building the margins
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
the antidote
For everyone out there who listened to the Republican convention speeches tonight, here's an antidote to the phony compassion rhetoric (designed to help you forget who W's base really is)... Bill Moyer's talk from 2003 entitled The Progressive Story of America.
¶ 9:05 PM 0 comments
For everyone out there who listened to the Republican convention speeches tonight, here's an antidote to the phony compassion rhetoric (designed to help you forget who W's base really is)... Bill Moyer's talk from 2003 entitled The Progressive Story of America.
¶ 9:05 PM 0 comments
day 67/reason 34: Bush's real war
Ok, forget for a moment that W said that we can't win the very war that he is basing his entire re-election on. With his words yesterday, W showed again that he has no interest in analyzing and addressing the root causes of terrorism, except if he views the root cause as "those people are too darn diff'ernt than us."
What sort of "conditions" is he talking about? If democracy is his condition, there will still be terrorism because democracy won't even out the basic inequalities and helplessness in societies that often lead to terrorist acts. Also, when we try to bring democracy to other countries we often bring our cultural values as well, and the clash of cultures commonly leads to terrorism, especially when people feel that their culture is threatened.
Perhaps W believes that we will just have a period of cultural warfare with the places that "accept" terrorism, and then once we win, there will be no more terrorism. Maybe rather than a war on terror, we're actually in a war on culture. I suppose we'll know that we have won when the Muslim world has converted to Christianity and has opened its doors so that we can pour American products and culture down the people's throats. However, our "compassionate" president obviously can't state that we are in war on culture so he will continue to bang the terror drum (especially because he gains voters when people think they are in danger.)
If this is so, he has just given Osama bin Laden the proof that we are in a war against Islam. And if so, we are definitely not safer now since we have a president who will continue to attack those "parts of the world" that he sees as being places that accept terror (which are actually just places that have different cultural and religious beliefs than us, and which feel threatened by our hegemonic actions towards them.)
In actuality, we are much less safe with Bush as president because not only does he not understand the roots of terrorism, his method of waging war is actually stirring up the roots of terrorism, making it more likely by his attack on other cultures.
This idea of a war on culture fits with McLellan's comments yesterday...
Of course there won't be a formal surrender... we'll know we've won when the whole world looks, talks and acts like our country. Until then -- if we actually achieve that surrender -- with foreign policies like Bush's we will most likely see an exponential increase in terrorism as people resort to the last means possible -- in the face of our military might -- to combat our attack on their culture.
¶ 5:14 PM 0 comments
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Ok, forget for a moment that W said that we can't win the very war that he is basing his entire re-election on. With his words yesterday, W showed again that he has no interest in analyzing and addressing the root causes of terrorism, except if he views the root cause as "those people are too darn diff'ernt than us."
What sort of "conditions" is he talking about? If democracy is his condition, there will still be terrorism because democracy won't even out the basic inequalities and helplessness in societies that often lead to terrorist acts. Also, when we try to bring democracy to other countries we often bring our cultural values as well, and the clash of cultures commonly leads to terrorism, especially when people feel that their culture is threatened.
Perhaps W believes that we will just have a period of cultural warfare with the places that "accept" terrorism, and then once we win, there will be no more terrorism. Maybe rather than a war on terror, we're actually in a war on culture. I suppose we'll know that we have won when the Muslim world has converted to Christianity and has opened its doors so that we can pour American products and culture down the people's throats. However, our "compassionate" president obviously can't state that we are in war on culture so he will continue to bang the terror drum (especially because he gains voters when people think they are in danger.)
If this is so, he has just given Osama bin Laden the proof that we are in a war against Islam. And if so, we are definitely not safer now since we have a president who will continue to attack those "parts of the world" that he sees as being places that accept terror (which are actually just places that have different cultural and religious beliefs than us, and which feel threatened by our hegemonic actions towards them.)
In actuality, we are much less safe with Bush as president because not only does he not understand the roots of terrorism, his method of waging war is actually stirring up the roots of terrorism, making it more likely by his attack on other cultures.
This idea of a war on culture fits with McLellan's comments yesterday...
"I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed like we have in wars past," Mr. McClellan said. "That's what he was talking about. It requires a generational commitment to win this war on terrorism."
Of course there won't be a formal surrender... we'll know we've won when the whole world looks, talks and acts like our country. Until then -- if we actually achieve that surrender -- with foreign policies like Bush's we will most likely see an exponential increase in terrorism as people resort to the last means possible -- in the face of our military might -- to combat our attack on their culture.
¶ 5:14 PM 0 comments
Monday, August 30, 2004
war president waffles on whether war is winnable
On the Today show, Bush said that the war on terror is not winnable.
In a speech this past March, Bush said...
In the same speech he also said...
It looks to me like our "war president" is a failure in all the wars he has been in charge of...
Perhaps he has finally realized that his elective war on Iraq has hampered the war on terrorism? Or maybe he's just trying to sound more moderate, to go along with the facade of moderation happening at the convention. Or maybe, did he get caught off guard and speak his true feelings about the war inadvertently?
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
On the Today show, Bush said that the war on terror is not winnable.
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
In a speech this past March, Bush said...
The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies -- they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action.
In the same speech he also said...
The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight.
It looks to me like our "war president" is a failure in all the wars he has been in charge of...
Perhaps he has finally realized that his elective war on Iraq has hampered the war on terrorism? Or maybe he's just trying to sound more moderate, to go along with the facade of moderation happening at the convention. Or maybe, did he get caught off guard and speak his true feelings about the war inadvertently?
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
day 68/reason 33: contracts with mercenaries
Been reading up on some companies awarded contracts in Iraq (and therefore receiving US taxpayer dollars to be hired guns).
One such British company, Aegis Defence Services is headed by a Lt-Col. Tim Spicer. You may never have heard of him, but many Irish-Catholics in both the US and Ireland have.
He also was involved in very dubious actions in Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea.
Spicer's company Aegis Defence was awarded a contract for $293 million to provide security services in post-war Iraq.
The US inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is apparently auditing the Aegis contract at the request of US officials in Baghdad. The Irish National Caucus is encouraging the US government to rescind the contract, as is Aegis competitor DynCorp which lost several employees yesterday in Afghanistan.
¶ 9:24 AM 0 comments
Been reading up on some companies awarded contracts in Iraq (and therefore receiving US taxpayer dollars to be hired guns).
One such British company, Aegis Defence Services is headed by a Lt-Col. Tim Spicer. You may never have heard of him, but many Irish-Catholics in both the US and Ireland have.
Spicer was in charge of a Scots Guards unit in Belfast in 1992, when two of his soldiers, Mark Wright and James Fisher, shot dead unarmed 18-year-old Catholic Peter McBride.
A military tribunal found the two guardsmen guilty of murder, but Spicer is reported to have helped them win early release from jail.
According to the Belfast-based Pat Finucane Centre for Human Rights and Social Change, Spicer also resisted prosecution of his guardsmen and wanted to send them back on patrol immediately after the killing.
He also was involved in very dubious actions in Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea.
Spicer's company Aegis Defence was awarded a contract for $293 million to provide security services in post-war Iraq.
The US inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is apparently auditing the Aegis contract at the request of US officials in Baghdad. The Irish National Caucus is encouraging the US government to rescind the contract, as is Aegis competitor DynCorp which lost several employees yesterday in Afghanistan.
¶ 9:24 AM 0 comments
I had a nightmare...
This article discusses likely outcomes relating to Medicare, Social Security and taxes for people like you and me, as well as the effective demise of the Democratic party if Bush gets a second term. Yikes.
¶ 12:53 AM 0 comments
This article discusses likely outcomes relating to Medicare, Social Security and taxes for people like you and me, as well as the effective demise of the Democratic party if Bush gets a second term. Yikes.
¶ 12:53 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 29, 2004
day 69/reason 32: karl "win at any cost" rove
Salon.com has a very good article about Karl Rove's history of using surrogate groups to attack his candidate's opponents. The article is written by James C. Moore, a coauthor of "Bush's Brain" and a longtime journalist in Texas.
Apparently, Rove's strategy has been to use surrogate groups to slime opponents, while his candidates (including Bush) remain above the fray, ostensibly trying to talk about the issues. Then, after the damage has been done (to people such as Ann Richards, John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry), Rove's candidate steps in to "demand an end to the ugliness."
This is not "just politics" as Bush said to McCain in 2000... it's slimy, morally and ethically reprehensible, and probably illegal given Rove's ties to both the surrogate groups and to Bush.
Bush and Rove cannot be let off the hook on this... it is symptomatic of the ethical vacuum in the White House today, and a prime example of why Bush has to be defeated in November.
¶ 2:25 PM 0 comments
Salon.com has a very good article about Karl Rove's history of using surrogate groups to attack his candidate's opponents. The article is written by James C. Moore, a coauthor of "Bush's Brain" and a longtime journalist in Texas.
Apparently, Rove's strategy has been to use surrogate groups to slime opponents, while his candidates (including Bush) remain above the fray, ostensibly trying to talk about the issues. Then, after the damage has been done (to people such as Ann Richards, John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry), Rove's candidate steps in to "demand an end to the ugliness."
This is not "just politics" as Bush said to McCain in 2000... it's slimy, morally and ethically reprehensible, and probably illegal given Rove's ties to both the surrogate groups and to Bush.
Bush and Rove cannot be let off the hook on this... it is symptomatic of the ethical vacuum in the White House today, and a prime example of why Bush has to be defeated in November.
¶ 2:25 PM 0 comments
over 400,000 protest peacefully in NY
So far, the march and rally in NY today has been peaceful.
This always makes me mad. Why do the Bushies say things like this? To try to make us feel guilty for our Constitutional rights? To encourage us to be grateful that we can excercise those rights? Maybe to be grateful that Bush hasn't taken the rights away yet, but to caution us "out-of-the-mainstream" people that we're treading on shaky ground? Pulllease....
¶ 2:09 PM 0 comments
So far, the march and rally in NY today has been peaceful.
Joan Johnson, a Republican delegate from Islip, New York, said the demonstrators were exercising their rights. ``If you were to protest against Saddam Hussein when he was in power, you would be dead,'' she said.
This always makes me mad. Why do the Bushies say things like this? To try to make us feel guilty for our Constitutional rights? To encourage us to be grateful that we can excercise those rights? Maybe to be grateful that Bush hasn't taken the rights away yet, but to caution us "out-of-the-mainstream" people that we're treading on shaky ground? Pulllease....
Foy Jolley, a delegate from Cheyenne, Wyoming, said he had no fear of the protesters or of being in New York.
``I will not be deterred by a threat of hostile action here,'' said Jolley, 64, a retired department chief of the Wyoming State capitol police and a U.S. Air Force Vietnam veteran. Speaking in the lobby of the Sheraton New York Hotel & Tower at 53rd Street and Broadway, Jolly said he supports Bush ``150 percent.''
Jolley said he refused to bring his wife, Cheryl, a Democrat, with him. ``I said, `I am not paying your way here to protest against my president.'''
Way to smack down your wife, dude. (Or do you smack her around as well as refusing to bring her with you on vacations?) She's obviously much smarter than you are if she's not planning to vote for "your" president who is busy going to war under false pretenses and killing your fellow soldiers.
And does that extra 50% of your support mean that you are working with Diebold to rig the election so that Bush gains the White House by shady means for a second time?
