smijer

2008-01-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

2004-01-03T21:27:00.000-05:00

Making it official

smijer's got new digs. Don't expect too much. The furniture is still in storage. The phone isn't on yet. I've gotta call the plumber about the pipes. But the family is in and its time to leave a forwarding address. Come by smijer's own dot.com and please, please, please, leave a housewarming gift. Most needed now is feed-back about the format and help on making a better three-column style sheet.

2004-01-03T10:17:00.000-05:00

Update

Clandestine operations hinted at in recent posts go badly. Please be patient with an old man.

2004-01-01T13:03:00.000-05:00

Holy Cow!

Scary.

2004-01-01T08:12:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

My new year's resolution: to finish the Project Whose Name I Dare Not Mention. By, errmmm, next week. To that end, I follow my policy of OPB, as outlined yesterday:

The cool kids at dKos have been reviewing the MoveOn.org ads. This one may be the best of the bunch.

Can Glenn Reynolds please move to Alabama? No, Kevin, most of us aren't like that.

Oliver has gotten featured in Discover, while dKos made USA Today. Cool.

¡Feliz Año Nuevo!

2003-12-31T07:18:00.000-05:00

Down with OPB?

I'll be posting links to Other People's Blog entries in the next few days. I'm working on a new project. I can't say what it is, but I'll give you a hint. I am trying to figure out a way to set FTP transfer mode (ASCII or Binary) on an ad-ware FTP prog in order to avoid having to do it from a DOS shell command line on a bunch of files.

I notice that fletch has featured my hometown in his most recent entry.

Max speaks about a subject that ties into my upcoming entry on anti-boortz.

Lastly, even though I cannot stomach his politics, I find that Les Jones has a new entry in his Biology category.

Update: Downloaded WS_FTP Pro. Its an evaluation version, but if this takes more than 30 days, I'm not doing it anyway. Anyway, no more problem with the transfer mode.

2003-12-30T07:27:00.000-05:00

The Cracked Crystal

I should mention: I've never missed a single blog-based new year prediction. My record is immaculate. Maybe this will be the first year I get one wrong, but are you willing to take that chance? Read and heed - this is what happens in 2004:

January: Dennis Kucinich fails to win the Iowa caucuses in what would have been an upset.
February: Economists and pundits hail gains in floral delivery sector. Gains are short-lived.
March: John "F." Kerry, if still in race for nomination, still does not "get it."
April: Spring comes to certain parts of the nation. North Dakota sees thinning of permafrost layers.
May: Rain, heavy at times.
June: Weather-based predictions are down. Segue portends increase in political predictions. Wife has birthday.
July: Iraq transforms into stable democracy. US begins "transfer of power" according to schedule. Much winking and back-slapping among cabinet members. Colin Powell's bon homie seems somewhat strained.
August: Republican National Convention is held in New York City. Timing and location carefully chosen to avoid any hint of politicizing past terror events. Timing also chosen to allow Republican candidates enough time to wage expensive primary campaign. Tom Delay's potential plans to house delegates in Houston and commute to the convention are never realized.
September: John "F." Kerry, if still in race for nomination, still doesn't "get it."
October: Chicago Cubs fail to win World Series.
November: Hillary Clinton is unable to capitalize on her possible 2004 presidential bid due, in part, to rumors that she is a lesbian.
December: The nightmare is over: only one month until the inaguration of a Democratic party President, unless George W. Bush won the November election. Snow in some regions.

2003-12-29T07:30:00.000-05:00

Real Life Intrudes

I will be on leave today, in order to deal with real life demands. I hope to be back tomorrow.

2003-12-28T20:09:00.000-05:00

In the mixed metaphor department

Olliver Willis reports the big story: that Paul Bremer puts the lie to Tony Blair's claims.It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring, then knocks it down.No, you mean a Red Man (chewing tobbacco).. err... a Straw Herring. errr...

2003-12-28T19:54:00.000-05:00

Another good cause

Frankly, I'm impressed. Some background:

My family, eldest sister included, are political conservatives.
We only exchanged ornaments among adults for this year's Christmas. (Unfortunately, I did not get to see eldest sister during this year's abbreviated celebrations.)

My eldest sister's family has given to my family a knit stocking Christmas ornamnent for Christmas this year. It is red, white, and green with a brown card attached. Upon that card is this inscription:
Bosnian Handicrafts Bosnia & Herzegovina Handmade by Rajka. www.bosnianhandicrafts.com With the purchase of these lovingly made products you get an item which you will cherish, while directly assisting refugee women to improve their lives. As most of our products are made out of local raw materials your purchase also supports the reviving of Bosnian economy.I did my research before I chose to endorse this as a good cause. It appears that while the CEO is a Serbian Christian, the women who are earning a livelihood through this project include Muslims and Croats. In other words, the formerly warring factions are coming back together on this cause. And that is something that conservatives and liberals can both appreciate.

If you are reading: thanks, sis.

2003-12-28T08:30:00.000-05:00

Death to Saddam...?

As per my usual habit of being the last to chime in about last week's blogospheric buzz, I will now comment on whether I think Hussein should get the death penalty.

Let me first disclaim that I will be perfectly happy either way. I will not be among the hand-wringers crying pity for the man should Saddam find himself suddenly without a head.

I will not be among the blood-thirsty who will undoubtedly shriek with howls of displeasure, should they be deprived of the spectacle of an execution.

It's good that Saddam Hussein will come to justice, and I will be pleased that he does no matter what means is used. Before I move on, l must still mention that Oliver Willis made a fantastic appeal to my visceral feelings that scream "Death to Saddam!" But, after some reflection, I settled on the other answer instead.

Yes, I think we owe the Iraqi people something. I think they deserve a balm for the hurt they sufferred under Saddam, and seeing him executed would do their hearts good. But America has already given of her sons and daughters to the ultimate benefit of the Iraqi people, and it is time to look at American interests first.

Execution is not a deterrent for future enemies of America. An execution speaks the language of jihad: violence, revenge, and martyrdom. The sentiments that inflame the Arab world against us are universal feelings. We all share them. The extremists have found a way to fan the flame of those feelings to incite susceptible Arabs to violent action. Throwing another body on their fire is not going to defuse the situation in the least. Just ask Prime Minister Sharon, if you doubt.

On the other hand, keeping Saddam alive and in prison is a net positive for American interests. Whether it is an individual or a state, a killing sends a message of fear. It says we feel safer with a powerful enemy dead. To keep him alive is to trivialize him. We feel safe enough already, because our enemy has no power. We send the message: we really aren't afraid.

More importantly, it creates a chink in the armor of fanatacism. Recruits to the radical cause do not "hate America for our freedom," even though their leaders clearly believe religious freedom is a blight. The real reason that the leaders of Jihad are able to attract plentiful followers is that the followers believe America is waging a war on Islam and on Allah. These words are excerpted from bin Laden's 1998 call to arms:Here they come today to eradicate the rest of these people and to humiliate its Muslim neighbors. Although the Americans' objectives of these wars are religious and economic, they are also to serve the Jewish state and distract from the occupation of the Holy Land and its killing of Muslims there. The most evident proof is their persistence to destroy Iraq, the most powerful neighboring Arab state. All those crimes and calamities are an explicit declaration by the Americans of war on Allah, his Prophet, and Muslims. {emphasis added} Radical Muslims believe that Americans hate and want to kill Muslims. They believe it because jihadists leaders tell them so. By passing up an easy opportunity to kill a Muslim, and doing it in a highly visible way, we show a generation of Muslims torn between the call to Jihad and the beacon of peace that the jihadists are wrong about us. The only way to kill a movement based on fear and lies is by exposing its recruitment base to a healthy dose of the truth, and by proving to them that peace is a real option.

Killing Saddam would not be unjust, but it would be a lost opportunity.

2003-12-27T08:50:00.000-05:00

The Generals

We all know where four-star general and war-time commander Wesley Clark stands on the Iraq war. But he isn't alone.

