Corrections
In the interest of fairness, I'd like to note the following correction:
Posted below (sorry, the permalink isn't working), under the title of And The Dingbat Award Goes To, I noted that Mark Emmert, Chancellor of LSU and semi-finalist in the local Newt Gingrich look alike contest, called USC "the Al Gore champion," or words to that effect. Mr. Emmert actually said, "USC is the champion like Al Gore is president."
2Millionth regrets the error, although I stand by my statement below regarding Emmert taking the "I want to look like a chump" approach.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Catching Up
I apologize for light posting today. Much of work was consumed with--work. Imagine that. Seriously, I had to set up a couple of servers that will become the new print servers on the network. Interestingly, the two original servers were also set up by myself. So it's come full circle.
Once finished, we're going to cluster them--that ought to be fun--Microsoft, cluster, Hewlett Packard--makes me think cluster alone doesn't quite describe the chaos of the near future in regards to this project...
But, I didn't want to post about work...
I managed to plow through a pretty long piece over at Ken's site about Social Security, or the lack thereof, for folks his age...to be fair, I'm a little older than Ken--I think--but I come in under the post boomer era as well, so no turkee for me either, supposedly. And, considering I work as a bureaucrat, I wouldn't get Social Security anyway, because this State has its own retirement system, assuming I actually put in my twenty years or so at my present job.
But I thought it was an interesting essay, if only because it manages to capture a degree of Malthusian angst that harkens back to the early industrial era. Of course, back then, there was an elitist component to Malthus' argument, what with all the unclean people breeding and so on, which Ken, to his credit, leaves out of the picture. But the meme is clear: we're doomed. Doomed to waste hours and hours of back-breaking labor on the churlish, ungrateful boomers who will take our tax money and spend it on trips to Bermuda, or the Bahamas. Worse still, if we ever normalized relations with Castro, we might see Clinton-clones daring to cruise on down to Cuba, playing communist shuffleboard and laughing the whole way, while we post boomers grimly set about the daily toil.
A few observations: first, the outlays for Social Security and Medicare are only in "danger" due to the fact that politicians have been spending the Trust Fund money as if it was part of the general fund. To be fair, this is a fine example of what I believe is called bipartisanship government--both major parties have spent with zeal and relish. To cover the fund, they've deposited T-Bills into its coffers--much as Reagan during the 80's set off a moderate growth spell by simply raising the debt ceiling, which is kind of like Visa upgrading you to a platinum card because you've pretty much maxed out the gold card you had.
The Social Security Trust Fund acts a lot like any pension fund, with one exception: it invests SOLELY in US Government securities. The reasoning behind this is twofold. One, it IS a government program, in spite of present Bush's statements to the contrary back during his campaign. Two, by investing in this way, it provides maximum stability, even if returns may suffer. It's a CONSERVATIVE investment strategy, and it's worked quite well over the years--and, yes, I'm aware of the Carter era payroll tax increase. I didn't say it was PERFECT.
Here's another way to look at it: by investing in T Bills, the only thing that could affect the ability of the Social Security Trust Fund to disburse funds would be a default by the United States' Government. And, if that happens, I'd strongly recommend that anyone with survival as a goal stock up on canned goods, ammunition, bottles of water, and barrels of gasoline--along with a means of transport to the desert or wilderness of your choice.
Sure, when the Fund starts cashing in its securities, our taxes will have to go up--for that matter, our taxes will have to go up when China starts doing the same (for those who don't know, Communist China is a major buyer of US debt). But don't blame the Social Security Administration when they cash in--if anything, blame today's politicians who gleefully and greedily lard up the budget with pork while neglecting basic priorities like healthcare and old age pensions.
Aside: Without knowing the particulars, I don't doubt that Al "Lockbox" Gore had his fingers in the Social Security cookie jar as much as any politician. However, to his credit, a good bit of his campaign consisted of promoting just what I noted above, namely, ensure that the Trust Fund has FUNDS, not T-Bills, in the coffers. Actually, to be fair, they probably would have come up with a mechanism that allowed for some degree of return on an investment of some type--let's not take the weird-sounding 'lockbox' promise TOO literally, although I'll bet that it tested better than 'putting the surplus under the mattress.' Gore most likely would have swapped out debt in some manner that would have essentially tied up the forecasted budget surpluses, thus keeping the money out of the grubby fingers of those who claim to be for "small government," which tends to mean small government for 'other people.'
To say that we're facing doom at the hands of a bunch of graybacks is really missing the picture--the problem we face is a LACK of income distribution based on economic policies which have the support of BOTH major parties. Defense Department Lard tops that list--upwards of $140 billion a year for mostly crap we don't need like space-based-missile defense-systems--talk about pie-in-the-sky. Add to that things like insurance companies basically holding jurisdictions hosage (how patriotic), or companies like Halliburton that suck up more dough from the government than a city of welfare queens (and offer overpriced gasoline in return) and you've gotta realize that the negative rhetoric about Social Security is primarily designed to scare some, while causing others to simply give up on the notion of a pension at all, which means that there will be more government money for the fat cats to chow down on--because while Grover Norquist might want to stangle the "baby" of Social Security and Medicare, you can bet that you'd never see a nickel in tax savings should they actually get away with it. No, instead, even more of your money would go to Dick Cheney's personal pension, which I think is somewhere around $40 million and counting. See, Dick needs all the cash he can get, even if his lump-of-coal heart gives out before he can spend it.
Pensions and health care benefits for the elderly actually are a net benefit to the economy (unless you're Dick Cheney): retirees SPEND their money on goods and services, which, in aggregate, help establish an economic base, which helps communities establish a tax base, which provides for services like roads, city water systems, police, fire and EMT personnel, etc. etc. Which, if you ask me, is both a net gain, and the basis around which government serves its citizens.
Besides, with a GDP of roughly 10.5 TRILLION dollars, I think we can all chip in a little to help out the old folks. Helping out the sick and/or the elderly has been a human tradition, oh--since at least the time of Cro-Magnon. But I suppose an argument could be made that agriculture and industry are but failed experiments, and that we should return to a hunter-gather social structure, if only because it will assist in weeding out all those old people that threaten to work us to death before taking away our OWN winter years...
I apologize for light posting today. Much of work was consumed with--work. Imagine that. Seriously, I had to set up a couple of servers that will become the new print servers on the network. Interestingly, the two original servers were also set up by myself. So it's come full circle.
Once finished, we're going to cluster them--that ought to be fun--Microsoft, cluster, Hewlett Packard--makes me think cluster alone doesn't quite describe the chaos of the near future in regards to this project...
But, I didn't want to post about work...
I managed to plow through a pretty long piece over at Ken's site about Social Security, or the lack thereof, for folks his age...to be fair, I'm a little older than Ken--I think--but I come in under the post boomer era as well, so no turkee for me either, supposedly. And, considering I work as a bureaucrat, I wouldn't get Social Security anyway, because this State has its own retirement system, assuming I actually put in my twenty years or so at my present job.
But I thought it was an interesting essay, if only because it manages to capture a degree of Malthusian angst that harkens back to the early industrial era. Of course, back then, there was an elitist component to Malthus' argument, what with all the unclean people breeding and so on, which Ken, to his credit, leaves out of the picture. But the meme is clear: we're doomed. Doomed to waste hours and hours of back-breaking labor on the churlish, ungrateful boomers who will take our tax money and spend it on trips to Bermuda, or the Bahamas. Worse still, if we ever normalized relations with Castro, we might see Clinton-clones daring to cruise on down to Cuba, playing communist shuffleboard and laughing the whole way, while we post boomers grimly set about the daily toil.