¶ 2:09 PM 0 comments
Saturday, August 28, 2004
schwarzenegger in nyc: brought to you by...major news outlets!
According the the New York Times, corporate sponsors of the Governator's trip to NY include Fox Entertainment, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Paramount, TimeWarner, the Walt Disney Company and Viacom. He's also sponsored by several oil and pharmaceutical companies including Amgen and Pfizer, ChevronTexaco and Conoco Phillips. ¶ 11:31 AM 3 comments
According the the New York Times, corporate sponsors of the Governator's trip to NY include Fox Entertainment, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Paramount, TimeWarner, the Walt Disney Company and Viacom. He's also sponsored by several oil and pharmaceutical companies including Amgen and Pfizer, ChevronTexaco and Conoco Phillips. ¶ 11:31 AM 3 comments
critical mass in nyc
Photos here of the Critical Mass ride yesterday in NYC. Several thousand people took over the streets, and possibly a couple hundred people were arrested for blocking traffic.
¶ 11:21 AM 0 comments
Photos here of the Critical Mass ride yesterday in NYC. Several thousand people took over the streets, and possibly a couple hundred people were arrested for blocking traffic.
¶ 11:21 AM 0 comments
what would Johnny say?
Republican party to honor Johnny Cash this Tuesday night at Sotheby's in NYC. ¶ 11:17 AM 1 comments
Republican party to honor Johnny Cash this Tuesday night at Sotheby's in NYC. ¶ 11:17 AM 1 comments
Friday, August 27, 2004
day 70/reason 31: Bush violates act of Congress with Olympics ad
The Bush campaign has apparently violated national and international rules about use of the Olympics, which is regulated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the US Olympic Committee (USOC).
According to an ESPN article, An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as "Olympic,'' derivatives such as "Olympiad'' and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization "shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.''
However, in true weasel fashion, Bush's campaign is refusing to pull the ad despite requests from the USOC.
¶ 3:45 PM 1 comments
The Bush campaign has apparently violated national and international rules about use of the Olympics, which is regulated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the US Olympic Committee (USOC).
According to an ESPN article, An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as "Olympic,'' derivatives such as "Olympiad'' and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization "shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.''
However, in true weasel fashion, Bush's campaign is refusing to pull the ad despite requests from the USOC.
¶ 3:45 PM 1 comments
Thursday, August 26, 2004
married women more likely to be pro-bush?
Okay, tasteless puns aside, this report from USA Today is quite interesting. A study has concluded that married women are more likely to support Bush over Kerry.
Also, according to the USA Today article, a group called Women's Voices, Women Vote has found that: ...while 68% of married women voted in 2000, just 52% of unmarried women did. The conclusion: Single women often felt their voices weren't heard and didn't count.
I take a couple of things from these studies. One, married women are probably voting the way they do for the same reasons my parents do... they are well off enough that they don't feel threatened for immediate resources, and in fact want to protect the wealth/resources they have gathered from those scary terrorists who want to kill them and those scary liberals who want to give their money to the poor. And two, unmarried women are a considerable segment of the population (about 22 million people) who could help Kerry get to the White House if they can be persuaded that their voices are important.
I think I might have an idea about how to spend some time over the next month...
¶ 10:05 PM 5 comments
Okay, tasteless puns aside, this report from USA Today is quite interesting. A study has concluded that married women are more likely to support Bush over Kerry.
Also, according to the USA Today article, a group called Women's Voices, Women Vote has found that: ...while 68% of married women voted in 2000, just 52% of unmarried women did. The conclusion: Single women often felt their voices weren't heard and didn't count.
I take a couple of things from these studies. One, married women are probably voting the way they do for the same reasons my parents do... they are well off enough that they don't feel threatened for immediate resources, and in fact want to protect the wealth/resources they have gathered from those scary terrorists who want to kill them and those scary liberals who want to give their money to the poor. And two, unmarried women are a considerable segment of the population (about 22 million people) who could help Kerry get to the White House if they can be persuaded that their voices are important.
I think I might have an idea about how to spend some time over the next month...
¶ 10:05 PM 5 comments
updating links
hi all... I'm working on adding links and sorting them out, but I'm new to doing this, so please be patient. I'm hoping to get my links section organized within a day or two at most.
Also, I'm falling behind on my countdown, but I'll have some time off over the next 2 weeks, so I'm planning to catch up on everything in my life, including this blog!
¶ 6:15 PM 0 comments
hi all... I'm working on adding links and sorting them out, but I'm new to doing this, so please be patient. I'm hoping to get my links section organized within a day or two at most.
Also, I'm falling behind on my countdown, but I'll have some time off over the next 2 weeks, so I'm planning to catch up on everything in my life, including this blog!
¶ 6:15 PM 0 comments
day 71/ reason 30: W: incapable of doing the right thing
Yet again, Bush is choosing to pull his infamous "look over there" tactic instead of doing the right thing. Many people have called on him to denouce the "swift boat" ad, which is not only blatantly false and misleading about Kerry's service, but was put up by a group with ties to Bush's campaign which is illegal.
Rather than denouncing the ad, Bush is calling on the courts to stop all "shady" 527s from running political ads. Never mind that some of these "shady" groups such as Move-on are funded by donations from thousands of average citizens like you or me, or that Move-on ads don't use lies to smear candidates.
At issue here are three things:
1) responsibility - this administration is continually unwilling to take responsibility for any of its actions.
2) money - the Bush campaign has more money than the Kerry campaign and so wants to stop groups like Move-on from stepping in to run ads in favor of Kerry.
3) the moral high-ground - which Bush is losing by not condeming the "swift boat" ad... every day that Bush wriggles and worms his way around this issue, he is drawing attention to how slimy he really is.
Mr. President... you wormed your way out of Vietnam, out of your stateside military duties, into the white house, and into a non-essential war with Iraq, and you continue to try to wriggle your way out of responsibility for Abu Ghraib, tax breaks for the wealthy, a failing economy and slimy campaign strategies. No wonder the Dixie Chicks were ashamed of you... For all your tough talk, there are an awful lot of slime trails leading from the current white house.
¶ 10:18 AM 1 comments
Yet again, Bush is choosing to pull his infamous "look over there" tactic instead of doing the right thing. Many people have called on him to denouce the "swift boat" ad, which is not only blatantly false and misleading about Kerry's service, but was put up by a group with ties to Bush's campaign which is illegal.
Rather than denouncing the ad, Bush is calling on the courts to stop all "shady" 527s from running political ads. Never mind that some of these "shady" groups such as Move-on are funded by donations from thousands of average citizens like you or me, or that Move-on ads don't use lies to smear candidates.
At issue here are three things:
1) responsibility - this administration is continually unwilling to take responsibility for any of its actions.
2) money - the Bush campaign has more money than the Kerry campaign and so wants to stop groups like Move-on from stepping in to run ads in favor of Kerry.
3) the moral high-ground - which Bush is losing by not condeming the "swift boat" ad... every day that Bush wriggles and worms his way around this issue, he is drawing attention to how slimy he really is.
Mr. President... you wormed your way out of Vietnam, out of your stateside military duties, into the white house, and into a non-essential war with Iraq, and you continue to try to wriggle your way out of responsibility for Abu Ghraib, tax breaks for the wealthy, a failing economy and slimy campaign strategies. No wonder the Dixie Chicks were ashamed of you... For all your tough talk, there are an awful lot of slime trails leading from the current white house.
¶ 10:18 AM 1 comments
where will it all end?
Mother Jones has a story about the denial from NYC for the protest march on Sunday to end in a rally in Central Park.
I agree that the march organizers need to designate an ending location for the march... but I also think that Bloomberg is being ridiculously partisan by not allowing the march to end at Central Park (supposedly because he's worried about protestors trampling the grass.)
C'mon Bloomberg... you brought this on by letting the ruling party in to the city to play for a week... the least you can do is let the protesters have Central Park for a couple of hours.
¶ 10:02 AM 1 comments
Mother Jones has a story about the denial from NYC for the protest march on Sunday to end in a rally in Central Park.
I agree that the march organizers need to designate an ending location for the march... but I also think that Bloomberg is being ridiculously partisan by not allowing the march to end at Central Park (supposedly because he's worried about protestors trampling the grass.)
C'mon Bloomberg... you brought this on by letting the ruling party in to the city to play for a week... the least you can do is let the protesters have Central Park for a couple of hours.
¶ 10:02 AM 1 comments
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Krugman strikes again
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo.
Read more here.
¶ 9:45 AM 0 comments
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo.
Read more here.
¶ 9:45 AM 0 comments
Pentagon and military leadership get partial blame for Abu Ghraib
This Reuters article notes that a panel investigating Abu Ghraib lays some blame on Pentagon officials but stops short of saying that Rummy and co. actually ordered the torture of prisoners.
¶ 9:39 AM 0 comments
This Reuters article notes that a panel investigating Abu Ghraib lays some blame on Pentagon officials but stops short of saying that Rummy and co. actually ordered the torture of prisoners.
¶ 9:39 AM 0 comments
day 72/reason 29: W's moral cowardice
Josh Marshall says it much more succinctly than I could...
¶ 9:17 AM 0 comments
Josh Marshall says it much more succinctly than I could...
¶ 9:17 AM 0 comments
Monday, August 23, 2004
day 73/reason 28: got education or imagination? no overtime for you...
Check out this Department of Labor website for information about the new overtime rules.
From what I can tell, generally if you earn over $455 a week (about $23,000/yr), are on salary, and are in a job that required some level of advanced training or education to get the job, you are probably exempt from overtime pay. Except if you are a teacher - then no matter what you earn or whether you are salaried, no overtime for you. Also, it looks like a lot of office employees who deal with "general business operations" will probably be exempt from overtime.
Overall the rules are confusing and rather amusing (if you forget for a moment the negative economic consequences this may have for a lot of people.) Below is the section about the "creative professions".
Maybe they should just institute a "think" test to determine eligibility. If you are in a job that a trained monkey or computer could do, you probably are the only ones eligible for overtime. Congratulations Mr. President... you've just told a lot of American citizens that 1) education will lower your earning ability, 2) creativity is not worth paying overtime, and 3) teachers are not really worth anything at all.
¶ 10:08 AM 0 comments
Check out this Department of Labor website for information about the new overtime rules.
From what I can tell, generally if you earn over $455 a week (about $23,000/yr), are on salary, and are in a job that required some level of advanced training or education to get the job, you are probably exempt from overtime pay. Except if you are a teacher - then no matter what you earn or whether you are salaried, no overtime for you. Also, it looks like a lot of office employees who deal with "general business operations" will probably be exempt from overtime.
Overall the rules are confusing and rather amusing (if you forget for a moment the negative economic consequences this may have for a lot of people.) Below is the section about the "creative professions".
To qualify for the creative professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:
- The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;
- The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.
Maybe they should just institute a "think" test to determine eligibility. If you are in a job that a trained monkey or computer could do, you probably are the only ones eligible for overtime. Congratulations Mr. President... you've just told a lot of American citizens that 1) education will lower your earning ability, 2) creativity is not worth paying overtime, and 3) teachers are not really worth anything at all.
¶ 10:08 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 22, 2004
day 74/reason 27: W is not helping Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Although he gave lots of lip service to the "roadmap", Bush has not really demonstrated a committment to helping solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in fact has probably thrown fuel on the flame with the Iraq war.
