Scary Shit
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Terrorist Attacks in the US Are a Huge Yuk-fest to this Guy.
OK, sorry to this blogger, I've never read his blog before, but I followed the link on Wonkette to his post about unconfirmed terrorism threats in the west. I'm sure his site is great, but I really hate this attitude. I see it all the time in the anti-Bush blogosphere. I talked about it before about TomPaine.com's blog. I'm sorry, and I know that it would be really, really, really easy to link to a ton of quotes on my side that would make me look like a gigantic dick. So again, sorry to this blogger. But...
OK, so once again there's no specific information about when, where, who, why,
how, or if, and the credibility of the source of this very uninformative
information can't be established. But never the less, you should be
scared.
Ew. How scarey.
Sounds a lot like... OH JESUS EFFING CHRIST IT'S
RAINING!!!! AHHHH!!! WE'RE EXPECTING UP TO AN INCH IN THE NEXT 24 TO 48 HOURS!!
DON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE!!! STOCK UP ON CANNED FOOD AND BATTERIES!!! RUN FOR YOUR
LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah. "Ew. How scarey." That's just not funny. It simply amazes me when I see people take this outlook on terrorist warnings. I can see ignoring them, going about your daily business, realizing that each day could be your last on earth and you should live it to the fullest, not worry about terrorism, blah, blah blah. That would be the healthy outlook. Or you could live in fear, (which I admit I sorta do. I am still expecting bad, really bad, terrorism attacks sometime in the near future. Al Qaeda likes to do a major attack every three years or so. Well I just checked my calender, and it turns out that its been about 3 years since 9/11/2001. Anyways.) or you could take the warnings with a grain of salt, but still, dismissing them out of hand? Laughing at them? I don't get it.
I do want to say good job to the security detail in Boston, but more importantly, thank you to the murderous Islamist terrorists for not deciding to blow Boston up. There are some really important people to me up there. Seriously though, Mickey Kaus noted it himself:
P.S.- I just read the comments to the earlier post on blogging.la. Check this out.To get in, my escort needed an escort. At each floor there was a guy in fatigues
with a nasty-looking gun--and occasionally, when you caught a glimpse down an
alley or corridor, it was like that scene in Wayne's World in which Mike Myers
opens a random door to see dozens of black clad commandos practicing James Bond stunts. Impressive, but I doubt any of this could stop a half-skilled bomber.That's what I worry about. If they choose to, I think they can still blow us up with only a modicum of difficulty. If the Democrats are going to be the optimists, at least sombody's going to have to be a pessimist.
To those in the know, these warnings are truly frightening, since they signalGosh, I think I'm a pretty well informed guy. I guess I'm not as "in the know" as that guy. I knew I shouldn't have left my copy of Behold A Pale Horse at that apartment in Des Moines. I do believe that pretty much proves my point from before though. The laughing at terrorist warnings is just one step down the path to full-blown, idiot, conspiracy theories like that, or that the Jews were behind 9/11. This is one instance where the slippery slop argument holds true.
the intent of the US security apparatus itself to stage fake terrorist attacks
for propaganda purposes - or at least a process of testing the water of public
opinion regarding the idea by floating trial balloons upon it (can I do that, or
is that a mixed metaphor?)
Yes, I Am Voting For John Kerry (under duress).
I really liked David Brooks' column over on NYTimes today. Key paragraph:
And it all brings back the memories of Kerry the senator. For though
convention viewers may not be aware of it, Kerry has actually had a career since
his four months in Vietnam - mostly in the Senate. It's not true that Kerry is a
flaming lefty (he's a genuine budget hawk and he voted for welfare reform), but
he was wrong about just about every major foreign policy judgment of the last
two decades. He voted against the first gulf war, against many major weapons
systems. He fought to reduce the defense budget. He opposed the deployment of
intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in the early 1980's. He supported
the nuclear freeze. His decision to authorize war in Iraq but vote against
financing the occupation is the least intellectually coherent position of all
possible alternatives.
You know what's funny? Other than the utterly putrid judgment on both Iraq votes, I really like the other stuff that Brooks characterizes as being wrong decisions. Now, sorry for such a long quote, but this is extremely important:
And so I dared to dream. Maybe the Democratic Party is going to recapture
the security policy credibility it had during the Truman and Kennedy years.
Maybe this display of McCainiac muscular moderation is not just a costume
drama, butthe real deal. Maybe hope is really on the way!I should never have gone back and read the speech again. I should never have gone back on Friday morning, in the unforgiving light of day, and re-examined the words Kerry had so forcefully uttered the night before.
What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully
evasive. He can't even bring himself to use the word "democratic" or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can't bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops
home.I don't even want to re-read Kerry's speech. I know that if I actually have to think about what he said, I'll gag. I've been really pumping up the "quality" of this convention, but I then have to realize that the Democrats still aren't really saying anything. They are using the same blueprint as 2000 and 2002, they are just doing a much better job selling nothing.
I don't like John Kerry. I personally can't stand the guy. I believe that he is a total phony. I know that he didn't actually support this Iraq invasion on principle. He abdicated his responsibility as a United States Senator. I always have to hold up my former senator, Bob Graham, as my argument. He isn't Robert Byrd. He isn't Ted Kennedy. He and John Kerry both had access to the same info. They both knew that regardless of the validity of the intelligence, it was the wrong war at the wrong time. It was too risky. There wasn't enough talk of contingency, and by the fall of 2002, I think that it was obvious that the Bush administration could not be trusted to act responsibly.
So still, I think the convention was a success, in an electoral sense. I think it improved John Kerry's chances to be elected president, and I know in my heart that he will be better than George W. Bush. So, I'll vote for the guy, and I hope and think that he will win, but I still don't have to like him. He did miss a big opportunity. But he is more concerned with getting elected than actually saying something of importance.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Yeah, I'm gonna suggest you just read Andrew Sullivan on the Kerry speech. I pretty much agree. I thought it was a good speech...for John Kerry. It was OK. It neither helped nor hurt my impression of John Kerry. I don't like the guy, I wish he wasn't the guy that I will be pulling the lever for come November, and I wish I wasn't working for an arm of the "Shadow Democratic Party." But in the end; so what, I will, and I am. I like John Kerry's chances, as of now, unless something weird happens before the election. I'm already getting ready to start whining about how much I dislike the new Kerry administration. Iowa 2008, I'm already getting geared up. Maybe the Republicans will have a good guy like McCain running.
