 elections.
He writes, "Opponents of 'early' departure of american forces say it would result in chaos in Iraq." We've destroyed the
country and no one wants to leave behind a humanitarian nightmare.
But Clarke asks if maybe the Iraqi civilian casualties are so high, and Iraqi police deaths even twice as high, higher than ours,
bcause we ARE still there! Though he isn't the first to say it, I wanted to kick myself for not having thought of that.
The republicans may be loathe to let go of Iraq, however. If we were to pull out and the situation eroded into civil war, it would totally confirm the bad PR(for them) that the war was a mistake.
is worse than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I forebore to address the roots of terrorism.
The September 11th terrorists came from people who were upset about 1)the U.S. being mixed up in the Saudi Government
at the highest levels, 2) the perception that U.S. policy is pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, and 3) U.S. interference wherever wwe
are in the mid-east. When these people had no voices to speak to us, this was the only way they felt they could be heard. But God knows, we haven't gotten a simple message if we're sitting around simply saying that insurgent terrorism is bad.
Richard Clarke, the former Bush 43 security advisor, has written something in his monthly New York Times Magazine
column(6/19/05), that I think clarifies a lot. We enjoyed his book, Against All Enemies, before the 2004 elections.
He writes, "Opponents of 'early' departure of american forces say it would result in chaos in Iraq." We've destroyed the
country and no one wants to leave behind a humanitarian nightmare.
But Clarke asks if maybe the Iraqi civilian casualties are so high, and Iraqi police deaths even twice as high, higher than ours,
bcause we ARE still there! Though he isn't the first to say it, I wanted to kick myself for not having thought of that.
The republicans may be loathe to let go of Iraq, however. If we were to pull out and the situation eroded into civil war, it would totally confirm the bad PR(for them) that the war was a mistake.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Answer to "Doughnut Democrats("WSJ--6/16/05)
The lead editorial of June 16th was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking articulation of why the republican
party, all laughs aside, doesn't support the democratic agenda as articulated by Howard Dean. I loved the line,
"this... isn't your father's Democratic Party". It almost made me laugh out loud. How could I not read on?
Well, first of all, it's laudable of the WSJ to admit that conservatives have gone even further right of the paper.
But you can't blame the democrats for causing it by going further left. They simply haven't. It's not liberals'
fault that congressional republicans tried to do everything the opposite of Clinton as soon as he left, and
that the results then turned out to be against the best interests of the republican party itself! Liberals weren't
the ones so blinded by hatred of Clinton that they decided to go opposite of center! How do you even
do that? Well, the conservatives did it and unfortunately their policies have been terrible for the entire country.
The WSJ explanation of how democrats lost so many votes among middle-income voters of the south(the huge decrease of southern moderate democratic congresspeople) in 2004 might be true. I don't know, but my understanding of it is that conservatives won the south by stirring up a lot of hot-button social issues many of them weren't even worried about themselves, like 1)gay marriage, 2)abortion, and 3)the assumption that a true patriot must say or do only what the administration says, whether it's right or wrong, about the War on Terror. But here's why none of the following claims hold water:
I. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are the main touchstones democrats have for the war on terror.
What about NYC not getting the full amount voted to it post-September 11? Why did Wyoming, a state that had never been attacked, get so much more for homeland security than NYC?
What about John Kerry's call for more extensive checks of shipping containers at our ports? What about liberals' worries that
nuclear sites like Indian Point, NY aren't adequately protected? Why is airport security still lax?
II. Liberals want to raise taxes and that's bad.
As Clinton once said, tax-cuts "feel good" in the short term, but circa 2004, they aren't in the long-term interests of the country! Of course everyone would like simpler taxes, but the progressive tax has been shown to be fairer. With a flat tax,
the rich are paying a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, who would be paying an enormous percent.
Conservatives always assume that tax-cuts are "pro-growth", a buzzword that assumes a premise which is not necessarily agreed by everyone to be true, nor is it necessarily true). Agreed, there are plenty of buzzwords coming from all sides!
Sidebar on Growth and Prosperity:
Let's assume though, that growth is good. Recently(7/01/05) WSJ cited our present era of prosperity, because the GDP was up 4% for the sixth quarter in a row. Alarms in my head go off: "How can you SAY that?" What's the discrepancy? Well throughout much of the 20th century, growth in the U.S. meant more job creation, and we could truthfully say that that was good growth. But if the job situation is so bad, as it is today, that many people have given up looking for work and are no longer reflected in the official unemployment roles, you can't point to these drops in the figures as job creation!
Myself, I agree in theory with free-trade agreements, but because of such an acceleration in the increase of out-sourcing of jobs to other countries, including computer programming as well as manufacturing, most of the jobs being created today
are the sort of job you might find if you applied to be a cashier at Wal-Mart, for $8 an hour.
How can we call it prosperity, when so many either work two or three jobs, or simply don't get by on the low wages being
offered to most people today? Could you possibly attract more readers if you appealed to the opinions and reflected the experiences of those below the top 1% in income?
End of Sidebar: Back to Clinton on tax-cuts:
Says, John F. Harrris in The Survivor, "The 1993 spending cuts and tax increases, over which he(Clinton) agonized for months, ultimately reduced the federal deficit, reassured financial markets and set in motion the prosperity of the second half of the decade." Of course, not all economists agree that a single president can affect the economy.
