|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, July 03, 2004 |
|
|
|
Queer Eye for the ... School District?
Go into nearly any major city in America and you're likely to see several public schools that were constructed between the 1890's and the 1930's. Typically, these are ornate, smart-looking, stately buildings that helped express the lofty ideals that education imbued in society.
Unfortunately, since the 1970's, in every school district but the wealthiest, financial frugality has produced schools with drab exteriors -- schools that could easily be mistaken for warehouses were it not for the yellow school-crossing signs nearby.
So what? Skimping on the physical and visual aspects of schools means communities can divert more money to teachers and instructional materials. After all, attractive schools do nothing to raise student achievement. Or do they?
Three researchers from a university in Newt Gingrich's backyard of northern Georgia say this assumption is wrong. They contend that elected officials and school administrators are erring when they dismiss the importance of a school's aesthetic qualities.
In this interesting article, they write that a growing body of studies show a link between aesthetically pleasing schools and student learning:Various studies "have confirmed that elements of a school's interior design are important factors that contribute to the creation of a good learning environment. In addition to promoting student achievement, a beautiful school building serves as a school missionary to spread the educational gospel to the community.
"... Designing for aesthetics does not necessarily demand excessive financial outlay ... Even if it costs a little more initially, the positive results outweigh the additional expense because the caring environment that these aesthetic elements help create contributes to student achievement.
"... It is a pity that aesthetic designs in school planning are often mistaken for cosmetics and are the first to be cut in times of budget constraints." Perhaps the Fab Four's next makeover destination should be a public school building.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hot Damn!
Kerry has raised a whopping $180 million.
Bush, who originally set his own fund-raising goal at $200 million, is now up to $220 million largely due to the fact that Kerry has given him a run for his money.
Considering that Bush has set the overall record for fund-raising for a presidential campaign, it will really sting if he LOSES to Kerry-- big time. Bush is clearly a man who is used to being able to use money to help himself out of a jam. Wouldn't it be nice if he learned a new lesson? The richer they are, the harder they fall.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, July 02, 2004 |
|
|
|
Introducing the Psycho-Platform
Name the political entity that has embraced the following positions:War on terrorism: Supports the "reasonable use of profiling" (note: this term is never defined.) and "opposes any mechanism to appoint members of Congress if large numbers of vacancies occur"
Wages and the economy: "... the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed ... wages should be determined by the free market conditions ..."
Education: Lists "penmanship" among reading, mathematics and other "basic" subjects that public schools should emphasize, and supports "the termination of bilingual education programs ..." Wants to add a high school graduation requirement for students to engage in "an in-depth study of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Washington's Farewell Address all in their unedited form." (Note: If you're aware of any insidious person who has edited the Constitution, please let me know.)
Federal role in schooling: "We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education ..."
Energy: Supports drilling and production in the Alaska National Wilderness area, as well as "offshore California, and the East Coast, while minimizing environmental impact." (Note: Interestingly, regions cited as ideal for increased exploration do not include Florida, whose governor -- the president's brother -- opposes federal leases for drilling off Florida's Gulf coast.)
Retirement security: "[S]upports an orderly transition" to private retirement accounts and "gradually phasing out the Social Security tax" -- in other words, phasing out Social Security.
Disability rights: "[S]upports (an) amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude" many people from its legal safeguards, including people with learning disabilities, HIV, "behavioral disorders" or "mental stress." These exclusions would immediately deprive at least 7.5 million Americans of their legal rights under ADA.
Affirmative action: Opposes it, instead calling for "a single standard for college admission for all students based on merit and ability ..." and stating that they deplore "all forms of preferences" based on race, national origin, etc.
The environment: "[G]overnment ownership of land [is] the cornerstone of socialism ... We oppose the Endangered Species Act." Highway speed limits should be regulated only for purposes of safety and should not be "based on environmental standards of any kind."
International affairs: This organization "commends [the Bush administration] and the U.S. Armed Forces in their strategy and execution of the War in Iraq. "... we (should) immediately rescind our membership in ... the United Nations."
Religion: "affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation ..."
Abortion: "We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade" and support a law to hold abortion clinics to "the same health and safety ... regulations and inspections as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same risks of malpractice."
Governmental functions: Urges that "all (Congressional) bills ... include citations to the constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to act on the matter," the bill's potential cost, and its "impact on the family." They also support laws that would "automatically terminate all (state and federal) agencies or programs if they are not re-enacted by the [appropriate legislative body] every ten years," as well as banning the use of taxpayer funds for purposes such as "high-speed rail" and "space exploration."
Homosexuality: "... the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, (and) contributes to the breakdown of the family unit ... (and our group) opposes the legalization of sodomy ..." Also opposes "custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner benefits or retirement benefits."
Law enforcement: Supports the "elimination of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ..."
Electoral democracy: "[W]e support ... repeal of all Motor Voter laws," believe all voters should be required to re-register "every four years" and favor "repeal of the 'Help America Vote Act' (enacted by Congress in ’03).
The Census: "[O]pposes any attempt by the United States Census Bureau to obtain any information beyond the number of people residing in the dwelling at the time of the census ..."
Presidential authority: "[D]emands the elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders ... and other administrative mandates that do not have Congressional approval."
Campaign finance: Urges "the immediate repeal of the McCain-Feingold Act ..."
Taxes: Calls for the repeal of a state business tax, "is in favor of abolishing (state) property taxes," and "supports a reduction of the state sales tax rate ..." Have you guessed it? The answer: The Republican Party of Texas, which recently approved this platform.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Economic 'Glass'
The government's newest jobs report finds that the U.S. economy created 112,000 jobs in June -- less than half of the average monthly gain so far this year and well below forecasts. The unemployment rate remained at 5.6%. Is the glass half empty?The New York Times: "Perhaps most worrisome, average wages for production workers -- about 80 percent of the workforce -- grew more slowly in June than they had at any previous point this year and have increased considerably less than inflation has over the last year."
Economic Policy Institute: "... although the economy has created over a million new jobs in the last four months, it still has not delivered the punch needed to lower the unemployment rate. In fact, today's unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is as high as in November 2001, when the recovery began. Moreover, under-employment, such as involuntary part-time work and discouraged workers, is more prevalent."
U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.): "Weak job growth reflects a tale of two economies here in America. Corporate profits are up; the GDP is up; but for middle class Americans there is an economic squeeze." Or is the economic 'glass' half full?White House fact sheet: "The economy has posted steady job gains for each of the last ten months -- creating more than 1.5 million jobs since August. ... At 5.6%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s."
Ian C. Shepherdson, chief economist for High Frequency Economics: "This looks bad, but there are no grounds for thinking it marks a reversal of the improving trend in the labor market."