But seriously, I really enjoyed the Convention as a whole. Although I am much less impressed with our two nominees than their supporting cast and the Democratic Party as a whole. But, you gotta play the hand you're dealt. Again, I am very impressed with the Democratic Party. Good job on this one, for once.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Goddamn Liberal Media!
OK, this is from the Weekly Standard. Yeah, that Weekly Standard. See what I was talking about last night?
The DNC gave Sharpton the worst possible lead in and, for his trouble, told him he could have only six minutes of their precious time. So the reverend told them he would deliver this speech. For the first few minutes, Sharpton stayed with the text--you could see him following along with the prompter, but then he took off, and delivered one of the best political speeches I've ever seen.
For nearly 20 minutes, Sharpton held the attention of every soul in the Fleet Center. He moved the audience where he wanted them, when he wanted. It was electrifying...
One side note: Immediately following The Rev.'s performance, TV screens filled with pundits and anchors, their faces all knitted in concern. Sharpton had gone over his time! He had hijacked the convention! He had used a negative message that was sure to angry John Kerry!
This is clearly a case of conservative media bias. Sharpton did nothing out of bounds; he said nothing that conflicted with the tone of the convention. All he did was give Jesse Jackson heartburn and deliver the best speech Democrats have heard in 20 years. Good for him.
I knew I wasn't imagining things. When the online editor of the Weekly Standard even comments on the "Conservative Media Bias," its really freakin' bad.
Wolf Blitzer Gargles Jizz, Judy Woodruff is a Vile Twat.
I am just plain fuming right now. I just saw quite possibly the best political speech I've ever seen, and I then have to listen to Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff start immediately spinning that the speaker has "hijacked the convention," that he is off message, that he must be causing "heartburn" for the Kerry campaign, that it has ruined the rest of the timing for the convention, that he was negative, that the speaker was actually raising issues, they then ask the other panalysts loaded questions, it was unbelievably un-professional. Judy Woodruff and Wolf Blitzer are the biggest whores I've ever seen.
My apartment complex unfortunately does not have Fox News. I would rather watch Fox News any day of the week over CNN. I really do believe that Fox News is more fair and balanced that CNN. Seriously. CNN does not have a liberal bias. Neither does the New York Times. They are biased as hell, I just can't figure out what it is. Fuck it, I just can't even express my disgust at what I just saw here. You really need to see it to believe it.
If you haven't seen it, go watch the Reverend's speech here.
So anyways, Al Sharpton's speech was amazing. And of course the horrible CNN convention coverage does not actually analyze anything he said. You have to see how excited Woodruff and Blitzer got when they started playing the "anticipate the Republican Talking Points game". Fucking disgusting whores. I hope the Howler is on this.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
I Have Positive Feelings for Negative Campaigning!
Great short little piece over on TNR by Jonathon Chait. Read the whole thing, but check out these two paragraphs:
But that merely brings me to the most annoying thing about the sanctimonious insistence upon positive campaigning. The political press simply can't let go of the idea that puffing up your guy is somehow better for democracy than tearing down the other guy. I don't think that's correct in general. The relevant gauge is truth. I think accurate negative claims are better than inaccurate positive claims....
Given that the convention is one of the few chances Democrats have had to make their case against Bush, there's something a bit perverse about this insistence that they not use it to indict a president who has left even many of his loyal supporters feeling disgruntled. Refraining from making that case may be good for Kerry, up to a point. But that doesn't make it good for the rest of us.
Its really nice to see someone in the press/media say that the common good of the people, and the country as a whole is more important than the good fortune of John Kerry, the Democrats, Republicans, George Bush, or any political party or person. Partisanship is stupid, and is only a way to game the first past the post system that our framers fucked up on. One of the few major mistakes that they made which we haven't corrected, along with the Electoral College. When will the two parties accept that they must have some ideas, that people will not simply vote Democrat or Republican because of slogans, or slick campaign ads? Probably never, because people will always vote on neckties, or who would make a better beer drinkin' barbecue buddy, or whatever the fuck the idiots vote on.
I saw the same "negativity" meme in Iowa. Howard Dean was considered to be at least as negative or more so than any other Democrat out there because he said (paraphrase) "I didn't vote for this Iraq War. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman both did, and Dick Gephardt and John Edwards both co-sponsored the resolution in their respective chambers of congress. I didn't vote for No Child Left Behind when all of those knuckleheads did. I didn't support President Bush's tax cut like those guys. I might not have as much "experience" as them, but I at least have good judgment." Seriously, that is what our "negative" ads said. They weren't "negative", they simply drew a distinction between candidates. A very important distinction.
Then he gets tattoed as negative. Dick Gephardt sent out mailers saying that (paraphrase) "Howard Dean will take away your Medicare, cut benefits to Social Security and raise the retirement age, he will make you own a gun, marry a gay person, and he is more conservative than Newt Gingrich, and he is a Vermont hippy who is too liberal to run the country. Oh, and he can't win, he's unelectable." The Lieberman, Kucinich, and Sharpton campaigns all did the same thing, to lesser degrees. The Kerry campaign was sneakier. They called people and told them horrible things about Dean, but there was no paper trail or ad buys to trace back to Kerry. And Howard Dean was the pessimist. The one with the negative message. Bullshit.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
"We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears."
OK, I guess I should comment on the convention so far. Well, I like it. A lot. Yesterday was much better than today, the Gore, Carter and Clinton speeches yesterday were perfect. That's all there is to say. Not that there was anything wrong with any of the speeches tonight.
Governor Dean essentially gave his standard stump speech tonight, making the election of John Kerry the next concrete step to "Take Our Country Back." The only thing of note about his speech was towards the end. The veiled warning to the party establishment that the Democratic base is awake, active, and won't take anymore Republican appeasement. Governor Dean used some pretty emphatic language, saying that the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party will win, that we will take our country back, that "never again will we be ashamed to call ourselves Democrats again," and that we will "reclaim the American Dream." I believe that Governor Dean is going to be there to hold a President John Kerry's feet to the fire. Not on being a liberal, Howard Dean was never a liberal, but about listening and respecting the Grassroots.