Today the BBC reports that Palestinians are angry that Bush hasn't denounced new plans for building in Israeli settlements, even though such activity is banned in the roadmap. The administration apparently said they needed to "study the details" of the new settlement plan.
¶ 12:08 PM 0 comments
Although he gave lots of lip service to the "roadmap", Bush has not really demonstrated a committment to helping solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in fact has probably thrown fuel on the flame with the Iraq war.
Today the BBC reports that Palestinians are angry that Bush hasn't denounced new plans for building in Israeli settlements, even though such activity is banned in the roadmap. The administration apparently said they needed to "study the details" of the new settlement plan.
¶ 12:08 PM 0 comments
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Go-lie Ameri: Oregon Mis-Representative?
I've been reading Goli Ameri's election website recently and have found some things that are indicative of her true loyalties if (the horror...the horror!) she was elected.
First, her "Goli in the News" page doesn't contain many actual news articles - mostly just commentary from staffers masquerading as news. A recent article is misleadingly entitled "Wu should not play politics with CIA nominee." In fact, the article is about Nancy Pelosi not supporting the nomination and Ameri's staffer basically taunting Wu to come out with his opinion about the nomination. Sorry, but it's actually Ameri's campaign that is playing politics with the nomination by trying to bait Wu with it and insinuating that Wu is playing politics. Nice try. But thanks for showing your true colors - the same as the rest of the shady Republican spin doctors.
Secondly and more importantly, her environmental policy page shows clearly that she cares nothing about the environment but is merely giving lip service to what her pollers must be telling her is an important issue for many Oregonians.
If people cannot find employment and businesses do not have customers, it hurts the quality of life of all Oregonians. Here she is subtly implying that environmental protections cause unemployment and that somehow they drive customers away. No, Goli, it's actually corporate greed that causes unemployment. As Weyerhauser's president noted back in 1986, the slowdown in the logging industry was caused primarily by increases in production and depressed export prices.
Logging, overgrazing, dams and other factors are injuring our fisheries and costing millions of dollars a year. But out of the 4.5 billion has been spent on salmon recovery, I'm sure that a significant percentage has helped create jobs for people working toward that recovery. So basically, corporations degrade our natural resources and causes job loss in the name of profits, then the government steps in with tax and ratepayer money to fix the damage and create jobs that the corporations lost with their actions. So what Goli is really for is corporate welfare.
As a matter of principle, Goli believes that excessive government regulation costs jobs and hurts business. Here she is basically reiterating the previous sentence, only a bit more clearly -- environmental regulations cost jobs. Now again, this is just not necessarily true. Regulations do cost corporations money. Businesses could view environmental regs as a necessary part of doing business in an ethical manner, and calculate them into the bottom line. Instead they complain about the unfairness of it all and fire workers rather than cutting into the CEO's salaries. Very principled indeed.
But Goli also loves the great outdoors, the beautiful Oregon scenery and the diverse landscape of Oregon that is unique to our state –from Waterfront Park in Portland to the Oregon Coast. Therefore, Goli will work hard in Congress to strike a reasonable balance between economic development and environmental conservation... Apart from the very annoying way she uses the third person, it is obvious to me from this statement that she has no deep personal connection to the natural world. All the words she uses are purely superficial... scenery, landscape, great outdoors. She's basically saying that because Oregon is pretty, she'll try to leave a couple trees standing after she turns it into southern California.
She goes on to express her support for the so-called "healthy forest initiative", dredging the Columbia River (does she think she gets environmental points for support this item which really should have been on her economic policy page?), and (my personal favorite), support for proper interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has been used by many radicals to subject private property owners to much hardship. Again, she is being disingenuous by implying that "radicals" are trying to cause hardship to good taxpaying citizens. Actually those "radicals" are trying to make sure that laws that were enacted by government agencies based on the best science available are enforced.
The 1st Congressional district contains many beautiful and scenic areas including the Columbia River in Columbia county, the ocean in Clatsop county, as well as several other rivers, numerous creeks and forested areas, and a diverse array of wildlife. One would think that with all the money her campaign is getting from Cheney fundraisers, she might post a picture on her environment page that actually looked like it came from her potential district, and maybe give it a caption. I guess she would only do that if she actually gave a damn.
¶ 1:53 PM 2 comments
I've been reading Goli Ameri's election website recently and have found some things that are indicative of her true loyalties if (the horror...the horror!) she was elected.
First, her "Goli in the News" page doesn't contain many actual news articles - mostly just commentary from staffers masquerading as news. A recent article is misleadingly entitled "Wu should not play politics with CIA nominee." In fact, the article is about Nancy Pelosi not supporting the nomination and Ameri's staffer basically taunting Wu to come out with his opinion about the nomination. Sorry, but it's actually Ameri's campaign that is playing politics with the nomination by trying to bait Wu with it and insinuating that Wu is playing politics. Nice try. But thanks for showing your true colors - the same as the rest of the shady Republican spin doctors.
Secondly and more importantly, her environmental policy page shows clearly that she cares nothing about the environment but is merely giving lip service to what her pollers must be telling her is an important issue for many Oregonians.
If people cannot find employment and businesses do not have customers, it hurts the quality of life of all Oregonians. Here she is subtly implying that environmental protections cause unemployment and that somehow they drive customers away. No, Goli, it's actually corporate greed that causes unemployment. As Weyerhauser's president noted back in 1986, the slowdown in the logging industry was caused primarily by increases in production and depressed export prices.
Logging, overgrazing, dams and other factors are injuring our fisheries and costing millions of dollars a year. But out of the 4.5 billion has been spent on salmon recovery, I'm sure that a significant percentage has helped create jobs for people working toward that recovery. So basically, corporations degrade our natural resources and causes job loss in the name of profits, then the government steps in with tax and ratepayer money to fix the damage and create jobs that the corporations lost with their actions. So what Goli is really for is corporate welfare.
As a matter of principle, Goli believes that excessive government regulation costs jobs and hurts business. Here she is basically reiterating the previous sentence, only a bit more clearly -- environmental regulations cost jobs. Now again, this is just not necessarily true. Regulations do cost corporations money. Businesses could view environmental regs as a necessary part of doing business in an ethical manner, and calculate them into the bottom line. Instead they complain about the unfairness of it all and fire workers rather than cutting into the CEO's salaries. Very principled indeed.
But Goli also loves the great outdoors, the beautiful Oregon scenery and the diverse landscape of Oregon that is unique to our state –from Waterfront Park in Portland to the Oregon Coast. Therefore, Goli will work hard in Congress to strike a reasonable balance between economic development and environmental conservation... Apart from the very annoying way she uses the third person, it is obvious to me from this statement that she has no deep personal connection to the natural world. All the words she uses are purely superficial... scenery, landscape, great outdoors. She's basically saying that because Oregon is pretty, she'll try to leave a couple trees standing after she turns it into southern California.
She goes on to express her support for the so-called "healthy forest initiative", dredging the Columbia River (does she think she gets environmental points for support this item which really should have been on her economic policy page?), and (my personal favorite), support for proper interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has been used by many radicals to subject private property owners to much hardship. Again, she is being disingenuous by implying that "radicals" are trying to cause hardship to good taxpaying citizens. Actually those "radicals" are trying to make sure that laws that were enacted by government agencies based on the best science available are enforced.
The 1st Congressional district contains many beautiful and scenic areas including the Columbia River in Columbia county, the ocean in Clatsop county, as well as several other rivers, numerous creeks and forested areas, and a diverse array of wildlife. One would think that with all the money her campaign is getting from Cheney fundraisers, she might post a picture on her environment page that actually looked like it came from her potential district, and maybe give it a caption. I guess she would only do that if she actually gave a damn.
¶ 1:53 PM 2 comments
neo-conservatism: a primer and a warning
I just found this commentary from late July on the cyclical nature of neo-conservatism.
¶ 12:39 PM 0 comments
I just found this commentary from late July on the cyclical nature of neo-conservatism.
¶ 12:39 PM 0 comments
a visit to the shrine which "might not be around much longer"
Scott Baldauf and other journalists entered the Iman Ali Shrine in Najaf and spent some time with Iraqis on Thursday.
I was very moved by this article, and disturbed to learn that it's not just men in there but women and children as well. But we've already killed over 11,000 Iraqis in the name of freedom and democracy, so I suppose the people there are viewed as expendable.
¶ 11:51 AM 0 comments
Scott Baldauf and other journalists entered the Iman Ali Shrine in Najaf and spent some time with Iraqis on Thursday.
I was very moved by this article, and disturbed to learn that it's not just men in there but women and children as well. But we've already killed over 11,000 Iraqis in the name of freedom and democracy, so I suppose the people there are viewed as expendable.
¶ 11:51 AM 0 comments
day 75/reason 26: what wealth creation?
There's going to be a lot of talk at the Repub convention about W's plans for wealth creation vs. wealth redistribution, but it will just be a lot of hot air as he has nothing to show for in this regard from his past few years in office.
In fact, he's pretty much just been redistributing the wealth by giving the taxpayers' money to corporations for their work in Iraq. His record on job creation in this country has been abysmal, and even now that our economy is supposedly on the up-swing, jobs are still at a premium. Drastic economic changes such as United Airlines' plan for cutting pensions are looming, and W's own budget office recently reported that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class. In fact, the wealthy are getting off the hook twice, once with lower taxes, and again by interest gained from financing the ballooning national debt.
He may call it wealth creation, but really W is nothing more than a dyslexic Robin Hood... stealing from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. Let's see how he tries to spin this one. And whether Kerry will let him off the hook again, as he's been doing on the Iraq war.
¶ 11:46 AM 0 comments
There's going to be a lot of talk at the Repub convention about W's plans for wealth creation vs. wealth redistribution, but it will just be a lot of hot air as he has nothing to show for in this regard from his past few years in office.
In fact, he's pretty much just been redistributing the wealth by giving the taxpayers' money to corporations for their work in Iraq. His record on job creation in this country has been abysmal, and even now that our economy is supposedly on the up-swing, jobs are still at a premium. Drastic economic changes such as United Airlines' plan for cutting pensions are looming, and W's own budget office recently reported that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class. In fact, the wealthy are getting off the hook twice, once with lower taxes, and again by interest gained from financing the ballooning national debt.
He may call it wealth creation, but really W is nothing more than a dyslexic Robin Hood... stealing from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. Let's see how he tries to spin this one. And whether Kerry will let him off the hook again, as he's been doing on the Iraq war.
¶ 11:46 AM 0 comments
day 76/reason 25: Mr President, you work for us...
Sidney Blumenthal highlights W's "neurotic control" in the campaign.
He quotes Walt Whitman who wrote "The President is there in the White House for you, it is not you who are here for him." This gets to the heart of the problem with this presidency. It is not about what is good for the American people but about what is good for George W and his gang, which is all about what is good for their friends at big corporations. I don't think this is cynicism... I think it's an accurate portrayal based on Bush's actions over the last few years.
¶ 11:27 AM 0 comments
Sidney Blumenthal highlights W's "neurotic control" in the campaign.
He quotes Walt Whitman who wrote "The President is there in the White House for you, it is not you who are here for him." This gets to the heart of the problem with this presidency. It is not about what is good for the American people but about what is good for George W and his gang, which is all about what is good for their friends at big corporations. I don't think this is cynicism... I think it's an accurate portrayal based on Bush's actions over the last few years.