Retired USAF general and war-time commander Tony McPeak agrees, even though he was a registered Republican and endorsed Bush in 2000.

So does retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who, like General Clark, took bullets in Vietnam.

And, it isn't just the generals.

P.S. Shame on me for leaving out RTB's own Jo Fish.

2003-12-27T08:09:00.000-05:00

Get Your Darwin On

I've stumbled upon a new blog of interest: Carl Zimmer's Loom, devoted to the biological sciences. It is only because of the 2004 presidential election that politics is my primary blogging interest right now. When it is over, I will have somewhat less to say on the subject of politics, and maybe somewhat more on the subject of natural science. I may even have a word or two to say about our flat-earther friends.

No matter what I do, mine will be the words of an amateur science booster, not the words of a working scientist. Zimmer's blog, on the other hand, is full of accurate and insightful science blogging. Read and enjoy.

Back to politics, now. Read this scathing indictment of the right-wing smear-mongers. Arthur also seems to share my discomfort with Dean's back-pedalling on this issue.

2003-12-26T16:19:00.000-05:00

Tactics
(Or, why stupid hyperbole is effective).

A campaign really should be about issues. It's not going to be so simple, though. The Republican smear machine will be in over-drive, stopping at nothing to cling to power. One of their tactics will be stupid hyperbole.

Stupid hyperbole works. It works especially well when the opposition party is too scared of getting called "angry" to fight this tactic effectively. The answer to stupid hyperbole is to mock it unmercifully, and when those in power whine about how angry your mockery sounds, remind everyone what you are mocking.

Why does it work? I don't know. Its some kind of psychological or subliminal thing, I guess. You bleat on about how liberals hate America long enough, make it a theme on every talk show, in every newspaper editorial, and in your book titles, and eventually people will "have to admit" that liberals are "at least" less patriotic than regular people.

I remember the media trying time and again to put lies and exaggerations into the mouth of Al Gore during the 2000 elections. I was less aware of the tactics being used at the time, and when a person close to me suggested that I had "at least" to admit that he was prone to exaggeration (or else I was hopelessly biased), I found myself nodding my head in agreement. The facts of not one single case bore out the premise, but suddenly it seemed almost perverse to deny that Gore was a little more prone to self-congratulatory exaggeration than his opponent.

It's an insiduous tactic, but effective. It's the new politics, and it stinks.

2003-12-26T06:39:00.000-05:00

Politicizing Paul Krugman

Via Atrios, Paul Krugman gives us a lesson in substantive reporting on politics and policy. Best line?Don't fall for political histrionics. I couldn't believe how much ink was spilled after the Gore-Dean event over Joe Lieberman's hurt feelings. Folks, we're talking about war, peace and the future of U.S. democracy — not about who takes whom to the prom.When Paul K began writing political opinion instead of economic commentary, I was disappointed. One of the most vocal critics of Bush economic policy lost his academic credibility to partisan bias.
Now, I believe we made a good trade: one milquetoast economist for one all-purpose media voice with a set of steelies.
I thought at the time that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if he had been able to manage the debate better, forcing a policy debate instead of a beauty contest. During that election season, I kept wondering why Gore and the media felt like Bush's Texas record was not news, why Gore's record as Clinton Veep was not news, but colorful media charicatures of the candidates' personalities were news.

Dean won't allow that to happen. In every interview and debate, and in every statement, he sticks to policy and rebuffs the snide interviewers who are just dying to know if maybe he really isn't too angry to be elected. It looks like Paul Krugman is going to be one of his few allies in the media.

That said, the NY Times still needs to hire some damn editors. Paul, this is wrong: "We learn from The Washington Post that reporters covering Mr. Dean are surprised..." The Washington Post writes about Mr. Dean, but the person they are covering is Dr. Dean. It isn't that hard folks.

P.S. It appears the Beagle2 may not have made it, after all. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. In the meantime, Mars Express is successfully deployed, so all is not lost.

P.P.S. Oh deer, I love the nature photography at Smoky Mountain Journal.

2003-12-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

London, the Beagle has Landed

Not yet. I just wanted to beat everyone to the punch, because that's tomorrow's headline. I'm excited that Mars is getting attention. I don't expect there to be found any convincing evidence of life having existed on Mars (whether there ever was any or not), but the prospect of doing science on a planet 85 million miles away from home is awe-inspiring.

Posting will be light until the new year. If you are celebrating the mandatory holidays, be safe and happy.

2003-12-23T07:10:00.000-05:00

That's Mister Angry Liberal To You, Bub

I have been reading a lot of negative op-ed about Howard Dean this morning. Let's see, I've been reading:

This, This, This, This, This, and This. (You assemble this much negative opinion about the Republican candidate, and Sean Hannity will use it to prove that the left is composed entirely of Bush-haters.)

That is (count 'em) six op-eds from four papers, of which three are read nationally. In order, The Washington Post, the Washington Times (three articles - there are others from them, but I didn't want them hogging the space), the Wall Street Journal, and the DFW Star-Telegram.

What these fine papers have in common is not ownership by the Moonies. No, that's just the Washington Times. They do not all share a rabidly right-wing editorial department. No, that leaves out the Post. What they have in common is that they ask us to take them seriously, when they are not well-informed enough on the subjects they are discussing to know that Howard Dean is not a "Mr.", but a "Dr." Every one of these op-eds refer to Dr. Dean as "Mr. Dean" any time they do not use his full name or his other title (that would be Governor, for you national opinion writers out there.)

Now I understand that national talking head pundits (especially those on the far right) are not known for being great thinkers. But folks, that's why newspapers have editors. If I owned a heavy-weight national paper and my editors couldn't catch such obvious errors, I would fire them.

Of course, it's not just major newspapers getting it wrong. But you expect this kind of thing from the GOP. (Can't you just hear Gillespie now, "It's no fair! Why do they get a medical doctor and we have to run a failed businessman?")

Oh, here's a good one: Let's look at the quality of education we can hope to get from Project Vote Smart. Ha! Ha! Those folks aren't owned by Diebold are they?

Enough.

2003-12-22T19:55:00.000-05:00

Good News for Soldiers

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan says soldiers are not guinea pigs.

The last I heard of this scandal (this was before 9/11), a high school buddy of mine had been relieved of duty in the USAF because he refused the shots. I never found out what eventually became of him. I would like to know if he was one of the ones who saw it through to the end, but I will likely never find out.

JAG, if you are out there & reading --- congratulations. Drop me a line sometime.

2003-12-22T06:59:00.000-05:00

Who is Working On This?

People who know me know that I am no worrier. When Tom Ridge elevated the security threat level to Fuschia (check behind you every seven steps) yesterday, I hardly even blinked.

I mean, I recognize the reality of the threat. I really do. I just can't motivate myself to worry about it. Everytime a hellish post-apocalyptic scene pops into my visual imagination, I remember that we have the most expensive intelligence services on the face of the planet and that they are surely doing their best. I guess it helps also that I live in a rural area. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, but I can't help thinking that Al Qaeda views our cows as a low-value target. I say all of this to make clear that I am not being alarmist when I mention this other threat.

Somehow, I feel like the security concern that requires the next most direct attention from the U.S. after international terror is the threat of a nationalistic and militaristic China. (I've misplaced a hat-tip here).

What if the next army to follow the Bush doctrine of pre-emption looks like this:

Now that would be a reason to worry. Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is even likely that the Chinese will aggress against a neighbor in the next few years. But the situation requires attention. My question is: who is working on this? What is the policy, and how is it being implemented? I'd just like to know, is all.

2003-12-21T18:51:00.000-05:00

Yikes! (And we're still getting that phony introductory rate, too!)
Via BFA & Oliver Willis:

(Real thanks to North Bay for Dean.)

The only thing I would have done differently, is to make sure the name on it reflected who gets the monthly statement: "John Q. Public".