Governor Dean was right. I feel justified in picking up my life to move halfway across the country to Iowa to work for the guy. He brought "new life to our party, and new energy to our Democracy." As long as Governor Dean is a Democrat, I'll be there too. Most importantly, the 22 year old kids who dropped everything to work for Governor Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire will be the Barack Obama's of 2020.
I am very impressed so far. I just hope enough people are paying attention.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Whatever Happened to Ideology?
It's a strange day when Bill Safire is begging the Democrats to stand up against the 9/11 commission's questionable decision to recommend a new intelligence czar. Why not ask the party that he seems to be politically affiliated with to stop it? The one that controls all three branches of government, you know, the Republicans? President Bush appears poised to rush ahead with the appointment of both a new CIA chief, and the possibility of this new super-intelligence czar. I don't like that one bit. Seriously though, Bill Safire is right. The Democrats should really look at what they have purchased here. What does John Kerry want to do as president of the United States of America? Does anyone have any idea? What would a Democratic congress do differently than the present one? Besides being not-Republicans? Anybody But Bush could be the phrase that people remember as being one of the worst possible derilections of duty the American people have ever committed.
The Republicans decided to swallow their differences and settle on a non-ideologically pure candidate in 2000. Winning was more important than coherence. They tried to trick the 50% + 1 into believing their mumbo-jumbo about "compassionate conservatism", and they succeeded. They are now such a schizophrenic monster of a party that I am amazed they have kept the coalition together this long. They are willing to accept this, as long as they keep winning elections. What happens when they loose? The party could easily fly apart. Now we have a president and a party that has a neo-Wilsonian foreign relations mindset, a neo-Keynesian economic process which, rather than priming the pump with short-term deficits to get the economy going during periods of slowdown, instead projects massive deficits for the foreseeable future for torid short-term gain. They are split over civil liberties, the proper response to terrorism, the place of religion in the public sphere, gay marriage and other social issues, the drug war, and many, many other major policy positions. This is not a healthy state for a political party. They gave up the ideological purity of conservatism for the new makeshift paradigm of "Republicanism," which only serves to further the purpose of future electoral gains. I don't like this Republican party, and I like the looks of this new united Democratic Party even less.
Liberalism died sometime in the last decade. What ideology will the Democratic Party of John Kerry espouse? What does the Democratic Party stand for? Hopefully, Senatory Kerry will answer these questions this week. I have to imagine that he will lay out some concrete policy proposals. I have to believe that he won't simply rely on "optimism" and "strength," the only two themes expressed so far in the campaign. I am trying to stay positive, but I think that the Democratic base gave away way too many concessions for the fleeting illusion of "electibility." Stupid Iowans.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
I just listed this blog on a ton of blog directories. If this is your first visit to the page, let me know what you think. Also, spread the love, link to me, or at least let your friends know about my blog. I appreciate all of the people who have checked in so far, I now am hoping to take this site to the next level, and increase my readership. I think I've found my voice, and am ready to rumble. Thanks for visiting.
PS: I don't know what's up with the color scheme here on the page, hopefully I'll get that taken care of soon.
A very fun editorial in the LATimes about the casino concentration into corporate hands in Las Vegas.
The corporate encroachment on Binion's and Las Vegas only symbolizes the infinitely more significant ways we increasingly surrender our consumer and citizen power to faceless boardrooms. So the next time you see your $100 political contribution dwarfed by a multimillion-dollar handout from a corporation, or when your tech-support call or maybe even your job gets outsourced to Lahore, or when you're on hold for two hours to talk a customer service rep and then get disconnected, or when your healthcare benefits get pared back, well, then think of us poor suckers trying to win a hand at one of Harrah's stacked blackjack tables and have a little sympathy for us, will you? We're up against the same enemy.
I also want to mention that I am starting to do a little first-hand investigation into potential voter fraud here in Clark County, NV. Heads up to everyone out there who is watching Ohio as the new Florida. You might want to keep one eye on Nevada. There is a lot of fishy shit going on out here. I promise to keep you updated over the next few weeks.
"Anger, like Margaret Sanger, Sitting on a Bloody Coat-Hanger!"
I hate the new Blogger interface. It sucks, you hear me? I can't return to left justified after using a block quote. That sucks! Fix it, Blogger.com! Anyway, here is a quote after which I won't be able to return to the left margin:
But Democrats can be timid beasts. They like to win elections by attracting just enough "swing voters" to nose the party over the 51% line — not to loose wrecking balls against the citadels of the enemy, or even to concentrate much on building a bigger citadel of its own. (Democratic consultants deeply distrust any strategy aimed at working to create a wider permanent base of Democratic loyalists because that would require making commitments that would turn off swing voters.)
See, I told you. Piece of garbage, Blogger. Anyway, that's from an editorial in the LATimes by Rick Perlstein.Another quote I won't be able to return from:For those who believe the Republican coalition does harm, it's time to make the Republican coalition impossible. Then the Democrats can win — not just this presidential election, but a governing majority for the next generation.
Anyway, he's right. More people prefer the Democratic platform to the Republican. We just can't sell it. Want to know the real problem? OK, its this guy. Well, not just this guy, but a whole shitload of people just like this guy, people like Chris Lehane, John Norris, Steve Murphy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Terry McAuliffe. The hacks all the way up and down the ladder in the Democratic Party who care more about partisanship than ideas. The Chairmen of County Democratic Parties. The State Directors. The hacks behind the scenes. The people who actually prefer 50% + 1 to a real win. The people who believe that they deserve their positions and influence because they "paid their dues." The people who hold onto their power and territory like a fiefdom. The people who distrust anything new or exciting in the Democratic Party out of hand. The people who don't think young people should have a say in the party. The people who shut down Howard Dean in the primaries. The people who are heartless, soulless, and not even very smart. At least Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and Stephen Moore are all fucking geniuses. The Dem's braintrust is pretty fucking stupid. (Wow, sorry about that rant there. I watched True Believers about the Dean Campaign on CNN yesterday again. Every once in a while I have to spill out all my bile about the Kerry/Gephardt/Daschle/McAuliffe axis of the party. Its like a safety valve. If I didn't do that on a fairly regular basis I would have to strongly consider voting Green, or Nader, or Libertarian. [Deep breath]. OK, I feel better now.)