¶ 11:27 AM 0 comments
Wu Wu Wu!
I was able to meet Representative David Wu yesterday, and was impressed by his eloquence and sincerity.
He spoke to the gathered group about how we had a chance to use the surplus generated in the late 1990's to pay off our national debt and make investments in our country's education and healthcare, but we failed to do so. He spoke about how on the evening of Sept 11, 2001, he joined with other people in the Capital and felt an incredibly strong bond of unity between people that overrided any thoughts of politics or parties. And he spoke about how we are all descended from people who didn't have the same chances to participate in a democratic system of governance, and stressed how important it is to leave this democracy to our descendents in as good or better condition than when we inherited it.
I thought it was a rather polite way of saying that this current administration is doing its best to squander resources, divide us and chip away at our democratic principles. He said it better... I guess that's why he's the politician! I'm hoping he will keep his seat in Congress this fall because I think he is doing a good job and deserves to continue.
¶ 12:57 AM 0 comments
I was able to meet Representative David Wu yesterday, and was impressed by his eloquence and sincerity.
He spoke to the gathered group about how we had a chance to use the surplus generated in the late 1990's to pay off our national debt and make investments in our country's education and healthcare, but we failed to do so. He spoke about how on the evening of Sept 11, 2001, he joined with other people in the Capital and felt an incredibly strong bond of unity between people that overrided any thoughts of politics or parties. And he spoke about how we are all descended from people who didn't have the same chances to participate in a democratic system of governance, and stressed how important it is to leave this democracy to our descendents in as good or better condition than when we inherited it.
I thought it was a rather polite way of saying that this current administration is doing its best to squander resources, divide us and chip away at our democratic principles. He said it better... I guess that's why he's the politician! I'm hoping he will keep his seat in Congress this fall because I think he is doing a good job and deserves to continue.
¶ 12:57 AM 0 comments
retiring republican rep raps the war
Here's an article about Rep. Doug Bereuter from Nebraska who is retiring this year after 26 years in Congress. In 2002 he supported giving W the power to go to war after urging him to broaden the international coalition and not to let it impact actions in Afghanistan, but now he says that the war was based on faulty intelligence and was unjustified.
Recently in a letter to constituents he wrote "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Bereuter is a vice chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. This CNN article includes some Republican leaders commenting on why Bereuter is breaking ranks on this issue. As usual with anyone who disagrees with the administration, they try to discredit him.
Why is it that whenever any Republicans publicly disagree with Bush they are ascribed some ulterior motive? Is it so hard for the Bushies to fathom that perhaps they are making a mess of things and even their supporters might be losing faith?
¶ 12:33 AM 0 comments
Here's an article about Rep. Doug Bereuter from Nebraska who is retiring this year after 26 years in Congress. In 2002 he supported giving W the power to go to war after urging him to broaden the international coalition and not to let it impact actions in Afghanistan, but now he says that the war was based on faulty intelligence and was unjustified.
Recently in a letter to constituents he wrote "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."
Bereuter is a vice chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a senior member of the House International Relations Committee. This CNN article includes some Republican leaders commenting on why Bereuter is breaking ranks on this issue. As usual with anyone who disagrees with the administration, they try to discredit him.
Why is it that whenever any Republicans publicly disagree with Bush they are ascribed some ulterior motive? Is it so hard for the Bushies to fathom that perhaps they are making a mess of things and even their supporters might be losing faith?
¶ 12:33 AM 0 comments
Friday, August 20, 2004
day 77/reason 24: homeland insecurity and inconvenience
This Washington Post article discusses the problem many Americans have had when their names turn up on terrorist watch list. Some US senators and congressmen have even been stopped at airports because they are on the list.
Apparently, if you end up on this list, it helps if you change your name, such as using your middle initial if you didn't previously use it. This has led many people to question the use of these watch lists, especially considering that terrorists are probably likely to use aliases when travelling.
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
This Washington Post article discusses the problem many Americans have had when their names turn up on terrorist watch list. Some US senators and congressmen have even been stopped at airports because they are on the list.
Apparently, if you end up on this list, it helps if you change your name, such as using your middle initial if you didn't previously use it. This has led many people to question the use of these watch lists, especially considering that terrorists are probably likely to use aliases when travelling.
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
day 78/reason 23: Medicare and prescription drug coverage
This has seemed to be a fiasco from the start... and a Harvard survey recently found that 47% of the people eligible for the plan don't like it. Another study finds that although people think that it will help lower-income seniors, they have concerns over many aspects of the plan including which drugs would be covered by the various plans, and about the late enrollment penalty.
We are a country of smart creative people. Can't we do better than this for people who have worked hard their whole lives expecting to receive some benefits back from their country when they retire? My dad is planning to retire next year after over 30 years as an educator... I expect to hear all sorts of horror stories over the next few years about his health coverage, or lack thereof.
¶ 10:36 PM 0 comments
This has seemed to be a fiasco from the start... and a Harvard survey recently found that 47% of the people eligible for the plan don't like it. Another study finds that although people think that it will help lower-income seniors, they have concerns over many aspects of the plan including which drugs would be covered by the various plans, and about the late enrollment penalty.
We are a country of smart creative people. Can't we do better than this for people who have worked hard their whole lives expecting to receive some benefits back from their country when they retire? My dad is planning to retire next year after over 30 years as an educator... I expect to hear all sorts of horror stories over the next few years about his health coverage, or lack thereof.
¶ 10:36 PM 0 comments
what Kerry needs to do
Just watched NOW on OPB... I don't often watch television on Friday nights, but I really need to try to watch this show more often. I'm always very impressed by the quality of the discussion.
I was struck by how two of the guests said that Kerry needs to convey that he will work for the people of this country, as opposed to the corporations. I've been concerned about the inability of the Kerry campaign to do anything but play defense to Bush's offensive. And although I think it's good that he's responding to the negative ads that have been playing, I'm pretty tired of hearing about his medals and the shrapnel and the Vietnam War. I know he was there, I know what he did, I believe he was courageous, but now can we actually talk about some issues, please?
Kerry needs to get out there and say that it's time to talk about the present and the future, not the past. He needs to challenge Bush's record on the economy, on the environment, on healthcare, on education, on foreign relations, and on the war in Iraq. He needs to show the links between the Bush administration and corporations such as Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. He needs to be bold and definitive and to commit to being a president who acts for the public interest, rather than corporate interests.
Will he do it, or is he planning to take play defense until November and hope that enough Americans want a change badly enough to vote for him?
¶ 10:00 PM 0 comments
Just watched NOW on OPB... I don't often watch television on Friday nights, but I really need to try to watch this show more often. I'm always very impressed by the quality of the discussion.
I was struck by how two of the guests said that Kerry needs to convey that he will work for the people of this country, as opposed to the corporations. I've been concerned about the inability of the Kerry campaign to do anything but play defense to Bush's offensive. And although I think it's good that he's responding to the negative ads that have been playing, I'm pretty tired of hearing about his medals and the shrapnel and the Vietnam War. I know he was there, I know what he did, I believe he was courageous, but now can we actually talk about some issues, please?
Kerry needs to get out there and say that it's time to talk about the present and the future, not the past. He needs to challenge Bush's record on the economy, on the environment, on healthcare, on education, on foreign relations, and on the war in Iraq. He needs to show the links between the Bush administration and corporations such as Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. He needs to be bold and definitive and to commit to being a president who acts for the public interest, rather than corporate interests.
Will he do it, or is he planning to take play defense until November and hope that enough Americans want a change badly enough to vote for him?
¶ 10:00 PM 0 comments
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
population changes
The Guardian reports on a study by US demographers on expected population changes over the next 50 years. They predict that the US population will grow by 43%, and population in volatile places such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Nepal are expected to more than double.
Currently there are 6.3 billion people in the world, and the population is growing by about 70 million people a year.
¶ 11:12 AM 0 comments
The Guardian reports on a study by US demographers on expected population changes over the next 50 years. They predict that the US population will grow by 43%, and population in volatile places such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Nepal are expected to more than double.
Currently there are 6.3 billion people in the world, and the population is growing by about 70 million people a year.
¶ 11:12 AM 0 comments
what do Bush and the Taliban have in common?
In this op/ed piece, Georgie Anne Geyer discusses how many US political leaders and military figures including Reagan, Lincoln, FDR and MacArthur used cultural sensitivity to achieve positive goals such as ending the Cold War. She points out some groups not known for their sensitivity including the Nazis, the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge, among others.
Does Cheney's attack on Kerry's "sensitivity" indicate that this administration would prefer to be likened to the Taliban, rather than Repub hero Reagan? The fact that we are currently desecrating one of holiest sites in the Muslim world certainly seems to support Cheney's lack of sensitivity. Even some of our own soldiers were disturbed by the location of the battle in Najaf.
¶ 10:11 AM 0 comments
In this op/ed piece, Georgie Anne Geyer discusses how many US political leaders and military figures including Reagan, Lincoln, FDR and MacArthur used cultural sensitivity to achieve positive goals such as ending the Cold War. She points out some groups not known for their sensitivity including the Nazis, the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge, among others.
Does Cheney's attack on Kerry's "sensitivity" indicate that this administration would prefer to be likened to the Taliban, rather than Repub hero Reagan? The fact that we are currently desecrating one of holiest sites in the Muslim world certainly seems to support Cheney's lack of sensitivity. Even some of our own soldiers were disturbed by the location of the battle in Najaf.
¶ 10:11 AM 0 comments
Monday, August 16, 2004
Bush administration cares about profits, not people
This New York Times article discusses how the Bush administration has been busy reducing regulations designed to protect consumers, workers, and everyone who drives on highways.
The Washington Post also weighs in on this issue, noting that the Bush administration has cancelled more pending regulatory changes than they have completed. ¶ 10:05 AM 0 comments
This New York Times article discusses how the Bush administration has been busy reducing regulations designed to protect consumers, workers, and everyone who drives on highways.
The Washington Post also weighs in on this issue, noting that the Bush administration has cancelled more pending regulatory changes than they have completed. ¶ 10:05 AM 0 comments
stealin' from the natives... the cowboy strikes again
Here is an article from last year in which some local native American groups weigh in about the Columbia River dredging project. As might be expected, they have some concerns about potential impacts of the project.
In case you missed it, just over a week ago Bush noted that we "gave" native Americans their sovereignty. Does that mean he's planning to take it back some time soon? Perhaps if we want to steal more of their natural resources, like we've been doing for hundreds of years? Ironically, at the same event W talked about enhancing economic opportunities for native Americans. Perhaps not ruining their traditional fishing grounds could be a start.
¶ 12:45 AM 0 comments
Here is an article from last year in which some local native American groups weigh in about the Columbia River dredging project. As might be expected, they have some concerns about potential impacts of the project.
In case you missed it, just over a week ago Bush noted that we "gave" native Americans their sovereignty. Does that mean he's planning to take it back some time soon? Perhaps if we want to steal more of their natural resources, like we've been doing for hundreds of years? Ironically, at the same event W talked about enhancing economic opportunities for native Americans. Perhaps not ruining their traditional fishing grounds could be a start.
¶ 12:45 AM 0 comments
day 79/reason 22: Bush administration's lack of integrity
War is hell, unless you're a big US company.
