|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, December 26, 2003 |
|
|
|
A Tutorial for Journalists Covering Campaign '04
In Friday's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman provides a tutorial for his fellow journalists who will be covering next year's presidential election. Let's hope at least some of his colleagues take heed. Som excerpts of Krugman's suggestions:"Don't talk about clothes. Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was a momentous event .... So what did some prominent commentators write about? Why, the fact that both men wore blue suits. This was not, alas, unusual. I don't know why some journalists seem so concerned about politicians' clothes as opposed to, say, their policy proposals.
"Actually look at the candidates' policy proposals. One key proposal in the State of the Union address will, we hear, be the creation of new types of tax-exempt savings accounts .... But serious journalists should tell us how the plan would work, who would benefit and who would lose. An early version of the plan was floated almost a year ago, and carefully analyzed in the journal Tax Notes. So there's no excuse for failing to report that the plan would probably reduce, not increase, national savings ..." And there was this welcome plea from Krugman:"Don't fall for political histrionics. I couldn't believe how much ink was spilled after the Gore-Dean event over Joe Lieberman's hurt feelings. Folks, we're talking about war, peace and the future of U.S. democracy — not about who takes whom to the prom." Thank you, Mr. Krugman, for putting the "jilted running-mate" drivel in its proper perspective. The Times columnist provides one final suggestion for reporters and then adds a postscript:It's not about you. We learn from The Washington Post that reporters covering Mr. Dean are surprised — and, it's implied, miffed — that 'he never asks a single question about them.' The mind reels.
"I don't really expect my journalistic colleagues to follow these rules. No doubt I myself, in moments of weakness, will break one or more of them. But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 24, 2003 |
|
|
|
Lives Will Be Saved ... Bush's EPA Is Disappointed
When the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules last December to weaken Clean Air Act regulations on older coal-burning power plants, more than a dozen states and cities joined with environmental groups to fight the Bush proposal. On Christmas Eve, the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit gave the nation's lungs a welcome present by blocking the administration's rule changes from taking effect.
The appeals court agreed with the states and cities that challenged the Bush tweaking of the Clean Air Act. To really get a sense of just how reckless this administration's policies are, read the two seemingly at-odds messages -- only a sentence apart -- that the New York Times article attributes to the EPA:The Environmental Protection Agency expressed disappointment with the court's decision but did not say whether it would be appealed. The court order, while only two pages in length, was a strong statement in one of the most contentious environmental and public health battles of the last several years — whether aging coal-fired power plants must install controls as they increase their pollution emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that full enforcement of existing rules on power plant pollution would save 19,000 lives per year. Incredible. In effect, the EPA has voiced "disappointment" with a ruling that keeps current rules in place that the EPA itself admits will save 19,000 lives. Leave it to Bush's EPA to be disappointed by saving lives.
New York State's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, said it best: "Piece by piece, the Bush administration has been undercutting meaningful enforcement of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. court has said it can do so no longer."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 6:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoddy Journalism at The Post
In an article about efforts by new Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to reach out to the U.S., Washington Post reporter DeNeen L. Brown seems to have abandoned any attempt at objectivity by engaging in the worst kind of editorializing. At one point in her article, Brown provides background that contains this shameful and unsupported spin:"(Former Prime Minister Jean) Chretien, who dominated Canadian politics for 10 years, appeared to delight in antagonizing the United States with proposals such as bills to decriminalize marijuana and allow gay couples to marry. In his last days in office, Chretien said he was most proud of his decision not to join the war in Iraq. 'I think it was, for Canada, the best move,' he told reporters." Brown provides no sound evidence for her speculation that Chretien "appeared to delight" in angering the U.S. This is pretty insulting to Canadian officials because it suggests that Chretien, his ministers and his supporters took positions on these issues not out of principle, but, rather, just to get under America's skin. It's really sad that this fanciful conjecture on Brown's part made it past a news and/or copy editor at the Post.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 23, 2003 |
|
|
|
OSHA: Asleep 93% of the Time
When American workers lose their lives while on the job, it's tragic. When thousands of these workers die in incidents in which their employers willfully ignored federal safety standards, it's inexcusable. The New York Times just wrapped up a three-part series that examined these on-the-job deaths, and the newspaper editorialized Tuesday that the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has been derelict in its duty:"Between 1982 and 2002, a total of 2,197 workers were killed on the job because their employers 'willfully' violated safety laws. With full knowledge of their responsibilities, they ignored accepted safety precautions, removed safety devices to speed up production or denied workers protective gear.