A few observations: first, the outlays for Social Security and Medicare are only in "danger" due to the fact that politicians have been spending the Trust Fund money as if it was part of the general fund. To be fair, this is a fine example of what I believe is called bipartisanship government--both major parties have spent with zeal and relish. To cover the fund, they've deposited T-Bills into its coffers--much as Reagan during the 80's set off a moderate growth spell by simply raising the debt ceiling, which is kind of like Visa upgrading you to a platinum card because you've pretty much maxed out the gold card you had.
The Social Security Trust Fund acts a lot like any pension fund, with one exception: it invests SOLELY in US Government securities. The reasoning behind this is twofold. One, it IS a government program, in spite of present Bush's statements to the contrary back during his campaign. Two, by investing in this way, it provides maximum stability, even if returns may suffer. It's a CONSERVATIVE investment strategy, and it's worked quite well over the years--and, yes, I'm aware of the Carter era payroll tax increase. I didn't say it was PERFECT.
Here's another way to look at it: by investing in T Bills, the only thing that could affect the ability of the Social Security Trust Fund to disburse funds would be a default by the United States' Government. And, if that happens, I'd strongly recommend that anyone with survival as a goal stock up on canned goods, ammunition, bottles of water, and barrels of gasoline--along with a means of transport to the desert or wilderness of your choice.
Sure, when the Fund starts cashing in its securities, our taxes will have to go up--for that matter, our taxes will have to go up when China starts doing the same (for those who don't know, Communist China is a major buyer of US debt). But don't blame the Social Security Administration when they cash in--if anything, blame today's politicians who gleefully and greedily lard up the budget with pork while neglecting basic priorities like healthcare and old age pensions.
Aside: Without knowing the particulars, I don't doubt that Al "Lockbox" Gore had his fingers in the Social Security cookie jar as much as any politician. However, to his credit, a good bit of his campaign consisted of promoting just what I noted above, namely, ensure that the Trust Fund has FUNDS, not T-Bills, in the coffers. Actually, to be fair, they probably would have come up with a mechanism that allowed for some degree of return on an investment of some type--let's not take the weird-sounding 'lockbox' promise TOO literally, although I'll bet that it tested better than 'putting the surplus under the mattress.' Gore most likely would have swapped out debt in some manner that would have essentially tied up the forecasted budget surpluses, thus keeping the money out of the grubby fingers of those who claim to be for "small government," which tends to mean small government for 'other people.'
To say that we're facing doom at the hands of a bunch of graybacks is really missing the picture--the problem we face is a LACK of income distribution based on economic policies which have the support of BOTH major parties. Defense Department Lard tops that list--upwards of $140 billion a year for mostly crap we don't need like space-based-missile defense-systems--talk about pie-in-the-sky. Add to that things like insurance companies basically holding jurisdictions hosage (how patriotic), or companies like Halliburton that suck up more dough from the government than a city of welfare queens (and offer overpriced gasoline in return) and you've gotta realize that the negative rhetoric about Social Security is primarily designed to scare some, while causing others to simply give up on the notion of a pension at all, which means that there will be more government money for the fat cats to chow down on--because while Grover Norquist might want to stangle the "baby" of Social Security and Medicare, you can bet that you'd never see a nickel in tax savings should they actually get away with it. No, instead, even more of your money would go to Dick Cheney's personal pension, which I think is somewhere around $40 million and counting. See, Dick needs all the cash he can get, even if his lump-of-coal heart gives out before he can spend it.
Pensions and health care benefits for the elderly actually are a net benefit to the economy (unless you're Dick Cheney): retirees SPEND their money on goods and services, which, in aggregate, help establish an economic base, which helps communities establish a tax base, which provides for services like roads, city water systems, police, fire and EMT personnel, etc. etc. Which, if you ask me, is both a net gain, and the basis around which government serves its citizens.
Besides, with a GDP of roughly 10.5 TRILLION dollars, I think we can all chip in a little to help out the old folks. Helping out the sick and/or the elderly has been a human tradition, oh--since at least the time of Cro-Magnon. But I suppose an argument could be made that agriculture and industry are but failed experiments, and that we should return to a hunter-gather social structure, if only because it will assist in weeding out all those old people that threaten to work us to death before taking away our OWN winter years...
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Straight to Hell
Courtesy of Apostropher.
I scored 141. Somewhere between broil and sizzle. Hmmn.
Try your "luck" here.
Courtesy of Apostropher.
I scored 141. Somewhere between broil and sizzle. Hmmn.
Try your "luck" here.
He Sees Stupid People...and they'll probably vote for Bush
Via Bush Wars, Seattle Post Intelligencer (no pun intended) presents Neal Starkman's point of view:
It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.
It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.
You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.
And therein lies one of the biggest problems facing us. Stupid people are the ones who believe Bush--or, for that matter BushClone Joe Lieberman, who post-debate last Sunday said (thanks to Juan Cole for the quote):
"I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people ... in prison instead of in power."
As Cole ably points out, that is "pure demogoguery." Stupid people eat that shit up, then grin and ask for another plateful. Stupid people cannot distinguish between North Africans (who, like many of us here in the US, are a mix of ethnicities), Arabs, Jews, Turks, Kurds, Iranians, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Khazaks, Azeris, Armenians, Pashtuns--hell, there are more than I can list offhand. Stupid people then don't get the fact that, within broad ethnic divisions, you've got divisions of nationality (i.e., Iraqis are multi-ethnic), divisions of religion (some Arabs are Christian, you morons), divisions of region, family, and so on. Stupid people simply look to the Middle East, see people who may or may not have different skin tone, hair color, or physical features, people who speak a different language, people who may or may not worship the same god/worship the same god in the same way--and decide that they're all terrorists--or at least all the ones that Bush tells us are terrorists. Stupid people have not got even the basics down. For instance, even though we're fighting a damn war in Iraq, who can actually point Iraq out on a map? Same with Afghanistan--I'll bet for either country, the number of people who can point out their relative locations on a map are less than 50 percent. Even fewer could tell you the time difference, and whether Iraq/Afghanistan time is ahead or behind US time (hint: the answer to whether it's ahead or behind will be the same regardless of which time zone in the US you're in).
Stupid people won't have the first clue as to recent history in either Iraq or the Middle East in general. They might vaguely recall a war about ten years ago (i.e., Gulf War I), but ask them about the Ottoman Empire and they'll think you're talking about a furniture store (if they even know THAT). And yet, many of these same stupid people are Christians, at least nominally--how can you profess faith in a religion that you don't have the first clue about?
Which will be my final point in thie paticular--uh--impassioned opinion piece (sounds nicer than "rant," doesn't it): you'd think that a society that at least has a passing interest in Christianity, if not an actual zealot fervor towards the movement, would spend some time learning a little about the region of it's origin. Yet, the most clueless in regards to the Middle East are often the MOST religious, thus proving that you can lead a stupid person to water, indeed, you can dunk that person in the water, but you can get the person to think...
Via Bush Wars, Seattle Post Intelligencer (no pun intended) presents Neal Starkman's point of view:
It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.
It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.
