The Shapeshifter

The Wasteland: Why Republican Can't Govern

2006-05-14T14:49:00.000-07:00

Just like the title says, this post will deal with a very curious aspect to our Republican-led government. It's kind of strange--though pleasing--to watch the Republican Congress/Executive flop about and eventually fail its founding principles as stated. Even its successes have been had by abandoning the overall goals of the movement. Just listen to Cato, that bunch of psychotic neoliberals, whine about how Bush has abandoned the Republican plan to 0 everything from roads to the water supply.

I'm going to be talking both about our national Republicans and, because it's a particularly good example, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. (Incidentally, as i understand it, that Wikipedia article has its details wrong--but the broad picture, of Pawlenty promising a fairy in every crockpot and a unicorn in every garage, is pretty accurate.) Pawlenty is a good example because, well, i'll get to that...

Anyway, it's not just Cato. We can see the "Republican activists" despairing as their party abandons them and all its principles for their opposite--bloated, useless government instead of smaller and ineffective government. Meaningless wars diminish our powers abroad and our standing with the world--no matter how much of a brave face they try to put on, i think by now basically all the Republicans who are paid any attention to secretly realize this even if they aren't allowed to say the Emperor is naked and ugly. And so on, and so forth.

This is particularly true with Pawlenty--who, as mentioned above, promised no taxation and a balanced government. Now that he hasn't been able to deliver on either the Republicans are starting to wonder--out loud, this time--what that terrible stench is.

And on our side, it seems that the Republicans were just lying about what they believed in a cynical attack on our nation. Of course, they mostly were--but certainly that does not explain everything. How can those who seem to be the most frothing-at-the-mouth Conservatives suddenly hand in their ideology for no apparent reason? Was it really all a plot? Or were they, instead, well-meaning tools used by the powerful and wealthy? What is their true nature?

The outsiders (that being: us) have been a little confused and frustrated by this for a 3, but now--finally--the Republican activists seem to be realizing they're only getting the scraps of power and not the whole seven courses, as they had dreamed they would.

There's another explanation, however, in that perhaps once the Republicans got ahold of real power they found their fundamental "values" useless. Their values are not values at all, but rather phantoms of their own minds. Consider Pawlenty's "no taxes" ideology. It got thrown out the window once he was actually in office and facing the difficult task of steering a state in the real world. No longer would imaginary pledges, economic fudging, and ignoring reason do the trick--you can't will away red ink, no matter how much you try.

I suspect that the reason Pawlenty was told to step aside for Norm Coleman is that Pawlenty is a true believer, but i think Coleman realizes he's lying for the wealthy and doesn't care. Pawlenty ended up publically humiliated--because, after all, nobody can admit the ideas are unworkable so it must be that Pawlenty is a traitor to the cause, and in no small way he is. He's willing to put the well-being of Minnesota above his ideology, one of the few true sins in the modern Republican movement. When he was faced with the real world effects of his policies he realized he would have to do something to address them.

The disaster that is Republican government is a direct result of their lack of values related to governing so they're left adrift. Since their values can't help them, they just do any old thing--maybe they just go along with the tax cuts for the wealthy and the willful ignorance of the icebergs ahead in our nation's path because they simply lack a mental framework that could analyze these things.

When they talk about how people with "no values" end up "back in the caves, flinging our excrement at one another" they're really talking about themselves! And it's not that they don't have values, it's just that their values--developed in fantasy-land--have no relation to the real world.

You can't end taxation and balance the budget, at least not in Minnesota, because in order to do that you would have to make such 0 sacrifices that people would burn you, and not in effigy. You can't force people to not have abortions by jailing doctors. All of this stuff is a complete fantasy. None of it has to do with how to govern. These values are the wasteland where political parties go to die.

I'll end with a quote from Orwell:

"[W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." -- George Orwell

Next time(s):
The Crito: What Would Socrates Do?
Intelligent Falling: A new "theory" 0 a religious explanation for "gravity" and its merits, including why it is a better theory than Intelligent Design. No, seriously.

Possibly after those:
Principles: So you suddenly don't want to have "values" anymore? (And after this post you might be right to be suspicious.) Where can an honest Democrat go to find a rudder in our modern political maelstrom? I provide what i think is a better way of looking at commitment to ideas than the Republican narrative of "values" and, of course, why i think it's better.

ADDENDUM:
Newt Gingrich seems to have figured this out. Have you seen his speeches lately? You should watch one or two. I'm not sure if they're all the same, but at least some of them are pretty impressive. He seems to have become a technocrat, if a nasty-style capitalist technocrat. He even has some interesting ideas(!)

For instance, he wants real-style debates where two people get together and actually talk to each other, not the audience(!!!)

Right here, right now, i will make a prediction: Newt Gingrich, barring some unforseen weirdness, will be the Republican nominee in 2008. The only candidate on our side that trumps him is Al Gore, although Feingold's weaknesses vanish into thin air versus a Newt opposition. (That is: a divorce and his religion.)

Why does Gore trump Newt? Even though Newt has some good ideas, they're still all in the vein of "The government! It sucks!" Gore doesn't have that sort of tunnel vision, although in Gore vs. Newt you should look for the Republicans to start minimizing all problems except the US government, which they will again state is the source of all badness in the world--specifically, its inefficiency is the source of all badness in the world.

Where am i going with this? Newt has realized Republican values are worthless. (Except, apparently, the whole Republican loathing of government.) So instead he has dropped them and is moving forward with a plan to technocratize the government.

Upcoming posts...

2006-05-14T02:46:00.000-07:00

This is mostly for myself, but i've got a bunch in the queue, so to speak.

Why Republicans can't govern: Their values suck.
The Crito: Socrates explains it all... kind of...
Intelligent Falling: A new theory that offers a religious explanation that counters gravity and its merits, including why it is a much more reasonable theory than "Intelligent Design". (No, seriously. I swear to God i will write this.)

There are also a few others. I need to write them down so i don't forget XP

Unfortunately, i have forgotten them at the moment. Curses. Maybe i'll remember and add them later.

The lie of "capital".

2006-05-06T18:52:00.000-07:00

First off, i know i haven't posted in a while. I sort of ran out of things to talk about, actually.

Well, i still have things to talk about, but i didn't have the time or concentration to work them up into posts. We'll see how well this goes.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing a bit lately, and just recently i had a very interesting talk with someone who has thought about it more than i have--he was one of those guys who really were hippies back in the '60s and '70s. We didn't explicitly talk about this, but he mentioned something that reminded me of this.

He suggested that our modern society has two fundamental problems (among many other fundamental problems) that go like this: we use many resources than are created in the same period of time and we create more garbage than we know what to do with. These problems are connected in that the first causes the second, but other than that they are basically not discussed--and when they are discussed they are discussed independent of one another. However, this person with whom i talked realized--and he realized back in the '70s--that the only way to solve either of these problems was to connect them at the other end: to use the garbage as the resources. We must either build things so that they will last for a long time or so that they can be broken down into easily reusable parts.

We also discussed how corporations "game" the economic markets in a number of ways. The extract money form the environment in the form of "natural resources" and sell it for a profit--the cost of this transaction gets shared among all people, but the benefit (in the form of cash-money) goes to a very small sub-set. For example, when mercury restrictions were lessoned a while ago companies could dump more mercury into rivers than they could previously, so they dump more mercury (rather than some other, less profitable action) and make more money. The cost (more mercury in rivers) hurts everyone, but the benefit goes to those companies which dump mercury.

In fact, most economists (particularly those of the "Conservative" variety) argue today that this is how we can tell the corporation is working. We might, borrowing John Taylor Gatto's description of schools, say that the modern corporation is psychotic because it has no conscience--but these people would say that the modern corporation is healthy because it has no conscience. If it followed conscience, they argue, it would not be following the profit motive and its sole duty to provide profit to its shareholders.

We can see this in the Wal-Mart strategy: by playing separate socio-economic regions and other groups against each other Wal-Mart makes money. We've seen this in comedy a lot: it's the same sort of thing as the person who takes money and trades it for something else, then for something else, then that for something else, and so on, until finally this person trades back into the original currency and ends with more than was started with. Now, an economist would say that this person probably deserves the extra cash because the goods have been redistributed along more efficient lines.

But we have a problem here. The corporation does not actually create the wealth that it acquires, just as in the above example of a corporation dumping mercury. It only looks like wealth has been created because of the redistribution away from the many to those who orchestrated this situation.

Now, the economist might object that the original explanation for this behavior and my objection here are compatible. In other words, that was is being "created" is efficiency rather than any actual product. But the plastic junk that these corporations peddle has little to no real worth outside the system in which it was created. It was invented from whole cloth by the corporation for the purpose of moving it around the and soaking up money in the process. The demand for the product was created mostly by the corporation itself--in the form of advertising.

I suspect we can see the ultimate example of this sort of behavior in a profiteering corporation which stokes the fires of war to create demand and then provide goods and services to both sides. Halliburton and friends are probably a step or two (but probably not more) below this, as they have not (as far as we know) directly designed the Iraq War for their own profit.

There exists another fundamental problem with how we view economies. Despite claims that prices of goods in a "free market" accurately reflect the "value" of a thing exactly the opposite is true: the price is not at all related to the cost.

Aside from the examples i have already used, let us consider another on natural resources: oil versus water. Now, let's assume we're dealing with two sub-sets of those: gasoline versus bottled water. Both of these have prices attached to them. Although there are mitigating factors that tamper with their prices (for instance, gas taxes and subsidies and widely available public waterworks) let us assume they do not come into play for this example. (I do not believe they have relevance here anyway, but i may be wrong.)

Although the relationship of prices between the two (let's say a gallon of water compared to a gallon of gasoline) might be one thing now it will be another later. In fact, over the long run, gasoline will necessarily become more expensive as compared to water.

How can i say that? Let's go back to the first point i made: bottled water can be easily recycled. The byproducts ("garbage", as i put it) of almost all of its uses (actually literally all, so far as i'm aware) can be fairly easily converted back into water or some other useful thing. The byproducts of use of gasoline, on the other hand, requires a great deal of effort to convert back into gasoline. In fact, so far as i'm aware, there is no way to do this directly. This means that our use of water does not affect the total amount of water in the world, but the more we use gasoline the less of it we have--or rather i should say: the less we will have available in the future. And once we run out of oil it doesn't matter how much water you trade in for money, you still won't be able to buy even a single drop of oil.

Some poeple suggest that this is not a problem, because the markets will solve it. Or that, if this ever starts becoming a problem, markets will naturally move into conservationist tendancies so that the corporations (etc) do not self-destruct. I would argue that, under our present systems, precisely the opposite will occur. A corporation should use more of a limited resource like gasoline, if it can, because not using more of it means someone else will get to use more of it and will gain the subsequent economic benefits. In fact, the "correct" action makes the problem worse and worse as the problem gets worse and worse.

Now, many object to my objections by saying that we ought not tamper with markets. The underlying argument being "Markets are natural, therefore tampering with them leads to unnaturalness (or ineffeciency)." Of course, this is self-evidently untrue: markets are only "natural" in a sort of synthetic manner. Just take a look at the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission if you don't believe me. Of course, those who buy into this sort of "do not tamper with markets" argument will point to examples of market-like behavior arising spontaneously in people--for example, "primitive" markets arising to barter for goods and services when existing structures collapse. Of course, that does not prove markets are natural. Another thing that arises when existing structures collapse is chaos. For instance, New Orleans post-Katrina. But the people who buy into the "markets = natural = intrinsically best form" argument do not suggest we should allow the "natural" chaos of a situation like Katrina to exist because its naturalness is intrinsically good!

So: what is the lie of capital? That "capital" is interchangable. That all things can be reduced to dollars and cents and those dollars and cents interchanged for other things. We even have a word for it: "fungible"--our dear Head Warmonger Donald Rumsfeld even believes people are basically fungible. The lie is that the price of water and price of gasoline says not only one thing about the relationship between water and gasoline but that it says the only relevant thing and that what it says it says accurately.

But corporations want to believe in the lie. They want to believe in the lie because, curiously, it allows them to justify their own self-interested behavior--they claim it's the right thing. It justifies their psychotic behavior.

In fact, many do not even recognize the problems i outlined above because they are not problems that can be described in purely economic terms. They simply do not have criteria to examine problems other than "it will cost you $X." So things like global warming, peak energy, etc are not only irrelevant but also: focusing on them would be wrong for a corporation!

Unfortunately for us, they are the ones who are wrong. Oil and water are not fundamentally interchangable. To put it another way: they do not mix.

Next time: Why Republicans can't govern.
Time after that: The Crito, wherein Socrates rebukes a guy named Crito for his (Crito's) principles and provides an important lesson for modern Democrats. I'll try to keep the stiff philosophy out of it.

My utter loathing for G. W. Bush

2005-11-22T15:10:00.000-08:00

Reaches new intensity.

I want to write a book.

On the odd-numbered pages there will be pretty, childrens' book-ish drawings of George W. Bush in comical scenarios. On the even pages...

"George W. Bush can't find Afghanistan on a map!" (Superimposed on a drawing of a confused Bush and map with clearly labled "Afghanistan" on it.)

"Meanwhile, an Iraqi mother cries and cries because her child is never coming back!" (Superimposed on a picture of an Iraqi mother cradling her bloody, badly mangled baby's corpse.)

"Our President can't escape a room full of reporters..." (Superimposed on a drawing of Bush looking puzzled at a locked door--alternatively, make him pushing hard on the door with a sign labelled "PULL" in big letters. The latter is not historically accurate, but it's hard to draw a locked door.)

"But Iraqis can't escape the every-day reality that Hell on Earth has destroyed every moment of their waking lives (and their non-waking moments, also)." (Superimposed on, say, something from Abu Ghraib or maybe this picture.)

For best effect the pictures should be full-page and brightly colored.

Judge Alito's Big Gay Day

2005-11-04T12:37:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago--although everyone seems to have forgotten about it now--President Bush nominated some guy named Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Sure, what with the impending collapse of Republicanism in this nation it's kind of hard to pay attention to even Supreme Court nominations. We'll have plenty of time later. Today is Judge Alito's Big Gay Day in my blog-world. It's his "coming out", you might say.

Judge Alito shares a common thread all of President Bush's Supreme Court picks have shared: a committment to gay rights. And we're not talking a committment to obliterating gay rights, here. Each of Roberts, Meiers, and now even "Little Scalia"--a man whose counterpart, Real Scalia, is willing to explicitly deny the Ninth Amendment in order to argue against, among other things, the idea that people can have sex in non-governmentally approved fashion--have all had solid records as one of the big contradictions in modern politics and public life: pro-gay Republicans.

Oh, yes. I know, "Scalito" is a crazy... he couldn't possibly be pro-gay, right?

Also, 30 years before the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex, Alito declared on behalf of his group of fellow Princeton University students that "no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden."

(From an ABC story on Alito's nomination)

Thirty years before Scalia said there was no Constitutional right to have sex because the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate such a right Alito was taking the opposite position.

Alito, back in 1971, also called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in hiring.

(Same source as above)

Alito wanted to end discrimination based on sexual orientation--now, thirty-four years later, sexual orientation is still only rarely protected in hiring and firing practices. Most Republicans argue against it because it somehow interferes with the Free Market Magic. (Just ask them, but don't ask them how that works!)

Even the Human Rights Campaign--a powerful pro-gay rights, pro-same sex marriage group--likes Alito.

The only question is: Will the Republicans figure this out or are they too stupid to see that, yet again, Bush is giving their sacred moose the finger? And not the index or pinky...

(Not the ring finger, either.)

Merry Fitzmas!

2005-10-28T11:41:00.000-07:00

Fitzmas is here and Father Fitzgerald has brought gifts! "Scooter" indicted on obstruction of justice charges(!!) resigns and the WH has no comment.

I know a lot of people are kind of dissapointed--Fitzgerald seems to have gone trolling rather than casting the wide net a lot of people were hoping--and i think this is not as good as a solid case against the whole White House, but i think Fitzgerald has a game plan in mind. My theory is pretty complex, so forgive the simplifications for here.

Fitzgerald's stated purpose is to investigate the now-infamous leak.

However, his indictment was of "Scooter" Libby and not on a leak charge but rather obstruction of justice.

During his press conference he said two things: that a grand jury was secret, but an indictment was public (reading between the lines--if my Fitzgerald Decoder Ring is up to the task--it seems like this is an important part to him and part of the investigation into the leak) and that the investigation was almost, but not quite, complete.

He didn't, that i caught, mention Rove, Cheney, or even say Novak's name. That, i think, is pretty huge.

I think he's missing something--we have seen him tease us with this stuff for a while now (he kept putting off the indictments, i mean)--and this looks like another move in his overall investigation and not the end result.

I think the comparison between fishing with nets and fishing with poles is fairly accurate, but Libby is the bait and not (as it might at first appear) the catch.

(Edit)

George W. Bush almost certainly knows--or could easily find out--what's really going on here by putting pressure on his staff, but he isn't doing that. Whether he's incompetent (which is certainly what he will claim--and incompetence is an impression he has been careful to give) or criminal the fact that the White House is still acting as though it has nothing to do with this ("No comment", indeed!) is damning.

The executive summary:

Bad: Fitzgerald doesn't feel he has a solid case against those who perpetrated the leak, at least not strong enough to indict at this time. He might, later, but we'll see.

Good: Fitzgerald seems to have a plan for extracting that information. A high-up is being charged on very serious grounds which do not let the rest of the administration off, either. (Remember he didn't get charged for the leak--he's not ultimately responsible, it seems--but rather for lying about the leak.)

Firefox 1.5 beta 2 review (and existential ranting)

2005-10-10T02:37:00.000-07:00

Okay, i haven't been writing much here lately. Skip the next few paragraphs if you don't like existential rambling.

Yeah, whatever. I have school (18 credits? What was i thinking! Oh wait, i know: "I'll just drop one of these and then i'll be down to something more reasonable". Note to self: "effects on sanity" has not, typically, been a factor in my decision-making process...) and i've been sick and stuff.

Plus, really, the stuff i've been blogging about recently (politics, politics, and oh yeah: also more politics!) has been sort of burning me out. (See: outrage fatigue) and even though it looks like some of the punk-asses are going to get at least some jail time (even if it's Martha Stewart "It's like I'm back in college!"-style jail time--as opposed to "Meet Jake. He murdered five people with his penis; he weighs 350 pounds, a surprising amount of that is muscle, and he's your new cell-mate." jail time) it's still pretty shrug-your-shoulders unexciting. The House, Senate, and White House are all under separate, though thematically related, investigations for illegal wrong-doing. Each has the potential to end some sick bastard's carreer--possibly, though very very unlikely, someone's life in the last case; of course, the death penalty "is for little people" who are very much unlike the ones involved here.

It's all very nice, but what more can i say? Not much. Commenting on the mechanical procedures--although fascinating to me--has never really been my "thing" and there's not really anything else here to say. Republicans still suck, mmm'kay?

Onward:

Skip to here, yo!

Okay: so i downloaded Firefox 1.5 beta 2 about an hour or two ago. It's very nice. Except for one problem. One problem that has plagued Firefox since forever. Perhaps you can tell what it is:

What do you mean "That's the way it's supposed to look!"? It's missing something. Something vital. See if you can spot it in this "corrected" version i made:

See it? Firefox needs--and has needed, as i noted, since forever--the ability to add an action from that dialog. I don't care if the adding is a bit advanced. It's gotta be there.

One bug that has plagued Firefox--at least, for me--is that when you click the "Always perform this action" option on the save options dialog (which, as i understand it, should add an action to the dialog i'm complaining about) it doesn't always work right. That's actually the real problem, but lacking an "add action" button also breaks the interface's intuitiveness: you have to go find a file to download to add an action, but you have to open up the dialog to remove or change one; these are two sides of the same coin and really, IMO, should be findable in the same window at least somewhere inside the browser.

So it's broken. It can't be that hard to fix (both making sure that "always" means "always" and also keeping the interface congruent) but nobody has done it.

There's another problem, although i fear i'm getting into the Holy Wars with this one, in the new save/open file dialog. Or at least there is in Linux. Actually, the problem is the dialog. They switched it from the one i like (the old Firefox) to the one i absolutely abhor (the new Firefox). For comparison:

The good dialog...

The stupid dialog...

Of course, the real difference between the two--or rather, the part in the so-called "stupid dialog" that i really detest--can't be seen. And, i must add, other than this one fatal flaw i really do like the stupid one better. It's just that this one flaw is a dealbreaker.

In the good dialog box i can type in whatever i want to find and it'll try to find a file in the current directory that has a name fitting that. For someone like me (i have over 200 files in my "home" directory) that is vital. Without that i end up scrolling through absolutely tons of files. I know i could organize my stuff more strictly, but there's really no sensible hierarchy that sticks out and so they all sort of get thrown together. It works when i can search it quickly by filename--like i can in the good dialog box--but does not work so much when i have to scroll through a list and manually pick out the one i want.

In other words: it takes a long time to do something really simple. Even with reasonably-sized directories it still takes me a significant amount of time more to work with them when i can't type things.

Now, there's probably more to this than i realize (and i don't just mean the justification for switching) but--here's the real thing--i don't really care. You see: i like the first dialog because it's easy to do stuff. I dislike the second because it isn't. The advantages of the second aren't precisely apparent to me because i don't use programs that use that dialog.

Okay? Well, sometimes i do. But the vast majority of the programs i use have the sane dialog. The others are either used only occassionally or do not really need a save/open dialog that often. Seriously. If i see that dialog, or others like it (hello, Qt) it's a mark against the program. Firefox, however, i use a lot. A whole freakin' lot, in fact. So the prospect of having to scroll through all those files a lot is really, really unappealing.

"So fix your directories, already!"

Here's the problem: it is easier for me to scroll through the list than it is to keep the directories clean. So, although i complain, i scroll. But for lack of a very obvious option i scroll. I say to you: is that right?

Anyway, wrapping it up:

I like Firefox 1.5, barring a couple issues (the pretty serious save/open dialog change, and of course the still-non-existent "add action" option in the download action dialog primarily) and crashes you expect out of a beta (the "sanitize personal data" thing, while cool, segfaults Fireox for me) but i'm reluctant to give it a ringing endorsement as an upgrade right now. Sure, new XML stuff and some CSS3 support is nice. Important, even. But when we're getting something like that--which is, let's face it, pretty optional at this point--over seriously obvious stuff...

Oh yeah, and did i mention the new save dialog interferes with the "add action" issue even more?

Here's hoping for the final version!

Conservatives Believe, Liberals Think

2005-09-23T13:28:00.000-07:00

Now, i know what you're thinking.

"Oh look, yet another post that deals with the philosophical differences between the primary political and cultural groups in our society..."

Well... uh, you're right. It is. Sorry 'bout that.

I figured people could probably use one, though. Recently things have been going even worse than before in the US and, barring a handful of new under-currents, it looks like the Aristocrats, Theocrats, and Corporatists will be able to keep their crooked fingers around the world's collective throat for a bit longer.

God help us all.

So let's step back and look at some big-picture stuff again. How do Republicans and Democrats differ in mode of thought? This has been discussed a lot and, i think, most people come to the same (or similar) conclusion even if they have to wrap it up in Conservative-speak in order to make sure their side comes out on top. (Maybe they should just embrace the fact that they're reactionaries with zero problem solving skills? Well, they probably wouldn't be very popular then...)

So here's my hypothesis:

Liberals believe, generally, that method is important. Just like your college introduction to logic: if the premises are legitimate and the reasoning is legitimate then the conclusion must be accepted as legitimate to the same degree--whether that conclusion is desired or not. The important part is not what a person believes, but how that person came to that belief.

This is partly why, as Armando was desparing of in that link earlier, Liberals tend to be coming from lots of different directions at once. They all have at least somewhat legitimate reaosning and so the diversity of opinion is inevitable.

If i had to sum it up in a sentence: Liberals believe "You are how you think."

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that it's what you think that's important. The method doesn't matter so much (and can be manipulated for the "right ends") as that you believe things that are "normal" and "right". If you don't think or act or live the approved manner you get tossed out of the club. (I was trying to stay as neutral as possible here, but it's really difficult. Onward...)

For Conservatives "You are what you think."

A Liberal believes in reason, the scientific method, and logic; tolerance is valuable because intolerance ends thought, debate is willingly entered by two parties in order to find the ideal resolution to problems or questions. Liberals believe in the future, therefore how we come to new belief (looking ahead) is important.

A Conservative believes in dogma, obedience, and conformity; tolerance is not particularly valuable and intolerance begins with disagreement (if someone disagrees on what to think there is no problem solving tool--"the other person is always wrong"), debate is one party trying to force another to accept the first party's "right belief". Conservatives believe in the past, therefore what we believe (specifically: that we follow others who have come before us) is important.

Liberals value external input because that input allows refinement of the thinking process.

Conservatives consider external input challenges to their belief system--as though the input was aimed at imposing someone else's "right belief" on the Conservatives in question.

I'm coming very close to "relativism vs. absolutism" or "utilitarianism vs. deontology" here--and to a certain extent that makes sense, but i feel that debate is separate but similar. In some ways i feel this is the over-arching meta-debate that shaped these philosophies, but that does not really make sense. On the other hand it certainly shapes how we, today, view those debates.

For a conservative, facts are things to be massaged or outright altered with the aim that they create "right belief" in others. A lie is as useful as the truth so long as the end result is "right".

For a liberal, facts are of the utmost importance--without correct premises (facts) no amount of reasoning will result in a reliably correct conclusion.

Conservatives see Liberals as enslaved by their own imagination--they do not view science or reason as being superior to anti-science or bigotry, but merely different. Some apparently are incapable of seeing distinctions between the two. Witness, for example, the very popular modern tendency to (when accused, quite reasonably, of racism or homophobia) fire back with "You Liberals are the real racists because you want to destroy the white race." Not in a "white supremecist" sort of way (not necessarily), but rather an inability to distinguish between the two positions and also the fact that the "correct belief" is quite different. All the science and reason and sociology in the world doesn't make a bit of difference because the end result is not the "correct" end result.

Liberals see Conservatives as living in fantasy-land, or in an immature and child-like state from which they never grew out of. The ultimate expression of the Liberal view, most likely, can be found in Suskind's reporting of the "reality-based community" remark:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Liberals tend to feel the above is a rather eggregious example of the "naked emperor" fallacy.

(It's my own name, as far as i'm aware, so don't feel bad if you haven't heard it before. It goes, although i'm thinking about writing more about it soon, briefly: just because something is internally consistent does not make it true. The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" fallacy is a sub-set of this and circular logic is related. It comes from the famous story in which an incredibly implausible, but internally consistent lie makes a whole nation feel very foolish indeed. The other thing i would note about this story that most people seem to overlook: everyone but one person was willing to believe, or pretend to believe which is practically identical in this case, something blatantly and obviously untrue.)

In any case, i believe i have at least outlined some of the differences i have been seeing more and more in US politics.

Bloody Ignorant Racists

2005-09-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

Yes, i mean you.

I would write a big long essay on precisely how stupid and wrong the author is but there's not really anything there for me to dissect. It's not that the author makes subtle logical errors, not that the author puts forth an argument that merits logical analysis, there's just nothing there to talk about. (Of course: with that in mind you know i'm going to ramble on for another fifteen paragraphs--but don't mistake that for the author saying something substantial, rather: the author has just accidentally exposed something i have been examining for a while and now i'm going to poke it for a bit.) The author just seems to believe that racism (and bigotry) is about being afraid of dark colors, or something. Wake up, pal: the majority of racism exists because a dominant group (a "tribe", if you really want) invents a new, essentially meaningless division in people and then kills (or whatevers) the "bad" ones. German Jews and German non-Jews were essentially indistinguishable (to the point where the Jews had to wear identification so they wouldn't be mistaken for the majority group) and the Hutus and Tutsis are (essentially) identical and the... well, i could go on forever. That the Serbs are different (genetically) is entirely irrelevant: racism was never about the actual genetics of the question (which was always a side-question, if related at all) and has always been about a dominant group ("tribe", if you desire) oppressing a minority group for the dominant group's gain. (Economic, social, political, geographical, or otherwise.)

The skin color argument (in the US) has always been a red herring; discrimination, bigotry, and racism against Africans and their descendents in the US has always been about "tribes". First it was the "Africans" who it was okay to enslave because they were different (and "their own people"--who were from a different "tribe", also--"sold them" to us). Then it was the "coloreds" who were "gentically inferior" (but--here's the important part--they actually never were and that line was only ever a post-hoc rationalization of pre-existing bigotry toward the "other tribe"). Now it's the "thugs and gangstas" who are "culturally inferior", but once again that's just an excuse to hate on people who the author (and the other Conservatrons) don't know.

And let's get serious here: that's really what this is about. It's a new resurgence in racism--back to the old pre-segregation roots--disguised as social commentary. Are gangs and kids with no parents (not necessarily, mind you, because the parents don't care but rather because single moms can't really take care of kids and hold down the 3 jobs required to "make it" under Republican government) problematic? Yes. But do not mistake that, as the author does, for entire groups of people. Do not take this or that example and use that as a stereotype for the entire group.

Contrary, and quite the opposite, to the author's claim: race has everything to do with it.

It's just not the kind of "race" the author wishes it were.

So the author continues talking about "tribes": specifically that "his" tribe, made up of all sorts of different people he points out, is "good" and "moral" and "just" and so on and that "those people" and their tribe are vicious and savage and evil and (most importantly) looters and thieves. He seems to be under the delusion that this backs up his assertions when it is the height of irony. His "tribe" is, presumably, wealthy or at least wealthy in comparison to the poor of New Orleans--i doubt, though certainly i do not know, the author has ever had to steal bread and water in order to live to see tomorrow but he certainly seems interested in throwing other people (people, i might add, who are under considerably worse circumstances than normal) in jail for doing just that. Maybe he wants thirty years on a chain gang, maybe only fifteen. He certainly seems to buy into the "neo-Javert" notion of law--a notion adopted more and more by Republicans (and even Democrats, much to my consternation) these days although that's a separate issue.

But the author clearly has stereotypes and uses them. He sees looters on TV and assumes everyone there is guilty, he hears of murder and rape in what could charitably be described as "Hell on earth" and assumes that this somehow speaks to some moral defect or personality trait shared by all those survivors but not by him or his friends. But of course he doesn't extend that stereotype to those around him (who it would otherwise fit) because he can see by opening his damn eyes that it's not accurate.

I suppose in this way we have made progress. As compared to, you know, 1800 or so. You see: he sees that those around him are much like he is--smart, well-meaning, hard-working, and imperfect but honest: much unlike he dreams those in Lake New Orleans to be. "So," he says, "It's not about race! It's about culture!"

This argument has been gaining steam, as i believe i have pointed out in the past, among Conservative circles looking to start the old "blame-the-[minority]" game up again now that the fire of the 1960s has more or less died down. "Personal responsibility" is another salvo in that same effort and is, in fact, related. (I would like, here, to take a detour to examine this but will resist the urge.) Of course, this argument (like the argument from genetics popular in the 20th century) is merely a justification for previously held beliefs.

What the author either ignores or does not realize is that there were both heroes and villains among the survivors in New Orleans. Some murdered, raped, and plundered--others organized, protected, and "looted" essentials for continued life. The stories about those "thugs with guns" the author frets about getting together and commandeering a bus to drive survivors out of New Orleans, or ones about breaking into WalMart to get precious water and food (sometimes with the outright support of the police, mind you) in order to save lives. While--simultaneously--those whom the author would, i suspect, place in "his tribe" who were supposed to be in charge of helping people sat on their thumbs and held repeated press conferences about how "America is just about to turn the corner with disaster relief!" while doing nothing of substance.