III. Only five democrats voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
First of all, CAFTA doesn't change much that isn't already present de facto, says the Economist.
Here I am out of my depth, but I think the problem might be that while NAFTA was good, agreements like WTO, NAFTA
and CAFTA need proper regulation so that the loosening up of trade by eliminating international tariffs is accompanied by
lasw that are humane to labor and not noxious to the environment. The Fair-Trade coffees you hear about in Seattle are
simply aspiring to that. As for the environment, I think conservatives and business are finally beginning to see the money
in incentives for emissions cutbacks, and the similarities between cost-cutting and fuel-efficient planning.
I can't speak for Felix Rohatyn, of course, but I think he would probably agree that manufacturing jobs lost due to the
trade agreements, have to be addressed by trying to get our country's labor force to focus on new markets. But there has to be money for re-training people for that, many people needed to be re-trained yesterday, and it's a problem with these treaties.
IV. "Democrats conspire every day to gut work-to-welfare requirements and prevent the renewal of welfare reform by Congress".
Historically, lots of democrats were indeed unhappy about the welfare-to-work program at the time it was passed. Clinton had reservations but Gore pushed for it, partly because he thought it was politic. Part of the trouble may be that it is hard for mothers on welfare to leave their kids at home to go to work. There hasn't been enough respect for some of the problems of child-care in this country. What could be more important than raising human beings?
V. Democratic know-nothing-ism on social Security.
Again, if you want me to believe you sincerely think liberals are "know-nothings" about anything, you've got to stop with
the buzzwords(see above), one of which IS "know-nothing-ism".
First of all, if Social Security defaults big-time, it will be because the government defaulted, and if it does default it will probably be because of that black-hole of spending, the Iraq War. Democrats don't want to propose anything as long as Bush's plan for private accounts is still on the table(they've been fooled before). But of course democrats see the need to adjust the system. They happen to think private accounts in place of social security would be a disaster for people's retirement funds, to say nothing of the trillion-plus it would cost, a trillion we really don't have. It's not
obstructionism; it's refusing to abandon ship!
Now the main reason I'm writing: WSJ doesn't think the democratic party, as run by Howard Dean has the right to call itself
the party of individual freedom and personal responsibility. I'm glad they addressed this because think it is really a crucial debate for our time.
WSJ writes that they don't share the enthusiasm of some conservatives who love to see the rise of Dean because they think the country will hate his policies and then crush the democrats further. I agree about this. I don't love to see someone rise
whose policies I hate, not if I hate those policies.
But conservatives themselves no longer represent the party of individual freedom or fiscal responsibility.
New Rule; If you want to complain about federal regulations possibly interfering with big business, you can no longer call it, "big government"! "Big government" as a conservative complaint is dead. You don't stop the business of Congress for Terry Schiavo, try to go into people's bedrooms to legislate gay marriage, tell people's families what they can do about abortion, and prosecute a huge drug war, of which the wages is even more crime, and then tell the government to step back when you want to do something as a corporation with more freedom than you'd afford private citizens. Is a corporation a person, subject to the rule of law, or isn't it? Bush's government is pretty big.
party, all laughs aside, doesn't support the democratic agenda as articulated by Howard Dean. I loved the line,
"this... isn't your father's Democratic Party". It almost made me laugh out loud. How could I not read on?
Well, first of all, it's laudable of the WSJ to admit that conservatives have gone even further right of the paper.
But you can't blame the democrats for causing it by going further left. They simply haven't. It's not liberals'
fault that congressional republicans tried to do everything the opposite of Clinton as soon as he left, and
that the results then turned out to be against the best interests of the republican party itself! Liberals weren't
the ones so blinded by hatred of Clinton that they decided to go opposite of center! How do you even
do that? Well, the conservatives did it and unfortunately their policies have been terrible for the entire country.
The WSJ explanation of how democrats lost so many votes among middle-income voters of the south(the huge decrease of southern moderate democratic congresspeople) in 2004 might be true. I don't know, but my understanding of it is that conservatives won the south by stirring up a lot of hot-button social issues many of them weren't even worried about themselves, like 1)gay marriage, 2)abortion, and 3)the assumption that a true patriot must say or do only what the administration says, whether it's right or wrong, about the War on Terror. But here's why none of the following claims hold water:
I. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are the main touchstones democrats have for the war on terror.
What about NYC not getting the full amount voted to it post-September 11? Why did Wyoming, a state that had never been attacked, get so much more for homeland security than NYC?
What about John Kerry's call for more extensive checks of shipping containers at our ports? What about liberals' worries that
nuclear sites like Indian Point, NY aren't adequately protected? Why is airport security still lax?
II. Liberals want to raise taxes and that's bad.
As Clinton once said, tax-cuts "feel good" in the short term, but circa 2004, they aren't in the long-term interests of the country! Of course everyone would like simpler taxes, but the progressive tax has been shown to be fairer. With a flat tax,
the rich are paying a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, who would be paying an enormous percent.
Conservatives always assume that tax-cuts are "pro-growth", a buzzword that assumes a premise which is not necessarily agreed by everyone to be true, nor is it necessarily true). Agreed, there are plenty of buzzwords coming from all sides!