You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.
And therein lies one of the biggest problems facing us. Stupid people are the ones who believe Bush--or, for that matter BushClone Joe Lieberman, who post-debate last Sunday said (thanks to Juan Cole for the quote):
"I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people ... in prison instead of in power."
As Cole ably points out, that is "pure demogoguery." Stupid people eat that shit up, then grin and ask for another plateful. Stupid people cannot distinguish between North Africans (who, like many of us here in the US, are a mix of ethnicities), Arabs, Jews, Turks, Kurds, Iranians, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Khazaks, Azeris, Armenians, Pashtuns--hell, there are more than I can list offhand. Stupid people then don't get the fact that, within broad ethnic divisions, you've got divisions of nationality (i.e., Iraqis are multi-ethnic), divisions of religion (some Arabs are Christian, you morons), divisions of region, family, and so on. Stupid people simply look to the Middle East, see people who may or may not have different skin tone, hair color, or physical features, people who speak a different language, people who may or may not worship the same god/worship the same god in the same way--and decide that they're all terrorists--or at least all the ones that Bush tells us are terrorists. Stupid people have not got even the basics down. For instance, even though we're fighting a damn war in Iraq, who can actually point Iraq out on a map? Same with Afghanistan--I'll bet for either country, the number of people who can point out their relative locations on a map are less than 50 percent. Even fewer could tell you the time difference, and whether Iraq/Afghanistan time is ahead or behind US time (hint: the answer to whether it's ahead or behind will be the same regardless of which time zone in the US you're in).
Stupid people won't have the first clue as to recent history in either Iraq or the Middle East in general. They might vaguely recall a war about ten years ago (i.e., Gulf War I), but ask them about the Ottoman Empire and they'll think you're talking about a furniture store (if they even know THAT). And yet, many of these same stupid people are Christians, at least nominally--how can you profess faith in a religion that you don't have the first clue about?
Which will be my final point in thie paticular--uh--impassioned opinion piece (sounds nicer than "rant," doesn't it): you'd think that a society that at least has a passing interest in Christianity, if not an actual zealot fervor towards the movement, would spend some time learning a little about the region of it's origin. Yet, the most clueless in regards to the Middle East are often the MOST religious, thus proving that you can lead a stupid person to water, indeed, you can dunk that person in the water, but you can get the person to think...
On the Automotive Front
This story from the local paper was merely the worst of at least three wrecks here in Baton Rouge. I had the misfortune of witnessing two lesser wrecks during the day--both on Highland Road. One was at Aster Street, and the other was at Highland at Terrace. The latter apparently required the services of EMT's: traffic was stopped while the ambulance moved into position.
"...speed and weather conditions most likely were factors." That and "chain-reaction crash" always make me a little angry. Don't people have any sense? Bad weather is a red flag when you're on the road--slow down a bit. You don't have to crawl, but at least take conditions into consideration. Likewise, chain-reaction crashes are the result of people following too close. As someone who's driving strategy on the highway (when my car works well enough to use the highway) is to take steps to stay in between the packs of cars--either by slowing down or speeding up when necessary--I can attest that it's not impossible to maintain distance between vehicles under most conditions, emphasis on the word "most." Rush hour is a different story.
Rush hour has become a de facto drivers ed course for most motorists, it seems. If a good bit of your driving time is spent under conditions that really shouldn't exist, then it's all but certain the habits picked up will spill over. And rush hour in most if not all communities these days is characterized by driving conditions that the roads were NOT designed for. It's like playing reverse lotto: a lot of people win, i.e., they reach their destination safely, while a few "losers" wind up either dead, injured, or with a pretty sizeable chunk of change lost in the form of higher insurance or lost work time.
That's what the automobile manufacturers call freedom.
This story from the local paper was merely the worst of at least three wrecks here in Baton Rouge. I had the misfortune of witnessing two lesser wrecks during the day--both on Highland Road. One was at Aster Street, and the other was at Highland at Terrace. The latter apparently required the services of EMT's: traffic was stopped while the ambulance moved into position.
"...speed and weather conditions most likely were factors." That and "chain-reaction crash" always make me a little angry. Don't people have any sense? Bad weather is a red flag when you're on the road--slow down a bit. You don't have to crawl, but at least take conditions into consideration. Likewise, chain-reaction crashes are the result of people following too close. As someone who's driving strategy on the highway (when my car works well enough to use the highway) is to take steps to stay in between the packs of cars--either by slowing down or speeding up when necessary--I can attest that it's not impossible to maintain distance between vehicles under most conditions, emphasis on the word "most." Rush hour is a different story.
Rush hour has become a de facto drivers ed course for most motorists, it seems. If a good bit of your driving time is spent under conditions that really shouldn't exist, then it's all but certain the habits picked up will spill over. And rush hour in most if not all communities these days is characterized by driving conditions that the roads were NOT designed for. It's like playing reverse lotto: a lot of people win, i.e., they reach their destination safely, while a few "losers" wind up either dead, injured, or with a pretty sizeable chunk of change lost in the form of higher insurance or lost work time.
That's what the automobile manufacturers call freedom.
And the Dingbat Award Goes To...
Mark Emmert, Chancellor of LSU. I can't find the link, unfortunately, but twice last night Channel 9 ran a line from an interview he gave with sportscaster Steve Schneider. Emmert said something like "USC is the Al Gore champion, while we won the BCS."
What bullshit.
I've tended to lay off all the football talk for a lot of reasons. Not the least is that, if you want sports, this really isn't the place to look. Plenty of other folks can and will provide a lot of info about sports in general, or LSU sports in particular.
Emmert has a right to be partisan. He is the Chancellor of the University. However, to pull a bullshit quote out of his ass to justify the university's claim to the college football championship is crass, stupid, and, if this does get play around the country, counterproductive to his primary mission--which is to raise both the funding and overall status of the flagship university in the State. Instead, he looks like a two-bit asshole.
After I heard Channel 9 use this for the second time--during Nick Simonette's idiotic editorial (I mean, do we REALLY need to know what HE thinks?), I considered Emmert's quote in light of his position. Sure, he's entitled to think the coach he hired (and remember, THAT'S pretty much Mark Emmert's contribution--I didn't see HIM on the field Sunday night) won the "true" National Championship. And he's entitled to express his point of view. But you'd think that someone who's spent his whole fucking life affiliated with one or another university system would at least pay lip service to the ideals expressed by the collegiate sports' authorities--in other words, celebrate the damn title, but emphasize that the point of college sports is for the fans to be inspired by the teamwork, dedication, and commitment of the athletes--and yeah, I know that's all crap--the REAL point of college athletics is to raise a pile of money for the school--but university officials ought to be able to sound out the nice talk, while at the same time NOT engaging in barely disguised political partisanship over what's in the end a fucking football game. Hey, Emmert--YOU DIDN'T WIN. THE COACHES AND ATHLETES WON THE GODDAMN GAME. Get it?
USC won a goddamn football game too. Emmert could have said, "USC certainly is a good team, even a great team--they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. But our team defeated Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. And, I think our team really is better. But we should remember the higher ideals of competition and sport, etc. etc., ad nauseum." And that would be that.
But, instead, Emmert took the "I want to look like a chump," approach.
That's my rant--and that will likely be my only rant--about college football. To be honest, yeah, I watched the game, and yeah, I was happy to see LSU win. I don't bleed purple and gold, though. Been around too long for that, and I have other shrimp to add to a jambalaya.
