Tuesday, August 12, 2003
( 1:02 PM )
All's Fair and Balanced in the Blogosphere
I'm joining in the fun...becoming part of the Movement. In case you haven't heard, Fox News is suing Al Franken because the subtitle of his new book is "Fair and Balanced." As Tom Tomorrow says, that's reason enough to buy the book (but, as Tom says, not until after you buy this one).
Seeing the Forest has joined in, along with Digby and tons of others. Daily Kos has something to say about it as well. Come on, join the movement! We're all Fair and Balanced - otherwise, why would we blog?
UPDATE: Looks like Drudge's coverage and the movement have helped sales
UPDATE UPDATE: Blah3.Com has the entire movement listed, along with the sales scoop... with special honorable mention to Maru, who's our favorite Fairly Unbalanced blogger.
( 11:22 AM )
And In the End...
All the Children Were Left Behind
The ratings for Oregon schools came out yesterday under the new "No Child Left Behind" education act signed by the President last year. It goes without saying that this unfunded mandate was ushered in by a bipartisan group of senators, including Ted Kennedy, who now disavows himself of the law and the way the requirements burden already broke states. In a stunning indictment, 365 schools in Oregon, including 2/3 of the high schools were tagged as educationally inadequate under the new federal rules.
The majority of Oregon schools that got their names
splashed on the needs-improvement list had acceptable
overall achievement and made the list because performance
lagged among one or more groups: Hispanics, low-income
students or, most commonly, special education students.
But how does the federal law help these schools when they don't meet the standards of this sweeping legislation?
Schools that receive Title I federal aid to help disadvantaged
students will face stiffer consequences if they make the list
next year, too. They will have to give students top priority
and free bus rides to transfer to higher-performing schools.
And they face a series of escalating consequences each year
if they fail to hit the performance targets.
Eight Oregon schools, including Jefferson and Roosevelt high
schools in Portland, have triggered those requirements.
Another 113 schools, including 12 more in Portland and three
each in Hillsboro and Reynolds, will be hit with sanctions if
they don't improve by next spring.
So let me get this straight: the schools that have the highest minority and special needs kids and receive Title I federal aid will not get more help in funding their programs for their at-risk students if they fail to meet the mark of Bush's new rules - no, they just get more and more sanctions. Does this make sense? Not only are Oregon schools literally trying to tread water while the state roams around blindly trying to figure out how to fund them for a full year, but now they are slapped with federal regulations that threaten to take away aid for the schools that need it most. Oh, but at least the law requires schools to give up all personal information of its students to military recruiters or lose federal funding. That'll take care of things.
It's all nice and good to demand high performance from schools and students. But when that demand comes with no offer of help to the teachers and administrators who have to meet those standards, then it's just plain ridiculous. There is no logic to this method - except if your big-picture plan is to totally rid the country of public schools. Now THAT is a real likelihood coming from this administration. It's not enough to offer vouchers and refuse to give more funding to schools to improvements, no, let's just cripple public schooling altogether. I don't understand this way of thinking. Yes, it would be great to have better schools, more supplies, higher standards being achieved by students. But shouldn't we first provide school buildings that don't leak or poison our children, competitive pay and living benefits for teachers, funding for supplies and things like field trips, recess and oh, I don't know, school books? Let's rethink things in view of the schools' needs, instead of the federal government's needs to take over other countries.
I have an idea. Why don't we use the federal funds that we might have had if we hadn't given those tax cuts to the rich folks and instead put those into grants for local school districts to fund construction and repair of schools, thus giving jobs to many people and rebuilding the infrastructure of the district, along with providing much needed improvements for the schools. Then why don't we have designated part of our federal taxes go to public education instead of letting it eat whatever crumbs are left by defense spending? You don't have kids and don't think you should have to pay for other people's kids to go to school? How do you think you were able to go to school? The mark of a decent society is when the citizens are willing to pool their resources and provide for the needs of the youngest and neediest in order to build up a society that has a foundation of strength and knowledge, which benefits all of us. The mark of an autocratic, fascist society is where the government leaders at the top dictate unreasonable requirements and do not provide the means to achieve them so that nobody meets the expectations and thus the most needy or disadvantaged of the society are simply thrown by the wayside... which one are we going to choose?
In the immortal words of the verbally-challenged President: "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"
Don't talk a good game about children and then screw them and those who teach them. Just stop with the lies already.
Monday, August 11, 2003
( 4:27 PM )
Portland Says No To Bush
Round Two. Get ready, Oregonians. It's possible that Eugene may go into a complete lock-down mode - word is W will be at U of O (there appears to be heated debate about whether to break out the old Black Bloc or just create a nice size swarm).
For any of you who cringe at the thought of being delayed in traffic or who feel it is unfair to shoppers when downtowns close down due to protestors, I would like to point you towards the fact that your slight inconvenience in January and February of this year pales in comparison to the inconvenience now being felt by Iraqis and our own troops. In anticipation of an overwhelming veto of this president in next year's general election, there are going to be many acts of civil disobediance and protest demonstrations. It is the right and the responsibility of every citizen of this country to stand up to tyranny, especially when it eminates from our own government. Be there or be silent. Look what silence has gotten us so far. You know I'm a direct action kind of mama, and I believe strongly that once the citizens leave the streets empty, our votes will be hollow as well. It's a two-fold responsibility - speaking out and voting loudly.
Whether or not riots ensue, the cause of these demonstrations is a valid and very important message: we aren't going to take it anymore and we're going to say something NOW. Out Loud.
( 4:06 PM )
Those Sexy Stroller Dads
One of my new favorite Bohemian Dads, Laid-Off Daddy, is the proud parent of a bilingual toddler! I had to laugh when I read this because the main pastime in our household has now become the game of "what did he just say?" Martin can utter entire paragraphs in a language known only to him and then look at us like we're complete numbskulls who obviously do not share a brain between us because we could not understand what he'd just explained very clearly. Kind of reminds me of the Bush Administration - uttering sentence upon sentence that they assume we will understand, but which seems to always be some form of twisted take on reality.
But I digress. Also on the Dad Blogs is the new hot topic of Stroller Dads. I'm a bit late to the game on this one since they were all talking about it at the end of last week. Being Daddy pointed to a story about how sexy Stroller Dads are. Rebel Dad took up the cause as well, pointing also to Frenzied Daddy's remarks about missing out on the Stroller Dad Effect. MomBrain went on to write a great piece on the subject matter, just to reassure our Stroller Dad pals:
Why, just the other day our playgroup was at the kiddie wading
pool when a stroller daddy set up camp nearby. Did any of the
mommies flirt with him? Of course not! Did we strike up a conversation?
Not even. Did we make eye contact? Nope. Did the mommies smile
at each other and raise our eyebrows and laugh liltingly and stretch
our lovely tanned legs in the sun? You bet your sweet bippies we did.
Did the Stroller Daddy notice? Probably not. I am sorry to insult my male
readership but you guys are just not attuned to feminine subtlety. It's
not about being hit on by a gum-cracking ho with cherry lipstick and
some scary Electra issues. It's about the Mona Lisa smile.
I realize I'm getting in late on the topic. But my 2cents, for whatever they're worth, echo MomBrain. But with the caveat that it's not only the sight of a man out with his child that is attractive, it's that the man is out with his child at all. I think it's inherently attractive and very sexy for a man to be enjoying some time with his son or daughter..or multiples of the same. I find my own husband quite the thing when I see him and Martin when I get off the bus... if they've made the special trip together to the bus stop to meet me when I come home from work, it just makes me cuddly all over. I find it somewhat amusing that the typical version of a Mom at home is the frumpy housewife trundling kids around in a mini-van, but the version of the Dad at home is a smart, sexy guy who looks cool at the playground and is brilliant for buying veggies at the store - it goes to show: Stay at Home Dads aren't just a new breed of coolness...they are the vanguard of the ultimate role model for men everywhere with kids or wanting kids or waiting for kids. Those lucky kids.
( 2:56 PM )
Impeachable Offenses
This week as President Bush and his closest advisors altered
stories in an ongoing effort to deflect blame about “intelligence
failures,” I am reminded of a quote by Oliver North from his Iran-
Contra testimony, “I was provided with additional input that was
radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version.”
That's the start of an article by Belva Ann Prycel in the Lincoln County Weekly. Thanks to Jerome Doolittle at Bad Attitudes for great commentary and a link to the article (via Atrios).
Ms. Prycel continues:
One cannot help but ask if these false and terrifying depictions
of Iraq's destructive capabilities were really the products of
intelligence failures, or if they were part of an ongoing and
systematic policy on the part of those at the very head of
government.
Thirty years ago during the Watergate hearings, investigators
asked the simple question: "What did the president know and when
did he know it?" A more appropriate question to ask today might be
"Why didn't the president know before going to war what common
people marching in streets all over the world knew?"
She goes on to enunciate the crimes of this White House. Please read the entire article - it's worth it.
Richard Nixon faced impeachment for misusing the CIA and
the FBI, a serious abuse of presidential power. George Bush
and his administration apparently manipulated and
misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and
the public to support, a preemptive war to take control of Iraq.
For those who would give George Bush some largely
undeserved latitude, let's be clear that this was not a benign act
with no victims and no ongoing consequences. This was not a
personal impropriety, a sexual tryst or a stain on a blue dress.
This was a stain upon American democracy.
My question is - will the media who so gobbled up the and spit out the GOP's hymnbook on the Clinton impeachment be as willing to admit the vast difference of crimes and their victims? The Clinton impeachment set a horrible precedent. There shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction to impeach a president that way ever again. But after deliberation and a full accounting, and as more facts come in showing the deliberate misleading of the American people into war, should there not be at least some discussion of the obvious? Was Nixon's misuse of the FBI and CIA to his own political ends worse than BushCo's misuse of the FBI and CIA to their own empire-building ends? The former ended with the careers of many dying on the vine. The latter is ending with the LIVES of many, MANY more dying on the vine. Can we PLEASE have some proportional amount of accountability yet?
( 12:36 PM )
Guess Who's This Week's Guerrilla?
Guerrilla News Network has chosen Howard Dean as this Guerrilla of the Week:
...it would be hard to argue that Dean isn't making a pretty
damn good case that he's the best thing the Left has going
as we head into the '04 election season. He says what he
believes, and he's energized tens of thousands of citizens
(including a high percentage of young people) across the
country. He also has the Party leadership shaking in their
loafers. Just based on the idiotic things Joe Lieberman has
said about him, he must be doing something right.
GNN goes on to print the comments of formerly green-voting Nico Pitney. I really liked what he had to say because I voted for Nader in 2000 and also feel that Kucinich most closely resembles my values among the candidates and I am far more progressive than Dean on most issues. This is a fine argument and one I think will help a lot of Greens and Progressives:
I passionately supported the Greens in 2000 and 2002. I
traveled 125 miles to see Dennis Kucinich speak when he
came to Los Angeles in May, and had the pleasure of introducing
him to a crowd of several hundred when he visited Santa
Barbara recently. Kucinich is a guiding light in Congress and,
of the nine Democratic presidential contenders, his views
most closely mirror my own.
Yet I won't be voting for Kucinich in the Democratic primaries,
nor will I vote Green in the general elections. My support will
go to Howard Dean.
[...]
In any case, the role of ideals in the voting booth is hazy.
Voting Green isn't necessarily the most effective way to
achieve Green policies. More importantly, supporting and voting
for Democratic candidates is in no way a personal affirmation of
the Democratic Party platform. It is, in part, a recognition of
Duverger's Law - one of the few reliable "laws" in the social sciences
- which states that American-style, winner-take-all, plurality voting
systems produce political structures intractably dominated by two
parties. Moreover, it is a recognition that the Democratic Party is
simply one network among many (albeit an incredibly powerful one)
through which those seeking fundamental political change in the
United States can act. Progressives ought to engage the Democratic
Party in the same way that we engage any powerful institution; we
should creatively test the limits of reform and attempt to produce change
that will assist us in our own wider struggles.
