[About BTJ]
Name: BLT - E-mail me
Age: 28
Why BTJ:"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Things refuse to be mismanaged long."
-- Theodore Parker
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
"No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"No longer do we take the sword against any nation, nor do we learn war any more, since we have become sons of peace."
--Origen
[Links]
BTJ RSS Feed
Blogroll Me!
Donate to blackboxvoting.org
Conscientious Objection
« # Pacific Northwest Blogs ? »
[Archives]
Current Entries
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
[Credits]
- Blogger
Tragedy in Fallujah
The White House says it was done by people "trying to prevent democracy from moving forward," and a spokesman for the Provisional Authority says that those who are celebrating "are not people we are here to help."
A terrible thing. May all of those with lives or families destroyed or injured by violence around the world find comfort and rest.
A terrible thing. May all of those with lives or families destroyed or injured by violence around the world find comfort and rest.
Joe Sacco is the finest cartoonist working today. Read this funny-because-it's-so-true thoughts on the election cartoon. Read it, and then buy his "Palestine" and "Safe Area Goradze" and anything else he's ever written.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Here at Air America, what's considered psychotic behavior anywhere else is company policy
Atrios is going to be on Janeane Garofalo's Air America radio show Wednesday, which reminds me:
Everyone listen to Air America, whether on your local affiliate (good luck) or, as rumor has it, streamed.
Surprising news that I hadn't yet heard, though - Portland has an affiliate! Woohoo.
Everyone listen to Air America, whether on your local affiliate (good luck) or, as rumor has it, streamed.
Surprising news that I hadn't yet heard, though - Portland has an affiliate! Woohoo.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Put up or shut up time
Liberals are often challenged in the following manner:
"Bush's policies are irresponsible and ultimately detrimental to the United States, eh? Oh yeah, smarty? Well what would you do, allow the terrorists to win? You'd like to see Osama bin Laden march right down Lexington Avenue, wouldn't you? That's what you liberals want, isn't it? You hate America! Warghhh!"
The usual response to this rabidity is to laugh it off. But it occurred to me that there may be a slight shred of validity to the suggestion that the Democrats are running against something rather than for something - justifiably angry about Bush's policies, they often overlook the need to allay fears in America about the "war on terror" being gutted under a Democrat president.
So, then, what is the alternative? Lucky for you, I - a very high-level Democrat operative (I'm a registered member of the party and everything!) have come up with a 6-point plan, a platform if you will. A real solution to the problem of terrorism. Here it is.
1. Filter all decisions and policies with a veil of ignorance - and recognize that "fighting terror" is the worst way to fight terror
This is a practice which Americans seem to neglect quite often. We must design policies which are bilaterally beneficial, which seek to not create anger or bitterness on either side. "But BLT!" I hear you saying. "Why should we worry if we make terrorists angry?" But it is not terrorists I wish us to consider. I wish us to consider their children.
This is not a touchy-feely, oh-won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children idea, but rather a call to reason. Israel killed a spiritual leader of Hamas, as we all know. Even if we do not debate their right to do it, we in America must ask ourselves - how many terrorists were created that day? How much more powerful in the minds of a people is a martyr?
Israel says that all terrorists are fair game, and perhaps they're right - but it is absolutely and without question a self-perpetuating policy. So is the current 'war on terror.'
2. Continue to strongly support Israel's right to exist - and recognize that it is just as open to criticism as any other country
On this point, the US is, in fact, making a few strides. The recent veto of the Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the Yassin assassination was accompanied by Ambassador Negroponte noting that "Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region."
Statements like these should continue. Israel has a right to self-defense, but when their idea of "self-defense" represents a threat to US and world security - not to mention their own- they should be challenged.
3. Hand over control of Iraq to the United Nations until a new government has been established
Whether fairly or unfairly, the US is completely distrusted by much of the Middle East. It will be decades of new and more responsible foreign policy before this changes. Until then, if our concern is truly homeland security, then we must work towards an image change. No matter how elegant our intentions for the "New Iraq" are, the people that matter - the potential terrorists - will not believe us. The United States should recognize this as a fact and withdraw from the leadership role in the rebuilding process.
Once again, this is a call to reason. Conservatives would have us believe that their number one priority is the war on terror - but then due to pride or greed they undercut their own beliefs by pursuing policies which make us more exposed.
4. Commit to freedom from dependence on oil
No one would argue that, at least until September 11, our entire Middle East foreign policy has been defined by one thing: oil. Our dealings with the Saudi regime are one major example. Osama bin Laden, an evil, evil man, hates America in part because we support the ibn Saud monarchy - and we should of course not pursue any policy change because Osama bin Laden wants us to! But according to American values, we should be just as upset with the Saudi government as with any other autocratic, human-rights-trampling regime.
It doesn't take a genius or a protectionist to understand why we're not. (No word on whether oil affects our foreign policy in Canada, the current number one source of oil in front of Saudi Arabia's number two.)