Mark Emmert, Chancellor of LSU. I can't find the link, unfortunately, but twice last night Channel 9 ran a line from an interview he gave with sportscaster Steve Schneider. Emmert said something like "USC is the Al Gore champion, while we won the BCS."
What bullshit.
I've tended to lay off all the football talk for a lot of reasons. Not the least is that, if you want sports, this really isn't the place to look. Plenty of other folks can and will provide a lot of info about sports in general, or LSU sports in particular.
Emmert has a right to be partisan. He is the Chancellor of the University. However, to pull a bullshit quote out of his ass to justify the university's claim to the college football championship is crass, stupid, and, if this does get play around the country, counterproductive to his primary mission--which is to raise both the funding and overall status of the flagship university in the State. Instead, he looks like a two-bit asshole.
After I heard Channel 9 use this for the second time--during Nick Simonette's idiotic editorial (I mean, do we REALLY need to know what HE thinks?), I considered Emmert's quote in light of his position. Sure, he's entitled to think the coach he hired (and remember, THAT'S pretty much Mark Emmert's contribution--I didn't see HIM on the field Sunday night) won the "true" National Championship. And he's entitled to express his point of view. But you'd think that someone who's spent his whole fucking life affiliated with one or another university system would at least pay lip service to the ideals expressed by the collegiate sports' authorities--in other words, celebrate the damn title, but emphasize that the point of college sports is for the fans to be inspired by the teamwork, dedication, and commitment of the athletes--and yeah, I know that's all crap--the REAL point of college athletics is to raise a pile of money for the school--but university officials ought to be able to sound out the nice talk, while at the same time NOT engaging in barely disguised political partisanship over what's in the end a fucking football game. Hey, Emmert--YOU DIDN'T WIN. THE COACHES AND ATHLETES WON THE GODDAMN GAME. Get it?
USC won a goddamn football game too. Emmert could have said, "USC certainly is a good team, even a great team--they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. But our team defeated Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. And, I think our team really is better. But we should remember the higher ideals of competition and sport, etc. etc., ad nauseum." And that would be that.
But, instead, Emmert took the "I want to look like a chump," approach.
That's my rant--and that will likely be my only rant--about college football. To be honest, yeah, I watched the game, and yeah, I was happy to see LSU win. I don't bleed purple and gold, though. Been around too long for that, and I have other shrimp to add to a jambalaya.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Other News
Bush Wars has several good links to Iraq news. One story is about how the Bushista "exit" strategy--actually more of a revolving door approach--shows about the same level of piss poor planning that characterized the invasion and aftermath itself. Another reminds us that Iraq is much more complicated than the idiots pushing for invasion realized. My god, don't these folks have ANY sense? And this link to a Robert Fisk article offers some evidence that the British are just as capable of brutality as anyone.
Mark my words: The war in Iraq is a pivotal moment in recent history, and not a good moment. We'll be paying for this one for a LONG, LONG TIME, and not merely in terms of dollars. For instance:
Today in Iraq carries a story from The Oregonian about a soldier on leave from the combat zone. In spite of being relatively well-adjusted, small things are capable of producing intense reactions. I highly recommend reading the article itself.
Some Commentary of My Own
You know, the latest "meme" concerning the Democrats in general and Dean in particular is that they are "angry." As if anger is somehow unjustified. Let's look at the record:
A biased Supreme Court, in one of the most shameless acts of judicial partisanship, fraudulently declared George W. Bush to be President.
Thanks to what can only be described as wanton, willfull ignorance, Bush was essentially asleep at the wheel when the worst act of terrorism in history occurred on his watch.
When the Administration should have been working overtime on eliminating the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, they instead pulled back in a bait-and-switch manuever in order to attack Iraq. Meanwhile, bin Laden successfully escaped to the porous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
At this point, even the head of bin Laden being paraded around on a pike will do little to supress fundamentalist Islamic political movements. Osama is merely a figurehead, no pun intended--but what a figurehead. He got away.
The unprovoked attack on Iraq was the final straw in squandering the sympathy of those around the world who saw the September 11th attacks as what they were: brutal acts of terrorism. Now, the United States is perceived as the bully.
To date, our adventure in Iraq has cost almost US$95 Billion, with another US$65 Billion in the pipeline. Our expenditure has produced the following:
Chaos in Iraq
Chaos in Afghanistan, where, new constitution or not, Karzai is NOT the president--he is mayor of parts of Kabul, and requires massive security anytime he ventures outside the palace. The rest of the country is dominated by warlords and/or drug traffickers--and the resurgent Taliban (so much for women's rights over there).
Increased terrorist activity in countries like Turkey and Indonesia.
Regular "heightened alerts" right here in the United States.
And I haven't even gone into the disaster that is Bush's "domestic agenda." Anyone remember the California energy scandal in 2001? How about Enron's retirement benefits for theiremployees executives only? Then there are the job losses. The cutbacks in environmental regulation. The slaps in the faces of the elderly (the sham Medicare "reform") and Veterans (cutbacks in the VA budget). The "jobless recovery," which means it ain't a recovery at all, but a ridiculous shell-game of on-paper profits in the financial sector.
This isn't even the half of it.
And, we're not supposed to be angry?
We should be livid. In any other industrial country, people would be rioting. The press would be relentlessly hounding the government over the lies, big lies, damn lies, blatant lies, and just plain bullshit that's been coming out of the Administration since DAY FUCKING ONE (recall the ridiculous story about the trashing of the White House? Ari Fleischer should be placed in a public stockade and be subjected to a barrage of rotten fruit and vegetables over that one).
Angry is almost too nice an emotion after watching, in order, Bush, the SCLM, and the various corporate sponsors trash our democracy in furtherance of their own pea-brained, narrow-minded vision of power--which, on a world-wide scale, is doomed to failure. Hell, if we can't even take over Iraq, what makes them think we can assert our influence elsewhere? Especially as we spend down the national treasury to the point where we're going to end up like Argentina, except on a more massive scale.
But the media is bemusedly crowing about how "angry" the Democrats have become.
Let's see what happens to their bemusement if their readership continues to decline, as the alternative media begins to assert itself. Happy New Year, you fat, lazy, sodden, blood-sucking leach of a commercial media. Here's hoping 2004 puts you where you belong: in the slag-heap of history.
Bush Wars has several good links to Iraq news. One story is about how the Bushista "exit" strategy--actually more of a revolving door approach--shows about the same level of piss poor planning that characterized the invasion and aftermath itself. Another reminds us that Iraq is much more complicated than the idiots pushing for invasion realized. My god, don't these folks have ANY sense? And this link to a Robert Fisk article offers some evidence that the British are just as capable of brutality as anyone.
Mark my words: The war in Iraq is a pivotal moment in recent history, and not a good moment. We'll be paying for this one for a LONG, LONG TIME, and not merely in terms of dollars. For instance:
Today in Iraq carries a story from The Oregonian about a soldier on leave from the combat zone. In spite of being relatively well-adjusted, small things are capable of producing intense reactions. I highly recommend reading the article itself.
Some Commentary of My Own
You know, the latest "meme" concerning the Democrats in general and Dean in particular is that they are "angry." As if anger is somehow unjustified. Let's look at the record:
A biased Supreme Court, in one of the most shameless acts of judicial partisanship, fraudulently declared George W. Bush to be President.