Just found the Center for Public Integrity site. Here's a link to a list of companies awarded contracts for Iraq rebuilding. It seems a lot more tangible when we can see that the taxpayers' money is going into the coffers of companies like GE and Kellogg, Brown and Root, who then apparently turn around and put money back in the pockets of the politicians who got them their contracts.
¶ 12:10 AM 0 comments
War is hell, unless you're a big US company.
Just found the Center for Public Integrity site. Here's a link to a list of companies awarded contracts for Iraq rebuilding. It seems a lot more tangible when we can see that the taxpayers' money is going into the coffers of companies like GE and Kellogg, Brown and Root, who then apparently turn around and put money back in the pockets of the politicians who got them their contracts.
¶ 12:10 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 15, 2004
day 80/reason 21: anything for a buck (the Columbia can take it!)
When Bush was in town on Friday he promised $15 million for the Columbia River dredging project which has been approved by Oregon and Washington state agencies.
Despite the approval by state environmental agencies, many fisherman are convinced that this project will have a detrimental effect on Columbia River fisheries, especially the Columbia estuary crab bed. However, in the name of international trade, subsidy farmers and other business people have lobbied hard for this plan which is predicted to cost $133 million and to take 15 years to complete.
My problem with this project is the likelihood that we'll spend all this money, irrevocably damage the river habitat, and then in 15 years when it's done, the northwest will not gain economic benefits from the project.
Taxpayers end up paying an awful lot to support industries that perhaps should be overhauled (no pun intended). For example, we currently subsidize wheat farmers so that they can compete with wheat prices abroad.
Forget for the moment the dubious ethics of this policy which actually encourages countries like Africa to import wheat instead of growing it, increasing the insecurity of their food supply. (Besides, if we create food insecurity, we can always sweep in like white knights to provide famine relief, thereby having nice "compassionate" soundbites to offset our aggresive foreign policies.)
If we do this dredging project, American taxpayers will be doubly subsidizing wheat farmers and other businesses which depend on tax breaks and subsidies to remain competive internationally. Instead of pouring all this money into the river, what if we used it for R&D to create products that could be sold for export without subsidies? Or that could be sold within this country?
¶ 10:45 PM 0 comments
When Bush was in town on Friday he promised $15 million for the Columbia River dredging project which has been approved by Oregon and Washington state agencies.
Despite the approval by state environmental agencies, many fisherman are convinced that this project will have a detrimental effect on Columbia River fisheries, especially the Columbia estuary crab bed. However, in the name of international trade, subsidy farmers and other business people have lobbied hard for this plan which is predicted to cost $133 million and to take 15 years to complete.
My problem with this project is the likelihood that we'll spend all this money, irrevocably damage the river habitat, and then in 15 years when it's done, the northwest will not gain economic benefits from the project.
Taxpayers end up paying an awful lot to support industries that perhaps should be overhauled (no pun intended). For example, we currently subsidize wheat farmers so that they can compete with wheat prices abroad.
Forget for the moment the dubious ethics of this policy which actually encourages countries like Africa to import wheat instead of growing it, increasing the insecurity of their food supply. (Besides, if we create food insecurity, we can always sweep in like white knights to provide famine relief, thereby having nice "compassionate" soundbites to offset our aggresive foreign policies.)
If we do this dredging project, American taxpayers will be doubly subsidizing wheat farmers and other businesses which depend on tax breaks and subsidies to remain competive internationally. Instead of pouring all this money into the river, what if we used it for R&D to create products that could be sold for export without subsidies? Or that could be sold within this country?
¶ 10:45 PM 0 comments
Iraq reconstruction:Bechtel and "chaos, corruption and incompetance"
So writes Christian Parenti in an article in the August 30 issue of The Nation. Apparently, there are serious problems with reconstruction work relating to sewage systems, water treatment, electricity supply, healthcare and education. And contractors such as Bechtel are not meeting their deadlines, including a deadline to restore potable water in urban centers within 12 months.
Bechtel is notorious for missing deadlines and going overbudget. They were sued this year by the state of Massachusetts; the state's lawyers called the Boston "Big Dig" project a financial shell game. Bechtel is also the company that tried to privatize water supplies in Bolivia and in San Francisco. I wonder if perhaps that is part of their vision for Iraq.
¶ 5:45 PM 1 comments
So writes Christian Parenti in an article in the August 30 issue of The Nation. Apparently, there are serious problems with reconstruction work relating to sewage systems, water treatment, electricity supply, healthcare and education. And contractors such as Bechtel are not meeting their deadlines, including a deadline to restore potable water in urban centers within 12 months.
Bechtel is notorious for missing deadlines and going overbudget. They were sued this year by the state of Massachusetts; the state's lawyers called the Boston "Big Dig" project a financial shell game. Bechtel is also the company that tried to privatize water supplies in Bolivia and in San Francisco. I wonder if perhaps that is part of their vision for Iraq.
¶ 5:45 PM 1 comments
Saturday, August 14, 2004
debunking "most liberal senator" lies
Click the link to read some analysis debunking the conservative spin machine's propaganda about Kerry being the "most liberal senator".
¶ 2:48 PM 0 comments
Click the link to read some analysis debunking the conservative spin machine's propaganda about Kerry being the "most liberal senator".
¶ 2:48 PM 0 comments
day 81/reason 20: Bush a waffler on small business support
The Cowboy in Chief was in P-town yesterday to share his enthusiasm for ripping up the Columbia River and to attend a rally billed as a "small business summit."
At the business rally, he invited a few local business owners to come up on stage and be fed leading questions about how wonderfully W has supported small businesses.
I found an article in a Bend, Oregon paper about W's actual decreased support for small businesses, including defunding the micro loan prgram and decreasing the Small Business Administration (SBA) budget by 15%. Here's a letter from a member of the House Small Business Committee deploring W's proposed 2004 budget for the SBA and basically accusing W's adminstration of not walking their talk.
Also, according to Smartmoney.com, the administration proposed radical cuts in the government's Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). The program is targetted at helping small manufacturers become more efficient and competitive. The budget ended up being reduced from 106 million to 39 million for this year. Georgia is one of the states hit by this budget cut. However, swing states such as Arizona are apparently being awarded funding this year. Hmmmm...
¶ 1:55 PM 0 comments
The Cowboy in Chief was in P-town yesterday to share his enthusiasm for ripping up the Columbia River and to attend a rally billed as a "small business summit."
At the business rally, he invited a few local business owners to come up on stage and be fed leading questions about how wonderfully W has supported small businesses.
I found an article in a Bend, Oregon paper about W's actual decreased support for small businesses, including defunding the micro loan prgram and decreasing the Small Business Administration (SBA) budget by 15%. Here's a letter from a member of the House Small Business Committee deploring W's proposed 2004 budget for the SBA and basically accusing W's adminstration of not walking their talk.
Also, according to Smartmoney.com, the administration proposed radical cuts in the government's Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). The program is targetted at helping small manufacturers become more efficient and competitive. The budget ended up being reduced from 106 million to 39 million for this year. Georgia is one of the states hit by this budget cut. However, swing states such as Arizona are apparently being awarded funding this year. Hmmmm...
¶ 1:55 PM 0 comments
day 82/reason 19: W v. individual rights
In case anyone is losing track, here are some of the areas in which Bush has tried to curtail your rights...
- privacy (trying to overturn California's new financial privacy law; IAO
- death with dignity (trying to overturn Oregon's law)
- marriage (wants to narrowly define marriage to suit religious conservatives)
- abortion (women retain control of their bodies? Not if W can help it.)
- military service (forcing soldiers to extend tours of duty due to poor pre-war planning)
- law (denied due process to US citizens suspected of terrorism links)
- political participation (requing some people attending Bush rallies to sign a W endorsement)
I'm sure there are other areas... drop me a comment if you have suggestions.
oh, and you'll be happy to note that W does support your individual right to be armed.
¶ 1:15 PM 0 comments
In case anyone is losing track, here are some of the areas in which Bush has tried to curtail your rights...
- privacy (trying to overturn California's new financial privacy law; IAO
- death with dignity (trying to overturn Oregon's law)
- marriage (wants to narrowly define marriage to suit religious conservatives)
- abortion (women retain control of their bodies? Not if W can help it.)
- military service (forcing soldiers to extend tours of duty due to poor pre-war planning)
- law (denied due process to US citizens suspected of terrorism links)
- political participation (requing some people attending Bush rallies to sign a W endorsement)
I'm sure there are other areas... drop me a comment if you have suggestions.
oh, and you'll be happy to note that W does support your individual right to be armed.
¶ 1:15 PM 0 comments
keyes = idiot
Did anyone hear the Fresh Air interview with Alan Keyes a couple of days back? The man is a lunatic. I can't believe that he's the best candidate Illinois Repubs could come up with.
I only caught part of the interview but when asked about how gay marriage poses a threat to marriage in general, he basically dodged the question and started talking about how the point of marriage is procreation and therefore gays have no reason to marry.
Does this mean that once people are past child-bearing age, they shouldn't be able to marry?
And since when did we decide that religious rules about marriage should be the basis for civil laws? I suppose when the Mormons take control of the country, they'll redefine marriage to include polygamy.
¶ 1:08 PM 0 comments
Did anyone hear the Fresh Air interview with Alan Keyes a couple of days back? The man is a lunatic. I can't believe that he's the best candidate Illinois Repubs could come up with.
I only caught part of the interview but when asked about how gay marriage poses a threat to marriage in general, he basically dodged the question and started talking about how the point of marriage is procreation and therefore gays have no reason to marry.
Does this mean that once people are past child-bearing age, they shouldn't be able to marry?
And since when did we decide that religious rules about marriage should be the basis for civil laws? I suppose when the Mormons take control of the country, they'll redefine marriage to include polygamy.
¶ 1:08 PM 0 comments
Bank One sucks...
A couple days ago, I received a notice in my mailbox that I had something waiting for me to pick up. I went into the Post Office (luckily there was no line), thinking that perhaps someone had sent me a package or that I forgotten that I had ordered something online.
But no - the clerk handed me an envelope that turned out to be a solicitation from Bank One to sign up for a credit card. Some jerk at Bank One/JP Morgan Chase (they merged July 1, 2004) apparently thought it was a great idea to put their marketing materials in a large manila envelope labelled "do not bend" so that they could be sure potential customers would at least look at their materials.
I find this to be shamelessly manipulative. I get several credit card offers a week that I already have to waste time hand shredding before I throw away. I certainly don't need to have my time wasted by having to go into the post office to pick up Bank One's marketing crap which could just have easily been mailed in a regular envelope.
The cowards didn't even include a phone number to call... a sure sign that their customer service is probably less than stellar.
I certainly won't be signing up for this visa or any from this company.
¶ 12:28 PM 0 comments
A couple days ago, I received a notice in my mailbox that I had something waiting for me to pick up. I went into the Post Office (luckily there was no line), thinking that perhaps someone had sent me a package or that I forgotten that I had ordered something online.
But no - the clerk handed me an envelope that turned out to be a solicitation from Bank One to sign up for a credit card. Some jerk at Bank One/JP Morgan Chase (they merged July 1, 2004) apparently thought it was a great idea to put their marketing materials in a large manila envelope labelled "do not bend" so that they could be sure potential customers would at least look at their materials.