The author, in fact, flatly assumes "his tribe" would behave in a superior fashion but provides no arguments or evidence to support this; and no, anecdotes are not evidence. Do you think--even for a minute--that if you stuck 10,000 comparatively wealthy, white men with sticks up their butts (a'la our author) into a single building and then ran it over with a hurricane things wouldn't degenerate pretty damn quick? Well, it's a hypothetical: but if i were the betting type i know where my money would go.

Others--presumably more "his tribe" than the "New Orleans poor fucker" tribe--didn't really respond with peace, kindness, and loving understanding themselves; instead blocking refugees from the convention center (who, remember, were getting absolutely nothing from anyone until late in the week) from crossing a perfectly dry bridge into the nearby Gretna by police, at gunpoint. These police, the accounts go, did not want "that kind of person" in their city. "That kind of person" being a lawless, looting refugee. They apply the same type of stereotypes the author does and, as a result, people die.

So who has the high ground now?

The author then goes on into an incoherent discussion of "pink" vs. "grey" personalities, taking a brief stop at the end to worship the altar of machismo and full-auto guns and a trip into slamming Hollywood (the idle-middle-class bourgeois to the Republican's Party's would-be aristocrats) with a bizarre fixation on how they're "not as good as" his tribe. (To which i say: the author wasn't down there in New Orleans--with or without a camera crew--so who is he kidding?) The author, in fact, asserts there's some sort of inherent moral good in carrying around guns with the intent of protecting people. Bullshit. This is just the "freedom emanates from the barrel of a gun" argument all over again. "Freedom" does not emanate from the point of a gun, but rather: red-hot death "emanates" from the point of a gun. Did the national guard troops go down to New Orleans to shoot people "looting" life-giving water? Doubtful, but that ended up happening. Did they go down with the intent of censoring the press? No, but that is what happened. Did they go down there expecting to be reprimanded if they actually did the humane thing and rescue people? No, but i know of at least one case of that happening.

Simply put: the soldiers and police are no more and no less inherently moral than the survivors--though they are more "white"--and it's silly to treat them that way. Much like on the side of the survivors: the police and troops had both heroes and villains among them, but nothing about sticking an assault rifle in either of their hands made either group automatically moral or culturally superior or immoral or culturally inferior. Of course, if we want to talk about violence and a culture of brutality: there are currently (or so the nice man on The Daily Show said earlier tonight) more guns in New Orleans than there are in any geographically similar area on the planet. And, in case it isn't obvious, the survivors don't have most of them.

The author, furthermore, assaults "racial politics"--although this remains undefined, much like everything else, i can guess where he's going: if i say "80% of the survivors of New Orleans are black and this did not happen by accident" that's probably "racial politics". Now, the author suggests he's interested in shooting people who engage in this sort of "politics" (and then regretting it) so i am forced to wonder: does he really think the gross disparities between black and white skinned people in New Orleans occurred merely by chance? That, somehow, the law of averages took a fucking hike and black people got bizarrely unlucky? Does he purport (and i know he does, but bear with me) that it is the "culture"--the same culture which he belittles without knowing anything about, or at the least, not providing any argument about--that hurts them? In other words, is he saying the only reasonable explanation for this disparity between black and white skinned people in New Orleans is that black people don't follow the rules for "his tribe" and that if you disagree with him: he'll shoot you dead? And does he expect us to believe, based on this reasoning, that bigotry or prejudice played no role in the plight of the Hurricane Katrina survivors?

Do i look like i was born yesterday?

The author then goes into a long, drawn-out repetition of the old "HATEFUL, MURDEROUS ASSHOLES WITH GUNS KILL FOR YOUR FREEDOM" meme. At this point even i am having trouble seeing the relevance to the original part--and specifically, that original part is the part i am interested in. As though it's us--the "Democrats", or "sheep" as the label gets applied--who want to hide away from anything related to violence and it's "Republicans" (or "sheep dogs") who bravely confront it and make the world safe...

...Huh? In what universe? In the one i live in the Republicans, not the Democrats, are the ones who want to know as little as possible about what's actually going on--a phenomenon the author of this post engages in even while he claims the opposite--and the Democrats (more often, at least--it would be nice if the Democrats grew a spine, but if we're working with the metaphor as presented the Democrats are a toothless old sheep dog ready for retirement, the Republicans are the wolves, and everyone else is lunch) who are demanding things come out into the open.

Just take a look at the difference between investigative methods recently proposed by the two parties: The Republicans want (and get) a closed-door non-investigation controlled by Republicans and used to enhance the political power of their leader. The Democrats want a real investigation (when it's not them who totally fucked everything up it's much easier to ask for heads to roll, but again: do not mistake this for cowardice or hypocrisy) to ensure the problems are addressed.

Which one of the two is working to fix the problems that have revealed themselves recently--The ones so coolly dismissed by the author?

I'm going to quote this next part because it's really quite bizarre:

And in Louisiana last week the governor cried and the mayor blamed everyone but himself, and half the country bought every single stinking Pink lie about global warming and missing National Guard units and blamed the sheepdogs while the wolves raped and pillaged and looted everything in sight.

So--let me see if i get this straight--the one explicitly and officially in charge of protecting the American People in time of national disaster totally abdicates his duty (i don't care who or what group of people had that responsibility: they work for Bush or are Bush himself and abdicate they did) and the author purports that quite the opposite happened? That their failure was actually not their failure and that this proves they are somehow guardians of the people?

I'm starting to see why this "pink"/"grey" distinction is so incomprehensible: it has to twist impossibly in order to fit the results desired. But it doesn't--and can't, the speed limit (as noted) is still 186,000 miles per seocnd.

And now i'm being told that, as our ice caps and glaciers melt more (a process that has been underway for some time now and is evinced by photographic evidence so clear even someone so muddled as our author could not deny it) and subsequently raise sea level which sinks more cities below sea level we're not going to see a repeat of the New Orleans flood? Because "global warming" is a lie?

And this is the same person who regards tears for the dead as deriliction of duty.

I'm starting to see why Bush's zombified approach to disasters plays well for these people.

Well, here’s the news flash: Nagin isn’t incompetent because he’s black. He’s incompetent because he’s incompetent. Condoleeza Rice is black. [...] Rice and Powell are two of the most competent people on the planet.

Well this is sure funny.

It seems Nagin isn't incompetent because he's black--he's incompetent because he's a Democrat. I don't know, maybe that's not a fair assessment of the author's views. But the author neglects to enlighten us as to what precisely was wrong with Nagin's performance.

In contrast: let me explain why Condoleeza Rice does not deserve to be described as anything nearing "competent": while people were drowning (i'm sure the author has heard this line before) she was shopping for shoes and watching Monty Python plays. Now, i can hear the whining already ("Oh NO! She didn't have any responsibilities in the disaster at all and you're an evil liar for even considering!") but as foreign governments begin offerring aid--some of it quite substantial, including an entire communications network to replace the fallen one in New Orleans offerred by the Canadians--Rice, Secretary of State, was not only not on the job but decidedly elsewhere. Nagin, meanwhile, not only didn't go on vacation while his city drowned but he was actually out there trying to make things better. Not very effectively, but he was at least doing his job.

In short (Hah! I kid!): the author is a racist fuck. The author likes killing people and doesn't care about responsibility for his tribe--only for those others whose tribes are far away. He feels this way because feeling otherwise (in other words: that his position in life is not a result of his "hard work" and "personal responsibility" but rather a gigantic global lottery in which he hit the jackpot and billions of others lost) is unbearable. He wants to believe that the people who make his life of comfort possible are inherently good people and on the side of justice (against those who would prey on the weak) and that they are infailable. He, apparently, does not want to discuss situations in which the "grey sheepdogs" guarding the "pink sheep" go rabid or fail to protect their charges from the "wolves". He wants to believe all that is needed is unquestioning loyalty to the powerful and willingness to kill, kill, kill--that if that's how things are run then everything will always be fine. He can't handle complexity bceause complexity introduces doubt and failability and those are poison to his absolutist/safety-at-all-costs view of the world. He wants badly to be a "sheep dog"--something he appears to admire--but cannot tolerate that the job is more complex than marching around with assault rifles and therefore can do little but sit on the sidelines and cheer... and pretend he's "part of the team" whenever possible.

When his "tribe", when his "sheepdogs" fail spectacularly and let the wolves have tasty mutton dinners he refuses to entertain the notion that they were at fault--that they abandoned their duty to the "pink sheep" they are responsible for protecting--and instead blames others who he derides as too "pink" to get the job done. Because he, himself, is too "pink" to deal honestly with the truth of the matter.

What i'm getting at is that i have met his enemy and it is him. He is the "pink sheep" who lives in denial while others go around making the world livable for him. But it's not just enough for him to be his own enemy: he's going to make sure the rest of us suffer, too.

See, i can even refute his assertions using his own system. But i categorically reject his systems and methods of thought as they are inadequate to describe the fullness of the situation we are facing today.

If he wants to look at what Al Gore would do, as opposed to George Bush, let's look at what Al Gore is doing. To wit: Al Gore has a private plane which he is flying in and out of New Orleans, in direct contravention of the orders of the most powerful military on the face of the planet, and rescuing the survivors of Katrina personally. George Bush is hiding from the big, mean reality and trying to figure out who he can get away with blaming for this whole disaster.

I'll leave the rest of the exercise up to my readers.

(Edit: So i'm reading DailyKos today and come upon a story that made me think of this post: specifically the line contained within the story:

Something bad is going to happen, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

This is a sort of "grey" thinking that the author has categorically ascribed to Republicans and explicitly asserted the Democrats were constitutionally incapable of entertaining. As he puts it:

The Pink Tribe motto, in fact, is the ultimate Zen Koan, the sound of one hand clapping: EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL

[...]

The Grey Tribe motto is, near as I can tell, THINGS BREAK SOMETIMES AND PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE MY BRIDGE.

Incidentally: he's wrong about the Zen Koan part. "Special" does not necessitate statistical superiority, although he seems to believe otherwise.)

Bloody Knuckle Nation

2005-08-04T21:52:00.000-07:00

So Bush admitted his strategery with respect to "terror" (that is: a "global war on terror") is a failure and that my position, and the Liberal and French and Democratic and so on position, was really the right way to go all along.

Then some terrorist guy releases a video where he says "Hah! You'll have to leave Iraq EVENTUALLY! And when you do? It's ours, motherfucker!" Not in those words, mind you, but something to that effect. Now Bush is back to saying we're at war and of course it's a war and war war war is the only way.

This flip-flop might seem confusing--"Just when the administration was starting to show signs of mental activity he freaks out?"--but let me give an analogy...

Back when i was in high school (a time growing frigteningly farther and farther away...) some of the people with "tough guy" personas would play a game they called "bloody knuckles". This game, for those who have never attended high school/who attended high school in regions where it was not popular, essentially involved a contest of wills where knuckles were struck repeatedly until one of the contestents surrendered. And yes, there was blood involved at times. That was really all there was too it: "I'm a tough guy and I'm tougher than any of you! If you think otherwise I'll make you cry like a little pussy!"

Now, in and of itself that's a fairly benign (though painful and kind of silly) ritual to prove your will. Lots of different cultures (even ones as desolate as high schools) have rituals about proving you can tolerate pain or whatnot. Heck, there's also this thing called "giving birth" that--although i don't know first-hand--i'm told hurts like nothing else.

But when it's a nation playing the game gets sick.

When Bush says "bring 'em on" on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, when Bush shrugs his shoulders as terrorists and rebels swipe a couple hundred tons of high explosives out from under his nose and use them (presumably) to blow up American troops, when Bush gives political opponents or just random people the finger in what is supposed to be a casual manner but comes off as "endlessly rehearsed", when Bush asserts that--when highly trained terrorists and rebels start a civil war in Iraq--he meant to do that and it was his plan all along (the morally bankrupt "flypaper theory") he's saying "Look at me! I'm a tough guy! I can watch my troops die and not even flinch! I don't even give a shit!"

And his supporters say "Look what a tough guy he is! He won't give them an inch even though his knuckles are bleeding!"

But the reason he doesn't give a shit is because it isn't his knuckles that are bleeding.

He holds up other people's knuckles to get struck while he struts and smirks and sneers (and flips the bird) and people cheer. But when it's their turn to fill in for him they'll have a whole new perspective.

This is also where the right-wingers' dismissal of the Rove issue comes from: "Look at the President! He's such a badass he doesn't even FLINCH even though his knuckles are bleeding from Iraq! You think he'd be afraid to fire some stupid consultant? Hah! He'd have him executed and pull the trigger himself if any of it were true! But he doesn't give a shit about that and he doesn't give a shit you pussy dummycrats are crying about it either!"

Of course, when it was his turn to get bloody for the country--and for the people in power, just others now are getting bloody for him--he ran and hid in a place where nobody was liable to hit me and said "Hah! Just one of you try to do it! I'm ready for you motherfuckers--if you dare!" (No accent because, at this point, he had not yet adopted it!)

He's got nothing except power. No guts, no courage, nothing. He's a spineless, pampered aristocrat in the old style. He talks big but--like the much-vaunted Samurai of Japan, who were cut down by a bunch of well-trained peasants with sticks--he doesn't have any idea what the reality of the situation is. I think i say that--that Bush literally lives in a haze where nothing is real and there are no consequences--quite seriously, too. He's still playing bloody knuckles--this time with a toothless, rotting tyrant and ruthless terrorists on the other side--but when he shrugs as the bodies fall it's not because he's Just That Hardcore; rather: because he doesn't feel a thing.

Hannity, Hannity, Hannity...

2005-07-02T01:52:00.000-07:00

RANGEL: He already intended to knock off Saddam Hussein before 9/11, all of the people that worked in the cabinet….

HANNITY: Is that what you believe? Wait do you believe that?

RANGEL: Do you know about the Project Of A New American Century?

HANNITY: Do you believe that?

RANGEL: There’s no question.

HANNITY: Wow….wow….wow. That’s a conspiracy theory.

HANNITY: Hey Congressman Rangel, we’d like to thank you for the conspiracy theory portion of the show.

RANGEL: Conspiracy is what you said, I’m saying the president wanted to knock off Saddam Hussein before 9/11.

HANNITY: Alright we appreciate it, next time we’ll get some evidence.

No matter how hard you try... well, you're just not Bill "Oh Really".

(Taken from here)

Bush v. Bush

2005-06-30T14:12:00.000-07:00

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- Governor George W. Bush

Yes, Gov. Bush. "It is important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is" indeed.

More here.

Conservatism, Wars of Aggression, and Economics

2005-06-21T07:22:00.000-07:00

Before [1990], "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred [...] to people who oppose racism.

I'm not going to comment much, here. You can find the full paper on the UCLA's website.

I did not believe, only a little while ago, in the assumptions made here. Certainly i understood the similarities between the Conservative movement, but i did not understand the direct heritage it had in aristocracy. Lately, however, i have been paying more attention--now the "Aristocrats" makes up one of the three pillars (alongside "theocrats" and "corporatists") in my Republican Party analysis--and have come to change my mind.

Let me give you a real-world example to illustrate the article's accuracy.

Aristocracy thrives on deference, but direct deference to a person is seen as vile--at least by some--and people balk at that sort of setup. So instead, taking Walmart as an example, we now have deference to institutions and corporations. This deference to Walmart as a corporation, especially by its employees, manifests in one of the many rules about behavior: when travelling on the company dollar all employees are to travel coach, stay in the cheapest motel rooms possible, and if more than one employee is travelling at a time to stay in the same room. The stated reason is to save money--and this is, indeed, what the practice accomplishes. In a show of "good faith", though, even the executives follow this practice. The implication being that the deference is to the corporation--putting the good of the corporation above your own--and not to some group of aristocrats.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In order to understand why you must consider where the money goes. The benefits of this practice are savings and those savings go somewhere--but where? Not, certainly, to the Walmart employees. Not, contrary to what a person might guess, to the customer. They go to the same place all savings in an entrenched corporatist/aristocratic organization go: to the organization itself and to those who control the organization. Those who control the organization, not coincidentally i assure you, are also often those who own the organization. Those same executives who submit to the same cheap travel accomodations are not submitting to the same effects--in fact, they get it better despite what you might intuitively believe (that being that they have it worse because they give up more). They get their slice of the savings--and at the least, they get their slice first and before the employees at-large--and even their own cheap accomodations turns into cash for them. However, the employees gain nothing directly from this bargain. So even though it might appear as though the situation is a case of collective sacrifice for the good of the whole the situation actually is a collective sacrifice for the good of the top few percent--the aristocrats.

In fact, even if this situation did not exist to enrich the already fabulously wealthy it would still not be a situation of collective sacrifice for the good of the whole. Collective sacrifice for the good of the whole would look more like employees getting the money saved back in their paychecks. Even at best this is collective sacrifice for the good of the corporation--not inherently problematic, but certainly not very good for the employees.

For those who don't know, the Washington Post wrote in respones to the Downing Street Minutes that they were not news because everyone already knew everything they contained--importantly, though the WP carefully avoided mention, the DSM proving that Bush had decided to go to war prior to figuring out a reason and also that he in fact began that war prior to recieving congressional authorization. This is bullshit. First of all, this is proof--positive evidence and not mere speculation. Secondly it is certainly not something "everyone" new, and certainly not something the news was reporting on. Thirdly, i think perhaps the largest shocker of all: it implies the Washington Post knew the war was a fraud from the very start and probably before but pretended it was legitimate. That, if true, would be treason so far as i'm concerned. In the real definition of the word.

Finally: i'm going to tackle an issue of economics.

Recently i've heard a lot of talk from the usual suspects--those same aristocrats mentioned above, in fact--about how we must all sacrifice for the good of the corporation for if we don't we will be incapable of competing on the global stage. Specifically, and this should not surprise you, they are saying wages are too high and that minimum wage hurts companies' (especially the much-praised but more or less ignored "small business") ability to compete with companies that get their labor from India or China or various other places.

It should not be a surprise that i think this is bullshit.

Let me start out my exlanation with a truism: America cannot compete with India or China strictly in terms of wages without sacrificing a great deal of its prosperity.

Oh sure, the elites--the corporatists and the aristocrats and probably the theocrats also--will do fine as they always do. Better than ever, i'm sure, as debt-slavery (born into life with the debt of your parents, never work it off, pass it on to your children) would be a great boon to them. But the sort of prosperity people associate with America? Gone. No science, no technology, no infrastructure. Nothing. America would look, in a generation or two, like China.

China has a comparative advantage in terms of strict dollars-per-hour cost of their labor. If we try to compete with them we will literally be giving up every advantage we have in order that we could be still-not-really competetive with them in terms of strict dollar-per-hour cost of labor.

In other words, we're trying to make our weakness equal their strength. In terms of strategy: the absolute worst thing we could do.

In fact: i believe the corporate "rush to the bottom" on wages has only hurt--and in no way helped--the corporations. Of course, it has enriched the aristocrats and corporatists and that was the real goal all along.

So how, precisely, does America stay on top? I don't actually know.

Yeah, it's a tricky problem and i don't have a clear solution. Some people have suggested technology is the key--but technology is, i think, precisely the opposite of the key. Technology as a comparative advantage against China, for instance, would be very short-lived due to the low cost-of-reproduction of the post-industrial technology level. And it's only going to get worse for us. Eventually, if we try to play up technology, we would end up only one step ahead of China--at best--while they wait for us to take a step and then copy it. Even if those were big steps (such as the ones taken over the last hundred years or so) that will only make a certain amount of difference. China, and the rest of the world, could easily replicate them since we would no longer have our infrastructure advantage. That's not to say i think technology is useless--we're talking about improving the quality of life, in theory, worldwide and vastly so. But it is not the key to continued economic dominance of the United States.

I think science and information (not domination of information through copyright or suchlike but rather creation of information) are the best hopes, but that might be my personal bias.

On a smaller scale, let's take a look at Tim Pawlenty's Minnesota. Tim Pawlenty inherited a wealthy state that, according to the Accepted Republican Narrative, should have been a run-down Communist-Lite mish-mash of unemployed people standing in line for food stamps and business fleeing elsewhere. Of course, instead he got a wealthy state--one of the wealthiest in the nation per-capita--with a moderately successful welfare system and a vast array of powerful public services. The thriving--re-invigorated, even--economy was just the cherry on top of the smashing of the conventional wisdom.

But Pawlenty was going to change all that. He made a "no new taxes" pledge (he's one of the GNC--Grover Norquist's Chosen) and, by God, he was going to keep it even if it meant destroying Minnesota. In the interest of gaining "competetive advantage" with respect to taxes (Minnesota does have high taxes and this certainly does discourage at least some business) he slashed taxes and turned a record-level budget surplus into a record-level budget deficit. His regressive "fee" scam (he had to do something to save Minnesota from fiscal insolvency so he raised all "fees" and introduced new ones--this turned out to be essentially a tax on being poor) has only exacerbated the problem by hurting the lower and middle class. The "fees" reduce the ability of the poor to gain assistance, which reduces their ability to pay the fees, which turns into a damned death-spiral that sends Minnesota further into budget-deficit Hell.

But despite all that, the businesses that were staying away from Minnesota because of taxes still stayed away (at least, in terms of any meaningful scale) because Minnesota still was not competetive with well over half the nation strictly in terms of taxes. And it never will be unless it first gives up its great advantages.

To be a Conservative, you must believe...

2005-06-20T16:53:00.000-07:00

So i saw this while reading that paragon of heterosexuality, Jesus's General, and wondered what would happen if you inverted it. Curiously enough, i think it's more accurate that way. I swapped out some euphemisms for others, too, to counteract propaganda-by-word-choice. With a little of my own, perhaps, but can you blame me? Onwards!

That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of morality--as long as you are "moral" you are safe.

That trial lawyers are all pond scum but doctors are underpaid.

That global temperatures are affected more by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and the brilliance of the sun than the documented effects of yuppies driving SUVs (among other things).

That guns in the hands of the law abiding Americans are more of a threat
than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

This one doesn't work. Primarily because of non-binary cognitive dissonance and the fact that the Republicans more or less support nuclear China. Shrug.

That corporatism creates prosperity and democracy creates oppression.

That it doesn't matter who you step on as long as you "achieve".

That federal funding is useless.

That the ACLU is bad because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, but that the NRA is good because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution.
(As an aside: i would harsh on the NRA less if they would at least care about an entire amendment rather than the half of the one they like...)

That taxes are too high. Period.

That there is no problem with children praying in school. Period.

That there is no such thing as systematic discrimination. Period.
(Except, of course, when it comes to discriminating against white people.)

That consistent, planetary change in weather patterns is everything other than proof of global warming.
("Ice caps and glaciers melting for the first time in millenia? Must be the sun!")

That national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we
produce.

This one, again, seems to be a Republican position that got in there by mistake. See: Pres. Bush's "Everything is okay! Make sure you keep consuming like rabid dogs!" speech after 9/11.

That the only wars in which America should become involved, are those in
which our national security is not at risk.

I'd say this is another Republican position, but it should go even farther: "That you've never met a war you didn't like". At least, that's true as long as they don't have to do the fighting, as per the link above.

That lying to the nation in order to lead it into war is less of an issue about a blowjob. That a concerted, decades-long effort to destroy a politician and his family is okay--as long as it's a Democrat.

That we can have a strong military while the people who shout the loudest in favor of going to war are the least willing to enlist.

That the way to improve public schools is to take all their money away and give it to private, Christian schools.

That a woman cannot choose whether to have a child or not. Period. And if she does? Don't expect any help from the state in the way of public resources.

That care for the environment is only legitimate when the person doing the caring meets the Republican Moral Standards (that is: white, lives in a red state, and engages in Traditional Manly Activities like hunting and fishing.) Ad Hominem attacks only matter if you're a Democrat.

That you have money to spend and if you don't it's your own fault.

That Hillary Clinton is evil. Period.

That being a movie star means your views on politics are illegitimate. Unless your views align with the Republican party, of course.

That the people who bombed the Oklahoma city building don't matter. Neither do the people who destroyed the WTC. The real threat was a toothless old tyrant who posed no direct threat (unlike Bin Laden and friends) to the United States.

That directly targetting children with highly addictive and deadly products is equivalent to showing a nipple on TeeVee.

That crime can be stopped by throwing people in jail after-the-fact.
(Okay, not really a direct inversion... sue me...)

That the only reason fascism and Stalinism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because people were using the wrong definition of "worked".
(Commentary on the original: huh? Do these people live on Planet Earth?)

That because people are not perfect (or not willing to pretend they are) they shouldn't even bother trying.

That gender roles are the absolute, inviolable Will of God but that everyone is naturally bisexual and they must choose to be heterosexual--or else!

(Alternatively: That heterosexuality is the absolute, inviolable Will of God except for people who choose to be otherwise.)

That life is sacred if and only if it lives within a woman.

That Strom Thurmond, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Rev. Dobson are the paragons of American Virtue.

That the First Amendment is an Evil Liberal Myth and that all the founders were Christian and wanted Christianity (your particular brand, specifically) as the officially entrenched religion of America. That people ought not have right to speech or assembly if they are unpopular or considered "bad". Only Republican opinions on popularity or goodness should be counted.

Fear on the Eve of Victory...

2005-06-17T00:00:00.000-07:00

I haven't been posting for a while, i guess, but stuff is just going too fast for me to really keep up on. I have about two hundred links sitting in my "current links" folder and some of them go quite a ways back. I'm not really sure why i haven't posted much lately, don't think it has to do with the title--but then again, maybe it does. I've also been meaning to write on "how the Democrats can win the same sex marriage debate", but that also hasn't been happening. I'd better hurry up, too! I don't want 2006 to pass me by.

But without further ado...

Fear on the Eve of Victory

Kind of a strange phrase, perhaps. But, i think, appropriate. The "eve of victory" refers to the coming backlash against the Bush Administration and the Republicans--especially those of the "neo" or "movement" variety. It might be curious to consider this the "eve of victory", but consider it hope on my part. I'm gazing into my crystal ball tonight.

The fear might also seem unusual if we first assume victory is at hand, but i fear that victory will not be a victory for us--those who have stood for the truth of the Bush Administration and especially the war in Iraq from long before it was popular, those who have agitated for change and improvement. Those who might drive Bush out of office with the bludgeon of truth and justice might find themselves on the end of the sword of retribution, the pitchfork of mob justice, and the torch that burns effigies if not actual people. I am talking, of course, about a repeat of the villification of the anti-war crowd of Vietnam. I am talking about another round of "Swift Boat Veterans for Recovered Memory Therapy" who are angry the US lost the war and, instead of blaming those with whom the blame lies, they blame people they disagree with who dared ot speak the truth when it was unpopular and who dared to open the eyes of others to the truth.

I fear, my readers, for the day when the proverbial party (possibly the literal Party of the Republican Party) is over and the Republican machine looks at itself in the mirror--if ever so briefly--and suddenly has an overwhelming need to find a scapegoat. I am neither the only nor the first person to think this. They (and by "they" i mean "failed fascists, stalinists, corporatists, theocrats, war-mongerers, and would-be aristocrats") have blamed their own failures on those who have pointed out their failings before and will do it again--in fact, all of history is chock full of this... no time, save the relatively recent last few hundred years, has ever been even remotely free of it. If US history, especially Vietnam War-era history, is any lesson they can easily succeed at it.

They believe those who stand for freedom instead stand against them personally. They believe those who stand for justice instead stand against them. They believe those who stand for America instead stand against them. And they are willing to spend millions--if not billions--of dollars convincing everyone else the same thing. They have succeeeded before and they can succeed now, even despite the gravity of their crimes. Never before have they been so close to the total power they crave, never have they been so intoxicated and addicted to it, and never have they been willing to stoop so low to maintain it. The question is not "will they seek retribution when they lose it?" but rather "how far will they go?"

I was worried the post-2004 election triumphalism would dissolve into riots in the street or violence against the "unbelievers"--those few who stood out against the tide of Bush in their own communities--and was relieved that did not come to pass. But we are, again, facing that prospect and a thousand times more serious. We are not just talking about impeaching a President: we are talking about shatterring the twisted-mirror world view of millions and they will not thank us for it. But it must be done if the Union is to remain the land of the Free.

Suppose...

2005-06-02T00:26:00.000-07:00

Suppose you went to an ATM machine to do some cash transfers.

Suppose the machine, instead of confirming, merely printed a cryptic message: "Are we having fun yet?"

Suppose the machine then refused to print you a reciept.

Suppose you then called your bank and they said that was just normal bugs in the machine and there was nothing they could do about it, no way to check to see if anything went wrong, and no reason to worry. Suppose they refused to even check up on it.

Suppose that, instead of an ATM machine and cash transfer, we're talking a Presidential Election.

Why do people seem to think that situation is unacceptable up until the last line and fine after that?

Texas GOP Platform pt. 2

2005-05-15T20:31:00.000-07:00

Second part of who knows how many is now up! Get it here. Included in the update is the whole "Limiting the Expanse of Government Power" section.

Texas GOP 2004 Party Platform Analysis

2005-05-14T15:58:00.000-07:00

I was browsing through DKos recently and caught the new (2004-new, anyway) Texas GOP Party Platform.

They have focus-grouped some things into euphemisms, but the new one has all the same craziness as the old one--and new stuff added on!

I was then inspired to write some analysis of it for your enjoyment. Enjoy! I'll be updating on here as i update on that page. Here's a taste:

Welcome! In this document i will attempt to examine the Texas Republican Party's 2004 Party Platform. Since the document is about 28 pages of rambling with a bunch of bland platitudes mixed in with some utter madness it'll take me a while to get through the whole thing, but i intend to do just that. New sections will be updated as i examine them myself. I have a handful of goals with this and let me go over a couple of them:
I want to unravel the code-words to explain how when they say "pro-family" they mean anti-gay, just as one example.
I want to examine what the Republican party really wants
I want to examine how and why what they want is often not reflected in reality at all--ie, how they seem to believe tax cuts reduce the size of government when in fact tax cuts do quite the oposite.
For those who pay attention, the Texas GOP platform usually contains a wealth of interesting information--the sort of information that we, as a nation, ought to be aware of and probably also debating. I, it should either be obvious or become obvious soon, hold the view that a great deal of this stuff ought to also be rebuked and treated carefully. However: very few people, outside of certain political circles, even consider this stuff. The once-important party platform has been essentially reduced to a stage to throw meat to the extreme elements within the party. Furthermore, it can be elightening to an outsider to read since they seem to be counting on the relaive unimportance of such platforms and so they speak fairly freely.

Okay, moment's over!

2005-05-06T13:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday i held my comments out of respect for the moment. Not today:

US plans to build gas(?) chamber in Camp Delta.

Inevitable parallels to Nazi Germany, as hinted at yesterday, can be drawn here: _______________

Yom Hashoah*

2005-05-05T23:27:00.000-07:00

Yom Hashoah is the day on which we remember the holocaust.

I will refrain from political commentary, even though i think it is appropriate. Today is not about commentary.

Never Forget

(Be careful with that link, it includes photographs taken of concentration camps.)

(*: Actually that was yesterday, i'm lazy and only getting around to it now. Sorry.)

Beg-A-Thon

2005-05-01T18:30:00.000-07:00

One of the people who has been important in pushing for voting reform needs surgery.

Because of his work in the voting area he currently lacks health insurance and therefore is not able to afford the surgery on his own.

So with that in mind, your donations can help a man who has worked to fix our electoral system get treated for cancer.

Words of Wisdom

2005-04-29T00:05:00.000-07:00

I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize!

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize --

Only be sure always to call it please "research".