Thanks to what can only be described as wanton, willfull ignorance, Bush was essentially asleep at the wheel when the worst act of terrorism in history occurred on his watch.
When the Administration should have been working overtime on eliminating the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, they instead pulled back in a bait-and-switch manuever in order to attack Iraq. Meanwhile, bin Laden successfully escaped to the porous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
At this point, even the head of bin Laden being paraded around on a pike will do little to supress fundamentalist Islamic political movements. Osama is merely a figurehead, no pun intended--but what a figurehead. He got away.
The unprovoked attack on Iraq was the final straw in squandering the sympathy of those around the world who saw the September 11th attacks as what they were: brutal acts of terrorism. Now, the United States is perceived as the bully.
To date, our adventure in Iraq has cost almost US$95 Billion, with another US$65 Billion in the pipeline. Our expenditure has produced the following:
Chaos in Iraq
Chaos in Afghanistan, where, new constitution or not, Karzai is NOT the president--he is mayor of parts of Kabul, and requires massive security anytime he ventures outside the palace. The rest of the country is dominated by warlords and/or drug traffickers--and the resurgent Taliban (so much for women's rights over there).
Increased terrorist activity in countries like Turkey and Indonesia.
Regular "heightened alerts" right here in the United States.
And I haven't even gone into the disaster that is Bush's "domestic agenda." Anyone remember the California energy scandal in 2001? How about Enron's retirement benefits for their
This isn't even the half of it.
And, we're not supposed to be angry?
We should be livid. In any other industrial country, people would be rioting. The press would be relentlessly hounding the government over the lies, big lies, damn lies, blatant lies, and just plain bullshit that's been coming out of the Administration since DAY FUCKING ONE (recall the ridiculous story about the trashing of the White House? Ari Fleischer should be placed in a public stockade and be subjected to a barrage of rotten fruit and vegetables over that one).
Angry is almost too nice an emotion after watching, in order, Bush, the SCLM, and the various corporate sponsors trash our democracy in furtherance of their own pea-brained, narrow-minded vision of power--which, on a world-wide scale, is doomed to failure. Hell, if we can't even take over Iraq, what makes them think we can assert our influence elsewhere? Especially as we spend down the national treasury to the point where we're going to end up like Argentina, except on a more massive scale.
But the media is bemusedly crowing about how "angry" the Democrats have become.
Let's see what happens to their bemusement if their readership continues to decline, as the alternative media begins to assert itself. Happy New Year, you fat, lazy, sodden, blood-sucking leach of a commercial media. Here's hoping 2004 puts you where you belong: in the slag-heap of history.
Meanwhile
Here's how one resident of Baghdad celebrated New Year's. Note: I need to update the link to Riverbend on the right side of this page.
Excerpt:
While many people consider 2003 a 'year', for us it has felt more like a decade. We started the year preparing for war. While the rest of the world was making a list of resolutions, we were making lists of necessary items for the coming battle. We spent the first two and a half months of 2003 taping windows, securing homes, stocking up on food, water and medication, digging wells and wondering if we would make it through the year...
So we sat, the last few hours, thinking about the last few months and making conjectures about the future. In the background you could hear a few explosions, some gunfire, helicopters and planes. I kept thinking something terrible was going to happen and we'd never see the beginning of a new year.
At around 10 pm, they turned on the generator and we gathered around the television to watch the rest of the world celebrate their way into the New Year. The kids fell asleep on the living-room floor, in front of the kerosene heater, before the clock struck 12 and the thuds around us began getting heavier. Immediately after twelve, the sounds of warplanes and explosions got so heavy, we could hardly hear the television. There was nothing on the news, as usual. Al-Iraqiya was showing some lame fading in and out of its motto on a blue background while all hell was breaking loose outside. We found out the next day that a restaurant in A'arassat, a wealthy area in Karrada, had explosives planted in front of it.
What have the first few days of 2004 felt like? Exactly like the last few months of 2003. The last few days have been a series of bombs and explosions. A couple of nights ago they were using cluster bombs to bomb some area. Before the bomb drops, you can hear this horrible screaming sound. We call it 'the elephant' because it sounds like an elephant shrieking in anger. I'm not sure what it is or what its purpose is. Someone said it's supposed to be some sort of warning signal to the troops on the ground to take cover in their tanks before the bomb hits. It's usually followed by a series of horrific explosions and then the earth shudders.
Sounds like a great time, eh?
Here's how one resident of Baghdad celebrated New Year's. Note: I need to update the link to Riverbend on the right side of this page.
Excerpt:
While many people consider 2003 a 'year', for us it has felt more like a decade. We started the year preparing for war. While the rest of the world was making a list of resolutions, we were making lists of necessary items for the coming battle. We spent the first two and a half months of 2003 taping windows, securing homes, stocking up on food, water and medication, digging wells and wondering if we would make it through the year...
So we sat, the last few hours, thinking about the last few months and making conjectures about the future. In the background you could hear a few explosions, some gunfire, helicopters and planes. I kept thinking something terrible was going to happen and we'd never see the beginning of a new year.
At around 10 pm, they turned on the generator and we gathered around the television to watch the rest of the world celebrate their way into the New Year. The kids fell asleep on the living-room floor, in front of the kerosene heater, before the clock struck 12 and the thuds around us began getting heavier. Immediately after twelve, the sounds of warplanes and explosions got so heavy, we could hardly hear the television. There was nothing on the news, as usual. Al-Iraqiya was showing some lame fading in and out of its motto on a blue background while all hell was breaking loose outside. We found out the next day that a restaurant in A'arassat, a wealthy area in Karrada, had explosives planted in front of it.
What have the first few days of 2004 felt like? Exactly like the last few months of 2003. The last few days have been a series of bombs and explosions. A couple of nights ago they were using cluster bombs to bomb some area. Before the bomb drops, you can hear this horrible screaming sound. We call it 'the elephant' because it sounds like an elephant shrieking in anger. I'm not sure what it is or what its purpose is. Someone said it's supposed to be some sort of warning signal to the troops on the ground to take cover in their tanks before the bomb hits. It's usually followed by a series of horrific explosions and then the earth shudders.
Sounds like a great time, eh?
It Was 20 Years Ago Today
Well, actually some 55 years ago that 1984 was published (the story goes that Orwell reversed the last two digits of the year). In honor of this landmark work of popular literature, take a look at some of these:
Atrios (linked to only out of ethical consideration--I can't imagine anyone who comes across my low-numbers site that doesn't check his site out regularly)--links to what admittedly is correctly called an opinion piece by "journalist"/serial stalker Rachel Marsden. Watch for the rest of the pond scum also known as the mainstream media to soak up her slime and make it part of the campaign coverage.
Well, actually some 55 years ago that 1984 was published (the story goes that Orwell reversed the last two digits of the year). In honor of this landmark work of popular literature, take a look at some of these:
Atrios (linked to only out of ethical consideration--I can't imagine anyone who comes across my low-numbers site that doesn't check his site out regularly)--links to what admittedly is correctly called an opinion piece by "journalist"/serial stalker Rachel Marsden. Watch for the rest of the pond scum also known as the mainstream media to soak up her slime and make it part of the campaign coverage.
Free Speech--But Only Where and When We Say
Sorry for the light posting of late. This is a short one as well, but take a look at this, which came from JennieBee's comment at Atrios:
Excerpt:
When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."