2003-12-21T11:20:00.000-05:00

TIME's Person of the Year

Time's Person of the Year: Hint: they pay the price for American Foreign Policy.

Good call, TIME. (For once.)

2003-12-20T20:10:00.000-05:00

Steal This Issue

My first instinct a few months ago, when the push for an expansion of Medicare became the priority of the Republicans in government, was to view it as cynical ploy to negate a key Democratic issue for 2004 elections. I felt very irked that the Republicans would more than likely be able to put together a package of give-aways to corporate interests, call it a Medicare expansion, and neutralize the Democrats on key policy proposals.

Dirty trick? Yes and no. Clinton stole Reagan's issues on balanced budgets and welfare reform. Dean or Clark is likely to take the issue of the war on terror away from Bush. Stealing issues is good. That's how we build concensus. An issue properly stolen becomes an entrenched part of the American way, allowing the parties to remake themselves and reflect their constituencies other interests more forcefully.

Medicare expansion is not likely an issue to stay stolen. The Bush folks decided to steal only the name and the price-tag, leaving most of the benefits for seniors behind. This leaves the Democrats in a better position than before. Now, instead of spending oodles of new money for a drug benefit and universal coverage, the candidates can offer to spend the same money and a little extra, but put it to work more efficiently, providing a greater benefit by using the legislation to control the monopoly pricing schemes of big Pharma and the corporate HMO's.

In 2004, this is likely to emerge as Karl Rove's biggest error in judgement. Already, the supposed beneficaries of the GOP plan are less than enthused. This is just after the AARP endorsed it and spent millions advertizing for it, and it is before the reality sinks in that no one receives any benefit in the next couple of years. By the elections, people are going to be ready for a serious proposal on health-care, with the only difference being that the price tag difference between the serious Democratic proposals and Republican legislation is going to be much smaller - making the Democratic sell much easier. I guess that's the danger of putting the political wing in charge and leaving the policy wonks out of the process.

2003-12-20T11:29:00.000-05:00

Where Will The Next War Be?

My guess: Lybia. All the conditions are there. Consider the similarities to the events that triggered our last war:

World leaders do not support war with Lybia.

Lybia has been targeted but not overrun by the U.S. under a previous Republican President.
But scariest of all?

Lybia is now allowing rigorous inspections to ensure they are disarmed

We gave them 17 years. It's time for action.

2003-12-19T19:47:00.000-05:00

And the Winner Is...

In the category of most apt to tickle smijer's funny-bone, the winner is: Rochester's Raging Grannies.

Bubba drew some interesting selections, himself.

2003-12-19T10:51:00.000-05:00

Some random cool stuff from cnn.com

Seems they've broken a rule and put some interesting stuff on their page:

Freedom Tower. (I like this.)

and

The new telescope is cool.

2003-12-19T07:43:00.000-05:00

Three and One Half Hours

A fantastic movie, for those who only read the Cliff Notes.

In happier news, I've added a couple of new links to the blog roll. Fanatical Apathy never fails to amuse, while Cal Pundit is one of the major political blogs; a staple for hard commentary and cat-blogging.

Enough. Time for work.

2003-12-18T17:47:00.000-05:00

Maybe he should have called his book "Who's going to see you comin'?"

2003-12-17T07:07:00.000-05:00

Move along folks, nothing to see here
One blog is more than enough. I'm spending all my time lately on the anti-boortz, so I don't have much time to put in here. I think today's anti-nuze would have wound up on this page if Boortz hadn't brought up "unilateralism." Its going to be a relevant issue, given the Republican talking points that are circulating.

Christmas is a week from now. These three fellows will spend it in prison (one on death row), for a crime they did not commit. Think about them, and if you can spare anything for their defense fund, the pay-pal link is at the bottom of the pop-up letter from Lorri Davis and Damien Echols.

2003-12-16T07:23:00.000-05:00

Why does Bob Novak Hate America?

Via MSNBC, Bob Novak:
"When Saddam's capture became public Sunday morning, presidential aides were instructed to make the White House a 'gloat-free zone'... Bush's political team was going to make sure he did not repeat the same mistake he made on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln months ago when 'Mission Accomplished!' was heralded. The White House first announced that a press pool would be admitted to the president's noon remarks Sunday, then reversed that judgment. Reporters were kept out to make sure there would be no dangerous question-and-answer period that might show Bush gloating. 'If I had my way, the president wouldn't answer any questions between now and the election,' said one Republican political operative."I would comment on this, but I wouldn't want to appear to gloat.

2003-12-15T20:32:00.000-05:00

If you can't beat them, join them
The Good Life & Boortz are both making cracks about Saddam's resemblence to other well-known figures.

So what the hell. Hussein or Matthau? You decide.

2003-12-15T07:06:00.000-05:00

Slow News Day

Thankfully, there is still yesterday's news to talk about. I've found two interesting phenomena in the on-line debates of yesterday's breaking news.

1) There is a concensus here on the left that Bush handled something well for a change. Instead of his usual triumphalist displays, the president sounded a note of mixed optimism, stressing the fact that there is much work left to be done in Iraq.

Atrios has the most humorous take on Bush's new-found "humility and strength". Bush said, "this is good, BUT..." which obviously means he wants himself to fail in Iraq.

2) A lot of Democrats sincerely do not expect the Bush administration to allow Saddam to come to trial. The tin-foil hat variety believes that the U.S. will arrange an assassination before the trial date. Others believe the trial will be delayed past the 2004 elections. I know we are all cynical about Bush. We have good reason. I'm still very suprised to see the level of distrust climb this high.

One thing is very sure. The capture of Saddam will create a new opportunity to speed the transition of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Without him waiting in the wings to re-emerge as a political presence, there is one less worry on those lines. He was only one of three or four major political pitfalls of concern, but one in four is still a very significant reduction.

2003-12-14T10:22:00.000-05:00

Got Him

Good job to the men and women of the military who have captured the fugitive Saddam Hussein. Even though the Iraq war was bad policy, we can still appreciate the good that does come of it.

Here's hoping that Iraq will be a better place, for the Iraqis and for the world, when we leave it than it was when we arrived.

Update: Get your commentary here.

2003-12-13T16:07:00.000-05:00

He Has a Point

Via Tbogg, ROFLMAO!

2003-12-13T14:24:00.000-05:00

The Primary Fight is Turning Ugly

I found this on BFA: Hold Your Nose

By the way, the anti-boortz is where all the action is right now. I'll still be posting here, but there may be a lull until traffic dies down over there.

2003-12-13T11:36:00.000-05:00

Stop the Presses!

I just read in the Weekly World News that George W. Bush secretly plotted to turn Hillary Clinton over to the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

Yes. I know its the Weekly World News. If you don't think its credible, find a source you consider reputable that refutes it.

ahem.

2003-12-12T07:31:00.000-05:00

Sorry, technical difficulties

My comments sections have been replaced. I was using "Comment This!" before, but apparently they crashed. So I am replacing them with Haloscan, which I have seen used elsewhere. A lot of comments were lost in the failure. I'll make an effort to recoupe them later on if possible. Sorry to anyone who was watching/participating in comments here.

2003-12-11T07:07:00.000-05:00

News You Could Have Guessed

U.S. takes revenge on U.N. members who broke their leash over the Iraq war

The U.N. feels insulted

U.N. slaps back

Girls, girls... you're both very pretty.

2003-12-10T06:47:00.000-05:00

How could we have been so rude???

How many months have Human Rights activists had in their midst new converts, without giving welcome? George Bush campaigned on being against "Nation Building." Sean Hannity decried the Kosovo war as unnecessary. Legions from the right stayed home, rather than going out to wave flags and lavish praise on Bill Clinton, effusively, during Haiti and Kosovo. And now that they've become zealots for human rights?