Tim Kane, research fellow at the Heritage Foundation: "Since January 2001, American incomes have risen by 7.5 percent, wages have risen by 2.4 percent, and the government projects 21 million good job opportunities over the 2002-2012 decade. The charge that low-quality service jobs -- often dubbed "McJobs" -- are proliferating is inaccurate." Who's right? I suspect, to borrow a cliche, that is all depends on how you slice it. For example, when Kane writes that U.S. incomes have jumped by 7.5% since Bush took office, he is quoting average incomes -- i.e., that $1.2 million bonus that a company CEO got last month more than made up for the thousands of workers who have seen wages frozen or who have been forced to take a lower-paying job.
Most financial statistics (household incomes, new home sales, etc.) are skewed by using average figures instead of median figures. And I suspect Kane knows it.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Focus on the Family Is Gonna Love This
I've got to credit the reporter of this article with writing a provocative lede.A Los Angeles appeal court took the unprecedented step Wednesday of ruling that a non-birth mother in a same-sex relationship could claim co-parent status if viewed as a "presumed father" under the state's Uniform Parentage Act. There are several ways to become a father, legally speaking. One is to be married to a woman when she gives birth--the U.S. Supreme Court, in a remarkably sarcastic opinion by Justice Scalia, upheld the California statute against a challenge from a man who had fathered a child by someone else's wife and who was given no legal rights because the mother's husband was automatically deemed to be the father.
Another way, at issue in this case, is to receive a child into your home and hold yourself out publicly as the child's father. I think this originated at common law in the days before DNA testing, or even blood typing, when proving paternity scientifically was impossible. In order to have as few fatherless children as possible, the law basically said that if you had at one time said you were the father, you couldn't later retract the claim when the child or the mother demanded that you do your legal duty to the child.
But now, rather than being used against a man who's denying paternity, this presumption is being used by a woman to claim parental rights and duties over a child that her partner gave birth to, because the child lived in her home and she held herself out as its parent. So the case comes down to whether a "presumed father" in the statute has to be a man, or whether the statute is really talking about the legal status of parenthood (since fathers and mothers at least theoretically have the same rights and obligations in these enlightened times).
Anyway, expect lots of fun from the "but it's not natural" crowd over a bunch of "activist judges" deciding that a woman can be a father.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Genocidal Ideas"
From Human Rights Watch The Rwandan government should reject a parliamentary request to dissolve one of the country’s leading human rights groups unfairly accused by a parliamentary commission of harboring genocidal ideas, Human Rights Watch said today.
After three days of debate, the Rwandan parliament on Wednesday asked the government to dissolve the League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (Ligue Rwandaise pour la promotion et la défense des droits de l'homme, or Liprodhor) and four other civil society organizations because they allegedly supported genocidal ideas. The action was recommended by a parliamentary commission that also called for the arrest of leaders of the organizations.
[edit]
During the parliamentary debate, the commission made sweeping and unproven accusations against Liprodhor and the other organizations, including a rural association for improving agricultural output and an association of widows whose husbands were killed during the 1997-99 uprising in northern Rwanda. The commission interpreted "genocidal ideas," prohibited by law in Rwanda, so broadly as to include even dissent from government plans for consolidating land holdings.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hitch a Ride on the "Assumption Train"
But we're not going to tell you where it is going or where it has been.
From USA Today Interviewed after a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building, [Sen. Pat] Roberts [chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee] said the report generally concludes that intelligence agencies worldwide engineered an "assumption train" that led them to conclude that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Roberts said various Iraqi officials thought other Iraqi officials controlled weapons of mass destruction, and that there was evidence that Iraq was poised to become the "Grand Central Station" of a trade in such weapons.
[edit]
He said the committee found that intelligence agencies did not rely enough on "human intelligence" gathering after 1998. And after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, he said, intelligence agencies were more likely to base conclusions on incomplete information because they were worried about further attack.
[edit]
Roberts said the panel will make its conclusions public, but he didn't know how much supporting information will be included because of ongoing discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency about how much material must remain classified.
For weeks, the committee and the CIA had been in conflict about how much of the material in the reports must remain classified. Robert said initially the CIA removed more than half of the information in the 410-page report.
Roberts said the changes "eviscerated" the report, but he still hopes to see at least 80% of it made public.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Your Instincts
Remember when all the Republicans and their allied hacks was up-in-arms because Democrats were opposing Miguel Estrada's nomination until he turned over documents he wrote when he was assistant solicitor general? They were arguing that doing so would "chill free debate" in the SG's office and be some violation of principle.
Democrats stuck to their guns, repeatedly filibustering Estrada and he eventually withdrew his nomination. Conversely, Democrats had similar suspicions about Jay Bybee but let him pass and now he sits on the 9th Circuit. I dug up this article from Feb 2003 on Bybee's committee hearing But several Democratic senators, including Kennedy and Leahy, the top panel Democrat, are likely to submit written questions to Bybee before they offer him their vote.
Leahy said today he was concerned that Bybee in his current job as an assistant attorney general and constitutional law adviser in the Department of Justice, was part of a troubling "culture of secrecy that has enveloped the Justice Department over the last two years."
Leahy said he was interested in Bybee's position on issues that trouble civil rights activists, including the Justice Department's stance that terrorist suspects be tried in military tribunals; the department's use of local police to make arrests for civil violations of immigration laws; the department not detaining al Qaida suspects under rules of the Geneva Convention; and "who knows how many other controversial policies."
Internal documents now reveal that those "other controversial policies" included advising the White House that torturing prisoners was justified and that laws banning torture were inapplicable.
Note to Democrats: In the future, trust your instincts In scrutinizing his nomination to a powerful appeals court judgeship, Democratic senators pressed Jay S. Bybee to provide any memos that he wrote as a top Justice Department official that helped shape administration policies on the war on terrorism.
Bybee refused, invoking attorney-client privilege, and was able to keep legal memos private through his confirmation proceedings.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Date in American History
John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail from Philadelphia on July 3, 1776:The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epoch, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. Why? It was on July 2 that the Continental Congress voted to dissolve "all political connection" between the American colonies and Great Britain. The adoption of Jefferson's text two days later was, formally speaking, an afterthought, simply giving the reasons for the action that had already been taken on July 2.
The resolution of July 2, 1776.
Fittingly, it was also on July 2, albeit 188 years later, that President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helping to repair some of the damage done by the founding generation's failure to extend liberty to African slaves as well as to white men--and also, though this was not the principal focus of debate, hastening civic equality for women as well.
President Johnson preparing to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I can identify Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the front row; can anyone name any of the other people in the photo?
Most recently, on July 2, 2003, President Bush, known for his valor in putting his own body on the line for his country, uttered the immortal words "Bring 'em on."
Passengers on two quite different military aircraft
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMA's Pathetic Newspaper Ad
As the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) approaches, backers are becoming increasingly desperate. They have reluctantly concluded that most Americans, unlike themselves, are not suffering panic attacks from the mere knowledge that same-sex couples in Massachusetts are receiving marriage certificates. So, FMA backers have dusted off their greatest hits from the Anita Bryant days and have decided to resurrect a red-herring of a message that they've used in the past to oppose gay rights ordinances -- "it's about the kids."