[...]
Why, of the establishment candidates, should progressives
choose Dean? His platform is as good or better than those of
Dick Gephardt and John Kerry, the only other two candidates
with a hope at gaining the Democratic nod. Vastly more important,
however, is the fact that Dean's web-focused campaign has the
potential to revolutionize the way American politics operates,
and progressives ought to be taking note.
[...]
There is, in fact, good reason to believe that progressive supporters
of Dean are well aware of his record, and are choosing to
support him despite its flaws. As American Prospect senior editor
Garance Franke-Ruta points out, "the most important part of the
Dean message is that it makes [supporters] feel that they have the
power to control their own destiny. ... This sense of renewed personal
power and hope seemed more important to most posters [to Dean's
weblog] than any specific policies that Dean supports or does not support,
and few on the threads agreed wholeheartedly with the former governor
on all his positions. Most recognized that he is a centrist who is fiscally
conservative and socially liberal."
Pitney goes on to elaborate on the various Dean positions that progressives may have problems with and to show how the Dean campaign is dealing with these, along with the incorrect reporting on some of the issues so far. I find it heartening that a progressive has written so well about this subject, and I hope that other greens and progressives and lefties in general will take the time to consider his very well stated arguments. We can work within the system far better with Dean as president, than we will with Bush for another four years:
"Patience and fortitude conquer all things," wrote Ralph Waldo
Emerson. In pressing times, progressives have demonstrated great
fortitude by committing themselves to institutions and social movements
that addressed injustices theretofore neglected. Howard Dean is no
holy grail, but amidst a trend in our country toward widespread political
ignorance and a sort of corporatized proto-fascist nationalism, perhaps
it is our patience that is needed now. What we have in Dean is a man who
can articulate liberal positions intelligently, passionately, and commandingly,
and who has the grassroots/netroots support and an appeal to diverse
constituencies that will allow him to defeat George Bush. Let's join Dean's
campaign, get on his e-mail lists, and spread the word.
Eyes on the prize, people. Eyes on the prize.
( 11:13 AM )
Joe Lieberman: The Republican's Democrat
He's the DLC's pick for Democrat candidate in 2004. He's evidently also the RNC's best buddy too. It looks like the actual voters in the Dem party may leave the "power brokers" in the dust this time around...
UPDATE: Howard Dean: the Republican's Democrat? (thanks to I Know This Is Probably Bad For Me)
( 11:05 AM )
Doonesbury
Cutting to the Chase. Again. (thanks to TBogg)
( 9:32 AM )
Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places?
How about the scoop on how W got into the Air National Guard (via Buzzflash, via Suburban Guerrilla)?
How about the truth about the 2000 election in Florida - beyond the rhetoric and right into the start of the chain of lies?
How about the truth about how globalization, the World Bank and the IMF are deliberately disabling sovereign nations - with a little help from the US?
I'm currently reading The Best Democracy Money Can Buy By Greg Palast. If you don't read every column by Palast, you might want to start now. He is literally one of a handful of writers actually investigating subjects and reporting the truth. Unfortunately, he gets published in other countries more than he does here. Why is that? Because the US version of journalism has so deteriorated into doing the least amount of work so that the most amount of profit can be made that true investigation and reporting rarely happens in this country. As Palast says in his book, the work of the reporters in All The Presidents Men was so rare, it had to be made into a movie.
So let's talk about the most recent cover-up that Palast is uncovering: George Bush tries to distract the American public from the fact that the administraiton is hiding evidence of its buddy Saudi Arabia's backing of terrorism, specifically the 9/11 attack, by announcing that he is against gay marriage and will seek to "codify" that...
Well, well, well. President George was in one hell of bind
this week when it turned that that Saudi Arabia funded Al
Qaeda, not Iraq. Realizing we'd invaded the wrong country,
Bush did the honorable thing: he's come out against gay marriages.
This caused some real confusion in my staff where a gay member
of our investigations team announced he was changing his
allegiance from Howard Dean to George Bush. "Bush Saves Gays from
Marriage! Bush Saves Gays!" he rushed around the office beaming. "Gay
people exempt from going to in-laws for Thanksgiving dinner! Gay-mericans
exempt from PTA meetings and hiring divorce lawyers!"
All humour aside... the administration is up to its old dirty tricks again...
And now, the New York Times tells us, the US Senate has
been embarrassed into holding hearings on those Saudi
charity fronts including one named WAMY.
Of course, this is ancient news to those who watched my
report on WAMY and Saudi funding of terror -- broadcast on BBC's
evening news on November 9, 2001. (In the USA, that report
earned me the title of 'conspiracy nut.' In America, a 'conspiracy nut'
is defined as a journalist who reports the news two years before
the New York Times.)
And here's the ugly little punchline to the story you WON'T read in
the Times. Why has the Bush Administration covered up for WAMY and
the Saudi's other blood-soaked 'charity' operations?
[...]
...following the bombing of our embassies, the Clinton Administration
sent two delegations to Saudi Arabia to tell their royal highnesses
to stop giving money to the guys who are killing us. But Mr. Bush,
once in office, put the kibosh on unfriendly words to the Saudis.
Furthermore, in the summer of 2001, Mr. Bush disbanded the US
intelligence unit tracking funding of Al Qaeda. What is it our G-men
were uncovering? According to two separate sources speaking to
BBC, the funders of Al Qaeda fronts include those who have
previously funded Bush family business and political ventures.
[...]
And there's this: a document marked "Secret" and "199I"
(meaning 'national security') which found its way out of the offices
of the FBI in into the office of our BBC/Guardian newspaper team.
It indicates (and whistleblowers confirmed) that, prior to the
September 11 attack, the Bush Administration held back agents of the
FBI from tracking two members of the bin Laden family. According to
the buried FBI report, the bin Laden lads were operating in the USA
for "a suspected terrorist organization", WAMY.
But we mustn't ask too many questions of the Bush Administration's
blindfolding the FBI, nor, Heaven forbid, discomfit the Saudis over their
contributions to Terror-R-Us. After all, in BushWorld, Saudi Arabia and
America have shared values: we want our boys to kill, not to kiss.
It's obvious that the US press is far more comfortable reporting on Arnold Schwarzenneger's possible governorship than it is reporting on what our government is hiding from us - and how this very administration that claims the hero's pulpit actually contributed to the largest attack of civilians on US soil ever. What's really sad is that while the press/media whiles away its time joking about "Total Recall," BushCo continues to endanger our very lives. Is this the kind of "free press" we really need - one that squanders its rights in order to squash the truth?
( 8:58 AM )
Inform Yourself
If you vote, you should be reading The Howler every day.
( 8:54 AM )
Looking for the REAL News From Iraq?
Visit Steve.
( 8:46 AM )
Recall Blues
I really don't feel like talking about the subject that is on most people's lips and fingertips...but there is some good commentary out there. Not being a Californian or ever having been one, and not ever wanting to be one, I leave this up to the Californians to sort out. While I do believe it has national consequences in terms of the bad precedent and the additional battleground the GOP has set up in order to overrun democracy - I hold out hope the Californians won't let democracy be completely pummeled. More at Counterspin Central and Atrios and Calpundit (with a rundown on the candidates) - not to mention Liberal Oasis (with a Sunday talk show wrap up) -- but I would like to echo Ailes, with the best comment I've seen yet today:
Seriously, why is any Californian even considering voting
for Arnold Schwarzenegger? Do we need the State of
Minnesota to come out and do an intervention?
Just keep it inside California folks...we don't want an epidemic started.
UPDATE: oh, and Daily Kos and Talk Left too.
Friday, August 08, 2003
( 3:56 PM )
1,000 Cranes
Daintily Dirty (scroll down: "1000 cranes") reminds us to remember. This week was the 58th anniversary of the only time a country has used weapons of mass destruction on another country, killing hundreds of thousands at one time. The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and this week the Japanese humbly request that we consider not doing it again:
On the 58th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack,
the mayor of Hiroshima, the city that was nearly obliterated with
160,000 people killed or injured by that single act, affirmed Japan's
commitment to "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty", while Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi called for countries around the world to
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would impose a
moratorium on nuclear explosion tests. "Hiroshima city added to
the cenotaph 5,050 names of those who have died from cancer and
other long-term ailments over the past year, raising the toll to
231,920."
Three days later, Nagasaki held similar services, remembering the 70,000 that died the day the second atomic
bomb was dropped.
May we never be so cruel again, may the world not allow us to commit such acts. We hold no higher morality than any other nation of human beings, and there is no greater power than to be peacemakers and mercy givers - that is what will make this world safe, not the continuous stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
In rememberance.
( 3:43 PM )
Blogs on the Move
Hark! Body and Soul has switched urls! Mark it down. Today she expounds on the covert and overt prejudice against Muslims in this country. A subject most would like to pretend isn't important, but just ask the Japanese internees whether it's important or not.
( 3:07 PM )
General (in the) Election
You heard it first at Barney's. The General may be throwing his hat (with all those stars) in to the race soon.
( 2:56 PM )
Advice You Can Use!
In case you were wondering, Calpundit has the scoop on all the advice you'll need from Republicans...
( 2:01 PM )
Mushy Dems
What Digby said.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
( 4:25 PM )
Just In: Orwell Rises From Grave, Announces "Enough!"
George Orwell, best known for his prophetic politically visionary novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four rose from the dead today and made this public announcement to surprised press and media pundits who gathered for his impromptu press conference:
I am sick and tired of rolling in my grave lately. It seems like every other hour something comes out of the current American administration that makes my dead body turn over two or three times. Not only that, my name has been overused and it's time that you tools of your sick government realize that things have gone so far beyond what I imagined that it's no longer even an appropriate analogy to invoke my name! I mean for godsake, John Ashcroft going on a tour to promote his "Victory Act" is so far beyond Orwellian that you people need to just leave me to rest in peace already!! The way things are going for you, I'm damned glad I didn't live to see this, so stop waking me up!
Whether or not the media and commentators will stop using the phrase "Orwellian" to describe the fascist, autocratic government that has now taken over America is yet to be seen. One can imagine, however that the phrase will quickly go out of style once the administration starts summarily executing members of the press who bother to mention the irony of naming programs that pollute the air "Clean Air Act" and programs that cut down trees "Forest Protection Act" and programs that round up Americans never to be heard from again a "Victory Act." This writer is now going into hiding.
Apologies to Tom Burka.
( 2:56 PM )
Meet Up Goes Analog
I am by no means computer-savvy - I just sort of learn as I go. I secretly find a little thrill in using the word "analog" - it reminds me of that pink rotory phone I used to have in my bedroom as a teenager - sort of a secret luddite fantasy I have of everyone getting together without the use of keyboards or cell phones. Of course, then all those people get together and overthrow the fascist government and make things right (my teen years were weren't exactly bopper-ish). My fantasy was somewhat realized here in Portland last night. We experimented and we got great results.
The Dean campaign now boasts over 260,000 signed-up volunteers and over 80,000 people signed up for Meet-Up. All over the country thousands of people met together to talk about Howard Dean and how they can get involved in getting Bush out of office and starting this country back on the right track. They mostly all organized and recruited using the internet. I think the foundation the campaign has laid by using web-based tools and people with email and internet access is fantastic...and formidable. But there are millions of potential voters in this country who don't use the internet or even care about it.
Those are the people I want to reach.
We had six "official" Meet-ups in Portland last night. The one I co-hosted was organized and advertised exclusively without the use of the internet (though some people ended up hearing about it by emails from people).