Welcome one and all. Over to your left, you will find Amnesty International. Straight ahead, you will find Human Rights Watch, and the Human Rights Education Associates. Be cautioned that some of the atrocities documented by these organizations will cause your trigger finger to itch. Please consult with Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (who now are heading up a coalition of human rights organizations of their own), for their guidance before rolling your tanks.

To date, we have no satellite imagery suggesting the possibility of some tractor trailers backed up to non-descript buildings in the wilderness of Uzbekistan. Wolfowitz and Cheney will be happy to explain to you how this plays into an enlightened foreign policy that gives due focus to human rights.

Welcome one and all. Make yourselves at home.

2003-12-09T21:12:00.000-05:00

There was a debate on tonight?

I worked late, and missed the first thirty minutes. So I decided to read the play-by-plays on some of my favorite blogs instead of tuning in late.

From what I hear, props to Kucinich for the gentle reminder (to all of us) that there are actually some issues involved. ("Issues? Those are so twentieth century.") So good for Dennis K.

And props to John Kerry for offering to instruct Ted K. on where he could put the polls.

Changing the subject, did you know that Hillary Clinton is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden?

2003-12-08T21:41:00.000-05:00

Why Al Is Doing It

The real truth emerged approximately one tenth of a second after news broke that Al Gore will be endorsing Howard Dean. It emerged simultaneously on tens of thousands of blogs, and on talk shows across the 386 available television channels. And here I am to sum it up for you. Gore chose to endorse Dean because:

He's gunning to run against Bush in 2008

He wants to find out what the Vice Presidency would be like

Make that Secretary of State

He's heading off the draft Hillary movement

He's working for Hillary

He's taking a jab at the DLC

He's working for the DLC

He's trying to force the hand of the Clintons

The Clintons forced his hand

He's running in 2012

Hillary's running in 2012

He thinks Wesley Clark is too stiff

Did I miss anything?

2003-12-08T18:53:00.000-05:00

GORE TO ENDORSE DEAN w00t!

'nuff said.

2003-12-07T19:48:00.000-05:00

You Won't Hear about This on Fox News

Listening to This American Life on the way to McDonalds for supper, I heard a disturbing report detailing how the U.S. reneged on a deal with Nauru, wherein they would close down their protected "off-shore" banking operations (practically their sole source of income), help a few N. Koreans defect through an embassy in China, and do some nice things, politically, for the U.S. - in exchange for U.S. aid, in the form of desalinization plants and other goodies to help them replace the banking economy.

The audio will be up on their web-site next week. The first half of the show deals with the treatment of Afghan refugees in Nauru, but the really scary part is the reporting about U.S. making and breaking deals in the war on terror.

So let's hear some reporting on this from the liberal media, can we?

I won't hold my breath.

2003-12-07T17:12:00.000-05:00

The 33% Solution

Props to Fûz, at WeckUpToThees! for his unique sketch of an Iraq plan. It is a thought that I had not seen formally committed to BlogSpace before.

I have long questioned why no one ever mentioned the possibility of Balkanizing Iraq along the lines of its three principal ethnic groups. The obvious benefits would include enhanced protection for the minority Kurds, facilitized containment of a centralized Sunni population, and the extension of an olive branch to the Shi'a group most in danger of anti-western radicalization.

Sure it would make the Turks nervous, but it stands to strike at the root of America's problem in Iraq, and Fûz gives a good sketch on how to accomplish that task. Mad Props.

2003-12-06T19:05:00.000-05:00

Wash your mouth out, Grandma

I've been reading Howard Dean: A Citizens Guide...

This excerpt follows in the aftermath of the civil unions bill:

The ugliness continued. The fund-raising walk made its way toward downtown St. Albans; as Dean's party neared City Hall, the governor recognized a longtime supporter watching from the curb and went to give her a hug. As he did, Cioffi recalled, someone else, an elderly woman, approached the governor and said, "You fucking, queer-loving son of a bitch." Cioffi says Dean replied, "You should clean up your mouth, lady. You certainly didn't learn how to talk like that in Franklin County."

That picture is going to be stuck in my head for the next nine years.

2003-12-05T21:32:00.000-05:00

Who would have won?

In the comments of another post, there was a discussion about whether Clinton would have won in 1992 without Perot in the race. Unfortunately, even for the best and brightest, there is no way to answer this question with certainty. Furthermore, we don't have a lot of data to go on, besides the election results themselves. But I got interested in the question and decided to do some research and rough calculations.

Let me stress that I have no empirical data about how Perot voters would have behaved in the 1992 election without Perot in the race. The only scrap I have is a mention of a poll from 1991, sans methodology, margins of error, and proper citation. For $25, you can purchase access to a journal article which did properly cite the poll, here - the paper is entitled "President Perot or Fundamentals of Voting Theory Illustrated with the 1992 Election" by Alexander Tabarrok and it is in the March, 2001 issue. If he is properly quoted in this pdf file, then a majority of those polled who expressed a first choice for Perot would have voted for Clinton as their second choice.

However, I'm going to give some credence to the theory that Perot voters would have skewed Bush if Perot had been out. I worked up my numbers based on the generous assumption that Bush would have taken 60% of the Perot vote (nearly twice the cut he took from the general pool), and Clinton would have scored a mere 30% of Perot voters. The other 10% stayed home.

The hypothetical results - assuming that the 60/30/10 split for Perot voters held at the same level in every state - were a real squeaker. Only five electoral votes separate that hypothetical election from an electoral tie. But the winner was still Bill Clinton.

Check my work.

Make your own hypothetical outcome in 1992. (Microsoft Exel required)

Have fun with it!

Update: Did you notice that Perot beat Clinton in Utah and Bush in Maine?

2003-12-05T13:41:00.000-05:00

Top Gun!

Seriously, if you haven't already seen this -- watch now. Beware - large .wmv file:
Top Gun!

Update: Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that this footage appears to belong to these folks, though I picked it up off an e-mail that was passed along to me. Go buy something. Put it in my Stocking.

2003-12-05T06:32:00.000-05:00

Too Big or Too Small?

There is plenty of room to debate how the tools of government are best used. But, where it concerns the "size" of government - I don't see any room for debate. The ideal size of government seems to be obvious:

281,421,906 People and one big piece of paper.

Voter apathy and undue "big money" influence are the only real ways to reduce the "size" of this government (and they are working!!). We stand a chance to lose focus on who the government is when we debate how big it should be, and we forget that the laws and programs we, the people, put in place are tools for accomplishing specific purposes.

It isn't hard to argue that it isn't the government's function to be sure granny can afford her prescription medications. It is a little tougher to argue that "we the people" have no responsibility to be sure our aging poor (or our hungry children for that matter) are taken care of. It is unproductive to argue that somehow "we the people" will manage to fulfill our true obligations without the use of the one instrument - the one tool - we all share access to: our local, state, and federal laws. Obviously I take the liberals view of the debate. I think a capitalist democracy works best when everybody gets a chance to participate, and when poverty is held at bay.

I welcome the debate on how we should use our government. I just don't want to let that debate drift too far from the fundamentals, including the fundamental fact that "we the people" are "big government."

2003-12-04T07:04:00.000-05:00

How a Two Party System Should Work

Did I mention that I'm for Howard Dean? There are so many reasons, but one more than any other. He has the potential to foment reform in the Republican party.

If Dean wins the White House with some reasonable coattails in 2004, and again in 2008, it will send a clear signal to the GOP. The message will be this: if you campaign as a compassionate conservative, then you darn well better govern as a compassionate conservative.

Ronald Reagan did it to our side. After eight years of Reagan, four years of Bush Sr, and Democrats getting creamed, we got a Democratic administration who - besides looking after the Democratic agenda - was ready to balance budgets and run tough-as-nails departments of Defense and State. We got a Democratic President who campaigned slightly to the left of center, and governed as a moderate. If not for the Reagan-Bush years, would we have ever seen a Bill Clinton?

After eight to twelve years in exile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Republicans will be ready to do whatever it takes to get back into the bully pulpit - even if that means promoting good policy over party ideology.