To turn up the pressure on Ohio's two Republican senators, FMA backers have placed this pathetic ad in newspapers throughout the state. Its headline reads:Why Don't Senators DeWine and Voinovich Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father? And the equally ridiculous text begins as follows:"Unless the (U.S.) Senate passes the Federal Marriage Amendment, homosexual marriage could be coming to Ohio -- and sooner than you think. Here's the bottom line: homosexual marriage intentionally creates fatherless families or motherless families. Think about it." Never mind that the vast majority of same-sex couples are unlikely to produce or adopt children. And never mind that there is no compelling research that children raised by same-sex couples enter adulthood warped or deprived. I suspect that the unspoken fear that FMA supporters are trying to exploit with this disgusting ad is the myth that gay couples with children will "raise them to be gay." As if it were that simple.
This is the same irrational view that led right-wingers in California to place the Briggs Initiative on the ballot in 1978. It would not only have forbade school districts from hiring gay and lesbian teachers, but it would have also fired any teacher who was deemed to be "encouraging or promoting" homosexuality. (Even Ronald Reagan, so heralded by the FMA crowd, was wise enough to oppose Briggs; despite its early lead in the polls, the measure was rejected by voters.)
Newspaper ads like the one appearing in Ohio are intentionally designed to exploit and amplify existing bigotries. Let's hope that senators -- DeWine and Voinovich included -- have the integrity to reject the FMA when it hits the floor later this month.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Before Kofi Annan arrived to tour a refugee camp in Darfur, Khartoum forcibly evacuated more than 3,000 camp residents and continues to deny that there is any humanitarian crisis or militia attacks in Darfur.
Spokespeople for the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, whose rebellion set off the Darfur crisis, are refusing to attend peace talks with Khartoum scheduled to begin today.
The World Health Organization is warning that 10,000 people will die of cholera and dysentery in July alone unless there is a massive and immediate humanitarian mobilization.
Colin Powell says the situation does not yet meet their definition of "genocide" and has a very interesting debate with NPR's Michele Norris over use of the word MS. NORRIS: The U.S., however, is very careful not to use the word, "genocide." Why is the Administration reluctant to call this genocide?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, why would we call it a genocide when the genocide definition has to meet certain legal tests? It is a legal determination. And based on what we have seen, there were some indicators but there was certainly no full accounting of all indicators that lead to a legal definition of genocide, in accordance with the terms of the genocidal treaties. That's the advice of my lawyers.
But what's the point of arguing about whether all indicators have been met or not when we see the people, we know they are in need, we're trying to take care of that need, and we're doing it in the places I visited today, and the UN is stretching to meet all other places where there is a need? To spend a great deal of time arguing about the definition of what the situation is isn't as important as identifying where the people are who are in need, getting the supplies they need to them, getting them hope in the form of supplies, but hope in the form of security and hope in the form that they'll be able to return to their villages in due course.
MS. NORRIS: For some, the reluctance to label this a homicide hearkens back to Rwanda. And for some, the reluctance to label this a genocide hearkens back to Rwanda.
SECRETARY POWELL: It isn't a reluctance. It isn't a reluctance that, based on the evidence that is available, it doesn't meet the tests of the definition of genocide. It isn't reluctance. I can assure you that if all of the indicators lined up and said this meets what the treaty test of genocide is, I would have no reluctance to call it that. And the fact that we have called it -- have not called it that is not based on reluctance. This is not Rwanda ten years ago; it is Sudan now.
There are some 75 camps under international supervision now. Thirty more will be under international supervision and support in the next month or so. Secretary-General Annan will be meeting with the government tomorrow to see if he can extend the reach of the UN humanitarian departments further out into the countryside to try to reach all people who are in need.
There are people who are desperately in need, and the government has made some commitments today that we will see if they follow up on. Words alone are not enough. We want to see them follow up on these commitments to break the back of the Jingaweit and to provide full humanitarian support to these people in need and, as I said, monitor what's going on with the AU military monitors and then get on a process of political reconciliation.
MS. NORRIS: I don't want to belabor this, but in diplomacy words do count, and as your -- as State Department counsel looks at this issue and determines whether this -- whether this should be labeled a genocide, does that carry a different weight and responsibility for the State Department and the U.S. if they make that determination?
SECRETARY POWELL: The State Department has to weigh all of these matters carefully and what we try to do is to use labels with precision. There are some who, based on what they have heard about the situation in Darfur and their concern about the needs of these people, want to immediately call it a genocide, whether it fits the definition of a genocide or not. I'm more interested in taking care of the people.
Now, if it was a genocide and it met all the tests and we declared it that, we would certainly increase international pressure. But whether we would be doing more than we are now doing is a question that I can't answer. It doesn't open any real new authorities to me or give me any additional powers or responsibilities that I'm not now executing.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, July 01, 2004 |
|
|
|
Tomorrow's News Today
Thanks to commenter Token for pointing me to this article from the July 2 Sydney Morning Herald, further demonstrating the dubious nature of Iraqi "sovereignty."American commanders will launch high-profile military attacks in Iraq even if they go directly against the wishes of the new Iraqi Government. That's pretty nifty. Note that we're not just reserving the right to attack the bad guys in exigent circumstances when there's simply no time to get the Iraqi "government" to sign off. We're saying we'll use military force on Iraqi territory even if the Iraqi "government" explicitly objects.
Whatever else one can say about this policy, it's ludicrous to claim that it is consistent with Iraqi sovereignty. Of the various aspects of legal--and practical--sovereignty, the monopoly on the right to use force within a state's own territory is perhaps the most fundamental. Check out Article 2 of the UN Charter:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . . . When the "government" of a state says not to drop bombs on its territory, and you do it anyway, are you not "us[ing] force against the . . . political independence" of that state?
Maybe this policy is for the best in some utilitarian sense, and we'll all (including Iraqi citizens) be better off if the U.S. calls the shots in attacking insurgents, terrorists, and other unsavory types. (I'm not saying it is for the best, just assuming it for the sake of argument). But that makes Iraq dependent, not independent, and a vassal, not a sovereign.
So let's be clear in our terminology. It may be politically convenient for the administration to say we've handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, but we haven't. Maybe it would be a bad thing to hand over true sovereignty right now--the dreaded "cut and run" approach that Dubya has renounced. But then let's be honest about it, and admit that the war and occupation haven't yet progressed to the point at which sovereignty can be restored.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 4:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Might Be Good
But I still don't expect much to change Canadian judge Louise Arbour on Thursday took up her new post as the world body's top human rights official.
Ms. Arbour, 57, stepped down as a Supreme Court justice in Canada to become the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
[edit]
Ms. Arbour gained international prominence as the chief prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunals trying the alleged main perpetrators of the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the massive human rights crimes in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
During her three years as prosecutor from October 1996 until September 1999, she issued indictments for crimes against humanity against former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic — who is currently on trial — and other leading Serb and Yugoslav officials.