We are trying to reach out to my neighborhood. Northeast and North Portland are the communities and neighborhoods where the vast percentage of Oregon's "minorities" live. I hate that word and I try never to use it because no one should be called "minor" - so let's just say I proudly live where all the "rest of us" working class just-trying-to-get-by folks are living and hoping to keep gentrification from pushing them out of their homes. I love my neighborhood, and as my long-time readers will know, I absolutely love the way my community has a voice and uses it. I would love that voice to speak collectively though votes. The only way we advertised for our Meet Up was flyers - very ineffective, but we were on a tight budget and lacked time.
Amazingly, attendance exceeded our expectations and at least 25 people showed up. A full quarter of them came to learn more about Dean. So while the other already committed "Dean-ites" got started writing personal letters to Democrat voters in NH, we got together for a bull-session with the interested few. They had really good questions. Some really hard questions too. But I think we answered them as best as possible (for instance, Dean hasn't made a full-fledged position speech on Palestine, but we know his general feelings on the matter). Most of all, I think they just wanted to be convinced he could win.
I think that's what people who felt so disenfranchised the last few elections, and those who are still reeling from 2000 are looking for: a winner. I've said it before, I think Dean is the guy who can win. And just like I've said before that I don't agree with all his positions (I am far more lefty than he is), I like his platform, his willingness to speak out, and the fact that his campaign is propelled by PEOPLE not by corporations and big money donors. We're now working on methods and ways to reach our community in "real life." I think we may soon be setting up regular voter registration drives. Remind anyone of a long ago era when political campaigning really WAS a people-powered movement? See, the more people we can get to register, there are that many more votes to use against Bush.
As I've said before, my activism has always been on the side of the downtrodden and the little guy who usually doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, but who needs a voice... but this is the first time I've invested my time (and yes, a little bit of my precious, hard earned, highly-taxed money) in a campaign that I actually think is a winner and that I might get to taste victory for the first time. No matter what the pundits say, no matter how people try to pidgeonhole this campaign, in the end, I think it's all about people. It's already more about us and what we want than it is about Dean. It's the old snowflake analogy: by itself its fragile and will melt in a moment, but stick millions of snowflakes together, and we can roll over a city... or a fascist government. It's an intoxicating idea, that's for sure. Almost like a fantasy come true.
( 2:01 PM )
New Blog Alert
Steve Gilliard, of DKos fame has his own blog now. Mark it down and link to it (though word is he's going to a fresh link soon and will be off blogspot - so be sure to update), it will be well worth your time to keep up with his posts. And you'll learn more too...come on, everybody's doing it!
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
( 10:59 AM )
We Don't Feel Like Heroes Anymore
This letter appeared in The Oregonian yesterday. It was heartbreaking and infuriating to read the words of a soldier from our hometown. PFC Isaac Kindblade wrote in to tell us what it's really like for the soldiers there. I urge you to pass this letter on. Hearing real news from the real participants gives us a truer picture than the newsmedia ever could:
I am a private first class in the Army's 671st Engineer Company
out of Portland. I just wanted to let you know a little bit of what
we are up to, maybe so that you can have another opinion of
what's going on over here in Iraq.
We have been in country since Feb. 14 and were a part of the Third
Infantry Division's march into Baghdad. In fact, as a result of some
serious miscommunications, we were the front line of the charge
on two very distinct occasions.
[...]
A lot is being said about poor morale. That seems to be the case
all over the place. It's hot, we've been here for a long time, it's
dangerous, we haven't had any real down time in months and
we don't know when we're going home.
I think a big aspect has been the people here. When the war
had just ended, we were the liberators, and all the people
loved us. Convoys were like one long parade. Somewhere
down the line, we became an occupation force in their eyes.
We don't feel like heroes anymore.
[...]
The task is daunting, and the conditions are frightening.
We can't help but think of "Black Hawk Down" when
we're in Baghdad surrounded by swarms of people.
Soldiers are being attacked, injured and killed every day.
The rules of engagement are crippling. We are
outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads.
The president says, "Bring 'em on." The generals say
we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here.
It is a hollow feeling, knowing that this 20-year old and thousands like him are not only losing their youth in the hot desert, so far from home, but they are also feeling as if they have been abandoned by the very people who sent them there.
To read more from soldiers who are daring to speak out about what it's like for them over there, check out this at Guerilla News. It gives the link to Soldiers for Truth:
a revolutionary site allowing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to directly
communicate their plight to the world. Don't get the wrong idea.
This ain't no peacenik site. It's fervently pro-military, and
fundamentally pro-war. But it is increasingly anti-administration.
The site's spiritual leader seems to be retired U.S. Army Col.
David Hackworth, the self-described Most Decorated Soldier in
America. Hackworth can walk the walk. He was shot eight times
in Vietnam, and went on to write the so-called "Vietnam Primer,"
referred to as the military's bible on counter-insurgency warfare.
Here's an excerpt from one soldier's email before "Victory" was declared in May:
During the [March 30, 2003 terrorist] incident at UDARI
when a local was running over soldiers who were
standing in line at the PX with his NTV (non tactical vehicle),
a number of soldiers could not respond because they did
not have any ammunition for their assigned weapon.
[Between 10-15 personnel were injured in the incident.]
Yesterday, I had to turn in one of my two magazines for my
M9 [Beretta sidearm] because my unit didn't bring enough
magazines for everyone in the unit. So right now, I have to
venture off base camp with only 15 rounds of 9-mm. ammunition.
I have begged the command for some 5 tons to go out to TAA
Guardians and Spartans to pick up the bottled water that was left
behind when the 3rd ID departed for Iraq. The last time I was at
Guardian there was a minimum of 80 pallets of bottled water on the
ground. We seem to have deployed to this theater without the required
amount of transportation assets to support the fighting men
engaging the enemy.
Let's hope conditions have improved...though one doubts the amount of support truly needed for the soldiers is really getting to them. These men and women have lost time with their families, time on their jobs if they are reserve and guard, and just general time in their lives for having to risk every day in a situation that isn't getting better with the tactics our leaders insist on continuing to use. It's fine for us here to criticize the Bush administration and the Pentagon, but while we are doing so, I urge you if you have the time and resources (which we all do), sign up for Support a Soldier, or just ask around - I'll bet you anything someone you know has a loved one over there who could really use a paperback, a magazine, some kool-aid mix or just a note saying they are thought of.
Most of all, let's keep the pressure on to bring them home, or in the least, make conditions over there better for them.
UPDATE: Here's another lovely one sent to me by P: Some of the Army's Civilian Contractors are No-Shows in Iraq:
U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor
living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the
Army for logistics support failed to show up, Army officers said.
Months after American combat troops settled into occupation duty,
they were camped out in primitive, dust-blown shelters ... The Army has
invested heavily in modular barracks, showers, bathroom facilities and
field kitchens, but troops in Iraq were using ramshackle plywood latrines
and living without fresh food or regular access to showers and telephones.
Even mail delivery -- also managed by civilian contractors -- fell weeks behind.
[...]
"We thought we could depend on industry to perform these
kinds of functions," Lt. Gen. Charles S. Mahan, the Army's
logistics chief, said in an interview.
One thing became clear in Iraq. "You cannot order civilians
into a war zone," said Linda K. Theis, an official at the Army's
Field Support Command, which oversees some civilian logistics
contracts. "People can sign up to that -- but they can also back out."
As a result, soldiers lived in the mud, then the heat and dust.
Back home, a group of mothers organized a drive to buy and ship
air conditioners to their sons. One Army captain asked a reporter to
send a box of nails and screws to repair his living quarters and latrines.
For almost a decade, the military has been shifting its supply
and support personnel into combat jobs and hiring defense
contractors to do the rest. This shift has accelerated under relentless
pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make the
force lighter and more agile.
[...]
Last fall the Army hired Kellogg Brown & Root, a Houston-
based contractor, to draw up a plan for supporting U.S. troops
in Iraq, covering everything from handling the dead to managing
airports. KBR, as it's known, eventually received contracts to
perform some of the jobs, and it and other contractors began
assembling in Kuwait for the war.
It got "harder and harder to get (civilian contractors) to go
in harm's way," said Mahan, the Army logistics chief.
The Army had $8 million in contracts for troop housing in Iraq
sitting idle, Mahan said. "Our ability to move (away) from living
in the mud is based on an expectation that we would have been
able to go to more contractor logistical support early on," Mahan said.
Are we getting the picture yet?
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
( 10:33 AM )
Is This What You Meant, Mr. President?
An Army of One.
And hints of something darker? The questions continue.
Thanks to Barney for the links.
( 9:34 AM )
You Say Tomato....
Americans have different ways of saying things. They say 'elevator', we say 'lift'...they say 'President', we say 'stupid psychopathic git'....
from ewar.
( 9:06 AM )
Everything is Political
You may have noticed that I never tire of talking politics. This may get old for some people... but I feel so strongly that if we don't involve ourselves actively in our civic environment, we are abdicating our power as citizens. We really need to pay attention and be direct about things, and it's never going to change, so I'll probably never stop talking about it.
That being said, let me begin this post by mentioning briefly that poop, like politics has its place. Just like politics in the wrong place can corrupt decision making at the highest levels (as we shall observe in a moment), poop on the living room floor is not so pleasant either. I realize that I am still a couple of years away from the whole potty-training issue, so it's not like I expect toilet usage from my 14-month old. However, I do expect the poop to stay in the diaper. Let's just say even OxyClean had a tough time with this one. Sigh. The never ending delights of having a toddler in the house. It's more adventure than a puppy!
Speaking of poop, the President is not going to escape continuing questions about his ability to effectively lead this country, even though he's hiding out on his "ranch" for a month. In today's NY Times, Krugman asks the question
how can Congress or the public make informed
votes if both are fed distorted information?
Not only that, but how can the President and the administration make informed decisions if they are filtering all the information through the "tell me only what I want to hear" filter?
The agency's analysts find that they are no longer helping
to formulate policy; instead, their job is to rationalize decisions
that have already been made. And more and more, they find
that they are expected to play up evidence, however weak,
that seems to support the administration's case, while
suppressing evidence that doesn't.
Am I describing the C.I.A.? The E.P.A.? The National Institutes
of Health? Actually, I'm talking about the Treasury Department,
but the ambiguity is no coincidence. Across the board, the Bush
administration has politicized policy analysis. Whether the subject
is stem cells or global warming, budget deficits or weapons of
mass destruction, government agencies are under intense pressure
to say what the White House wants to hear. And the long-term
consequences are likely to be dire.
It turns out that not only is the administration manipulating its agencies to provide only the information it wants the public to hear, it's feeding this information to the press as if it were full and neutral analyses.
For his June 22 interview with Howard Dean, Tim Russert
asked the Treasury Department to prepare examples
showing how repealing the Bush tax cuts would affect ordinary
families. Presumably Mr. Russert thought Treasury would provide
a representative selection — that is, like many in the media, he
doesn't yet understand the extent to which Treasury has become
an arm of the White House political machine.
Here's the way the twist works:
...the examples Treasury provided to Mr.
Russert and others in the media were wildly unrepresentative.
To give you a sense: the Treasury's example of a "lower
income" elderly household was one receiving $2,000 a year
in dividend income. In fact, only about one elderly household
in four receives any dividend income, and only one in eight
receives as much as $2,000. Not surprisingly, the "Russert
families" gained far more from the Bush tax cuts than a
representative sample. As Mr. Sullivan put it, "If this continues,
the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy may have to change its name
to the Office of Tax Propaganda."