I find this to be shamelessly manipulative. I get several credit card offers a week that I already have to waste time hand shredding before I throw away. I certainly don't need to have my time wasted by having to go into the post office to pick up Bank One's marketing crap which could just have easily been mailed in a regular envelope.
The cowards didn't even include a phone number to call... a sure sign that their customer service is probably less than stellar.
I certainly won't be signing up for this visa or any from this company.
¶ 12:28 PM 0 comments
GOP's big tent
~blahg-guy here to temporarily take over posting duties....~
One would think that the Bushies would be quick to welcome troops returning from abroad to Bush's events. Shedding of blood and serving the country and all that, especially in the name of a policy and worldview that has been proven a failure.
But not for this soldier:
¶ 8:36 AM 0 comments
~blahg-guy here to temporarily take over posting duties....~
One would think that the Bushies would be quick to welcome troops returning from abroad to Bush's events. Shedding of blood and serving the country and all that, especially in the name of a policy and worldview that has been proven a failure.
But not for this soldier:
"The president was visiting Mankato and Tim Walz wanted to see him. A teacher who has 23 years of service in the National Guard and who recently returned home from overseas, Walz wanted to hear his commander-in-chief.
He did.
But only after being threatened with arrest and subjected to a political interrogation. Welcome home, good and faithful soldier. You may see the president.
But keep your mouth shut."
Read the rest. It's appalling, yet not in the least surprising.
(Thanks to Eyeteeth)
¶ 8:36 AM 0 comments
Friday, August 13, 2004
surprise! W's tax cuts heavily favor the rich!
From Reuters, citing a report (to be released Friday) by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income...
According to the report, about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.
People in the top 1% of income will receive a tax cut of $78,460 this year, while people in the bottom 20% (who earn about $16,620 a year) will receive a cut of about $250. Makes sense why those rich folks are W's base.
¶ 12:23 AM 0 comments
From Reuters, citing a report (to be released Friday) by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income...
According to the report, about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.
People in the top 1% of income will receive a tax cut of $78,460 this year, while people in the bottom 20% (who earn about $16,620 a year) will receive a cut of about $250. Makes sense why those rich folks are W's base.
¶ 12:23 AM 0 comments
day 83/reason 18: federal interference in state issues
(Okay, I've somehow been extra busy the past few days and have been delinquent on my daily posts. Things should improve this week... Meanwhile, back at reasons to vote against W...)
NPR reported a few days ago about a legal battle in California over the state's new privacy law. Banks want to overturn the state's new landmark financial privacy laws. This means that not only do BofA and other banks want to be able to share detailed information about you to insurance or other companies they are affiliated with, they also don't want to have to inform you if they share info with non-affiliated companies.
All of this is in the name of "promoting affordable financial services," aka, selling your information for a profit so that other companies can bombard you with ads for their services based on their intimate knowledge of your financial situation.
Californians worked hard to put these privacy laws in place, and now not only are the banks fighting it, Bush has stepped in to urge the federal judge in charge of the case to side with the banks.
Now call me crazy, but I thought W and his gang were all about smaller federal government. But his administration seems to be interfering an awful lot in state issues. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act is another example of our meddling federal government. Oregonians have twice voted for this law, but because it doesn't square with the administration's religious beliefs, they set Ashcroft loose on the case to overturn Oregon law.
Interestly, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, let's put doctors, nurses and patients in charge of American medicine," he said.
Waffles, anyone?
¶ 12:11 AM 0 comments
(Okay, I've somehow been extra busy the past few days and have been delinquent on my daily posts. Things should improve this week... Meanwhile, back at reasons to vote against W...)
NPR reported a few days ago about a legal battle in California over the state's new privacy law. Banks want to overturn the state's new landmark financial privacy laws. This means that not only do BofA and other banks want to be able to share detailed information about you to insurance or other companies they are affiliated with, they also don't want to have to inform you if they share info with non-affiliated companies.
All of this is in the name of "promoting affordable financial services," aka, selling your information for a profit so that other companies can bombard you with ads for their services based on their intimate knowledge of your financial situation.
Californians worked hard to put these privacy laws in place, and now not only are the banks fighting it, Bush has stepped in to urge the federal judge in charge of the case to side with the banks.
Now call me crazy, but I thought W and his gang were all about smaller federal government. But his administration seems to be interfering an awful lot in state issues. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act is another example of our meddling federal government. Oregonians have twice voted for this law, but because it doesn't square with the administration's religious beliefs, they set Ashcroft loose on the case to overturn Oregon law.
Interestly, Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: "Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, let's put doctors, nurses and patients in charge of American medicine," he said.
Waffles, anyone?
¶ 12:11 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
campaign slogans
Found a good list of campaign slogans compiled at Relativepath.org and Skreed via Eschaton and Daily Kos. I've included my favorites below:
Bush/Cheney '04: Because you don't change horsemen mid-apocalypse
Bush/Cheney '04: Because you can fool most of the people all of the time
¶ 9:45 AM 0 comments
Found a good list of campaign slogans compiled at Relativepath.org and Skreed via Eschaton and Daily Kos. I've included my favorites below:
Bush/Cheney '04: Because you don't change horsemen mid-apocalypse
Bush/Cheney '04: Because you can fool most of the people all of the time
Bush/Cheney '04: Hey, look over there!
Bush/Cheney '04: If you ain't broke, we’ll fix that
Bush/Cheney '04: Less Tax, More Death
Bush/Cheney '04: Vote NaderBush/Cheney '04: We're not through with you yet
Bush/Cheney '04: Why settle for the Lesser Evil?
Bush/Cheney '04: It'll hurt less if you stop struggling
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier
Who would Jesus Bomb?
¶ 9:45 AM 0 comments
Bush's right hook
Check out This Modern World for a photo and original caption from the Yale 1969 yearbook of Bush apparently delivering an illegal right hook to a fellow rugby player. Also, here's a link to an LA Times editorial on W's "bad boy" image.
How about this as a campaign slogan:
George W Bush: still playing dirty after all these years.
¶ 9:37 AM 0 comments
Check out This Modern World for a photo and original caption from the Yale 1969 yearbook of Bush apparently delivering an illegal right hook to a fellow rugby player. Also, here's a link to an LA Times editorial on W's "bad boy" image.
How about this as a campaign slogan:
George W Bush: still playing dirty after all these years.
¶ 9:37 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
W bio
found this rather extensive Bush bio... pretty funny reading, and the pictures are good too.
¶ 9:02 PM 0 comments
found this rather extensive Bush bio... pretty funny reading, and the pictures are good too.
¶ 9:02 PM 0 comments
day 84/reason 17: Kerry's record
I already listed this one, but I think a candidate's record - not his looks, his father, or his money - is the best reason to cast your vote. Here's a link to Kerry's record at On the Issues.
While you're at it, check out W's record also. (no, not his arrest record.)
¶ 8:42 PM 0 comments
I already listed this one, but I think a candidate's record - not his looks, his father, or his money - is the best reason to cast your vote. Here's a link to Kerry's record at On the Issues.
While you're at it, check out W's record also. (no, not his arrest record.)
¶ 8:42 PM 0 comments
day 85/reason 16: crazy-making contradictions
Hypocritical, contradictory or doublethink may be good descriptions of the actions and beliefs of the W administration. I don't understand this ability - they are able to say one thing and do another so glibly that they can spin their actions so as to make them seem justifiable to a sizeable percentage of our population.
A classic example of this is the whole big government vs small government conundrum. Typically, conservatives prefer small government – they want gov to be as inobtrusive as possible on the lives of citizens, whether it's taxes, property rights or gun ownership rules.
However, this administration is actually a conservative's worst nightmare – from the Patriot Act and increased legal basis for invasions into our privacy, to a Medicare drug plan that makes seniors sign up to get paltry discounts (why didn't the government just send monthly or yearly checks to seniors to use as they see fit for their prescriptions instead of requiring them to sign up for plans that could change the approved drug list at any time? But I stray...). Our ballooning deficit in the name of regime change in another country is another example of big government and so is restricting women's rights to choose what they do with the bodies.
I don't know how W and Co can support these actions and square them with traditional Repub values. Or maybe they can't. They may have already gone crazy from the contradictory nature of their actions, which could explain why it feels like there are crazy people in charge of this country.
Hypocritical, contradictory or doublethink may be good descriptions of the actions and beliefs of the W administration. I don't understand this ability - they are able to say one thing and do another so glibly that they can spin their actions so as to make them seem justifiable to a sizeable percentage of our population.
A classic example of this is the whole big government vs small government conundrum. Typically, conservatives prefer small government – they want gov to be as inobtrusive as possible on the lives of citizens, whether it's taxes, property rights or gun ownership rules.
However, this administration is actually a conservative's worst nightmare – from the Patriot Act and increased legal basis for invasions into our privacy, to a Medicare drug plan that makes seniors sign up to get paltry discounts (why didn't the government just send monthly or yearly checks to seniors to use as they see fit for their prescriptions instead of requiring them to sign up for plans that could change the approved drug list at any time? But I stray...). Our ballooning deficit in the name of regime change in another country is another example of big government and so is restricting women's rights to choose what they do with the bodies.
I don't know how W and Co can support these actions and square them with traditional Repub values. Or maybe they can't. They may have already gone crazy from the contradictory nature of their actions, which could explain why it feels like there are crazy people in charge of this country.
¶ 8:32 PM 0 comments
great goss guns: doublethink
On further inspection of Goss's voting record, I see that he voted for decreasing the gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 day. Interesting... Somehow I thought the CIA was supposed to prevent crime. I'd think that maybe reducing quick access to guns might be part of that?
He also appears to be a pretty staunch supporter of the death penalty, yet opposed to abortion, and voted to make it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. So let me get this straight. It's ok to make gun access easier, but once someone gets a gun they better not harm a fetus or else they might get the death penalty? Does any of this make sense? Or is it just another example of Repub doublethink?
¶ 10:27 AM 2 comments
On further inspection of Goss's voting record, I see that he voted for decreasing the gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 day. Interesting... Somehow I thought the CIA was supposed to prevent crime. I'd think that maybe reducing quick access to guns might be part of that?
He also appears to be a pretty staunch supporter of the death penalty, yet opposed to abortion, and voted to make it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. So let me get this straight. It's ok to make gun access easier, but once someone gets a gun they better not harm a fetus or else they might get the death penalty? Does any of this make sense? Or is it just another example of Repub doublethink?
¶ 10:27 AM 2 comments
more about the mole
Following up with a story I first posted about on Sunday, here's a Reuters article with comments from intelligence experts about the repercussions of the mole outing.
And for more about intelligence (or lack thereof) here's an article about W nominating a new (Repub) CIA chief. Playing politics with intelligence? W??? Banish the thought...
Goss, a former CIA agent, has said that the outing of Valerie Plame is not worth a committee investigation. Methinks he was lobbying for his new potential job. Here's his official website, and info on his House votes.
¶ 10:10 AM 0 comments
Following up with a story I first posted about on Sunday, here's a Reuters article with comments from intelligence experts about the repercussions of the mole outing.
And for more about intelligence (or lack thereof) here's an article about W nominating a new (Repub) CIA chief. Playing politics with intelligence? W??? Banish the thought...
Goss, a former CIA agent, has said that the outing of Valerie Plame is not worth a committee investigation. Methinks he was lobbying for his new potential job. Here's his official website, and info on his House votes.