Carol Off wrote a very good book called "The Lion, the Fox and the Eagle" about the central roles played by three Canadians in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
Romeo Dallaire is "The Lion." Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded the UN forces in Bosnia, is "The Fox." And Arbour is "The Eagle."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politicians & Privacy
I just came across two new stories on the Jack Ryan story. Both are from my favorite magazine-- Newsmax. On one hand Newsmax runs a "news" story that berates the fact that Kerry has refused to make his own divorce and custody records public. The second is from one of Newsmax's only liberal columnist, Susan Estrich, who actually has some interesting things to say about the Ryan matter.Excuse me, but what gives me the right to know the nasty details about somebody else's failed marriage? ... Swearing on the Senate floor is OK. Lying about taxes is just politics. Starting a war based on inaccurate information is a thoroughly excusable mistake. But taking your wife to a sex club as your marriage is falling apart is grounds for immediate political execution. It's a question of morals, after all. And why stop there? I don't like pornographic videos, either. Does that give me a right to know what candidates rent from Blockbuster or order on pay-per-view? ... The purpose of sealing records is not simply to keep them out of the peering view of you and me and the Chicago Tribune. It is also, in this case, to protect the child who is at the center of the proceedings. ... But what did the public really learn? That faced with a failing marriage, Ryan's sexual taste ran to the perverse; that he unsuccessfully propositioned his own wife; that you wouldn't want to be married to him?
Does it really say anything about his ability to serve in the United States Senate or just about our thirst for delicious gossip? ... But Jack Ryan is a big boy.
His son isn't.
I wouldn't have wanted to be that boy, going to camp last week and facing the other kids.
He wasn't running for anything. He already has to deal with parents who couldn't get along. Now, he has to deal with everyone knowing. Where are his rights?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Does Wal-Mart Hate Motherhood?
An addition to the run of bad publicity Wal-Mart has been getting for its treatment of female employees, workers in general, the communities where it operates, etc.: the Sixth Circuit yesterday decided a case brought by nursing mothers who had been told either to go to the restroom or leave various Ohio Wal-Marts.
Yes, the court did rule in Wal-Mart's favor, holding that discriminating against people who are breastfeeding does not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Ohio law, but Wal-Mart still comes off looking pretty nasty.
The decision itself is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's 1970s cases holding that discriminating on the basis of pregnancy isn't sex discrimination. The reasoning is that while all pregnant people are women, not all women are pregnant. So treating women who are pregnant worse than men--and women--who are not isn't the same as treating women worse than men.
I didn't find those decisions very persuasive, and I have to say I don't find the court's reasoning in the Wal-Mart case very strong either. Still, that doesn't mean the court was wrong in how it interpreted the Ohio statute. I suppose that if Ohioans feel strongly enough about the right to expose one's breast for nutritive purposes (rather than, say, for entertainment at a "gentlemen's club" or the Super Bowl), the state's legislature can amend the statute and force stores to allow public breastfeeding. That's what Congress did in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which overruled the Supreme Court and established that pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination for purposes of Title VII of the the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How to Save $25 Million
From Reuters The United States raised a reward offer for the capture of [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, its top guerrilla target in Iraq, to $25 million from $10 million, the State Department said on Wednesday.
Maybe Bush should have killed him when he had the chance NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
[edit]
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
But I understand. We had a war on terror to plan; we couldn't get all distracted about actually killing terrorists.
Besides, it's not like we didn't have $25 million and more than 700 lives to spare.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Kofi Annan told Khartoum that he wants to see progress within 48 hours.
The government pledged to "combat any militias and Janjaweed so that we secure the protection of civilians."
In the meantime, the US is circulating a draft Security Council resolution that would [I]mpose new travel restrictions and arms embargoes on the government-supported militia in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The proposed resolution also would endorse the African Union- led monitoring mission in Sudan, urge international economic assistance and offer UN human rights monitors to the region, U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.
The New York Times reports that the camp Powell visited [I]s considered to be among the best in the Darfur region, with functioning relief organizations and few signs of hunger.
Aid workers say that Powell was intentionally taken to a "show camp" so as to hide the true nature of the situation.
The American Prospect has an article by "A human-rights expert who has witnessed the persecution in Darfur [and] insists that genocide is occurring."
Finally, Sen. Sam Brownback just returned from Darfur and was interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition. He claimed that the situation required a large international presence and hinted that he would support the use of US troop so long as they were part of a larger UN or NATO force.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 |
|
|
|
The GOP's Faux Facade
From my buddies at the Family Research Council: The Republican National Committee recently announced the line-up of speakers for its 2004 national convention, to be held in New York City. Given the location, it comes as no surprise that "moderate" Republicans Gov. George Pataki (NY) and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are among those giving keynote addresses. However, a look at the full list of speakers shows that the convention is lacking in speeches by prominent Republicans who can adequately address the social issues our nation is facing - from protecting marriage to defending the sanctity of life.
In fact, many of the people who will have prominent roles at the convention have publicly contradicted the Bush Administration's policies on these very issues; not just Pataki and Giuliani, but also Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Understandably, the Bush campaign would like to portray the Republican Party as a "big tent" while the national spotlight is on, but surely there is some room in that tent for social conservatives. The Bush team admits it had trouble fully mobilizing Christian voters in 2000. Leaving real conservatives off the convention stage won't do much to correct that problem in 2004. Um, don't you get it? This has nothing to do with the fact that they're going to be in New York City. It's the national convention. They want their public face to be Republican-lite, not Republican-right.
The Republican party needs your votes but they clearly recognize you for the uncompassionate conservative pariahs that you are. Do you think they want another Pat Buchanan moment like they had in 1992? They're ashamed of you and your angry, intolerant beliefs. Take the hint, the writing is on the wall.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faux Popularity
The right-wing fanatics at Newsmax admit that they gave an otherwise unknown book a boost-- "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" is now #8 on Amazon. NewsMax Catapults 'Big Fat Stupid White Man' to Amazon's Top
Though it's been ignored by the big media and was only released yesterday, the new book "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David Hardy and Jason Clarke has already skyrocketed to the top of the Amazon.com best sellers list.
Before NewsMax began featuring the blockbuster Moore expose' last weekend, sales were slow, with the Amazon ranking hovering around the 2 million mark. But by Wednesday, "MMIABFSWM" had jumped to number eight on the Amazon list. Perhaps this sudden rise in popularity has something to do with the fact that Newsmax is literally buying the book and then giving it away for free with subscriptions to their magazine?
Personally I have no problem with anyone criticizing Michael Moore. I think his work is pretty flawed in many ways. However, this isn't the first time Newsmax has given away a "bestselling" book-- they do it with Ann Coulter's books, Sean Hannity's books and other acrid tomes of right-wing demagogues-- which clearly helps to boost the ratings of the book.