Sidebar on Growth and Prosperity:
Let's assume though, that growth is good. Recently(7/01/05) WSJ cited our present era of prosperity, because the GDP was up 4% for the sixth quarter in a row. Alarms in my head go off: "How can you SAY that?" What's the discrepancy? Well throughout much of the 20th century, growth in the U.S. meant more job creation, and we could truthfully say that that was good growth. But if the job situation is so bad, as it is today, that many people have given up looking for work and are no longer reflected in the official unemployment roles, you can't point to these drops in the figures as job creation!
Myself, I agree in theory with free-trade agreements, but because of such an acceleration in the increase of out-sourcing of jobs to other countries, including computer programming as well as manufacturing, most of the jobs being created today
are the sort of job you might find if you applied to be a cashier at Wal-Mart, for $8 an hour.
How can we call it prosperity, when so many either work two or three jobs, or simply don't get by on the low wages being
offered to most people today? Could you possibly attract more readers if you appealed to the opinions and reflected the experiences of those below the top 1% in income?
End of Sidebar: Back to Clinton on tax-cuts:
Says, John F. Harrris in The Survivor, "The 1993 spending cuts and tax increases, over which he(Clinton) agonized for months, ultimately reduced the federal deficit, reassured financial markets and set in motion the prosperity of the second half of the decade." Of course, not all economists agree that a single president can affect the economy.
III. Only five democrats voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
First of all, CAFTA doesn't change much that isn't already present de facto, says the Economist.
Here I am out of my depth, but I think the problem might be that while NAFTA was good, agreements like WTO, NAFTA
and CAFTA need proper regulation so that the loosening up of trade by eliminating international tariffs is accompanied by
lasw that are humane to labor and not noxious to the environment. The Fair-Trade coffees you hear about in Seattle are
simply aspiring to that. As for the environment, I think conservatives and business are finally beginning to see the money
in incentives for emissions cutbacks, and the similarities between cost-cutting and fuel-efficient planning.
I can't speak for Felix Rohatyn, of course, but I think he would probably agree that manufacturing jobs lost due to the
trade agreements, have to be addressed by trying to get our country's labor force to focus on new markets. But there has to be money for re-training people for that, many people needed to be re-trained yesterday, and it's a problem with these treaties.
IV. "Democrats conspire every day to gut work-to-welfare requirements and prevent the renewal of welfare reform by Congress".
Historically, lots of democrats were indeed unhappy about the welfare-to-work program at the time it was passed. Clinton had reservations but Gore pushed for it, partly because he thought it was politic. Part of the trouble may be that it is hard for mothers on welfare to leave their kids at home to go to work. There hasn't been enough respect for some of the problems of child-care in this country. What could be more important than raising human beings?
V. Democratic know-nothing-ism on social Security.
Again, if you want me to believe you sincerely think liberals are "know-nothings" about anything, you've got to stop with
the buzzwords(see above), one of which IS "know-nothing-ism".
First of all, if Social Security defaults big-time, it will be because the government defaulted, and if it does default it will probably be because of that black-hole of spending, the Iraq War. Democrats don't want to propose anything as long as Bush's plan for private accounts is still on the table(they've been fooled before). But of course democrats see the need to adjust the system. They happen to think private accounts in place of social security would be a disaster for people's retirement funds, to say nothing of the trillion-plus it would cost, a trillion we really don't have. It's not
obstructionism; it's refusing to abandon ship!
Now the main reason I'm writing: WSJ doesn't think the democratic party, as run by Howard Dean has the right to call itself
the party of individual freedom and personal responsibility. I'm glad they addressed this because think it is really a crucial debate for our time.
WSJ writes that they don't share the enthusiasm of some conservatives who love to see the rise of Dean because they think the country will hate his policies and then crush the democrats further. I agree about this. I don't love to see someone rise
whose policies I hate, not if I hate those policies.
But conservatives themselves no longer represent the party of individual freedom or fiscal responsibility.
New Rule; If you want to complain about federal regulations possibly interfering with big business, you can no longer call it, "big government"! "Big government" as a conservative complaint is dead. You don't stop the business of Congress for Terry Schiavo, try to go into people's bedrooms to legislate gay marriage, tell people's families what they can do about abortion, and prosecute a huge drug war, of which the wages is even more crime, and then tell the government to step back when you want to do something as a corporation with more freedom than you'd afford private citizens. Is a corporation a person, subject to the rule of law, or isn't it? Bush's government is pretty big.
The Survivor: Why Do They Hate Bill?
This new book on Clinton's life and career, The Survivor, by John F. Harris, speculates on the reason for the
unrelenting hatred of Clinton by "millions of americans". Perhaps it IS the hatred of an older generation, based
on fear and loathing of(and/or refusal to deal with) the hippies), says the reviewer of the book in last Sunday's Times.
Does anyone have any other explanations? Not merely a list of things he did wrong but what explains the extent of such hatred for a centrist president.
unrelenting hatred of Clinton by "millions of americans". Perhaps it IS the hatred of an older generation, based
on fear and loathing of(and/or refusal to deal with) the hippies), says the reviewer of the book in last Sunday's Times.