Verbal Masturbation
Michael Kinsley shows why he's the best here.
Also wanted to just check in. I haven't been writing much the past two weeks. I'm waiting for the convention. I didn't feel like making a bunch of guesses and conjecture about it. I just wanted to keep my mouth shut, cut down on the verbal masturbation on this blog.
Also, the big news the past week has been the 9/11 Commission's report. All of big media is talking about the new intelligence czar and a new intelligence agency. Ok, thats sorta interesting, but how about the real news that isn't getting any play? The fact that the commission essentially suggests that we shitcan our foreign policy approach towards autocracies, even "benevolent" dictators, as well as the entire middle east.
I obviously haven't read the full report. I don't have the time or inclination. However, from what I've been reading in wrap-ups, big media is really missing the most important news here, or else they are in a tacit pact with the two political parties to ignore the suggestion about drastically changing our foreign policy. The two parties said "Fuck that," real quick. They aren't going to stop buddying up with Putin, Musharraf, Prince Abdullah, whoever the hell is running China, and our new beacon of hope in Iraq; Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Ralph Nader, the Real Conservative in the Race?
Why Kerry desperately needs Ralph Nader, and how the Democratic Party maybe shooting itself in the foot.
I see a Kerry/Edwards campaign that should be ahead today by at least 5 points nationally tied in the polls. I see a lack of appreciation among Democrats and the press for just how unappealing a candidate they are about to nominate.
Much of Kerry's current support in the polls is coming form the Anybody But Bush mindset. The dynamic of this race is going to change dramatically after both conventions and we are past September 11 when the public starts focusing on the choice between President Bush and Senator Kerry.
So while many see this 45%-45% tie as bad news for Bush, I see it as just the opposite. Kerry is going to need a cushion to protect himself from the slippage that will occur post-Labor Day when many are going go decide that while they might not love President Bush they can't vote for Senator Kerry.-from RealClearPolitics.com found on Kausfiles.
Look at that last sentence. I have a feeling that there is a fairly large slice of the electorate that dislikes George W. Bush, but will never vote Kerry. I think I remember someone talking about that a few weeks ago, hmmm....Ralph Nader has run a pretty smart campaign so far. However, the bad press continues to hit him hard. The loss of the Green endorsement was a major blow, as well as the continued problems with ballot access. I'm not sure how much effect Nader will actually have this election, yet his claims that he will draw support from some conservatives might not be too crazy, considering that the Any Body But Bush argument might hold some promise with moderate Republicans as well. They just might not be able to tamp down their bile enough to pull the lever for John Kerry though. A true protest vote would be to vote Nader. That article in the American Conservative Magazine may have bigger repercussions than most people are predicting. Nader only needs to peel a tiny amount of Republican/Conservatives away from Bush to crack the foundation of Rove and Norquist's empire and start a new realignment period.Yeah, that was me.PS. Blogger is acting very buggy lately. I've lost a few posts that I tried to post over the past few days, I can't get back to my left margin, and I can't copy and paste to a clipboard now. I have more to say about this subject, but I'm just going to post this so I don't lose it, and try again later.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Monday, July 19, 2004
VFWF, Ralph Nader, and Ballot Access
Good editorial here at WAPost on the potential horrorshow that the Supreme Courts Bush v. Gore decision could create.
I also want to mention that I just started work at Voices For Working Families. I think that I can stomache working at Voices instead of one of the more strident and negative anti-Bush 527's. I have also been hearing rumors that the Nevada State Democratic Party is set to challenge the validity of Ralph Nader's signatures for ballot access. If they do that, I will quit Voices. Ralph Nader, in good faith, turned in over 11,000 signatures to the state, when he only needed 5000 for ballot access. The secretary of state checked a sample of the signatures, and ok-ed his ballot access.
The last time I checked, anyone over 35, born in the US, has no felony convictions, and has lived here for 14 years has a right to run for president. It makes me so mad to see the Democrats acting as if they are entitled to Nader's votes. They are so afraid that he will somehow "trick" the simpleminded into voting for him, even though they would be better served by voting Democrat. BS. I don't believe that. That's what happened in 2000, but not this year. The Democratic party is more united now than ever, and even people who immensely dislike John Kerry, (like me, and this guy) plan to vote for the dufus. The only people who are seriously considering a Nader vote wouldn't vote for Kerry anyway. These are the hardest of the hardcore. The people who still believe that there is no difference between the two parties. These people would either stay home, vote LaRouche, or write in Noam Chomsky or something. Besides, Ralph Nader has done nothing but court disaffected conservatives so far in his run. He is not going after the young idealist/lefties like he did in 2000.
A word of advice to the Democrats: actually do a little heavy lifting and court the potential Nader supporters. I'd like to see you talk about corporate governance, the drug war, civil liberties and good government in general. And I know I'm not the only one. Give us disaffected youngsters a reason to vote for the big D. Don't act like we owe you our vote. We don't owe you anything. Everyone has the right to vote how they want, and everyone deserves to vote for their choice at the polls. I'm just asking for a reason to vote with my heart, rather than a cold calculation based on "electability" and the idea of Anybody But Bush.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
John Kerry, Drug Warrior.
Ah, I did find a small link on John Kerry's campaign website on "Fighting Illegal Drugs."
In order to deal with the problem of illegal drugs in this country, efforts must be focused on keeping drugs out of the country and our communities, as well as reducing demand for illegal drugs. John Kerry supports aggressively targeting traffickers and dealers, as well as making a commitment to sufficiently fund drug prevention and treatment programs.
I imagine that if the Bush website had a link to their position on the Drug War, it would probably sound something like that. Although I can't be sure that the Bush team does not have a link to their drug policy somewhere on the site. It's not as easy to navigate as Nader or Kerry's site, and is pretty heavy on the propaganda vs. actual policy positions. I did find out that the Bush administration's national security policy is to defend the peace, preserve the peace, and extend the peace. Good to know.