The fact that Newsmax takes credit for helping boost a book that was released the exact same week as Moore's very controversial film is frankly pretty egomaniacal. Newsmax doesn't even qualify as a legitimate news source, after all it mixes "articles" that promote the purchase of of pheremones and herbal "male enhancers" amongside their plethora of anti-Clinton, anti-liberal screeds.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Write With Bias Is to Know Bias
In this column posted at the right-wing TownHall.com website, commentator Brent Bozell engages in some major revisionism as he contrasts the cases of Bill Clinton and former Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan of Illinois. In his column, "Jack Ryan, Meet Bill Clinton," Bozell writes:Jack Ryan watched his young career as a Senate candidate go up in smoke because the Chicago Tribune sued to bust the seal on his divorce papers from his wife, "Star Trek" actress Jeri Lynn Ryan. In the papers, Mrs. Ryan asserted that her husband pressured her to have sex with him in public in swinging sex clubs. Republicans wanted him gone. Not right away they didn't. By using the phrase "Republicans wanted him gone," Bozell ignores the fact that some key Republicans were more than willing to set aside their normally sanctimonious rhetoric about morality.
In fact, the person who holds the Senate seat that Ryan was seeking (retiring Senator Peter Fitzgerald) continued to support Ryan's candidacy after the allegations by Ryan's former wife were made public. Likewise, after the allegations were reported, a spokesman for Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, declared Allen to be "fully behind and fully supportive of Jack (Ryan)."
That wasn't the only misleading aspect of Bozell's column. In referring to Clinton's Lewinsky scandal, Bozell writes:Democrats not only stood for [Clinton's] ridiculous perjuries. They cheered him as his job approval ratings soared. Again, there was no universal reaction from the party. While most Democrats defended Clinton, much of this defense was grounded in their view that the GOP's desire to impeach the president was a penalty that did not fit the crime.
Additionally, there were some Dems who, from virtually the beginning, criticized Clinton's behavior. Senator Joe Lieberman was chief among them, taking to the Senate floor to call Clinton's behavior "not just inappropriate" but "immoral." And Slate notes that at least two other prominent Dems took aim at Clinton's behavior even before Lieberman's Senate speech.
Bozell's distortion of the record is especially outrageous when you consider that he is president of an organization (Media Research Center) that describes its mission, in part, as one of identifying "undeniable bias" in the news media. I suppose one becomes much better at identifying bias if one is a skilled purveyor of bias.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Debacle That Was Falluja
Why was the U.S.'s decision to disband the Iraqi army such a serious miscalculation? A one-word answer: Falluja. New Yorker's Nir Rosen wrote this excellent article assessing the Falluja that was and what the future holds for the northern Iraq city -- now that Paul Bremer and the gang have skipped town:I met a former brigadier general in the Iraqi Army, Abu Muhammad, [in Falluja]. We sat in the guest hall of his grand house, watching the news on television ... Abu Muhammad had lost his job when Paul Bremer dissolved the army. When the war ended, he said, "we expected things to improve, but everything became worse: electricity, water, sewage."
Speakers in the mosques began to talk openly about jihad. "This attracted foreign Arabs who felt constrained by their own regimes," Abu Muhammad said, "and of course there were neighboring countries that supported them. Nobody in Falluja opposed the resistance, and many different resistance groups came in. Weapons were very available. The Baath Party had distributed weapons, and after the fall of Saddam's government soldiers and security personnel took their weapons home. People here grow up with weapons. They are part of our personality."
When the siege of Falluja started, in early April, Abu Muhammad said, "people here were monitoring American movements and had the upper hand. They had military experience, and they prepared themselves for the fight."
Highway 10, the road that connects Baghdad to Jordan and the western part of the country, runs through Falluja, and it was virtually shut down. Fighters set up roadblocks and searched cars for foreigners, military convoys were attacked, and trucks were hijacked and robbed.
Abu Muhammad said that Al Jazeera's coverage of the siege incited sympathy for the resistance. He compared the Al Jazeera correspondent to a sports commentator: "He encouraged people to support one team against the other ..." So what does the future hold for this heavily Sunni city?Abu Muhammad was not optimistic about the future of Falluja. "It's like Afghanistan, where gangs rule, and Mafias and Taliban," he said. "If they decide somebody is a spy, they will kill him. There is no legal procedure. Imams who left during the fighting were prevented from returning to their mosques." He feared that differences between mujahideen groups would lead to further violence.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Days to the Anniversary
Everyone ready to celebrate?
Here's a party favor to whet your appetite.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Death Spiral
When Robert Moore told the Detroit Free Press, "It’s almost like a death spiral," he wasn’t describing a skydiver whose chute failed to open. Moore is a top administrator of the city’s public school system, and he was reacting Tuesday to this news:Detroit Public Schools must cut nearly $250 million from next year's budget -- more than 2 1/2 times what was predicted -- triggering hundreds of layoffs that could cut teacher staffing to the bone. On top of that, the district's savings are almost gone.
... Now those dealing with job cuts want to know why officials waited until March to cut costs -- and why they didn't know the magnitude of the problem sooner. "I don't have any explanation of how all of a sudden we got to this point," said Detroit Federation of Teachers President Janna Garrison. "I'm at a loss for words." Detroit is not the only urban school system facing serious financial ills. But in Detroit's case, the light at the end of the tunnel could be an oncoming train.Detroit's $1.5-billion budget for next year assumes the Legislature won't cut per-pupil funding or money for at-risk students. However, the state's budget won't be finalized until September, and lawmakers are struggling with their own money crisis. The Bush administration's unfunded "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) mandates didn’t create this financial crisis -- they simply made it worse. Both the cost of those mandates and the regulatory confusion they’ve created have led at least five states to ignore the law's mandates and give up the additional funds that were earmarked for their states.
In states that continue to participate in NCLB, many school districts are cutting classes in art, music, foreign language and other non-core subjects in order to save money needed to pay for the dramatic increase in testing under NCLB. Urban districts -- already starting with limited property wealth – are particularly likely to shelve those courses.
While NCLB is definitely a big piece of the fiscal puzzle, it is simply one piece. Sadly, many urban school administrators and school boards are all too willing to dig into reserve funds and engage in Enron-style accounting to delay reckoning with serious financial problems. In Detroit's case, state officials should look closely to find out who was asleep at the switch.
If there was misappropriation of funds or other wrongdoing, state officials should consider prosecuting those who put their personal interests ahead of the children they were supposed to serve.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
The Christian Science Monitor explains why Sudan has become a priority for Bush and says that US motives for engaging in the Darfur crisis may not be entirely altruistic, observers say, but the Bush team's passion about Sudan also helps ensure that serious relief may actually arrive for Darfur's at-risk masses.
Colin Powell warned Khartoum of possible "Security Council action" if they don't control the Janjaweed and allow access for humanitarian organizations. He is not optimistic But a senior U.S. official said that in Powell's initial talks the Sudanese did not realize the gravity of the crisis.
"They are in a state of denial. They are in a state of avoidance. They are trying to obfuscate and avoid any consequences," said the official, who asked not to be named.
He is scheduled to visit refugees camps in Darfur today.
Doctors Without Borders is warning that any more delay will lead to "catastrophic consequences."