Nevertheless, in 93 percent of the 1,242 cases investigated by OSHA — there were multiple deaths in some cases, and state agencies investigated others — the agency declined to seek prosecution. Employers paid fines but only rarely did the government press criminal charges, even with repeat offenders. There were many reasons for this .... But one factor dominates: a cultural resistance by not only the agency but also society as a whole to the idea that workplace deaths can in fact be criminal acts."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WBA Emeritus
Since Segregation Strom is no longer alive, I don't have to struggle through a crisis of faith about which legislator really deserves the title of World's Biggest Asshole. But if not this would really make me consider demoting DeLay.At a time when he was planning his politically risky switch to the Republican Party, Sen. Strom Thurmond wrote in response to a request for financial aid from his mixed-race daughter that he was "pressed for money" and believed she had not yet repaid an earlier "loan," according to papers found in a voluminous archive of Thurmond's Senate years. The July 28, 1964, letter to Essie Mae Washington-Williams suggests that Thurmond, who died in June at 100, was less compliant in making financial payments to his secret offspring than Williams has suggested in a whirlwind of national media interviews over the past few weeks.
Williams, a retired 78-year-old teacher who lives in Los Angeles, publicly declared herself as Thurmond's daughter in an article published on Dec. 14 in The Washington Post, saying the senator supported her financially over the years, particularly in times of dire need. Her mother, who gave birth to her in 1925 at age 16, was a domestic in the Thurmond home and died at a young age. She introduced Williams to Thurmond when the girl was 16 years old and living with an aunt in Coatesville, Pa.
A handful of communications found in Thurmond's archives at Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute suggest his reluctance to provide money, particularly in 1964, the year that Williams's husband, Julius, died of heart problems and left her a widow with four children. From the tone of the reporting, I'm guessing that there's more revelations of fatherly responsibility to come as they go through the papers.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now We're Really Obsolete
Now that science is on the verge of creating sperm cells from somatic cells, it's only a matter of time before women figure out that men are no longer necessary for reproduction (and that women reproducing with sperm created from other women's somatic cells will produce only girls).
In what I cannot regard as mere coincidence, I had a conversation with a beekeeper last night, who mentioned that all the drones (males) had been kicked out of the hive at the beginning of autumn, when the queen had already been impregnated and the drones' one useful function was no longer needed. The drones, who are unable to fend for themselves, promptly died.
Time to find me another planet.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 4:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WBA Update
If you're jonesing for DeLay news, go read Matt Yglesias at Tapped. Hey, at least it's a good appetite suppressant to stop you from eating all those holiday cookies.
posted by
Helena Montana at 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artistic License REVOKED
If I could, I'd revoke Slate writer William Saletan's artistic license and fine him for bad taste and poor judgement.
While I've noticed lately that Slate's coverage of Howard Dean leans very anti-Dean, but yesterday it went a little too far with Saletan's piece "Dean's Jihad." Yes, according to Saletan, Dean is declaring jihad on Americans and Democrats alike-- with his little known terrorist technique of running for president. Saletan refers to Dean as a "suicide bomber" and warns that "Democrats would be well-advised to jump off his truck before he blows it up."
Gimmie a freaking break. If someone has constructive, insightful criticism of Dean, bring it on. But I wouldn't know if Saletan had anything constructive to say because it was lost among the hyperbole. Repeated comparisons of Dean to a homicidal terrorist is both absurd and offensive, particularly when we've just been told that it's likely something is going to happen in the next few weeks.
Someone really needs their head (and their motivations) examined.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 22, 2003 |
|
|
|
Under Cover of Night no More
Remember that old Ralph Reed quote from his bad old days at the Christian Coalition?"I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 11/9/91 Well, in reality, he's always been able to do his political work pretty openly, especially since leaving those pesky c(4) restrictions behind. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on his work in Florida. My point is not to bring up Reed's Religious Right past. In fact, I completely agree with this:He maintains that those who focus on his lightning rod years as the voice and face of the religious right miss the true thread that runs through his political career: grass-roots organizing, the creation of precinct-by-precinct networks that spew out voters on Election Day. My point is purely technical. Don't be distracted by the shiny object (quotes like the one above). Pay attention to the hands.
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just Asking
A week ago, we captured Saddam. Within a day or two, Howard Dean said the capture hadn't made us any safer. Almost immediately, his opponents excoriated him for that statement.
By the weekend, the lead story in the papers was that the Homeland Security Department had raised the terrorism alert level to magenta or puce or something.
Anyone else find this amusing?
posted by
Arnold P. California at 2:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sucks To Be Them
Several weeks ago I noted that the Erie Times-News in Pennsylvania was going to run Ann Coulter's columns for 4 weeks and then let readers decide if they wanted to keep her.
Well, they have made their decision After an overwhelming reader response, conservative syndicated columnist Ann Coulter will become a weekly regular on the Erie Times-News opinion page. Starting Monday, Jan. 12, Coulter's column will appear with that of liberal columnist Molly Ivins, packaged in a concise "from-the-left/from-the-right format." Why Ivins? Because many readers compared Coulter's passionate conservatism to Ivins' equal from-the-gut liberalism.