OK, here is why I dislike the Democratic Party, and Democratic Office-holders in general.
Should Edwards have known better? Of course he should have. Even as Edwards was signing on to Bush's plan to declare preemptive war in Iraq, there was one member of the Intelligence Committee — Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman — who declared the CIA estimates unreliable.from the LATimes.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that something was wrong with the intelligence being spoon-fed to the committee. In the fall of 2002, Graham, who ended up voting against the war, decried the administration for failing to declassify reports that reached more equivocal judgments about Iraq's efforts to create weapons of mass destruction. In June 2003, while Kerry and Edwards treated Bush with kid gloves, Graham bluntly stated that the administration was manipulating intelligence: "Those parts that the president liked became placed in the president's speeches," he said, "and those that they didn't like got put in the trash can."
Somehow Bob Graham new that something smelled bad in spring of 2003. Howard Dean did too. In my opinion, there was no excuse to support the war. Or to at least not question the war during the lead-up. The media abdicated it's duty to raise critical questions and objections, to ensure that the nation was prepared for war. OK, they're the media. They are awful jackals, they get a pass. But how can the Democratic Party establishment defend their actions during spring of '03? Dean and Graham weren't the only ones who knew that there was a problem. Yet the Democratic Party Apparatus creaks and groans it's way into another election, with no mea culpa to the American people for abandoning it's role as an opposition party, and with no real substantive differences from the present administration in the handling of the Iraq War.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Congressman, Federal Bully.
Just found this little piece on norml.org. I didn't realize that Jon Porter supported the Hinchey-Rohrbacher amendment. As I've said before, big ups to Shelley Berkley, and a new big ups to Congressman Porter. Now as for Nevada's third congressman...
"Although he "supports states' rights," Rep. Gibbons declared, "the regulation of narcotics and other drugs falls under the authority of the federal government. It is a matter of public safety and public health."
and
Rep. Gibbons has surprised and shocked many Nevadans. Can it really be he's no constitutionalist at all -- that he's really just in favor of the federal bullies going anywhere they want, doing anything they want, regardless of how they trample the rights of the states and the expressed will of the people?
I have to say that I respect Gibbons more than most Drug Warriors. Even if his logic is tortured, he is at least attempting to justify his vote against medicinal marijuana. Its a pretty indefensible position to hold, whether you are a liberal or a conservative. Marijuana use a whole falls under the conservative-libertarian principle of personal responsibility. Medicinal marijuana is not only a compassion issue, it is also a state's rights issue.
Coupled with their flirtation with the FMA, the GOP has completely distanced itself from it's past support of state's rights and federalism. Unfortunately the Democrats aren't much better. Some of the worst culture warriors are members of the Democratic Party. I call them the "worst" because I don't think for a minute that they really believe that crap. For anyone who hasn't read it, I want to plug Danny Goldberg's book, Dispatches from the Culture Wars; How the Left Lost Teen Spirit. I wish the Democrats would embrace personal responsibility, freedom, and a spirit of tolerance when it comes to Culture War issues. Start railing against the nanny-state. Government enforcement of morality and compulsion. You Democrats want a real Sister Souljah moment and chance to take down Nader once and for all? Let him into the debates, and somehow force a discussion on culture. Nader is as much of a culture warrior when it comes to music and the "coursening" of our culture as Joe Lieberman, Lynne Cheney, or Tipper Gore. Start pushing that on the hipsters who might support him because of his rational Drug War Policy.
I dare you to find any discussion of the drug war on John Kerry's or President Bush's campaign sites.
"MANY OF US feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take it back. A misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many people around the world now think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions?" - glad to see "real" writers discussing this situation at the Boston Globe.
Nothing.
"Education — We believe that children are our future. This idea fills us with profound despair...
Mutual Simultaneous Annihilation — Let's say that Bush and Kerry started eating one another, beginning at the toes and moving toward the head, finishing up by devouring one another's mouths. What, we ask a deeply divided nation, would be the result? We are the only party facing this crisis squarely." - from the nihilist position on the Presidential race at LATimes.com. This is shaping up to be a very good year for nihilism.
Democratic Convention to Focus on Kerry's Military Service.
Huge surprise there. Wouldn't want to muck up the campaign strategy by actually discussing ideas or positions. Such a serious candidacy really deserves to win the election this November.
Monday, July 12, 2004
"Here’s a riddle: what is a swing voter? More and more, it is an American who thinks like a Democrat but refuses to identify as one...
So how to do it? Democrats must stop looking leaderless, fumbling, unfocused, disorganized, and confused. They must give voters something to identify with. They must no longer judge themselves sophisticated when they cancel all the old long-term dreams. They need new long-term dreams." from a very thoughtful, very long essay on the failings of the Democrats to craft any sort of long term strategy and message by Rick Perlstein.
Check it out. Very well written, again, very long.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
What's Catholic for "Chutzpah"?
"In fact, there's something quite immoral about the whole discussion. Linger on Confessore's language about "strategic errors." Note the question Brooks asks in his June 22 column after pointing out that people don't think Kerry's all that religious (which is really only to point out that Republican propaganda has been successful): "Can't the Democratic strategists read the data?" These people seem to seriously believe they honor religion by advising candidates to be exactly as religious as polls say they should...
A more morally sound strategy — and also, quite possibly, a more politically sound strategy — would be for Kerry to point up the way the president fails to honor the faithful and trifles with them by turning them into cogs in a political machine. Remind Americans that Bush has lectured Catholic cardinals like they were precinct captains — complaining to one in Vatican City, "Not all the American bishops are with me." Point out how he has arranged privileged White House briefings on Mideast policy with apocalyptic Christians who are more interested in fulfilling the divisive conditions they say will hasten the Rapture than actual peace in this world. Put on display the way the Bush campaign has walked the razor's edge of campaign law by instructing conservative churches to send their membership rosters to Bush/Cheney headquarters.
" - from a good editorial this Sunday on religion and politics at LATimes.com.