¶ 10:10 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 08, 2004
carpet-baggin' keyes
Funny, he complained about Hillary when she ran for senator from New York, but now he's moving to Illinois from Maryland to run against rising Democratic star Barack Obama. You'd think that if the Illinois Repubs couldn't find a suitable candidate from within their own state, they might just take the hint and give up.
¶ 1:01 PM 0 comments
Funny, he complained about Hillary when she ran for senator from New York, but now he's moving to Illinois from Maryland to run against rising Democratic star Barack Obama. You'd think that if the Illinois Repubs couldn't find a suitable candidate from within their own state, they might just take the hint and give up.
¶ 1:01 PM 0 comments
day 86/reason 15: lack of intelligence
An apparent mole in al Qaeda was outed recently, leading security experts to question our government's tactics. This story should be interesting to follow as it develops.
¶ 12:45 PM 0 comments
An apparent mole in al Qaeda was outed recently, leading security experts to question our government's tactics. This story should be interesting to follow as it develops.
¶ 12:45 PM 0 comments
day 87/reason 14: ethics
Another reason to vote the Repubs out of power in November is that although they are more than happy to give lip service to "values" this campaign season, it's clear that they are actually lacking in ethical standards.
I posted yesterday about the Louisian congressman who changed parties during the final minutes of registering for the election. Now check out this link about paid signature gatherings collecting signatures at a Bush picnic to put Nader on the ballot. Bush campaign people deny involvement but the gatherers were reportedly given a script in which they were to ask prospective signers if they had could "take a second to help President Bush," and were supposed to point out that without Nader on the 2000 ballot, Gore would have won. ¶ 12:28 PM 0 comments
Another reason to vote the Repubs out of power in November is that although they are more than happy to give lip service to "values" this campaign season, it's clear that they are actually lacking in ethical standards.
I posted yesterday about the Louisian congressman who changed parties during the final minutes of registering for the election. Now check out this link about paid signature gatherings collecting signatures at a Bush picnic to put Nader on the ballot. Bush campaign people deny involvement but the gatherers were reportedly given a script in which they were to ask prospective signers if they had could "take a second to help President Bush," and were supposed to point out that without Nader on the 2000 ballot, Gore would have won. ¶ 12:28 PM 0 comments
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Fox host obsessed with "Gay Days" at Disneyworld
Thanks to blahg guy for sending me this Media Matters link about Fox's Stuart Varney (substituting for Neil Cavuto) and his interview with Disney president Robert Iger. Varney can't seem to stay on topic -- Disney's new children's computer -- but instead interrogates Iger about a yearly event that occurs at Disneyworld.
¶ 2:36 PM 0 comments
Thanks to blahg guy for sending me this Media Matters link about Fox's Stuart Varney (substituting for Neil Cavuto) and his interview with Disney president Robert Iger. Varney can't seem to stay on topic -- Disney's new children's computer -- but instead interrogates Iger about a yearly event that occurs at Disneyworld.
¶ 2:36 PM 0 comments
safer, or not safe? (how to win, or not to win - is that the question?)
Prez today says we're "still not safe" (note that we had bad economic news yesterday), yet right after the Dem's convention he said that we're "safer". I love how he alternates from optimistic to gloom and doom, apparently depending on which way the political winds are blowing. Work it, baby...
¶ 1:25 PM 0 comments
Prez today says we're "still not safe" (note that we had bad economic news yesterday), yet right after the Dem's convention he said that we're "safer". I love how he alternates from optimistic to gloom and doom, apparently depending on which way the political winds are blowing. Work it, baby...
¶ 1:25 PM 0 comments
another ethically-challenged repub...
Ok, it's one thing to change parties. I've personally registered as Democrat, Independent, Pacific/Green, and I think even once as a Republican throughout my voting career. When elected officials do it, it's a bit more questionable, but still acceptable.
But for an incumbent to change parties during the final few minutes of the final day of qualifying for an election, leaving his former party without the ability to find a challenger, I call that reprehensible. Meet Representative Rodney Alexander of Louisiana. Of course, our misleader in chief gave him a call yesterday, apparently to congratulate him on starting his new career off on the right foot... by proving that he's as ethically challenged as many others in his new party.
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Ok, it's one thing to change parties. I've personally registered as Democrat, Independent, Pacific/Green, and I think even once as a Republican throughout my voting career. When elected officials do it, it's a bit more questionable, but still acceptable.
But for an incumbent to change parties during the final few minutes of the final day of qualifying for an election, leaving his former party without the ability to find a challenger, I call that reprehensible. Meet Representative Rodney Alexander of Louisiana. Of course, our misleader in chief gave him a call yesterday, apparently to congratulate him on starting his new career off on the right foot... by proving that he's as ethically challenged as many others in his new party.
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Friday, August 06, 2004
one more funny link
ok, I'm a bit off politics tonight, but for anyone who hasn't read any of the Neurotically Yours cartoons at IllWill Press, you've definitely been missing out. I recommend starting with "5 More Minutes."
¶ 10:03 PM 0 comments
ok, I'm a bit off politics tonight, but for anyone who hasn't read any of the Neurotically Yours cartoons at IllWill Press, you've definitely been missing out. I recommend starting with "5 More Minutes."
¶ 10:03 PM 0 comments
this land is our land
I don't know why I didn't find this hilarious cartoon sooner... check it out at jibjab.com.
¶ 3:17 PM 0 comments
I don't know why I didn't find this hilarious cartoon sooner... check it out at jibjab.com.
¶ 3:17 PM 0 comments
day 88/reason 13: Kerry's record
The best reason of all to vote for Kerry in November is his voting record. Two good articles discuss his record, one from the Washington Post, and one from The Orlando Report. Also here's an article debunking the "flip-flop" charges.
¶ 2:33 PM 0 comments
The best reason of all to vote for Kerry in November is his voting record. Two good articles discuss his record, one from the Washington Post, and one from The Orlando Report. Also here's an article debunking the "flip-flop" charges.
¶ 2:33 PM 0 comments
liberal ads please
Being new to this blogging thing (Kerry in 2004!), I just figured out that the ads at the top of the page (Kerry rocks!) are generated by google and linked to the blog content (John Edwards!). Kind of ironic that I'm not a conservative (democrat!) but the ad generating program must think I am (vote for Kerry!) because I use the B name a lot (Kerry!)
Wonder how many mentions of liberal politics, people (Kerry and Edwards!) it might take to change the ad content. I think I shall have to experiment and see! (Kerry in 2004!)
¶ 1:21 PM 1 comments
Being new to this blogging thing (Kerry in 2004!), I just figured out that the ads at the top of the page (Kerry rocks!) are generated by google and linked to the blog content (John Edwards!). Kind of ironic that I'm not a conservative (democrat!) but the ad generating program must think I am (vote for Kerry!) because I use the B name a lot (Kerry!)
Wonder how many mentions of liberal politics, people (Kerry and Edwards!) it might take to change the ad content. I think I shall have to experiment and see! (Kerry in 2004!)
¶ 1:21 PM 1 comments
political uses for terror alerts?
Thanks to Blahg Guy for sending me this link about the timing of terror warnings and political events. A lot of very interesting coincidences appear.
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Thanks to Blahg Guy for sending me this link about the timing of terror warnings and political events. A lot of very interesting coincidences appear.
¶ 12:57 PM 0 comments
Halliburton accused of fraud - say it isn't so!
Election-year tactics? I'll bet not... Check out the Reuters article about a new class action lawsuit against Halliburton.
¶ 9:07 AM 0 comments
Election-year tactics? I'll bet not... Check out the Reuters article about a new class action lawsuit against Halliburton.
¶ 9:07 AM 0 comments
At last, something we can all thank the WTO for
Reuters story here about the rise in China's adult-toy for export industry.
Ok, I know it's past my bedtime when the province name "Guangdong" gets me giggling like a 14 year old.
¶ 12:29 AM 1 comments
Reuters story here about the rise in China's adult-toy for export industry.
Ok, I know it's past my bedtime when the province name "Guangdong" gets me giggling like a 14 year old.
¶ 12:29 AM 1 comments
fight for whose freedom?
from Reuters, Bush's words as he signed yet another Pentagon spending bill (thank you greatgrandkids - hope you don't mind paying for this! Oh well, you don't get a choice, do ya!):
"With this legislation, America's military will know that their country stands behind them as they fight for our freedom and as they spread the peace," Bush told an audience including Pentagon officials and veterans.
Funny, I thought we were in Iraq to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. And I just love that W keeps pushing the tired old oxymoron of "fighting for peace".
¶ 12:14 AM 0 comments
from Reuters, Bush's words as he signed yet another Pentagon spending bill (thank you greatgrandkids - hope you don't mind paying for this! Oh well, you don't get a choice, do ya!):
"With this legislation, America's military will know that their country stands behind them as they fight for our freedom and as they spread the peace," Bush told an audience including Pentagon officials and veterans.
Funny, I thought we were in Iraq to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. And I just love that W keeps pushing the tired old oxymoron of "fighting for peace".
¶ 12:14 AM 0 comments
Thursday, August 05, 2004
this explains a lot...
From New Zealand, a report of Bush's latest malapropism ( or is it??? Hmmmmmm...)
¶ 11:52 PM 0 comments
From New Zealand, a report of Bush's latest malapropism ( or is it??? Hmmmmmm...)
¶ 11:52 PM 0 comments
day 89/reason 12: rummy
Since he's on my mind, I'd like to name Rumsfeld as another reason to dethrone Bush this year. He did a bad job with the Iraq war by not sending enough troops in the first place, and by not having an exit strategy. And he and Bush continue to fail to adequately support our troops, or to respect the fact that Americans don't really appreciate sending their children to fight in unnecessary wars.
¶ 11:34 PM 0 comments
Since he's on my mind, I'd like to name Rumsfeld as another reason to dethrone Bush this year. He did a bad job with the Iraq war by not sending enough troops in the first place, and by not having an exit strategy. And he and Bush continue to fail to adequately support our troops, or to respect the fact that Americans don't really appreciate sending their children to fight in unnecessary wars.
¶ 11:34 PM 0 comments
California: not just for blondes anymore
Apparently, someone in California woke up to the fact that they could do more than complain about Enron taking ratepayers' money - they could use the sun to generate power... amazing!
What's next, television shows based on real life?
¶ 11:24 PM 0 comments
Apparently, someone in California woke up to the fact that they could do more than complain about Enron taking ratepayers' money - they could use the sun to generate power... amazing!
What's next, television shows based on real life?
¶ 11:24 PM 0 comments
heh heh
Found this on Just a Bump in the Beltway via Cursor... thought it was amusing...
¶ 11:20 PM 0 comments
Found this on Just a Bump in the Beltway via Cursor... thought it was amusing...
¶ 11:20 PM 0 comments
voting machines eschewed by Florida Republicans
Check out this link with a story about a flier (pictured in the article) sent out by Florida Republicans recently.
¶ 12:39 AM 0 comments
Check out this link with a story about a flier (pictured in the article) sent out by Florida Republicans recently.
¶ 12:39 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
the only thing we have to fear... is Korean submarine nukes??
While we've been busy killing citizens of sovereign countries, North Korea has apparently been gathering the materials to build sea-based missiles that could potentially be used to attack the west coast of the US. I'm trying not to buy into all the terror warnings, but this makes me very nervous...