Propaganda seems to be the name of the game for all subjects under discussion for this administration. The talk now of "the economy improving" and "things getting better in Iraq" and "creating jobs" and "being more secure" is just talk. While numbers may show slight gains in the economy, there are no new jobs, there are more people losing jobs, and now even those numbers are suspect.
And even if you aren't bothered by an administration that
systematically misleads the public, you ought to be worried
about the decisions of an administration that systematically
misleads itself. A leader who is told only what he wants to hear
is all too likely to make bad decisions about the economy, the
environment and beyond.
The "and beyond" is what I'm worried about.
Monday, August 04, 2003
( 4:35 PM )
Episcopal Bishop Sabotaged?
I found this on the front page of the BBC. The bishops' vote on whether to affirm Gene Robinson as the first openly-gay bishop of New Hampshire has been delayed due to 11th hour allegations of misconduct. It's time to play the "Gays are Pedophiles!" game, folks! The ridiculous claim that it is homosexuality that is the main cause of predatory behavior has once again reared its ugly head. One can't but imagine the collective sigh of relief that coursed through the ranks of the bishops when they learned they wouldn't have to vote and potentially throw their denomination into a split along theological lines.
The claim against Bishop Robinson came in the form of an email from someone claiming that the Bishop had "inappropriately touched" him, and another allegation that the Bishop was "involved" with a website that is an outreach to homosexual youths. On the face of it, the website appears to be a very valid idea whose time has come for young gays. Basically, a YMCA for gay kids - often hosted by unitarian churches. The CNN article has more detail about the claims against him.
Without any investigation yet taken place, I find this claim highly suspect and very discouraging. Why did this "victim" not come forward when Bishop Robinson was first nominated to the highest position in the state? What is it that can make a person or people so sure that God is against certain kinds of human beings of His own creation that they cannot see in a man who is committed to his church, his congregation and the message of his faith someone who can only further bring "sheep into the fold" of their denomination, rather than a stain on their reputation? I don't get this.
It is just like these claims that gay couples who want to commit to each other for life cannot enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples that make the same decision. P and I are married because we went into a courthouse and signed a paper in front of a judge. Because of that certificate, we enjoy a host of rights, especially with regard to eachother and the state's recognition of our family. How is it that a gay couple who does the same thing should not be able to enjoy the same rights? We cannot claim that Marriage has anything to do with God or religion, it is purely a secular, civil arrangement recognized by the government and courts. That some religions find it distasteful for gay couples to be together does not have anything to do with the fact that if your wife of 20 years is sick in the hospital, you should have spousal visiting rights, even if you yourself are a woman. How do gay couples making the commitment to have a life together and families in ANY WAY threaten the institution of marriage itself? Marriage is one of the most mainstream and socially stabilizing lifestyles there is, so why would more couples wanting to enter it be damaging to our society or to the idea of marriage at all?
Clearly there is no logical argument against it, just as there is no logical reason why the president should declare that heterosexual marriage should be "codified." What is going on that our society has to even entertain arguments about denying some of us the same rights as the rest of us? What is going on that a bishop who has shown reverent commitment to his faith and his church should be rejected simply because his committed life is with a man and not a woman? Do the leaders of his church and the leaders of this country believe in such a small god? Of course, seeing the divinity in every human being would require some measure of humility and empathy - something the current leadership of this country cannot possibly hope to model for its citizens.
I hope Bishop Robinson will not be ruined by this, and I hope that every person who wants to be married will have that right in the very near future. What is faith if not hope that things can get better than they are now?
( 3:30 PM )
The Age-Old Question: Screw Up or Hubris?
Both. There is much blogging going on today about the article in the Houston Chronicle by Karen Kwiatkowski about her stint in the Pentagon's pre-war planning arena. I first saw mention of it at Whiskey Bar, but my thoughts were more provoked by CalPundit. I agree with several opinions I've seen that her article could have gone into a bit more detail and her complaints seemed a little pedantic for the subject matter... I think she raised some serious issues but she expounded on the less serious ones. Her article raises the entire question of post-war planning - and the ineptness with which it was done. CalPundit puts it this way:
So why the lack of planning, which so clearly works against
America's best interests? Did they just screw up? Did they
truly believe that we'd be universally greeted as liberators
and the country would be up and running in no time? Did they
somehow think the UN would jump in to help?
It just doesn't make sense. What were they really thinking?
I recall during the march to war last autumn (provoked by George Bush, not by the media, as he would like everyone to believe), my father, a retired colonel in the Air Force and 30-year veteran of logistics planning, including being an inspecter general for logistics, kept saying everytime he saw the news "there's no exit plan, what's the exit plan?" Over and over, sometimes trance-like, as if he were willing his old Pentagon compatriots to speak up and clearly show they were on top of things.
I think the problem was, that while the career military officials probably did have the skill, capacity and desire to submit several far-reaching plans, the administration simply wasn't interested. There is an argument being made that I have seen in some comments that BushCo did plan, but for the wrong things: humanitarian disaster, oil well fires on a large scale, disposing of WMDs. So when those things didn't materialize and instead there was small-scale (depending on whether your son or daughter is there) guerilla warfare, wholesale looting, complete collapse of the infrastructure and jobs, they weren't prepared. While this may be a genuine argument for why what's now happening is happening, it is neither a legitimate or defensible scenario. The entire point of having teams of logistics personnel at your disposal when you are planning full-scale war and invasion is to have people who are planning for every contingency. It is not too far reaching to imagine there might be need for infrastructure rebuilding, for protection of landmarks and valuable properties, for defense against guerilla warfare and a high level of nationalistic pride and revolt against the occupiers that has nothing to do with whether we got rid of Saddam Hussein or not.
The argument "we planned, but not for this" doesn't hold water simply because of the gravity of the decisions they were making. Bad planning on this level is virtually equal to no planning at all. You cannot expect to have "do overs" or a grace period when you are planning to invade another country and displace its sovreign government. No matter what excuse the administration uses as it ducks and weaves the incoming revelations of how badly it prepared for post-war Iraq, that excuse will be lame and hold no water. There has to be accountability at some point. "I take personal responsibility" being said by the president in a press conference doesn't cut it.
It is pure hubris, pure and unadulterated arrogance that propelled this administration into this war, and that is continuing to provoke bad decisions. This administration has shown that it is not, despite its grandest intentions, capable of being a true world leader. There is no good excuse for what is happening now, and the American people deserve an explanation as to how an invasion and war was allowed to go forward with such ill planning for its aftermath. After all, we're the ones who literally are going to have to pay for it... all $4 billion per month of it, most likely for years to come.
( 12:03 PM )
Direct Action Against Activists
Thanks to Maru for pointing out this article in The Independent yesterday:
After more than a year of complaints by some
US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly
targeted by airport security, Washington has
admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds
or even thousands of names long, of people it
deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.
Why is this not being reported in American newspapers? This is using the resources of the federal government to prohibit the civil rights of basically what amounts to an "enemies list."
The strong suspicion of such groups as the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which
is suing the government to try to learn more,
is that the second list has been used to
target political activists who challenge the
government in entirely legal ways. The TSA
acknowledged the existence of the list in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request
concerning two anti-war activists from San
Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained
at the airport last autumn and told they were on
an FBI no-fly list.
We're talking about people who have broken no laws, much less have anything to do with terrorism. What we're talking about here are dissenters. People who stand up to the machine that is running this country over, people who aren't afraid to speak out and speak the truth. The fact that this list continues to be in use without any checks on it and the only thing that is fighting it is a lawsuit right now is frightening. Where is our opposition party? Where are the true conservatives in our government who used to cry out in dismay at invasions of personal privacy and limitation like this?
The ACLU's senior lawyer on the case, Jayashri
Srikantiah, said she is troubled by several answers
that the TSA gave to her questions. The agency,
she said, had no way of making sure that people did
not end up on the list simply because of things they
had said or organisations they belonged to. Once
people were on the list, there was no procedure for
trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was
important to keep track of people singled out in error
for a security grilling. According to documents the
agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so".
No one is safe from this Administration's out of control power grabbing. We as individuals have no recourse to protect ourselves from lists like this. Be prepared, people who are on record as volunteers for any of the Democrat candidates' campaigns... you may not be able to get on an airplane this year. The only way we can truly end what is growing into a nightmare is to get this administration out of office. It is incredible to me that the bulk of our legislators, and even our governors are standing silent while our civil liberties are hacked away into oblivion. There is no explanation as to how actions like this either protect us or are good for the country. They are not, they are simply the actions of a small group of men who are in power and intend to stay that way. They use fear to cow people into compliance, they use threats and manipulation and, let's be honest, they circumvent the Constitution of the United States in order to achieve their own dubious ends.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that these things aren't important, that you haven't done anything wrong, so it doesn't bother you that there are lists like this, or that some of your liberties are curbed for the greater good. It has nothing to do with truth, it has nothing to do with reality. It only has to do with power. This administration is intent on victimizing all of us all over again. 9/11 is its depraved excuse for turning this country into a cowering heap of scaredy-cats.
We're not animals, we can't be herded like sheep and we are not afraid. It's time that BushCo starts understanding that. We need to pay attention and we need to keep pointing out stories like this to all our friends and neighbors. This is the true nature of this administration. And it's time to stop putting up with it.
Friday, August 01, 2003
( 9:31 AM )
30 Years Ago - All Over Again
"What did the President know, and when did he know it?" The crux of the question was uttered by Sen. Baker to John Dean as the latter testified to the Select Committee investigating the Watergate coverup in 1973. The question came kind of late, but you can excuse a Repbulican senator for keeping his hopes up till the truth could no longer be denied.
Last night we watched our tape of PBS' "Watergate Plus 30: Shadow of History" (it originally aired Wednesday). If you didn't get a chance to see it, I strongly urge you to get a copy and watch. It was very well done and one show I would like to keep for Martin to see later on when he gets interested in political history.
But watching the story of Nixon's administration's cover-up unfold was eerily haunting - as the program laid out how truly precarious this constitutional crisis was, the players interviewed told how while it was happening, they just had no concept of how bad things were until the end. It struck me how arrogant that administration was, to have continued to order and commit illegal acts as if they were above the law and wouldn't be held accountable.
But the thing is, no lesson was truly learned. Former Sen. Lowell Weicker, who played a major role on the Committee and was on the PBS show said as much, "the lesson of Watergate is that we didn't learn a lesson." It was sobering to watch Bob Krogh, one of the convicted conspirators say to the camera that he is very concerned as he sees the same things happening with the current administration, just as he did during Iran-Contra. John Dean was point-blank: "the lesson was don't get caught."
The entire episode of Watergate did nothing to quell the concentration of power by presidents into the executive branch. While it is interesting to note the post script of the television show was Jeb Magruder saying for the first time that he actually heard President Nixon order the actual Watergate break-in, what was more stunning was to feel caught in a time-warp as one realizes the mirror behavior of the current president to Nixon. The Erlichman/Haldeman role being currently played by Karl Rove has the same hallmarks of manipulation of the law, treatment of loyalists as patriots and dissenters as "enemies," and the dire political and personal consequences for anyone who crosses over to the other side or utters a non-friendly comment about the administration.
A Presidency that has as its foundation a complete manipulation of state law in order to "win" a national election, that punishes senators to the extent that they are forced to change parties, that manipulates and threatens to obtain intelligence that will bolster its position (but is not necessarily be true), that will manipulate the terror-stricken citizens of its country into believing and supporting its call for war on countries that had nothing to do with the crime committed against us, and the dirty tricks of leaking mean and sometimes damaging stories about reporters and revealing the identity of CIA agents all add up to the same sort of constitutional crisis that culminated in the almost impeachment and ultimate resignation of Richard Nixon. The President and his minions are not above the law. Can we please learn this lesson soon...before it's again too late?