We have to cut the cord, but we have to do it in a smart way. We must wean ourselves from oil slowly but surely. Why? Because done incorrectly, this could increase rather than decrease our problems.
Our foreign policy in the Middle East plays favorites and supports oppressors. Without a dependence on oil, our reason for being a big, bad presence would be eliminated. But paradoxically, if we eliminate our presence - and take our money with us - the economy of the Middle East, based so highly on oil exports, could crash. And sudden poverty, especially with someone to blame, is almost as much a harbinger of terrorism as oppression.
The Republicans say they want to follow this policy too. "If you would only let us drill in the ANWR, we could lower our dependence on foreign oil!" But we need a sea change, and we must start now. If we do not change our infrastructure away from massive oil consumption, the ANWR and all our other sources will run out, and we will be back where we started, with no safety net left.
5. Make "free trade" truly free
The problem with free trade is not the theory but the practice. In theory, free trade enriches everyone, is self-regulating, and keeps everyone happy, from the poorest country to the richest.
This is not happening. Instead, the United States has negotiated free trade into a new kind of protectionism - one which protects those with capital from those without.
Another policy which increases a feeling of powerlessness both at home and abroad. Sustained and intense powerlessness is terrorism's strongest recruiting tool.
6. Practice consistency
If we value democracy and freedom, we must value it for everyone. Stop supporting coups because we don't agree with the democratically elected leader. Allow the Iraqis to choose whatever Constitution they wish, as long as it is democratic and respectful of human rights. (Which appears to be happening).
And let's decide right now whether we unilaterally remove dictators or not. The neocons' response to complaints about WMDs is "but we got Saddam - are you really going to say that we should have left him in place?" Once again, the problem is that this is a self-perpetuating policy. Are we going to remove every brutal dictator or just the ones that are politically convenient? The answer should be that we are going to leave that to the United Nations to decide and support the UN when necessary.
The question that I'm sure raises its ugly head at this point is "Are we going to let the UN dictate our self-defense?" This is usually an unanswered question, but there is, in fact, a very good answer which the Bush campaign refuses to acknowledge.
In the past, there was a case to be made that self-defense could be achieved by a strong offense. But in the age of terrorism, offense - invasion, forced regime change, unilateral action - has only one effect: to lessen security. The only answer to terrorism is justice. And after the 20th century, no one trusts the United States to practice justice. We must change our image before we can change others' reactions to our actions. Until then, the most security we can hope for is the security which Bush squandered soon after 9/11: Strength in numbers. As unlikely as it sounds, alone the "homeland" will never be secure. Together - with collective action to improve the human condition around the world - we can eradicate terrorism by eliminating its source: Oppression, powerlessness, and the bitterness and hatred which result.
"Bush's policies are irresponsible and ultimately detrimental to the United States, eh? Oh yeah, smarty? Well what would you do, allow the terrorists to win? You'd like to see Osama bin Laden march right down Lexington Avenue, wouldn't you? That's what you liberals want, isn't it? You hate America! Warghhh!"
The usual response to this rabidity is to laugh it off. But it occurred to me that there may be a slight shred of validity to the suggestion that the Democrats are running against something rather than for something - justifiably angry about Bush's policies, they often overlook the need to allay fears in America about the "war on terror" being gutted under a Democrat president.
So, then, what is the alternative? Lucky for you, I - a very high-level Democrat operative (I'm a registered member of the party and everything!) have come up with a 6-point plan, a platform if you will. A real solution to the problem of terrorism. Here it is.
1. Filter all decisions and policies with a veil of ignorance - and recognize that "fighting terror" is the worst way to fight terror
This is a practice which Americans seem to neglect quite often. We must design policies which are bilaterally beneficial, which seek to not create anger or bitterness on either side. "But BLT!" I hear you saying. "Why should we worry if we make terrorists angry?" But it is not terrorists I wish us to consider. I wish us to consider their children.
This is not a touchy-feely, oh-won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children idea, but rather a call to reason. Israel killed a spiritual leader of Hamas, as we all know. Even if we do not debate their right to do it, we in America must ask ourselves - how many terrorists were created that day? How much more powerful in the minds of a people is a martyr?
Israel says that all terrorists are fair game, and perhaps they're right - but it is absolutely and without question a self-perpetuating policy. So is the current 'war on terror.'
2. Continue to strongly support Israel's right to exist - and recognize that it is just as open to criticism as any other country
On this point, the US is, in fact, making a few strides. The recent veto of the Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the Yassin assassination was accompanied by Ambassador Negroponte noting that "Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region."
Statements like these should continue. Israel has a right to self-defense, but when their idea of "self-defense" represents a threat to US and world security - not to mention their own- they should be challenged.