--Tom Lehrer

Two Posts To Underline

2005-04-22T00:31:00.000-07:00

I've been a bit active on dailykos recently and i made a pair of posts that probably deserve to be separate entries on their own. First, from a thread on how the so-called "Ownership Society" plan intersects (or doesn't) with the Religious Right: i suggest both the Capitalists (though in retrospect i think "Corporatist" is a better word) and the Religious extremists think they other side is stupid and in their control. Below is a copy of that post:

The Religious Right thinks the Capitalists (I'm using "Big-C Capitalists" to differentiate them from the more generic variety as their philosophy, rather than economy, is "capitalism") will compliantly accept Biblical Law provided they can continue making a profit. They think they are in charge and the Capitalists are tolerated because they are percieved as subservient. In other words, they think they are the pillar of absolute strength and law and the Capitalists are merely allying with them--to be tossed aside or punished at the whims of the Religious Right.

The Capitalists think the Religious Right "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." As far as my personal assessment i think the Capitalists are right. But then again, the Nazis (they were 1930 Germany's equivalent to 2005 USA's Religious Right) took power under just those circumstances.

But really: the Religious Right is content to vote for Republicans while getting little to nothing in return. Anti-gay laws that hurt straight people more than gay people (relative to their situations prior to such laws, that is) are considered excellent policy by the same people such laws hurt. The Religious Right calls for anti-abortion bills and gets them--except they get anti-abortion bills that are full of holes and get promptly ruled unconstitutional due to legislative laziness. The Religious Right gets Terri Schiavo--which actually might destroy them (if we're lucky), which they had zero chance of "winning", and which they really had to sacrifice a number of their other beliefs for.

But that, perhaps, misses the point. The Religious Right cares very little for the effects of the anti-gay laws on gay people or straight people one way or another. They don't really care about stopping abortions, teenage pregnancy, or the spread of STDs--if they did they'd sure as hell throw their old "solutions". They care about being validated. Much like needy children who demand a series of increasingly improbable gifts from parents and others, throws fits if they don't get one, and are only sated as long as the warm, fuzzy, and hollow warmth of immediate satisfaction lasts. Except unlike children and parents: they are needed--or their votes and money is needed, at least--by those who would grant them their meaningless gifts.

What the Capitalists want and what the Religious Right wants are two different things. Certainly the Religious Right will either get booted (their growing demands eventually become too crazy for the people who will use them) or they will take over and it's down the rabbit hole of Theocracy we go. The Capitalists, on the other hand, don't play games with what they want--they come right out and say it. They don't want the government to let them dump mercury into rivers and lakes because that lets them make money easily.

Now that i've outlined that i'm going to go back on my earlier statement: the Religious Right does actually want something. They demand validation and if that validation ever stopped they would abandon the Republicans just as quickly as the Capitalists would if the money stopped. That's why i often say the Republican Party won't ever pass any serious anti-abortion policy (either in the "reducing abortions" or "illegalizing abortion" sense) as they have trained the Religious Right to gain the validation they are so addicted to from opposing legalized abortion on grounds of religion. It isn't, as many wrongly assume, that their religion cannot tolerate new ideas (after all: most Christians today think of Christianity as the force that ended racial segregation and not as the justification for the same segregation) but rather that this particular function of religion gives them validation.

I think that, somewhere deep down inside, most of them realize this. They know that they are being used and that they are addicted to the particular flavor of crack the Republican Party deals and that the positions they hold are truly abominable--but it is precisely that inner knowledge that allows them to gain feelings of validation when those positions are taken up by the Republican Party (or whoever else). It's like a particular Penny Arcade comic. "Cut yourself." "What?" "If you cut yourself I'll love you."

Except instead of "Cut yourself." they say "Pass totally batshit insane legislation". And instead of "I'll love you" they say "I'll vote for you". What do they get out of it? The thrill that comes with knowing someone did something obscene and moronic because they asked.

This is why a Clinton's blowjob was more important than Clinton's non-response to Rwanda. This is why Feingold's presidential aspirations might be destroyed by his divorce. This is why there has never been a black, gay, or female President of the United States of America. This is why the Democratic Party will never beat the Republican Party in the groups the DLC wants to appeal to unless it is willing to go espouse the Religious Right's lunacy even louder than the Republicans. Not issues, not real-world effects of the law, not Judges, not equality, not freedom: the shaky strangulation of a crack-addicted murderer trying to get just one more high before everything implodes.

This is not a new phenomenon, either, despite the fact it has gotten pretty extreme in the last five to fifty years.

Not to say the Capitalists are necessarily the lesser of the two evils. With the mercury semi-deregulation legislation they've convinced the government to, almost literally, turn human lives into gold for them to collect. It's a sort of inhuman perversity that manages to survive today primarily because it's so difficult to comprehend--a sort of Lovecraftian horror, if you will, that manages to evade notice because none who notice survive unchanged.

Second, i have a post on Salazar's rebuke of Dobson in which i respond to a comment on how the Freepers seem to be turning on the Republican Party. It, too, is pasted below:

One thing i wonder is how long their defection will last.

They might talk a good talk about not supporting the Republican Party anymore but in reality the whole Bolton thing is not a big deal. They might think they're dropping out but once they get into the voting booth (and we can say what we like about them, but they are at least politically active even if for all the wrong reasons) i think they're going to have a real hard time voting for anyone other than those with an (R) after their names.

When we should start having real hope is if and when a major Republican figure drops out of the Party (or if not previously "independent for political reasons", see: Bill Oh Really) and runs as a third party candidate, and only then if said hypothetical candidate can draw support of the underlying Republican political aparatus away from Republicans a bit.

We really want a super-Right party that takes the 5-10% of the really extreme "base" away from the Republicans. With a viable alternative the extremists can put actual pressure on the Republican Party ("Give us theocracy or we will commit seppuku via third party campaign") which will then have a splitting effect on the bizarre coalition that makes up the Republican Party.

It's not so much that they'll split when they've been reamed--they're getting reamed constantly. Corporatism is destroying their rural towns, their culture and religion is being co-opted by the political elites (i'm thinking Dobson and friends, rather than someone on the Democratic side), and their children are being left behind (yes, Mister President, even after your bill) by a government that increasingly doesn't understand the problems facing said kids and doesn't care to find out.

Neither, i would say, does the delay on the vote for Bolton constitute "reaming" the freeper crowd (their fantasies of laying the UN low have been pushed back and put in more danger than previously but they are no worse off now than they were before) and yet that is what they, purportedly, are splitting with the party on. This is why i think they won't turn on the Republican Party: their ill will is not the result of genuine disagreements but rather the fanaticism that has been bred into them. The only way that could turn into them betraying their party, i suspect, is if another group willing to pander to their basest urges (judges, Bolton, gays, the border, and all the other far-Right straw-men).

As far as when the moderate Republicans will speak out? I don't think they will, really, unless they are forced to somehow. And i don't mean that i think the Democrats can force them to. They have obedience to the centralized authority of the Republican Party bred into them as well--and that goes back generations. Perhaps i'm doing them a disservice. Some have obviously switched party affiliations and i think that's perfectly respectable, others (notably for this discussion: Voinovich) have begun to challenge the more extreme positions being put forth by the Party.

Christians, likewise, seem to have a bit of a problem with authority. They'll wake up eventually, but for now they seem content.

I think part of the problem is that they're ignorant of how their faith is being used. When Dobson or whoever stand up and say "XYZ is UNCHRISTIAN!" i'm guessing your average Christian just silently nods, not knowing any better. They need to wake up, but once they do i think they'll probably be pretty fierce.

I had hoped that Pope John Paul II or one of those similar leaders would start pushing by making the economic justice and anti-war stance more prominent, but then Ratzinger took over. I haven't really seen anyone else. There has been some push on those fronts recently, but not much. I'm hopeful they will eventually come to realize how dangerous the current Republican Party is, but i'm not going to wait for the Christians to get their collective butts in gear.

Sinking The UN

2005-04-18T22:08:00.000-07:00

There are three more or less separate threads in the news that i think need to be linked together. I'll make it quick:

The UN oil-for-food scandal, which the US government is busy decrying a sign of institutional corruption.
The nomination of one Bolton to be the US's ambassador to the UN.
The invasion of iraq under the false pretenses that Iraq had WMD, against the will of the UN and quite likely against international law.

Curious, yes?

Let me be upfront and state the hypothesis: all three of these things (and many others) have as one of their causes a contempt by the Bush administration and Republicans in general of the United Nations. Furthermore, the possibility that two of these things were designed with at least one aim as the destruction of the United Nations.

Let me take you back in time about two or three years.

Rumsfeld is busy denigrating "Old Europe" and Bush is busy pushing for war and giving the extended middle finger to Europe and the United Nations. Republicans and their allies are busy throwing around phrases like "surrender monkies" and many calling for the outright dismantling of the UN or at least the US withdrawl from it.

Now let me take you forward to today, but in an alternate world. We'll call this "Bushworld" as there is one point of divergance: Iraq, in this hypothetical world, did have weapons of mass destruction. Not ones that it shipped to Libya, ones that Saddam had lying around ready to be used--possibly they did get used on the invading troops.

What is one of the differences here? The United Nations looks like a group of collectively out-of-touch (ooh, famous Bush propaganda phrase!) fools and the US might even begin a campaign against them.

So it doesn't seem to big a stretch to think one of the goals with the Iraqi invasion was to delegitimize the UN and set up the US as essentially not just the world's superpower but the world's everything. And its followers in the Iraq war get kickbacks; the whole "you give us stuff, but we don't give you anything" approach to allies looks much more rational if still perverse under the assumption that the USA becomes the source of legitimate international power after the Iraq invasion and gaining global hegemony is a stated goal of a number of Republicans to turn the USA into a global empire.

Now that it has become irrelevant that entire scenario is a pipe dream and that, yes, the US still does need the UN and the EU, the US has been backpedalling on its... "Freedom Fries"...

So that's that.

Next up is the oil for food scandal.

I strongly maintain that anyone who was surprised by the oil for food scandal has not been paying attention. Period.

Saddam Hussein got nothing out of the deal (more or less) yet he held the keys and controlled a significant part of it. The other end, corporations, are notorious for running cost-effectiveness analysis on protecting people from mercury and then lobbying the government to allow them to kill more people in exchange for higher profits. In terms of moral compass: theirs is made of lead, mercury, and asbestos. Oh yes, and oil.

So again: this should not surprise anyone, really.

But the response from the Bush Administration has fit with the desires i outlined above. The UN, they claim, is corrupt and irrelevant and stupid and full of ~~terr'ists~~ umm... ~~commie bastards~~... err... full of French!

Of course, the US's own involvement never gets mentioned. Not that that is unexpected.

So now we're onto John Bolton. John Bolton, from what i can tell, was a combination of hit-man for the Bush admin, a spy on and internal propagandist for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and someone willing to slant what evidence sees the light of day to suit his own Conservative bias.

The possibility that Bolton slanted evidence (with the assumption that "Well of COURSE Saddam has WMD!") with the goal of ultimately isolating the uN, among other things, cannot be overlooked in this analysis--whether the cause for such slanting was Bolton himself or orders From On High.

So i can hear the shrieks and wailings of "Liberal! Liberal!" already.

I'm sure some out there are thinking "Well, you sure are putting some strong words into Bush's mouth! He never said we should withdraw from the UN!"

But don't listen to me, take it straight from the year 2000 Texas GOP Party Platform:

p.26: "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership, as well as financial and military contributions to, the United Nations... The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil."

And Bush most certainly has seen and agreed to this platform. How do i know that? Everyone involved in the Texas GOP has--it says so right as a plank of the Platform that anyone getting their support must read and sign it.

And that's only one instance--the UN is a long-time whipping boy, so to speak, of the Right and the only reason this Platform doesn't call for total dissolution of the UN with bayonets if necessary is because cooler heads prevailed. I would put money on a similar suggestion being put forth in all seriousness. We're lucky the Texas GOP is so corrupt (see DeLay, Tom) or they might be pursuing these goals with just as much seriousness.

So what do we have here?

We have a goal of the Bush administration: tear down as much of the UN as possible. We have three separate instances (and there are more out there) in which the Bush administration has acted in ways that would certainly further that goal: nominating Bolton, harassing the UN over Iraq, and harassing the UN over the oil-for-food scandal. We finally have a statement of intent from the Texas GOP.

What does this mean?

I'm not entirely sure. I think we can draw several conclusions, however:

John Bolton was not nominated to the UN post as a reformer. His purpose (or at least: one purpose) is to destroy the UN.

The Bush Administration is waging a covert war on the UN as a whole and will continue doing so as long as they are in office.

The Right has not given up their anti-UN (etc) crusade and in fact that crusade has shown signs of strengthening.

Connecting the dots can yield interesting results.

Propaganda: Then And Now

2005-04-17T19:04:00.000-07:00

Are There Decent Jews?

Four Germans sit talking in a public house. One is a Jew, Salomon, who is telling the others that the Jews are the most decent people to be found anywhere.

Zimmermann won't have it and cites cases of Jewish rogues he has met.

The Jew gets uneasy, and seeks a way out by saying:

"Oh well, but those are exceptions!"

The peasant joins in the talk and supports Zimmermann.

"Salomon gets angry. He has paid for the beer and still must listen to that sort of talk from them.

"You talk a lot of stupid nonsense!" he cries, "but not a word about decent Jews. And there are plenty of decent Jews. Am I not one? Was I not a soldier at the front? Did I not defend the Fatherland. Have I not paid for your beer, you impudent creatures, stupid Gois!"

There is silence in the room. Then the worker gets up who has said little, and throws a coin to the Jew.

"Finished, Salomon. Here is your money. We will not have you paying for us. But now you shall have the truth! You liar! You never heard a bullet. You were 'indispensable' and stayed at home profiteering, then you were with the Reds, calling 'Down with Germany!' 'Long live the World Revolution!' And now you are a decent Jew? Not a bit of it! There aren't any decent Jews.

Salomon picks up his hat and runs like the Devil from the public house. Everybody laughs.

"What a pity he has gone!" says mine host. "I should like to have repeated the following saying to him:
'So oft we hear the yarn
How brave such and such a few was.
How he gave his money to the poor
And was an angel in the world.

A Jew, like a pure angel?
That must be a fairy tale!
Who invents such things?
It is the Jew, himself, who does it!'"

Taken from the Nazi Germany Propaganda Archive, you can find it here

There's your Ms. Right, Time Magazine! But then again, Time has--historically--notoriously poor judgement with respect to right-wing extremists. They also featured Hitler on their magazines a number of times between around 1930 and 1945.

I wish, now, that i could find the piece of Nazi propaganda this quote brought to mind. The "There are no decent Jews" line was an official piece of propaganda. The piece i am thinking of had a quote that was almost literally like Ann Coulter's--it was an exchange similar to the one above, something like:

"There are no good Jews."

"Yet there are also bad Germans, right?"

"Yes, there may be some bad Germans but there is not a single decent Jew."

But sadly i'm not sure where i saw it so now it's just an unsourced quote floating around in my head.

Scalia is an ass-fucker

2005-04-15T23:46:00.000-07:00

So yesterday, Antonin Scalia is speaking at NYU when a gay man, pissed off that Scalia went nutzoid supporting anti-sodomy laws that were struck down by the majority of the Supreme Court that happens to believe that consensual ass fucking, labia licking, and blow jobs are really not the province of government intervention, asks Scalia, "Do you sodomize your wife?" Because, you know, everyone needs the picture in their heads of Maureen Scalia with Big Tony's spicy sausage thrusting in and out of her mouth. But, really, and, c'mon, it's a totally legit question, since some of the laws Scalia supported had blanket bans on straight and gay sodomy. So, like, if Big Tony was munchin' on Maureen's kooz like a badger on a titmouse and Maureen started shriekin', "Suck my clit, you meatball of a man" a little too loud for the people of the Birmingham Marriott, the police might have been able to burst in and drag the future Chief Justice and the good Misses down to central lock-up, where, ironically, sodomy is the law of the land.

Scalia, a man who everyone says is noted for his sense of humor (and, boy, we got the joke on Bush v. Gore), responded to the student by saying that the question was unworthy of answer.

(By Rude Pundit)

So let me get this straight (if you will).

When Scalia asks me if i have or have ever had buttsex that's a question vital to the interests of The State and Justice Scalia is on-record as saying it is an important question to pose to citizens of the United States of America. Not only that, but if i give the wrong answer he thinks i should be thrown in jail. When someone else asks Scalia if he has or has ever had buttsex that's "unworthy of answer".

I can only assume, Justice Scalia, that if i were convicted under some sort of sodomy law (which seems pretty unlikely, but it's a hypothetical so bear with me) and the case came up the the Supreme Court that i could plead not "innocent" or "guilty" but "the charges are unworthy of answer" and you, Justice Scalia, would suggest the case against me be dropped? To do otherwise suggests, to me, the true motive of your ruling: you like hitting The Queers.

Now, he would of course object to that characterization.

"Ah'm just a down-tah-earth Strict Constructionist, y'see. Ah don't rule whether it's a good law or a bad 'un. Ah just call 'em like the Constitution requires and there ain't no right tah privv-acy in the Constitution."
(Disclaimer: i don't think he has an accent like that. He might adopt one when responding to that question, though, in order to support his first sentence.)

But of course that's bullshit and he knows it. Amendment Nine to the rescue:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So tell me, again, Justice Scalia: are you not, by denying the Constitutional existence of non-enumerated rights, changing not the laws to fit your ideology but rather changing the Constitution of the United States of America to fit your ideology?

The other option (if it's not that he denies the Ninth Amendment) seems to be that he was trying to keep anti-gay, anti-sex laws on the books for his own partisan purposes.

I'm not sure which it was, but no matter what his answer he isn't given a free pass here. Equality under the law is not an non-enumerated right--rather, it is an enumerated right.

So, once again, Justice Scalia: have you ever sodomized your wife, or any other person? Specifically, have you done so in violation of sodomy laws? If you refuse to answer: can we assume you are entering a "No Contest" plea? Or do we have to assume "Not Guilty"? I'm a little unsure what the best approach would be. Perhaps you could offer some advice?

Argh!

2005-04-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty bummed. I wrote up a big ass post and then blogger's post edit tool ate it.

Sigh.

Anyway, here's some stuff!

...Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem"...

From a Washington Post article. I like how he's slamming Marx and Lenin in one line and quoting Stalin in the next.

Those who know about Russia's Communist revolution will understand why. I'd link up some google searches but, at present, the right-wingers seem to have googlebombed the hell out of Stalin and Lenin.

I also find it amusing that, at the same time Republicans are quoting Stalin in earnest seriousness, the Republican Party is still villifying Democrats as Communists.

But reality was never one of the Republican Party's platform planks. Unlike returning to a "Gold Standard", destroying the Judicial system, eliminating the First Amendment, legally assuming all GLBT persons are child molesters (as opposed to, for instance, Catholic Priests... i apologize to any Catholics in the audience, but certainly if we're worried about a single group preying on children...), legally mandating Creationism as equivalent to evolutionary theory, tearing up "Social Security", eliminating the minimum wage, and so on.

Meanwhile, the HRC discusses the real-world implications of the Republican Party's anti-gay crusade for straight people.

Yep, same sex marriage will destroy the moral fiber of our nation! So be sure to vote Republican, boys and girls, because only they have the Values to prevent same sex marriage!

Meanwhile, Florida's House of Representatives passed a bill establishing the entire state as the largest no-rules, mixed martial arts tournament in the history of the world. Well, maybe not quite that. But wow, that's pretty crazy.

Oddly enough, though, the bill (at least, the version on that web page) has been changed. I'm not sure if the bill was altered or what, but it used to include some real crazy shit about how you could use lethal force if you "percieved" someone was "threatening" you.

Here is a DKos article referring to the older version. You could maybe WayBack it, but i dunno.

I also find it amusing that, as per the version DKos is referring to, you are actually legally permitted to kill someone who is trying to kill you in a situation where that would be legal under that law. In other words, let's say person 1 threatens person 2 with a knife. Person 2 pulls out a gun and person 1 then knifes person 2 to death. Person 1 claims immunity under that law (there was certainly threat!) and gets away totally free? Who knows?

As someone who is concerned about being the target of violence on the streets (see a couple paragraphs up on the Republican Party's anti-gay crusade) a law like that would make me feel much less safe on the streets. No question in my mind.

The Daily Howler on The Lying Media. Been a while since i quoted the Howler.

New Suit Alleges "Severe" Torture at Guantanamo. Gee, what a surprise.

Wake up and smell the torture, USA! This isn't even the worst of it. Let's try some of the stuff specifically approved as "Not Torture" by Alberto "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales: holding prisoners in solitary confinement with 24/7 floodlights keeping the room blindingly bright. The case involving this sort of torture (it is, if we refuse to name it torture then it remains torture in everything but name alone) that i am aware of left a man who was previously mentally stable (more or less) totally deranged. Yeah, "interrogation techniques" that just so happen to destroy any capability for the "interrogated" to provide useful information.

This is the sort of stuff they don't even show in movies, people. And it's happening to real people whose guilt has not been established. And its happening on little beyond the command of our current President.

Max Blumenthal infiltrates the "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference. No real surprises, unfortunately.

On abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Lastly, but not leastly, A Person Paper on Purity in Language, by William Satire

This one is good enough i'm probably going to reference it again, separately, so i'll save my comments. You should read it, though.

Finally, i am closing in on 40,000 words of unwritten posts (okay, 36,990 words--possibly 35,569 is a more accurate number, depending on how you count duplicates) on a wide variety of topics. I fear some of them will simply never be finished. Oi.

Once more...

2005-04-03T14:41:00.000-07:00

For effect. The September 11, 2001 Bush Timeline:

September 11, 2001
8:13 a.m.
American Airlines Flight 11 fails to respond to air trafic controllers
Air traffic control manager considers this a possible hijacking.

8:35 a.m.
Bush motorcade leaves for photo-op at Emma Booker Elementary School

8:46 a.m.
Flight 11 strikes North Tower

8:48 a.m.
First news reports appear on TV and radio

8:55 a.m.
Bush motorcade arrives at Emma Booker Elementary School
Karl Rove or Andrew Card informs Bush of the first WTC crash

9:03 a.m.
Bush enters Sandra Kay Daniels' second-grade classroom

9:03 a.m.
Flight 175 strikes South Tower
Bush poses for pictures with the students and teachers.

9:06 a.m.
Andrew Card informs Bush of the second WTC crash;
"A second plane has hit the World Trade Center."
"America is under attack"

9:06 - 9:12 a.m.
Bush listens as second-graders take turns reading a story called 'The Pet Goat'

9:16 - 9:29 a.m.
Bush works with his staff in an empty classroom preparing for an upcoming speech.

9:29 a.m.
Bush gives a brief speech and poses for more photos at Emma Booker Elementary School

9:34 a.m.
Bush's motorcade leaves Booker Elementary School for
Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport

9:38 a.m.
Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon.

9:56 a.m.
Bush departs from Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport
on Air Force One

This leaves out a few items that are disputed/denied by the current administration, such as the report that Bush received a phone call enroute to the photo-op that something very unusual was occurring in our airspace on that day (and decided to go ahead with the photo-op anyway).

(Taken from a comment on this page.)

One-Paragraph Summary of Mai HiME

2005-03-27T01:51:00.000-08:00

Here, i was watching Mai HiME. I discovered a single-paragraph summary of the entire show. Ready?

"Hi, we made a bunch of characters. You might like a couple of them. Now we're going to kill them off and it's going to be dumb. You'll wonder why you're wasting your time with our crap. Except we'll make it look all edgy and artistic so it'll inevitably attract a bunch of true believers and turn into a cash cow. Enjoy."
--The Creators of Mai HiME.

(Yes, they killed three of my four favorite characters and turned the fourth into a psychopath in an amazingly contrived fashion. I'm bitter and not ashamed of it.)

Quick quote on freedom:

2005-03-20T13:43:00.000-08:00

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.
-- Frederick Douglass

Additionally, though unrelated:

If A equals success, then the formula is A = X + Y + Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.
-- Albert Einstein

Thoughts on "Pass it on" campaign...

2005-03-14T16:39:00.000-08:00

Wow have i been neglecting this, lately.

I was reading on DKos an article on those signs that have been springing up with stuff like a picture of a firefighter and "Courage: Pass it on" as a caption. The article i read suggested some parallels to a Nazi Germany advertising campaign in an extremely similar style.

I don't really want to get into whether those comparisons are valid or not valid. I tend to think they are valid, but it is a bit of a stretch.

Anyway, with or without the Nazi parallels those signs are still fucking creepy. Want to know why? I'll give you a hint: Think about the signs you won't see.

Ready?

Maybe i'm grossly underestimating the people behind this, but i bet you sure as hell won't see a sign like this:

(Click it for a large [~100kb] version)

"The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher"

2005-03-04T22:16:00.000-08:00

One of the threads of politics which i truly have personal involvement in is schooling. That's not to say i don't care about other topics because i do, but schooling is one of the things that got me involved in politics. And that is not a good thing.

I could rant a bit about why that is, but for now just take me for my word.

John Taylor Gatto also has some issues with the US school system as-is. He has more credibility than i do, but that credibility mostly comes from the system that both he and i agree has little to actually do with reality. Of course, that means he'll get listened to by the people (well, not really--but more than i will) who need to listen: the morons running this circus. Now, i'm deeply suspicious of Gatto on a number of different levels. Not because i'm thinking he's a part of the Leviathan of the school system/societal power structure and sent as a plant to destroy the rebellion or anything crazy like that. Not that--but there's just something about home-schooling and other, similar, theories (Gatto's falls under category #2) that i find unsettling. Not home-schooling as a whole and not home-schoolers as individuals, mind you, but the institution trends toward a high percentage of stark-raving lunatics. Gatto himself doesn't, as far as i know, jump straight into the lunatic-deep-end but... for lack of a better phrase: it's the smell, the feel of him--the veiled references and code-words. Of course, i don't really know--so i recommend him with some caution. I agree with what he's saying mostly here and think it's very important and something left out of the mainstream debate on school reform ("The system is broken and needs to be re-made? Hah! That requires thinking about the problem! Let's just throw money at it!") and that even if he were otherwise quite insane i think this essay (among others he has written) would still be useful.

Copied and pasted (without permission) for your reading pleasure from here. I don't remember where i first saw it.

The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher
by John Taylor Gatto - 1991 New York State Teacher of the Year

Call me Mr. Gatto, please. Twenty-six years ago, having nothing better to do at the time, I tried my hand at schoolteaching. The license I hold certifies that I am an instructor of English language and English literature, but that isn't what I do at all. I don't teach English, I teach school -- and I win awards doing it.

Teaching means different things in different places, but seven lessons are universally taught from Harlem to Hollywood Hills. They constitute a national curriculum you pay for in more ways than you can imagine, so you might as well know what it is. You are at liberty, of course, to regard these lessons any way you like, but believe me when I say I intend no irony in this presentation. These are the things I teach, these are the things you pay me to teach. Make of them what you will.
1. CONFUSION
A lady named Kathy wrote this to me from Dubois, Indiana the other day:
"What big ideas are important to little kids? Well, the biggest idea I think they need is that what they are learning isn't idiosyncratic -- that there is some system to it all and it's not just raining down on them as they helplessly absorb. That's the task, to understand, to make coherent."
Kathy has it wrong. The first lesson I teach is confusion. Everything I teach is out of context. I teach the un-relating of everything. I teach disconnections. I teach too much: the orbiting of planets, the law of large numbers, slavery, adjectives, architectural drawing, dance, gymnasium, choral singing, assemblies, surprise guests, fire drills, computer languages, parents' nights, staff-development days, pull-out programs, guidance with strangers my students may never see again, standardized tests, age-segregation unlike anything seen in the outside world....What do any of these things have to do with each other?

Even in the best schools a close examination of curriculum and its sequences turns up a lack of coherence, full of internal contradictions. Fortunately the children have no words to define the panic and anger they feel at constant violations of natural order and sequence fobbed off on them as quality in education. The logic of the school-mind is that it is better to leave school with a tool kit of superficial jargon derived from economics, sociology, natural science and so on than to leave with one genuine enthusiasm. But quality in education entails learning about something in depth. Confusion is thrust upon kids by too many strange adults, each working alone with only the thinnest relationship with each other, pretending for the most part, to an expertise they do not possess.

Meaning, not disconnected facts, is what sane human beings seek, and education is a set of codes for processing raw facts into meaning. Behind the patchwork quilt of school sequences and the school obsession with facts and theories, the age-old human search lies well concealed. This is harder to see in elementary school where the hierarchy of school experience seems to make better sense because the good-natured simple relationship of "let's do this" and "let's do that" is just assumed to mean something and the clientele has not yet consciously discerned how little substance is behind the play and pretense.

Think of the great natural sequences like learning to walk and learning to talk; following the progression of light from sunrise to sunset; witnessing the ancient procedures of a farmer, a smithy, or a shoemaker; watching your mother prepare a Thanksgiving feast -- all of the parts are in perfect harmony with each other, each action justifies itself and illuminates the past and the future. School sequences aren't like that, not inside a single class and not among the total menu of daily classes. School sequences are crazy. There is no particular reason for any of them, nothing that bears close scrutiny. Few teachers would dare to teach the tools whereby dogmas of a school or a teacher could be criticized since everything must be accepted. School subjects are learned, if they can be learned, like children learn the catechism or memorize the Thirty-nine Articles of Anglicanism.

I teach the un-relating of everything, an infinite fragmentation the opposite of cohesion; what I do is more related to television programming than to making a scheme of order. In a world where home is only a ghost, because both parents work, or because too many moves or too many job changes or too much ambition, or because something else has left everybody too confused to maintain a family relation, I teach you how to accept confusion as your destiny. That's the first lesson I teach.
2. CLASS POSITION
The second lesson I teach is class position. I teach that students must stay in the class where they belong. I don't know who decides my kids belong there but that's not my business. The children are numbered so that if any get away they can be returned to the right class. Over the years the variety of ways children are numbered by schools has increased dramatically, until it is hard to see the human beings plainly under the weight of numbers they carry. Numbering children is a big and very profitable undertaking, though what the strategy is designed to accomplish is elusive. I don't even know why parents would, without a fight, allow it to be done to their kids.

In any case, again, that's not my business. My job is to make them like it, being locked in together with children who bear numbers like their own. Or at the least to endure it like good sports. If I do my job well, the kids can't even imagine themselves somewhere else, because I've shown them how to envy and fear the better classes and how to have contempt for the dumb classes. Under this efficient discipline the class mostly polices itself into good marching order. That's the real lesson of any rigged competition like school. You come to know your place.

In spite of the overall class blueprint, which assumes that ninety-nine percent of the kids are in their class to stay, I nevertheless make a public effort to exhort children to higher levels of test success, hinting at eventual transfer from the lower class as a reward. I frequently insinuate that the day will come when an employer will hire them on the basis of test scores and grades, even though my own experience is that employers are rightly indifferent to such things. I never lie outright, but I've come to see that truth and schoolteaching are, at bottom, incompatible just as Socrates said they were thousands of years ago. The lesson of numbered classes is that everyone has a proper place in the pyramid and that there is no way out of your class except by number magic. Failing that, you must stay where you are put.
3. INDIFFERENCE
The third lesson I teach kids is indifference. I teach children not to care about anything too much, even though they want to make it appear that they do. How I do this is very subtle. I do it by demanding that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigorously with each other for my favor. It's heartwarming when they do that; it impresses everyone, even me. When I'm at my best I plan lessons very carefully in order to produce this show of enthusiasm. But when the bell rings I insist that they stop whatever it is that we've been working on and proceed quickly to the next work station. They must turn on and off like a light switch. Nothing important is ever finished in my class, nor in any other class I know of. Students never have a complete experience except on the installment plan.