Does anyone have any other explanations? Not merely a list of things he did wrong but what explains the extent of such hatred for a centrist president.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Perfect Storm("The Doughnut Democrats", WSJ--(6/16/05)
The WSJ lead editorial of today is a, by me, long-awaited, clear and concise anti-Dean and anti-Dean democrat manifesto.
It answers a LOT of questions for me which I've often wondered about lo these last two years. I will rebut this point by point tomorrow(which I have cleared to stay home and wait for repairmen). But I appreciate and welcome the tone. And I'm not
going to pounce on it as disingenuous, hypocritical, or that sort of thing, as I have so often these days, with things neo-con.
I'll rebut it more thoroughly if I don't get even more distracted by FRIDAY's lead editorial.
It answers a LOT of questions for me which I've often wondered about lo these last two years. I will rebut this point by point tomorrow(which I have cleared to stay home and wait for repairmen). But I appreciate and welcome the tone. And I'm not
going to pounce on it as disingenuous, hypocritical, or that sort of thing, as I have so often these days, with things neo-con.
I'll rebut it more thoroughly if I don't get even more distracted by FRIDAY's lead editorial.
Rohatyn Weighs In
A WSJ Op-Ed today, "A Trust Fund for America" by Felix Rohatyn, who practically single-handedly bailed NYC out of it's fiscal crisis(was that in the 60's or the '70's?), is pure genius. No, we certainly can't outrun China by manufacturing cheaper T-shirts. There needs to be money to re-train people for today's new markets; and that kind of investment benefits everybody.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
What Can You Learn from the Daily Show?
We catch the Jon Stewart Daily Show at 11 PM, Monday through Thursday on Comedy Central(COM). More
and more lately, we watch it recorded the next morning. It re-broadcasts later at 10 AM and at 7 PM the next
night. Except for the NY Times Archive, The Daily Show had the most extensive quotes I saw concerning Dean's
most recent quote about the make up of the republican party.
But how do you know what's true on the Daily Show and what's pure parody? A hint: the headlines come first.
and more lately, we watch it recorded the next morning. It re-broadcasts later at 10 AM and at 7 PM the next
night. Except for the NY Times Archive, The Daily Show had the most extensive quotes I saw concerning Dean's
most recent quote about the make up of the republican party.
But how do you know what's true on the Daily Show and what's pure parody? A hint: the headlines come first.
Why Does the State Department Bother?
A State Department project, which took over a year to complete before we went to war in Iraq, advised
the administration on how to go about entering Iraq while creating the least possible amount of damage
and with special attention to local customs and how to least outrage people. It was completely discarded.
This I roughly recall from Al Franken on his Air America Radio Show, now televised on Sundance Channel,
at 11:30 PM Monday through Thursday. It's very meaty, but late for us. The original show airs at noon
on the radio. It can be heard on the Air America Radio website, as well.
the administration on how to go about entering Iraq while creating the least possible amount of damage
and with special attention to local customs and how to least outrage people. It was completely discarded.
This I roughly recall from Al Franken on his Air America Radio Show, now televised on Sundance Channel,
at 11:30 PM Monday through Thursday. It's very meaty, but late for us. The original show airs at noon
on the radio. It can be heard on the Air America Radio website, as well.
"Let's Talk About Iraq" by Thomas Friedman(NYT--(6/15/05)
Reading Thomas Friedman today, I have to admit I am totally out of my depth in the discussion of what to do there.
Perhaps doubling the ground troops there would be more beneficial, but where would they come from? One of my biggest
worries, if we don't start phasing troops out as soon as we can humanly say, "The Iraqis are able to rule themselves", is that there's already too much of a temptation to our government to expand the war into Syria and other middle-eastern countries. We know there have already been skirmishes on the Syrian border.
Sven relates to me that Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton belong to a group called Project for a New American Century,
whose goal is to spread democracy throughout the middle-east, BY FORCE.
I asked him: "Don't they know how upset everyone was when Hitler invaded Europe?" "Yes," he countered ironically,
"But Hitler was BAD and WE'RE good."
I'm not a liberal who wants to see democracy fail in Iraq. Few liberals are. But we deny that destroying, on false grounds, another sovereign nation: roughly 100,000 Iraquis; their police, electricity and water; and infrastructure vital to the economy, was the right method of bringing it all about.
Plus, while you're doing all that, please don't forget to re-install fair elections here at home.
Perhaps doubling the ground troops there would be more beneficial, but where would they come from? One of my biggest
worries, if we don't start phasing troops out as soon as we can humanly say, "The Iraqis are able to rule themselves", is that there's already too much of a temptation to our government to expand the war into Syria and other middle-eastern countries. We know there have already been skirmishes on the Syrian border.
Sven relates to me that Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton belong to a group called Project for a New American Century,
whose goal is to spread democracy throughout the middle-east, BY FORCE.
I asked him: "Don't they know how upset everyone was when Hitler invaded Europe?" "Yes," he countered ironically,
"But Hitler was BAD and WE'RE good."
I'm not a liberal who wants to see democracy fail in Iraq. Few liberals are. But we deny that destroying, on false grounds, another sovereign nation: roughly 100,000 Iraquis; their police, electricity and water; and infrastructure vital to the economy, was the right method of bringing it all about.