3. Hand over control of Iraq to the United Nations until a new government has been established
Whether fairly or unfairly, the US is completely distrusted by much of the Middle East. It will be decades of new and more responsible foreign policy before this changes. Until then, if our concern is truly homeland security, then we must work towards an image change. No matter how elegant our intentions for the "New Iraq" are, the people that matter - the potential terrorists - will not believe us. The United States should recognize this as a fact and withdraw from the leadership role in the rebuilding process.
Once again, this is a call to reason. Conservatives would have us believe that their number one priority is the war on terror - but then due to pride or greed they undercut their own beliefs by pursuing policies which make us more exposed.
4. Commit to freedom from dependence on oil
No one would argue that, at least until September 11, our entire Middle East foreign policy has been defined by one thing: oil. Our dealings with the Saudi regime are one major example. Osama bin Laden, an evil, evil man, hates America in part because we support the ibn Saud monarchy - and we should of course not pursue any policy change because Osama bin Laden wants us to! But according to American values, we should be just as upset with the Saudi government as with any other autocratic, human-rights-trampling regime.
It doesn't take a genius or a protectionist to understand why we're not. (No word on whether oil affects our foreign policy in Canada, the current number one source of oil in front of Saudi Arabia's number two.)
We have to cut the cord, but we have to do it in a smart way. We must wean ourselves from oil slowly but surely. Why? Because done incorrectly, this could increase rather than decrease our problems.
Our foreign policy in the Middle East plays favorites and supports oppressors. Without a dependence on oil, our reason for being a big, bad presence would be eliminated. But paradoxically, if we eliminate our presence - and take our money with us - the economy of the Middle East, based so highly on oil exports, could crash. And sudden poverty, especially with someone to blame, is almost as much a harbinger of terrorism as oppression.
The Republicans say they want to follow this policy too. "If you would only let us drill in the ANWR, we could lower our dependence on foreign oil!" But we need a sea change, and we must start now. If we do not change our infrastructure away from massive oil consumption, the ANWR and all our other sources will run out, and we will be back where we started, with no safety net left.
5. Make "free trade" truly free
The problem with free trade is not the theory but the practice. In theory, free trade enriches everyone, is self-regulating, and keeps everyone happy, from the poorest country to the richest.
This is not happening. Instead, the United States has negotiated free trade into a new kind of protectionism - one which protects those with capital from those without.
Another policy which increases a feeling of powerlessness both at home and abroad. Sustained and intense powerlessness is terrorism's strongest recruiting tool.
6. Practice consistency
If we value democracy and freedom, we must value it for everyone. Stop supporting coups because we don't agree with the democratically elected leader. Allow the Iraqis to choose whatever Constitution they wish, as long as it is democratic and respectful of human rights. (Which appears to be happening).
And let's decide right now whether we unilaterally remove dictators or not. The neocons' response to complaints about WMDs is "but we got Saddam - are you really going to say that we should have left him in place?" Once again, the problem is that this is a self-perpetuating policy. Are we going to remove every brutal dictator or just the ones that are politically convenient? The answer should be that we are going to leave that to the United Nations to decide and support the UN when necessary.
The question that I'm sure raises its ugly head at this point is "Are we going to let the UN dictate our self-defense?" This is usually an unanswered question, but there is, in fact, a very good answer which the Bush campaign refuses to acknowledge.
In the past, there was a case to be made that self-defense could be achieved by a strong offense. But in the age of terrorism, offense - invasion, forced regime change, unilateral action - has only one effect: to lessen security. The only answer to terrorism is justice. And after the 20th century, no one trusts the United States to practice justice. We must change our image before we can change others' reactions to our actions. Until then, the most security we can hope for is the security which Bush squandered soon after 9/11: Strength in numbers. As unlikely as it sounds, alone the "homeland" will never be secure. Together - with collective action to improve the human condition around the world - we can eradicate terrorism by eliminating its source: Oppression, powerlessness, and the bitterness and hatred which result.
My flirtation with CSS has ended badly.
I think that the archiving problem has now been solved, as has the atrocious appearance of the site in Netscape. I'm not sure about the color - it looks good on my monitor but I would appreciate feedback about it (and your experiences with the archiving).
The banner ad is back. I never really meant to cover it up - that's what I get for using a ready-made template. Free is a great price, thanks Blog*spot. If this blog continues to grow I may shell out the dollars for the plus account but for now I think we can all agree that the banner ad is relatively unobtrusive.
Please enjoy the new Bending Towards Justice!
I think that the archiving problem has now been solved, as has the atrocious appearance of the site in Netscape. I'm not sure about the color - it looks good on my monitor but I would appreciate feedback about it (and your experiences with the archiving).
The banner ad is back. I never really meant to cover it up - that's what I get for using a ready-made template. Free is a great price, thanks Blog*spot. If this blog continues to grow I may shell out the dollars for the plus account but for now I think we can all agree that the banner ad is relatively unobtrusive.
Please enjoy the new Bending Towards Justice!
A redesign and a hiatus' end!