The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.
Um--in case anyone's forgotten, I'd like to make reference to The United States' Constitution, Amendment 1. In its entirety, it reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See more of the Constitution, aka, The Supreme Law of the land, here.
I don't think the amendment leaves much "gray area" in the matter of the rights of people to speak and peaceably assemble FREELY. End of story. Any restriction upon this fundamental right is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Don't know about y'all, but I'm sick of seeing my rights being trampled upon on a daily basis. If the authorities so brazenly spit on the First Freakin' Amendment, what else do you think they'll do?
Sorry for the light posting of late. This is a short one as well, but take a look at this, which came from JennieBee's comment at Atrios:
Excerpt:
When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."
The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.
Um--in case anyone's forgotten, I'd like to make reference to The United States' Constitution, Amendment 1. In its entirety, it reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See more of the Constitution, aka, The Supreme Law of the land, here.
I don't think the amendment leaves much "gray area" in the matter of the rights of people to speak and peaceably assemble FREELY. End of story. Any restriction upon this fundamental right is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Don't know about y'all, but I'm sick of seeing my rights being trampled upon on a daily basis. If the authorities so brazenly spit on the First Freakin' Amendment, what else do you think they'll do?
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Democratic Debate
A few quick thoughts: Lieberman didn't surprise me at all. He's given up on Iowa, but dropped in to gratuitously sling mud at Governor Dean. Between the sniping and whining--he always sounds like he's not quite awake--Joe is all but trying to personally throw the race to Bush by default. Fortunately, Joe's campaign is somewhat south of irrevelent these days.
Kerry likewise tried to pile on, but he and Joe seem to be sharing the same sinking boat.
Kucinich, as always, says the right things, and might surprise people because Iowa is a caucus state--but I don't expect much from him down the road. That's too bad, because, again, he emphasized that the Iraq war is what's really hurting the country. Between the absolutely outrageous costs in lives and money--and the zero benefit--the occupation will be remembered in history as a disaster.
Lieberman spent the post-debate spin session droning on about how could anyone say we're not safer with Saddam in custody, etc. etc., ad nauseum, which is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated bullshit. Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States--so how could his capture make us "safer?" But Joe repeats this as an article of faith--while whining about open government.
Some of the people calling in to CSPAN have the right idea--join the Republican Party, Joe.
For those who have CSPAN access, the debate is re-airing, although I'll bet most TV's here in Baton Rouge will be tuned in to something different.
A few quick thoughts: Lieberman didn't surprise me at all. He's given up on Iowa, but dropped in to gratuitously sling mud at Governor Dean. Between the sniping and whining--he always sounds like he's not quite awake--Joe is all but trying to personally throw the race to Bush by default. Fortunately, Joe's campaign is somewhat south of irrevelent these days.
Kerry likewise tried to pile on, but he and Joe seem to be sharing the same sinking boat.
Kucinich, as always, says the right things, and might surprise people because Iowa is a caucus state--but I don't expect much from him down the road. That's too bad, because, again, he emphasized that the Iraq war is what's really hurting the country. Between the absolutely outrageous costs in lives and money--and the zero benefit--the occupation will be remembered in history as a disaster.
Lieberman spent the post-debate spin session droning on about how could anyone say we're not safer with Saddam in custody, etc. etc., ad nauseum, which is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated bullshit. Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States--so how could his capture make us "safer?" But Joe repeats this as an article of faith--while whining about open government.
Some of the people calling in to CSPAN have the right idea--join the Republican Party, Joe.
For those who have CSPAN access, the debate is re-airing, although I'll bet most TV's here in Baton Rouge will be tuned in to something different.
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Oh Yeah, We're in a War There Too
So, why can't the press focus on the "good news" coming out of Afghanistan? Uh--perhaps because they're mostly ignoring the country in general. Well, at least they are here in the US.
But, for those enquiring minds, Kop's Blog came across this article via NorBizness from the New Zealand Herald:
Excerpts: So the southern, Pashtun-speaking provinces that were once the Taleban's heartland are falling back into the hands of the resurgent fundamentalists.
Most of Zabul and Oruzgan provinces and half of the Kandahar region are once again Taleban-controlled by night, and US troops and those of the International Security Assistance Force have come under fire more often in the past three months than in all of the previous 15.
More than two dozen American and ISAF troops have been killed this year, a proportional loss rate worse than Iraq because of the far smaller number of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
US officials claim to be inflicting vastly greater casualties on their opponents - more than 400 Taleban fighters killed in September - but the fact that most of these casualties are caused by American airstrikes or by local militias leaves much room for doubt.
The militias have a habit of furthering their private interests by labelling their opponents Taleban, and the airstrikes are often inaccurate because the intelligence is so bad...
Senior UN officials have publicly doubted whether the elections scheduled for June will happen at all.
"There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," warns Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime...
Three predictions:
* No internationally recognised free elections will take place in Afghanistan next year (but some sort of charade may be arranged).
* US forces will pull out within three years.
* The Taleban will be back in power within five.
Under these circumstances, I suppose we COULD maybe focus on so-called "good news:" anyone wishing to invest in rubble and gravel futures should have plenty of opportunity, although there could be some snags both getting in country and moving the rubble and gravel out...
So, why can't the press focus on the "good news" coming out of Afghanistan? Uh--perhaps because they're mostly ignoring the country in general. Well, at least they are here in the US.
But, for those enquiring minds, Kop's Blog came across this article via NorBizness from the New Zealand Herald:
Excerpts: So the southern, Pashtun-speaking provinces that were once the Taleban's heartland are falling back into the hands of the resurgent fundamentalists.
Most of Zabul and Oruzgan provinces and half of the Kandahar region are once again Taleban-controlled by night, and US troops and those of the International Security Assistance Force have come under fire more often in the past three months than in all of the previous 15.
More than two dozen American and ISAF troops have been killed this year, a proportional loss rate worse than Iraq because of the far smaller number of foreign troops in Afghanistan.
US officials claim to be inflicting vastly greater casualties on their opponents - more than 400 Taleban fighters killed in September - but the fact that most of these casualties are caused by American airstrikes or by local militias leaves much room for doubt.
The militias have a habit of furthering their private interests by labelling their opponents Taleban, and the airstrikes are often inaccurate because the intelligence is so bad...
Senior UN officials have publicly doubted whether the elections scheduled for June will happen at all.
"There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," warns Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime...
Three predictions:
* No internationally recognised free elections will take place in Afghanistan next year (but some sort of charade may be arranged).
* US forces will pull out within three years.
* The Taleban will be back in power within five.
Under these circumstances, I suppose we COULD maybe focus on so-called "good news:" anyone wishing to invest in rubble and gravel futures should have plenty of opportunity, although there could be some snags both getting in country and moving the rubble and gravel out...
Cuppa Joe Loserman
I've seen this teaser several times now:
Coming Up Sunday, Jan. 4
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., on why Howard Dean must not be the Democratic nominee for president.
Great...nothing like fighting within the ranks.
Dean, to his credit, has said that any of the candidates could defeat Bush in 2004--maybe that isn't true to the letter, but it's a good sentiment to have--especially considering that Rove will go negative early and often. But the other side of the coin is tired old snots like Joe droning on about the Vermont governor somehow being "unelectable." Josh Marshall, to his discredit, has likewise been piling on of late.
