[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
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.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Bush reiterates his position
Bush today declared that he was in favor of a constitutional amendment because "the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal."
I would have hoped that he would say that the job of the president is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and (will) to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Preserve, protect, and defend - funny, I don't really see the word "rewrite" in that sentence. In fact, Article II is completely devoid of any mention of policy-making, except for treaties and appointments* - which still have to be approved by Congress.
*Whoops. Guess he fudged Article II a little on that one, too.
I would have hoped that he would say that the job of the president is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and (will) to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Preserve, protect, and defend - funny, I don't really see the word "rewrite" in that sentence. In fact, Article II is completely devoid of any mention of policy-making, except for treaties and appointments* - which still have to be approved by Congress.
*Whoops. Guess he fudged Article II a little on that one, too.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
No posts today
I will be back with pithy liberal hogwash tomorrow. Until then, enjoy the spongmonkeys one more time.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Bush the candidate is still President Bush's best critic
Atrios has a Larry King transcript from 2000 putting Bush squarely in the States' Rights camp.
KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
BUSH: The state can do what they want to do.
Do we need any more evidence that President Bush doesn't even believe the things that come out of his own mouth?
And caveat from yesterday: I should point out that when I espouse States' Rights, it comes with the caveat that the Equal Protection clause or any other current Constitutional right must be protected. So when I say that States' Rights should apply to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that I think states should be able to outlaw gay civil unions.See also this post.
KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
BUSH: The state can do what they want to do.
Do we need any more evidence that President Bush doesn't even believe the things that come out of his own mouth?
And caveat from yesterday: I should point out that when I espouse States' Rights, it comes with the caveat that the Equal Protection clause or any other current Constitutional right must be protected. So when I say that States' Rights should apply to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that I think states should be able to outlaw gay civil unions.See also this post.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Speaking of Bush and Sex...
Salon has a absolutely scathing criticism of abstinence-only sexual education program. It's worth watching the ad to get the free day pass, people.
States' rights are vital - as long as we agree with the states
Andrew Sullivan posts some letters in response to his unhappiness with the President. My favorite is this short but sweet message:
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation."
Not to pile on, but I too have to wonder what gay Republicans have been thinking all these years. Considering the rhetoric coming from the far right - the same far right that Bush pandered to by speaking at Bob Jones University during the first election - is it any surprise that the Log Cabin Republicans are the first agains the wall now that his poll numbers are plummeting?
But I don't want to be flippant - this amendment would be a travesty. Wasn't conservatives' argument against the ERA that the Constitution shouldn't be used for such specific, unilateral purposes? Wasn't the Republican party the party of "States' Rights"? Shouldn't we get the government out of marriage altogether?
(And shouldn't Bush be banned from using the term "activist judge" ever again?)
I was brought up a Democrat, but I was brought up to respect Republicans because they were the party of fiscal responsibility and states' rights. I'm not feeling quite so respectful anymore.
"Seriously, when they have to hit you with the speech equivalent of a two by four to get your attention as to how they feel about you, you might want to rethink your party affiliation."
Not to pile on, but I too have to wonder what gay Republicans have been thinking all these years. Considering the rhetoric coming from the far right - the same far right that Bush pandered to by speaking at Bob Jones University during the first election - is it any surprise that the Log Cabin Republicans are the first agains the wall now that his poll numbers are plummeting?
But I don't want to be flippant - this amendment would be a travesty. Wasn't conservatives' argument against the ERA that the Constitution shouldn't be used for such specific, unilateral purposes? Wasn't the Republican party the party of "States' Rights"? Shouldn't we get the government out of marriage altogether?
(And shouldn't Bush be banned from using the term "activist judge" ever again?)
I was brought up a Democrat, but I was brought up to respect Republicans because they were the party of fiscal responsibility and states' rights. I'm not feeling quite so respectful anymore.
Monday, February 23, 2004
WE LOVE THE SUBS!!!
Finally someone explained it!
They're called spongmonkeys. In the past, they've apparently loved "the moon, marmots, cheese, dirigibles, and several other nouns." And now they love Quizno's subs.
I, for one, am firmly in the "these ads are genius" camp. They never fail to make me laugh uncomfortably, and the images of the subs sell themselves once my eyes are locked on them. If we have to see advertising - and short of killing our televisions, we do- it's refreshing to see a company taking chances on abstract fun rather than the numbing, focus-grouped, "safe" junk most companies regurgitate onto TVs. (And if the spongmonkeys make you regurgitate, I'm sorry. My wife is in this group, but she'll come around).
They're called spongmonkeys. In the past, they've apparently loved "the moon, marmots, cheese, dirigibles, and several other nouns." And now they love Quizno's subs.