( 9:01 AM )
Another Appointment Down the Drain
Well, I'm sure we're all exerting a sigh of relief at the news that John Poindexter (the Gordon Liddy of National Security Counterintelligence Projects - that's not a compliment) is once again NOT working for the federal government. His brilliant ideas to spy on the American people, sweep information from all databases available on American citizens and residents, and the best one yet: his futures market on terrorist attacks are about on par with Liddy's "let's lure Democrats to a yacht during the 72 Convention and film them in compromising positions with hookers while they spill Democrat campaign secrets to us!" or the ever popular "let's fire-bomb the Brookings Insitute!"
While it's surprising BushCo would let go someone so promising for their ranks, it appears to be a gift horse Americans won't turn away. Perhaps the Admiral can find work as a talk show host....
Thursday, July 31, 2003
( 3:33 PM )
Keeping Track
You may have been fooled of late by the various reports in the media of 45 or so deaths of soldiers since the president's May 1 announcement of "Mission Accomplished," because you know that it must be more than that. Well, there is a site keeping track of it all for you: the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. The authors of the site have done extensive research and are keeping close track of the count, which is averaging 1 per day right now. The fact that the media does not portray deaths that happen because of friendly fire or vehicle or weapons accidents as "counting" is disturbing, as if those soldiers did not die on the battlefield or in the course of duty. What's even more disturbing are the 3 possible suicides amongst the dead. It's time for the press to start being honest with the American people about the toll this war is taking on our troops...and by extension, their families and the country that supports them.
( 2:15 PM )
Public Demonstration of Affection
The sign several of my family members and friends intend to hold up when we go to protest the arrival of our non-esteemed leader in Portland later this month:
"I can come to protest because I don't have a job"
One has to wonder why he's coming here again after what happened last time. Well, some people are gluttons for punishment, I guess. Perhaps Portland will be the vanguard for growing protests everywhere he goes to fundraise until he's finally booted in 2004... one can only hope.
( 12:35 PM )
Is it Real...or is it Memorex?
Does that title date me?
Both Maru and Whiskey Bar have succinctly pointed today to the timely coincidence of the TSA announcing that it could no longer afford air marshalls and the Homeland Security's announcement of impending terror attacks via airplanes. And, in another strange twist on reality, Bush declared that indeed the threats are real and that he is in charge of the War on Terror and is working hard on it... so stop paying so much attention to those silly old lies he told to lead hundreds of soldiers to their deaths!
It's interesting that we haven't gone up in color on our threat rainbow, and that no one seems to mind that the sole source of the threat comes from an Al-Qaeda captive that planned the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure he has all the good intentions in the world and is telling the absolute truth to his torturers since undoubtedly if he tells the truth which leads to the capture of more of his comrades, he will surely be released or at least not killed once they're finished with him.
( 11:39 AM )
Skills Training
No computer access yesterday. Spent all day in a seminar on how to be better at a job that I don't really want to have. It was sort of an odd feeling - the internal emotional conflict going on inside me, while all the time being semi-interested in the stuff I was learning. I want to be good at my job. But this wasn't going to be my job - I'd been accepted to grad school to get a Masters in Teaching when the economy went into the toilet and our household economy shifted to match. So while my husband does the job search thing day in and day out, and I work in a career field that I am thankful to have because it pays the bills and provides health coverage for my child, neither of us is pursuing what we were educated for or what we wanted to do in life, and our family just struggles to get by.
Perhaps the first thing Congress should do when they all come back from vacations most of us would kill to get, is enact a Resolution that states clearly: "in accordance with the proven records and history of this country, we now declare that the idea of the "American Dream" was a falsehood launched on the psyches of American working people that will never come true. So "pulling yourselves up by the bootstraps"...ha ha, only joking!" ...or something like that.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
( 3:27 PM )
A Thousand Words
Check out this from Information Clearinghouse: Bush's Bring Them On Picture Album. (thanks DK) What it's like to be a soldier in Iraq right now... is there a good enough reason for this?
( 3:08 PM )
Changes in BlogoLand
Just a catch-all of some new sites I've added to the ol' list:
An old favorite gets a new name: The Watch has changed to Pacific Views. I like the new look and there are loads and loads of links. Same great blogging and commentary too!
New kids on the block:
The River looks fresh and interesting. The blogger, Bruce, is actually an old hand at blogging, and most notably I appreciate his movie reviews (in his former life he had a great one on The Matrix) which are not only insightful and interesting, but really fun to read!
I Know This is Probably Bad For Me is a new favorite of mine as well. Especially worth reading, tons of research and commentary on the Bush Administration's decapitation of Early Head Start. I will go into this subject further in a separate post, but the blog is really well written on this subject especially and deserves some attention.
And as I mentioned before, Whiskey Bar is now also regularly visited by me. Great writing and great commentary on current events as they happen!
Give a little visit to the new kids when you have a chance - tell them Mama sent you.
( 12:32 PM )
DLC: Decidely Lacking Conviction
Great post from Kos today about the DLC's new poll they conducted. Burka makes the entire thing more understandable (motto: humor will keep you from weeping in misery at the ridiculousness of it all").
The poll obviously was done to trump up their support of Lieberman. They are hanging on to yesterday's tactics. They seem to be either blind or stupid: this election won't be won by trying to get voters who traditionally vote GOP or by trying to appear as a mini-republican. These tactics didn't work in 1994, didn't work in 2000, and didn't work last year. So what gives? Why is the DLC so hell-bent on trying to get the media and public to believe that the democratic party is just a bunch of losers if they don't vote Lieberman? Money really has corrupted the process. All the more reason for voting Americans to pay attention to the candidates and what they say rather than the political maneuvers of "leadership groups" with absolutely no leadership ability or vision.
My contribution to Burka's story:
In related news, the DLC announced its new CEO, Karl Rove, will be filling in until the general election in 2004 in order to help Democrats "see clearly the vision of unity for all Americans." While most voting democrats have been driven to support of centrist yet truly DEMOCRAT candidate Howard Dean, the DLC insists that Compassionate Fascism isn't just for Republicans anymore, and Lieberman really IS our guy! The DLC continues to make painstakingly thought-out decisions that will ultimatey give their goals the victory they deserve: loss of all respect and voting supporters, but lots and lots and LOTS of money.
UPDATE: Kos has requested bumperstickers for the DLC. Here are a few of my favorites:
DLC: Getting Democrats elected since... well eventually.
DLC: When Two Parties are Just One Too Many
DLC: Mowing the Grassroots since 1986
DLC: Standing up for ordinary Americans is so 1960s.
Go and add your own!
( 10:56 AM )
Renegade Politics - Watch Out America!
It's interesting to note how the GOP is working so hard to initiate its new version of democracy: "Impeach, Appoint, Recall and ReAlign Districts" lately. With the California Recall already in process, Republicans are trying to subvert the electoral process by claiming that 5% of the California voting population is enough to claim that all the votes cast last November should be null and void. One has to wonder if the GOP realizes that this is not necessarily a boon to their party, even if they win the recall election (which from all appearances looks to be a long-shot). And if they lose, then they have one more mark against them going into 2004. Keep up to date on the California Recall with Calpundit.
In Texas, the GOP, aided by Sen. Tom Delay, are trying to redraw district lines to add 6 new congressional districts to the GOP for the 2004 election. Lt. Governor Dewhurst decided to simply forgo the required 2/3 majority needed to pass legislation and thought that this would then allow the GOP to push through this bit of political maneuvering with a simple majority. But the Dems in the Texas Legislature were already thinking ahead and vamoosed out of town yesterday to block a vote because of the needed quorum. It looks like there may be a showdown at high noon...and the Dems may yet win this one, despite the GOP's conniving. At least Delay wasn't allowed to invoke Homeland Security to fetch back the Dem legislators this time. They are currently holing up in Dem-Friendly Gov. Richardson's New Mexico.
And the Campaign to Elect the President is again putting out press releases flaunting its massive amounts of fundraising. One has to wonder why they feel so compelled to wave about their millions of dollars? Could it be because they know they don't have the actual VOTERS to get Bush elected in 2004, so they are trying to distract us with their bank balance? This theory was proven true yesterday by the Dean campaign. In a call to match Dick Cheney's fundraising luncheon in South Carolina ($2,000 a plate - raising $250,000 in one sitting), the Dean Campaign asked its supporters to try and match the Veep's fundraiser. They not only matched, but far surpassed it, raising over $508,640.31 from 9,621 Dean supporters. That's an average of 53 bucks a person. And Gov. Dean even sat down and had lunch with his supporters to counter Cheney's red-plate special.
The GOP may have the millionaires and big business, but so far, Gov. Dean is only accountable to the people who support him. That truly is renegade politics in this day and age.
Looks Trump Truth?
In a fantastic article today, Paul Krugman discusses the fact that American still seem more influenced by style over substance. Comparing the backlash on Tony Blair from the British population to the small (but growing) disapproval of the American public for Bush, Krugman points out that perhaps the Bush Administration itself is underestimating American voters.
In June only 36 percent of the public
described Mr. Blair as "trustworthy," while
54 percent called him "untrustworthy."
Now the Bush administration was at least as
guilty of hyping the case for war. It was a campaign
not so much of outright falsehoods — though there
were some of those — as of exaggeration and
insinuation. Here's what the public thought it heard:
Last month, 71 percent of those polled thought
the administration had implied that Saddam Hussein
had been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
And when it comes to domestic spin, Mr. Blair isn't
remotely in Mr. Bush's league. Whether pretending
that the war on terror — not tax cuts, which have
cost the Treasury three times as much — is responsible
for record deficits, or that those hugely elitist tax cuts
are targeted on working families, or that opening up
wilderness areas to loggers is a fire-prevention plan,
Mr. Bush has taken misrepresentation of his own policies
to a level never before seen in America.
Krugman goes on to note that the Administration itself seems to be fine with this, and in fact are manipulating the American public based on the assumption that the lies don't matter, only that he tells them convincingly:
Another answer may be that in modern America,
style trumps substance. Here's what Tom DeLay,
the House majority leader, said in a speech last
week: "To gauge just how out of touch the Democrat
leadership is on the war on terror, just close your
eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that
Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier." To say the
obvious, that remark reveals a powerful contempt for
the public: Mr. DeLay apparently believes that the nation
will trust a man, independent of the facts, because he
looks good dressed up as a pilot. But it's possible that he's right.
I hope that he's not right. I hope that Americans are beginning to shed the wool from their eyes and become very disturbed at being misled and fed a bunch of lies in order to prop up an administration that has accomplished nothing to make us more economically secure, more secure from terrorism, to improve our children's chances at a good education, to ease the burden of the cost of health care and prescription medicine, or even just to keep our natural wildlife safe and free from development. No amount of pandering to the corporations and big money is going to save Bush/Cheney in 2004 if the American public decides to take back their country and prove that the power is with us, and not with those who would lie in order to line their own pockets at our expense.
Monday, July 28, 2003
( 4:25 PM )
Update on the Dad Show
I thought the Talk of the Nation today on stay at home dads was good - especially because I thought the airing of the subject in itself was fabulous for a national talk show. Most of the stay at home dads who called in sounded like they were so relieved someone was acknowledging their existence that they were just happy to be on the show. The guest on the show was Bruce Stockler, who has written a book called I Sleep at Red Lights about his life as a Stay-at-Home-Dad to 4 kids, 3 of them triplets. I think the two major things I took away from listening to the various dads were (1) you can't expect that Stay-at-Home-Dads (SAHDs) have the same issues or needs as stay at home Moms, and (2) there isn't anyone doing any research or studying on it, so any "official" conclusions about the issue are pretty weak. On the second point first, there was a brief interview with a statistician or researcher on familes, but basically she had no solid findings at all about SAHDs. One question that was asked was are there any findings about kids who are raised by a SAHD as opposed to a Mom? I felt this question was a little strange, and the researcher even responded by saying "well, we never ask that question about moms." Any kid raised by loving parents, no matter if they are in the home full time or not, or no matter which one is in the home full time, is going to have a head start in life. Distinguishing about whether a Dad or a Mom is better is not only a waste of time, but it is terribly short sighted and judgmental.