2003-12-03T07:05:00.000-05:00

Newt Strikes Again

Add another word to the Newt Gingrich List Of Names To Call Your Opponent. This one doesn't seem to be Newt's creation, but it is in his spirit that it is used. I saw it used for the 5,732,199th time today at Deinonychus. According to the rule of five millions, after the five millionth time I personally have seen a word used in Right-Wing talking points, it becomes an official part of the ditto-head reality.

The word, and its definition are as follows:
appease: 1. v. To not start a war 2. v. To disagree with the Bush Administration on foreign policy.

Let's try it in a sentence.

Wrong: George Bush continues to appease the ruthless dictator, Islam Karimov. He is happier while Karimov is in power.

Right: Democrats are a bunch of appeasers.

Up until recently, the "a" word has been used most succesfully against those who opposed the war in Iraq. Even Bob Dole is getting into the act. (WaPo via a Kos Diary). He didn't quite use the "a" word, but Bob Dole said, "I thank God F.D.R. was my commander in chief in WWII. Had it been Howard Dean we would have not participated." Here is what I said back (and if you don't believe me, check the comments posted on the Diary thread at Kos):
"I thank God F.D.R. was my commander in chief in WWII. Had it been Bob Dole, he would have been unable to tell the difference between WWII and GWII."

But let's get to the usage of "appease" found at Deinonychus. Steve's comments are interposed with Howard Dean's statements from Hardball. Dean will be D, and Steve will be S:
D But we also need to engage in a deal that I think the North Koreans want to make, which is, let them enter the community of nations.

S Isn’t that a great message to send to other despots around the world – all you need to do to get into “the community of nations” is extort us with nuclear weapons.

D In turn -and, in turn, they will disarm, verifiably, and rid themselves of nuclear weapons. They don’t need nuclear weapons.

S When was the last time that appeasing a dictator got them to reform and disarm? Dean is either very naïve or slightly delusional.

Get this now: if we offer anything to the Koreans that might persuade them to verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons program, we are 1) being black-mailed, and 2) "appeasing" a dictator. Since Korea is certainly not going to disarm without us putting something desirable on the table, then we have talked ourselves into a mighty tight corner. Our choices are now to be terrible appeasers and to be blackmailed or go to war with a nuclear power.

This is a decidedly poor use of rhetoric in the diplomatic situation we face with Korea. But it sounds good for painting Democrats as "soft on defense". And hell, that's a lot more important than solving a nuclear crisis in North Korea.

2003-12-02T17:19:00.000-05:00

More Moore, and more
Big thanks to South Knox Bubba and Say Uncle, who both felt sorry for me and gave me a link. Thanks both! (Update: That should have been a shout out to Bubba, and the whole Rocky Top Brigade!)

I only have a minute, but since there is now a chance someone will actually read what's being written here, it behooves me to write. So I will go back to my favorite whipping boy, Judge Roy Moore. I want to contrast his approach to a run for Governor with that of a New Yorker.

Which strategy do you like best?
Judge Moore's strategy: Break The Law
Eliot Spitzer's approach: Enforce The Law

Both methods, from early indicators, appear to be winning strategies. Still, there's something about Spitzer's that I find more... legal.

2003-11-30T09:06:00.000-05:00

Make a Difference

Tomorrow is World AIDS Day. Make a difference, if you can. Since an 87 billion dollar war and the latest 350 billion dollar tax cut are more important to our fearless leader than funding the 15 billion dollar AIDS package he signed, maybe some of us who are still employed can find a little change to help make up the difference. Donate time or money here.

2003-11-29T13:14:00.000-05:00

Week-end Fun!

South Knox Bubba has stumbled upon a canned "letter to the editor" written up by the Bush campaign.

Want to have a little fun? Do what I did. Go write a letter. Put in your zip code so you can e-mail it to every paper in your region. Instead of your name, sign it with the URL:

This letter was generated automatically with this Bush campaign tool:
http://www.georgewbush.com/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx?aid=92

Alternatively, you can take the grass roots approach: "Bush iz Gud", scrawled in your favorite Crayola hue!

2003-11-28T18:17:00.000-05:00

Preach it Bubba
South Knox Bubba notes how Digby notes how not-ready-for-prime-time election results, wars, and legislation tend to be rammed through by the GOP before the American people get a whiff of the accompanying odors.

A truer thing has never been said.

2003-11-28T14:33:00.000-05:00

Bush's Secret Trip

I know this is a stupid question, but if the motivation was to thank the troops, and if security were so blessed important, why didn't they just leave all the journalists home? This wasn't a major policy decision that the American people should know about (like the energy policy that was decided behind closed doors). We would be none the poorer for being kept in the dark on Bush's secret visit to the troops. No, security isn't that important.

2003-11-28T12:08:00.000-05:00

Liberals Are Killing Our Soldiers

I hear whispered concerns from those marching in lock step with the New and Improved Republican party that dissent against George's war is causing unnecessary American casualties in Iraq. That's right, boys & girls: our soldiers are getting killed because the "foreign terrorists" who resist our occupation there are emboldened by American dissent.

I'm sending out this urgent plea to those who have complaints about Bush's foreign policy: Please remember that criticizing bad foreign policy gets American soldiers killed!

Just as importantly, please forget - for the good of the country - that bad foreign policy also gets American soldiers killed!

2003-11-27T08:15:00.000-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving

That's all. Just Happy Thanksgiving!

2003-11-26T06:43:00.000-05:00

Abortion

Thank God nobody reads this blog. What I'm about to write would earn me hate-mail from every political partisan in the country. That would be from both sides - if anybody from either side ever read it. So I'm safe.

I'm a yellow-dog democrat. I'm a little more fiscally conservative than most in my party, but the party itself is moving in that direction, too. It's possible to be a good, loyal democrat and be against unbridled spending and running huge deficits. In the last decade, the Democrats have been far more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. And I like that.

I'm not as much pro-labor as most democrats, but that comes from living in the south. Territory known as "right-to-work" states, where we have bought into the notion that a unionized workplace will shut a lot of employers down and keep a lot of people who are wanting to work out of a job. And we may not be entirely wrong about that. I still take the Democratic position on labor, though, because I am keenly aware that without labor unions and their political influence, there would be no middle class in this country. I am keenly aware that if the unions were all dismantled tomorrow, it would be only a matter of years before congress repealed all the worker safety, child labor, and minimum wage laws, and we were left with a nineteenth century economy that was quite literally all work and no play for the great American underclass, while a very few elites would reap all of the benefits of the work the rest of us are doing. So labor is easy.

But abortion is tricky. I'm not comfortable at all with my party's position on abortion. Nor am I comfortable with the idea of returning to the days where poor girls got butchered in back alley's while rich girls went to Canada, Mexico, or a neighboring state to have their family's little embarassment "taken care of." So, should I vote pro-life or pro-choice?

Although many proponents of choice fail to recognize it, the pro-life position is a construct of Human Rights advocacy. Although proponents of choice find it more comfortable to recognize only the base political motivations of the pro-life movement, the way it has been co-opted by those seeking power on the right, there is a strong core of grass roots sentiment among men and women that supports a pro-life policy because and only because they feel a fetus is a human being with the right to life.

Those who are pro-choice most often respond that a fetus is not, in fact, a human being with the right to life. And there-in lies the rub. It is a most sorely dangerous thing to define a group as non-human or sub-human without very good cause. What right have we to decide that a twelve-week fetus is sub-human? What standard applies that the twelve-week fetus is not human but in the next hospital bed over, the baby who has been in the world for only a few seconds has an unalienable right to life?

On the other side of the coin, how can we convince ourselves to sincerely believe that a single-celled zygote has a right to life that outweighs a woman's right to determine what purposes she will allow her body to be put to?