Plus, while you're doing all that, please don't forget to re-install fair elections here at home.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Dean vs. Cheney
Dick Cheney has been reported recently as saying Dean's comments are "over the top". I think we need to have a little talk about what "over the top" means. Even though bad actions are worse than bad words, Cheney is still the font of worse words.
Contexts for some of the older Dean quotes--sorry for the delay
As for Dean hating republicans, it's not hatred for any one individual but some of the things they've done as a party. As for the bizarre charge he made that republicans have never done an honest day's work in their lives, I'm not entirely sure; but I believe that was about Bush trying to remove the entitlement of social security, while disingenuously complaining that, Oh no! It's going to go bankrupt in 2042. Don't we all know that at a time when Bush 43 trusted Bob Woodward, Woodward asked him how he felt about his future legacy(I think that he recorded that in his book, Plan of Attack). The response? Bush said he didn't care what happened after he was dead. That's the response I believe! For a while the republicans lamented that democrats had not alternate plan to private accounts, but the truth is they didn't want to discuss it as long as the private account system was on the table. So essentially Dean was upset that people who had led mostly comfortable lives wanted to put hard-working americans on even shakier ground than they already are.
Has Dean Bit the Big-Time?
I still haven't read a transcript or seen a video of the whole speech, but this morning I read the controversial
quote, which most people have been getting, in U.S. News: "The republicans aren't very friendly to different types of people....It's pretty much a white, christian party."
Well, 44 per cent of Hispanics did vote for Bush 43, says Gloria Borger in "If Politics Were Like Life".
Then we watched a recording of last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart. According to Jon, the republican party
is in fact 84% white and christian. Ken Mehlman, Dean's opposite member as head of the RNC, was shown reminding us that he's jewish(I'm sure they're glad to have you, Ken, but you're in the minority among republicans). Next, Jon parodied the desertion of Dean by prominent democrats such as Joseph Biden and Nacy Pelosi. I myself was hard put to defend this quote.
Dean's quote WAS quite reductive. The neo-con party, especially as it is today, DOES in fact support the interests of white christians. But I kind of wished Dean had stuck to the policy of leaving religion out of it. It's definitely a departure from Dean's usual(if not subtle) then at least more complex style. Homer nodded. But I have to ask myself, if the republicans won't leave the
drippingly hypocritical democrats-lack-moral-values charge alone, then don't we have to fight fire with fire? Yes.
Background: Dean wanted to represent the whole U.S., but as a strategist, he does not(nor did he) believe in courting the swing vote or triangulating to republicans. Rousing the base-R-Dean. Bill Clinton did win more votes with somewhat centrist
language, and Dean did joke at one point that maybe the huge market for a disciplined liberal message doesn't really exist as
much as he once thought.
quote, which most people have been getting, in U.S. News: "The republicans aren't very friendly to different types of people....It's pretty much a white, christian party."
Well, 44 per cent of Hispanics did vote for Bush 43, says Gloria Borger in "If Politics Were Like Life".
Then we watched a recording of last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart. According to Jon, the republican party
is in fact 84% white and christian. Ken Mehlman, Dean's opposite member as head of the RNC, was shown reminding us that he's jewish(I'm sure they're glad to have you, Ken, but you're in the minority among republicans). Next, Jon parodied the desertion of Dean by prominent democrats such as Joseph Biden and Nacy Pelosi. I myself was hard put to defend this quote.
Dean's quote WAS quite reductive. The neo-con party, especially as it is today, DOES in fact support the interests of white christians. But I kind of wished Dean had stuck to the policy of leaving religion out of it. It's definitely a departure from Dean's usual(if not subtle) then at least more complex style. Homer nodded. But I have to ask myself, if the republicans won't leave the
drippingly hypocritical democrats-lack-moral-values charge alone, then don't we have to fight fire with fire? Yes.
Background: Dean wanted to represent the whole U.S., but as a strategist, he does not(nor did he) believe in courting the swing vote or triangulating to republicans. Rousing the base-R-Dean. Bill Clinton did win more votes with somewhat centrist
language, and Dean did joke at one point that maybe the huge market for a disciplined liberal message doesn't really exist as
much as he once thought.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Activist Judges
The neo-con complaints about "activist judges" ring funny in my ear,
since they only seem to use the perjorative term when they don't like
particular rulings. Any old changes to the legal status quo seem to be
fine with them if it serves their political ends.
A big first: The Supreme Court handing the 2000 presidential election to the
candidate their majority favored politically(precluding the full Florida recount,
which reads less than democratic)-- did not disturb any neo-cons one whit.
I know these arguments sound like I'm talking to children, but we have to call
things where we see them, and the use of language is not irrelevant to what's
going on.
My husband Sven particularly enjoyed reading George Orwell's
essay, Politics and Language, out loud the other night in the bath-tub. It concerns
obfuscation and confusion in political speeches and academic writing. But any
kidn of writer would enjoy it, I'm sure.
since they only seem to use the perjorative term when they don't like
particular rulings. Any old changes to the legal status quo seem to be
fine with them if it serves their political ends.
A big first: The Supreme Court handing the 2000 presidential election to the
candidate their majority favored politically(precluding the full Florida recount,
which reads less than democratic)-- did not disturb any neo-cons one whit.