On the first issue, I found myself thinking a lot about how many SAHDs are forced to participate in "mommy groups" where they are the only man, but for the sake of their children, they go to these things. Also, how many SAHDs aren't necessarily looking for other SAHDs to talk about potty training and cost comparisons of diaper wipes, but for the same kind of friendships they had and desired before they were SAHDs...just time enough to nurture them. As the working mama, I often worry about P feeling isolated and wonder if he should go to "mommy groups" just for the social aspect of it...but those things are not necessary to him. Martin certainly has his pals and isn't old enough for coordinated play anyway. It reminds me of how frustrated I feel when I look for books on fathering and being a SAHD (good luck), and the focus is on how to manage your money for your child's future finances, how to schedule more quality time with your kid, etc. The assumption is always that the Dad is the third wheel (speaking of a one kid family). I hope that exposure like today's call in show will start turning the tide. More than likely, it will need to be books written by the likes of the SAHDs themselves that will point the way toward realistic attitudes and the deserved attention they all should be receiving. I'll get P working on that book... he should be able to fit it in between chasing the poop monster and rebuilding the house, I mean for godsake - he can give up the bonbons and tv once in a while...
( 10:43 AM )
Mama Talks Dads
As regular readers of this blog know, one of my favorite subjects is DADS. I have a particular interest because my husband is a stay at home dad to our 14-month old, and is thus part of an elite yet growing population of dads in a new career trend. If you haven't checked them out, I highly recommend stopping in to visit some of my favorite stay at home dad bloggers: Being Daddy, Rebel Dad ,Daddy Make a Picture and Fulltime Father.
I wanted to bring up this subject again today because the second hour of Talk of the Nation on NPR today is scheduled to be dedicated to the subject of stay at home dads. This "trend" seems to be gaining in mentionables lately, though I always check Rebel Dad for the most recent references that I may have missed, such as today's AP article about the fact that the recession has caused a growth in the number of stay at home dads. I will be interested to hear what kind of discussion takes place on Talk of the Nation today. The lead in is this:
He worries about runny noses and skinned knees.
She's the family bread winner and watches their
stock portfolio. What happens when dad stays
home and mom works an 80-hour week? Is this
simply a role reversal or the new shape of the
American family?
My personal opinion is that it's not so much a role reversal as it is a new ability to shuck "roles" altogether and make a partnership in marriage and family work the best way that the partners can. It's only a "reversal" if you think that the old, patriarchal rules of a woman staying in the home with the children all day is the norm or the most acceptable form of raising a child or providing for a family. I don't happen to think that way, and I daresay the couples that have gone forward with stay-at-home-dad choices don't think that way either. Thus, it's more of a lack of desire to accept "roles" at all, but rather to be practical about who and what is the best combo for providing for and taking care of your family. I think probably that a majority of stay at home dads right now are there because the mom can make more or get better benefits from her job, and a two-income household doesn't necessarily pay for child care anymore. Probably a lot of the dads home now are there because of the recession and loss of jobs in the workforce. But Dads who choose to be stay-at-home dads do it because they WANT to.
You're not a stay at home dad because you suck at something else or you can't find a job or you lack some sort of career ambition. This kind of labeling is the same stereotypical judgment placed on moms who stay home despite college educations or former thriving careers in the marketplace. It's lame and it has to go. While I don't know any particular statistics to quote, I'm guessing that the majority of working families have both parents working (a lot) just to make ends meet. I admit that in my household, we struggle terribly to get by on my meager salary as a legal secretary. Probably, if there were a job in the tech field for P that he could get that would provide extra income over and above child care, we would consider being a two-income household, just so that we wouldn't feel so burdened by the economic struggle. But finding a second job that provides that kind of extra income is hard enough anyway - and we are doing better than many, with our own little home and enough to provide for our son. So I don't complain and though I sometimes struggle on a personal level with being the parent who feels sort of "part time," I also am so thankful that my son is home with his dad, who loves him and dotes on him and does fun and cool things with him all day long.
It is a VERY hard job to be a parent home with a toddler. Any parent who does this knows that it takes far more energy, brain power, scheduling expertise and coordination than any job that is with adults (though the toddler is sometimes better behaved and easier to communicate with). If it is indeed a trend that Dads are staying home more, then I hope to see a change in ways that the main caretakers of children are addressed. Especially in so-called "parenting" magazines such as Parenting and Parents. Which currently in my book might as well be called Mothering and Mothers for all the attention they give to dads (and not even stay at home dads, but dads in general). The mainstream press and media will hopefully begin to lose their stereotypes on who their audience is and start addressing parents as a team, dads as full-time caretakers of their kids (no matter if they stay at home or not), and moms as equally valuable whether they work in an office or stay at home. Is it too much to ask?
P.S. I'll post my thoughts on the NPR program after I've had a chance to listen to it.
( 8:44 AM )
Thanks For the Laughs - and the Example
It is very sad to see the news this morning of Bob Hope's death. In all the comments and eulogies that will be written of him today and this week, he will be lauded for his ability to entertain and for his dedication to the troops of this country, especially during wartime. But what really struck me as I listened to an overview of his life on NPR this morning was the final statement: he died surrounded by family and friends...he was married to his wife Delores for 69 years. Wow. I don't know anyone who has been married that long, even amongst all the friends of my Grams. I just celebrated my 4th anniversary with my husband last week, and thinking about 70 years boggles my mind. No matter what may have happened between them, no matter what struggles the marriage might have had, doesn't it speak volumes that they stayed together throughout it all? That means that they were true partners, true friends. You couldn't live with someone that long and not be. It's the most enduring legacy of a man to leave behind him 70 years of partnership with a woman who he admitted often was his strength and backbone through it all. I can't imagine the kind of loss one must feel when your partner of so many decades is gone.
It just left me with a good feeling - that someone, no matter who he was to the world, stayed with and was committed to one person for 70% of his entire life. That truly is worth lauding.
Friday, July 25, 2003
( 10:55 AM )
Favorite New Blog
Actually, it appears he's been around since April...but I just discovered him today. Go read Whiskey Bar - good writing and even better analysis.
( 10:07 AM )
They Still Don't Get It
There is a very interesting debate on the TNR website between Jonathan Cohn and Jonathan Chait regarding Howard Dean's campaign and whether he is truly able to win the candidacy and the presidency. Whether you are a Dean supporter or not, it's a very thought-provoking debate, and I enjoyed reading it and pondering the points both of them raised.
Chait believes that Dean is not only non-viable as a candidate, but he also thinks that Dean will detrimentally divide the party. He lauds Edwards' strategy of supporting the Iraq war but taking Bush to task on underfunding Homeland Security, of courting centrist big money supporters and staying away from the left. He also brings up the old non-starter that Democrats are "weak on foreign policy" and that this will be bad for Dean because he has consistently been against the war and the plans for the occupation of Iraq, along with calling for more international cooperation (which I don't get, I guess not being a pre-emptive cowboy makes you look weak?). He seems to be, as far as I can tell, echoing the DLC line of how the Democrats can really win...and yet, it hasn't proven to be a winning formula in years.
What I don't think Chait, Edwards, the DLC and the rest of the "ignore the left, they are just radicals" folks get is that Dean is not simply attracting the 2000 Nader voters and the so-far-left-progressives-that-they're-practically-communists, as is the oft-repeated mantra from the likes of the DLC. Dean is bringing in independants and centrist voters because his message is not wholly left-leaning. I do think good points are made by both Chait and Cohn regarding the broader base that needs to be reached by Dean, but I also know that many of these judgments are being made very early on. The thing I will say about this subject right now is that Dean's campaign has blossomed virtually overnight in the last two months - he has gone from being totally unknown to raising the most money from the most people and gaining over 200,000 registered volunteers. This is not the whole of his campaign, this is the foundation that will launch his campaign - he is doing in-person appearances in cities all over the country this summer (coming to Portland Aug 25!). I think that as more and more people become aware of him, more and more of the voters in this country will be attracted to his message of change and his appeal as a non-Washington insider and his complete independence from big-corporate interests. I think the naysayers with regard to Dean's broader appeal will need to keep a good look-out in the coming six months.
On the subject of the "weakness" of Democrats on foreign policy and the use of the military - where did this start? Wasn't it Carter who used diplomacy to bring about one of the first major peace agreements in the Middle East? Wasn't it a Democratic president who strongly led the US during WWII, who used the first nuclear weapons and who committed troops to the Korean War? Wasn't it a Democrat's hawkish treatment of Vietnam (not that democrats actually agreed with him, but you have to concede he wasn't exactly a "wimp") that caused his downfall? Was it not a democrat president who committed troops to the Balkans and who carried on continuous bombing raids of Iraq for 8 years, including a major effort in late 1998? On the diplomatic side, was it not a Democrat president who contributed to the formation of the UN, wasn't it a Democrat who resolved the Cuban Missle Crisis without violence, wasn't it a Democrat who urged along and saw the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland, who aided in the Oslo Agreement, who oversaw the initiation of NAFTA (again, not that we agree wholly with these things, just that they are foreign policy accomplishments from a political point of view)? Where does this rhetoric of Democrats being "weak" on use of the military and foreign affaris come from? This has got to be countered by clear thinking and speaking candidates who not only oppose this administration's policies, but can move beyond that and propose new and forward-thinking foreign policies.
Bush came into the White House on a platform that basically said he was going to ignore other countries as much as possible. Even the most obvious risks were not a part of his agenda. This was clearly evident when our plane was shot down by China and it came out that Bush had eliminated the China desk from the NSA and had no one in his administration with the knowledge and experience to advise him in the first part of that episode. Does alienating our allies and almost all other countries in the world count as being "strong?" Does initiating invasions of sovereign nations and targeting rulers for assasination count as being "strong?" Does ignoring the Middle East conflict until it's obvious you can't get out of it, and then letting it flounder count as being "strong?" Does exploiting African nations for good photo ops and then not following through with the promised aid or taking care of expected responsibilities in Liberia count as "strong?"
This entire "Democrats are weak on foreign policy" rhetoric ignores the foreign policy triumphs of every Democrat president since the turn of the century. Whether you believe they were right or not, I don't think that Democrat governments in the 20th century showed "weakness." It's part of that Republican strategy: repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth, even if it's not (witness: "liberal media"). It's this false rhetoric, just like the idea that the President being strong makes up for him lying, that Democrats must fight this year, in the media, in Congress, and in our backyards talking over the fence to our neighbors.
One final note, It would be hard for the GOP to use this argument if they ultimately face Kerry, who is a Vietnam veteran, or if Dean wins out and picks up Gen. Clark as a running mate. I think either of these options would quell this GOP falsehood and severely limit their campaign strength on that issue.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
( 3:36 PM )
Can You Fool Most of the People All of the Time?
Despite the White House's thus-far successful attempts to intimdate and harass people who bring to light its crimes and misdemeanors, its seeming forgetfulness of its insistence that the Geneva Convention be followed by releasing photos of the slain, charred bodies of enemy combatants, and its ongoing battle against the stain of the 16 words, the administration insists it is the NUMERO UNO supporter of the troops.