Indeed, the lesson of the bells is that no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything? Years of bells will condition all but the strongest to a world that can no longer offer important work to do. Bells are the secret logic of schooltime; their logic is inexorable. Bells destroy the past and future, converting every interval into a sameness, as the abstraction of a map renders every living mountain and river the same, even though they are not. Bells inoculate each undertaking with indifference.
4. EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
The fourth lesson I teach is emotional dependency. By stars and red checks, smiles and frowns, prizes, honors and disgraces I teach kids to surrender their will to the predestined chain of command. Rights may be granted or withheld by any authority without appeal, because rights do not exist inside a school -- not even the right of free speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled -- unless school authorities say they do. As a schoolteacher, I intervene in many personal decisions, issuing a pass for those I deem legitimate, or initiating a disciplinary confrontation for behavior that threatens my control. Individuality is constantly trying to assert itself among children and teenagers, so my judgments come thick and fast. Individuality is a contradiction of class theory, a curse to all systems of classification.

Here are some common ways it shows up: children sneak away for a private moment in the toilet on the pretext of moving their bowels, or they steal a private instant in the hallway on the grounds they need water. I know they don't, but I allow them to deceive me because this conditions them to depend on my favors. Sometimes free will appears right in front of me in children angry, depressed or happy about things outside my ken; rights in such matters cannot be recognized by schoolteachers, only privileges that can be withdrawn, hostages to good behavior.
5. INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
The fifth lesson I teach is intellectual dependency. Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. It is the most important lesson, that we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. The expert makes all the important choices; only I, the teacher, can determine what you must study, or rather, only the people who pay me can make those decisions which I then enforce. If I'm told that evolution is a fact instead of a theory, I transmit that as ordered, punishing deviants who resist what I have been told to tell them to think. This power to control what children will think lets me separate successful students from failures very easily.

Successful children do the thinking I appoint them with a minimum of resistance and a decent show of enthusiasm. Of the millions of things of value to study, I decide what few we have time for, or actually it is decided by my faceless employers. The choices are theirs, why should I argue? Curiosity has no important place in my work, only conformity.

Bad kids fight this, of course, even though they lack the concepts to know what they are fighting, struggling to make decisions for themselves about what they will learn and when they will learn it. How can we allow that and survive as schoolteachers? Fortunately there are procedures to break the will of those who resist; it is more difficult, naturally, if the kid has respectable parents who come to his aid, but that happens less and less in spite of the bad reputation of schools. No middle-class parents I have ever met actually believe that their kid's school is one of the bad ones. Not one single parent in twenty-six years of teaching. That's amazing and probably the best testimony to what happens to families when mother and father have been well-schooled themselves, learning the seven lessons.

Good people wait for an expert to tell them what to do. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that our entire economy depends upon this lesson being learned. Think of what would fall apart if kids weren't trained to be dependent: the social-service businesses could hardly survive; they would vanish, I think, into the recent historical limbo out of which they arose. Counselors and therapists would look on in horror as the supply of psychic invalids vanished. Commercial entertainment of all sorts, including television, would wither as people learned again how to make their own fun. Restaurants, prepared-food and a whole host of other assorted food services would be drastically down-sized if people returned to making their own meals rather than depending on strangers to plant, pick, chop, and cook for them. Much of modern law, medicine, and engineering would go too, the clothing business and schoolteaching as well, unless a guaranteed supply of helpless people continued to pour out of our schools each year.

Don't be too quick to vote for radical school reform if you want to continue getting a paycheck. We've built a way of life that depends on people doing what they are told because they don't know how to tell themselves what to do. It's one of the biggest lessons I teach.
6. PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
The sixth lesson I teach is provisional self-esteem. If you've ever tried to wrestle a kid into line whose parents have convinced him to believe they'll love him in spite of anything, you know how impossible it is to make self-confident spirits conform. Our world wouldn't survive a flood of confident people very long, so I teach that your self-respect should depend on expert opinion. My kids are constantly evaluated and judged.

A monthly report, impressive in its provision, is sent into students' homes to signal approval or to mark exactly, down to a single percentage point, how dissatisfied with their children parents should be. The ecology of "good" schooling depends upon perpetuating dissatisfaction just as much as the commercial economy depends on the same fertilizer. Although some people might be surprised how little time or reflection goes into making up these mathematical records, the cumulative weight of the objective-seeming documents establishes a profile that compels children to arrive at certain decisions about themselves and their futures based on the casual judgment of strangers. Self-evaluation, the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet, is never considered a factor. The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests is that children should not trust themselves or their parents but should instead rely on the evaluation of certified officials. People need to be told what they are worth.
7. ONE CAN'T HIDE
The seventh lesson I teach is that one can't hide. I teach children they are always watched, that each is under constant surveillance by myself and my colleagues. There are no private spaces for children, there is no private time. Class change lasts three hundred seconds to keep promiscuous fraternization at low levels. Students are encouraged to tattle on each other or even to tattle on their own parents. Of course, I encourage parents to file their own child's waywardness too. A family trained to snitch on itself isn't likely to conceal any dangerous secrets.

I assign a type of extended schooling called "homework," so that the effect of surveillance, if not that surveillance itself, travels into private households, where students might otherwise use free time to learn something unauthorized from a father or mother, by exploration, or by apprenticing to some wise person in the neighborhood. Disloyalty to the idea of schooling is a Devil always ready to find work for idle hands.

The meaning of constant surveillance and denial of privacy is that no one can be trusted, that privacy is not legitimate. Surveillance is an ancient imperative, espoused by certain influential thinkers, a central prescription set down in The Republic, in The City of God, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in New Atlantis, in Leviathan, and in a host of other places. All these childless men who wrote these books discovered the same thing: children must be closely watched if you want to keep a society under tight central control. Children will follow a private drummer if you can't get them into a uniformed marching band.
II
It is the great triumph of compulsory government monopoly mass-schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among the best of my students' parents, only a small number can imagine a different way to do things. "The kids have to know how to read and write, don't they?" "They have to know how to add and subtract, don't they?" "They have to learn to follow orders if they ever expect to keep a job."

Only a few lifetimes ago things were very different in the United States. Originality and variety were common currency; our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world; social-class boundaries were relatively easy to cross; our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do much for themselves independently, and to think for themselves. We were something special, we Americans, all by ourselves, without government sticking its nose into our lives, without institutions and social agencies telling us how to think and feel. We were something special, as individuals, as Americans.

But we've had a society essentially under central control in the United States since just before the Civil War, and such a society requires compulsory schooling, government monopoly schooling, to maintain itself. Before this development schooling wasn't very important anywhere. We had it, but not too much of it, and only as much as an individual wanted. People learned to read, write, and do arithmetic just fine anyway; there are some studies that suggest literacy at the time of the American Revolution, at least for non-slaves on the Eastern seaboard, was close to total. Thomas Paine's Common Sense sold 600,000 copies to a population of 3,000,000, twenty percent of whom were slaves, and fifty percent indentured servants.

Were the colonists geniuses? No, the truth is that reading, writing, and arithmetic only take about one hundred hours to transmit as long as the audience is eager and willing to learn. The trick is to wait until someone asks and then move fast while the mood is on. Millions of people teach themselves these things, it really isn't very hard. Pick up a fifth-grade math or rhetoric textbook from 1850 and you'll see that the texts were pitched then on what would today be considered college level. The continuing cry for "basic skills" practice is a smoke screen behind which schools preempt the time of children for twelve years and teach them the seven lessons I've just described to you.

The society that has become increasingly under central control since just before the Civil War shows itself in the lives we lead, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the green highway signs we drive by from coast to coast, all of which are the products of this control. So, too, I think, are the epidemics of drugs, suicide, divorce, violence, cruelty, and the hardening of class into caste in the United States products of the dehumanization of our lives, the lessening of individual, family, and community importance, a diminishment that proceeds from central control. The character of large compulsory institutions is inevitable; they want more and more until there isn't any more to give. School takes our children away from any possibility of an active role in community life -- in fact it destroys communities by relegating the training of children to the hands of certified experts -- and by doing so it ensures our children cannot grow up fully human. Aristotle taught that without a fully active role in community life one could not hope to become a healthy human being. Surely he was right. Look around you the next time you are near a school or an old people's reservation if you wish a demonstration.

School as it was built is an essential support system for a vision of social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows as it ascends to a terminal of control. School is an artifice which makes such a pyramidical social order seem inevitable, although such a premise is a fundamental betrayal of the American Revolution. From colonial days through the period of the Republic we had no schools to speak of -- read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography for an example of a man who had no time to waste in school -- and yet the promise of Democracy was beginning to be realized. We turned our backs on this promise by bringing to life the ancient pharaonic dream of Egypt: compulsory subordination for all. That was the secret Plato reluctantly transmitted in The Republic when Glaucon and Adeimantus exhorted from Socrates the plan for total state control of human life, a plan necessary to maintain a society where some people take more than their share. "I will show you," says Socrates, "how to bring about such a feverish city, but you will not like what I am going to say." And so the blueprint of the seven-lesson school was first sketched.

The current debate about whether we should have a national curriculum is phony. We already have a national curriculum locked up in the seven lessons I have just outlined. Such a curriculum produces physical, moral, and intellectual paralysis, and no curriculum of content will be sufficient to reverse its hideous effects. What is currently under discussion in our national school hysteria about failing academic performance misses the point. Schools teach exactly what they are intended to teach and they do it well: how to be a good Egyptian and remain in your place in the pyramid.
III
None of this is inevitable. None of it is impossible to overthrow. We do have choices in how we bring up young people; there is no one right way. If we broke through the power of the pyramidical illusion we would see that. There is no life-and-death international competition threatening our national existence, difficult as that idea is even to think about, let alone believe, in the face of a continual media barrage of myth to the contrary. In every important material respect our nation is self-sufficient, including in energy. I realize that idea runs counter to the most fashionable thinking of political economists, but the "profound transformation" of our economy these people talk about is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Global economics does not speak to the public need for meaningful work, affordable housing, fulfilling education, adequate medical care, a clean environment, honest and accountable government, social and cultural renewal, or simple justice. All global ambitions are based on a definition of productivity and the good life so alienated from common human reality I am convinced it is wrong and that most people would agree with me if they could perceive an alternative. We might be able to see that if we regained a hold on a philosophy that locates meaning where meaning is genuinely to be found -- in families, in friends, in the passage of seasons, in nature, in simple ceremonies and rituals, in curiosity, generosity, compassion, and service to others, in a decent independence and privacy, in all the free and inexpensive things out of which real families, real friends and real communities are built -- then we would be so self-sufficient we would not even need the material "sufficiency" which our global "experts" are so insistent we be concerned about.

How did these awful places, these "schools", come about? Well, casual schooling has always been with us in a variety of forms, a mildly useful adjunct to growing up. But "modern schooling" as we know it is a by-product of the two "Red Scares" of 1848 and 1919, when powerful interests feared a revolution among our own industrial poor. Partly, too, total schooling came about because old-line American families were appauled by the native cultures of Celtic, Slavic, and Latin immigrants of the 1840s and felt repugnance towards the Catholic religion they brought with them. Certainly a third contributing factor in creating a jail for children called school must have been the consternation with which these same "Americans" regarded the movement of African-Americans through the society in the wake of the Civil War.

Look again at the seven lessons of schoolteaching: confusion, class position, indifference, emotional and intellectual dependency, conditional self-esteem, surveillance -- all of these things are prime training for permanent underclasses, people deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius. And over time this training has shaken loose from its own original logic: to regulate the poor. For since the 1920s the growth of the school bureaucracy, and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling exactly as it is, has enlarged this institution's original grasp to the point that it now seizes the sons and daughters of the middle classes as well.

Is it any wonder Socrates was outraged at the accusation that he took money to teach? Even then, philosophers saw clearly the inevitable direction the professionalization of teaching would take, preempting the teaching function, which belongs to everyone in a healthy community.

With lessons like the ones I teach day after day it should be little wonder we have a real national crisis, the nature of which is very different from that proclaimed by the national media. Young people are indifferent to the adult world and to the future, indifferent to almost everything except the diversion of toys and violence. Rich or poor, schoolchildren who face the twenty-first century cannot concentrate on anything for very long; they have a poor sense of time past and time to come. They are mistrustful of intimacy like the children of divorce they really are (for we have divorced them from significant parental attention); they hate solitude, are cruel, materialistic, dependent, passive, violent, timid in the face of the unexpected, addicted to distraction.

All the peripheral tendencies of childhood are nourished and magnified to a grotesque extent by schooling, which, through its hidden curriculum, prevents effective personality development. Indeed, without exploiting the fearfulness, selfishness, and inexperience of children, our schools could not survive at all, nor could I as a certified schoolteacher. No common school that actually dared to teach the use of critical thinking tools -- like the dialectic, the heuristic, or other devices that free minds should employ -- would last very long before being torn to pieces. School has become the replacement for church in our secular society, and like church it requires that its teachings must be taken on faith.

It is time that we squarely face the fact that institutional schoolteaching is destructive to children. Nobody survives the seven-lesson curriculum completely unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational. No tinkering will fix it. In one of the great ironies of human affairs, the massive rethinking the schools require would cost so much less than we are spending now that powerful interests cannot afford to let it happen. You must understand that first and foremost the business I am in is a jobs project and an agency for letting contracts. We cannot afford to save money by reducing the scope of our operation or by diversifying the product we offer, even to help children grow up right. That is the iron law of institutional schooling -- it is a business, subject neither to normal accounting procedures nor to the rational scalpel of competition.

Some form of free-market system in public schooling is the likeliest place to look for answers, a free market where family schools and small entrepreneurial schools and religious schools and crafts schools and farm schools exist in profusion to compete with government education. I'm trying to describe a free market in schooling just exactly like the one the country had until the Civil War, one in which students volunteer for the kind of education that suits them, even if that means self-education; it didn't hurt Benjamin Franklin that I can see. These options exist now in miniature, wonderful survivals of a strong and vigorous past, but they are available only to the resourceful, the courageous, the lucky, or the rich. The near impossibility of one of these better roads opening for the shattered families of the poor or for the bewildered host camped on the fringes of the urban middle class suggests that the disaster of seven-lesson schools is going to grow unless we do something bold and decisive with the mess of government monopoly schooling.

After an adult lifetime spent teaching school, I believe the method of mass-schooling is its only real content. Don't be fooled into thinking that good curriculum or good equipment or good teachers are the critical determinants of your son's or daughter's education. All the pathologies we've considered come about in large measure because the lessons of school prevent children from keeping important appointments with themselves and with their families to learn lessons in self-motivation, perseverance, self-reliance, courage, dignity, and love -- and lessons in service to others, too, which are among the key lessons of home and community life.

Thirty years ago [in the early 60s] these things could still be learned in the time left after school. But television has eaten up most of that time, and a combination of television and the stresses peculiar to two-income or single-parent families have swallowed up most of what used to be family time as well. Our kids have no time left to grow up fully human and only thin-soil wastelands to do it in.

A future is rushing down upon our culture which will insist all of us learn the wisdom of non-material experience; a future which will demand as the price of survival that we follow a path of natural life economical in material cost. These lessons cannot be learned in schools as they are. School is a twelve-year jail sentence where bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned. I teach school and win awards doing it. I should know.

Perhaps next time i'll bite into The Republic a bit...

Well, next time i think i'm probably going to deal with homosexuality and the Bible a bit. Or that Anarchy post i've been thinking. Also: i've stored up a bunch of links again, each of which probably deserves its own essay. But even i can't type fast enough to write about everything i'd like...

Link dump!

2005-02-26T15:17:00.000-08:00

Here're some links. Enjoy:

Margaret Cho gets "fanmail" from Freerepublic! See how many YOU can read before developing a desire for human blood!

CPAC took place recently. It's a conference thing where a bunch of Republicans get together and say what they really feel. It's as telling as a Freerepublic post.

CPAC whispers from a mole in the conference.

More commentary from either the same mole or a different one. And even more commentary!

And for that matter: that campusprogress.org site is pretty good in general. Here's something else from it...

The biggest problem with Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights is that it is serving as the Marxist linchpin for a Stalinist movement. The Academic Bill of Rights, which may or may not have been written in good faith, is still a deeply flawed and it is being used across the country for the most dangerous of purposes. In Colorado, Gov. Bill Owens and the former Senate President called for imposing political quotas on academic departments. In Ohio, one State Senator is calling for a prohibition on the repeated discussion of controversial subjects. As Berube emphasizes, his definition of controversial includes "religion and politics." Sara Dogan, who works for Horowitz's unaptly named Students for Academic Freedom, has gone on unsubstantiated academic witch hunts, as outlined in a new Todd Gitlin article in Mother Jones.

(From this post.)

Speaking of academic witch-hunts: More on Ward Churchill. I still don't agree with him, but i can't support witch-hunts that purportedly respect the letter of the first amendment while at the same time having the effect of punishing dissent. That's what the campaign against Churchill is and don't you believe otherwise: it is revenge.

President Bush must have had a lousy week lately. Let's hope he has a few more over the next few years.

Enough of the "hawks": A response to twenty seven different justifications for the Iraq war. Conspicuously absent is "The Book of Revelations".

MyDD's book club: The Republican Noise Machine, by David Brock of MMFA. One of my personal favorite personalities in this whole mess.

The GAO rebukes the Bush Administration:

... in violation of federal law, failed to disclose the administration's role ...

Can we impeach him yet? How about now?

...Now?

Okay, ignoring perhaps the biggest threats to our national defense (as per that last link up there) aren't an impeachable offense. They're just vile. Especially when they're being used to punish people who voted against Bush and reward people who voted for him. No, those aren't impeachable offenses. But getting a blowjob is. Yessiree, it sure is a good thing Bush isn't getting any blowjobs. I mean... think about the grave danger to our nation that would pose!

RMS manages to describe the objections to copyright law as-is in a single paragraph. This is a new record for him.

In US law, copyright is a deal between the public and authors: the public sold the freedom to republish, which only publishers could do anyway, and gained more progress. Progress is valuable, but freedoms that we want to use are even more valuable. Nowadays, that includes the freedom to share copies on the internet. To make copyright law a good deal for the public, we should scale it back. If this means some companies and a handful of superstars make less than their wildest dreams, Prendergast may be shocked, but Adam Smith would not have been.

Considering this was my real foothold in politics back when i first getting involved (yes, really) i would of course be remiss in not occassionally mentioning things in this arena. It's just that fixing copyright won't do us much good if we lose all our other freedoms and rights in the process.

Oh, and while i'm on the subject: Don't just click through EULAs--they really do control you.

Heck, have more commentary on the economics of sharing.

The "war on drugs" and The Masquerade: part 1, 2, and 3. They're fairly long so you might want to bookmark them. The second one is the best IMO. They're all important though especially with a certain Negroponte's nomination. Again: nobody is too corrupt for the Bush administration, apparently.

Disgusting ad attacks the AARP. News at 11.

Actually no, i'm not going to brush that off. See, i stubmeld on the people whose picture was used in the ad. They're not happy. They've contacted their lawyer.

B.O. (that's Bill O'Reilly if you haven't caught on) is a strange, strange man.

The Republicans are starting to realize Dean isn't just some bad dream. Too bad. I was hoping they'd laugh a bit more.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -M.K. Gandhi

On Republican extremism.

Democrats afraid of touching the Gannon/Guckert affair shouldn't be. I'd throw in a "Stop listening to their propaganda you simpletons!" but i doubt it'd do me much good.

The UN calls for Darfur war crimes tribunal. Too late to be much other than a symbolic gesture, though. Let me just bring up Rwanda as well. "Never again" my ass.

"Some 83% of students polled felt people should be allowed to express unpopular views..." Don't go pat yourself on the back. That's 17% of students who think people should not be allowed to express unpopular views. These people can't vote. Not yet, anyway.

Transgender celebrity, though not in the way you might think.

On the curious way the Right Wing abandons babies as soon as they're born. I don't do much on abortion (probably not as much as i should) because i'm still torn on the issue. I won't get into it here, but i do advise you read the above article.

Bush's secret tapes. I'm sure most of you have heard of these as they've been all over the news. Still, he sounded like a real human being. Unlike how he normally sounds. It's too bad he also appears not to have a spine. He doesn't want to "kick gays", indeed. You may not want to, President Bush, but that's exactly what you have been doing.

And on this Wead guy? Bush's friends sure like protecting him from anything resembling "accountability".

This didn't surprise me. Apparently people think that if you want to have kids that means you're going to be a model parent. People think a lot of things, though.

"Misunderstanding Malcolm X"

Congress ~~curbs class-action suits~~ slaps the American public in the face.

Churches being used as military recruitment centers. Okay, show of hands: anyone surprised? No? Didn't think so. If i had the time i'd outline how this relates to Don Rumsfeld's secret ops program but that's not for today i guess.

“Don’t take on the Bushes” is becoming an unwritten rule in American journalism.

Speaking of journalism: Orcinus discusses the "pestilence on our nation".

Democrats consider redistricting. I'm a bit torn on this one. I like free seats as well as anyone but i'm not sure throwing the conventions into the wood-chipper is the right way to go.

Time for a bit of envy: British minimum wage actually exists in the real world...

Propaganda to keep us sedate.

And finally: the real memos on Bush's national guard service.

On the "Bush Doctrine"

2005-02-25T12:43:00.000-08:00

I was originally writing this for another website but that site sorta went flaky on me and i think this really deserves a larger audience. So without further ado:

The "Bush Doctrine" and war

To begin with: this post is a response to a proposition put forth by someone else. The proposition goes, essentially, like this:

In the debates Kerry said that he would retaliate if the US was attacked but that Bush said he wouldn't wait for the US to be attacked. Therefore Bush's approach was proactive and Kerry's reactive. In other words: Bush "gets it" and Kerry does not so nothing else matters: no matter how terrible Bush is otherwise he could protect America whereas Kerry could not.

Leaving the arguments about the real positions of the politicians out of it: I propose that precisely the opposite is true. I propose that Just War (in the ethical sense) is never proactive but instead always reactive. I propose that the "Bush Doctrine" is not proactive at all but entirely reactive. And finally: i propose that the "Bush Doctrine" is not a revolutionary way to approach terrorism but instead a limited and useless approach.

Many of my readers may already intuitively believe this but i suspect many of you would have trouble describing precisely why. Well here's why:

Was the Iraq War Proactive or Reactive?

This seems a bit of a counter-intuitive question in our world today. "Of course it was proactive!" goes the conventional wisdom. But i'm going to argue precisely the opposite: the Iraq War was entirely reactive. I propose that the Iraq War, even if the fear-mongering about weapons of mass destruction were justified--in other words: even if there were WMD in Iraq--the Iraq war would have, at best, been a reactive and short-term approach to terrorism and threats in the world today.

Why is that? Consider this:

The backdrop: You're minding your own business today and someone catches your eye. I'm going to deal with four hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario 1: This someone pulls a gun on you and shoots you, you pull your own gun and shoot this other person back.

Almost everyone will agree these actions are defensible and just for almost any particular scenario imaginable that follows this pattern. But more importantly: it's clearly reactive and not proactive.

Scenario 2: Someone pulls a gun on you, but you pull your own gun and shoot this other person first.

Although this one isn't as clear as the above: i propose it, too, is reactive. If this other person hadn't pulled a gun you wouldn't have drawn yours. You responded to the threat, but you just managed to stop yourself from getting shot. The only difference between this and the first scenario is in terms of reflexes and awareness--"are you fast enough" and "did you notice" are the two questions whose answers separate the first and second scenario. This, too, is almost always agreed to be defensible. You are almost always going to be in the right--and even if you shoot someone who doesn't deserve it they probably shouldn't have been waving a gun around like that.

Scenario 3: You see someone who you believe is going to pull a gun on you. You pull your gun and shoot this other person immediately.

This, too is reactive. You're reacting to something other than direct actions on the part of the other party since the other party hasn't acted against you yet you (for some reason) believe they will. The difference between the first two and the third is that you're no longer relying on direct threats (such as shooting someone or pulling a gun on someone) but rather on perceived threats--the questions become "are you fast enough", "are you aware", and "do you have some reason to believe this person is a threat". This action is much more questionable than the above and you're going to shoot innocent people far more often than in either of the first two scenarios. Most people agree that it can be justified under the right circumstances but that care must be taken to not shoot innocent people or you're going to be straying into scenario 4...

Scenario 4: You see some random stranger and shoot this stranger.

Clearly this one is proactive--you're entirely self-directed and in no way is responding to someone else. This one is also the least defensible on ethical grounds--even if you do occassionally nail someone who deserves it you're only doing so by pure luck (or numbers, depending on how many people you shoot) and by no means does that justify your actions.

The only proactive option of the four is the one that is almost never defensible on ethical/moral/etc grounds. That doesn't mean that war (even the "Bush Doctrine's" pre-emption--which more or less falls under #3) is never justifiable but that it simply is not a "proactive" approach.

Furthermore: I propose that America is powerful both militarily and economically (and in a couple other ways)--more powerful than any other individual nation on this planet (we'll leave the EU out of it--that's an unknown entity) and maybe even more powerful than any given two or three--but that America cannot rule the entire world by force.

Given the above four scenarios and limitations of the power of the USA we can outline why the "Bush Doctrine" does not fulfill the role.

As mentioned above: almost everyone already agreed that scenarios 1 and 2 were legitimate--they represent "we were attacked, now we'll attack back" and "we are facing an imminent threat of attack and therefore must attack now or attack later". The "Bush Doctrine" adds number 3 to the list of policies (almost everyone agreed that #3 was circumstantially acceptable), which is what made the Democrats really nervous. However: what the addition of option #3 doesn't do is increase our "proacivity" to threats of terrorism or war.

So the Iraq War, which fits the pattern of scenario 3, is not proactive but instead reactive. In fact: Bush argued the Iraq war as though it were scenario 2 (though the Bush administration tried real hard to avoid explicitly claiming it fell into scenario 2) and not scenario 3. The fact that we have now accepted scenario 3 as legitimate is purely a product of revisionist history on a national scale.

And that's beside the question of whether the Iraq War was justified or not.

I could further describe this theory, but i think the rough outlines ought to be clear so i'll leave it at that for now. Onto the second part:

The Proactive Approach

So if the third scenario is still reactivity then what, precisely, would a "proactive" approach to threats look like?

A proactive approach to threats on national security would involve (just as a starter) diplomacy, education (think "books not bombs"), supporting rational approaches to problems (think: as opposed to allowing theocratic insanity to fester or even actively supporting it), and using other non-coercive/non-violent means of overcoming threats.

So, i would propose, the "Bush Doctrine" doesn't really solve the problem of terrorism in the 21st Century. Instead it only responds to terrorist threats. It might respond more often and/or more effectively than previously (at least: Bush's post-Sept-11 policy sure beats his pre-Sept-11 policy) but it is entirely defensive in the large-scale conflict. If you want a "war on terror" to be taken seriously the idea that military aggression is the ideal response must be discarded.

This isn't a new idea, either. For an example:

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
--Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Sun Tzu is full of goodness. Goodness that the US's current leaders are, so far as i can tell, completely ignorant of. You think the idea that some dead Chinese dude knows more about modern war than our enormous military is crazy?

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."
--Sun Tzu, the Art of War (Emphasis mine)

See: Rumsfeld's assertion that we only needed a few troops in Iraq.

Of course: interference on the part of "the sovereign" is a fundamental piece of Democracy in the USA so we're setting ourselves up for failure on that part. How to fix it? Don't vote total idiots into office.

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."
--Sun Tzu

Same as above.

Anyway: i'm not going to quote the whole Art of War at you people and i'm not going to get into the Killing Sword or other obscure Asian theories about war and conflict. I'm trying to keep on a single topic for this post :P

Now this is irony...

2005-02-22T00:28:00.000-08:00

Due to Microsoft brain-damage i'm now trying to pirate their damn operating system.

Let's back up and see why. For those of you who have had some... experience... with Windows you probably won't be surprised.

So a while back my hardware started flaking out and my video card broke itself. At the same time a bunch of other stuff went wild and lossy. Including my Windows XP install which ate the NTFS partition it was installed on and then randomly distributed the bits onto my Linux partitions. Major losing.

Well i didn't bother to fix it since i figured it might (just maybe) not be Windows' fault for once. Who knows. In reality i just didn't want to clean up the inevitable bit-vomit again. Lazy like that. But i only really used XP for playing games, so no big loss to not have it. Besides: my video was all mangled since the video card was a bit crispy.

Well i got replacement hardware. I decided i was feeling a bit of an urge to do some gaming so re-installation of the XP system would be required. I started up the Windows XP CD and it helpfully suggested i repair the broken partition rather than install on a new one (considering the amount of difficulty i was having getting it to even admit the partition i was aiming it at existed i figured i'd go with the repair). Well it did its happy thing for a while, rebooted, did more stuff. Then it asked me for my cd key.

I was waiting for that, of course, as Microsoft has a fascination with cd keys that borders on Freudian. I punched the cd key in and hit enter.

I'm sure those of you with experience with Windows know what happened. For those of you who need the blanks filled in it said "CD Key invalid. Also: I fucked your mom!"

Okay, i'm exaggerating. A little bit.

I went down and took a shot of some whiskey. Vile stuff. Came back up and hit "enter" again and the same thing happened. No go. I re-read the cd key. Maybe i was mis-reading it, i thought, so i tried a couple permutations. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

"That's annoying..." says i. I boot into Linux and hit Google up for some suggestions. Google suggests i stab myself in the eye. Both Google and i know that's where this is going anyway. I politely decline, however. Google's second suggestion is that this is the desired behavior of Windows XP. Your CD key is only good once. Want to re-install? Windows doesn't.

"Wonderful... just wonderful... i love being treated like a criminal after coughing up cash for this junk. And being told it's for my own good, to boot!" says i. Eye-stabbing time...

Well, not one to let a little bit of brain damage stop me, i'm now investigating various ways to circumvent this nonsense entirely.

Great work, Microsoft. Your anti-piracy scam actually encourages me to pirate your software. What the damnity-fuck am i giving you money for? To get slapped in the face?

Every time a new Windows operating system comes out i swear i won't buy it. But i even have a Windows ME disc. ME for God's sake! And i don't really have piles of money just lying around, either!

*Sigh*

At least i get to use irony in a way that actually respects the meaning of the word. I think i'd better quit while i'm not-further-behind-than-i-already-am. I need sleep and i have class tomorrow. I don't have time for this nonsense...

Commentary and links for you! (With update)

2005-02-17T13:43:00.000-08:00

Without getting too much into it: there's been a lot of talk about Social Security lately.

Let me propose something: The President may well be trying a bait-and-switch.

Consider: the President proposes some totally brain-dead plan for SS with the hopes that it gets shoved through. If it succeeds then he gets to strip one of the foundations of modernity out of America. This is apparently one of his goals. But if it fails then he co-opts the Democratic position and in the meantime makes the Democrats fight a war of attrition against his brain-dead plan.

I'm not saying the Democrats ought to have rolled over on this (that would have been very stupid) but rather that they need to be thinking strongly about... shall we say... an exit strategy from this mess.

Make the President sign on to the Democratic proposal, don't let him take the lead.

Let me repeat that: don't let him take the lead! Don't let him steal the credit for your plan.

Propose a fix for SS TODAY. Do it with a law if at all possible. If Bush says "Hey, I have an idea! Let's raise taxes!" don't let him claim it was his idea. Make the Republicans either reject the plan right now or make them sign on. Either way is a win.

Once more: do not let them take the lead!

Bush hasn't actually put forth a real plan yet. He's still testing the waters. I fear he's going to propose something virtually identical to the Dem position and then say "I never actually PROPOSED a plan!" and the Democratic Party will be left high and dry.

In other news...

I've intentionally stayed away from the Gannon/Guckert story in the past but i'm going to make a brief foray into the realm of gay prostitutes and the Republican Party that loves them.

The whole "private life" thing is bullshit. It's the same bullshit they coughed up when it was Mary Cheney. Yeah, she had a job as GLBT sensitivity leader at a publically traded company--but the fact that she likes girls is nonetheless "her private life and you're an evil homophobe for even mentioning it!"