Update: How come nobody told me how horrendous the site looked on Netscape? I mean, I obviously should have been smart enough to remember to check this stuff, but still...
Update: How come nobody told me how horrendous the site looked on Netscape? I mean, I obviously should have been smart enough to remember to check this stuff, but still...
Friday, March 19, 2004
Fridays are slow here on BTJ
As will be the case most Fridays, I will not be posting today. Please head to one of my brilliant colleagues listed on the right for your pithy commentary needs.
From a poster in Kevin Drum's new blog Political Animal comes an column from the Guardian:
The column is perfect. Read it. Understand it. And what everyone is ignoring, from headline writers to columnists, is that Spain is not even unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq. They are willing to stay if the country is properly managed, i.e. by the United Nations, i.e. by the folks who didn't lie in order to manufacture a reason to start the war in the first place. Even if this were appeasement, it still wouldn't be appeasement.
Maybe they think it's payback time. In 2001, many American conservatives were appalled by the reaction in some European quarters to 9/11, a reaction crudely summarised as "America had it coming". They insisted it was grossly insensitive to attack the United States and its foreign policy while Ground Zero still smouldered. They were right and I took their side, urging people at least to pause a while before adding greater hurt to an already traumatised nation.
But look what's happening now. A matter of days after the event branded Europe's 9/11, and American conservatives - including some of the very people who were so outraged by the criticisms hurled at the US in September 2001 - have started whacking not just Spanish policy, but the Spanish people.
The column is perfect. Read it. Understand it. And what everyone is ignoring, from headline writers to columnists, is that Spain is not even unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq. They are willing to stay if the country is properly managed, i.e. by the United Nations, i.e. by the folks who didn't lie in order to manufacture a reason to start the war in the first place. Even if this were appeasement, it still wouldn't be appeasement.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Daddy, what does hubris mean?
I mentioned in an earlier post that Bush and Company's most effective attacks on Kerry seem to be the ones which most apply to W. himself. "Elitist" is one. This is another.
They're blaming Kerry for 9/11. That's right, John Kerry is responsible for the security lapses at Logan airport. Except...oh wait...as the current whistle-blower himself put it back in 2001 (via Hesiod), "I think Senator Kerry did get it to the right people and that they were about to take the right action."
The right action, in this case, was to send the letter to Bush's White House...where it sat. Considering it's called the Federal Aviation Administration, not the Massachussetts Aviation Administration, I'd say that if the fault lies anywhere, it's not in Boston.
They're blaming Kerry for 9/11. That's right, John Kerry is responsible for the security lapses at Logan airport. Except...oh wait...as the current whistle-blower himself put it back in 2001 (via Hesiod), "I think Senator Kerry did get it to the right people and that they were about to take the right action."
The right action, in this case, was to send the letter to Bush's White House...where it sat. Considering it's called the Federal Aviation Administration, not the Massachussetts Aviation Administration, I'd say that if the fault lies anywhere, it's not in Boston.
So Benton County (Oregon) has decided to issue gay marriage licenses.
I find this very promising - and surprising. I'm not a demographist, I just play one on the internet, but Benton County, home of Oregon State University, seems to be one of the most conservative counties on the I-5 corridor. What this says to me is that even relatively conservative officials are accepting that they can't constitutionally refuse licenses to same-sex couples. So much for the "activist judges and pinko commissioners" argument.
I find this very promising - and surprising. I'm not a demographist, I just play one on the internet, but Benton County, home of Oregon State University, seems to be one of the most conservative counties on the I-5 corridor. What this says to me is that even relatively conservative officials are accepting that they can't constitutionally refuse licenses to same-sex couples. So much for the "activist judges and pinko commissioners" argument.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
No kidding
From this article on CNN comes the news:
It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.
In other news: We told you, we told you, we told you.
I haven't pointed it out enough lately, but "fighting terror" is the least effective way to fight terror. Spain has one of the most well-trained and respected security forces in Europe, and look what happened. The only way to really eliminate terrorists is to help eliminate their driving force: Work to bring justice to the world, end powerlessness and disaffection, and the support structure for terrorists will wither and die. Keep pushing and oppressing, or supporting the regimes that do, and there will always be new recruits.
Let's look at two points of view - President Bush's and Peter Bergen's. Which seems more based in reality?
Bush: Some two-thirds of al Qaeda's key leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck.
Bergen: This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas.
It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.
In other news: We told you, we told you, we told you.
I haven't pointed it out enough lately, but "fighting terror" is the least effective way to fight terror. Spain has one of the most well-trained and respected security forces in Europe, and look what happened. The only way to really eliminate terrorists is to help eliminate their driving force: Work to bring justice to the world, end powerlessness and disaffection, and the support structure for terrorists will wither and die. Keep pushing and oppressing, or supporting the regimes that do, and there will always be new recruits.
Let's look at two points of view - President Bush's and Peter Bergen's. Which seems more based in reality?