I, for one, am firmly in the "these ads are genius" camp. They never fail to make me laugh uncomfortably, and the images of the subs sell themselves once my eyes are locked on them. If we have to see advertising - and short of killing our televisions, we do- it's refreshing to see a company taking chances on abstract fun rather than the numbing, focus-grouped, "safe" junk most companies regurgitate onto TVs. (And if the spongmonkeys make you regurgitate, I'm sorry. My wife is in this group, but she'll come around).
Send your money to Wil Wheaton...for a good cause, that is
Wil Wheaton and - let's give credit where credit is due - especially his wife, Anne, are raising money for leukemia and lymphoma and are halfway to their goal of $25,000. Everyone within the sound of my voice should go here and strongly consider sponsoring them if you can afford it - or at least sending kind thoughts and words to them and their friend Kris.
Wil's got a big heart, as seen both in this kind of work and the rest of his blogging missives. Reading his blog has inspired me many times over. Plus he named his blog after a Pixies song, and the Pixies, as everyone know are the greatest band ever - so if you haven't already checked out WWDN, do so now. Really. You won't regret it.
Wil's got a big heart, as seen both in this kind of work and the rest of his blogging missives. Reading his blog has inspired me many times over. Plus he named his blog after a Pixies song, and the Pixies, as everyone know are the greatest band ever - so if you haven't already checked out WWDN, do so now. Really. You won't regret it.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Movable Type can eat it
Thanks to Atrios, whose fine, fine Eschaton blog informed me about it: We've got trackback now! Now read the entry below, suckers.
There are people - and I freely admit there was a brief time when I was one of them - who root for things to get worse. Ralph Nader is another one. In this article, from early 2001, Nader saw the bright side of Bush's environmental policy, a "bright side" which the president of the League of Conservation Voters described bitterly as the idea that "the fact that we have a series of environmental catastrophes on our hands is good for the environmental community."
So: No, it's not your imagination. Nader, in a very real way, was celebrating environmental disaster for its polarizing quality. Now, apparently, he sees all kinds of benefit from American deaths in Iraq or civil rights abuses at home. How do I know this? Because he's running again. He's running again because he truly does not see a difference between the candidates. The last four years have done nothing to convince him that there is a crucial difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans.
The sad thing is, I agree with him in many ways, just as I did in 2000. The Democrats are tied up with special interests. Our nation does need to break out of this rigid two-party system. We do need spirited liberals working for change like the ones Dean mobilized this year with his "outsider" candidacy.
But Nader and his diehard supporters don't think that's enough. They want to see the earth scorched. Most of them would deny it, of course, but in an earlier post I quoted a Deaniac who was considering supporting Nader: "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something." Anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 is in implicit agreement.
Four more years of Bush means four more years of skyrocketing deficits, four more years of shadowy, destructive energy policies, four more years of No Child Left Behind - and don't forget those two to three retiring Supreme Court justices.
Do Democrats have the magic touch? Absolutely not. But they are our only alternative in 2004. Our only alternative. And let's work towards a different alternative in future elections - but to force our hand, Nader and his supporters would have our children, our environment, our nation rot and fester until the suffering is overwhelming and universal. And that is cynicism bordering on nihilism.
"The arc of the moral universe is long" - and cannot be made shorter. Just as peace cannot be bought with war, the justice Nader claims to be looking for cannot be hastened with injustice.
Update: Tom Tomorrow weighs in on this topic, too, and he nails in one paragraph exactly what I was trying to say:
Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.
So: No, it's not your imagination. Nader, in a very real way, was celebrating environmental disaster for its polarizing quality. Now, apparently, he sees all kinds of benefit from American deaths in Iraq or civil rights abuses at home. How do I know this? Because he's running again. He's running again because he truly does not see a difference between the candidates. The last four years have done nothing to convince him that there is a crucial difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans.
The sad thing is, I agree with him in many ways, just as I did in 2000. The Democrats are tied up with special interests. Our nation does need to break out of this rigid two-party system. We do need spirited liberals working for change like the ones Dean mobilized this year with his "outsider" candidacy.
But Nader and his diehard supporters don't think that's enough. They want to see the earth scorched. Most of them would deny it, of course, but in an earlier post I quoted a Deaniac who was considering supporting Nader: "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something." Anyone who votes for Nader in 2004 is in implicit agreement.
Four more years of Bush means four more years of skyrocketing deficits, four more years of shadowy, destructive energy policies, four more years of No Child Left Behind - and don't forget those two to three retiring Supreme Court justices.
Do Democrats have the magic touch? Absolutely not. But they are our only alternative in 2004. Our only alternative. And let's work towards a different alternative in future elections - but to force our hand, Nader and his supporters would have our children, our environment, our nation rot and fester until the suffering is overwhelming and universal. And that is cynicism bordering on nihilism.
"The arc of the moral universe is long" - and cannot be made shorter. Just as peace cannot be bought with war, the justice Nader claims to be looking for cannot be hastened with injustice.
Update: Tom Tomorrow weighs in on this topic, too, and he nails in one paragraph exactly what I was trying to say:
Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.