I know these arguments sound like I'm talking to children, but we have to call
things where we see them, and the use of language is not irrelevant to what's
going on.
My husband Sven particularly enjoyed reading George Orwell's
essay, Politics and Language, out loud the other night in the bath-tub. It concerns
obfuscation and confusion in political speeches and academic writing. But any
kidn of writer would enjoy it, I'm sure.
Dems Have No Moral Values
I would like to voice my fear that everyone saying the democrats have no religion
(an astonishingly similar charge put Socrates to death in Athens, 5th century B.C.
We translate it "irreligion"), puts the national debate closer to the assumption that
Christianity should be the state religion.
That is not the goal with which the puritans settled this land and it is certainly not the
rationale upon which our country was founded.
Dean is a Christian(Congregationalist, I think he said in an interview)who most definitely prays
regularly (although he doesn't attend church a lot). But he believe's every peron's religion is private,
perhaps especially, a politician's. He does not wear his faith on his sleeve.
Incidentally, he thinks most of the regulations for abortion should be decided by DOCTORS,
sate by state.
(an astonishingly similar charge put Socrates to death in Athens, 5th century B.C.
We translate it "irreligion"), puts the national debate closer to the assumption that
Christianity should be the state religion.
That is not the goal with which the puritans settled this land and it is certainly not the
rationale upon which our country was founded.
Dean is a Christian(Congregationalist, I think he said in an interview)who most definitely prays
regularly (although he doesn't attend church a lot). But he believe's every peron's religion is private,
perhaps especially, a politician's. He does not wear his faith on his sleeve.
Incidentally, he thinks most of the regulations for abortion should be decided by DOCTORS,
sate by state.
Dean Vs. Bolton(New York Times, Letters to the Editor--6/13/05)
I was thrilled to see the debate in the New York Times today over something Dean said this week.
In future postings I may defend or explain Dean sayings, especially if they've been taken out of context.
Dean himself is now so used to being taken out of context that he explained several such instances to Tim
Russert on Meet the Press(NBC: 5/23/05) without even batting an eye. Much less furious than I'd be.
One of his recent sayings concerned social security and I have been woefully late getting to that here.
I blush to say I have not read this week's speech, that the letters are talking about, but I'll definitely check out the Times archives when I get a chance.
But as for comparing the outspoken Dean to the rudeness of John Bolton, as someone did in a letter to the NY Times
editorial page today, Dean is a thousand times nicer, and a thousand times more tolerant of dissenting opinion than that sorry candidate for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Oh, did he get confirmed yet?
What angers Dean is bad action, not opinion, where thinking people and even non-thinking people may disagree.
Dean wanted to be the president for everyone, not as Bush 43: the president of the parts of the U.S. that were won through
a combination of vote-fraud and also undemocratic partisan gerrymandering(especially in Texas). What Bush 43 won
by hoodwinking the people TWICE is not something I'm going into here, right now.
In future postings I may defend or explain Dean sayings, especially if they've been taken out of context.
Dean himself is now so used to being taken out of context that he explained several such instances to Tim
Russert on Meet the Press(NBC: 5/23/05) without even batting an eye. Much less furious than I'd be.
One of his recent sayings concerned social security and I have been woefully late getting to that here.
I blush to say I have not read this week's speech, that the letters are talking about, but I'll definitely check out the Times archives when I get a chance.
But as for comparing the outspoken Dean to the rudeness of John Bolton, as someone did in a letter to the NY Times
editorial page today, Dean is a thousand times nicer, and a thousand times more tolerant of dissenting opinion than that sorry candidate for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Oh, did he get confirmed yet?
What angers Dean is bad action, not opinion, where thinking people and even non-thinking people may disagree.
Dean wanted to be the president for everyone, not as Bush 43: the president of the parts of the U.S. that were won through
a combination of vote-fraud and also undemocratic partisan gerrymandering(especially in Texas). What Bush 43 won
by hoodwinking the people TWICE is not something I'm going into here, right now.
Angry Howard Dean
People complain that Dean's angry. Of course he's angry(idea from Bill Maher)! The current administration has done so many atrocious things at home and abroad that you have to write it down(idea from Dean speaking about Tom Delay,
known as the the Hammer for shaking down lobbyists)!
Without speakers like Dean, who has some guts, none of these issues would ever be aired or get sufficiently addressed.
Neo-cons love it that most dems are too civilized to go for the jugular.
FYI: Does anyone know that CBS pupblished an apology for presenting the Dean scream out of context? Unfortunately that apologydid not receive anywhere near the same amount of publicity as the fateful scream. At Dean's concession speech on the night of the Iowa caucus there were many young volunteers in a huge room, making lots of noise, but they were downcast and Dean sought to rally them. His personal mic was turned way up, so that he could be heard over the din, but the din he sought to be heard over, was not heard[ Just ask Marla Liasson(a rare voice of reason, along with Juan williams, on the "fair-and-balanced" Fox News), who was there].
known as the the Hammer for shaking down lobbyists)!
Without speakers like Dean, who has some guts, none of these issues would ever be aired or get sufficiently addressed.
Neo-cons love it that most dems are too civilized to go for the jugular.