The Washington Post chronicles the Janjaweed's use of rape as means of ethnic cleansing "They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, 'Black girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,' " said Sawela Suliman, 22, showing slashes from where a whip had struck her thighs as her father held up a police and health report with details of the attack.
And finally Africa Action announced that 20,000 people in the US and internationally have signed a petition, launched just two weeks ago, urging Secretary Powell to declare that a genocide is taking place in Darfur and to push for an immediate US-led intervention to stop the killing. The petition will be presented to Powell upon his return to the US.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 29, 2004 |
|
|
|
"Iraq cannot be one large Guantánamo Bay."
Well, you've got that right; after yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, the Gitmo prisoners can petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a privilege the denizens of Abu Ghraib do not enjoy.
Here's the situation that inspired the foregoing quotation: The Iraqi Central Criminal Court, with judges picked by the United States, acquitted a man of attempting to kill coalition soldiers. His defense was mistaken identity. The U.S. military nonetheless put him back into Abu Ghraib. The justification?US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law. To paraphrase the late, great Douglas Adams, this must be some new use of the word "sovereignty" with which I am not familiar. The Geneva Conventions would apply if there were an occupation. But we know that can't be the case, because we've handed "sovereignty" back to the Iraqis.Many Iraqis see the Central Criminal Court as a creature of the occupation which must be abolished now the US has handed sovereignty back to Iraqis. Don't hold your breath, guys.
The occupation is dead. Long live the occupation.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 7:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have You Thanked Your Plant Today?
Because they can do some pretty cool things. Some day soon, spinach may power your laptop.Baldo's team isolated a variety of photosynthetic proteins from spinach and sandwiched them between two layers of conducting material. When light was shone on to the tiny cell, an electrical current was generated. Perhaps even sooner, cactus may soothe the savage hangover.The finding came from tests on a group of 55 adults between the ages of 21 and 35 who were given extracts of Opuntia ficus indica, a type of prickly pear cactus, before being fed dinner and told to get drunk. Yes, I am trying to distract myself from genocide, war and politics. Why do you ask?
posted by
Helena Montana at 2:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoot First, Ask Questions Later
Here's a follow up on Arnold's post re: the New York Post's efforts to flood the zone with good news.
If you want to get an enlightening--and scary--take on how the folks at the Post view reality, check out Ralph Peter's postmortem of the Iraq occupation. At the beginning, he follows the Bush administration's preferred "we're done; now it's the Iraqis problem" line:
We have done a great thing. Now it's up to the Iraqis to make the most of the gift of freedom we gave them. Never mind the mess on the ground, or the 135,000 U.S. troops still responsible for security.
Peters goes on to praise the Bush doctrine of preemption:
Preventive War is a concept that's here to stay. Because Iraq didn't turn into Iowa overnight, we've heard no end of claims that preventive war has been eternally discredited. Nonsense. Saddam's gone. We've taken the War on Terror to our enemies. There's a chance of an actual Arab democracy emerging. Our losses have been remarkably low, considering what we achieved. And, yep, the Europeans are back in line — despite warnings that we'd burned our bridges forever. In the post-9/11 strategic environment, club rules no longer apply. At the hint of a threat, America needs to strike first. And we will. Yesterday, the Washington Post's Robin Wright provided a much more realistic view, noting that the costs of the Iraq war were such than the Bush administration has essentially "walked away from unilateralism."
But, the most outrageous part of Peters' assessment relates to the treatment of potential combatants. According to Peters, it is preferable to indiscriminately kill Iraqis than to risk public relations disasters like Abu Ghraib:
Kill terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner. Legally, we must accept the surrender of even the bloodiest monster. So our military must do everything it legitimately can to kill terrorists before they can wave a white rag. Targeting must be more lethal and less cautious. There's nothing humane about mercy for mass murderers. And they're rarely of much intelligence value. By seeking prisoners we acquire large detainee populations that play into the hands of America's critics. Kill terrorists, and you get a few self-righteous complaints. Spare them, and you get Abu Ghraib. Anyone paying attention knows that hundreds of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were jailed without clear cause, so labelling them all "terrorists" as Peters does, doesn't wash. Besides, try as Peters might, it is tough to make a moral case for the mass murder of supposed mass murderers.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 12:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistakes of the Past
Via The Stakeholder, I see that Nancy Pelosi is calling on Bush to develop a "comprehensive plan to end the misery in Darfur." She then makes a key point It is imperative that the mistakes that were made a decade ago in Rwanda not be repeated in Darfur. The killing must be stopped and humanitarian needs addressed quickly, while there is still an opportunity to save many lives. We must not look back in a few months and wish that we had summoned the will earlier to do what we knew had to be done to address this crisis.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I am not very optimistic that we have in fact learned from our mistakes in Rwanda.
In 1998, the UN commissioned an independent inquiry into its own actions during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the inquiry concluded that the UN unequivocally "failed the people of Rwanda." Among the report's conclusions were The overriding failure in the response of the United Nations before and during the genocide in Rwanda can be summarized as a lack of resources and a lack of will to take on the commitment which would have been necessary to prevent or to stop the genocide.
[edit]
The lack of will to act in response to the crisis in Rwanda becomes all the more deplorable in the light of the reluctance by key members of the International Community to acknowledge that the mass murder being pursued in front of global media was a genocide.
[edit]
The delay in identifying the events in Rwanda as a genocide was a failure by the Security Council. The reluctance by some States to use the term genocide was motivated by a lack of will to act, which is deplorable. If there is ever to be effective international action against genocide, States must be prepared to identify situations as such, and to assume the responsibility to act that accompanies that definition. The Inquiry hopes that the stronger recognition given today to the need to ensure human security and to guarantee the safety of individual human beings from human rights violations, will also mean that States will not shy away from identifying events as genocide, and responding to them with action.
It is important to add the following: the imperative for international action is not limited to cases of genocide. The United Nations and its member states must also be prepared to mobilise political will to act in the face of gross violations of human rights which have not reached the ultimate level of a genocide. Particular emphasis must be placed on the need for preventive action: the will to act needs to be mobilised before a situation escalates to a genocide.
[edit]
It has been stated repeatedly during the course of the interviews conducted by the Inquiry that the fact that Rwanda was not of strategic interest to third countries and that the international community exercised double standards when faced with the risk of a catastrophe there compared to action taken elsewhere.
The report goes on to make various recommendations, such as initiating an action plan to prevent genocide so that the UN can muster the political will needed to "prevent acts of genocide or gross violations of human rights wherever they may take place."
None of that appears to have been done.
In 1994, the UN and the international community completely failed in Rwanda. Everyone knows it and everyone regrets it - and nothing has changed.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electronic Voting Security
Those who are interested in the ongoing controversy over Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines and the potential for election fraud would do well to check out this new report (pdf file) on the subject. The report is aimed at jurisdictions that have DREs in place and makes security recommendations for the 2004 elections (30% of registered voters live in precincts with DREs). Further discussion of longer-term solutions is left for another day.