And yet, the Pentagon announced today new troop rotation plans. These plans involve rotating troops in and out of Iraq on a one year tour of duty. Sound familiar? That's because it is. In fact, the one year rotation plan was deemed so bad after Vietnam that military procedures were changed so as to avoid the inflated demoralization and sub-zero troop morale that the constant one-year rotations created. "We'll never do that again!" was basically what the Pentagon declared after Vietnam. But here we are, short on ideas and shorter on memory and today's announcement put the troops back into the one-year tour of duty again.
In addition to this wonderful news, we hear today from the Wolf's mouth that the White House may have made a few teensy-weensy planning errors with regard to how to handle the post-war occupation:
But in contrast to the planning for war, other
officials said, the Defense Department's
attention to the occupation was haphazard
and incomplete.
"There was a serious disconnect between the
forces necessary to win a war and occupy a
country," said a U.S. official who worked in the
initial postwar effort and is still in Baghdad.
"We fooled ourselves into thinking we would
have a liberation over an occupation.
Why did we do that?"
Contrary to popular BushCo claims, the deaths (murders) of the Hussein sons will not quell the "sporadic" opposition attacks by demoralizing the "few remaining Saddam supporters." The people attacking our troops are not Saddam Hussen supporters. They are nationalists. Most likely they were opposed to Saddam Hussein their whole lives. Only now they have their country back and they're not too anxious to hand it over again to another authoritarian force. I'm not justifying what they are doing, nothing in war can be justified or explained very easily, but what I am saying is that the administration's insistence that this resistance has to do with Baath party supporters or hold out Saddam lovers is once again a ploy to divert our attention from the fact that they did not plan for or prepare our troops for an ongoing guerilla war.
Oh, and by the way, who IS in charge?....
Despite Pentagon support for a provisional
government led by Chalabi, Bush rejected
that option. Instead, he took the State
Department's view that exiles and internal Iraqi
figures should be given an equal chance to
prove themselves in an Interim Iraqi Authority
to be created immediately after the war.
But Chalabi continued to work closely with Feith
and others at the Pentagon, staying in touch by
satellite telephone from Iran and northern Iraq.
Officials at the National Security Council and the
State Department were stunned to learn in early
April that U.S. military authorities had flown Chalabi
and 700 hurriedly assembled fighters into southern
Iraq. The vice president concurred in the decision
to airlift him.
Feith said it was strictly a decision made on military
grounds by U.S. Central Command, but his Pentagon
critics believe that he and Wolfowitz were trying to
boost Chalabi's political prospects.
Meanwhile, as Maru points out, whether or not Americans are noticing, the rest of the world has already discovered the truth about how our SCLM is brushing aside the confabulations (lies) of our government:
On CNN's media show Reliable Sources on
Sunday, Milbank told host Howard Kurtz:
"I think what people basically decided was this
is just the president being the president ...
He is under a great deal of pressure."
Now I must say that Milbank is probably the
toughest White House correspondent there is,
constantly churning out critical stories that go
against the pro-Bush tide. But when even he
says this is "just the president being the president''
or suggests that the man can't handle the pressure,
it's time to pull the covers over your head.
[...]
Dozens and dozens of pundits are behaving
like nothing is going on, as if, in the words of
the folks at http://www.tompaine.com, they
"aren't acknowledging the elephant in the living room.''
As for the few pro-Bush professional opinionators
who do write about it, they do so only to
diss the critics.
[...]
"The Niger uranium flap has achieved the
status of midsummer frenzy," concurs syndicated
columnist Charles Krauthammer, adding that
Bush's "blunder opens the way to the broad
implication that the president is a liar or a
dissimulator who took the country to war under
false pretenses."
Implication? Tell that to the families of the dead.
As http://www.fair.org reports, the "Bush uranium
lie'' is the "tip of the iceberg'' of confabulation.
Why aren't the media making more of the falsehoods?
How can Bush get away with saying that Saddam
would not allow the weapons inspections?
Funny thing is, according to the latest poll
from the Washington-based Pew Research
Center for People & the Press, more than half
of all Americans — 51 per cent — believe that
the U.S. media are liberal, while 70 per cent
want a "decidedly pro-American'' tilt to their news.
Looks like the media are delivering.
Talk about gassing your own people
Wake Up, America.
( 11:37 AM )
Good Grief - What a Bitter Bitch!
I'm sorry for my use of foul language. I can't even say what I really think about today's column by Ann Coulter , because it would be very inappropriate for a mama.
While it may signify that Dr. Dean has finally arrived, being mentioned in the first paragraph of Coulter's column...the rest of her ranting degenerates into her oft-repeated diatribe against Clinton. Who knew that conservatives (as compassionate as they are) could hate someone with so much vehemence that every argument turns into a rant against him? Does any newspaper actually carry this column? She's not even sounding lucid, much less educated. The woman needs to get her ranting in line if she ever hopes to be considered a viable voice in political critique. Though I sincerely doubt that's what she's aiming for.
Mama's diagnosis: Ms. Coulter is afeeeeaard of them Democrats takin' over agin.... dontcha worry, Ann - we'd never call you the names you call us every day. We're too decent. You think we are just a bunch of America-haters. But it's just the opposite. We love our country too much - and we're going to get it out of this handbasket no matter what you say.
( 10:39 AM )
Be Vewy, Vewy Quiet...
there might be a
John Ashcroft snuck into Portland last Friday. The visit wasn't announced until the night before. Despite the late notice, over 250 protesters showed up. Good Ol' Portland! One has to wonder if Ashcroft has to sneak into most places that he travels to nowadays. Not only is he not much liked for inciting our local cops to go cukoo for coco pops on the "grab up possible terrorists, no matter if they've nothing to do with terrorism!" spree, but he is especially not liked for holding up the twice-voted-for assisted-suicide law in this state. His meddling has created a not-so-very-big fondness for himself - thus his secretive dashes in and out of the state.
Ashcroft continues to defend the Patriot Act and its successor, Patriot II. Here in Oregon, he did it standing in front of seven big flags, including the stars and stripes, Oregon's flag, and even the Department of Corrections flag. Despite growing concerns from citizens and lawmakers that the Patriot Act has given too much power to the justice department to spy on and prosecute people without cause, Ashcroft thinks he doesn't have enough powers yet. As David Sarashon so aptly puts it:
Ashcroft arrived at a time when three
states (Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont) and
more than 100 local jurisdications have passed
resolutions challenging the USA Patriot Act, and
in a place where two counties (Lane and Benton)
and five cities (Eugene, Corvallis, Ashland,
Gaston and Talent) have joined the cry.
[...]
Friday in Portland, Ashcroft said, "There are
some things the Patriot Act doesn't do that
we should consider getting done. As Congress
continues to (look into) this, they may be
upgrading the tools we use to fight terror."
And, some might say, allow the Justice
Department to keep an eye on more people.
When proclaiming the powers of the
United States government, seven flags are plenty.
But one Constitution has always been enough.
( 8:49 AM )
Turning Eyes Toward Home
I haven't blogged much lately about local issues here in Oregon, and something I watched on tv on Tuesday prompted me to do so again this week. I was home Tuesday, recovering from my travel before going back to work. One advantage of being at home during the day (besides getting to play with your kid all day long) is that you can see the strange and wonderful world of public access on tv. The shows are unannounced and so it's always a surprise what you might get. Sometimes you get Democracy Now, sometimes you get Tootle and his dog boy Ruff.
On Tuesday, one of the local stations was replaying the taping of a community forum that took place in my neighborhood about 3 weeks ago. It was called so that the community could ask questions and hear (hopefully) answers from the Mayor, public officials and the police about what really happened to Kendra James. As a quick recap, on May 5 the cops pulled over a car that ran a stop sign at about 2am in the morning. They pulled the driver out of the car to search him. The cops' story goes as follows: when the driver, a young man, was pulled out of the car, Kendra James, a 20 year old mother of 2, jumped into the front seat, tried to pull away, was threatening the life of Officer Scott McCallister, and so he shot her. Dead. In defense of his own life.
But as I watched the July 1 community forum, facts came to light that I have never seen reprinted in the press. I was astounded as I watched Mayor Katz (who, thank God has decided not to run for another term next year), Chief of Police Kroeker along with the District Attorney and other officials hem and haw and not truly answer any questions put to them by the community. Community leaders, on the other hand, had quite a few pointed questions, based on their investigation into all the documents produced from the incident. So now I come to the main crux of my indignation about this case. Some of the unanswered questions that still remain:
-- Why was there so much reporting and claims by the police to smear the victim's name saying that Ms. James was the owner of some crack that was found under the driver's seat when the reality is that it was a rented car and had no connection with Ms. James except that she was a passenger?
-- Why were there abrasions, cuts, bruises on her face and a broken tooth noted on Ms. James' autopsy? How shocking that no where in the police report is there mention of hitting her.
-- Why were Officer McCallister and the other cops on the scene able to go to Applebees after the incident, sit down have dinner and get their stories straight about what happened before they were questioned or had to write incident reports?
-- Why was Ms. James shot in the abdomen and then pulled out of the car and laid on the pavement dying for an hour before an ambulance was called?
-- How can the police claim that their tazers and pepper spray were all non-functional and so then had to use deadly force? Are the police this badly equipped?
-- Why in the Oregon police academy are cops trained to use deadly force as an early option in a routine traffic stop?
-- Why does it take almost 1,000 more hours to be licensed as a barber in Oregon than it does to become a police officer?
-- Why, if the police claim that all Officer McCallister did was make a terrible mistake, was he not fired for killing someone? No matter that he may not be criminally liable for her killing, he really f*&!ed up and should have been let go. The rest of us get fired for far less devastating offenses.
-- Why, if the police are so intent on having "community policing" in my neighborhood, do they keep allowing the same "bad apples" -- known white officers who belligerantly harass citizens of my community-- to continue working in my neighborhood?
-- Why, at a community forum where people are given the opportunity to ask questions of the police and city officials were there so many people who stood up to say that their husbands, sons, wives, daughters, cousins and neighbors had been constantly harassed, roughed-up and even beaten in the last couple of years?
Since that July 1 forum, there has been nary a word of follow up. It's as if the government and police said, well we faced the hoards and now it's over. And yet, nothing has changed. There has been no move to create a community/citizen based review board of police actions, there has been no move to clarify the questions asked at the forum about what happened to Kendra James. There has been no reform of police training. What is going on here? In a state where no more than 10% of the population is minority (and that's ALL minorities - the African-American population is closer to 2% (according to the 2000 census), 34% of police shootings and reported police aggression are against people of color.
Isn't it time for a change? Just like it is our responsibility as American citizens to get rid of an administration that lies in order to go to war and cheats the people in order to give perks to its corporate sponsors, as citizens of our states and cities, we are responsible to vote out of office the local authorities that aren't doing the job they should, and to keep the pressure on our policing and law enforcement agencies to act within the standards of decency, non-discrimination and proper respect for the people they have enlisted to protect. The question that is going to haunt my neighborhood for a very long time is this: Did Kendra James really have to die that night?
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
( 9:30 AM )
Back in the Blogosphere
I took one extra day to recover from travel and am happy to be posting for the first time in a week. It's nice to be back in the blogosphere. Though I must admit, it was also nice to be away. I didn't even hear much news on my retreat in the nor'woods of Minnesota. My one year-old and I had a fantastic time swimming in the Lake, going on adventures, walking across the Mississippi River at its headwaters in Itasca and meeting Paul Bunyon and Babe the BIG Blue Ox! (scandalous discovery: Paul Bunyon had a sweetheart, Lucette, and there was a Paul Jr, but there doesn't seem to be evidence of a marriage...hmmm!!) While I can't exactly claim that I am glad to be back at work, I am glad to be back home with P - especially since today is our 4th wedding anniversary. In some ways it seems like it's been far longer than 4 years, but in some ways it seems like it's gone by in a flash. No celebration today, but dinner and a movie on Friday night (the folks have kindly volunteered to take Martin overnight). So I will be working to catch up today, see how my blog pals are doing and trying to get up a few of my own posts as well. It's nice to be back, I missed you all!
