Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, September 10, 2004


Sauce for the Gander

Apparently, the Ken Starr isn't the only special prosecutor who can range beyond the scope of his initial mandate. This isn't much--yet. But stay tuned.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:57 PM




On How Many Levels Is This Disturbing?
A mosque in the eastern Dutch city Enschede was daubed with swastikas and set on fire on Thursday morning.

[snip]

Jewish synagogues are more frequently the targets of similar attacks in the Netherlands.
Bastards.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:39 AM


Thursday, September 09, 2004


McClellan Plays Dodge Ball

On September 7, as the news of the 1,000th U.S. military death in Iraq was confirmed, the White House moved quickly to play its artful spin games. During his press briefing with reporters, this is how White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to reporters' questions:
REPORTER: "Senator Kerry is calling it a tragic milestone, reaching 1,000 deaths in Iraq."

McCLELLAN: "Well, we remember, honor and mourn the loss of all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom ..."

REPORTER: "And you're convinced each one of those lives is worth it, Scott?"

McCLELLAN: "Each one -- well, let me say, when I say we remember, honor, mourn the loss of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we do so for those in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also remember those who lost their lives on September 11th ..."
In other words, this mouthpiece is far from "convinced" about anything other than the fact that he'll be flacking for Bush for at least 3-1/2 months. After that, who the hell knows?
REPORTER: "But the question is, for -- each of those families lost someone, a loved one, and each one of those is worth it -- that's the question."

McCLELLAN: Mark, I think -- I think of the cost we paid on September 11th, and September 11th changed the equation, as you've heard the President say...."
Like a computer that has just kicked into "default" mode, McClellan quickly spouts out more bullshit linking Iraq with the 9/11 attacks -- even though any linkage has been thoroughly obliterated by numerous sources.
REPORTER: "How will the President acknowledge the milestone of 1,000 deaths?"

McCLELLAN: "My understanding is that -- I think it's over 1,200 when you take in Iraq and Afghanistan ... but obviously, you hear the President talk about the importance of what we're working to accomplish ..."
The correct answer that McClellan tried like hell to avoid giving was that, as NPR reported, President Bush made no specific mention that day of the fact that casualties had surpassed 1,000.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:34 PM




Will They Be Discussing This?

This weekend members of the Federalist Society will be gathering "to reminisce about former President Ronald Reagan and discuss presidential leadership."

The title of the forum is "Ronald Reagan's Leadership: Reviving the Rule of Law and the Presidency."

The "rule of law" you say? Funny you should mention it because I just finished reading Lawrence Walsh's book about Iran-Contra and here is his conclusion
Whatever the intentions, the effects of the political institutions - legitimate and illegitimate - were to prolong the Iran-Contra investigations, to increase its cost, and to frustrate the prosecution of those who had helped conceal President Reagan's willful disregard of constitutional restraints on his power.

But if Congress made my work more difficult, the root of the problem was the executive branch's strategy. Ronald Reagan's advisors succeeded in creating a firewall around him. He escaped meaningful interrogation until it was no longer of use, and he escaped prosecution altogether, while subordinates suffered. The delay in producing government records and the concealment of personal notes were crucial to the strategy. George Bush's misuse of the pardon power made the cover-up complete.

What set Iran-Contra apart from previous political scandals was the fact that a cover-up engineered in the White House of one president and completed by his successor prevented the rule of law from being applied to the perpetrators of criminal activity of constitutional dimension.
I'm guessing that Ken Starr, James Taranto and Leonard Leo must think that "reviving the rule of law" means "preventing it from being applied to Republicans."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:03 PM




Round and Round

The entire Bush-AWOL story seems to be finally coming out and, true to form, Scott McClellan is committed to his talking points.

His response to the now obvious fact that Bush did not complete his duty with the Texas or Alabama National Guards?
MR. McCLELLAN: If the President had not fulfilled his commitment he would not have been honorably discharged. He was honorably discharged in October of '73.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. As I said -- absolutely not. If he had not fulfilled his commitments, he would not have been honorably discharged.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President met his commitments in Texas. He met his commitments in Alabama. He met his commitments when he returned to Texas in 1973.

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, Caren, if he had not fulfilled his commitments, he would not have been honorably discharged.
So you see, the question as to how Bush got an honorable discharge when he obviously didn't fulfill his commitments is totally moot.

Bush received an honorable discharge, so he must have fulfilled his commitments. The fact alone that Bush was honorably discharged must prove that he fulfilled his commitments. And he did fulfill his commitments, and his honorable discharge proves it.