The report is somewhat technical but is intended for a general audience. If you want to be able to follow the debate intelligently, check it out.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accentuating the Positive
I read somewhere yesterday (Atrios? Tom Tomorrow? no time to check right now) that the early handover of "sovereignty" in Iraq was designed to "flood the zone," drowning out coverage of the major smackdown administered to the administration by the Supreme Court in the detention cases. I don't think that's plausible. The handover happened on Iraq time, before the Court's ruling. Court observers weren't sure when the decisions would come down, with many expressing surprise that they weren't handed down today (when the last decision of the Term will come down) or tomorrow (which could have been set as the final day). Besides which, absent a leak, the administration wouldn't have known how the decisions were going to come out. I wouldn't put it past an especially zealous conservative law clerk to have leaked the info to a law school pal in the administration, but it would be a serious breach of confidence and would be quite unlikely.
All that said, however, the New York Post's flooding of its own zone is laughable. I mean that literally--I had to restrain myself from laughing out loud when I saw someone carrying a copy this morning.
Forget for a moment how ridiculous it is to say that "Iraqis rule their own nation" any more today than they did the day before yesterday. If there was any event yesterday that deserved the huge headline "LIBERTY!," it was the Court's decisions, particularly including Scalia's dissent in Hamdi (he said the government should have to charge Hamdi with a crime or set him free immediately). A ruling defending the right of U.S. citizens to have access to the courts when the Executive wants to hold them indefinitely and incommunicado goes right to your basic Magna Carta-, Declaration of Independence-, Bill of Rights-type liberty. This is first-principle stuff.
The government struck a big blow for liberty yesterday--liberty at home, not in Iraq, and it was the Judicial, not the Executive, that delivered.
But I can understand how a serious news organ wouldn't want to mention that, what with Spider Man 2 to talk about.
Update: Thanks to Mr. P in the comments for reminding me that it was Jack Balkin who raised the "flood the zone" explanation for the early transfer of so-called sovereignty. Considering that Prof. Balkin is hardly unsophisticated concerning the Court's workings, perhaps I should reconsider my rejection of his theory.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Sucks...
and so do his ratings-- his approval rating has sunk to 42 percent and his disapproval rating is at 51%, the worst in his presidency. But it gets worse for Bush, 45 percent of people say they have an unfavorable opinion of Bush himself and 57% say the country is headed in the wrong direction. 60 percent of people, which according to the poll includes a majority of independents, said the Iraq war has not been worth the cost. Those polled also believe, 51 to 32 percent, Bush has divided the nation rather than brought it together. 42% of those polled said Bush does not care about the "needs and problems of people like you." Over 50 percent say Bush does not have the same priorities for the country as they do.
On the other hand Kerry has an approval rating of 45% with 40% of people saying they don't have an opinion of him yet, which is typical. With Nader's hit by the Green Party he's even less of a threat than before. It has been said many, many times-- this election is Kerry's to lose.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 9:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Kofi Annan said he and Colin Powell will demand that Sudan's government stop the killing in Darfur or face possible military intervention.
Human Rights Watch is calling on Colin Powell to personally "make it clear to the Sudanese authorities that the international community will protect the civilians in Darfur if the Sudanese government fails to do so."
Meanwhile the International Red Cross is warning that the growing trend of military operations being presented as humanitarian missions is making aid work more dangerous.
And Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Aid, continues to warn that "if nothing changes we will have 1 million casualties."
Poynter Online has a very good column on the media's reluctance to cover Darfur, mainly because editors think that Americans are too stupid to understand the issue or simply don't care.
Finally, the Jesse Lee and the good folks at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee allowed me to pen a guest post for their blog, The Stakeholder, on the issue of Darfur.
Sign the DCCC's petition.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 28, 2004 |
|
|
|
Happy Anniversary
On Friday, it will be one year since Dubya said of attacks against U.S. troops, "Bring 'em on."
I believe the White House would appreciate creative and patriotic celebrations. Perhaps it would be appropriate to recite the names of those who have been privileged to give their lives in the past year to back up their commander's taunt.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, That Puts Us In Our Place
(If the picture isn't showing up, click here for a view of it; click on the picture frame for the accompanying story).
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is Nader Losing It?
Perhaps the next question a reporter should ask of Ralph Nader is the one that "Frasier" sit-com character Niles Crane once uttered: "What color is the sky in your world?" From Sunday's Washington Post:On Thursday, ("Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker Michael) Moore was the recipient of an open letter from independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who seems stung that his former friend and supporter has parted ways with him and gone to the Democrats.
Miffed that he was not invited to the Washington premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Nader, whose 6-foot-4 frame is a lean 190 pounds, said Moore's former Naderite friends are "trim and take care of themselves. Girth they avoid. The more you let them see you, the less they will see of you." The filmmaker's reaction:"We are more saddened than angered by this," a Moore associate said, noting the particular pathos in Nader's missing invitation to the movie premiere. "It is just sad." And Nader's pathetic attempt to explain his letter:"I've been at him (Moore) for years, saying 'you've got to lose weight,'" Nader said in [a] phone interview. "Now, he's doubled (his weight). Private exhortations aren't working. It's extremely serious. He's over 300 pounds. He's like a giant beach ball." And you, Mr. Nader, are one obnoxious human being. If your concern about Moore's weight and/or health were truly genuine, then you would have conveyed this in a personal note or phone call -- not in an "open letter" for the press and public to read or hear about.
This sounds much more like a case of "he didn't invite me to his premiere so I'm gonna call him fat." How lame.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novak Takes the Cake
On Saturday's edition of CNN's Capital Gang, Bob Novak commented on the Cheney-Leahy f***-you incident. Regarding Sen. Leahy, Novak says:
He's a mean partisan guy. He's one of the most partisan guys I know....He's very mean. He's vicious, in fact. This comment on the tender art of human interaction comes from a fellow frequently referred to as the Prince of Darkness, someone who trades in leaks of names of CIA operatives to score partisan political points. If this doesn't take the cake, I don't know what does.
[Note: the transcript for Capital Gang hasn't been posted yet. It will be available here.]
posted by
Noam Alaska at 3:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polls Are Supposed to Clarify, Not Confound
All too frequently, polls can leave a reader more frustrated and confused about where the public stands and what it is ready to vote or act upon. Last week, Eugene offered a good example in this post about an ABC News-Washington Post poll. His post reminded me of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that I’d seen before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. This poll was conducted during the days of October 3-6, 2002, as the Bush spin machine was hard at work.
Consider these questions and responses from that early October '02 poll. First:QUESTION # 17: Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Favor ................. 53% Oppose ............... 40% No opinion ............ 7% So only 53% -- a bare majority -- were prepared to support President Bush if he decided to invade Iraq, right? Wrong. Consider the response to Question #19 on this same poll:QUESTION #19: If President Bush decided to invade Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which of the following would best describe your reaction -- you would support the president's decision because you think the U.S. should invade Iraq; you would support the president's decision even though you do not think the U.S. should invade Iraq; (or) you would not support the president's decision because you do not think the U.S. should invade Iraq?