The rules seem to be: if it's the DLC attacking Howard Dean, then it's ok. If Dean, on the other hand, outlines a strategy that isn't Republican Lite, then he's attacking the core values of the party. Hmmn.
If the DLC wants to whine a little bit, fine. Their candidate of choice, the aforementioned Cuppa Joe, has been abysmal on the campaign trail. In fact, calling him Cuppa Joe is an insult to a good strong cup of coffee. Joe L. is more of a bottled decaf frappucino (or however StarChucks spells it)--watery, weak, tasteless, and ineffective. So I can see why his supporters are a little upset. But that doesn't mean they should burn the house down.
I'd like to think, regardless of who becomes the nominee--and right now, it would take a sea change of hurricane force to knock Dean out of the catbird seat--that the Democrats would unite in defeating George W. Bush. But the DLCers seem to be hedging their bets.
DLCers--HELLO!!! If you recall, your Prez., Bill Clinton, played this game for most of his eight years in the Big House. His reward was an impeachment trial, that, fifty years from now, will be a case study in hypocrisy. Clinton played ball with the neo-cons, and they, in return, publicized the most ludicrous charges against himself and Hillary (Vince Foster, anyone?).
The fact is that the neo-con movement will chew up and spit out ANY Democrat who plays by their rules. They aren't interested in compromise, because they know their agenda is extreme. So it's time the opposition did JUST THAT--oppose. It's not like we don't have issues. On the contrary, WE'VE GOT the issues that the general public considers important. It's simply a question of maing sure the lower life form also known as the mainstream media is forced into covering these issues, as opposed to getting lost in the artificial fog that Rove will be spending untold millions of dollars generating. And, with new media becoming gaining in importance daily, this is a real possibility. And, no, I'm not including myself in the new media--at best I'm sort of the equivalent of a vanity candidate. But there are plenty of folks doing solid work. And they can definitely keep the pressure on the idiot journalists which pass for the free press.
I've seen this teaser several times now:
Coming Up Sunday, Jan. 4
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., on why Howard Dean must not be the Democratic nominee for president.
Great...nothing like fighting within the ranks.
Dean, to his credit, has said that any of the candidates could defeat Bush in 2004--maybe that isn't true to the letter, but it's a good sentiment to have--especially considering that Rove will go negative early and often. But the other side of the coin is tired old snots like Joe droning on about the Vermont governor somehow being "unelectable." Josh Marshall, to his discredit, has likewise been piling on of late.
The rules seem to be: if it's the DLC attacking Howard Dean, then it's ok. If Dean, on the other hand, outlines a strategy that isn't Republican Lite, then he's attacking the core values of the party. Hmmn.
If the DLC wants to whine a little bit, fine. Their candidate of choice, the aforementioned Cuppa Joe, has been abysmal on the campaign trail. In fact, calling him Cuppa Joe is an insult to a good strong cup of coffee. Joe L. is more of a bottled decaf frappucino (or however StarChucks spells it)--watery, weak, tasteless, and ineffective. So I can see why his supporters are a little upset. But that doesn't mean they should burn the house down.
I'd like to think, regardless of who becomes the nominee--and right now, it would take a sea change of hurricane force to knock Dean out of the catbird seat--that the Democrats would unite in defeating George W. Bush. But the DLCers seem to be hedging their bets.
DLCers--HELLO!!! If you recall, your Prez., Bill Clinton, played this game for most of his eight years in the Big House. His reward was an impeachment trial, that, fifty years from now, will be a case study in hypocrisy. Clinton played ball with the neo-cons, and they, in return, publicized the most ludicrous charges against himself and Hillary (Vince Foster, anyone?).
The fact is that the neo-con movement will chew up and spit out ANY Democrat who plays by their rules. They aren't interested in compromise, because they know their agenda is extreme. So it's time the opposition did JUST THAT--oppose. It's not like we don't have issues. On the contrary, WE'VE GOT the issues that the general public considers important. It's simply a question of maing sure the lower life form also known as the mainstream media is forced into covering these issues, as opposed to getting lost in the artificial fog that Rove will be spending untold millions of dollars generating. And, with new media becoming gaining in importance daily, this is a real possibility. And, no, I'm not including myself in the new media--at best I'm sort of the equivalent of a vanity candidate. But there are plenty of folks doing solid work. And they can definitely keep the pressure on the idiot journalists which pass for the free press.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Ah, Diplomacy
I forget where I saw this, but recently I came across a citation from Claude Cockburn, father of Andrew, Leslie, Alexander, and Patrick, journalists all.
"Never believe anything until it is officially denied."
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. military commander defended coalition troops Friday against allegations they defiled the Koran during a raid on a Sunni Muslim mosque in Baghdad...
Mosque leaders invited a CNN crew into the mosque Friday to show what they said American soldiers had done, including a damaged copy of the Koran, a gift to the mosque from former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
"They tore up the book of God," one mosque leader said. "God will tear them up. They trampled the book of God with their feet. They had the pretext of weapons, but they have found no weapons but found the Koran and tore up the Koran."
[Brig. Gen. Mark] Kimmitt said the Army investigated the allegations and found them unfounded.
To be honest, it doesn't matter at this point whether or not the allegations are true. Those who wish to believe them will believe. And it is Iraqis who believe. Iraqis who we desperately need the support of in order to make the occupation work. In other words, this is yet another sign that the ship isn't merely sinking, but has grounded itself pretty badly on a reef.
Meanwhile, even Willie Nelson has had enough--he's got a new song about to come out that condemns the war,
and he's doing fundraisers for Dennis Kucinich. While I doubt the Ohio Congressman will actually get the nomination, this New York Times profile makes it clear that, with the money he's raised, and his frugal ways, Dennis will not flare out right away. Good for him. One day it will be evident that he's been saying the right things all along. He and Al Sharpton are the ONLY candidates who've been outspoken against the war from the beginning.
And, slightly off topic, but the blogosphere has been weighing in on the latest regarding the Valerie Plame scandal: looks like the latest attempt at spin will be "but-is-it-really-wrong-if-we-didn't-EXACTLY-know-how-wrong-it-was?" That will be shopped around the punditsphere for true believers to latch on to--as David Brooks did today on The News Hour. If you happen to make it to their website, don't forget to check this out. Guilty or not, it's pretty shocking:
MARTIN ADLER: This man was found loitering near what was believed to be the mortar launch site.
SOLDIER: Look down! Get down! Sit down! (Speaking Arabic ) ( indistinct conversation )
SOLDIER: Get down! Get down! (Indistinct conversation)
MARTIN ADLER: First Sergeant Mikel can speak Arabic. He can cross the language divide that hampers so many of the missions in Iraq. (Speaking Arabic)
SOLDIER (Translated): Give them your hands!
DETAINEE (Translated): I swear I had nothing to do with it!
SOLDIER (Translated): Give them your hands! If you don't, I swear I will shoot you!
SOLDIER (Translated): I'll take you over there and shoot you in the head!
SOLDIER (Translated): Do you understand me?
MARTIN ADLER: The suspect, bound and hooded, was left in a waste ground for hours before being taken away into detention.
Oh, and one other item that I saw at TalkLeft. Short version: Las Vegas should adopt a new tourism slogan: Las Vegas--What Happens Here, Stays Here--Well, at least until the FBI decides to request the records...