Guckert (a.k.a. Gannon) running a military "escort service" is not his private life. Fuck, his "privates" are not even private. I have a picture of them on my computer screen. That's not private. It's not like this is some private photo collection that somehow got hacked into--not even like a private photo collection that accidentally got put up publically.

McClellen claimed not to know "Gannon" was an alias--but don't they do background checks?

So did he escape the background checks? Did McClellen just flat-out lie? Was McClellen out of the loop (as he was on the Condolezza Rice perjury)? All unanswered questions...

Furthermore, Guckert was apparently in on when the Iraq war would start 4+ hours prior to the actual announcement. Not only that but he leaked it.

And that's not all! He was also inovlved in the Plame leak in some shadowy way.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Hatemongering, projection, so-called "bloggers", and YOU!

More on the "mainstreaming" of hate.

Neo-Nazi organizations are not only putting up billboards, they're also instructing members to hide tattoos and dress for rallies in conservative suits to avoid being dismissed as extremists. Thomas Robb, the national director of the Knights of the KKK, urges his members to serve on community boards and in political parties so they can push their white-power agenda from positions of social respect.

How the Republicans are destroying the electoral process.

Undermine the legitimacy of any Democrat elected to office, regardless of the margin.
Undermine public confidence in long-established election procedures, particularly hand recounts, as well as confidence in the integrity of the officials conducting the elections.
Undermine the voting rights of minorities and lower-income voters, particularly by purging supposed felons from the voting rolls, thereby discouraging participation in the election process and underscoring their historic disenfranchisement.
Undermine the integrity of the voting process itself by introducing readily manipulable electronic voting technology that leaves no auditable paper trail.

A story on Yahoo claims the army destroyed more pictures from Abu Ghraib--and ones that were worse than the ones we've seen so far.

The US opposes ICC trials.

But hey, Rwanda and Sudan were no big deal right? It was the UN Oil for Food program that's really important. What's a million lives here or there?

It's like a bad episode of Babylon 5. Things are so out of control that even the guy who started the war in the first place can't manage to get anything out of it. So those are my reasons why I haven't been excited about the blooming desert flower of democracy in Iraq. To me that `flower' is looking more and more like kudzu. Sure it spreads, but it's damn near impossible to get rid of it. And even though it seemed like a good idea at the time, it's turned into a complete nightmare. A lot of Republicans will call this `hand-wringing.' I consider it `giving away the ending.' I probably should have put a Spoiler Alert up at the top. I hope I haven't ruined it for you. I just hope I'm wrong.

You know how, in my previous post, i discussed a certain someone who was tangled up in Guantanamo Bay? I'm not the only one who has been noticing Bush's nominations are a little... out there...

Limbaugh lies about lying. And so does B.O. (That's Bill O'Reilly to you).

"Now, I know that Limbaugh doesn't have a lot of experience with successful relationships, but attacking someone's spouse is generally considered to be pretty low down and dirty. In fact, some would call his reckless allegations libelous -- my lawyer, for example. I also know that Limbaugh suffers from a rather severe case of McCarthy-era nostalgia, but equating liberalism with communism is tired and boorish even for someone who is a big, fat idiot. I use the term advisedly."

James Roosevelt Jr. suggests Hume resign. I second that.

FreeRepublic and Republican talking head are having a go at each other. Quick: can we drive a wedge between them further, perhaps?

"Frist's Fury Over Filibusters"

Global warming is a myth!

Backdoor privatization remains privatization

Guantanamo is our generation's "internment camp".

Let the slander begin!

(As an aside: the Democrats ought to get behind Dean on this one. All of them. Dean is taking the stand that the Democrats should have taken fifteen years ago.)

The Democrats should oppose this in the same manner.

And more of the same.

Twenty-seven rationales for war.

In the same vein: "Shifting the Goalposts".

On Bush's "Charm Offensive"...

A request for new hearings with Dr. Rice. This one deserves some more air time!

"Why We Hated Clinton."

"The Soft Racism of Low Expectations"

Finally: Dean and Perle debate on CSPAN tomorrow night. Perle gets a shoe thrown at him. Yes, a shoe. I wonder if the person doing the shoe-throwing was an Iraqi?

(Update)

Democrats introduce voting reform legislation. It looks pretty good, but it has approximately a snowball's chance in Hell while the Republicans are in-charge. But i'll save the Republican electoral strategy talk for later.

A definition of Fascism

2005-02-14T11:59:00.000-08:00

Fascism

A style of government that seeks order and control as an end in and of itself. Historically this control has stemmed from the state as the prime construct in a culture

A political theory espousing such a style of government or one similar.

The act of calling for a move from non-order to order or from the uncontrolled to the controlled. regardless of any justification for such a move or for its own sake. Fascism also often espouses an "eternal struggle" in which all are constantly fighting for their lives (either literally or metaphorically) and claims that without struggle humanity would become soft and civilization would collapse.

A style of government similar to authoritarianism or totalitarianism but appealing to nationalism and attempting to minimize the power of the working class and labor unions as much as possible (in other words, rejecting individualism and socialistic ideology). This government often uses war as a way to inspire nationalism or silence dissent at home. See Goebbels' comment on "All you have to do is to tell the people they are being attacked and they will give you anything you want."

"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...." (From Encyclopedia Italiana, 1932 edition, attributed to Benito Mussolini)

A militant form of right-wing populism. (Fascism as described by Fritzsche)

Suggestions for alteration? Objections?

(Revision 3)

On the nomination of Justice Chertoff

2005-02-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

Oh Father, my Father, Oh what must I do?
They're burning our streets and beating me blue.
"Listen my son, I'll tell you the truth:
Get a close haircut and spit-shine your shoes."

Oh Mother, my Mother, my confusions remove,
I long to embrace her whose hair is so smooth.
"Now listen my son, although you're confused,
Cut your hair close and shine all your shoes."

Oh Teacher, my Teacher, your life with me share.
What books ought I read? What thoughts do I dare?
"Oh Student, my Student, of dissent you beware.
Shine those dull shoes and cut short your hair."

Oh Preacher, my Preacher, does God really care?
Are all races equal? Are laws just and fair?
"Boy -- here's the answer, no need to despair:
Shine those new shoes and cut short that hair."

That one certainly reminds me of our government's approach (at least, certain people within our government) to problems recently. No question is too tough or complex to be answered with anything other than the talking points.

Let's take a look at Justice Chertoff.

As i write this a man named Judge Michael Chertoff is currently getting a confirmation hearing in the Senate. He was nominated as head of Homeland Security. I was watching it on CSPAN while eating lunch.

Chertoff is an interesting nomination. At least as interesting as Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and so on.

Let's start from the top.

Chertoff has, as far as i'm aware, not a single success on his record. It is a record of failure. Chertoff has the anti-Midas touch: everything he touches turns to shit. He is engaged in what can only be categorized as an Orwellian meteoric dive upward. But that's Bush-world for you.

Chertoff was a special counsel in the Whitewater investigation. You remember that? Republican fishing expedition looking for an excuse to impeach then-President Clinton so the Republicans could get back to their job of stripping the Democracy off of America?

Following the September 11 World Trade Center attacks, Justice Chertoff orchestrated the roundup of over 1,000 Muslims who were subsequently held without trial. Not a single one of them, from what i understand, has provided anything useful.

Chertoff is, like Alberto "Abu Ghraib" Gonzales, entangled in the US's softballing of torture. In Chertoff's case he was involved with Guantanamo Bay.

According to reports at Guantanamo Bay one of the "interrogation techniques" used there was to lock a prisoner into a solitary confinement cell and then turn spotlights on him 24/7.

One prisoner was "interrogated" in this manner for three months straight. After three months of this he suffered "serious mental derangement" and was no longer really a reliable source for anything. That's even beside the question of whether or not he had any useful information to begin with.

This. Is. Torture.

If the Bush administration continues to call this sort of treatment an "interrogation technique" they deny the fact. If that sort of "technique" must be called an "interrogation technique" that does not change its true nature: it remains torture in everything but name alone.

What does this have to do with Chertoff? He was legal counsel at Guantanamo Bay.

This is yet another nomination by the Bush administration of someone directly entangled in the torture scandals.

Chertoff may not have actively supported torture at Guantanamo bay but he certainly didn't call those who did on their support.

And even if he didn't really have much to do with it: he has refused to answer questions and the Justice Department (under Gonzales--another one entangled in the torture scandal) has claimed they don't have to release the information (or, in fact, any other information at all). So we won't know. But despite the fact that there are grave questions with answers that might go down in history under the "INFAMY" column it's likely Chertoff will get approved anyway. Why? Go ask the Republicans.

Who are some others on the Bush Greatest Hits of Torture list?
Donald Rumsfeld
Jon Bybee
Alberto Gonzales
William J. Haynes II
Ricardo Sanchez
John Abizaid
And More!

All of these people were kept on by Bush, or promoted, in his second term. Are you detecting a pattern?

For all the White House's simpering petulence about be challenged on whether or not they support torture ("Of COURSE we don't support torture, only sinful democRAT traitors would suggest otherwise!") they sure as hell aren't taking instances of actual torture performed on actual human beings seriously. Instead: they're padding the upper levels of the US government with people who are entangled in the whole mess.

And even the Bush nominees that don't fall into the "might be accomplices to some of the most grotesque violations of human decency in American History" category aren't really that great. Although the Republican talking points on the matter--that the Democrats are "obstructionists" and are "undermining the President's constitutional right to nominate who he sees fit"--are untrue (see: Clinton) it probably wouldn't be undeserved even if it were.

"You Heard Me Right" -- Take the Republicans' rhetoric and turn it back at them. Who can claim, after reading this, that the Republicans and Democrats are truly value-equivalent?

Speaking of right-wing extremists: Instapundit spews some more bile. I know arguing with these people only empowers them, but for the sake of those out there who don't immediately see what's wrong with the logic: "the pressure of public opinion" that Hussein mentioned was objectively correct with respect to the Bush administration's justification for war, whereas the Bush administration and it's sycophants were objectively incorrect. In other words, this is another permutation of the "If we don't X the terrorists have already won!" defense. Jim Henley and Hesiod are right to complain about this.

Woo!

2005-02-12T21:38:00.000-08:00

Dean is the new DNC chair!

Technically. You have to wait until tomorrow until he gets officially installed.

But: i figure a good welcome for him would be to send some cash-money. I've added a link to actblue on the side and also a direct contribution thingy. Feel free to use it.

(And that's enough shilling out of me for a while...)

Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Tort Reform...

2005-02-09T12:13:00.000-08:00

So i was watching CSPAN (as i have taken to doing) and saw Orrin Hatch talking about the proposed tort reform. Technically i saw the end of Lehay's speech on the matter and then the start of Hatch's. Well, in any case: Hatch argued that the proposed tort reform (as i understand it: tort lawsuits must be brought at a federal level) is vital to stopping bad lawyers from extracting outrageous sums and (his words) going "district shopping" for favorable judges.

Aside from the fact that this is merely a recitation of the original proposed reasoning and failed to take into account any of Lehay's objections at all; and aside from the fact that i don't necessarily think district shopping is a bad thing (corporations shop out favorable locations to set up shop and do their various businesses--why can't normal citizens?) although i would agree that lawyers ought not be able to steal the proverbial farm: Hatch's primary evidence of lawyerly misconduct was from works of fiction. Literally. As in: books that go into the "fiction" section of your library. Like "The King of Torts", a book about lawyers who abuse the legal system. That's one of the things he used. He wants to reform the legal system based on situations that are entirley imaginary.

I need to invent new adjectives to describe how fucking crazy this is.

New adjectives!

I'm not going to say that the American legal system is totally just and that there's simply no room for changes--it's clearly not--but this and related pieces of legislation don't really address the problem. Rather, they gut key provisions of our legal system (in this instance: the ability to bring class action lawsuits). By forcing all class action suits to go through the more reliable federal courts the law hopes to negate the "district shopping".

That's nice. But there's one problem: the federal courts are not currently set up to handle that many cases. So, simply by the fact that there aren't enough judges or places to hold a trial you're going to end up with the majority of the cases thrown out. Only the most extreme will make it through, furthermore: not only will ramming thousands of cases through the federal courts force the courts to toss class action suits out but it will also force the courts to ignore other cases.

In other words, this legislation will hinder the ability of the Federal courts to actually provide justice. The courts, of course, are vital to a functioning democracy.

But of course: that's no mere accident.

This seems to be the retribution from the class action suits of the past few years. Firestone tires and Minnesota's class action suit against cigarette companies has made others sit up and pay attention.

"Holy shit!", goes the cry, "We're not in control here! We're vulnerable! We have to put a stop to this! How can we make a profit when people can sue us after being hurt by our stuff?"

So we get a bill that strips the ability to sue away.

And what does Senator Hatch justify this bill on? Not on providing companies with immunity from the consequences of their actions but on fictional accounts of Evile Triale Lawyers.

We're not talking about just undoing the New Deal here, people. We're talking about undoing stuff from the Declaration of Independence on forward.

But then again: Senator Hatch has had some troubles in the past with these sorts of laws. There was the one time he proposed an anti-copyright law that was in violation of federal anti-hacking law--and not only that, but a law Senator Hatch himself violated blatantly.

Other stuff...

Mark Dayton set to retire, apparently. I hope the backlash from Tim "Moron" Pawlenty hits these elections hard...

Meanwhile: "You will address us as 'LORD KARL ROVE'! Just as soon as we finish with all these meetings, at least..."

You might go to jail for reading this!

2005-02-07T23:19:00.000-08:00

Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:

"Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"

"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"

"The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"

"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!"

--Ann Coulter

It's official: She's jumped off the deep end and has become a full-on nutcase whackjob frothing lunatic. No longer are her appeals to the racist, worst elements of US culture. Base pandering to the true radical fringe elements of America apparently mean money: and Coulter is selling.

She'll be first against the wall and all that.

If you don't believe me go back and read about the pro-Nazi movement in the WW2 era United States. The Nazis had quite a following in the States--but that ought not be that surprising considering the pieces of Nazi ideology that got imported from the USA.

..."any person who shall teach or advocate anarchy" will go to prison for ten years.*

How did it go again? Oh yes:

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The Falcon cannot hear the falconer ;
Things fall apart ; the center cannot hold ;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned ;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
--William Butler Yeats

(* Note:this bill has been officially withdrawn (and the anti-anarchist provision had about a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the First Amendment in any case) so i guess the title is a bit sensationalist. Yeah, okay. You got me. People only want you to go to jail for reading this. It won't (necessarily) happen (yet).

I'm also having a little bit of trouble getting the official text of this bill as it seems to have vanished down ye olde Memory Hole. Insert standard warning not to believe everything you read on the internet here.)

How's this?

2005-02-06T21:47:00.000-08:00

A definition of fascism:

A struggle to impose Order above Chaos, regardless of any justification for Order, which justifies any means necessary.

Keith Olbermann's response to Dobson's response to Olbermann's column on Dobson's bizarre attack on SpongeBob Squarepants' ambiguous sexual orientation.

Whew. That's a mouthfull.

"...a quick hit of the reply button, and they seem largely confounded that anybody has disagreed with them..."
--Olbermann

Yes, he's surely one of the few journalists out there who is not bought-and-sold. Keith Olbermann: I salute you!

9/11 changed everything...

2005-02-06T17:45:00.000-08:00

In their own words.

At first I see an open wound,
infected and disastrous.
It breathes chaotic catastrophe,
it cries to be renewed.
Its tears are the color of anger,
they dry to form a scab.
To the touch, its stiff and resilient,
underneath, the new skin breathe.

Its all been saved...
with exception for the right parts.
When will we be new skin?

As outwardly cliche as it may seem,
yes, something under the surface says,
"C'est la vie."
It is a circle, there is a plan...
dead skin will atrophy itself to start again.
Look closely at the open wound...
see past what covers the surface
Underneath chaotic catastrophe,
creation takes stage.

Dead skin will atrophy itself to start again.
Dead skin will atrophy itself to start again.
Dead skin will atrophy itself to start again.

Its all been saved...
with exception for the right parts.
When will we be new skin?

Its all been seen...
with exception for what could be.
When will we be new skin?

until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see,
and hear.
since the inital publication of the charged electromagnetic spectrum, humans
learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear...is less than one
millionth of reality.

Fallacious cognitions,
spewed from televisions,
do mold our decisions.
So stop and take a look,
and you'll see what I see now.

Its all been seen...
with exception for the right parts.
When will we be new skin?

Its all been seen...
with exception for what could be.
When will we be new skin? skin?

--Incubus, New Skin

The civil unrest of the 60's, Vietnam, and then Nixon's impeachment were so alarming to some that the psyops tools perfected in shadows of foreign lands were brought home.

Don't forget who was in charge of the SBVfTL: a man Nixon essentially invented from whole cloth to destroy John Kerry in order to keep Nixon's popularity up.

On the same thought: How the war was sold. Well, it's not quite that impressive a link. But it's another piece of the picture.

And speaking of invented from whole cloth: that's where the "72% of Iraqis voted" number came from. And that's ignoring the question of "what were they voting for?"

Gonzales added to the war crimes complaint. God willing.

Addendum...

2005-02-06T11:18:00.000-08:00

Same sex marriage ruled constitutionally protected in New York.

And there was much rejoicing.

The cost of inexpensive goods.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. There's the price, and then there's the cost.

Lalalala, no electoral fraud here! Nope! Never mind the man behind the curtain!

And here's about another country with electoral problems! No, not the US. Not Ukraine. Take a guess! (Hint: it's Iraq...)

Now, i'm not surprised that the Sunni triangle didn't get polling stations put up or anything. I mean, duh! I think it practically goes without saying that the Sunni triangle is, at present, not going to be a good spot for voting.

But the real question is: why did we go ahead with the vote anyway?

I mean, how convenient for us that our opponents don't get to vote... out of their own... what, stupidity i guess... but still...

Speaking of stupid religious fanatics, we've got some of them back home!

In fact: we've got so many religious fanatics that we don't know what to do with them!

(That one is a look back at the anti-D&D craze of a few decades back.)

More on "frivolous lawsuits". Is anyone surprised?

How convenient for Herr Bush!

Paul Bremer lost 8.8 billion USD in Iraq. No, not "spent unwisely". Misplaced.

(Update!)

This is called a flame.

"Democratic suicide bomber" (With commentary!)

"...we never once did that to Clinton."

2005-02-05T23:38:00.000-08:00

JOE SCARBOROUGH (former U.S. representative (R-FL) and MSNBC host): After the Democrats booed and hissed, Republicans were on the floor saying, you know, we never once did that to Clinton. So every time he would talk about Social Security, the roars got a little louder. And they got behind their president. [MSNBC, Hardball, 2/2/05]

Oh really?

I've been sorta hiding for a while. Number of reasons. Most of them frustrating. I'm not going to give you the litany of complaints.

Anyway, i've still got a ton of stuff up: but i had to bring this one up while it was still timely.

In other, quicklike, news: I actually saw this book. I picked it up and read it. It's every bit as bad as the link claims.

Think back. Way back. No, further than that. Even further than last Thursday. Back past last Monday, too. Go back to before the November 2 ~~disas...~~ elections. Go back to the Presidential debates. Remember those?

It's like a sequence out of an old Chinese Wire-Fu film.

National Guard memos what?

(That was actually hard. It was a cross between referencing the whole 60 minutes pseudo-scandal and making some joke about how Bush is a puppet--possibly sprinkle in some lyrics from Pinnochio songs.)

Remember this? I do believe the AFA tipped me off to this one.

Some examples of those frivolous, evil lawsuits that must be stopped... At least, if you listen to Bush.

Let's play a game!

Soviets or Nazis? We report: You decide!

(As a side note: the answer is obviously "Lenninist"/Communist. Duh.)

Well, that's all for tonight!

Filler while i write other things...

2005-01-29T01:12:00.000-08:00

Woman threatened with arrest for her "F___ Bush!" bumper sticker...

I'm sure i don't need to go on a rant about this, so instead let's examine what the freepers are saying. Not one of their better (read: crazier) threads, but amusing. (Side note: while some of their arguments in that thread are seductive none of them have substance. Don't be drawn in :P)

Well, anyway...

In my giant, upcoming, post that i was mentioning i say something like "This inauguration was the most protested ever... but you wouldn't know that from watching CNN." Well, here's some of the protest.

Random, unrelated MMFA link. It's about Gonzales being a scumbag.

On ~~gays~~ White Supremecists infiltrating your schools and recruiting your children.
Also from Orcinus, a fairly solid defense of hate crimes.

An exercise in "naked partisanship" from the regular media. Now there's something you don't see every day...

President Bush throws up the horns: Innocent regional gesture or sign of allegiance to Satan? We report, you decide!

I was going to write something else--something quite substantial in its own right, actually--but now i've forgotten what and i seem to have lost my notes. Curses...

Instead, i'm going to substitute my talk about direct action from my giant post.

I'm running off of Crimthinc.com's "twelve myths about direct action".

I don't usually do anarchist stuff here, do i? Well, today is different.

I already wrote a bunch on this, but i want to add more.

Let's go line-by-line...

1. Direct action is terrorism.

I basically agree with the original author here.

2. Direct action is violent.

I have two points: Firstly that the most famous instance of direct action in American History was undertaken by a notorious pacifist: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I also think the author of the original article falls prey to a common problem for anarchists. I don't think brick-throwing is absolutely ineffective or "bad", but in the example given it certainly is ineffective.

Smashing some windows will not destroy the system. Even burning the whole plant to the ground has very little net effect. All that means is that they build a new one or buy new windows and carry on.

If brick throwing were a direct challenge to systematic inequality do you really think brick-throwers would be let off with vandalism or disorderly conduct charges? Enron was destroyed, not because America was "cleaning house", but rather as a symbolic sacrifice to convince people everything was and is okay. Make no mistake: the end of Enron was symbolic and not an indication of lack of corruption in business. Sure: Enron was actually guilty, but that is merely a side issue.

But brick throwing can't even begin to challenge inequality, injustice, corruption, etc, and if it could then not only would brick throwing be an inexcusable crime but bricks themselves would be illegal.

3. Direct action is not political expression, but criminal activity.

I would say sometimes it is both. "Actual" direct action is always political and sometimes criminal. Again: i refer to Martin Luther King.

4. Direct action is unnecessary where people have freedom of speech.

I would say that direct action is an extension of freedom of speech. Direct action is communication through action and not words--after all: don't actions speak louder than words?

But the original is also correct in saying that direct action exists for when "freedom of speech" gets rendered meaningless. After all: people must be willing to listen if speech is to mean anything. They can plug their ears up and chant "I can't hear you!" and all the speech in the world will do you no good. But march on their voting booths...

5. Direct action is alienating.

I have nothing to add at this time.

6. People who practice direct action should work through the established political channels instead.

Another Martin Luther King reference: his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

7. Direct action is exclusive.

The "is" is a bit unclear here. I'm going to just let the original's commentary stand as-is.

8. Direct action is cowardly.

Again: i refer to Martin Luther King.

Even in the case of stuff that's not so peaceful (for instance, ninja-sabateurs) i would propose that resisting or challenging an establishment is always going to be more difficult than going along with it.

Sure, some forms of direct action might seem cowardly: but i would propose the correct word is "efficient"...

9. Direct action is practiced only by college students/privileged rich kids/desperate poor people/etc.

I'm going to, again, let the original speak for itself here.

I do want to take a piece of the response and run with it though. In fact, this is my primary reason for discussing this article:

...The only possible exception to this would be members of the wealthiest and most powerful classes, who have no need to practice any kind of illegal or controversial action because, as if by coincidence, the established political channels are perfectly suited to their needs.

I think this quite sums up a lot of problems with our system as-is. Inequality will always exist and injustice will always exist in a society of hierarchies because the powerful have advantages just by being "the powerful". In a capitalistic society there will always be those who have more power and those who have less.

As someone whose name i can't remember once said: "Money isn't the goal, it's the way we keep score."

Let's look at Enron again. Ken Lay may be going to prison--but he's going to a prison that is made up of primarily economically deprived people. How unusual, considering Ken Lay may be worth any 100 of them in terms of overall damage done. Yet even if he was given a 3,000 year sentence he only has a certain number of years left to give. Even if society went on a rampage and began heavily convicting "corporate criminals", even those who didn't technically break the law, the prisons would still be primarily made up of the poor.

Prisons cannot, by their nature, reflect the graveness of Ken Lay's crime. How convenient, yes?

Prisons are, by this point, inherently unjust and as long as the inequalities of wealth can exist they will never be just.

The wealthy, as if by magic, need not break any laws to continue being at the top. The poor, in contrast, often need to do so to even survive.

Just because the system exists does not make it legitimate or just. A just or fair system must be fought for fiercely--even, i propose, by those who also would tear all such systems down. At least in a fair system people will not starve to death.

10. Direct action is the work of agents provocateurs.

This one is sometimes true, unfortunately. It's the price you pay, i guess.

This also demonstrates the superiority of using Dr. King's approach (nonviolence) as it's very hard to be a provocateur when you're peacefully going to prison for your right to vote. King didn't tolerate that sort of behavior in his own followers and as such his movement was inoculated against external provocateurs.

11. Direct action is dangerous and can have negative repercussions for others.

This is true, to a certain degree, and especially with respect to the more "brick-throwing" end of the spectrum.

12. Direct action never accomplishes anything.

I agree with the original in that direct action is one of the few ways to actually force change. In that respect: quite the opposite is true. Direct action is the only thing (or, i guess, one of the only things) that ever accomplishes anything.

However, as mentioned above, i think direct action needs to adhere to the actual principles of direct action. Burning the factories down may be flashy--but the factories will be rebuilt. The factories themselves are merely symbols of the problem and not the actual problem. By confronting the factories you really do accomplish nothing.

However, i would not term that direct action (in an abstract sense) as it does not directly challenge the problem.

Well, anyway. That's all for now.

1,350 words. About one tenth the total... A bit less considering only some of this post was taken from the primary one.

"I hate your damn speech..." (With update)

2005-01-26T21:08:00.000-08:00

So Congressional representative Marty Meehan (a Democrat, of Mass) was giving a speech on a proposed withdrawl plan from Iraq. It was fairly interesting and so forth.

Then William Kristol got up (he was also invited to speak, to give a counter-point i guess) and took the podium and basically completely mis-represented Meehan's proposal. Kristol pretended Meehan said "Hey, I don't like Iraq so let's just pull all our troops out and let the insurgents take over! Yeah!"

Meehan, of course, said no such thing.

What's interesting, though, is that while Kristol was going up to the podium he stopped to shake hands with Meehan. He assumed that his mic was off, or something, because he delivered a bit of private talk to Meehan. Starting with "I hate your damn speech".

Except the microphone was picking it up so everyone watching CSPAN got to hear.

Once more, just in case you missed it the first dozen times:

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals--and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship," --Grover Norquist

Here's some discussion on what's going on here, for those who still haven't caught it. It's a pretty good article in its own right.

In other news (sort of) i'm writing a giant ass post. It's about 13,000 words so far. I'm going to try to break it up, though, as there're a several branches of the primary idea that can be... pruned off, so to speak. I dunno when it'll be finished @.@

(Update)

One other thing: I'm starting to think there's some sort of vast, right-wing conspiracy to troll every left-leaning weblog/forum/journal/whatever on the face of the internet. Either that or the Republican rank-and-file is really, fantastically good at spouting talking points. Like, newspeak-level good.

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that all of Bush's speeches since the elections have been nothing but newspeak? They're full of talk about "expanding freedom", and other euphemisms, but he seems to have gotten the art of talking without saying anything down...

Important reading...

2005-01-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

Extreme Right Resonance

Christian Dominionism and How It Plans On Ruling The World

General Boykin's "Kingdom of Christian Warriors"

That website in particular has a bunch of stuff that's also interesting, though the charges made are rather worth considering cautiously.

Political ramblings ahead... (With update!)

2005-01-16T16:12:00.000-08:00

First off, something decidedly apolitical...

What do you do if you're a lonely college dropout who just bought a bad CP/M clone and repackaged it, but still can't get a date?

Also: Those who know me might know my obsession with game design and related stuff. One of the things i'm big on is the Rock-Paper-Scissors game theory. Some people have objected to use of that sort of balance mechanism on the grounds of "There are only three choices! What if i want more options???"

Well, other than re-thinking what constitutes a choice (in other words, "Where is the R-P-S located within your game system?") you can add more choices. "But how?" Never fear, someone has invented a new game to give you up to five choices! I'm sure you can fill in more following the pattern if you want.

Speaking of which, placeholder note:

Winter's Two Rules of Game Balance
Rule A: Let nothing be so useful it is the 'standard' answer to every situation (or most of them)
Rule B: Let nothing be so powerful that is completely dominates situations in which it is useful.

Anyway, on to the politics...

All Hail the King of Liars!

I'm sure you can guess who it is.

Bill Oh Really accused Senator Kennedy of lying, but had to lie about what Kennedy actually said to do it.

That, in the business, is called hypocrisy.

Speaking of which, i heard this speech of Kennedy's. Many Republicans (and Republican plants/sympathizers within the Democratic Party) have been railing against the evil Democrats about how they want to increase the number of abortions, etc. This isn't new. However, when confronted with that they say "Well why don't the Democrats ever just say 'Hey, we want to reduce abortions but the way to do it isn't by banning it but by using other methods...'? No Democrats ever say that, therefore we can conclude that Democrats want to increase abortions as if they didn't they would say otherwise." Besides the logical contortions that sort of argument requires it's also totally untrue. Kennedy said what Democrats supposedly never say in his speech, as well as a number of other (similar, for our purposes here) arguments. So the next time someone says that to me i'm not even going to bother arguing the logic, but instead i'm going to say something like "Maybe if you listened to something other than Republican talking points you'd have heard what you're looking for..."

Also according to Mr. Oh Really: if you're poor it's because you're lazy and/or deserving of poverty.

Yeah.

And let's not leave Ann Coulter out of this! She's getting even nastier. Maybe someone should talk to her with a baseball bat some time.

The brothers aren't big on queer theory.

Maybe someone should inform Ann that Martin Luther King (remember that guy? Entirely coincidental, but entirely appropriate, that i'd mention him today... i've been writing this particular post for about a week now) once said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Maybe someone should tell her that he was pro-GLBT rights. His wife could if you could get Coulter to sit down and shut up for a minute.

But no, Coulter just sees a way to pit minority group 1 against minority group 2 so that the Republican Party can go to either groups (or more likely both) and use the old "the enemy of my enemy..." line on them.

Phone-jamming the Democratic Party during elections: A "few bad apples", or systematic corruption?

Let's not pretend we didn't know about the disasters that have occurred under Bush's watch, and no: i'm not meaning tsunamis of any variety.

The search for WMD in Iraq was recently called off. There were no WMD in Iraq. The CIA recently released a study stating that Iraq has supplanted Afghanistan as the global training grounds for international terrorists.

So instead of WMD we have sick prisoner abuse at the hands of Americans in a country full of terrorists that were not there until the USA started fucking around in that region.

Great. Hey, Red Staters, you wanna know why the rest of the world thinks the US sucks? Go re-read the last two paragrahs.

A lot of people ask stuff like "Why didn't the German citizens speak out against/know about the horrible crimes committed by their government?"

Well, for starters: they weren't "horrible crimes". See, the government implemented programs to improve Germany. For instance: Jews were a threat to Germany's financial, racial, and moral well-being, or so the government said. By removing the general public from direct interaction with concentration camp prisoners, or whatever, the people weren't forced to confront what was going on. The government could maintain plausible deniability (i wonder if, when faced with charges about this or that the Nazi apologists would all wave the charges off with "It's just the work of a few bad apples...") and the citizens knew better than to investigate matters themselves.