Often I hear equally from readers on both sides: "You're too far to the left!" or "You're too far to the right!" Coulter gives readers the balance they seek, the balance we strive to provide.
I read Coulter for a variety of reasons (most notably, to indulge in a little intellectual masochism) but "seeking balance" is not one of them.
My condolences to the unfortunate subscribers of the Erie Times-News.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tough Times for Grocery Workers
The holiday season has been a confusing and difficult time for the families of about 75,000 grocery store workers -- mostly in California. For more than two months, these employees have been on strike or have been locked out of their workplaces by a few large grocery-store chains. The chains are trying to force cuts in the employees' health care benefits, and the employers include Safeway-owned Vons, Kroger-owned Ralphs and Albertsons.
Two months is a long time to go without a normal paycheck. A special website has been established to allow people to make donations to these workers and their families.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Nader II: The Sequel Is Equally Annoying
As if Bush-Cheney's hefty war chest and Howard Dean's bout of verbal diarrhea aren't enough for progressives to worry about, there are two other words that should strike fear into anyone who truly wants to dethrone King George II: Ralph Nader.
At a time when the Bush administration is trying to weaken many consumer protections, you'd think Nader would be an incredibly busy man. But the (former?) consumer activist again has his eyes on a presidential campaign.
Indeed, Nader has authorized an exploratory committee to consider another run in 2004. This is the man, mind you, who repeatedly told Americans in 2000 that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush. This assessment seemed outlandish in the fall of 2000, and time has only proven it to be more so—differences on tax cuts, the Iraq war, the environment and so on abound. But I digress.
In an interview with ABC's Sam Donaldson in October 2000, Nader seemed incredibly lackadaisical when he addressed the issue of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Specifically, the issue came up when Nader was asked about an ad by the pro-choice group NARAL that raised concern that Nader votes might throw the race to Bush and that such an outcome could eventually overturn Roe v. Wade."Justice Souter, Justice O'Connor, they could've overturned Roe v. Wade three times in the last ten years," Nader told Donaldson. "They didn't do it. This is a scare tactic that's going on here. When George W. Bush was asked by Tim Russert, is he going to push to reverse Roe v. Wade, George Bush said, well, not unless a lot of people in this country change their mind." We have Bush's word on it. Gee, Ralph, that's awfully reassuring. No doubt, the women of America are sleeping soundly. Never mind all of those anti-abortion, extreme right judges that Bush has nominated. Anyway, Nader continued:"Even if Roe v. Wade is reversed, that doesn't end it; it just reverts it back to the states." It "just" reverts back to the states? That may be no big deal to Nader, but it could mean a dramatic—make that traumatic—change in the lives and futures of many women.
Incidentally, lest we forget, this is also the interview in which Nader reiterated that he'd have voted for the articles of impeachment against President Clinton.
Of course, whatever you think of Nader, it wasn't hard to understand how Nader appealed to progressive voters who never warmed up to an establishment Democrat like Al Gore. But with Howard Dean, the consummate outsider, now leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, is Nader's presence really needed next year to "shake things up"?
One final note. Nader has long said that he detests the conventional Washington ways of politicking -- big money, deal-brokering and the disingenuous exercises that candidates go through. So what's with Nader's exploratory committee?
Usually, these are established by a candidate for two reasons -- 1) to secure the interest of financial donors, and 2) to examine the prospect for electoral victory. Theresa Amato, a Nader spokesperson, told the Associated Press that the goal is "seeing what level of support there is." But what does that mean? Public support or simply support among a relative handful of Green Party activists?
No one, not even Green activists, believes Nader could actually win the presidency in '04, much less even carry a single state. Nader has probably already made up his mind as to whether he's going to run for president in '04. If so, why go through the political gamesmanship of an "exploratory committee"?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jane Chastain Makes a Bold Statement
And that statement is: "I'm wearing fur again."
Chastain dedicated an entire column to defending her decision and, in doing so, made the following argument (which I hope is just her feeble attempt at making a joke) If we don't use cows for hamburger and we don't use their milk, what do we do with all the cows?
Can't you see all those emancipated cows roaming around, wandering in and out of our yards, leaving their droppings on our sidewalks and playgrounds and tying up traffic on our streets? That is utterly ridiculous!
But seeing as all of her other arguments are just as ridiculous, I suspect that she is being serious - just as she is being serious when she argues You never hear them [animal rights activists] moaning about all the smaller animals that are torn to shreds and eaten by foxes, but we humans are immoral for killing foxes, even if it is done more humanely.