¶ 11:48 PM 0 comments
While we've been busy killing citizens of sovereign countries, North Korea has apparently been gathering the materials to build sea-based missiles that could potentially be used to attack the west coast of the US. I'm trying not to buy into all the terror warnings, but this makes me very nervous...
¶ 11:48 PM 0 comments
Bush and neo-conservatism
Very good commentary in New York Press today by William Bryk in which he describes clearly how the Bush administration's neo-conservative policies have departed from traditional conservatism.
¶ 11:29 PM 0 comments
Very good commentary in New York Press today by William Bryk in which he describes clearly how the Bush administration's neo-conservative policies have departed from traditional conservatism.
¶ 11:29 PM 0 comments
day 90/reason 11: do-nothing vp
Okay, so I already listed Cheney once, citing his conflict-of-interest ties with corporations as a reason not to vote for him + W, but here's another reason. Thanks to Atrios who posted this on Cheney's legislative record yesterday.
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
Okay, so I already listed Cheney once, citing his conflict-of-interest ties with corporations as a reason not to vote for him + W, but here's another reason. Thanks to Atrios who posted this on Cheney's legislative record yesterday.
¶ 11:09 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
day 91/reason 10: military records-gate?
Another reason to vote W out in fall: his military record (or lack of it). New article here with military personnel quoted about Dub's record.
¶ 10:14 PM 0 comments
Another reason to vote W out in fall: his military record (or lack of it). New article here with military personnel quoted about Dub's record.
¶ 10:14 PM 0 comments
Monday, August 02, 2004
hee hee hee
I heard about Islamica News on the radio show On The Media tonight. It's definitely based on The Onion in style... Pretty funny, too. ¶ 10:57 PM 0 comments
I heard about Islamica News on the radio show On The Media tonight. It's definitely based on The Onion in style... Pretty funny, too. ¶ 10:57 PM 0 comments
interview link
Very interesting interview here that Buzzflash did with writer Mark Crispin Miller last week. Some fascinating stuff about projectivity, doublethink, and Christian Reconstructionism. It's a bit long but definitely worth a read.
¶ 10:43 PM 0 comments
Very interesting interview here that Buzzflash did with writer Mark Crispin Miller last week. Some fascinating stuff about projectivity, doublethink, and Christian Reconstructionism. It's a bit long but definitely worth a read.
¶ 10:43 PM 0 comments
what Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc really want...
...is "American global leadership". Just in case you thought Iraq was an aberration, or that we were just trying to teach Saddam a lesson. Nope. It was part of the strategy that the Project for the New American Century cleary laid out in 1997 in their statement of principles.
¶ 10:28 PM 0 comments
...is "American global leadership". Just in case you thought Iraq was an aberration, or that we were just trying to teach Saddam a lesson. Nope. It was part of the strategy that the Project for the New American Century cleary laid out in 1997 in their statement of principles.
¶ 10:28 PM 0 comments
day 92/reason 9: Iraq = foregone conclusion
During questioning after a Rose Garden speech today, Bush said: "And let me just say this to you. Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
Of course he still would have gone into Iraq... the neo-cons in this administration had been wanting regime change in Iraq since before day one in office, and they certainly didn't let lack of intelligence get in their way. And don't expect them to ever apologize to the Iraqi people (or to US citizens for that matter) about the war. To this administration, it was the right thing to do and damn anyone who doesn't agree.
¶ 9:51 PM 0 comments
During questioning after a Rose Garden speech today, Bush said: "And let me just say this to you. Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
Of course he still would have gone into Iraq... the neo-cons in this administration had been wanting regime change in Iraq since before day one in office, and they certainly didn't let lack of intelligence get in their way. And don't expect them to ever apologize to the Iraqi people (or to US citizens for that matter) about the war. To this administration, it was the right thing to do and damn anyone who doesn't agree.
¶ 9:51 PM 0 comments
Sunday, August 01, 2004
day 93/reason 8: the resume
I haven't fact-checked this commentary, but if even half of it is correct, W's definitely got a pretty impressive list of accomplishments. I figure we should keep track of this stuff since he's applying to keep his job this year.
¶ 6:07 PM 0 comments
I haven't fact-checked this commentary, but if even half of it is correct, W's definitely got a pretty impressive list of accomplishments. I figure we should keep track of this stuff since he's applying to keep his job this year.
¶ 6:07 PM 0 comments
day 94/reason 7: religious hypocrisy
Maybe because it's Sunday, I'm kind of having a religion-themed day.
Hypocrisy in any form bothers me. I was pondering W's hypocrisy the other day when I heard him referred to as the Texecutioner. I'm wondering how he squares his support of killing criminals with his support of the pro-lifers? Is abortion murder, but capital punishment not?
Granted, an unborn baby has not committed a crime whereas a death-row criminal ostensibly has (unless the court didn't do its job, which definitely happens from time to time). But does that make the killing any better? Perhaps Bush is just being "compassionate" by killing the criminals instead of having them sit in jail for the rest of their days. But is he being compassionate by trying to deny women the right to choose what to do with their bodies? Hmmmm....
¶ 5:41 PM 0 comments
Maybe because it's Sunday, I'm kind of having a religion-themed day.
Hypocrisy in any form bothers me. I was pondering W's hypocrisy the other day when I heard him referred to as the Texecutioner. I'm wondering how he squares his support of killing criminals with his support of the pro-lifers? Is abortion murder, but capital punishment not?
Granted, an unborn baby has not committed a crime whereas a death-row criminal ostensibly has (unless the court didn't do its job, which definitely happens from time to time). But does that make the killing any better? Perhaps Bush is just being "compassionate" by killing the criminals instead of having them sit in jail for the rest of their days. But is he being compassionate by trying to deny women the right to choose what to do with their bodies? Hmmmm....
¶ 5:41 PM 0 comments
follow-up: know thy religious freak
Yikes.
Mr. Stanton is not only anti-gay, he apparently is rather old-fashioned in his beliefs about women. As part of "natural marriage," he advocates "as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her." Awwwww, how sweet! Maybe we should go back to having women obey men. I'm sure there's some bibical rational for that.
And by the way, homosexuals do experience discrimination. And the only reason why they haven't been denied the right to vote, or otherwise treated the same way blacks or other minorities historically have been is because homosexuals are able to blend into American society. They have been able to protect themselves from a lot of discrimination by staying in the closet. There are a lot of places in this country still today where coming out can have life-threatening consequences. (Anyone remember Matthew Shepard?)
¶ 5:12 PM 0 comments
Yikes.
Mr. Stanton is not only anti-gay, he apparently is rather old-fashioned in his beliefs about women. As part of "natural marriage," he advocates "as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her." Awwwww, how sweet! Maybe we should go back to having women obey men. I'm sure there's some bibical rational for that.
And by the way, homosexuals do experience discrimination. And the only reason why they haven't been denied the right to vote, or otherwise treated the same way blacks or other minorities historically have been is because homosexuals are able to blend into American society. They have been able to protect themselves from a lot of discrimination by staying in the closet. There are a lot of places in this country still today where coming out can have life-threatening consequences. (Anyone remember Matthew Shepard?)
¶ 5:12 PM 0 comments
compassionate fascism?
Portland Communique led me to the website of the "Defense of Marriage Coalition" and an Oregonian article about ballot Measure 36, a proposal to narrowly define marriage in the Oregon constitution.
According to the coalition's political director, the proposed amendment is not about gays but about "the definition of marriage, the importance to all of us of holding a standard that is best for society, best for children."
Obviously, the proposed amendment is about gays, and about the religious community's intolerance of homosexuality. In a link from the coalition's website, a Portland pastor's sermon notes (ironically entitled "A Clear Compassionate Stance Against Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage") describe homosexuality as unnatural, unhealthy, and "a sympton of fallen humanity".
Now, although I don't agree with this viewpoint, the pastor and other religious people certainly have the right to believe whatever they want. However, when they try to impose their viewpoint on others by limiting the ability for people to marry, I take offense.
I also think that their arguments against homosexuality just don't make sense. They disapprove of promiscuity (which they say is characteristic of homosexuals) yet also disapprove of marriage? Do they prefer for homosexuals to remain unmarried? Or (more likely) do they prefer that homosexuals just stop being homosexuals?
In an article listed on the Coalition's website, the author (Glenn T. Stanton) cites a Harvard researcher who notes that poverty is "primarily a result of family structure" and that kids in single-parent homes are more likely to experience poverty. However, the "compassionate" Portland pastor cited statistics from the Wall Street Journal that indicate that homosexuals tend to have higher than average incomes, more often hold managerial and professional positions, and to be college graduates. Wouldn't it follow then, that children might actually be better off in a married homosexual household? Not only would they have two married parents, but their parents might be better educated and better off financially than parents from other groups. In fact, it seems like homosexuals would be great candidates for adoption of kids. (I'll bet that homosexuals are probably much less likely to have abortions than heterosexuals - jeez, you'd think that the religious folk would be all for homosexuality!)
Now obviously, every family is different and every person has different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to parenting. But to assume that homosexuals cannot create good stable families is just another form of bigotry, and to not allow them to marry because of religious beliefs is discriminatory. I hope that Oregonians will have the sense to vote no on Measure 36 this fall.
¶ 3:17 PM 0 comments
Portland Communique led me to the website of the "Defense of Marriage Coalition" and an Oregonian article about ballot Measure 36, a proposal to narrowly define marriage in the Oregon constitution.
According to the coalition's political director, the proposed amendment is not about gays but about "the definition of marriage, the importance to all of us of holding a standard that is best for society, best for children."
Obviously, the proposed amendment is about gays, and about the religious community's intolerance of homosexuality. In a link from the coalition's website, a Portland pastor's sermon notes (ironically entitled "A Clear Compassionate Stance Against Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage") describe homosexuality as unnatural, unhealthy, and "a sympton of fallen humanity".
Now, although I don't agree with this viewpoint, the pastor and other religious people certainly have the right to believe whatever they want. However, when they try to impose their viewpoint on others by limiting the ability for people to marry, I take offense.
I also think that their arguments against homosexuality just don't make sense. They disapprove of promiscuity (which they say is characteristic of homosexuals) yet also disapprove of marriage? Do they prefer for homosexuals to remain unmarried? Or (more likely) do they prefer that homosexuals just stop being homosexuals?
In an article listed on the Coalition's website, the author (Glenn T. Stanton) cites a Harvard researcher who notes that poverty is "primarily a result of family structure" and that kids in single-parent homes are more likely to experience poverty. However, the "compassionate" Portland pastor cited statistics from the Wall Street Journal that indicate that homosexuals tend to have higher than average incomes, more often hold managerial and professional positions, and to be college graduates. Wouldn't it follow then, that children might actually be better off in a married homosexual household? Not only would they have two married parents, but their parents might be better educated and better off financially than parents from other groups. In fact, it seems like homosexuals would be great candidates for adoption of kids. (I'll bet that homosexuals are probably much less likely to have abortions than heterosexuals - jeez, you'd think that the religious folk would be all for homosexuality!)
Now obviously, every family is different and every person has different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to parenting. But to assume that homosexuals cannot create good stable families is just another form of bigotry, and to not allow them to marry because of religious beliefs is discriminatory. I hope that Oregonians will have the sense to vote no on Measure 36 this fall.
¶ 3:17 PM 0 comments