Yeah. The Democrats are blowing this one. The fact that John Kerry IS a Catholic, and that he isn't expressing outrage at Rove, Bush and the Republicans trying to use the Catholic Church as an arm of the Republican political machine is a shame. I'm really depressed that the Church didn't bitchslap that move either. Giving the Republicans the moral and religious highground is a big mistake. The pride and arrogance of the Republicans when it comes to religion is really breathtaking.
I also must mention that I saw Farenheit 9/11 the day it opened. I know I haven't said anything about it on this blog, I felt like it was over-analysed anyway, and I've been bored with the topic for a while now. I will say that I enjoyed the film as a whole, but my major complaint was the middle third of the film. The part tying Bush to the Saudis, and the Taliban, and the insinuation that the Afghan War was predicated on the new Afghani pipeline. Total bullshit. I have to agree with Richard Cohen on this one. I hate having to argue with lefties who were saying "No War for Oil" since back in March '03. The Halliburton/Big Oil conspiracy is only a bonus. Maybe that was Dick Cheney's rationale for the war. But to suggest that George Bush was not motivated by the idea of the Rapture and being chosen by God to invade Iraq and remake the Middle East is stupid and short-sighted. People on the left don't want to use that line of attack because the idea that our foreign policy is based on the Bible is just too frightening. Its easier for their minds to accept "Oil" as the catch-all motive for any action that the Bush administration takes. That's just wrong. This administration is all about a heretical reading of the Bible. They are religious fanatics, and they don't even really know what they are talking about. That's much scarier.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Medical Marijuana Vote.
Those fucking assholes. Those cockroaches in congress. They know that it is an election year, gotta appear "tough on crime." This just makes me sad. I want to say thanks to my Congresswoman, Shelley Berkley for voting yes on the Hinchey-Rohrbacher amendment. Did your congressperson? Be sure to let your representative know how you feel about their vote. Its just shameful that 268 members of congress voted in support of arresting AIDS and cancer patients. Its sadder that fewer members of congress voted for this amendment than the last time it came up for a vote in 2002.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
The Dumb Smart Guy
I realize that it’s early on in the election process, but, if this election is indeed a mandate on Bush’s job performance, shouldn’t he be losing??! Big time??! Why isn’t he? Why, deep down in my gut, do I get the feeling that Bush is going to win, and that this dark cloud is going to stay over our country for at least four more years?
Of course, one answer is that the cowardly Democrats, so hastily blind in their desperation to oust Bush, ran to the center, and pushed John Kerry through the primaries, ignoring the fact that he’s a useless, boring two-bit party hack. It was perhaps the worst decision in the sordid history of the Democratic party. In his complete inability to articulate any clear position on any issue, Kerry makes the usual shooting gallery of Democratic losers, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale, look like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
...Kerry will lose this election because he is the worst kind of political beast; the dumb smart guy. By all measures, Kerry should be intelligent; he’s a war hero and a Harvard graduate, that has festered for years in Congress, yet he doesn’t know how he feels about the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act or abortion or gay marriage. - from the Blue Lemur.
ain't that the truth. Kerry is still a big disappoinment. Hopefully Edwards will have the leeway to become the new de-facto standard bearer and mouth-piece of the party. The Mickey Kaus under the radar strategy is definitely the winning strategy for Kerry. However, just with a stealth candidacy on the Any Body But Bush platform may win the election, but what do we get when we do win? That is why I am still holding out hope for a Nader or Green or Libertarian boomlet to force discussion on real issues. Progressives, you shouldn't marginalize Nader. He is on your side. I do not believe that he would throw the election to Bush this year. He could act as an anchor to exert pressure on Kerry.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Ralph Nader, Last of the Great White Conservatives.
Ralph Nader was pretty damn good on the Daily Show tonight. This guy is 114 years old or something like that, and is supposedly the biggest jerk in America, so why does he come off as more human and animated than just about any other politician out there? I am more and more impressed with the Edwards VP pick every minute. Although he is a little animatronic, he is head and shoulders above George Bush, Dick Cheney, and especially John Kerry at projecting real humanity. I'm also really looking forward to the Dean vs. Nader debate later this year. Everyone always expected Dr. Dean to blow his cool in the debates, but he was cool as a cucumber in each of them. I thought he handled himself wonderfully (although I am a bit biased).
Depending on which Nader shows up, the raving meanie or the sorta-corny guy who is trying to connect with the kids, could make all the difference in the world. Nader would be best off trying to draw as many concessions and agreements from Dean as possible. He should especially focus on their similarities calling for a balanced budget, being against the Iraq war, and trying to bring youth and non-voters into the political process. That would put Dean in a bad place, will he defend his party's nominee's all-over-the-place positions? Or would he have to give ground to Nader's arguments and be another voice strengthening Nader's call that there isn't much difference between Bush and Kerry? He should be extremely respectful to Gov. Dean, and try his best to appear calm and as close to jovial as is possible for Mr. Nader.
Ralph Nader has run a pretty smart campaign so far. However, the bad press continues to hit him hard. The loss of the Green endorsement was a major blow, as well as the continued problems with ballot access. I'm not sure how much effect Nader will actually have this election, yet his claims that he will draw support from some conservatives might not be too crazy, considering that the Any Body But Bush argument might hold some promise with moderate Republicans as well. They just might not be able to tamp down their bile enough to pull the lever for John Kerry though. A true protest vote would be to vote Nader. That article in the American Conservative Magazine may have bigger repercussions than most people are predicting. Nader only needs to peel a tiny amount of Republican/Conservatives away from Bush to crack the foundation of Rove and Norquist's empire and start a new realignment period.
If Senator Kerry is elected, and with John Edwards at the on-deck circle we could be looking at the start of a real Democratic dynasty as compared to the unfulfilled Clinton/Gore possiblities. I am cautiously optimistic about the Kerry campaign now that they proved me wrong about Gephardt. They realized it was so much more important to try to placate the Deaniac/Nader wings of the party than to try to bolster union support, which wasn't going anyplace anyway. Kerry proved to me today that he is a bigger man than I thought by selecting a guy that he doesn't particularly like for his vice presidential nominee. He did it for the best possibility of winning the president, and he actually realized that what the party regulars and grassroots think really does matter. Anyone but Edwards would have been a disappointment when he was polling at 70% as the choice of Democrats. It looks like the Dean insurgency really put the fear of God into the Democratic big-whigs. Good choice Senator Kerry.