I know it's pretty overdone to compare stuff to Nazi Germany, but some times the comparisons just fit. I'm not saying, of course, that Abu Ghraib was our Auschwitz. Not to belittle the sufferring there, but emotional torture and abuse that took place there isn't even comparable to the death of six million+ at the death camps and the sufferring of millions more. No, the point of comparison is in the culture of intentional ignorance which permits horrors and abuse because nobody steps up to say "Enough!"

Of course, someone did do that at Abu Ghraib. Or at least, someone blew the whistle (to borrow the overused expression).

Anyway, away from that death spiral of a topic...

You know all that talk about not changing your values but instead changing your presentation of them? It really works. (As i alluded to at the bottom of this post.) Admittedly, that was an open situation which someone walked into. But that sort of situation exists all over--you have to look and be ready for it. Without the right sort of approach to capitalize--to relate it to the Democratic Party's values, if you will--it doesn't matter what sort of situation or oppoertunity you have.

Random filler:

"Rathergate", again...

"No Facts" Novak is at it again, also.

...You know, i do feel kinda bad about using the "No Facts" and "Oh Really" monikers so much. Sorta makes me feel like a dirty hypocrite. But i suppose i'm able to sleep at night anway...

I had something else i was going to talk about, but i can't remember what it was now. Ah well, i'll edit it in if i remember.

(Edit)

Duh, i was gonna talk about Nixon!

One of the things i've noticed about the Republican/Right Wing establishment is the very curious way in which it treats the Nixon scandal. Very few of the Republican propagandists and whatever (technically i've heard none, but i'll give them the benefit of the doubt) treat Nixon's criminal activity as an ethical or moral failure on the part of him or his administration. Instead, whenever they talk about Nixon and whenever the Republican establishment talks about Nixon (especially when it thinks nobody is listening) the situation is almost always considered not Nixon's failure but rather rather as a successful smear operation by the Democrats.

The sort of talk i'm thinking especially is when Republicans suggest that they "want to do to [insert Democrat of your choice] what the Democrats did to Nixon". The idea that Nixon's downfall wasn't, essentially, a plot or political coup by the Democrats seems to never even be considered. Rather, the talk focuses on how to leverage scandals (real or imagined) of political opponents and turn them into hard political power. Occassionally it turns into how to evade fates similar to Nixon's.

That, of course, is from what i've seen and i may be wrong.

But it does seem curious to me.

Woo!

2005-01-16T11:27:00.000-08:00

For those of you who care about such things, Marathon 1, 2, and Infinity were recently released for free.

For those of you who don't care about such things: what's wrong with you? Marathon is awesome!

The Tao of Programming

2005-01-14T20:26:00.000-08:00

A well-used door needs no oil on its hinges.
A swift-flowing steam does not grow stagnant.
Neither sound nor thoughts can travel through a vacuum.
Software rots if not used.

These are great mysteries.

-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

GRAAAAH! (With Update!)

2005-01-13T23:11:00.000-08:00

My computer exploded again.

Or rather, it didn't technically. Only, the operating system can't see a number of very important files. For some reason. The files are there, but i can't convince the operating systme.

So i'm going to try to reboot. Jesus Christ, the files are right there! But i just know i'm going to end up re-installing the god damned operating system again.

FUUUUUUUUUCK!

(Update!)

Jon Stewart: 1, clueless media hacks: 0

Also: deceptively difficult...

(Update 2: DAMN! I was right about my system getting hosed again. On the plus side: i'm getting mighty good at Linux installs...)

Chris Matthews has no use for so-called "facts"

2005-01-10T16:18:00.000-08:00

So apparently CBS has fired some people over the national guard story. How nice. I'm not going to say it was the right move or the wrong move becaues i know almost nothing about it.

But Chris Matthews doesn't let knowing nothing about a subject stop him.

On his show tonight he had Pat Buchannan and some sort of Geraldo Riviera look-alike who i've never seen before over to slime CBS, John Kerry, and Democrats in general. They claim, you see, that the CBS story was a deliberate attempt by CBS and "Liberals" to bring down the President. Not, by the way, through providing facts about his national guard service--but rather, and this is important so pay attention, in the same way the Republicans tried to bring Clinton down.

That is important because the "Bush-haters are worse than Clinton-haters ever were!" meme has been gaining traction lately. Again, i'm not going to deal with the veracity of such claims at this point in time but i would encourage people to remember that the same people who are spreading this new "Bush-haters are worse" meme are the same ones who gleefully jumped onto the Clinton-hating bandwagon once it picked up steam.

Anyway, so Matthews and his friends were discussing how CBS obviously knew the facts (and "the facts" in this case are, according to Matthews and company, "the CBS memos are obviously faked, as anyone can see") and are a bunch of treasonous traitors.

As an example of obviously faked parts of the memo--get ready for it!

The superscript "th" in the memo, according to Chris Matthews, proves that the memo was "obviously faked" because no typewriter of the time could do the superscript "th".

For those who are keeping score: this was the first argument against the memos. It was also the most obviously false. But of course, Chris Matthews doesn't let facts get in the way of smearing Liberals!

Just for the record, i have an old 1970 IBM Selectric typewriter that my grandfather purchased (yes, back in 1970) for personal use. It could, if configured properly, create a superscript "th" character. And certainly the 111th Airborne would have no use whatsoever for a superscript "th" character! You're a terrorist for even considering it!

----

As an aside, i saw the "Moss-mooning incident" today. They're still playing it. This aside is mostly aimed at Nickelbolt (whose blogger site thing you can find in my "friends of" column over there to the right) but also to others who have been paying attention to the ridiculous way in which the news media finds something which they claim is tasteless (or whatever) and then play it to death.

----

Aside #2

Orcinus talks about the mainstreaming of "white supremecist" groups.

As though by fate, i also saw a story about the KKK starting up highway cleanup projects in certain areas. "Hey! Look at me! I'm a productive, valuable member of society! I'm not a racist, honest!"

----

Aside #3

Orcinus also discusses some of the Usual Right Wing Suspects' reaction to the Asian Tsunami disaster.

It's pretty crazy, but not unexpected.

As an aside to the aside, i saw the Scarborough Country (or rather: i saw as much of it as i could physically stomach) in which Scarborough had some frothing Christian lunatic on preaching about how the death of 150,000 people was a good thing as long as those people were yellow-skinned and/or non-Christian.

Blah!

2005-01-10T01:23:00.000-08:00

I keep trying to write another post, but my computer keeps crashing.

One more time, i guess.

I've been recently reading what i would charitably call my Republican counterparts. In other words, people who sort of fill my roll except on the Republican side of the political pie. More or less.

Anyway, they're pretty interesting. Not very insightful, but interesting. For example...

"Nazi" is short for "nationalsozialistische" or "National Socialist" ..

That sort of analysis apparently is supposed to be clever. But it's not. For instance, there's also the "People's Republic of China" yet not many people (outside the Chinese government) would categorize it as Republican in either the US mode-of-government sense or the US political party sense.

Similarly, Saddam Hussein called Iraq a Democracy--even held elections, too--but not too many people would say this was an accurate name and, again, not to many people would categorize it as equivalent to either the US governmental model or political party either. At least, i would hope not.

It's a mode of argument so dumb i have to give it a new name just to describe it:

Argumentum ad Their Names Sound Similar So Obviously They Must Be The Same!

Well, i wouldn't really have to give it a new name. But it's more amusing that way.

Lest you think that's just a witty (or not-so-witty) tagline that covers actual analysis with a hook: it isn't. Let's read on as the author of the post i linked "dissects" one of my personal favorites, Orcinus...

Right in the first paragraph the author already follows up the tagline with another bit of nonsense:

The Leftist origins of Fascism don't get a mention, in fact, so one knows immediately that the article will be low on scholarship. And its chief scholarly source for the nature of Fascism is in fact R.O. Paxton, the "historian" (much lauded in the N.Y. Times, of course) who said Hitler was an "antisocialist" -- when the very name of Hitler's political party was (translated) "The National Socialist German Worker's Party"! I think I have already at this early stage said enough about the article concerned to dismiss it for the claptrap it is but I cannot resist having a bit more fun with it.

At least the author admits this is some sick idea of "fun" and not an actual attempt at analysis. Orcinus's extensive documenting of the similarities between the old-style fascists and the present "movement Conservatives" that have more or less taken over the Republican party aside: i think i've already dealt with the argument presented here.

How about the "sub-title" of the weblog?

Leftists have a desperate need to prove that they are right. Conservatives are just interested in the facts

To which i could respond "Leftists are interested in the truth. Conservatives are just interested in making everyone obey them."

It may or may not be more or less accurate than "DissectLeft"'s line, but it would be approximately equivalent as far as truth or factuality would go. The only difference is that i give you both DissectLeft's line and my own, whereas DissectLeft neglects to even more than a couple lines of Orcius's extensive criticisms.

Anyway, onward and... well... downward i guess. I'm not really into extensive political criticism right now. It's kinda late and i'm irritated at my computer.

SOME THANKSGIVING THOUGHTS FOR LEFTISTS

1. Kerry really won the election-- Unfortunately, Bush and his rich cronies stole the election again- damn it!

The jury is still out on this one, as they say. In this case, the jury is literally still out. As in "don't count your Presidents before they're sworn in". Not that i'm expecting (or even, really, hoping) for that sort of outcome. But it's nonetheless a possibility, albeit an incredibly slim one, at this stage.

2. Obama the "Rising Star" beat Alan Keyes by an absurd margin.

There's gotta be a better name for him than that. But yes, a 90% margin of victory could be accurately classified as "absurd". But hey, Keyes ran on those all-American values of "QUEERS ARE EVIL", among other things, so i'm sure it'd be amusing if i could see the Republicans analysing his loss.

3. Terry McCauliffe is no longer actively destroying your party from within.

...Hmm...

4. Howard Dean may get a shot at leading the DNC to yet another Presidential election victory in 2008- barring another Republican electorate robbery.

Go Dean!

5. Being that the Republicans still retain power in Executive, Senate,and House- you get to do what you enjoy most- whine and blame Bush for everything that goes wrong.

Hey, it's a noble political pasttime to blame the other party for everything that goes wrong. Even when, as the Republicans currently do, you control the Executive branch, the Senate, and the House. "Obstructionist" and "activist liberal judges" anyone? But hey, i wouldn't want anyone to... i don't know... actually take responsibility for anything ever now would i?

6. The likelihood of a conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court will give you a once in a lifetime opportunity to conduct tasteful Pro-Abortion rallies. Perhaps, a wire hanger can be your new party logo.

I'll believe this when i see it.

Meanwhile, you conservatives can go right on conducting your tasteful "Pro-You can't get an abortion ever, even when your unborn child is killing you from within" rallies. I suggest graphic photos of mothers whose internal organs have been popped and bones broken by their ectopic pregnancies. Very "in" this year.

7. With Bush in office- your taxes will remain nice and low. Be honest, you weren't buying that raising taxes nonsense from Kerry anyway.

See: Tim Pawlenty's Minnesota.

(For those of you not "in" on this one: Pawlenty made a "No new taxes EVAR" pledge and, by God, he's going to stick with it. Even when it involves spending Minnesota into insolvency when it was, previously, doing fine fiscally. Hey, he can just raise fees and other "stealth-tax-increases" that predominantly affect the poor and claim political victory! Who cares about single mothers anyway?)

8. Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw retiring gives the liberal media machine a rare opportunity to find more effective partisan hacks- capable of forging documents, and getting away with it, if needed.

What "liberal media" now? Are sure this was Thanksgiving 2004? On the planet Earth?

9. The Republican Senate does not have a filibuster proof (60 member majority), yet.

Thank God for small mercies...

10. When the U.S. military successfully exterminates the Iraqi insurgency- you can say it was Clinton's military that won the war in Iraq.

Hahah! That's a good one!

"When the U.S. military successfully exterminates the Iraqi insurgency"... oh man, that's great.

Sort of like they did in Fallujah, eh?

----

That line denotes a changed source for mocking.

The new one can be found here. I'm going to skip most of those as they're boring and/or already done, etc.

But that one...

Why change your behaviors to satisfy moral values when you can change moral values to satisfy your behaviors?

A. Good question!
B. That's what I was thinking!
C. I dunno.
D. Because we don't want to end up back in the caves, flinging our excrement at one another.

Conservative answer: d

My answer: e

(For those who missed it:

"E. Hey, it worked for the Republicans!")

Since traditional moral values have, for centuries, served and sustained civilization relatively well, they should be:

A. Honored and protected.
B. Chopped down like giant redwoods in an old growth forest.

Conservative answer: a

My answer: Hahah! Served and sustained civilization for centuries! Man, i never knew "conservatives" where such comedians! Oh man, that's pretty funny.

Yeah "Let's go lynch some niggers/queers" was great. Let's bring that one back, how about? I mean, it's only half gone... and yet, it has so much more "serving" and "sustaining" of civilization to give!

Meanwhile, on the front of traditional, moral values like critical thinking, freedom, equality, etc, Conservatives are more than willing to answer b.

Speaking of which, in regards to actual giant redwoods in an old growth forest they're willing to cut those down too. The environment is a natural resource that exists for the enrichment of the timber companies (Yes, Mr. Bush, you do own one) after all.

"Memogate" take 4,384,294,308

2005-01-09T21:06:00.000-08:00

Dingdingdingdingding!

We have a winner!

[The online-driven "investigation" into Dan Rather and the Killian memo] looks less like a victory for democracy than a case of mob rule... Dan Rather and company stand accused of undue haste, carelessness, excessive credulity, and, in some minds, partisanship, in what has become known as “Memogate”... Dan Rather is not alone on this one; respected journalists made mistakes all around.

Geek humor...

2005-01-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

Q: How many IBM 370s [or insert your favore hardware pariah here] does it take to execute a job?
A: Four. Three to hold the job down and one to rip its head off.

(Update: I should really source this... it came from my Slackware 10 fortune file.)

Post!

2005-01-08T19:14:00.000-08:00

So it's been a while since i posted anything. Partly due to laziness, partly because my computer exploded.

That second one is anoying to talk about, so i'll leave it at that. Let's just say that it died about five days ago and i only got it working yesterday. Sort of working. I'm still going to have to purchase a new video card or motherboard. I"m not sure which.

Anyway.

That's not why i'm posting this. See, the American Family Association still has me on their email lists. So...

PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTIANS FACE 47 YEARS IN PRISON FOR READING THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC
Philadelphia charges Christians with hate crimes, inciting a riot, and using a deadly weapon.

Bill O'Reilly reported on the situation on Fox News Channel.

Dear Winter,
What we have been saying has now happened. You cannot quote what the Bible has to say about homosexuality in public or you will be charged with a "hate crime." Philadelphia is only the beginning. If we fail to take a stand here, this "crime" will soon be applied across America.

In the 27 years of this ministry, I have never witnessed a more outrageous miscarriage of justice than what is happening in Philadelphia. Four Christians are facing up to 47-years in prison and $90,000 in fines for preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk, a right fully protected by the First Amendment.

On October 10, 2004, the four Christians were arrested in Philadelphia. They are part of Repent America. Along with founder Michael Marcavage, members of Repent America—with police approval--were preaching near Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.

When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians’ movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching.

Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians to exercise their First Amendment rights, the Philadelphia police arrested and jailed the Christians!

They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.

You may think I am exaggerating. I'm not. Our AFA Center for Law and Policy is representing these four individuals at no cost. We will take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to get justice.

There is so much more about this case I don't have room for it in this letter. We have prepared a 25-minute VHS/DVD in which two AFA-CLP attorneys discuss the case in detail.

Please help us with our expenses in representing these committed Christians. With your tax-deductible gift of $15, less than the cost of a cup of coffee once a month for the next year, we will send your choice of either the VHS or DVD. Watch the VHS/DVD, then share it with your Sunday school class and church. This VHS/DVD should be required viewing in every church in America.

Click here to get your copy of the Philadelphia 4 Story
Thanks for caring enough to get involved. We must not allow this travesty of justice to continue.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this email to family and friends.

And then today i got a follow-up...

UPDATE: Homosexual Attorneys from Justice Department Advise Philadelphia Police On Arresting Christians
One Internet news service says not to expect an investigation because of the involvement of the Justice Department homosexual attorneys

Dear Winter,
A few days ago I wrote you about the situation in Philadelphia in which four Christians were arrested. They are charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.

They face a possible 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000 each. Now we have learned more about this horrible travesty of justice.

According to WorldNetDaily, "Homosexual attorneys from the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division not only attended (the) large homosexual event…but they advised police on the scene who arrested 11 Christian protesters, says a source in the agency." (Charges against some of the Christians have been dropped.)

The WorldNetDaily article went on to say the U.S. Justice Department is "not likely to take up the cause of the five criminally charged Christians who believe Philadelphia officials violated their civil rights."

Did you catch that? The Justice Department will refuse to investigate the treatment of the arrested Christians because some homosexual attorneys from the Justice Department were advising the Philadelphia police on how to arrest the Christians!!!!

WorldNetDaily, quoting their source inside the Justice Department, said the Christians were charged with "ethic intimidation (hate crimes) 'at the recommendation of some of our (Department of Justice) attorneys who were at the march.'"

In fact, Chief Inspector Tiano, who serves as liaison to the homosexual community, testified at the preliminary hearing that he met at least four times with the organizers of the Outfest event in anticipation of the protesters' activities, presumably to discuss how to handle the "Christians" when they showed up at the event. He also said he had 40 officers on site that day. He did not meet with any of the Christians!

There appears to be collusion in this travesty of justice that goes to high levels of both the Justice Department and Philadelphia. A trail date will be set soon.

Would you stand with these Christians who are defending our constitutional right of free speech? We are asking you to stand with these four Christians by doing the following actions.

"Philadelphia charges Christians with hate crimes for reading the Bible"

Cute, but read on and the AFA will tell you what they really were charged with. "Use of a deadly weapon" is no laughing matter and has nothing to do with reading the Bible or not reading the Bible.

These emails are full of lovely Orwellian language and i would love to dissect them, except i don't really have the motivation.

I haven't even written that editorial. Things got a little crazy and now it's kinda untimely.

Perhaps i'll save it for next year.

Anyway, back on track, their emails sound all scary-like but i'm not really impressed. Aside from the fact that the AFA doesn't discuss the actual content of the charges (letting them hang out as though they were totally unsubstantiated) it also has already decided, as a matter of doctrine and political necessity, that these people are innocent of the charges.

I just hope the DoJ and friends are web savvy enough to realize that online petitions are meaningless >.>

As far as the follow-up, i love how the AFA insinuates there's something sinister about the DoJ checking with legal experts who witnessed the event (presumably, at least) as to whether counter-charges had any merit. But of course, they throw the word "homosexual" in there (how do they know?) and suddenly it's a conspiracy...

Massive dumping of links

2004-12-23T01:10:00.000-08:00

It's the Newspeak, stupid! Bill O'Reilly explains how respecting the fact that not everyone is exactly like him is actually fascism.

Incoherent defenses of social security privatization are apparently the new modus operandi. Sort of like how all those "Let's get rid of the Department of Education and suddenly everyone will be super-educated by the invisible hand of the free market! I should know, the free market is giving me an invisible handjob right now!" arguments.

Except with fewer references to sex.

The Daily Howler, if nothing else, is focused with laser-like precision...

And here my parents were worried that all those games i play/all that anime i watch will destroy my ability to discern fantasy from reality. Pfah! If only i were so lucky!

Orcinus, meanwhile, discusses revisionist history with respect to the actual fascists. Hey, who was it that said that the only reason they denied the past was so that National Socialism would be seen as a viable form of governance again? Oh yeah, that's right: Neo Nazis.

Moving right along, or not moving along at all as the case may be, gays are the new jews. Only, not. It's just that the jews have been kinda-sorta let off the hook for the present time because butchering them by the millions is not very popular these days. But that doesn't mean the gays and the jews didn't (and "don't", for that matter) get discriminated against together.

As an aside, i want to discuss something more or less related.

A lot of "conservatives" or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves these days take a "pro-Israel" stance. They say, in response to criticism such as mine, that they're VERY pro-Israel and the mere suggestion that they might harbor some ugly anti-semitic sentiment (their own words and actions to the contrary be damned, isn't that right Miss Ann "There is a constitutional right to hate" Coulter?) provokes an extreme and emotionally violent reaction from them along the lines above.

"Pro-Israel"

Notice how this isn't "pro-Jewish" or anything like that. In fact, the only reasonable thing this position could be taken to encompass is that these people are supportive of Israel's continued existence as a nation.

But of course, many of these people are also rabid fundamentalist crocks. And according to their so-called literal interpretations of Revalations the end of the world won't come until two conditions are met:

One is that Israel must be a nation.

This is where much of their "pro-Israel" stance comes from. Makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside, don't it?

The second is that there can't be any Jews left alive. They all have to have converted to Christianity.

That's the part that people don't see from the "pro-Israel" slogan.

Now i'm sure that these same people who object to my intimations they might not have the noblest of desires for the Jewish people in their hearts would... well, object to this characterization.

Funny thing about that, though.

You can't tell the crazies (who say they're "pro-Jewish" and silently tack on "and also all Jews have to be dead or converted before The Lord will come down from Heaven and make with the ending of all life on earth, a day whose arrival I pray for constantly.") from the ones who are just supportive of the continuance of Israel as a state for other, less totally fucking insane, reasons.

Nonetheless, both types use the same phrase to explain their position: "I support Israel".

So i have a message out there to all those who "support Israel" but who don't support using Israel as a pawn in some sort of cynical global politico-religious chess game to stand up and be counted. Until then i don't really give a God damn whether you're offended or not. The crazies are counting on your silence in order to hijack your (relatively sane) position and try to make their own palatable while simultaneously obscuring their true objectives by regularly omitting half their position. They are furthermore counting on your (perhaps well-meaning) offense at being considered a part of an "extremist" group in order to maintain plausible deniability while still dreaming for a world in which Judaism has been utterly wiped off the face of the earth.

But hey, whenever i make personal attacks on Bill Oh Really i make baby Jesus cry. You see, Bill himself told me. He's an important person, and baby Jesus cares for Bill O'Reilly more than baby Jesus cares for you or me. Oh sure, he might call up his producers and sexually harass them while pleasuring himself with a vibrator. Or whatever it was. But he's not gay and that's all that really matters, isn't it?

I don't even know what to make of this. Were i less worn down by the constant, sanity-crushing reality that is United States politics then perhaps i would comment. I might say something about how it not mattering whether a reporter asked the question or not, and in fact how a primary problem with reporters these days is that they aren't asking such questions. I might wonder if this didn't fit into some larger assault on freedom of the media through poisoning-the-well. But no, for my mind could not sustain within it such primal truths. The knowledge of such evil and chaos was not meant for this world. And other hyperbole.

Also: Google is down. Coincidence, or another sign of the horrifying end times yet to come?

Conservatives really think the American public is too stupid to notice that "intelligent design" requires an intelligent creator that exists beyond human observation. Side note to everyone else: if you don't notice this i'm going to smack you with a rolled up newspaper.

Seriously, people. Christianity was once the cultural leader of the Western world. Now you (for i certainly cannot envision myself as a part of this movement, no matter my own beliefs) are trying to wage a passive-aggressive war on the last one to two hundred years of reality? How the mighty have fallen.

On a similar note, i'm thinking about teaching a logic/philosophy/critical thinking/etc class at my father's church to some elementary/high school kids. I'm already drafting up, in my head mind you, the waiver i'm going to make parents sign before their kids enter the class. It goes something like this "I'm putting my kid in here with the expectation that you will teach him/her to think for him/her self and not that you will espouse one 'party line' or another. Subsequently, I understand I may not be happy with the resulting critical inquiries. I have the right to withdraw my child at any time, but do recognize that this class's stated goal is to teach my child to actually use what's in between those ears for a change."

Or something.

My father was more receptive to the idea than last time.

No-facts is apparently the standard go-to man for "balanced" "reporting" these days.

Don't you just love scare quotes? I don't know how many footnotes i'd have to make in order to get my point across without them.

Gallup poll claims "Moral Values" (there're those scare quotes again!) fourth, not first, on voters' minds.

The Democrats' position on abortion is invconvenient, so conservatives decide to attack the position they wish Democrats held instead of the actual one. Remember that talk about well-poisoning? Well this is technically known as straw man burning.

And with that, i'm going to write another editorial. I'll post it once it's finished.

The Republicans' problem with minorities...

2004-12-22T18:54:00.000-08:00

You know what cracks me up? When minorities don't vote Republican the Republicans don't say "Hey, maybe we have to make an appeal to them", or "Hey, maybe they're a bit leery of the party that still features most of the unreformed segregationists/anti-abolitionsts and we ought to set their mind at ease". No, the Republican party says "It's all their fault they're not voting for us."

I can't even understand the mindset that results in this sort of thinking.

I mean, i am as usual exaggerating a position for effect and clarity of argument... but nonetheless. But i was just listening to Bill Kristol say, in effect, that he doesn't know what's wrong with all those African Americans and if only they'd just give up their pointless party allegiance they'd vote Republican and we could move on.

Uh huh. Right, Bill. I'm sure they're very convinced.

Maybe the reason minorities don't vote for Republicans is that Republicans, or at least the Republican leadership, doesn't know a "minority" from a bookshelf.

As an aside #2, i listened to Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy talk about the second amendment on MSNBC today.

Why does he get to talk on MSNBC anyway? He's not that special, and his arguments were silly. (Though they would require a bit of set-up to refute, they involved totally ignoring the cognitive dissonance involved in two separate positions that Professor Volokh was espousing and explaining cognitive dissonance on live TV would likely be tricky to do.) Sure, he's a college professor. Big deal, he still can't argue his way out of a paper bag.

But then again, i guess nobody else in this God-forsaken country can either...

It's not even that his position was terribly stupid, either. It wasn't that bad. It's just that he was pretending his position was reality when it clearly wasn't. In fact, he was pretending his position was reality and then using that pretense to argue that his position was reality. But of course, explaining circular logic on live TV isn't much easier than explaining cognitive dissonance...

(Edit: Volokh was on MSNBC, not CNN. I had originally claimed i saw him on CNN, but he was on MSNBC and not CNN. So clearly i couldn't have seen him on CNN.)

Reponse to Novak

2004-12-19T17:00:00.000-08:00

(Now with updates!)

So "Novakula", a man who compares unfavorably with the man from whom that moniker was fashioned, wrote a column about Howard Dean.

Seeing as how i'm a shiftless college student with a weblog i feel it's only fair that i dismantle it.

Let's get started...

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Practical Democratic politicians, intent on reversing a decade of decline, feel trapped in a bad dream with Howard Dean as the most prominent prospect to be the party's national chairman.

This may as well read "Spineless DLC losers (in the most literal sense of the word) fear the loss of political power represented by Dean's rise within the party". I could even be more cynical if i wanted, but let's not go there.

The mere thought of picking the 2004 presidential candidate who campaigned furthest to the left and was soundly repudiated by Democratic voters suggests inability to cope with political reality.

Wait, this is an article on Dennis Kucinich now? C'mon, Novak. Stay on topic. We're talking Dean, not Kucinich. Also: Kucinich isn't running for party Chairman, last i checked. Get your facts straight, yo!

Dean has toned himself down, no longer resembling the screamer in Des Moines or the radical populist on the campaign trail.

Considering the first image was never reality, but was instead entirely invented by the so-called Liberal Media, i'm not surprised that you might think Dean has "toned himself down". But that's a discussion for a different time.

And as far as the second description: since when did he stop being a populist? Radical no, but again: he was never radical. Some of his followers were certainly radical. Also: some of George Bush's followers are kard-karrying members of the KKK. Does Novak really want to play that game? Dean himself is a "centrist"/"moderate" and has a record over a decade long of public service in this mold. I'm sure Novak knows all of these things, but it's surely convenient for him to ignore them when writing his column.

His Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" was so polite that it instantly was labeled the "unscream." Nevertheless, Dean as national chairman would identify Democrats as the party of the Left, more interested in purity than victory.

Uh, hello? Novak? This is reality speaking, can I talk to Bob Novak? He's not in? Can I leave a message? Yes? Tell Mr. Novak "Dude, the Democrats are the 'party of the left'! By definition! Where have you been the last two hundred years?"

And more interested in purity than victory? Since when was it a choice between the two?

The DLC has tried to choose victory over purity for a long time and, as we can see, has really ended up with neither. Dean isn't "purity over victory" but rather "victory through embracing the values shared by Liberals/Democrats/Leftists/whatever and the majority of the United States". The DLC's "ten state strategy", or whatever you want to call it, has consistently failed. Dean might not be a sure bet, but at least he's a change.

Many Democrats I contacted entirely agree with me, but not publicly. Only former Sen. Bob Kerrey, out of office and virtually out of politics, states openly that Dean as Democratic National Committee chairman could be disastrous.

I find this amusing. "Many Democrats agree". You mean some don't? Considering the kind of Democrats who i suspect are willing to talk with Bob "Plame's a spy!" Novak that quite honestly surprises me.

And as far as disastrous, you wanna know what else could be disastrous? Four more years of Bush. Yet here we are, walking into Disaster City.

I mean, is this guy living on the same planet? You want to know what "disaster" is? How about a President who swears to bring the full force of American military might, the unchallenged primarch of military power on this planet, around on a single man who is still delivering his fanatical ramblings through TV three years later. That sounds like disaster.

But oh, it gets worse! Not only that, but this same President leads us into war with faults so obvious and numerous i'm not even going to bother describing them. He does this while listening to Rumsfeld, who i now suspect had to be taking LSD while drawing up the plans for Iraq, and ignoring the advice of various people with actual military knowledge.

Oh yeah, and did you hear about the US Dollar's value going all to hell? Yeah.

But Dean being a candidate for chairman of the Democratic Party? Oh, that "could be disastrous". Uh huh. Let's get some perspective, here. Dean is an experienced and capable politician. He, or his campaign at least, basically invented the way political campaigns make use of the internet. But Iowa voted for Kerry so now everything Dean says is valueless?

By the way, Iowa voted Bush over Kerry. Just so you (and i'm talking to the DLC, here) know.

Others do not want to offend Dean's legions, hoping a white knight will lead the party of Jefferson and Jackson.

And this is just bizarre. Apparently some shiftless college students (or soccer moms or [insert "Dean legions" here]) are now some sort of fascist lynch mob? Sorry, but i'm not buying it. They can keep on hoping, too. Or maybe they can step up to the plate themselves. But the fact of the matter is that unless they put a better candidate up for the office then they're going to get the best man who ran. (In theory, of course...)

I'm hard on the DLC and friends? You're damn right i am. I mean, i'm not going to start suggesting that Novak is just writing this column as some sort of cynical political ploy (that may or may not be the truth, but it isn't very interesting to discuss) but really. Part of the reason these people get no respect from me is because they're afraid of me. It isn't about their politics. If i were voting based on which politics most represented my position i'd have to run for President myself or just not vote. It's about the Democrats being a legitimate opposition party. Part of being an "opposition party" is the opposition. I'm not the only one who believes this...

If these Democrats are afraid of opinions that contradict their own, and i'm seeing nothing out of the Dean camp that goes beyond that even if some of it is strong opinions, then do you want to know what i think is also potentially disastrous? Those people getting chairmanship.

If they're not willing to stand up for their beliefs then why the hell would we want them in a leadership position? But i guess everyone wants to use the "Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush" definition of "leadership" these days...

It's almost as if, after George McGovern carried but one state as 1972 Democratic nominee for president, he started running for national chairman...

Obligatory, vaguely related, reference to McGovern's failed 1972 Presidential run: Check.

Can't write a column about Howard Dean without referencing McGovern, can you?

And from there on the column dissolves from normal-level Novak rambling into totally incoherent Newspeak that, as near as i can tell, has no meaning whatsoever. Let's take a look, just for the hell of it:

Speaking in Washington last week, Dean sounded more like a candidate for president than chairman. Under the rubric of "reform," he proposed greatly expanded governmental activity. "We are what we believe, and the American people know it," he declared.