I forget where I saw this, but recently I came across a citation from Claude Cockburn, father of Andrew, Leslie, Alexander, and Patrick, journalists all.
"Never believe anything until it is officially denied."
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. military commander defended coalition troops Friday against allegations they defiled the Koran during a raid on a Sunni Muslim mosque in Baghdad...
Mosque leaders invited a CNN crew into the mosque Friday to show what they said American soldiers had done, including a damaged copy of the Koran, a gift to the mosque from former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
"They tore up the book of God," one mosque leader said. "God will tear them up. They trampled the book of God with their feet. They had the pretext of weapons, but they have found no weapons but found the Koran and tore up the Koran."
[Brig. Gen. Mark] Kimmitt said the Army investigated the allegations and found them unfounded.
To be honest, it doesn't matter at this point whether or not the allegations are true. Those who wish to believe them will believe. And it is Iraqis who believe. Iraqis who we desperately need the support of in order to make the occupation work. In other words, this is yet another sign that the ship isn't merely sinking, but has grounded itself pretty badly on a reef.
Meanwhile, even Willie Nelson has had enough--he's got a new song about to come out that condemns the war,
and he's doing fundraisers for Dennis Kucinich. While I doubt the Ohio Congressman will actually get the nomination, this New York Times profile makes it clear that, with the money he's raised, and his frugal ways, Dennis will not flare out right away. Good for him. One day it will be evident that he's been saying the right things all along. He and Al Sharpton are the ONLY candidates who've been outspoken against the war from the beginning.
And, slightly off topic, but the blogosphere has been weighing in on the latest regarding the Valerie Plame scandal: looks like the latest attempt at spin will be "but-is-it-really-wrong-if-we-didn't-EXACTLY-know-how-wrong-it-was?" That will be shopped around the punditsphere for true believers to latch on to--as David Brooks did today on The News Hour. If you happen to make it to their website, don't forget to check this out. Guilty or not, it's pretty shocking:
MARTIN ADLER: This man was found loitering near what was believed to be the mortar launch site.
SOLDIER: Look down! Get down! Sit down! (Speaking Arabic ) ( indistinct conversation )
SOLDIER: Get down! Get down! (Indistinct conversation)
MARTIN ADLER: First Sergeant Mikel can speak Arabic. He can cross the language divide that hampers so many of the missions in Iraq. (Speaking Arabic)
SOLDIER (Translated): Give them your hands!
DETAINEE (Translated): I swear I had nothing to do with it!
SOLDIER (Translated): Give them your hands! If you don't, I swear I will shoot you!
SOLDIER (Translated): I'll take you over there and shoot you in the head!
SOLDIER (Translated): Do you understand me?
MARTIN ADLER: The suspect, bound and hooded, was left in a waste ground for hours before being taken away into detention.
Oh, and one other item that I saw at TalkLeft. Short version: Las Vegas should adopt a new tourism slogan: Las Vegas--What Happens Here, Stays Here--Well, at least until the FBI decides to request the records...
Thursday, January 01, 2004
January 1st
In no particular order, I celebrated New Year's Day by reading away my hangover with the following:
Alexander Cockburn looking back at 2003 and forward to 2004.
Robert Fiskhas two articles about the occupation in Iraq. Both are worth looking at.
Fanatical Apathy once again makes me laugh out loud with posts on a "Democratic Debate" and Mad Cow disease.
Via TalkLeft and Steve Perry (actually Mark Gisleson writing at Perry's site), I found A Tale of Two Cities by Christopher Lydon.
This one hits close to home: Mary Landrieu (and Steve Vitter, of all people) are fighting against the practice of dumping foreign shrimp in the US market. Admission: I consider shrimp the food of the gods, and have guiltily consumed what must have been imported shrimp in the past, although lately I've been careful to read the label before making a purchase. That said, I still buy from the market, and not from roadside vendors--my mom got ripped off pretty badly once, and I'd like to think I learned from her lesson.
Also via TalkLeft: Dubya spent New Year's Day shootin' quail (or was it Quayle)? Either way, he took the time to chow down on some unspecified form and quantity of beef--for lunch--I don't know if "It's What's for Dinner" tonight at the Crawford ranch. Bush might be one of the few people who has nothing to worry about from Creutzfeldt-Jakobs disease. Hell, in his case, it might be an improvement.
And--to conclude for now--I began last evening with a book: Nickel and Dimed to Death, by Barbara Ehrenreich. Meant to start with just the opening chapter, but two hours later I still couldn't put it down. Finally did so just after ten o'clock, having pored over slightly more than half the volume. My fondest wish would be to see Barbara Ehrenreich and Molly Ivins as president and vice-president--I'll let them decide which would be which. Now that I've got a few extra nickels, Ehrenreich will be at the top of my reading list. She has one of the best writing styles I've ever had the pleasure to read.
Finally, I came across this via google news: a New York Times article saying that a declassified British document alleges that Nixon was ready to seize Middle East oil fields by force in 1973, during the embargo. Nixon had what he called "the madman theory" to end the Vietnam War. Sounds like he had a madman theory for the Middle East too.
Here's to an interesting 2004. I hope Blogger doesn't eat this one, but I've already copied it--in case the evil "internal server error" arises again.
In no particular order, I celebrated New Year's Day by reading away my hangover with the following:
Alexander Cockburn looking back at 2003 and forward to 2004.
Robert Fiskhas two articles about the occupation in Iraq. Both are worth looking at.
Fanatical Apathy once again makes me laugh out loud with posts on a "Democratic Debate" and Mad Cow disease.
Via TalkLeft and Steve Perry (actually Mark Gisleson writing at Perry's site), I found A Tale of Two Cities by Christopher Lydon.
This one hits close to home: Mary Landrieu (and Steve Vitter, of all people) are fighting against the practice of dumping foreign shrimp in the US market. Admission: I consider shrimp the food of the gods, and have guiltily consumed what must have been imported shrimp in the past, although lately I've been careful to read the label before making a purchase. That said, I still buy from the market, and not from roadside vendors--my mom got ripped off pretty badly once, and I'd like to think I learned from her lesson.
Also via TalkLeft: Dubya spent New Year's Day shootin' quail (or was it Quayle)? Either way, he took the time to chow down on some unspecified form and quantity of beef--for lunch--I don't know if "It's What's for Dinner" tonight at the Crawford ranch. Bush might be one of the few people who has nothing to worry about from Creutzfeldt-Jakobs disease. Hell, in his case, it might be an improvement.
And--to conclude for now--I began last evening with a book: Nickel and Dimed to Death, by Barbara Ehrenreich. Meant to start with just the opening chapter, but two hours later I still couldn't put it down. Finally did so just after ten o'clock, having pored over slightly more than half the volume. My fondest wish would be to see Barbara Ehrenreich and Molly Ivins as president and vice-president--I'll let them decide which would be which. Now that I've got a few extra nickels, Ehrenreich will be at the top of my reading list. She has one of the best writing styles I've ever had the pleasure to read.
Finally, I came across this via google news: a New York Times article saying that a declassified British document alleges that Nixon was ready to seize Middle East oil fields by force in 1973, during the embargo. Nixon had what he called "the madman theory" to end the Vietnam War. Sounds like he had a madman theory for the Middle East too.
Here's to an interesting 2004. I hope Blogger doesn't eat this one, but I've already copied it--in case the evil "internal server error" arises again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)