I'm not certain that logic and the twenty-first century ethos - as grand and diverse at it is - are together sufficient to make such heady determinations. I think that both sides of the debate must abandon their dead certainty and advocate their position in the spirit of honest dialogue and debate. Nothing will ever be settled by Operation Rescue screaming "murderer" and "whore" at young girls going into a clinic for reasons known only to those girls. Nothing will ever be solved by radical feminists screaming "rapist" at sincere individuals who want only to see the lives of the unborn protected, and are willing to push for legislation or constitutional amendments to make that happen.

In fact, very little will be accomplished while billion dollar advocacy agencies from both sides are handing out pamphlets and slicks that stack statistics - or lie about them. Little is helped when crisis pregnancy centers hand out misleading literature that detail the slightest health risk of abortion on the basis of nothing more than anecdotal evidence - or when pro-life advocates hand out literature grimly warning of health risks from pregnancy that are equally rare.

Nothing is gained by impugning the motives of whole groups of people. Everything is gained by moderating the rhetoric and by emphasizing science and fact in the discussion.

I'm going to propose a rhetorical question. I hope that the efforts to answer that question will some day be a step toward finding a way for us to look at the problem of abortion in a way that honors the rights of all human beings. But the question is a radical one, and almost a hurtful one. It isn't asked as a challenge to the pro-life viewpoint -- or to that of the pro-choice viewpoint, though it could be construed either way. Here is the question:

If a fetus is a human being, then why are abortion laws needed? Why shouldn't abortion be prosecuted under the existing homicide laws? Why shouldn't a doctor go to prison for murder for giving a woman a morning-after pill thereby killing a human being with a dozen cells, no heart, no and no brain? Why shouldn't a woman be sent to prison for conspiracy to commit murder for having an abortion during the first or second trimester? If she has an abortion in order to save her own life, why can't she and the doctor both offer a defense of justifiable homicide, and let the D.A. and the courts judge the merits of that defense?

Who has an answer that will really make sense?

This question should challenge the pro-choice side as much as the pro-life side. It should challenge them to try to understand why protection of all life is important and why they really see a difference in the case of a fetus. But pro-choice people have an other question that clouds the atmosphere. We have to ask them: What makes the newborn baby different from the un-delivered fetus it was yesterday? What is unique about the condition of being unborn that makes one fundamentally un-human or sub-human? If you believe that there is a time between conception and birth at which the transition occurs, what is special about that transition?

This post is just meant to raise the questions and start the dialogue more or less formally for my own benefit. I am reluctantly pro-choice at this point, though I can argue either side of the case effectively. I would like to be able to only argue one side of the case against all objections from the other. Then I can be confidently and serenely pro-....whichever?

2003-11-24T06:22:00.000-05:00

Freep, at your service
Jay rosen has a nice piece about the new political lexicon emerging on the twenty-first century internet. Among Gore as a verb and moonbat, he nailed me:
Freep: A person who mindlessly and shrilly repeats talking points from one side or the other. From freerepublic.com, where the Freep hang out. Spinoffs include Dean-freep, Clark-freep, Demo-freep.Yes, I'm afraid its true. I'm a Dean-freep. So, next time I have a mind to write off some moon-bat wingnut as "just another freeper", I suppose I'll have to look to the mote in my own eye. Or something.

2003-11-22T19:17:00.000-05:00

We need your help!

If you are a southerner who supports or leans Dean, please help with DeanSouth, a developing project to showcase Dean's positions on issues important to southerners and to all Americans. We really need help with this, so please pitch in!

2003-11-18T09:03:00.000-05:00

I didn't expect a kind of Bush Administration.

NOBODY expects the Bush Administration! Our chief weapon is some lies...some lies and fear... fear and some lies.... Our two weapons are fear and some lies...and ruthless extremism.... Our *three* weapons are fear, some lies, and ruthless extremism...and an almost fanatical devotion to Karl Rove.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, some.... I'll come in again.
...
I didn't expect a kind of Bush Administration.
...

NOBODY expects the Bush Administration! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, some lies, ruthless extremism, an almost fanatical devotion to Karl Rove, and fake flight uniforms - Oh damn! I can't say it - you'll have to say it.

(to be continued??)

2003-11-18T07:22:00.000-05:00

More Moore

Found this this juicy bit from Chuck Baldwin this morning. He has what is purported to be a section of the Alabama Attorney General's questions and Moores answers from the transcript of Moore's ethics trial. Bill Pryor doesn't represent the side of civil liberties well:
Pryor: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the Federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?

Moore: Yes.

Pryor: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today ---

Moore: That's right.

Pryor: ---no matter what any other official says?

Moore: Absolutely. Without --- let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So ---

Pryor: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?

Moore: Well, I'll do the same thing this Court did with starting of prayer; that's an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God." It's an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opens with, "God save the State and this Honorable Court." It's an acknowledgement of God. In my opinions, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source --- a moral source of our law. I think you must.

Baldwin comments:
Does everyone understand what Bill Pryor was saying? He was saying that in order for Chief Justice Moore to resume his duties, he must not acknowledge God. The posting of the Ten Commandments did not even come up. Roy Moore's "crime" was acknowledging God. For this, he was removed from the bench.
Now I'm not saying that you should trust Chuck Baldwin to give you the whole story, so I wouldn't assume that just because the posting of the Ten Commandments didn't come up in this brief segment of questioning, then it must not have come up at all during the trial. But it still doesn't look good for "our side." Until you realize that Bill Pryor isn't on "our side." He was on Moore's side. Which explains why the questions sound like so much baloney. Here's a positively glowing New Republic On-line piece about Bill Pryor. I'm taking bets on whether this article will be taken down when the right decides to demonize him.

Just in case, I'm going to excerpt a bit here:
"The truth is that Pryor is the kind of solid conservative who shows great deference and humility towards other branches of government and to higher courts, sometimes at cost both to his own political preferences and to his popular standing."
...
' "Mr. Pryor is a parody of what Democrats imagine Mr. Bush to be plotting for the federal courts," wrote the Post. It called Pryor "a zealous advocate of relaxing the wall between church and state" who "has vocally defended Alabama's chief justice, who has insisted on displaying the Ten Commandments in state court facilities.." '
(emphasis added - note the bolded quote refers to a piece in the Washington Post, from which NRO wishes to defend Pryor)
Thanks for tuning in.

2003-11-17T17:43:00.000-05:00

South Korea

US pulling back from DMZ in South Korea, Rumsfeld says it will be a stronger position from which to defend the South.

What say ye? Cover for shifting troops to Iraq? A reminder to the restive south that they need us? Or straight up what Rummy's preaching?

2003-11-17T07:37:00.000-05:00

Ugly Politics Revisited

Judge Roy Moore is advancing his chances for election to Alabama's Governorship, leaving a trail of broken law, defied courts, and desecrated scriptures behind him.

Footprints on their backs, legions of southern church-goers are delighted to see their Holy scriptures manipulated for political profit and their religious freedoms compromised for the same.

I think its been too long since civil libertarians have taken a stand in the south. We have allowed a few homespun demagogues to frame the debate, and to define our side. They are doing so, of course, to their own advantage.

Grotesquely, these few southern demagogues - Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and their secular allies - have spun civil liberties as a threat to American Freedoms, and southern audiences have come to accept that view as truth. Judge Moore doesn't have to work hard to make a case for giving the state a say in our religious lives. The good people of Alabama are already convinced that not putting religious power in the hands of the state is a threat to their freedom to worship. All Moore has to do is play the role of persecuted martyr for the church, and chuckle under his breath as the contribution money and the ballots fly.

It isn't so hard to convince the public of an absurdity when the only voice they hear is one that is glibly peddling that absurdity day and night - in books, magazines and newspapers, and disgracefully, from church pulpits. Civil Libertarians owe it to ourselves - especially in the south - to turn this message around and expose it for what it is: a lie.

And please, dear friends in Alabama: please don't elect this scoundrel as your Governor - or worse - a Senator in the most powerful legislative body in the world!