So that settles that.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:27 AM




Genocide

At 9:55 am today Powell declared
We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and that genocide may still be occurring ... The evidence leads the United States to the conclusion that genocide has occurred and may still be occurring in Darfur.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:58 AM




Daily Darfur

The AP reports that Powell is prepared to declare whether he believes that genocide is being committed in Darfur when he testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning
Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to declare that abuses in the Darfur region of Sudan qualify as genocide, a Bush administration official said Thursday. Such a determination would add pressure on the Sudanese government to rein in the militias there.
You can listen to the hearing here.

The State Department has released its report "Documenting Atrocities in Darfur." It does not contain the word "genocide."

The US is also drafting a new UN resolution demanding that Sudan accept a bigger AU force with a wider mandate and threatens oil sanctions, but it appears to give no date by which Sudan must comply.

The UN still needs $255 million to deal with the humanitarian crisis and aid groups are calling on France, Italy and Japan to donate more money - between them, they have donate roughly $26 million. By contrast, the US has donated $211 million.

Canada is preparing to contribute $20 million to support the AU's "peacekeeping" effort - it is not really peacekeeping, it is ceasefire monitoring; they are not protecting citizens. As of now, there are 400 AU troops in Darfur - 100 ceasefire monitors and 300 troops protecting those ceasefire monitors.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:45 AM




I Want My Money Back

I had a lot of regrets in leaving New York, but I figured that at least I'd be safer here in the Netherlands. Not so, apparently:
The Justice Ministry suspects terrorists have drawn up plans for an attack on the Dutch Parliament, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the Borssele nuclear reactor, the Defence Ministry and the Leidschendam office of the AIVD secret service, it was revealed on Wednesday.
I didn't know Holland even had a secret service, though I guess that's what makes it secret. So far as I'm concerned, anything in Leidschendam is safe from foreigners, since we can't even come close to pronouncing it (during the war, the Dutch underground used to test suspected German infiltrators by making them pronounce Scheveningen, a popular beach in The Hague; that sch-vowel combination to start a syllable is just impossible).
The revelations were made by newspaper NRC Handelsblad, which based its report on the case dossier lodged against suspected terrorist 18-year-old Samir A., who was arrested at the end of June by Rotterdam police.

[snip]

Police claim they uncovered indications during a raid on his home that the suspect was planning a terrorist attack. The prosecution says officers seized floor plans of possible targets.

Besides the building layouts, police also said they seized a silencer, two cartridge clips, night glasses and a bullet-proof vest. Bomb-making chemicals such as ammonia and hydrochloric acid were also found.

A. is currently believed to be the only suspect in the case, but a confidential AIVD report claimed in October last year that he was a member of a "network" of "young, radical Muslims".

[snip]

The suspect is a Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin.

The suspect was also arrested on 17 October 2003 based on bugged telephone conversations. The AIVD alleged at the time he was involved in preparing an attack with four other extremists.

During a search of a house on that occasion police seized hydrochloric acid and artificial fertiliser, raising suspicions that the suspects intended to construct a bomb. They were eventually released due to a lack of evidence.
The story does have it humorous side, in a sort of Clouseauesque sense.
The suspect first hit headlines back in January 2003 when he reportedly tried to travel to Chechnya to join Muslim separatists there.

The suspect and his companion became stranded in the Russian cold and Russian authorities sent them back to the Netherlands.
I probably should have moved to a country that's not part of the Coalition of the Willing.

In unrelated news, Women on Waves has published (on the Internet) instructions for pregnant Portuguese women on how to induce abortions. Whatever you say about this place and its remarkably tall inhabitants, they're not boring.

posted by Arnold P. California at 8:32 AM




The Lighter Side (Literally)

As a follow-up to my recent post on suppression of the black vote, here's a stunning story of the NAACP's insidious campaign to suppress the white vote. It's a must-read.

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:42 AM


Wednesday, September 08, 2004


A Double-Digit Bush Lead?

Those recent polls in Newsweek and Time showing double-digit leads for Bush have created a mini-panic among Democrats and Kerry supporters. But an item in today's "Hotline," the daily e-newsletter on politics produced by the National Journal, suggests that the methodology behind those two polls may be fundamentally unsound:
Pollster John Zogby calls into question the party breakdown of the Newsweek's poll, stating that it favors GOPers. The Newsweek sample of regis. voters consists of 38% GOP, 31% Dem and 31% indie voters. Zogby, who uses 35% GOP, 39% Dem, and 26% indie in his polls, writes that the Newsweek base is not representative of the electorate. This differential accounts for why Newsweek puts it at an 11-point race, where as Zogby puts it at a 2-point race. "There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote" (Zogby stated) ....