Stupid Potheads! This Wouldn't Have Happened Under My Watch.
One initiative in Gainesville, Florida, which sought to make adult marijuana use the lowest policing priority, folded after organizers gathered only a small number of signatures.
What is wrong with the pot-heads? Gainesville is one of the most pot-friendly towns in the country. And the idiots running that initiative couldn't get the signatures? That's just pure laziness. On top of that I have to deal with the SouthWest Group signature fiasco out here in Nevada. Do you understand that if you want to be able to smoke legally it takes a little effort? Here is a wrapup of referendums and initiatives from norml.org. Thank goodness some of these initiatives are run by competent people.
One knock against Edwards, I seem to recall that he was pretty luke-warm to even medicinal marijuana back in the debates. Edwards and Kerry both admitted to smoking pot in their youth. If their luck had been a little bit different, if they had been busted, there is no way either of them would have had the opportunity to be running for president. Come on guys, you tried it, it wasn't for you, and you moved on with your life. Good for you. Have a little respect and compassion for people who do dig marijuana. Just think Senators Kerry and Edwards. There could be someone sitting in jail right now who could have been the 50th president of the USA. Try to remember what it was like to be a kid.
Mean Dean Me
"Wackily prolific e-mailer AKB is back, and he makes what seems like a good point--which is that if Kerry picks Gephardt as his running mate, it could be seen by bitter Deaniacs as "paying back to the man who gave him the nomination" by taking down Dean in Iowa. In my experience, Dean supporters are very well-informed and have long memories. And there is always the threat that they will defect to Nader in non-trivial numbers. ..." from Kausfiles.
hmmm... that reasoning sounds familiar.
Maxim Men Vote Republican. GQ is for Democrats?
Wow, just saw this editorial on TAP from last week. The Democrats are wimps. A bunch of pussies. We hardly stand for anything, we don't stand up for each other, and we never call the other side on their shit.
This is the reason that white males are unwilling to vote Democrat. Seriously, hear me out. It's not latent homophobia or racism or sexism or classism. It's not based on a backlash on affirmative action or feminism. I've heard many prominent liberals say that more Americans believe in the basic tenets of the Democratic Party than the schizophrenic Neo-Keynesian, millenial Christian, authoritarian social-Darwinism of the Right. I couldn't agree more. It's amazing that the Democrats just don't get it. Didn't they learn anything from Fox News? From Newt Gingrich and the Clinton impeachment? Republicans control all branches of government completely due to their rhetoric and style. The Republicans are the party of kicking ass and taking names. They push us into a war as some sort of international big-dick competition. Tom Friedman was using this as his justification. To slap down a random Arab country, to show that we can. I truly believe that is the real reason we went to war in Iraq (along with the Christian millenial/Apocalyptic undertones). Because we could. The Republicans sure showed those pussies and losers in France, Germany and the Democratic Party who has the big balls.
The American people are begging for an opposition party with backbone. I just don't understand why the flacks and the hacks in the party don't nail those fuckers to the wall.
Grrrr. This really pisses me off.
Increasingly, states across the country are making correctional facilities a higher spending priority than public and secondary education, according to the Justice Policy Institute. In California, correctional officials reportedly look to the percentage of children who never make it past the fourth-grade reading level to help them gauge the number of future prison beds to fund.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Veepstakes. I Could Have Sworn It'd Be Gephardt.
This Veepstakes shit. Does anyone really care anymore? Seems to me that the list is jam-packed with scumbags. Now, the thing that would make the most sense would be for Senator Kerry to choose John Edwards. In the polls I've seen, approximately 70% of the respondents want Edwards as the choice. He's young, competent, has energy, seems like a thoroughly stand up guy, and even I like the guy. So, obviously Senator Kerry will not pick him. Governor Bill Richardson was my hope, but he has been out of the running for a while now, and has said that he does not want to be considered. Bummer.
My next choice would be Senator Bob Graham. He should have been tapped in 2000. (I'd probably be graduating with a degree in English and starting work as a school teacher or something right now if he had been selected. President Gore would have kept us out of Iraq, we wouldn't be running up ridiculous deficits, we wouldn't be having wasteful prescription drug giveaways to greedy old people, we might be able to discuss the drug war with some type of seriousness, I wouldn't have to be worrying about civil liberties, and I could ignore politics just like every other normal person in America. I mean fuck, I hate this stuff as much as anyone else. It's so boring, and sometimes feels very pointless to me. That's why I haven't been posting much lately. I just don't want to pay attention anymore. I don't want to read newspapers and websites and magazines each day. But I feel like I have to. I have to see what awful thing that the Bush administration did today. Or the scum in congress. Or any of the myriad other sleazy political stories that come out each day. Now, back to Bob Graham.) I tried to work on his campaign first before I went to work for Dean. Unfortunately, that didn't quite work out. Senator Graham has the most integrity of any politician I've ever seen. He ran for president last year because he was frightened at the absolute lack of planning, and short-sightedness of this administration. He ran because he knew what was going on in our War on Terror. He saw the complete incompetence from his vantage on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Bob Graham is not the kind of person to run for president because of ego. I think that he ran because he heard the calling. The idea of politics as a vocation. He knew that last year was the time for the good men to stand up and fight. However, he elicited almost no support from the general public because he wasn't saying fuzzy nice BS like John Kerry. Let's face it, he's a boring guy. He's very honest though, and seems like such a nice guy. I wish Bob Graham was my grandpa. He plodded along for a few months, giving the best, most lucid critique I've heard so far of the Bush administration's failures in the War on Terror. For a long-shot surprise pick, I'd have to say Senator Graham is my choice. Plus he helps deliver Florida. Not gonna happen though.