Just take it backward for a minute: "We are what we believe..." equates to "reform". "We are what we believe..." equates to a proposal for "greatly expanded governmental activity". "We are what we believe..." sounds "more like a candidate for president than chairman". (How can he tell? "Novak-brand magical mind reading fine grain white powder"?)

I agree that saying "We are what we believe, and the American people know it" is a bit radical in politics and it's probably a statement with some reform hinted in it. But... seriously. "He proposed greatly expanded governmental activity"? I bet if you gave Novak a Rorschach test he'd be all "Evil Liberal demons", "Evil Liberals in my houseplants", "Evil Liberal government", etc.

Of course, Dean may have actually done one or more of those things Novak referenced. (Or he may not have: see the Wellstone memorial service and how it was hijacked by Republican (let me emphasize that so nobody gets confused: Republican) politicians with their own personal axes to grind.) But if so, Novak doesn't discuss it here.

It's sort of like Novak wanted to write a column about Dean "failing the Russert test", then deciding Dean didn't really "fail the Russert test", then decided the "Russert test" itself sucked, and then forgetting he wrote any of that and just writing about how Dean is Das Uber Liberal.

Let's see... what else...

Rumsfeld doesn't sign letters to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq, which i'm sure comes as a shock to everyone. Right. Anyway.

But Bush chief of staff Andrew Card said Rumsfeld enjoys the president's confidence, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said Rumsfeld's dismissal would be "a gift to the jihadists and the insurgents" in Iraq.

Catch that? "If Bush fires Rumsfeld then the terrorists will have won!"

Actual defense of Rumsfeld or his actions in office over the last four years: missing from that quote.

And hey, again, i'm not the only one who feels that way. Let's take a look at an article that got sent to me by my father, a dedicated Republican of something like 30+ years (who has been switching over under the Bush administration) which was sent to him by another life-long Republican Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army who attends my father's church.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
December 9, 2004

Rumsfeld Can't Wriggle Off The Hook

By Jay Bookman

After the Atlanta Falcons were humiliated 27-0 last week by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Falcons coach Jim Mora reacted like a true leader: He took the blame himself so that none would fall on his players, attributing the loss to his own inexperience in preparing teams for Sunday in the NFL.

"What the heck," he told a news conference. "I'm a rookie head coach, man."

Mora also declined an invitation to identify specific players who contributed to the embarrassing defeat.

"Let's just say that we don't air our dirty laundry in public," he said. "It does happen [privately], but it doesn't happen for everyone to see because it doesn't need to."

The contrast between that stand-up leadership style and that of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could not be more stark.

It has become crystal clear to all but the willfully blind that the failure to commit enough troops to the occupation of Iraq contributed significantly to the rising chaos in that country. However things turn out, history will record that decision as a fundamental mistake that endangered the success of the mission and led to increased casualties.

But in recent interviews, Rumsfeld has tried to wash his hands of any responsibility for that mistake.

"The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control," Rumsfeld said recently. "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person, and I guess that's fine. But the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General [Tommy] Franks and General [John] Abizaid wanted, the number of troops we have had every day since has been the number of troops that the field commander thought appropriate."

In other words, Rumsfeld's defense is that he was just following orders . . . from his subordinates.

That's reprehensible, for a couple of reasons. First, a good leader does not dump public blame on those who have no opportunity or, in the case of uniformed officers, even the right to defend themselves. That's particularly true when the people involved are soldiers in the field watching their own subordinates fight and die.

But the worst thing about Rumsfeld's denial of responsibility is that it is a blatant lie. He was without doubt the driving force behind the decision to keep the invading and occupying forces as lean as possible, and any effort to dump that responsibility on others amounts to cowardice on his part.

According to the former head of U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the Pentagon plan for invading and occupying Iraq when Rumsfeld took office had just been updated in 2000 and called for a force of roughly 400,000 troops. It was Rumsfeld, enamored with the possibility of using technology to do more with less, who ordered that plan redrawn time and again to dramatically reduce the number of troops involved.

A month before the invasion, when Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was asked by Congress how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq, he told the truth: hundreds of thousands of troops. Almost immediately, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz memorably proclaimed that estimate "wildly off the mark," with Rumsfeld concurring it was "far off the mark." The two made it clear that Shinseki had disgraced himself, a point driven home when Army Secretary Thomas White was forced from office after coming to Shinseki's defense.

By those actions, Rumsfeld made it as clear as possible to officers down the line that he did not want to hear a word about needing more troops and that to argue otherwise would affect careers. In fact, in the months before the invasion and in the immediate afterglow of its success, Rumsfeld basked in his role as architect of the remarkably small force that took Iraq, dismissing concern about the resulting chaos as "henny-penny the sky is falling . . . just unbelievable."

Rumsfeld and his colleagues should have been fired long ago for incompetence and bad judgment. He should be fired now for poor leadership. The fact that he has been asked to stay on bodes poorly for the second Bush administration --- and for the country.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Thursdays and Mondays.

Dean and the Democratic Party isn't the only thing changing.

(Update)

Media Matters has your hookup:

Sinclair admits it's a Republican mouthpiece, still pretends otherwise to The Public.

Bill O'Reilly is a coward. Really.

Congresswoman Lowey responds to some other comments by O'Reilly.

O'Reilly says "you don't see prominent conservatives cursing out Democratic members of Congress". Silly, untrue. MMFA says "Oh really?"

Swift Boat Vets say they're going away and not going away on the same day. It is, after all, their modus operandi.

Lou Dobbs, of all people, jumps on the "anyone with less than gushing praise for Chrismas is an evil atheist baby eater" bandwagon. Just for the record, Santa Claus is a "pagan" (read: non-Christian) part of "Christmas". Maybe i'm splitting hairs, but anyway...

The Bush administration provides a helpful definition of "Nepotism".

Media Matters catches something that's worth pointing out. Specifically: in certain media groups trying to pretend they've been hard on Rumsfeld for being a total fuckup. Sounds like the seven stages of grieving, or whatever.

Rationalization ("Rumsfeld was right, honest!"), then denial ("We're not spineless Republican mouthpieces, honest!"), then what comes next? Bargaining?

Hannity lies (basically) about the political orientation of James Madison WRT religion. Not that Republicans haven't been trying to co-opt the "founding fathers" especially on this issue since... basically forever.

I love the argument along this line that goes "See, the only religion there was back then was Christianity so by definition, 'freedom of religion' means 'freedom to be Christian'. The amendment says you're free to be as Christian as you want, but anything else isn't okay." Or the argument that goes "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!" when people are trying to attack atheists. Great stuff, guys. Hopefully it'll get used in an "Introduction to Logic" or "Ethics 101" class some day down the road.

Tax rate grossly over-stated by Brit Hume guest, rest of world unsurprised by overstatement.

Well then!

2004-12-11T21:38:00.000-08:00

In 1990, Dean was convicted of first-degree theft in King County for 23 counts of embezzlement of more than $385,000 from a law firm, where he was “a computer systems and accountant consultant,” according to Superior Court records. Dean’s thefts at the law firm, the records state, “occurred over a 21/2 -year period of time . . . The crimes and their cover-up involved a high degree of sophistication and planning in the use and alteration of records in the computerized accounting system that defendant maintained for the victim. . . . ” Dean served just under four years for his crime and was released in 1995. His sentence spelled out the following condition: “Defendant shall be required to notify anyone for whom he works either as an employee or an independent contractor of his convictions. . . . ”

Yep, that's just the kind of guy i would hire if i were writing software that would count votes in the election for United States President. Oh yes, he sounds so reliable. And even more on the same geniuses.

You know, there was a time in my life when i didn't think our nation was run by total fucking sleazebag crooks, convicted or otherwise, but these days it's just hard to believe the opposite. I dunno, maybe i'll do like Wonkette and start drinking heavily. That sounds good right about now.

Oh yeah, as an aside, i just can't resist taking a couple swipes at this social security thing again. Is it just me, or is the fact that you have to give "private savings accounts" a two trillion dollar head start on social security to make it even competetive a sign that maybe we should... you know, scrap it for something that actually works?

But no, that's the point. Not to make social security work, but rather: to break it.

Onto Media Matters for America!

(*Ahem*)

The Liberal who stole Christmas.

Frankly, fine. Take it. Take the whole damn season. Am i a Grinch, or perhaps a Scrooge, because i hate the commercialization of Christmas? Maybe, but i don't care. Oh, and you can take your Christmas music out and never, ever play it again. Please.

Let me celebrate Christmas in my way. My celebration is in no way hampered by not having a gazillion dollars spent promoting the holidaze. Just because some store says "season's greetings" instead of "merry Christmas" in no way prevents me from celebrating as i see fit. Take your "merry Christmas" and your "season's greetings" and shove them both.

"Lalala, look at me! I'm the mainstream media! A single soldier who stands to lose a whole fucking lot puts me to shame, so then I try to cover my own ass by lying for the guilty party!"

Oh, but it's the liberals who are supposedly treasonous bastards who kill our troops with their doubt. Yes, questioning St. George's War directly results in dead soldiers, but a physical lack of actual armor plating that can actually protect soldiers in an actual war with actual bullets (not to mention 380 tons of actual high explosives)? Heavens no!

Oh look! Coulter switched back into pro-minority mode again! Seriously! This is the person who once defended murdering a black man by tying him to a truck and then dragging him to death with "...there is a constitutional right to hate."

Seriously!

I mean, if she wants to become a defender of minority rights then she's free to do it. This isn't where i would start, though. I would start by apologizing for the remark referenced above--among others.

Of course, there's also the Thug Basketball Association. Yeah, don't ask me.

Anyway, i might do a bit more on the D&D front later. I'm not sure yet, though.

A break from the usual...

2004-12-11T00:15:00.000-08:00

Just so you people don't think i'm an unceasing stream of political commentary (really, i'm not) i'm going to talk about Dungeons and Dragons.

I could do some Planescape proselytizing, but nawwe.

Speaking of Planescape, i advise everyone to go pick up Eberron. It isn't Planescape, but it's the best setting i've seen in D&D barring Planescape. It's really quite good. Slightly on the steampunk edge of things, but that's okay. It's certainly not a deal-breaker, as far as i'm concerned. Furthermore, i haven't once said "yeah right!" out loud to the Eberron manual. Sure, the Eberron planar layout made me eye-twitch a little... but that's not because it was bad. Well, not objectively bad. Not really, at least.

Anyway, that might seem like a small thing, but really: you should have seen me reading the Forgotten Realms book when it was released. I was actually asked by the owner of the store i was reading it in to please not complain so loudly for fear it would depress sales. I resisted the urge to say "I notice you're not taking objection to the substance of my criticism..." as there's only really one game store near me and getting blacklisted would be kinda not so good.

Anyway, that was an aside.

Yes, you read that right. I'm gonna be nice to you people and give you some context here.

The Monster Party of Doom

Shamanist, Spontaneous Divine Caster

First...

The Monster Party of Doom.

All PCs need a good foil. (Note: this is a lie. Not all PCs need a good foil.) Some DMs use world-spanning demigods, ultra-powerful mages, or decadent despots as foils. All of those have their places. But that's not what i'm going to be talking about here.

You see, i'm going to be talking about how to make the party afraid of half-orcs.

"But Winter," the less observant among you might say, "half-orcs aren't that scary..."

(The more observant of you will notice my strategic use of emphasis tags, of course.)

Ah, but these are no ordinary half-orcs! And really, when i said "half-orcs" i meant "one half orc, a kobold, an ogre mage, a gnoll, their cohorts, and a hundred or so minions." Really, you can do it with just half orcs, but with all the monsters out there you can get some really brutal parties going.

For those of you (well, the one of you) who have been in extended campaigns of mine before (especially in second edition) you'll remember i often like to throw pumped up orcs at parties. In third edition mostly all that's changed is that the orc shouts "SNEAK ATTACK!" when he kicks the door to the party's room in and drops the party mage to negative HP in one hit. Not that he actually gets to roll sneak attack dice, mind you.

First off: the genesis.

A good motivation to get this thing rolling can provide for a lot of payoff later. As the DM you don't need to hope the dice will go your way. Just be prepared to insert a motivation into this battle or that. As long as you don't plan too much that can be ruined by a dice roll (and i don't mean that as "DM-God-Mode/railroad the bastards!") you can do a lot of things. Be patient. For example, let's do a motivation:

The party encountered some orcs and promptly slaughtered them. Perhaps they were justified, or perhaps they just went into "Green skin, lots of strength modifiers, look uncivilized... KILL THEM ALL!" mode. Either way works, although the motivations of our nemesis-to-be will be different depending on the circumstances.

Anyway now, these things don't happen in a void. Let's say this was a hypothetical party of warriors, perhaps leaders, of a local orc tribe. Let's say that the chief was among them (you might want to include an orc chief monster in the pile) and that since the chief is now dead the leadership of the tribe falls to the chief's half-orc son. Who promptly swears revenge, of course.

Throkk U'Grokk, Half-Orc Warchief

Of course, titles like that don't come for free. Our friend Throkk, who is of course the same half-orc referred to above, has stats like... just for instance, str 14 dex 12 con 14 int 12 wis 10 cha 15 (in other words, a 32 point buy with +1 cha from levels- modify as desired). He's a half-orc bard. Notice his fairly decent mental stats (quite above average for a half-orc, top-end for full-blooded orc) and you can see where i'm going here. For added fun, you can give him a barbarian level. Or make him a full barbarian. Or something else. It doesn't really matter

In any case, Throkk here swears vengeance. Let's say he's fairly decent level... say, level 6. He has the leadership feat, so he takes his cohorts out and says "Okay peeps, we're gonna get revenge for the honor of our tribe!" He doesn't actually need to be evil, but being good-aligned would probably not fit so much. Anyway, outfit him as per usual. Pay close attention to spells that buff a large number of people. (3.5 haste is great for this, way better than 3.0 haste even!) Bardic music helps here, too.

Oh yeah, Throkk's musical instrument would be drums. War drums. Feel the rhythm. Fear the rhythm. Throkk should have a clerical cohort. Resist the urge to go evil-for-evil's-sake. Throkk's minions are barbarians. Give the slightly larger ones bows. Yes, bows. Give the biggest ones barbarian levels.

Tip, Kobold Sorcerer

So Throkk goes out with his minions and does some of the introspection thing. "Throkk," he says to himself, "You're a smart half-orc. You're a strong half-orc. But you're not strong enough. Not by yourself. See, your father was killed not just by some random guards or something but by adventurers. You need some magical assistance."

So Throkk goes and recruits Tip. Tip has stats something like 6, 16, 12, 11, 10, 18 (32 point buy, +1 cha from levels). Tip also has the Leadership feat. And kobold friends. Throkk all-out and buys them nets and spears. Throkk's orcish minions complain about this expenditure, but Throkk assures them it's only because kobolds are puny and weak and they need nets to be effective in battle. Then he buys them some armor. Technically, Tip buys the nets and spears. But that's a minor detail. Tip takes two types of spells: spells that can quickly disable enemies (for example, charm person) and spells that can buff a bunch of friends. Haste comes to mind here, also. For higher levels, Tip should become a counterspell master. For really high levels, Tip should scare the fuck out of the PCs by taking archmage levels and Mastery of Counterspelling. Yes, fear the kobold.

But the multicultural parade hasn't ended yet!

Yeebugh, Gnoll Ranger

You know the drill. Throkk manages to convince a Gnoll to come along for the ride (i suggest giving Throkk lots of ranks in Diplomacy) and do some dual wielding. Perhaps the PCs have a similar run-in with some Gnolls with similar results. Just remember not to tip your hand and let the PCs know what is coming in advance. I suggest axes, but just about anything works. Morningstar/light axe is fun, too.

Stats should be something along the lines of 20, 14, 18, 10, 10, 6. Yeebugh might want to invest in some Iron Will. Enemy mages love to go for the big, mean, dual wield machine with things that just so happen to target Will saves. Being buffed up by the rest of the party helps, too. In fact, along with the next monster in the list, Yeebugh should be the primary slice-and-dice character. A level of barbarian (for the extra movement) probably wouldn't hurt. Haste is always helpful. For higher levels, try taking something that lets you get a full attack with a charge action.

For best effect, Yeebugh should be a girl gnoll. No, don't ask why. Trust me.

Arhkan, Ogre Mage Monk

Oh yeah, this is the other beast. A monster of a monster. A tank of a tank. Not to mention that Arhkan has a number of powerful spell-like abilities. Learn them, love them. Think like a player. If a player was suddenly surrounded by a number of enemies wielding sharp, pointy sticks would the player give in and just make those to-hit rolls? No! Arhkan is a large creature, giving him extra Monk damage. Trick him out like a PC. Oh yeah, give him Leadership too. Give his minions bows. His cohort should be a rogue of some flavor; a non-monster-race rogue.

Arhkan's stats, on a separate line because they're impressive: 22, 20, 14, 16, 20, 16

That's my suggestion. Make Arhkan a bit defensive. Give him some Con boosting items. He has regeneration, so one of the casters will probably want to cast protection from elements on him (later he can have items to help him out). He has regeneration 5. Don't hesitate to let him mix it up a little. Arhkan's job is to jump in there and tie up the biggest, baddest ass in the party. He does this by mugging the wizards and other casters (stay away from uber-buffed clerics as they can maybe beat him in hand to hand... no joke). Did you know that large creatures gain +4 to grapple checks? Be careful later, though, as grappling the mages to distract the fighters becomes a less good tactic. Anyway, if things get ugly go gaseous form and get out of there. In fact, that should be everyone's cue to retreat. Have a retreat path planned before the encounter even begins. Write it down.

Putting It Together

The basic strategy is to have everyone attack from a position of strategic superiority. Arhkan may be a monk, but he also has an intelligence score that rivals smaller wizards.

Arhkan and Yeebugh get buffed up a lot. Use that bardic inspiration. Use those buffing spells. Give them magic items that can save their hides. PCs have a remarkable way of fucking up your plans. Don't leave them hanging out there on a die roll. I'll say it again: have an escape planned.

My tactic of choice would be to invade a small town for the first encounter. This has the added benefit, from the DM's perspective, of letting the PCs have some friendly town guards. You will probably underestimate the amount of damage this party can do. They're best in the 6-10 level range. They can beat a level 15 party if you're careful about it. Nets are marvellous things. Nets and arrow fire are even better.

Mix the tactics up. Arhkan is no slouch mentally, and Throkk is smart enough to pay attention. Write tactics down. Look over the abilities of everyone. Consider new and interesting uses for them. You know Arhkan's followers? Station them on higher ground and use them to cover retreats. Even if the PCs are going to chase these people down you should have the big ones hasted (the "monster-PCs", so to speak, and their cohorts). That should be the first action of the battle. Have the rogue investigate the PCs. Have this war band run into an innocent town somewhere and burn it to the ground. Have Tip (and Arhkan) use charm effects to build a small, expendable army. Be creative. Think like players.

Most importantly: don't just Total Party Kill the PCs the first run through. You've put far more effort into these guys than to just TPK them right off the bat. That would be no fun. Let them have a taste of the evil. Also, once the PCs are high enough, beware the Scry-->Teleport sneak attacks. And the usual PC nonsense.

Imagine ways to combine the various pieces of the party. Throw Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, Cat's Grace, and Owl's Wisdom on Ahrkan. Along with protection from the elements to keep the fire/acid damage away. Pump up Yeebugh's to-hit. Throw out smaller buffs on all the minions. Invent tactics, study strategies. Write them down. Review them. Make them better. Don't forget: monsters can (occassionally) use Ressurection too.

Finally, keep it simple. I know, i just went through what like a thousand words (well, if you want to get technical: over 2,000 words) of party design but that's not the kind of simple i'm talking about. Don't have plans that rely on dice landing in certain positions. You are the DM, but don't abuse that. Your players will (maybe correctly) claim you're more interested in the monsters than in them. You should also, of course, actually be interested in your PCs more than in the monsters. Remember, you're putting a lot of work into them up-front so you'll have a challenging encounter you can throw at them without a lot of work later. It's an investment.

The Shamanist Class, A Spontaneous Divine Caster

This one is less well-thoguht out than the Monster Party of Dooooom.

Basically: it works like this.

Divine caster, probably Wis or Cha powered. Has a spell list like clerics, but casts spells like sorcerers. Clearly the spell list is going to be much more limited than the cleric's. My advice is to expand on the various Clerical domains and let the Shaman have some nature/elemental/spirit/etc themed ones. Sorcerers have something like 55 known spells. That's approximately 4 per spell level. Or 2 per domain. Slightly more than 2 per domain. Maybe some "universal" spells fit in somewhere. Give them domain powers, too.

Presto, new class1

Another question about social security...

2004-12-09T23:19:00.000-08:00

So the Bush plan is to scrap the current social security and replace it with a privatized account version. In order to do this an estimated $2 trillion dollars will need to be pumped into the system over sixty years or so.

Here's the question

The reason we're doing this, or so the proponents of this plan claim, is that social security is going to go "bankrupt" in about fifty years time. Of course, as has been pointed out in my other posts, no such bankruptcy will or even can occur. What's going to happen is the backup funds are going to run out and the system will shift back to all the money coming entirely from those paying into social security, which will in fact require some reduction in benefits, etc.

Now, the proponents of the above plan say that plan is necessary because the current system is going to collapse. Here's my question: why are they unwilling to pay a single cent into the current system, but they are willing to pay two trillion dollars into their proposal? Consider, if you will, what will happen if that money is instead payed into the present system. I suspect any social security "crisis" will vanish in a puff of smoke.

So the question is: what possible advantage does the privatization scam have over the current setup? Sure, privatization looks like a replacement--not a good replacement, but an actual one. Assuming you first pump $2 trillion dollars into it that you don't pump into the current social security system!

I'll let you think about that one for a bit.

The US "okays" evidence gained through torture.

Does nobody in the White House remember why we didn't allow this in the past? No, not for humanitarian concerns (we're not so noble...) but rather because evidence gained through torture is horribly unreliable!

Most people who support torturing people for evidence (it's fucking unsettling typing that phrase...) paint a scare scenario as something like "What happens if we have evidence of a 'nuclear 9/11' that is going to be carried out tomorrow and the only person who knows the details isn't talking to us? Would you allow torture then?" What a stupid argument. Of course not. The guy is going to lie to us, possibly putting us in a worse situation than we began in. How is this not obvious? He's willing to withold information that could potentially save hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of lives but he's not willing to lie to us???

Seriously.

Frist admits "abstinence only" sex non-education programs need review.

Follow-up question that didn't get asked: "Mr. Frist, if the review indicates 'abstience only' programs are ineffective will you oppose them?"

In case anyone was wondering, here is a map of the (incomplete) exit poll data. Here's something funny: you know Zogby's election prediction? The exit poll data matches that pretty closely.

Very curious.

Also, the recounts in Ohio are complete. Bush won the recounts by 119,000 votes. Some lawsuits are still pending. Etc.

(Update!)

A lowly soldier does what thousands of highly paid journalists and over five hundred elected representatives haven't: asks Donald Rumsfeld "What the fuck is wrong with you, man?"

Okay, i embellished on the question. But if you read between the lines...

The Howler has a similar take.

99.8% of complaints to the FCC about That Certain Football Commercial came from the same source.

Color me unsurprised.

The Five Basic Traits of Fundamentalism.

Oh, and while we're talking about fundamentalism...

Boo hoo, one of your profs said something you didn't like? I cry for you. Really.

I failed a political science class for disagreeing with my professor (he was a die-hard moral relativist/libertarian of the intensely stupid kind, i pointed this out repeatedly) but you don't see me posting his name on the internet and nor do you see me on Faux News (or whatever) pretending as though this is some vast libertarian scheme to brainwash America's youth. But i guess since i'm not a Republican i don't count.

TPM discusses why the DLC is a problem. I'll give you the short version: you know what they took away from the last Presidentiall election? That there are (to borrow from TPM: get this) too many Democrats in the Democratic Party.

Uh huuuuuuuh...

Go watch the Republicans pretend they're die-hard defenders of minority rights in America! It's so cute!

You know all those stories about "banning the US Constitution/Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"? Well, as it turns out, none of it is true. It's not the case at all.

Color me unsurprised, take 2.

Bill Oh Really continues his crusade against anyone who dares call him on his nonsense.

Hey Bill, when are you going to start your windmill tilts at me? C'mon, i wanna be a big bad evil liberal too!

Speaking of Mediamatters, have some meta-commentary: MMFA demands retraction from CBS over false statements made by CBS relating to MMFA.

This is a good one to pass around, people. Can we get some e-buzz going on it perhaps?

Clarity of Vision

2004-12-07T21:22:00.000-08:00

Boy, the Republicans sure know how to pick them!

(And yes, it's the same guy.)

Informal web poll time! Go vote for who you think would be the best leader of the Democratic party!

Social Security isn't going "bankrupt" because it literally can't go bankrupt. It can collapse in other ways, but it certainly can't go "bankrupt". This is another line in the Republican framing/rhetorical attack on Social Security in which they pretend it is a savings account or something.

Social security isn't a savings account. It's a funds transfer program. You don't pay Social Security into a fund, you pay it directly to the recipients of today.

This is the key to the second part, which has the esteemed Howler stumped. The part is that in order to switch SS into a "privatized" system you suddenly stop having payment into the system. Once people stop paying into the system the benefits stop. Here's where the two trillion dollar figure comes from: that's how much it would take to fund an entire generation of social security benefits. So we pay two trillion dollars so the people who ought to recieve SS do get their benefits. Then once that's payed the people who got into the whole "privatized" version of SS have their retirement benefits that were self-funded, essentially.

Here's the problem: the Republicans say this means there's a net cost of zero because now the "new generation" has approximately two trillion dollars worth of savings. Except it doesn't work that way. This is why the Howler is confused. There's no real way to get two trillion out of that, it's just imaginary money that has been invented because it's convenient.

Let's run the numbers:

Cost for Social Security over the next (say) sixty years: $2 trillion dollars worth of benefits payed out to retirees from now to 2064.

Private Social Security funds built up over the next sixty years: estimated $2 trillion dollars worth of money saved.

Now, the way things currently work, the people who pay money into the system pay to the normal SS $2 trillion.

However, under the Republican plan they pay into the second and then we take $2 trillion dollars worth of debt to continue paying benefits. Then, this is the part the Republicans are lying about, the Republicans say that at the end of this since the benefits are still there for the private SS group even though they're no longer paying money into the system they gain $2 trillion dollars.

But all that's doing is counting the second number (the money paid into a private SS plan) twice.

In other words, this is precisely another "free money" scam.

Now, the Republicans are right about one thing: the $2 trillion in the second option (paid into personal, private savings accounts) does earn interest and other things and as such can accumulate and grow into even more money. This is a big deal. Of course, with that interest comes risk: it could also be wiped out totally and, here's the part that hurts, you're suddenly faced with ten, fifteen, or twenty years left to live, no employment, no money, and you still have costs.

So personally, that doesn't sound like a good replacement for the SS "safety net" even though i'm certainly going to be saving money myself to take advantage of compounding interest and other fun things.

Okay, onto something else now...

Alabama votes to keep segregation as part of their state constitution.

No, this isn't 1964: it's 2004.

As an aside, Judge Roy Moore is the same one who violated a federal court order in order to (temporarily) keep a big ass granite statue of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse, IIRC.

Orcinus discusses the way Liberals view the war on terror, minus the DLC of course.

Chris Matthews doesn't understand the difference between an editorial page and actual journalism. Not that i expected anything more from him.

How to hold a Presidential news conference.

I notice that doesn't appear to deal with one of the biggest problems with the Bush administration: if you ask the wrong question, you never get to come to a Bush news conference again.

Republicans continue on the oil-for-food scandal message.

Horowitz continues the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense over the charges of racism.

O'Reilly continues his anti-semitism ranting. At least some Jewish people are bothering him about it.

But that wasn’t the point, was it? The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.

You got it, another Football Ad Scandal line!

"OHNOES! Black men with our white womens!!!"

David Brock asks the Creators Syndicate what the hell they're doing giving publishing this guy, all nice-nice of course.

Finally, like the ultra-right-wing Fundamentalists who support Israel because it fits in with their vision of ending all life on the planet through apocalypse, the Republicans pushing the Hispanic vote might have their own agendas as well.

Side note...

2004-12-07T12:58:00.000-08:00

From here.

...[the Republican Party] claims family values, yet red states have higher divorce rates, teen pregnacies, crime rates, and just about every other social problem, and to top it off are net federal dollar recipients.

I realize the author of this quote is not campaigning for anything.

For those who are (yeah, you're probably not reading this--big deal): there's a reason for this, i think, that can be figured out from the above line alone. Why are the people with the "worst family values" (or whatever you're calling it) voting for the party with the most "pro-family-value" rhetoric? Because they feel like they ought to vote for someone who is "pro-family-values" in order to fix their lack of family values.

Of course, when the "pro-family-values" position consists of "scapegoat queers and blacks" there isn't going to be much real improvement.

The Republicans talk big and the Democrats don't. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, the Republicans say the Democrats are the source of all evil on the "family-values" front and the Democrats do nothing to counteract this impression.

Democratic Leadership Council: I'm talking to you!

Wheeee! (Now with update!)

2004-12-04T19:58:00.000-08:00

So, i finished with one hell of a week in school. Lots of stuff. Kept me busy.

But now i'm not so busy!

Al Franken on why Caldwell is not a good replacement for Safire:

I said, "Where did you see [the Paul Wellstone memorial]? Did you see the thing?" He said, "Yes, I did." I said, "What, a tape of it?" And he goes, "No." "So you saw it on C-SPAN, like a repeat? Did you see it live?" "No. no. no." "Where did you see it?" "Well, I saw it on TV." "What does that mean?" "I saw it on TV." "What does that mean?" "I saw some clips of it." He saw, like, whatever Hannity & Colmes had pulled.

Ken Starr and revisionist history.

Hey! Hey you! Yeah, you! I'm talking to you, you scum-sucking media faux-news outlets! Aren't you supposed to be all about this sort of thing?

Christ, it really is 1984+20...

Speaking of 1984-like commentary, it's not three minutes hate yet--but it's at least one minute.

Also, why Novak is one of those scum-suckers.

Who is it, really, that is "out of the mainstream"?

"I begin the chapter on [Grover Cleavland], called “Constitution be damned:” “Grover Cleveland once killed a man. Two, actually. Of course, they`d already been sentenced to death. As sheriff of Erie County, New York, to avoid wasting government money on a hiring a hangman, he simply hanged the men himself.”

“You know, I just love that story,” the inspired author ghoulishly said.

Speaking of which, the Daily Howler gives you the lowdown on who wrote the New York Times' glowing review of the Bush Social Security Privatization ~~scam~~ scheme.

Attack, attack, attack!

But that's not all!

Jerry Falwell (yes, that one) hosted Crossfire just recently. What the bloody hell Falwell was doing hosting Crossfire i do not know. But he surely didn't dissapoint! Far from being a host, he was there to inject pro-Bush analysis into the show. Choice quotes include that the war in Iraq "...goes pretty well if you watch it on FOX"

No further commentary is needed on that point.

And lets not leave out Bill "Even Jewish people like Christmas" O'Reilly!

Brave, brave Bill O'Reilly point blank denied he had said words that he had said ten minutes earlier.

Of course, on the other hand: Bill O'Reilly has taken to defending Dan Rather for which he is getting jumped on by just about everybody. Some people are claiming "Nobody asserts that Dan Rather intentionally included false information in his story, the claims are that he was just stupid and Bill's defense sure is nice except that he's defending Dan against something nobody is accusing him of."

But of course, people like that (and they do exist) apparently missed the entire debacle and, instead, are just pretending that nobody would make such claims. (As a side note, i simply love the Orwellian name of that article as well as the "TRUEISFALSE" keyword identifying it. Though certainly not for the same reason as the author.)