Support decision, ....... 47% and think U.S. should invade
Support decision, ....... 27% even though don’t favor an invasion
Oppose decision, ........ 22% and don’t think U.S. should invade
No opinion .................. 4% If this poll crossed Karl Rove’s desk (and I’m willing to bet it did), the White House’s calculations on the potential fallout of invading Iraq suddenly changed. The Bush crew now knew that despite the significant opposition (40% in Question #17), much of that opposition would essentially melt away once it happened. Indeed, based on this poll, 74% of Americans were prepared to support Bush’s decision to invade -- even if they personally opposed an invasion. That knowledge probably helped Wolfowitz and company sleep well.
So what explains the 74% support? That’s a tough question to answer. Was it that those surveyed felt the Bush administration had done all it could through diplomatic channels to resolve the crisis without waging war? Absolutely not. In fact:QUESTION #18: Do you think the United States has done all it can do to solve the crisis with Iraq diplomatically, or not?
Yes, it has ............ 46% No, it has not ........ 49% No opinion .............. 5% Amazing. Let’s assume for a moment that the 22% (Question #19) who said they would not support an invasion -- even if Bush decided to order an invasion -- formed the core of the 49% who felt the U.S. hadn’t done enough work through diplomacy. (Although it may be a slight stretch, bear with me for the sake of a larger point.)
Subtract that 22% from the 49%, and you have 27% unaccounted for. In other words, most of this 49% comes from someplace else. So who are these people? Most of them must have also belonged to one or both of the other two response groups in Question #19 -- either the 47% who said they would support a Bush decision to invade because that was already their positions or the 27% who didn’t support an invasion but would support it once Bush made his move.
As cruel and repugnant a ruler as Saddam Hussein was, the fact is that he had not launched an attack against the U.S. There was no credible evidence (and still isn’t) that his regime aided al Qaeda in its 9/11 terrorist attacks. This explains much -- although not all -- of the opposition to the Bush administration’s drumbeat for war.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, had harbored and aided those who committed the 9/11 attacks on America. Perhaps with this distinction in mind, the pollsters for CNN/USA Today/Gallup decided to see how the American people felt about the doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is one of the most interesting findings, even though it has long since been buried under a steady succession of polls.QUESTION #24: Which comes closer to your own opinion -- the U.S. should not attack another country unless that country has attacked the U.S. first, (or) the U.S. should be able to attack any country it thinks might attack the U.S.?
U.S. should not attack ........... 51% unless we’re attacked first
U.S. should be able to ........... 40% attack if it thinks that country "might attack" us
No opinion .............................. 9% So even though 74% of Americans said they’d support the president if he decided to invade Iraq, roughly half the country felt that diplomatic channels had not yet been exhausted and that America should not attack pre-emptively. Are you confused? That makes two of us.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make Noise
In his interview for "Ghosts of Rwanda," former National Security Adviser Tony Lake explains that the Clinton administration did not take action on Rwanda, in part, because there was not much pressure on them to do anything. He advises that people who care about these sorts of issues "make more noise" There's also a line that came out, that they both mentioned that you said to them, "You need to make more noise." Do you remember saying that?
Oh, I think so, yes, certainly. What did you mean by that?
I meant they should be out there trying to create more noise about this situation, which would help us, inside, who had any concern about this issue. What does that mean to the layman who's never sat in your position? What [does] "noise" means?
Noise means television interviews. Noise means newspaper articles. Noise can even mean peaceful demonstrations, etc. … You can "make noise" by writing letters to your representatives and newspapers, or by signing this petition.
Lake also had some interesting insights into the prospect of humanitarian intervention I think there are a number of different arguments as to why we need to move beyond narrow calculations of national interest in dealing with these problems. One of them is simply human. It comes as a revelation to my students that government officials are actually human beings rather than interest-calculating machines. But if you are a human being -- I'm not talking about moral obligation there, because that's presumptuous. But if you are a human being and you are blinding yourself to the fact that hundreds of thousands, millions of people are dying around the world, then you are blinding yourself to an important reality.
Lake admits that the Clinton administration failed on Rwanda. Let's hope the Bush administration can learn from it.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When in Rome...
It appears there is at least one group of New Yorkers who are eagerly awaiting the upcoming GOP Convention.With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party. Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden. ... Charging from $300 to upwards of $1,000 for an hour of companionship and a whole lot more, escorts said they can always count on conventioneers for big business. ... That's the hope among escort services expecting a windfall from randy Republicans. ... At the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego, an escort service in search of delegate dollars changed its name to GOP: Good Old-Fashioned Pleasure. ... [Strip] Clubs have started booking private parties for delegates anxious to ogle topless beauties after a day of watching fully clothed politicians boast about family values. What I wouldn't do for Guiliani's old lifestyle Gestapo to bust a big party of GOPers and sex workers during the Republican National Convention.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 1:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderate Republican Figureheads
Very interesting...The Bush White House has selected Sen. John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to give prime time addresses when Republicans gather for their convention this August, in a move designed to spotlight President Bush's centrist appeal. Guess they realized that having the real GOP leadership represent the party may not be quite as effective as using some of the most moderate members.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Never, ever show your candidate with a Hitler voice-over."
Some of the lefty blogs have been having fun with a somewhat counterproductive ad on the Bush-Cheney website. A particularly nice take on it here.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's It Exactly!
Al Kamen highlights this quote from Sen. Kyl "The interesting thing is that when it comes to the tax code of the United States, Americans are very egalitarian. Middle-income taxpayers support repeal of the death tax, for example, even though they know it would never help them."
Really? I thought that people opposed the "death tax" because, for years, Republican's have been intentionally misleading middle-income taxpayers into thinking that it did apply to them - at least that is what David Cay Johnston argues (as paraphrased in this review) Johnston touches on the difficulty of explaining taxes to the masses. In his chapter on the estate tax, he does note that even though the tax applies only to the extremely rich, a majority of Americans supported its repeal, many under the false assumption that they'd have to pay it when they died.
Now I know better. Apparently the Middle Class just loves to help out the super rich in any way they can.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dallaire
The most recent edition of Time Magazine's Canadian edition profiles some of the country's most remarkable citizens.
Among "Canada's Heroes" is Romeo Dallaire.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
It has been happening for months, but the press has only recently gotten around to running photos
The Washington Post reports that Khartoum is claiming that genocide, hunger, death and disease have been "imagined" by the Western media - and just in case those dying might have a different opinion, Khartoum is trying to intimidate refugees into remaining silent
Condoleezza Rice says the Bush administration has already done a lot for Sudan, but "we now really have to turn our attention to Darfur."
The Los Angeles Times reports that it is already too late Humanitarian aid agencies, analysts and U.S. officials all agree that no matter what the international community does to try to prevent the catastrophe unfolding in Darfur, western Sudan, it's too late: Huge numbers of people will die there in coming months.
And Senator Sam Brownback traveled to Darfur over the weekend and made a rather simple plea: "Stop the killing of the innocent."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|