Bush: Some two-thirds of al Qaeda's key leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck.
Bergen: This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas.
Through Hesiod comes this site, a fairly thorough look and debunking of the right wing smears of John Kerry.
Is it a too-obvious observation to say that some of the most successful missiles thrown at Kerry by Bush and his people - rich elitist, flip-flopper - are arguably the most prominent flaws of Bush himself? Is that hubris or what? And yet the American people let him get away with it.
Is it a too-obvious observation to say that some of the most successful missiles thrown at Kerry by Bush and his people - rich elitist, flip-flopper - are arguably the most prominent flaws of Bush himself? Is that hubris or what? And yet the American people let him get away with it.
71 percent of respondents on CNN call "the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists." Funny, I thought that free exercise of democracy was one of the things the terrorists were trying to destroy. The challenge of democracy and of standing up to terrorists is to do what's best for the country in the long run, regardless of whether it "looks like appeasement" or not.
Matt Yglesias, via Atrios, puts it best:
The right would like to set up the following argument: If there are no attacks between now and the election, then Bush has defended us from terror and deserves re-election; if there is an attack between now and the election, then voting for Kerry would be appeasement.
Matt Yglesias, via Atrios, puts it best:
The right would like to set up the following argument: If there are no attacks between now and the election, then Bush has defended us from terror and deserves re-election; if there is an attack between now and the election, then voting for Kerry would be appeasement.
Someone actually fell for this again - this time at the city government level.
I wonder if the people of Aliso Viejo have considered pressing charges against that woman who stole the chocolate chip cookie recipe.
I wonder if the people of Aliso Viejo have considered pressing charges against that woman who stole the chocolate chip cookie recipe.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
In Memoriam
Our thoughts go out to the people of Madrid today.
Researchers have followed 12,000 teens that made a "chastity pledge" in the 90's. These kids, you may remember, were the shining stars of abstinence-only sex education, marking their pledges with "true love waits" rings and necklaces. So how did these paragons of virtue fare?
9 out of 10 broke their pledges.
And they're much likelier than those teens who didn't make the pledge to have contracted an STD.
Because - as is obvious to everyone but the religious right - not only do 88% of teenagers have sex, the ones who don't get well-rounded sex education don't use condoms.
But don't expect this to change anything. No statistics or common sense ever got between a fundamentalist and his dreams.
9 out of 10 broke their pledges.
And they're much likelier than those teens who didn't make the pledge to have contracted an STD.
Because - as is obvious to everyone but the religious right - not only do 88% of teenagers have sex, the ones who don't get well-rounded sex education don't use condoms.
But don't expect this to change anything. No statistics or common sense ever got between a fundamentalist and his dreams.
As you may or may not have heard, John Kerry yesterday made a few choice comments about - depending on who you believe - a small or large group of Republicans. Now, we've all said things we would rather not have been caught saying when we think our phones are hung up or our microphones aren't on. It's just that we're not all running for President.
John, this is possibly the most important Presidential election since Roosevelt took over from Hoover. The man who wins this election will choose Supreme Court Justices and either pervert or protect the Constitution. I realize - I really do - that your comments were absolutely true and justified; but you're about to be nominated because of your electability, not your policies. If you make a few more mistakes like this, your electability will be just about erased, and then what are we going to do? As your website might say, knock it the f&^k off.
John, this is possibly the most important Presidential election since Roosevelt took over from Hoover. The man who wins this election will choose Supreme Court Justices and either pervert or protect the Constitution. I realize - I really do - that your comments were absolutely true and justified; but you're about to be nominated because of your electability, not your policies. If you make a few more mistakes like this, your electability will be just about erased, and then what are we going to do? As your website might say, knock it the f&^k off.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Busy busy busy
But enjoy Tom Tomorrow's demolishing of that fool Thomas Friedman.
Don't forget to come back tomorrow, though!
Don't forget to come back tomorrow, though!
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
If no one is stating the obvious, then stating the obvious isn't really "stating the obvious"
Cleek says something that no one else is saying, but should be, on Calpundit's discussion:
can anyone define "elitist" in such a way that it includes Kerry but not Bush ? i can't.
Exactly. But the RNC is going to get away with the "Rich Intellectual Elitist" 'smear' anyway.
can anyone define "elitist" in such a way that it includes Kerry but not Bush ? i can't.
Exactly. But the RNC is going to get away with the "Rich Intellectual Elitist" 'smear' anyway.
Still committed to free speech
Despite idiots like these.
According to our local Fox affiliate, Brandon Rogers of Hillsboro, Oregon is someone who enjoys free speech. He enjoys using it to make threats against Multnomah County Commissioners and their families. Either he or someone who thinks just like him told Commissioner Serena Cruz' answering machine that "People don't like queers and they don't like beaners. You represent both."
He also told the Fox affiliate reporter that Serena Cruz and her fellow commissioners were threatening his marriage and family. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating: Brandon, if some gays getting married threatens your family, then your family doesn't appear to be on the steadiest ground.