FYI: Does anyone know that CBS pupblished an apology for presenting the Dean scream out of context? Unfortunately that apologydid not receive anywhere near the same amount of publicity as the fateful scream. At Dean's concession speech on the night of the Iowa caucus there were many young volunteers in a huge room, making lots of noise, but they were downcast and Dean sought to rally them. His personal mic was turned way up, so that he could be heard over the din, but the din he sought to be heard over, was not heard[ Just ask Marla Liasson(a rare voice of reason, along with Juan williams, on the "fair-and-balanced" Fox News), who was there].
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Soldiers in Trouble
I understand that the WSJ doesn't really want to talk about Iraqis killed by us in the war, but what about our own soldiers?
Do we not care that they have been fighting in extraordinarily lethal conditions?
Did anyone read in the NY Times that most cold calls by recruiters to parents in the U.S. these days are hung up on outright?
These are hard lessons for a great empire. I mean, they would be hard lessons if we were in the business of learning lessons.
But instead of getting the idea that this war is unpopular with the people, neo-con editorialist threaten us with the possibilty
of the reinstatement of the draft! "Don't bring it on yourselves!", they seem to say.
I think that we should make decisive plans to start bringing our brave heroes home . If we don't, then I have to ask myself,
"Are we treating our own soldiers as human beings?" (And then you can talk to me about how sorry you are for those
Iraqi civilians murdered by jihadist terrorism, civilians who would be alive today were it not for the Iraq war being waged in the first place). But I DO understand why the U.S. Armed Forces can't all pack up today and leave en masse.
Do we not care that they have been fighting in extraordinarily lethal conditions?
Did anyone read in the NY Times that most cold calls by recruiters to parents in the U.S. these days are hung up on outright?
These are hard lessons for a great empire. I mean, they would be hard lessons if we were in the business of learning lessons.
But instead of getting the idea that this war is unpopular with the people, neo-con editorialist threaten us with the possibilty
of the reinstatement of the draft! "Don't bring it on yourselves!", they seem to say.
I think that we should make decisive plans to start bringing our brave heroes home . If we don't, then I have to ask myself,
"Are we treating our own soldiers as human beings?" (And then you can talk to me about how sorry you are for those
Iraqi civilians murdered by jihadist terrorism, civilians who would be alive today were it not for the Iraq war being waged in the first place). But I DO understand why the U.S. Armed Forces can't all pack up today and leave en masse.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Re: "12,000 Heroes"--WSJ editorial(6/10/05)
I'm glad to know that the Iraq government has come up with numbers about how many Iraqi civilians have been
killed in the last 18 months. It is a grave tragedy. Trying to understand the roots of terror took up a whole edition of a Newsweek after September 11.
The WSJ says "There's...been plenty of tendentious speculation about the number of Iraqis killed by coalition action, the purpose of which is to cast Iraq's liberation as an unmitigated horror for the Iraqis."
[The word "tendentious" means " composed with the intention of promoting a particular cause or viewpoint"(New Shorter Oxford), in case anyone was unclear.]
But look!: Liberals don't cook this stuff up to screw neo-cons over! As citizens we are compelled to be aware of the facts!
Believe me I'd be much happier if a few of my near and dear weren't actually renouncing the symbol of the american flag
due to outrageous acts, foreign and domestic, committed by our government since 2000!
I wish this were the only example, but:
After my family came to stay in my apartment last May, I found my flag hidden on the floor underneath the dark green curtains. Was it a mere accident or did they know the flag is not supposed to touch the floor? Am I supposed to burn it now? I feel like a traitor because I'm too lazy to burn and replace it AND I forget if my fireplace is supposed to be real or not. I'm gambling that that hallowed tradition doesn't apply to the flags that cost $2.50. But still!
killed in the last 18 months. It is a grave tragedy. Trying to understand the roots of terror took up a whole edition of a Newsweek after September 11.
The WSJ says "There's...been plenty of tendentious speculation about the number of Iraqis killed by coalition action, the purpose of which is to cast Iraq's liberation as an unmitigated horror for the Iraqis."
[The word "tendentious" means " composed with the intention of promoting a particular cause or viewpoint"(New Shorter Oxford), in case anyone was unclear.]
But look!: Liberals don't cook this stuff up to screw neo-cons over! As citizens we are compelled to be aware of the facts!
Believe me I'd be much happier if a few of my near and dear weren't actually renouncing the symbol of the american flag
due to outrageous acts, foreign and domestic, committed by our government since 2000!
I wish this were the only example, but:
After my family came to stay in my apartment last May, I found my flag hidden on the floor underneath the dark green curtains. Was it a mere accident or did they know the flag is not supposed to touch the floor? Am I supposed to burn it now? I feel like a traitor because I'm too lazy to burn and replace it AND I forget if my fireplace is supposed to be real or not. I'm gambling that that hallowed tradition doesn't apply to the flags that cost $2.50. But still!
Monday, June 06, 2005
My Friend's Promising Teenagers
My friend Janice, a single mom, has an amazingly dead-pan style talking about her teenagers Jory and Craig. [Names are changed to protect the innocent.] She also doesn't hesitate to use her sarcasm on THEM from time to time. Janice has few
moments actually spent with them, as she commutes daily from Port Washington on Long Island, to her demanding human resource job at Accenture/Microsoft in Manhattan. Her kids are both excellent students and extremely well-behaved, but there's never a dull moment.