But if foxes were killing other animals, not for food, but just so that they would have a nice coat to wear to a dinner party, I suspect that humans would find that sort of behavior pretty ridiculous.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking Beneath the Blue and Red States
As Election 2000 dragged on and the drama over Florida moved into the courts, one of the unshakeable images from those weeks of controversy was that map -- the BLUE states won by Gore that essentially formed an upside-down "U" that included most of the East and West Coasts, and the RED states that Bush carried, which covered the vast heartland or what some coastal elites refer to as the "fly-over" states.
On the website of CommonWealth magazine, Robert David Sullivan contends that this bi-color map reflects "a lot of simplistic political analysis" and fails to address the micro-ideologies that exist in different regions of America. He writes:"... this primary-color collage resonates only because it turns up the contrast. Given that more than 40 percent of voters in the blue states backed Bush and more than 40 percent of voters in the red states backed Gore, doesn't the red vs. blue model seem, well, a bit black-and-white?" CommonWealth developed an electoral map of its own that is very interesting; it splits the country into 10 regions. This link provides the map, as well as links to each region and an explanation of that region's unique social, demographic, religious or other characteristics that help define its electoral leanings.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crapping on the Constitution
Thanks to atrios, the American Family Association's poll on gay marriage has been skewered and subverted by pro-gay marriage on-line activism-- 56% favor it. I hope that people are half as responsive and organized on this issue when it really counts. I am curious as to whether on-line organizing can help defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. Because one way or another, it looks like we're going to need all the help we can get.
A new poll has 55% of people polled last week supporting a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE. I can't even articulate what a devastating blow that would be. It would be as though someone put a giant "UNWELCOME" mat at the door of this country intended only for me and my family and friends. Actually, it's worse than that. It's like using the Constitution as toilet paper.
I was born here. I grew up here. My partner and I plan on raising our kids here. If the FMA is ratified I will move to Canada. I will not raise children in a nation where our family is essentially declared "illegal" in the nation's Constitution. It is ugly, hateful and despicable. The FMA is anti-family and anti-American.
However, I'm certainly not going anywhere without putting up one helluva fight first. Anyone care to join me?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Workers Die
The New York Times has conducted a lengthy investigation into OSAH's failure to prosecute corporations where willful neglect directly resulted in employee deaths Every one of their deaths was a potential crime. Workers decapitated on assembly lines, shredded in machinery, burned beyond recognition, electrocuted, buried alive — all of them killed, investigators concluded, because their employers willfully violated workplace safety laws.
These deaths represent the very worst in the American workplace, acts of intentional wrongdoing or plain indifference that kill about 100 workers each year. They were not accidents. They happened because a boss removed a safety device to speed up production, or because a company ignored explicit safety warnings, or because a worker was denied proper protective gear.
And for years, in news releases and Congressional testimony, senior officials at the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration have described these cases as intolerable outrages, "horror stories" that demanded the agency's strongest response. They have repeatedly pledged to press wherever possible for criminal charges against those responsible.
These promises have not been kept.
Over a span of two decades, from 1982 to 2002, OSHA investigated 1,242 of these horror stories — instances in which the agency itself concluded that workers had died because of their employer's "willful" safety violations. Yet in 93 percent of those cases, OSHA declined to seek prosecution, an eight-month examination of workplace deaths by The New York Times has found.
What is more, having avoided prosecution once, at least 70 employers willfully violated safety laws again, resulting in scores of additional deaths. Even these repeat violators were rarely prosecuted.
[edit]
In fact, OSHA has increasingly helped employers, particularly large corporations, avoid the threat of prosecution altogether. Since 1990, the agency has quietly downgraded 202 fatality cases from "willful" to "unclassified," a vague term favored by defense lawyers in part because it virtually forecloses the possibility of prosecution.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice
Via Atrios we get this Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.
"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday.
"I hope that's not on television," he added.
It was, live, on C-SPAN.
The campaign's traveling press secretary, Jamal Simmons, was with Clark at the time. "If anyone tries to question Wes Clark's character, integrity or his commitment to this country or its security, they're going to be in the biggest fight they've ever had," Simmons said.
F---in' A, Wes!
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 8:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 21, 2003 |
|
|
|
Scorched-Earth Republicans
Charles Babington, the Washington Post's congressional editor, has a good piece in today's Outlook section on the Republicans' strong-arm legislative tactics Nearly half the electorate -- people who chose Democrats to represent them in Congress -- are, to an increasing degree, disenfranchised. Their representatives aren't simply outvoted on the House and Senate floors, they're not even present when key legislation is discussed and refined.
Babington highlights numerous examples where the Republicans have run roughshod over the Democrats and tradition but notes that, in large part, the Democrats have only themselves to blame for being so weak and ineffective.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 4:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|