Now, I will let police and the courts decide whether your clever use of the qualifier "I hope" means that those weren't actually death threats. On the nonviolent parts of your message, though, I'm glad I live in a country where a tool like you can speak his mind.
Brandon Rogers of Hillsboro, Oregon: This week's winner of the hold-your-nose-and-remember-the-First-Amendment award.
According to our local Fox affiliate, Brandon Rogers of Hillsboro, Oregon is someone who enjoys free speech. He enjoys using it to make threats against Multnomah County Commissioners and their families. Either he or someone who thinks just like him told Commissioner Serena Cruz' answering machine that "People don't like queers and they don't like beaners. You represent both."
He also told the Fox affiliate reporter that Serena Cruz and her fellow commissioners were threatening his marriage and family. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating: Brandon, if some gays getting married threatens your family, then your family doesn't appear to be on the steadiest ground.
Now, I will let police and the courts decide whether your clever use of the qualifier "I hope" means that those weren't actually death threats. On the nonviolent parts of your message, though, I'm glad I live in a country where a tool like you can speak his mind.
Brandon Rogers of Hillsboro, Oregon: This week's winner of the hold-your-nose-and-remember-the-First-Amendment award.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Comedy gold...
Salon has an interesting article (I don't think you need the daypass for this one) The first paragraph is journalism at its finest (emphasis mine).
Head of UCLA cadaver program is arrested
The man who oversees the cadaver program at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been arrested on suspicion of grand theft, but authorities would not say what he is accused of stealing.
Oh man, I'm rolling.
Head of UCLA cadaver program is arrested
The man who oversees the cadaver program at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been arrested on suspicion of grand theft, but authorities would not say what he is accused of stealing.
Oh man, I'm rolling.
Via Faramin:
Orthodox Jews To Burn Israeli Flag in International Ceremony
Demonstration of the essence of the Holiday "Purim"
"The Rabbi explained, 'By burning the Israeli flag we are symbolically declaring that the Israeli state, contrary to its absurd claims, is not representative of the Jewish people. In fact, its denial of our faith and its brutalization of the Palestinian people, renders it antithetical to Judaism.'"
Orthodox Jews To Burn Israeli Flag in International Ceremony
Demonstration of the essence of the Holiday "Purim"
"The Rabbi explained, 'By burning the Israeli flag we are symbolically declaring that the Israeli state, contrary to its absurd claims, is not representative of the Jewish people. In fact, its denial of our faith and its brutalization of the Palestinian people, renders it antithetical to Judaism.'"
I find myself, horror of horrors, in some measure of agreement with Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh had an assistant - presumably not the same one, ifyouknowwhatimean - look into FDR's 1944 campaign. What she found is not altogether surprising.
She found that the campaign ran heavily on Pearl Harbor. She also found a campaign button with his face in the middle and "I Remember Pearl Harbor" rotating around the edge of the button. Quotes about the folly of replacing a wartime president. There were no TV ads, obviously, but the above examples are certainly evocative of the same ideas Bush is putting forward - and receiving heavy flak for - today.
Rush's point is something along the line of "those wacky, hypocritical democrats, attacking Bush for what their Godfather began 60 years ago." And on that I agree - I am not so bothered by Bush's use of these images because 9/11 is the defining moment of his presidency, and I trust the American people to figure out whether that's a good or bad* thing considering how Bush has handled the aftermath.
When I first conceived this post I was going to end there - conceding to Limbaugh to show that I'm a good, fair liberal who can accept when others have made a good point. Then I found this article.
In June 1944, with a presidential election approaching, the Republicans decided to make Pearl Harbor a campaign issue. Officials nationwide, including presidential candidate Tom Dewey, laid into Roosevelt over his failure to protect the country. The most outlandish condemnation came on Sept. 11 [blt says:Whoa. Conspiracy theories anyone?], when Rep. Forest Harness, R-Ind., claimed on the House floor that the Australian government, three days before the attack, had warned Washington that a Japanese aircraft carrier was bound for Hawaii and that officials had withheld the information from Kimmel and Short. Rumors of this sort had long been in the air, but Harness' speech brought them into public view—and sparked a firestorm whose residual embers still burn today.
Oh man. At least Democratic attacks - that Bush started a war unrelated to 9/11, that he hasn't done anything to make us safer, that he's deficit spending with nothing gained out of it - are actually based on fact. (By the way, it was Churchill, not Roosevelt, who most likely had foreknowledge of the attack).
Still, we as Democrats have many, many things to attack Bush on; by inflaming conservative passions about this relative non-issue we risk diverting attention from the real message.
*Bad.
She found that the campaign ran heavily on Pearl Harbor. She also found a campaign button with his face in the middle and "I Remember Pearl Harbor" rotating around the edge of the button. Quotes about the folly of replacing a wartime president. There were no TV ads, obviously, but the above examples are certainly evocative of the same ideas Bush is putting forward - and receiving heavy flak for - today.