I. Baby Pictures
Jory(14 y.o.)had never seen her baby pictures and she had a great longing to see this. In the past year she nagged
Janice about a hundred times to get the photos out. "They're buried in a box," she would reply wearily, "And the box is buried under ten other boxes in a closet!" But time and again Jory would persist with, "I've never seen my baby pictures."
Finally Janice broke her good temper in a pique and said, "That's because you're adopted!"
Well, her daughter broke down in tears and sobbed uncontrollably. Immediately Janice relented. "I was just kidding!
You're not adopted!" No end to the tears. " How could you be adopted? Everone's always saying how much you look like
my sister!" No break. She cried and cried. And hasn't let it go for months.
It turned out Jory's grandmother nearby had some baby pictures of her and the three of them got together at Grandma's to look at them. "Well," said Jory. "These must be from before you got me from the other couple."
Janice recently pulled out her fire-poof box which holds the family's social security numbers, passports and other valuables,
to get ID for her Craig to take the SAT's. She knows the children's birth certificates are there and she's waiting for the right moment to take it out and show her daughter.
II. I Think I Have a Concert
Craig(15 y.0.)thought he had a party at 5 PM on Saturday and he told Janice about it early in the afternoon. "Do you need a present?"
"No."
"I see."
Suddenly they realized that the party was not at 5 PM. It WAS on the 5th of June, but it had actually started at 2 PM.
At 3:30 they were made their way over to the party a bit late. Passing through Port Washington, they noticed some
festivites in swing around the water-front. "Oh!" said Craig. "Is it Harbor Fest?"
"Yes. It's Harbor Fest."
"I think I have a concert."
"You think you have a concert?!"
"Yes, but I forgot my trombone and now it's all locked up in the school and I couldn't possibly get to it anyway, so maybe it's just as well. What do you think I should do?"
"EYE think you should go home and go to bed, and when you get your head out of your ass you can come and join the world of the living!"
* * *
Early one Saturday morning Janice was driving Craig to school because the band's call that day was for an hour before the parade. All the band members had recently had to buy some white marching shoes which were manufactured by Dingles, so they simply called these shoes "Dingles".
"Mommy, I couldn't find my Dingles in the closet. I hope they're in my locker at school."
"Well, I hope so, too!"
Visions of going back home in a panic to find the shoes(Where would a Dingle BE?)running through her head,
Janice parked out front by the school while Craig went in to check his locker. After a certain period, Craig was
back out, proudly holding up the Dingles to show her; and then for one more morning, everything was cool.
moments actually spent with them, as she commutes daily from Port Washington on Long Island, to her demanding human resource job at Accenture/Microsoft in Manhattan. Her kids are both excellent students and extremely well-behaved, but there's never a dull moment.
I. Baby Pictures
Jory(14 y.o.)had never seen her baby pictures and she had a great longing to see this. In the past year she nagged
Janice about a hundred times to get the photos out. "They're buried in a box," she would reply wearily, "And the box is buried under ten other boxes in a closet!" But time and again Jory would persist with, "I've never seen my baby pictures."
Finally Janice broke her good temper in a pique and said, "That's because you're adopted!"
Well, her daughter broke down in tears and sobbed uncontrollably. Immediately Janice relented. "I was just kidding!
You're not adopted!" No end to the tears. " How could you be adopted? Everone's always saying how much you look like
my sister!" No break. She cried and cried. And hasn't let it go for months.
It turned out Jory's grandmother nearby had some baby pictures of her and the three of them got together at Grandma's to look at them. "Well," said Jory. "These must be from before you got me from the other couple."
Janice recently pulled out her fire-poof box which holds the family's social security numbers, passports and other valuables,
to get ID for her Craig to take the SAT's. She knows the children's birth certificates are there and she's waiting for the right moment to take it out and show her daughter.
II. I Think I Have a Concert
Craig(15 y.0.)thought he had a party at 5 PM on Saturday and he told Janice about it early in the afternoon. "Do you need a present?"
"No."
"I see."
Suddenly they realized that the party was not at 5 PM. It WAS on the 5th of June, but it had actually started at 2 PM.
At 3:30 they were made their way over to the party a bit late. Passing through Port Washington, they noticed some
festivites in swing around the water-front. "Oh!" said Craig. "Is it Harbor Fest?"
"Yes. It's Harbor Fest."
"I think I have a concert."
"You think you have a concert?!"
"Yes, but I forgot my trombone and now it's all locked up in the school and I couldn't possibly get to it anyway, so maybe it's just as well. What do you think I should do?"
"EYE think you should go home and go to bed, and when you get your head out of your ass you can come and join the world of the living!"
* * *
Early one Saturday morning Janice was driving Craig to school because the band's call that day was for an hour before the parade. All the band members had recently had to buy some white marching shoes which were manufactured by Dingles, so they simply called these shoes "Dingles".
"Mommy, I couldn't find my Dingles in the closet. I hope they're in my locker at school."
"Well, I hope so, too!"
Visions of going back home in a panic to find the shoes(Where would a Dingle BE?)running through her head,
Janice parked out front by the school while Craig went in to check his locker. After a certain period, Craig was
back out, proudly holding up the Dingles to show her; and then for one more morning, everything was cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)