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
( 4:13 PM )
Long Awaited Respite
I and my one-year-old son are going on holiday starting tomorrow. We are jetting out to the beautiful Lake Hubert in Nisswa, Minnesota to spend 5 days sunning and playing with my best friend (and his godmother) at her lakefront cabin there. I have been waiting for this vacation for months, and I'm so excited that it's finally here. Martin and I will get some fun, exclusive time together (P is gladly accepting a break from stay at home daddy duties to sleep in, work on the house and go to horror movies while we are away), and I will get away from my everyday surroundings and my job that increasingly feels more laborious than rewarding.
I'm looking forward to long days in the sun, hiking, swimming and playing in the lake, pizza and hot dogs, and after putting the baby to bed, long twilights and evenings sitting out on the porch with my best friend, looking up at the stars, drinking wine and chatting or just sitting together. It will go all too quickly, I'm sure.
Part of my holiday involves being miles and miles from a computer, so I won't be posting until my return on Tuesday. I'll miss you all and I'll miss being caught up on all the news that's fit to blog about... but then again, I'll also enjoy my break and look forward to "seeing" you when I return. Please check back with me next week, I will be back!
So long and see you on the other side of vacation!
P.S. Check in on Maru, Kos and Calpundit for great commentary on the news today.
Monday, July 14, 2003
( 11:41 AM )
Not to Put Too Fine a Point On It...
Ari is trying to quell the growing credibility gap with comments like this:
"This revisionist notion that somehow this
is now the core of why we went to war, a
central issue of why we went to war, a
fundamental underpinning of the president's
decisions, is a bunch of bull," Fleischer told
reporters Monday.
This is the same line that was repeated by all the BushCo lackeys on the Sunday Morning Talk shows. But Ari and the clan miss the point. It isn't that the country is suddenly upset merely because a statment that has now been proven to be based on lies and forgeries indicated that Iraq obtained nuclear material was in the State of the Union address. It's not that we all thought we went to war because of this one piece of evidence and now we're mad about it. It's not about this piece of evidence itself at all. It's about one key word in that sentence:
The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa
We went to war, we attacked another nation, we sent our troops into harm's way and now have to keep them there, we ruined relationships with allies, we declared the UN "irrelevant" and stomped all over that body's historical role in mitigating worldwide disasters... all because BushCo pounded into us day after day that the threat from Saddam Hussein was IMMINENT. The urgency of the matter is what prompted him to completely usurp the authority of the UN and to completely disregard the findings and work of the weapons inspectors on the ground who knew what they were doing and what they were looking for. The president declared in his State of the Union address that Saddam had recently acquired these nuclear materials...implying that the nuclear weapons program was being built up and was an immediate and urgent threat to us.
It's not just the lie, Mr. President, it's the malice and aforethought that went into framing that lie in just such a way that the plausible deniability could be claimed, all the while the emphaisizing factor of the statement ignored by the administration. Shame on you. Shame on Congress that blindly followed and sent our troops into this sham of a venture without questioning or taking the time to deliberate on the consequences of their actions. Shame on the media for not caring enough to actually investigate the situation. Shame on us if we let you keep your office after next year.
( 10:11 AM )
Every Great Prison Break Deserves a Holiday
Happy Bastille Day! It's good to celebrate the citizens of a country taking back their own power and setting free scores of unjustly imprisoned citizens, put in jails without trial or charges by a government paranoid about attacks on it and unwilling to give its citizens rights while it became fat on its own wealth and the people remained jobless, hungry and fighting in wars they did not know the reason for. Hey...wait a minute...
"An Owie to One
is an Owie to All"
- as modeled by
Mama's Little Activist
| Marriage is love. | |||||
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
WhoProfits
It's Up To Us. All Humanity is a Family. Give. Regularly.
Mercy Corps
Northwest Medical Teams
CARE
Medecins Sans Frontieres
American Red Cross International
AmeriCares
Direct Relief International Assistance Fund
Oxfam
Sarvodaya Relief
UNICEF
__________________________________
Mothers Acting Up
( what War is good for )
"The point of revolution is to get away with it."
--Abbie Hoffman
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."
--Che Guevara
"Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep." - Gandhi
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."
-F. Nietzche
"We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free."
-Epictetus
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Those who will give up essential liberty to secure a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
"As I stood before the gates I realized that I never want to be as certain about anything as were the people who built this place."
-Rabbi Sheila Peltz, on her visit to Auschwitz
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
-Mark Twain
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
"Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exists because of their silent consent."
-Bruno Jasienski
"The phrase "working mother" is redundant."
-Jane Sellman
In Mama Solidarity
Maryam & Sofia - Baghdad, Iraq
__________________________________
- Evolution Bohemian Mama has decided to fold up sh...
- The Day After YAY!!
- It's a Good Day to be an Oregonian With all the p...
- Down and Dirty Yes, it's been a month since I blo...
- Clean House It just get worse. Here in Oregon, t...
- Fools on the Hill I have been trying to consider ...
- It's BANNED BOOKS WEEK! Make a statement for fre...
- Making a Better World Oregon Jack Bog is talking...
- Stunning There was a speech far more meaningful a...
- Back To School...Again Before this week starts an...
Sorry Everybody
Aplogies Accepted
Operation Truth
Today in Iraq
warblogging
Back To Iraq 3.0
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
CIVIC Worldwide
Iraq Body Count (Civilians)
Raed in the Middle
Agonist
Alas, A Blog!
Altercation
AMERICAblog
American Street
Apostropher
Atrios' Eschaton
Bad Attitudes
Balkinization
Bartcop
Billmon
Biohabit
Bitter Shack of Resentment
BlahBlahBlah
Body and Soul
Burka: OpinionsYouShouldHave
BusyBusyBusy
Buzzflash
Center for American Progress
Colorado Luis
Corrente
Counterspin Central
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground
Democratic Veteran
Digby's Hullabaloo
Donkey Rising (EDM)
Freeway Blogger
frequencies
Gadflyer
iddybud
Jesus' General
Joe Conason
Juan Cole
Juanita!
Kamikaze Kumquat
Kicking Ass
The Kirby File
Lean Left
Lefty Directory
Liberal Oasis
Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Maxspeak-You Listen!
Media Matters
Media Whores Online
Michael J. Totten
Nathan Newman
NDN Blog
Notes on the Atrocities
Ornicus
Pacific Views
Pandagon
Paperwight's Fair Shot
Preemptive Karma
Rafah Kid
Rafah Pundits
Rittenhouse Review
Sadly, No
See the Forest
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
Stand Down
Steve Gilliard
Suburban Guerilla
Sunni Sister
Tacitus
Take Back the Media
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
TBogg
This Modern World
Truth Laid Bear
UncommonThought
Voice of a Veteran
Wampum
Wonkette
Words on a Page
World O'Crap
WTF Is it Now?
An Old Soul
Shut Up and Teach
From the Trenches
Education Wonks
Anonymous Teacher
Teaching
Bud the Teacher
So You Want to be a Science Teacher
Assorted Stuff
I Speak of Dreams
Blackboard Jungle
Eduwonk
Ms. Frizzle
Pedablogue
A Schoolyard Blog
This Teaching Life
No.2 Pencil
View from a Classroom
Teaching Highschool
AboutItAll Oregon
Alas, A Blog!
Alliance Watch
Biohabit
Blue Oregon
Human Iterations
Illusionaire
Isaac Laquedem
Jack Bog's Blog
Michael J. Totten
MisterBlue
My Whim is Law
Naked Knitting
Notes on the Atrocities
Oregon Blog
PDX Nag
Portland Communique
Portland Indy Media
Preemptive Karma
RoguePundit
Science Teacher
SeanLafreniere
Skookum Talk
Strangechord
TerraFirma Diaries
UncommonThought
What If?
Voice of a Veteran
Wampum
An Old Soul
Easy Bake Coven
Body and Soul (again)
Mom Blog
Lakshmi Mama
True Blue Semi-Crunchy Mama
Conflict Girl
Cranky Mommy
My Whim is Law
Sweet Jedi Mama
Atomic Cafe
KB's World
MomBrain
Sinister Sister
Madame Insane
Note to Self
Fussy
Annie's Annals
This Woman's Work
Foment
Mom in the Mirror
Moody Mama
Unravelled
Down With Gravity
GirlMom
Mamaphonic
Yo Mama Says
Waiting for Godel
Being Daddy
Rebel Dad
Laid Off Dad
Fulltime Father
Frenzied Daddy
frequencies
Daddy Chronicles
Daddy Blog
Slowlane
Fathers World
At Home Dad
Yertreelerermine
Not You, The Other One
Troubled Diva
Little Red Boat
Blogadoon
My Ace Life
Mighty Girl
Que Sera Sera
Mimi Smartypants
Anne, Straight From the Hip
Wil Wheaton
Rethinking Schools
Teaching for Change
Teach Tolerance
Coalition of Essential Schools
Coalition of Great City Schools
Education Week Online
GLSEN
Nat'l Assoc. for Multicultural Ed
Nat'l Coalition for Education Activists
Nat'l Womens History Project
Teacher Union Reform Network
Teacher Professionalism
Fair Test
Our Children Left Behind
No Child Left
EdTrust
NEA
AFT
Public Education Network
Susan Ohanian
Teachers Speak Out
Education Gadfly
Educators for Change
Free Child
MOB: Mothers Opposing Bush
Teenage Liberation Handbook
Raising Hell
Hip Mama
The Natural Child Project
The New Homemaker
Third Wave
Anarchist Parenting
Unschooling
Wiretap
AdBusters
Afrikan.net
Alternet
American Newspeak
Anarchy Mag
Antiwar.com
Autonomy & Solidarity
Asheville Global Report
Axis of Logic
Black Commentator
Capitol Hill Blue
Counterpunch
Daily Misleader
Democracy Now
Eat the State
Ethical Spectacle
Greg Palast
Guerilla News Network
Indy Media Center
InfoAnarchy
Inst.Public Accuracy
In These Times
Jim Hightower
Labor Notes
Left Turn
Media Filter
Media Matters
Mother Jones
The Nation
Rabble.ca
Race Traitor
Raw Story
Resist
Salon.com
SouthernPovertyLawCtr
Smoking Gun
Tom Paine
Venezuela News
WhitePrivilege.com
Women's News Network
ZMagazine
KBOO Community Radio
Free Speech Radio News
Radio Insurgente (Voice of EZLN)
KPFA Free Speech Radio
Air America
Thom Hartmann
Al Franken Show
Majority Report
MoveOn
MOB: Mothers Opposing Bush
Center for American Progress
Common Dreams
Media Matters
Progressive Majority
TruthOut
Act For Change
Wellstone Action
Working For Change
MichaelMoore.Com
MakeThemAccountable
Democratic Underground
Ruckus Society
Protest.Net
TAO
Democracy Now
Refuse&Resist
Reclaim the Streets
SOA Watch
Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
WomensActionforNewDirections
Reclaim Democracy
SouthernPovertyLawCtr
WaitingForPeace
AnarchaFeminism
Free Leonard Peltier
RAWA
MADRE
"Astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another." -Plato
Space.com
NASA
Amazing Space
Space Weather
Astronomy News
Astronomy Pic of the Day
The Night Sky
Bad Astronomy
SpaceshipOne
SpaceshipOne's First Flight
SpaceWriter
Astronomy Blog
AstroBlog
- Crazy/Hip Blog-Mamas +
< ? Blogging Mommies # >
Archives
- July 1990
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- July 2007