2003-11-14T20:28:00.000-05:00

Blog Plug

A couple of days ago, I mentioned having to spend a little time cleaning up behind a talk-radio character by the name of Neil Boortz. Well, it looks destined to become a full time job. Wish me well.

2003-11-14T06:41:00.000-05:00

Ugly Politics

Rather than watch C-Span, I decided to get my coverage of the 30+ hour Washington temper fit on other blogs. Like Daily Kos, and Eschaton.

I guess I feel bad for the Republicans. Sure, they control the White House, and both houses of congress. Sure all but four of their judicial nominees have been confirmed. Sure the Senate rules have been around a long time, and sure Republicans took advantage of them to block 60 of Clinton's appointees when they were the minority. So why should I feel sorry for them?

Well, Georgie Bush, having promised to hold his breath until all of his appointees are confirmed, is turning an ugly shade of blue. I'm afraid its going to be the pretzel incident all over again for him. Billy Frist is developing more of a blotchy red complexion, now that the real tears are dried up and he is left to howling sobs to make up for them. Oh yeah, and he lost this round of hide-the-online-poll. To top it off, little Billy has got caught holding hands with Brit Hume, and now he's having to endure some embarrasment on that account. (Thanks to Atrios for both stories.)

So I feel sorry for them. My dad, when he was a youngster confronted with an infant cousin crying in his crib, suggested helpfully, "Give 'im a 'nanner & he'll hush crying." But I think its time to start practicing some tough love with our Republican youth in the Senate.

2003-11-13T13:34:00.000-05:00

Democracy Begins at Home

Since the WMD's didn't materialize, Bush has suddenly fallen in love with Democracy, and the people at CNN/Time seem to believe the new love story.

The American people would have liked a vote on whether our armed forces should be committed to the "crusade" to democratize the world, and whether Iraq should be the first... ermm... recipient.

Would someone please tell George Bush that Democracy begins at home?

2003-11-12T14:32:00.000-05:00

Horse Shit

"With the exception of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, who are committed to victory in Iraq, it is unclear what the other Democratic presidential candidates would do differently to ensure an American victory -- or how they would handle the consequences of the early American withdrawal some advocate," McCain said. "Governor Dean has expressed ambiguity about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan anger is no substitute for moral clarity."

This piece of manure, courtesy of Boston.com, deserves a very short response.

Senator McCain has expressed his party's line about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan ass-kissing is no substitute for moral clarity.

2003-11-12T06:06:00.000-05:00

Today's Boortz

Lots of interesting stuff over at the Boortz page lately. I don't see a way to link to archives, but for as long as it lasts, his "News" page is there. I was directed there by my mother, worried that the U.S. is going to surrender control of the internet to the United Nations. It being from Neil Boortz, and it being the intellectual successor to the e-mail tax e-hoax, I did not get too wrapped up in that story. But reading along, I found that Al Gore raised some Republican hackles in his Saturday address to the "far-left" MoveOn.Org. Neil has this to say:

So, just how easy is it to debunk Gore's utterances? The first thing you do is look for the premise behind Gore's remarks. If you can destroy the premise then the remarks based on that premise fail. The premise of Gore's remarks is that Bush sent the troops into Iraq to "get at Osama bin Laden." I don't really have to spend too many words here to debunk that premise, do I? Nobody connected with the Administration, including President Bush, ever said that we were going to Baghdad to get Osama. We went to Baghdad to change the regime in Iraq.

Now no one ever accused Neil Boortz of being especially smart, but doesn't Gore's point make sense? I mean, instead of chasing powerless half-bit dictators who we only recently climbed out of bed with, shouldn't we have been going after the ones that just attacked America on its own soil?

Ok, so its true that Bush and his cabinet did try their best to spin a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, and maybe that's how Boortz took Gore's remarks. In that case his rejoinder still seems kind of weak. Of course any rejoinder prefaced by the adolescent phrase, "So, just how easy is it to debunk so-and-so's utterances? The first thing you do is look for the premise behind so-and-so's remarks. If you can destroy the premise then the remarks based on that premise fail,"... is bound to seem kind of weak. Did Boortz just complete the first quarter of his freshman philosophy class?

Lots of good stuff there. A chart showing that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 4% of the total income tax receipts. What's truly alarming about that statistic is that the cut-off point for "bottom 50%" income was at $28,528 - meaning half of Americans are existing at subsistence level or below. And, of course Boortz left out charts showing how much these folks paid in regressive sales and gasoline taxes. Unless Kenny Lay is taking his Beamer out for a Sunday driver a lot more often than millions of Joe Sixpacks are with their civics, I'd bet we would turn this chart on its head.

What I'd really like to see is a chart of how many calories were burned per week by the individual producing these levels of wealth. I'd also like to see how many of the top 1%'s dollars were actually earned by the bottom 50%'s work. Would charts like this be facile? Yes, but that's the point isn't it?

I'm afraid I may have to hold my nose and start checking behind Neil more often. Thanks mom.

2003-11-10T21:12:00.000-05:00

Rumsfeld lies.

Picked up this beauty from Atrios.

Whoever's keeping track of Lies & the lying liars this will be a nice gem for your collection.

2003-11-09T21:21:00.000-05:00

Fantasy Interviews
I've just completed my second Fantasy Interview, wherein Howard Dean (or fill in your own favorite Dem candidate) whops GWB. I've left it in their own words as much as possible. I like to hear their voices when I read it. Well, I sort of cringe hearing GWB's voice inside my head, but for now I don't think its pathological. I hope to make a series of this.

2003-11-09T07:34:00.000-05:00

Too Good to Be True
The majority of Americans say they will not vote to re-elect Bush.

Of course a majority of American's didn't vote to elect him in the first place, either.

2003-11-06T21:13:00.000-05:00

The Defense of Marriage Act, of course, isn't

Its awful, but today we find ourselves in agreement with Andrew Sullivan. Of course, we are talking about an issue that affects the gay community, because Andrew has a strict policy of being liberal on exactly as many issues as bear directly on his personal rights.

Now President Bush is pushing this new legislation. The Defense of Marriage Act. Like the Clean Skies Initiative, it is named in the Bush style - its name has nothing to do with its actual function. The Clean Skies Initiative doesn't make the skies cleaner, but does hand over the environmental chicken coop to the corporate wolves for regulation. Likewise, the Defense of Marriage Act has no language defending marriage from some awful liberal anti-marriage group. Instead, its intent is to limit eligibility for the state regulated contractual arrangement of marriage. Here's the language, with a shudder and a hat tip to Andy Sullivan:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

So, in order to "defend" marriage, Bush thinks the right strategy is to outlaw marriage for certain groups.

Maybe he's right. Maybe if Tennessee legalized gay marriage then somehow it wouldn't stick when my female wife and my male self tied the knot. Maybe the fact that Bob down the street would be allowed to be present in the hospital room of his life-long companion Fred as Fred lay dying would inevitably lead to my early divorce from my wife.

Or maybe this is just a seemingly politically "safe" way for Bush to appeal to his constituency in the religious right. Maybe the 700 club vote is more important than equal rights for all. Maybe the appearance of being "moral" is more important than doing the right thing.

I don't think so. Gay people pay taxes just like everyone else. They represent their country in uniform, and they fight and die. Gay or straight, society benefits when lovers are monogamous.

Society rewards monogamous family relationships with benefits like sharing social security, sharing employer benefits at reduced cost to family members, immediate access to family being treated in a hospital, and many other ways. It is bigotry to demand we refuse these rewards to people who are willing to engage in the same civil family arrangement, but with the "wrong" gendered partner.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of a Bush administration that ran for election on making government smaller and less intrusive but that writes legislation intended to infringe on states' and individuals' rights in the most intimate of family relationships. But if I should start on the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, I should never be able to stop, so I'll just cut my small part of this discussion short.