Rush's point is something along the line of "those wacky, hypocritical democrats, attacking Bush for what their Godfather began 60 years ago." And on that I agree - I am not so bothered by Bush's use of these images because 9/11 is the defining moment of his presidency, and I trust the American people to figure out whether that's a good or bad* thing considering how Bush has handled the aftermath.
When I first conceived this post I was going to end there - conceding to Limbaugh to show that I'm a good, fair liberal who can accept when others have made a good point. Then I found this article.
In June 1944, with a presidential election approaching, the Republicans decided to make Pearl Harbor a campaign issue. Officials nationwide, including presidential candidate Tom Dewey, laid into Roosevelt over his failure to protect the country. The most outlandish condemnation came on Sept. 11 [blt says:Whoa. Conspiracy theories anyone?], when Rep. Forest Harness, R-Ind., claimed on the House floor that the Australian government, three days before the attack, had warned Washington that a Japanese aircraft carrier was bound for Hawaii and that officials had withheld the information from Kimmel and Short. Rumors of this sort had long been in the air, but Harness' speech brought them into public view—and sparked a firestorm whose residual embers still burn today.
Oh man. At least Democratic attacks - that Bush started a war unrelated to 9/11, that he hasn't done anything to make us safer, that he's deficit spending with nothing gained out of it - are actually based on fact. (By the way, it was Churchill, not Roosevelt, who most likely had foreknowledge of the attack).
Still, we as Democrats have many, many things to attack Bush on; by inflaming conservative passions about this relative non-issue we risk diverting attention from the real message.
*Bad.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Howard Stern's callers aren't so dumb after all
I'm really not normally a rabid Stern advocate - at all - but this latest FCC flap has got me firmly in his camp.
He had a caller today who works on a factory floor. Many of the workers wanted to listen to Stern's show during work hours. So the managers put it to a vote.
The tally: 60 in favor of listening, 15 against.
They don't get to listen to the show. Minority rules.
If that isn't a microcosm ofpolitics "morality legislation" in this country today, I don't know what is.
He had a caller today who works on a factory floor. Many of the workers wanted to listen to Stern's show during work hours. So the managers put it to a vote.
The tally: 60 in favor of listening, 15 against.
They don't get to listen to the show. Minority rules.
If that isn't a microcosm of
John Ashcroft in intensive care
He has gallstone pancreatitis.
Here's hoping for the best for Mr. Ashcroft and his family. Get back to work soon so I can go back to protesting your policies!
Here's hoping for the best for Mr. Ashcroft and his family. Get back to work soon so I can go back to protesting your policies!
But the jobless recovery is a myth!
Economists forecasted 125,000 new jobs would be created in February.
We fell 101,000 short.
Other numbers from the same article:
Average duration of joblessness: 20.3 weeks, the highest in 20 years.
Despite the administrations efforts to add fast food workers to manufacturing numbers, that sector lost jobs for the 43rd month in a row.
And no, this isn't all Bush's - or Clinton's - fault. But it is Bush's responsibility now. And instead of getting results, he's crowing prematurely about jobs growth which barely exists.
Still, I have no doubt that the jobs market will turn around. I just hope voters will ask themselves whether they enjoyed twisting in the wind as Republicans ran up the national debt.
Update: Atrios points out:
The Bush administration claimed that if their tax program passed the economy would add an average of 306,000 jobs per month. By now, we should have had an additional 2,448,000 jobs.
We fell 101,000 short.
Other numbers from the same article:
Average duration of joblessness: 20.3 weeks, the highest in 20 years.
Despite the administrations efforts to add fast food workers to manufacturing numbers, that sector lost jobs for the 43rd month in a row.
And no, this isn't all Bush's - or Clinton's - fault. But it is Bush's responsibility now. And instead of getting results, he's crowing prematurely about jobs growth which barely exists.
Still, I have no doubt that the jobs market will turn around. I just hope voters will ask themselves whether they enjoyed twisting in the wind as Republicans ran up the national debt.
Update: Atrios points out:
The Bush administration claimed that if their tax program passed the economy would add an average of 306,000 jobs per month. By now, we should have had an additional 2,448,000 jobs.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Eric Alterman continues fighting the good fight
And speaking of Cheney, everybody's heard about his nutty comment yesterday, "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had." But what I want to know, is um, what did the reporter say? Did he reply, "Well sir, with all due respect, that 'job growth' has resulted in millions of jobs lost, and in fact, not one single month of the Bush/Cheney administration has seen the kind of job growth enjoyed during an average month of the Clinton administration. So excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?" My guess is he did not. And therein lies much of the problem with our poltics.
And our media. Keep it up, Mr. Alterman.
And our media. Keep it up, Mr. Alterman.