Now, my guess for who it actually will be. Tie: Dick Gephardt/Tom Vilsack. Let's start with Gephardt. Bob Graham and Dick Gephardt are polar opposites. They are both boring, and lacking in charisma. But that is where the similarities end. One of the justifications I've seen for Gephardt on the ticket vs. Edwards is that Senator Kerry wants a VP who lacks ambition, and is willing to fight for the good of the ticket and serve the president rather than his own agenda. And this applies to Dick Gephardt how? Gephardt has been running for president for the past 16 straight years. Why should he stop now? Representative Gephardt is a craven opportunism. He not only supported the War in Iraq, he co-authored the war resolution. He joined President Bush and the Republican Congressional leaders in the Rose Garden to whoop it up at the signing ceremony. This abdication of leadership let the executive branch do an end-run around the constitution to declare war, and set a precedent for pre-emptive war. As the Democratic leader of the House he has presided over a steady erosion of the Democratic ranks, and there is very little reason to believe that the Democrats will have a chance to retake the House until after the 2010 census and redistricting. He, along with Senator Daschle and Chairman McAuliffe formulated the brilliant 2002 electoral strategy of.....Absolutely nothing. The Democrats supported the Patriot Act. They supported the War in Iraq. The supported No Child Left Behind. They supported the tax cuts. But hey, they sure do like old people. The only reason I can see for Gephardt's inclusion is the way Gephardt tore down Dr. Dean in Iowa. This is Kerry's big payback. If Gephardt wouldn't have destroyed his own chances for the nomination by tearing down Dr. Dean, Kerry would have dropped out after New Hampshire, and Howard Dean and John Edwards would have been fighting for the nomination up until about a month or so ago. As for geographical significance, Dick Gephardt cannot even deliver his own state, which is the same knock against John Edwards. He supposedly will help in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but I don't buy that. I believe that the more people see of Dick Gephardt, the more turned off by his demeanor they will be. Bottom line, no integrity, and not likeable.
The good points for Gephardt: he is mean and nasty, and he doesn't have any qualms about spreading misleading information to bring down his opponents. This isn't exactly a good thing, but Gephardt would fill out the roll of attack dog very well. Remember Gephardt co-wrote the Iraq resolution, but he had the absolute balls to call George W. Bush a miserable failure. This takes some serious gumption to call the President a miserable failure when you supported every one of his major policies. I talk about Gephardt all through this blog, check my archives for more on him. I believe this is Senator Kerry's choice.
Now, Tom Vilsack. For some crazy reason in Iowa, the endorsement of the Governor's wife has more sway than the endorsement of one of Iowa's Senators, both of the guys who ran for President 4 years prior, and a former candidate from this year. I don't exactly know what went on with John Kerry, Tom Vilsack, and John Norris in Iowa. I don't exactly know how Kerry went about putting together his victory. I believe that it was a combination of things, most obviously the Gephardt/Dean murder-suicide pact. However, an even more important aspect may have been the backroom dealings and low-level endorsements that the Kerry campaign was able to secure. Senator Kerry wrecked up tons of support and endorsement from low-level Democratic operatives all across Iowa. County Democratic parties, state Senators and Assemblymen, any sort of low-level elected official, highly visible precinct captains, and former elected officials. Somehow the Kerry campaign managed to secure much higher levels of support among these groups than any of the other candidates. I don't know how he did it. I think mostly, he hired people with who knew how to exploit their connections and the experience to really understood Iowa politics. The Kerry campaign stroked these Democratic functionaries' egos, made them feel important, and then these people worked their asses off calling their friends and neighbors to get them to the caucus for Kerry. If Kerry hadn't won Iowa, he would have been a dead fish. I don't know what Vilsack did, but I guess he obviously helped Kerry out somehow, or else he wouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Edwards and Gephardt. Could it be Vilsack? Yes. Why? I don't really know other than that he may have somehow helped deliver Iowa to Senator Kerry.
Good points/Bad points on Vilsack: I don't know shit about this guy. I've heard the stuff about him being born destitute, put up for adoption and growing up in an abusive situation. He scrambled to the top, a real Horatio Alger story. Other than this, who is Tom Vilsack? Again, I don't know. I do know that most of the Dean staff in Iowa were not big fans of him. Geographically, Vilsack could lock up Iowa, and help in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
So my bets are Gephardt, then Vilsack, and if neither of them Senator Graham. I doubt it will be Edwards, though I hope it is. Well, that's my two cents on the matter. We shall probably see tomorrow.
Bush Christianity.
Over the past month, I've seen tons of people talking about how brilliant Fafnir's blog is. Well, it is. Check out this post from last week.
"Love thy enemies" is so 33 A.D.
In Giblets's opinion, there's nothin' like that old time religion. Witch-hunts, cross-burnings, fatwas, an inquisition or two - that's some sexy theology there. So Giblets was pretty excited to see that aspiring Christian Ayatollah James Dobson sent out a mass email to his supporters publishing Michael Moore's home address and urging them to "let
Moore know exactly what they think" at Moore's home.
Giblets can see why Christians like Dobson would be pretty hot to stick it to Moore. After all, he is, as Dobson says, "so quick to criticize capitalism," and if Giblets remembers his New Testament correctly, capitalism is one of the chief virtues mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are the rich, for they will receive enormous tax cuts, the benefits of which may eventually trickle-down to the middle- and lower-class. (Shmark 3:16)
And of course there was Jesus's words of wisdom regarding the rich in Heaven:
It is as easy for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God as it is for a poor man to be trampled by his camel. (Bluke 12:21)
'Course, Dobson might also be hitting back at Moore for his last movie's bashing of the NRA. Giblets also understands that Jesus was a huge gun nut.
Now some people seem to think that targeting Moore at his house where his wife and kids sleep is "un-Christian," that Jesus would tell Dobson to "love thy enemies" and "turn the other cheek" and "not be a hateful prick." Well, Giblets thinks Jesus can shove it. Modern Christians need modern leadership for modern times, and if Jesus don't got the cajones to turn a rabid culture-war-inflamed mob on a political opponent's home, he should get out of the soul-saving business and leave it to the professionals. That Prince of Peace shtick was getting old anyway.
I'm a big-time instant gratification kinda guy. But seeing people like Bill Bennet, James Dobson, George W. Bush, and John Ashcroft burning in hell is going to be so worth it.