2003-11-05T19:49:00.000-05:00

All is forgiven

2003-11-05T05:00:00.000-05:00

No Excuses

This is the kind of angry that I normally reserve for the Bush administration. Of course I am talking about Howard Dean's dismal performance in the "Rock the Vote" debate last night. He must have been prepared for exactly that question from exactly such an audience member. His aloof, above-it-all attempt to off-handedly deflect criticism must therefore have been the plan.

Puke.

That's why we're against GWB.

And then there's the whole "don't condescend to southerners" thing. Note to campaign:
1) Get in touch with southern voters.
2) Do not sit still and do nothing while your opponents define you on stage.
3) You have until last week to get this on track. If you wait until after last night you're too late.

Dean is still the one with the best record, the best policies, and the most independence from special interests. He probably still has the best vision for where our country needs to go. And kudos for wanting to broaden appeal in the south in the first place, which is how all this got started. But now we have a real reason to be concerned about Dean's electability. And worse, his accountability. I'm not pulling up my yard sign yet. I'll keep you posted.

2003-11-03T20:41:00.000-05:00

Et Tu ZigZag?

The buzz around the blogs is that former Georgia Governor and retiring U.S. Senator Zell Miller has finally gone over to the other side.

He thinks the Democratic Party is just too liberal for the south, and that George W. Bush is the right amount of conservative. Of course this is hogwash. The real truth is that George W. Bush isn't representative of conservatism. Conservatives would be easier to run against, surely, if social regressivism, fiscal irresponsibility, and radically bad foreign policy were the defining trademarks. The fact is, however, that Bush has taken the Republicans (and one Democrat) into new territory: radicalism and lunacy.

The coming elections - especially the 2004 Presidential election - will not be liberal against conservative. They will be American values versus far-right radicalism. Fortunately for us, liberals get to carry the banner for American values this season. If we do a better job in this campaign than we did in 2000, then we can hope to see some healthy reform in the Republican party before very long.

Zell Miller doesn't want to see the Democratic party become more conservative. Perhaps he does have hope to see us be more inclusive of some more conservative social views on guns or abortion or states' rights. And perhaps we do need to make more room in our tent for debate on such issues. But, by falling in line with George W. Bush, and by speaking out against the candidate who will make the clearest alternative to Bush's disastrous policies at home and abroad, Zell Miller shows himself to be a radical loose cannon, not a conservative southern democrat.

2003-11-02T13:46:00.000-05:00

Wolfowitz is More Patriotic Than Us

Melanie on Daily Kos highlights an exchange between Wolfowitz and a questioner at Georgetown U. She says she'd like to see this outrage plastered all over the blogosphere by nightfall. I agree.

Truly, Wolfie is Cheney's child. Told that many of us deplore his policies in Iraq and will fight them forever, Wolfie smugly intones that the questioner would surely be happier if Hussein were still in power

Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They're responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties. [Applause] We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]

Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause]

Well, now. Let's follow this up a bit. Is the inference that the questioner believes Saddam's fall taken alone is a bad thing? Of course not, Wolfowitz. You insult Americans' intelligence. Of course, we would have been happier if Saddam could have been removed during the late eighties or early nineties during the height of his human rights abuses without creating a grave national security situation for America. At that point, however, there was a modicum of sanity in the bully pulpit that held you back, and you and the connivers who are responsible for our recent unprovoked aggression were busily in collaboration with Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, given a choice between leaving Hussein in power and unilateral aggression leading to a new Vietnam, or given a choice between leaving Hussein in power and a new terrorist breeding ground in the middle east, most sane Americans would prefer to have Hussein in power. And that, Paul, is exactly our point.

Seems obvious? It does to me. But to Paul Wolfowitz, someone who thinks this way must just hate America. Consider:

Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.

What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]

Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.

It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies. [Applause]

I'm sorry, Paul. We aren't too stupid to know that we can love America and not love bad policy. You make bad policy, Paul. You don't get a free pass by wrapping yourself in the flag. That's our flag. And those are our sons and daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends out there killing and dying for your neo-con wet dream of American global hegemony. We can and will vote you and your puppet, George W. Bush, out of office and we will be Patriots in doing so.

2003-11-02T07:30:00.000-05:00

Did I mention that I'm for Howard Dean?

The astute reader will know already that I am supporting Dr. Howard Dean for President of the U.S. in 2004. Dean's candidacy has renewed my interest in politics and in public policy. With that comes a certain preoccupation with social ethics and philosophy. Oh yeah, and news. Expect to hear a lot about current events especially in the White House. The only way we are going to change things in this country is to get a coherent message out highlighting the need for change. That's going to mean raising a red flag as much as possible over the current administration's sorry record of deception, fiscal irresponsibility, cronyism, dangerous foreign policy, and weakness on defense. The buzzword for this administration's record is "misleadership". Expect to hear speculation whether this "misleadership" is a product of the President's radical agenda or whether he is being manipulated by elements within his regime.

We'll talk about the "liberal media". We'll try to own up to real liberal bias where it is found. Then we will point out real radically conservative bias at Fox News. We'll talk about the difference between a liberal slant from Dan Rather and CBS News on the one hand, and the use of a news organization as the propaganda wing of a radicalized White House on the other.

But then expect to look at the harder questions. Why do liberals and progressives support a pro-choice agenda? Why do conservatives support a pro-life agenda? How do we find the enlightened path with regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict? What is the most fiscally sound tax policy? What are the real merits of these views? When are the views internally inconsistent? Who is insensitive to human rights, and who tramples on them?

I'm going to start off easy and positive, returning to my inspiration to enter the blogosphere. I'm going to tell why I support Howard Dean. I don't agree with him on every issue, but he has won my political heart and mind for a number of reasons.

He is NOT George W. Bush. The damage being done right now will take generations to fix. We cannot afford another four years of Bush in the White House

He is a straight-talker. I don't mean "a politician who knows how to sound like a straight-talker." I mean someone whose talk is consistent with their own beliefs and whose walk mirrors the talk. I mean a person who will stand up for what's right no matter if it is politically "safe". It's important to me to believe I am not voting for "the lesser of two evils." With Dean, I can vote for someone and feel safe giving them my trust.

He can beat George W. Bush. See the first point. Dean, of all the candidates, sets himself out as a clear alternative to Bush's radical agenda. Dean has a record on the issues that can be put, point to point, against the Bush record. His record will win on its own strength, and unlike Gore, Dean is not afraid to run on his record and to draw the contrast in no uncertain terms.

He has a long record of fiscal responsibility. I remember prosperity, and I liked it.

He has a strong record on individual, human, and civil rights. These are the foundations of Democracy. Dean understands that. George W. Bush does not.

He showed excellent judgment on the Iraq war, when the rest of the country seemed to be going crazy. In the mad rush to war in Iraq, he was one of the few voices that were boldly talking common sense on the issue. He shows the kind of judgment that we need desperately in the conduct of the common defense and foreign policy. He's no pacifist. Instead, he understands American values as well American security needs. He has the strength to go into the next Afghanistan - then stay the course and provide a secure environment there. He has the intelligence and the values that will prevent him from abandoning a just war on terrorism in favor of a unilateral intervention and occupation in a nation that was never a threat to us. In short, he understands defense in a way that our current president does not.

Sure, there are plenty of other wonderful things about Dean. Some like him for his commitment to health-care. Some like him for his commitment to labor and fair trade. Others because of his stand on reproductive rights or his stand on gun rights. Those are not my issues. I'll discuss them later, and in a broader context. I hope that someone reading this blog will see some of the same attractions I see for Dr. Dean and will decide to give him their support. And maybe this blog will stay alive and interesting for a while. Here's hoping.

2003-11-01T19:07:00.000-05:00

Welcome Me!

I hope I will be welcome in the world of blogging. Matthew Gross at BlogForAmerica introduced me to the gentle art. Many others have refined my taste. So here begins my own experiment in blogging. Thanks for your patience.