Tom Tomorrow points to something fantastic. Considering Michael Moore was one of the first to suggest this back in 2000, and he was largely dismissed by the right as he so often is, this is promising - and fitting - news.
Meanwhile, W. starts campaigning in earnest - by alienating even more of his former supporters.
Meanwhile, W. starts campaigning in earnest - by alienating even more of his former supporters.
And for the first time in a while, Oregon's not a dollar short. I've made my feelings clear about how to solve this mess - take marriage out of the hands of government altogether - but failing that, challenges like this are the best way to call out the right-wing wackos.
And called out they are. A local talk-radio guy named Victor Boc spent Tuesday railing against the impending decision by the County. He pretty much assumed that this is the end of Western Civilization. He even pulled a Santorum, taking a call from a guy who "wanted to marry his dog", and Boc "guaranteed" that it was no more than 10 years away because of this decision.
I know, he's a local nobody, but it's just so disturbing to hear people actually holding such ridiculous views. Fortunately, most of Boc's callers did my heart good - there were lesbians, religious people, and even guys that sounded like truck drivers trying to get the guy to realize that real Portlanders are mostly a) in favor of or b) benevolently indifferent to this issue, and apart from the "God hates Gays" crowd there are a lot of people honking and waving as they pass by the county offices*.
Still, the "democratic" killjoys are coming for the gays. Look, I don't blame the governor for wanting to adhere to laws, and considering the county decided this in secret, with a dissenting commissioner excluded from the meetings, I'm not altogether happy with the way it was done - but this is an important stance to take.
* P.S. Still, I wish they would have picked somewhere else to issue licenses because it's at the end of my street and the rubberneckers are slowing my commute.
P.P.S. Atrios provided a link reviewing the news coverage.
And called out they are. A local talk-radio guy named Victor Boc spent Tuesday railing against the impending decision by the County. He pretty much assumed that this is the end of Western Civilization. He even pulled a Santorum, taking a call from a guy who "wanted to marry his dog", and Boc "guaranteed" that it was no more than 10 years away because of this decision.
I know, he's a local nobody, but it's just so disturbing to hear people actually holding such ridiculous views. Fortunately, most of Boc's callers did my heart good - there were lesbians, religious people, and even guys that sounded like truck drivers trying to get the guy to realize that real Portlanders are mostly a) in favor of or b) benevolently indifferent to this issue, and apart from the "God hates Gays" crowd there are a lot of people honking and waving as they pass by the county offices*.
Still, the "democratic" killjoys are coming for the gays. Look, I don't blame the governor for wanting to adhere to laws, and considering the county decided this in secret, with a dissenting commissioner excluded from the meetings, I'm not altogether happy with the way it was done - but this is an important stance to take.
* P.S. Still, I wish they would have picked somewhere else to issue licenses because it's at the end of my street and the rubberneckers are slowing my commute.
P.P.S. Atrios provided a link reviewing the news coverage.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Everything I need to know about Haiti I get from Counterpunch
Well, not really, but there are some very insightful articles there, including this one about interventionism in general.
Seven weeks after the 1994 invasion of Haiti, the Republicans took control of Congress and systematically dismantled aid to the impoverished, war-torn country. The opposition forces that converged on Port au Prince are the very thugs and murderers the U.S. invaded to get rid of in 1994. Whether through enmity or indifference, U.S. fingerprints are all over the overthrow of Aristide.
A friend of mine has a sister who has been in Haiti off and on for about ten years. She and her baby left about a week before Cap-Haitien fell, and her husband got out with about twenty-four hours to spare. Now whatever you think about missionaries, they have their ears to the ground, and according to them, the rebellion has more popular/lower-class support than the progressive press is giving credit for.
All I know is that ten years ago we intervened to re-install Aristide, and now we intervened to (apparently) assist in his removal, or at least to keep the peace while his removal occurred. Are we gaining any ground at all?
Seven weeks after the 1994 invasion of Haiti, the Republicans took control of Congress and systematically dismantled aid to the impoverished, war-torn country. The opposition forces that converged on Port au Prince are the very thugs and murderers the U.S. invaded to get rid of in 1994. Whether through enmity or indifference, U.S. fingerprints are all over the overthrow of Aristide.
A friend of mine has a sister who has been in Haiti off and on for about ten years. She and her baby left about a week before Cap-Haitien fell, and her husband got out with about twenty-four hours to spare. Now whatever you think about missionaries, they have their ears to the ground, and according to them, the rebellion has more popular/lower-class support than the progressive press is giving credit for.
All I know is that ten years ago we intervened to re-install Aristide, and now we intervened to (apparently) assist in his removal, or at least to keep the peace while his removal occurred. Are we gaining any ground at all?
...of 58 people in Baghdad and 85 people in Karbala, victims of evil personified.
May there be an end to any aspect of our world culture which allows and even encourages this kind of hate.
May there be an end to any aspect of our world culture which allows and even encourages this kind of hate.