Then on the other hand, there are the people who claim precisely that: that Dan Rather is a Democratic Party mouthpiece or that Bill O'Reilly is merely frightened at the speed with which bloggers dissected Dan Rather's "documents".

Of course, they should say "document". Singular. As only one out of all of Rather's documents has been even called into question. But like the good, compliant media whores they are most of our news sources know not to say such things.

Instead we get stuff about the youthful genius of Whizbang and friends.

One problem, though, is that the bloggers' arguments against Dan Rather were totally unconvincing. What happened was that somebody decided the document was false and then provided evidence to show this to be the case. For the first week of this whole scandal (read: basically the entire scandal) i saw not a single argument from the anti-Rather crowd that stood up to promote that withstood anything more than a cursory glance. The font wasn't "obviously" Times New Roman--it may well be Press Roman, Typewriter, or some other Times Roman variant. Typewriters of the time certainly could do superscripted characters. The more expensive ones could even do automatic variable height lines and kerning (two features which the CBS memo does not exhibit, despite claims that it does and that this means the memo is obviously faked). That's not to say i believe the memo to be legitimate. I believe the memo is unverifiable and thus essentially inadmissable to any serious discussion of President Bush's National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Can we talk about the entire rest of Dan Rather's fucking sixty minute expose on Bush's national guard service now? Please?

But of course, in defending Dan Rather, O'Reilly calls down the wrath of just about every partisan hack on both sides of the aisle. I'm no fan of Mr. Oh Really, but of all the ridiculous things he has said this surely doesn't even go on the top one hundred list. Probably not the top thousand.

So is this a David Brock moment out of Bill O'Reilly or is he just covering his own ass? I don't know.

(I really wanted to put "I report, you decide" on the end of there, but the risk that someone might actually take me seriously was too great. Some day i'll have to explain why "We report, you decide" implies slanted news but today is not that day. I'll give some hints, though. The media, contrary to conventional wisdom, has an obligation to "decide" on the truth of the matter. If they can't decide (for example, if the facts don't warrant a decision) then they have an obligation to not decide. This "We report, you decide" bullshit is all about misleading the viewers and not at all about "fair" and/or "balanced" journalism. Let me further explain: if i were to treat two stories as equally true (by not "deciding" and leaving any decisions to be made up to the viewers) when they were not in fact equally true (let's say one was unverifiable due to missing information and the second was easily verifiable and, barring some massive revelation, obviously true or false) i would be effectively slanting the news. By "deciding" the media claims that a story can be decided, and furthermore in a specific direction. By not deciding (within the context of a legitimate journalistic model) the media is saying "we can't make a decision on this story at this time, so be careful". In contrast, the "we report, you decide" model implies that this never happens and that every story the news organization "reports" on can be "decided" on with the information presented within the report. Since this is obviously not the case (the world is a complex place...) the news organization in question is in reality slanting the news they present in one direction or another. Through selective reporting this can give a totally untrue picture of the world. For example, a picture in which Saddam Hussein pulled the metaphorical trigger on the September 11 WTC attacks.

Whew. That was longer than i had expected.)

In any case, this whole "memogate" thingy is reminiscent of the torch-and-pitchfork-mob crowd of the last century. Whether or not the mob is lynching someone who is actually guilty or not they're still a bloodthirsty mob on a partisan witchhunt!

Anyway, while i'm on the topic of "conservative media bias"...

Man, i really should stop linking Media Matters For America. They're probably getting like sixty links from me out of this article alone. Ah well, if the rest of the internet would stop being so bloody stupid...

Anyway, i knew Coulter couldn't keep up the pretense of being honestly concerned about racism in America for very long. Call me bitter or a "phony liberal" if you want--i was right.

Speaking of which, i was talking with someone the other day about how Canada would probably be nuked-from-orbit if they ever actually pulled a stunt like this (Note: this story is, to the best of my knowledge, a fake; whether or not CNN realizes this... it apparently originated here) Coulter provides some evidence for my case.

Back on the topic of racism:

David Horowitz has had some problems on this front. Pretty much entirely, as i understand it, of his own making.

But this time i don't want to just link to something David Brock wrote. I also want to quote a comment from a story in which Horowitz's best response to Al Franken's charge that he (Horowitz) was making racist arguments is "I know you are, but what am I?"

Statistics show that white and black people commit drug crimes at the same rates, however, black people are more often arrested and convicted. This is readily known fact based on statistics in universities. That is why people say that the disproportionate amount of blacks in prisons constitutes racism.

If Horowitz were truly interested in making a valid point, he would go through the trouble to dig up all of the current facts and statistics before spouting his opinions. The fact that he, instead, reacts by blaming black families for not raising law-abiding citizens is a prejudiced maneuver, whether he realizes it or not.

Also, in reading his article, I am aware that Horowitz, like many Americans, confuses racism with personal prejudice. He seems to be saying that he is not biased against blacks therefore what he writes is not racist. Some of Horowitz's statements, like the one I talked about above, show that he is personally prejudiced against blacks, though perhaps unconsciously, but lets say for the sake of argument that he wasn't. That wouldn't preclude any of his statements from being racist, since racism is a social dynamic in our culture that each of us learns as we live our lives. We internalize the same stereotypes we see around us daily. The trick is to become aware of those internalizations, learn to evaluate them critically, and stay conscious of how what we do and say perpetuates or fights against those streotypes.

In the end of his article, he alludes to Bill Cosby's past statements that were made in the same reacitionary vein as his, as if because a black man said it, and some black people applauded it (many did not and let Cosby know it), it is no longer racist. The Cosby example kind of proves my point - Is Cosby personally prejudiced? Or is he ignorant to how racism works as a social dynamic? Or both? He could be any of those things and all of those things, regardless of his skin color.

But of course, we all know it's really the evil liberals like Bill Clinton who are the real racists.. err... wait...

Anyway, what do you do when you're a highly politicized character assassin and the person who you attempted (more or less successfully) was not elected and so now your organization doesn't need you anymore? You beg for handouts. "Wellfare state" my ass.

---------Update!---------

First off, *ahem*, i accidentally managed to delete this post once.

Don't worry, though, i had the whole thing saved.

Anyway, here's more random stuff:

Penguins are bad at logic.

So are a certain politicians.

Therefore, certain politicians are penguins.

Tada!

*ahem*

Sorry about that.

Seriously, though.

The Rockridge Institute discusses how to talk to conservatives. And no, it isn't with a baseball bat*. You can sum it up in the title of the book they're pimping: know your values (and use them) and frame the debate.

A quick discussion of why nuclear missile defense shields (and similar sci-fi technology) is utterly useless in the modern climate (isn't Don Rumsfeld all about "modernizing the army for the new terrorist threat?) can be found here.

I, on the other hand, talk with some Republican nutcases on why internet filtering in libraries is a bad idea. I don't have high hopes for the conversation. However, this might be useful if this discussion dissolves.

Finally, Orcinus discusses hate crimes. Also, the continuing decline in federal support for civil rights.

Ann Coulter once famously said that the best way to talk to liberals, "if you must", is with a baseball bat.

Random update

2004-11-24T17:17:00.000-08:00

I've been slacking on updating this for a while, so here're some links!

First of all, something i don't have a link for. I don't remember if i mentioned or not, but if i didn't i meant to. Anyway, a while ago there was a woman who claimed she had been victim of some PATRIOT ACT nonsense. Well now the government is claiming that she has actually been playing the "bleed the beast" game by collecting various unemployment benefits while simultaneously (and under a pseudonym) writing books about how to milk money out of the federal government. It's still the "he said, she said" game at this point as far as which one is correct, but i feel i should point out there is a counter-charge.

Despite all their bitching about MoveOn and similar Democratic-leaning PACs and 527s, the Republicans out-spent the Democrats in terms of PACs 10 to 1.

Framing and branding for the Democratic Party: It's the stupidity, stupid!

Another from the same source on "Conservative Militarism"

Wasn't Hitler's strategy to radically re-make the world in the image of Nazi Germany?

Even more on framing: The Speech That Could Have Been

On the CIA being turned into a wing of the Executive Branch, White House pushes for reduced Congressional oversight

That site is pretty sharp in general, too.

TV with the sound off

How Rick Santorum stole $100,000 and a seat in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania

Student wearing pro-gay clothes told they were offensive while students wearing anti-gay clothes were totally ignored but a school

Speaking of anti-gay ideology, time to cancel your subscription (if you have one) to the Washington Post.

Three stories from the Howler

I think the Howler under-estimates the race issue, though. For instance, all of the recent controversies have been race-related.

The basketball riot
The Football advert
Rap music (and other segments of non-white culture) being evil, but country music getting a free pass
The hunter shootout up in Norther Wisconsin (several white men vs. one Hmong immigrant)
Etc.

Let's see. All the big controversies going on today share one thread. Race.

More framing (on the FCC issue)

Remember that $388 billion dollar budget bill?

I think i linked to this before, but here is an analysis of some questionable voting data

On a "grassroots Democratic Party"

Of course, the Creationists finally realized that evolution wasn't the only thing that flat-out contradicted their "young earth" ideology. Now they're going after Geology.

Do you want people to avoid discussion of geology because it is politically incorrect next? That seems to be the way we're going. Other takes on the same story.

The Unexplained Poll Discrepancy (Warning: 350kb .pdf file)

Of course, America isn't the only nation with suspicious exit polling and election results in the world

(Or hell, go back and look at how the Republicans were all frothing at the mouth about suspected vote fraud when, after the terrorist attack in Spain, suddenly the voters decided their current leader sucked...)

Christopher Hayes talks about how undecided voters are the real drooling idiots in politics. Well, i'm exaggerating. But undecideds aren't the all-PhD crowd the media tries to turn them into.

This re-iterates the need for "framing". Not, as the story i link to suggests, vague platitudes: but rather framing policies with the bigger picture. If you don't understand the policies in detail, as many (probably most) don't you are still told what the policies are supposed to do. It would be a start, at least.

Finally, the "fair tax" isn't. No surprise there.

Whew.

I got an interesting email today

2004-11-23T13:31:00.000-08:00

All formatting is in the original.

Being the good little anarchist i am i decided to do like the thing said and forward it ^.~

Forward this to your friends and family
RESPONSE SURPRISES US

Dear Winter,
Let me take a minute to tell you of a video that has really taken us by surprise. The video is entitled It's Not Gay. In the last few weeks we have received thousands of orders for It's Not Gay. We had no idea there would be such a demand for the video.

It presents a story that few have heard. In the video, former homosexuals tell their own story in their own words. Along with the homosexuals, medical and mental health experts give a clear warning that the sanitized version of homosexuality being presented to students and in the media is not accurate.

I guess one reason the video has enjoyed such surprising sales is that it is 28 minutes long, which makes it a great tool to use with a Sunday School class, evening service or study group.

I hope you will order a copy and show it to your group. It should be shown in every church in America. The price is only $15, including shipping.

To order, click here.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please allow three weeks for delivery.

I like how they've finally wised up and switched from polls which got fucked by "internet activism" into petitions which you can only express your interest in supporting. I thought the internet was all about two way conversations, but hey! Who am i to say?

Speaking of fucking with the AFA, not that i would ever suggest that, here is their feedback email address. Go send them your love! Alternatively, their petition email address.

I wonder if their "medical professionals" are those guys who are so full of junk science they were disowned by not only all legitimate medical associations but also by the Christian Fundie-styled associations as well? You know, the ones who reported "No gay people live to the age of fifty, lesbians have a 30,000% higher chance of dying in a car crash than straight women" with a straight face.

Then again, that would make them more "ex-medical professionals" wouldn't it? Of course, that would fit too: ex-medical professionals giving diagnosis to ex-gays to serve a far-right fundamentalist agenda. Everyone is just pretending.

On the self perpetuation of activism...

2004-11-21T21:40:00.000-08:00

One of the things that i have been growing more aware of recently is that "activism" is not presently very effective in America.

I think, as i so often do, i know why.

What it comes down to is that activism groups have stopped pushing toward equality, or whatever it is their stated goal is, and rather toward a certain set of politicies and so forth that enable the groups themselves to gain power. In other words, they have replaced the groups they are explicitly aimed at assisting with themselves. No longer do these self-perpetuating groups work toward whatever it is they're supposedly interested in: the groups themselves are now the ultimate goal.

Such groups, inevitably, will never effect true, lasting change as the only things they work for are themselves.

My attention was first drawn to this phenomenon in response to the Republicans stringing along the various Christian extremist groups and then sabatoging any gains that would otherwise be made; for instance, the lack of an exception for the birth of the mother in the case of the recent "partial birth abortion" ban. However, it now seems to me like this is happening more often. Most notable (to me) are the few instances where one minority group will exclude another with the hopes of becoming more politically "palatable" and therefore gaining more political leverage for themselves. I'm not going to name any names, here, and guessing who i have in mind isn't very productive. However, i think that paying attention to this phenomenon is important.

I think one thing that is contributing to this that isn't immediately obvious is the lack of a unified purpose due to a number of groups banding together in order to combat more powerful opposition on a number of fronts. This can be seen most clearly in the case of issues where a number of different groups of people band together to oppose something but cannot agree what to do about it. Since there is no consensus the groups merely work "toward the future" by ensuring the groups themselves stick around.

I think this situation is most damaging to the most vulnerable minority groups in this nation: those who have grown up under the effects of brutal opporession. Notably women and GLBT people living in extremely conservative areas- many of whom grow up to be the most vicious opponents to equal rights. The failings of various advocacy groups are most notable in these areas.

Clearly, for instance, the civil rights groups of the 1960s and 70s were most effective not because they "picked their battles" and only fought those that were in the most "liberal" areas of our country but rather through taking the fight right to the heart of the problem and into the areas of ugliest discrimination. Gay pride parades in New York City are good publicity, but poor strategy.

(Update)

I want to add onto this because i don't think i did it justice. Specifically, i want to make a suggestion i feel is important given what i said.

I think the traditionally accepted version of protesting is pointless.

Sure, filling up the streets worked when the standard response was to turn fire hoses on the protestors and set dogs loose on them. These days, however, the bigots are more clever than that. "So a bunch of queers," or whoever, i'm going to use GLBT people here, "want to march down Main Street? Fine, let 'em! Then tell them to quit blocking the streets afterward!" No dogs, no firehoses: just a polite "do what you want, we're not listening."

This misses the entire point of direct action.

Again, let's go back to Martin Luther King Jr. and his Letter from a Birmingham jail.

"In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation..."

Get that? He didn't go to Birmingham because it was where the civil rights movement had strength but rather because it was where the gravest inequalities existed. It's all about non-violent confrontation, not (as the current GLBT groups think it is) about non-confrontational appeals to The System. King also writes about how the dominant groups rarely give up privilege voluntarily (which is what the GLBT lobbying groups are requesting) but rather they must be driven into it. I could go off on a whole tangent there, but let's read more...

"...We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community... Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.

It isn't about telling people they're wrong as they will, as pointed out, just ignore you. Direct action and protest is about making people address injustice or making them uncomfortable. That's why it at its most effective when the actions of oppressors are at their most brutal, evil, and vicious. That's why it is ineffective when you are ignored. The entire goal of "direct action" is to make people pay attention to injustice. If they can respond by ignoring you more that isn't effective.

Now the next question is "With that in mind, how do you suggest the GLBT community utilize direct action to create change in society?"

I think it can be done relatively quickly. I think that, if there were a will on the part of our leaders to do it i think something like same sex marriage could be achieved within a couple years on a national scale.

My suggestion would be to follow the lead of those who did create change: rather than aimlessly wandering through the streets with signs and chants we should aim straight at the heart of the problem. Luckily for the GLBT community there's a very obvious place to strike. Consider the problem carefully.

I would suggest the most obvious target of direct action aimed at changing America's policy on same sex marriage would be local courthouses and other areas where the machinations of discrimination are vulnerable by their availability.

Remember when various places in the country "went rogue" and started offerring marriage to everyone? One of the things that i noticed right away was that the gay people who were showing up to get married totally shut down city hall. Consider, then, taking one thousand couples in (let's say) New York City. I know that's one of the places i said protesting wasn't going to work, but i'm changing something vital in the formula. Almost everywhere in America is equally bad on the issue of same sex marriage. There are distinctions, of course, but the law of the land (which is what needs to be changed) is similar in 48 of 50 states.

Then we take those thousand couples and line them up in front of city hall, or wherever it is marriage liscenses are handed out. Each couple says they want to get married and wants to know if that is possible. When they are turned down they go to the back of the line. How long do you think it would take before people started paying attention? Probably not too long.

Sure, the police will probably move in or something like that, but that's okay: it's a vital part of the process. "They got arrested for wanting to get married? What sort of medieval society do we live in?"

And if people like Fred Phelps show up? Fine. We'll ~~beat them up and steal their signs~~ i mean ignore them. Phelps has an ugly trick of bullying his way into everywhere and queers getting arrested while Phelps sits around unmolested would play real well on national TV, yes?

Of course, this requires real leadership. But it's probably the first step toward real marriage equality.

Anyway, i'm going to propose something: if you think this is a good idea then link to it in your own weblog or whatever. I know i only have like five readers right now but if each of you have five readers yourselves and if each of those have five more...

And, of course, i'm open to suggestions.

So i was watching CSPAN tonight...

2004-11-20T23:25:00.000-08:00

And i caught some rather... unusual... proceedings.

You can read about them here, and here just for starters.

In case you're too lazy to click the links, someone slipped a section into an unrelated (and totally gigantic) bill which would let certain government officials check into anyone's tax records they want. For any reason. And do anything they feel like with them. And nobody can stop them or punish them for it.

But TPM leaves some of the juicy details out.

First off, the person who would have this power (an Alaskan Senator, IIRC) has said it would never be used, that he would never use it, and that it would not become law because the President would say he wasn't going to sign it.

But the Democrats, thankfully, weren't going to stand for it. They pointed out that such promises were not legally binding and that if they passed the bill this section would be law. Maybe the guy in charge right now wouldn't use it, but someone theoretically could.

So a Democratic senator proposes stripping the offending portion out of the bill. Except doing that requires unanimous consent.

So here's where it gets interesting: someone objected to removing it from bill. So clearly, even if this section getting into the bill were an accident, someone wanted this power to get passed into law. I'm not an expert on procedure, but AFAIK if the removal of this one section that all the people who were speaking considered totally ridiculous ("evil", "disgusting", "cancer festering in the body politic", and "the most abhorrent, detestable, hated passage...") was un-objected to it would have been stripped out right then and there, no need for any promises or anything. But someone objected to it.

Let's let that sink in. I think my usual paranoid speculations are not necessary here.

Quick Talk to the Dems

2004-11-19T23:56:00.000-08:00

By the way, before i dive into this, Blackbox Voting discovers some "discrepancies" in Ohio, according to email at least. (Edit: Ah, blackboxvoting.org has it up on their website now. Scroll down a bit.)

I've been pretty ranty lately, and that's not about to stop now, but i figured i'd better throw down a basic set of ideas on What Needs To Happen. I'm writing off a script, which can be found here, but that's how it goes.

The Internet
Learn what it is, how to use it, and more importantly: how to enable others to help you through it.

This ties in with the others, but America is tired of the one-way conversation that is politics. Things are too disjointed to hold a real conversation the "old-fashioned" way. Does actual conversation as a participant instead of an ideologue scare you? Think back a couple years. No, back further. Remember back when people used to be able to knock on the White House door and have a chat with the President of the United States? Well you can have that type of conversation too. We're waiting for you.

Speaking of Conversations...
Learn to talk with a real voice.

You used to know, i'm pretty sure. Most people did, but our modern education system stripped that ability out of most of us and replaced it with cold, automaton-like blandness. You want to know why Dean attracted so many young people? He could talk with a real human voice. That doesn't just mean how he speaks, but how he writes, communicates, and even being respectful.

This isn't the sort of thing you can pick up in a weekend seminar. It involves forgetting everything you used to know and starting over. That doesn't mean "dumbing down" your speech, but rather learning to really talk. Most of us are taught a bland, flavorless method of speech to emulate the "great speakers"--but that doesn't help at all! There is no easy way to learn to speak and you need to realize that you were probably taught otherwise. That's why great speakers really are great and not just another face in the crowd. Of course, this can also bite you in the ass. Dean spoke with a real human, but when reality broke away from appearance of reality after Iowa he got burned by going with reality. Ultimately, we must value those who get burned for the sake of talking with people.

I would go into a discussion of how modern politics is like Baator (in the Planescape D&D session) but i won't.

Speaking of My Hobbies
If you're going to speak like a real person the first step is to be one. If you only interact with the public through $1,000-per-person fundraising dinners you will be seen as a corporate shill. And with some justification.

Represent Your Citizens
Like i've mentioned, you have to know who they are. As our nation has grown so have the number of people represented per elected official. The inevitable result is a breakdown in communication between politicians and the people. Ditch the Public Relations Experts. Anyone worth talking to can smell the staleness from a mile away.

Take a look at George Bush. Despite his inability to string two words together coherently he is seens by a lot of people as "their kind of guy". This is one of the (relatively few) things that he has half-right. He wasn't always seen that way, believe it or not. When he was first running for public office he sounded like he really had actually recieved an Ivy-League education (go back and listen to his debates, etc, if you don't believe me). But Texans thought he sounded like an automaton and voted against him. He actually intentionally adopted the Texas accent and so on based on this. Now, that isn't to say his trouble with words is faked (there're a number of theories on this point that aren't really worth going into) but he knew the trick.

Bill Clinton knew all about this. Now, Clinton was also hated for his "triangulation", which was clearly a political move to retain power. But that ultimately didn't knock him out of the game.

Be a Leader, Not a Follower
This is a prime sin of the Democratic Party. Don't follow polls, don't follow "Expert Advice". Be a leader. This means a lot of work. That's fine. Take some time off, delegate tasks that you don't need to do personally. Think big picture and let people in on what that picture is.

In order to lead, however, you must understand what problems real people face. You need to be a citizen before you can be a politician. Focus groups let you pretend you know--but you never will unless you're actively engaged in your community. Career politicians aren't very popular for a reason.

Challenge Authority
Since, presumably, you are authority yourself then you may as well start there.

But more importantly: don't forget to challenge others, also. And not just superficially: is there really a need for this authority? Does this hierarchy really serve the people? Some of this is challenging yourself to see what part of the political machine is there for those you represent and what part is there to make you feel more comfortable.

Stand Up For Your Beliefs
You're a real person too. Know what you can compromise and what you won't. This is the "be bold" in the original text where the author talks about Gavin Newsom and how Newsom stood up for his beliefs. By the simple act of standing up about something he thought everyone was doing wrong he was sudenly dictating the issues. Do you really think that if the entire Democratic Party stood up on something like same sex marriage the Republicans would continue to brow-beat you on it? Talk about same sex marriage as a Christian. That first means learning about same sex marriage from a Christian viewpoint. Don't take the answers dictated by ideologues. Why not attend a church service ministered by a gay pastor? Why not ask? Talk about same sex marriage from a stance of patriotism: equality, freedom, justice, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all just starters.

Do you really think that by letting the Republicans have a total monopoly on this area you're going to somehow come out ahead? Doesn't that sound a little crazy? By admitting the Republicans are right you think people are going to vote for you? What the fuck for? Aren't they going to vote for the leaders, not those who opportunistically follow the wind?

Texas is 60% Republican
But 40% Democrat.

Actually, i don't know what the exact pecentage is.

When was the last time a Democrat took Texas seriously as far as spending time and attention on it? But there are still how many Democrats there?

Don't give up ground just because you're ten points behind. You'll never win that way.

If you're behind then what can you do to get ahead?

In The Same Vein...
The Democratic Party is the party of rural America, too. Why the hell would rural America vote Republican? Tax cuts for the mega-corporations? Self-perpetuating elites who foist unrelated issues (*cough* same sex marriage *coughcough*) on them as their primary issues? As opposed to stuff that affects them like making sure their kids won't get left out of the new world? Maybe because you're don't pay any attention to them and the Republicans do? Say it to yourself, and mean it: The Democratic Party is the party of rural America.

Be a Winner
That's kinda ephemeral, but it's important too. The "bandwagon effect" is powerful. Create it, don't jump onto it. That means you're going to get smacked down a couple times. Make sure you take chances where you can, and where it's worth it.

It isn't timely...

2004-11-19T15:24:00.000-08:00

But it is funny!

This just in!

Kerry was later photographed not wearing the jacket! The only conclusion reasonable people can come to when faced with the facts is that Kerry is little more than an opportunistic flip-flopper with no values or fashion sense.

Election Watch Continued!

2004-11-18T23:25:00.000-08:00

More Electoral improbabilities.

It's a pretty detailed overview of the various charges, including some pretty curious statistical issues:

How do we know the fix was in? Keefer says the total number of respondents at 9 p.m. was well over 13,000 and at 1:36 a.m. it had risen less than 3 percent – to 13,531 total respondents. Given the small increase in respondents, this 5 percent swing to Bush is mathematically impossible. In Florida, at 8:40 p.m., exit polls showed a near dead heat but the final exit poll update at 1:01 a.m. gave Bush a 4 percent lead. This swing was mathematically impossible, because there were only 16 more respondents in the final tally than in the earlier one...
There were thousands of complaints about Florida voting. Broward County electronic voting machines counted up to 32,500 and then started counting backward. This glitch, which existed in the 2002 election but was never fixed, overturned the exit-poll-predicted results of a gambling referendum. In several Florida counties, early-morning voters reported ballot boxes that already had an unusually large quantity of ballots in them. In Florida and five other states, according to Canada's Globe and Mail, "the wrong candidate appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen" after the person had voted.

Crazy talk, yes?

But, as the article ends, "Election results are not final until electors vote on Dec. 12. There is still time to find the truth."

Not that i expect any change in the outcome. I'm guessing that even if it comes out that there was massive, intentional fraud that totally altered the outcome of the election the Republicans will still be able to find enough electors to put Bush into office.

Either that or something ridiculous would happen.

So in a way, it would perhaps be better if this didn't happen until post-election. Sure, we'd get four more years of Bush. But i'm guessing the Republican Party would be mostly destroyed after that.

Of course, all of that depends on whether or not something actually did go wrong; something that is at this point still impossible to predict for certain, despite the overwhelming suggestions that it did.

Anyway. If someone out there runs into any people going "The extremists are the fringe in the Republican Party!" then i would say you should invite that person to stand up to the Republicans majority and say that. But they had better be prepared to join Specter in his now-mandatory daily grovelling sessions. A little bird whispered into my ear that he's forced to wear a leash and leather, too.

"Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.

The ever-incomparable Daily Howler gives a review of Clinton's books. It's not as bad as the media says it is. At least, as long as you aren't an idiot-for-hire. For another example, take a look at how the media, that paragon of informativeness, carefully avoids any mention of the fact that Rice has a problem with the truth. Or perhaps that's too subtle for you? Maybe some reports of how Sinclair started up an explicitly pro-Bush, anti-Democrat show (though it is purportedly non-partisan)?

Orcinus discusses "Healing America".

Now for some Coulterisms!

...Thinking back on my relationship with Ann [Coulter] now, it's dismaying to realize how a certain kind of politics can corrupt every aspect of your life. As with my later relationship with Laura Ingraham, Ann and I never had a serious conversation about politics, or anything else. Instead, we smoked, drank to excess--Ann seemed to live on nothing but chardonnay and cigarettes--and vented our anger and cruelty by hurling all manner of epithets at liberals and the disadvantaged among us. We both eschewed subtlety. To Ann, my "nutty/slutty" line [which was used to virtually libel Anita Hill when she claimed then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her] was a stroke of genius. Our only disagreement was over abortion: Ann called me a "baby-killer."

...She soon grew bored with life [in Washington] and moved on to become a television pundit, where she crafted a niche for herself as a "poster girl for the militia crowd", as New York magazine put it. In her television appearances, Ann regularly labeled Clinton as "crazy," "like a serial killer," "creepier and slimier than Kennedy," "a horny hick," and "white trash." "I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane," she declared. "I just want to get rid of him." To Ann, Hillar Clinton was a "prostitute." In a CNN segment on the dragging death of James Byrd, an African American man, in Texas, Ann fumed, "There is a constitutional right to hate." She eventually left her job as a commentator on MSNBC after telling a disabled Vietnam vet in a debate, "People like you caused us to lose the war." I never did figure out what Ann was really mad at.
--David Brock in Blinded by the Right, page 180-181

I hope i don't have to point out that Ann Coulter has just recently called all Democrats racists for bringing up legitimate questions about Condolezza Rice's qualifications. Talk about double standard.

And of course: i've updated my game documents a bit. Warning: it's up to 440KB now.

(Update!)

TiVo sells your fast-forward button.

Note to politicians

2004-11-18T18:14:00.000-08:00

Especially those frustrated by the Religious Right fucking with your life.

I was just listening to some talk on cable news about how certain religious leaders are all "We're the biggest special interest group in the nation and we deserve to be treated like it!"

I say: okay.

Let's start treating religion like a special interest group.

First, if they want to get involved in politics, strip their tax exemptions away. Any church which starts lobbying (as churches have done extensively recently) loses its tax exemptions. Same goes for any organization or whatnot.

Then pander relentlessly to them during election season. Try then to avoid giving them anything you promised.

Stop treating them specially. They're not the biggest "special interest" group in the nation. That would be women. They're just big.

And so on.

When they bitch, point out they brought this on themselves. This is how the game is played. Perhaps they should have thought things through before they demanded being treated just like any other special interest group when they were given (today) a huge number of free benefits in a contract with the state that has loopholes big enough to drive large trains through.

Maybe i'm just bitter, though.

The Shapeshifter

The Wasteland: Why Republican Can't Govern

Upcoming posts...

The lie of "capital".

My utter loathing for G. W. Bush

Judge Alito's Big Gay Day

Merry Fitzmas!

Firefox 1.5 beta 2 review (and existential ranting)

Skip to here, yo!

Conservatives Believe, Liberals Think

Bloody Ignorant Racists

Bloody Knuckle Nation

Hannity, Hannity, Hannity...

Bush v. Bush

Conservatism, Wars of Aggression, and Economics

To be a Conservative, you must believe...

Fear on the Eve of Victory...

Suppose...

Texas GOP Platform pt. 2

Texas GOP 2004 Party Platform Analysis

Okay, moment's over!

Yom Hashoah*

Beg-A-Thon

Words of Wisdom

Two Posts To Underline

Sinking The UN

Propaganda: Then And Now

Are There Decent Jews?

Scalia is an ass-fucker

Argh!

Once more...

One-Paragraph Summary of Mai HiME

Quick quote on freedom:

Thoughts on "Pass it on" campaign...

"The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher"

The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher

1. CONFUSION

2. CLASS POSITION

3. INDIFFERENCE

4. EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY

5. INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY

6. PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM

7. ONE CAN'T HIDE

II

III

Link dump!

On the "Bush Doctrine"

The "Bush Doctrine" and war

Was the Iraq War Proactive or Reactive?

The Proactive Approach

Now this is irony...

Commentary and links for you! (With update)

A definition of Fascism

On the nomination of Justice Chertoff

Woo!

Orrin Hatch (R, UT) and Tort Reform...

You might go to jail for reading this!

How's this?

9/11 changed everything...

Addendum...

"...we never once did that to Clinton."

Filler while i write other things...

"I hate your damn speech..." (With update)

Important reading...

Political ramblings ahead... (With update!)

Woo!

The Tao of Programming

GRAAAAH! (With Update!)

Chris Matthews has no use for so-called "facts"

Blah!

"Memogate" take 4,384,294,308

Geek humor...

Post!

Massive dumping of links

The Republicans' problem with minorities...

Reponse to Novak

Well then!

A break from the usual...

Table of Contents

The Monster Party of Doom.