Emory professor Alan Abramowitz argues that it is not only Newsweek that is too GOP friendly, but Time as well. Also, Abramowitz notes, Gallup is projecting that 89% of Bush supporters and 79% of Kerry supporters will vote. This is "way out of line" with American National Election Studies trends which show an average of only 3% difference between the turnout of each party.

Gallup's sample also includes more GOPers than Dems, which is opposed to the '00 exit polls. If Gallup's trial heat is applied to to the '00 electorate, Kerry comes out with a 4 pint lead: 50%-46% ...
Interesting.

It's worth noting that it was Zogby whose final 2000 presidential poll proved to be the most accurate.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:19 PM




Determining Genocide

My coverage of the situation in Darfur has been a little superficial lately as I have mostly been summarizing and providing links to news articles which, I assume, are probably not being read.

Earlier today I linked to a Washington Post article about the impending release of the State Department's report on Darfur. I didn't provide much beyond the first paragraph, but now feel compelled to share more because it contains a lot of important information
State Department lawyers reviewing the report, based on 1,136 interviews collected in 19 refugee camps in neighboring Chad last month, said the evidence of rape, killing of male babies, use of racial epithets, burning of villages and displacement could easily meet the legal definition of genocide. Powell visited Darfur in June and requested the investigation.

A draft of the report, which was obtained by The Post and which will be issued in its final form Thursday, says the Sudanese government in coordination with the Arab militia known as the Janjaweed sought victims who were non-Arabs. Assailants often shouted racial and ethnic epithets such as "Kill the slaves" and "We have orders to kill all blacks."

Use of the word genocide is "a political question now," a high-ranking State Department source said. "Not a legal one."
So it seems clear that the legal definition of genocide has been met, but the State Department is insisting that it is now a "political question." But since both houses of Congress have already declared it a genocide, I'd assume that the "legal question" has already been answered.

The only logical conclusion is that both the State Department and Congress consider the situation in Darfur to be a genocide, only the White House is unwilling to admit it since doing so would make them legally obligated to do something about it - and that is a situation which they are desperately trying to avoid.

And why is that?
[A]nalysts have said the United States is reluctant to antagonize Sudan because the Bush administration does not want to jeopardize a U.S.-backed peace deal to end a separate civil war with rebels in southern Sudan. In addition, Sudan, which once harbored Osama bin Laden, now plays a role in the war on terrorism.

High-ranking Sudanese officials, including the head of National Intelligence Security Services and the former external affairs intelligence chief, are among the key figures ordering and coordinating the violence in Darfur, State Department sources said.

"Senior Bush administration officials appear reluctant to publicly identify senior officials involved in the atrocities in Darfur, including First Vice President Osman Taha and NISS chief Salah Abdala Gosh, because these officials are also in charge of the counterterrorism efforts and have been cooperating with U.S. officials," said Ted Dagne of the U.S. Congressional Research Service. "Targeting these officials could end cooperation on counterterrorism."
Can it be true that Bush is so determined not to antagonize this ally in the "war on terror" that he is willing to allow them to potentially kill and starve hundreds of thousands of people?

It appears so.

Eric Reeves wrote an extremely insightful analysis of the struggle over the determination of genocide yesterday that I encourage you all to read. He forcefully argues that all the requirements have been met to determine that genocide is indeed taking place and estimates that, thus far, "there have been at least 100,000 violent deaths [and] perhaps as many as 100,000 additional casualties from the effects of malnutrition and disease."

He concludes thusly
[O]ne truth that now stands beyond dispute. Khartoum will not cease to commit genocide until the international community stops it. This requires urgent humanitarian intervention, with robust military support. Even the contemplated African Union force of 2,000 to 3,000 peacekeepers is woefully inadequate to the task. (Khartoum adamantly refuses to accept any force with a peacekeeping mandate.) A peacekeeping/peace-making force will require more than ten times this number if it is to halt genocide in Darfur.

The question is, as it has been for so many months now, whether the world is serious about stopping genocide in Darfur. There is no present evidence to suggest that this is the case. If Colin Powell refuses, out of political expediency, to determine that deliberate, racially/ethnically-animated human destruction is genocide, then we will have what should prove the defining evidence of our refusal, yet again, to stop genocide in Africa.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:10 PM




More Signs That Keyes Is Losin' It

This story from Associated Press's Chicago Bureau (registration req'd) provides the details:
(8:48 am CDT September 8, 2004)

CHICAGO -- Illinois Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes injected religion into his race against Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday. According to a list of quotes put out by the Democratic candidate, Keyes said in a radio interview at the Republican National Convention that Jesus would not vote for Obama.

The quote was part of a list Obama sent reporters of Keyes' accusations and epithets about him since Keyes became a candidate, NBC-5 political editor Dick Kay said. Kay also reported that Keyes called Obama a "socialist and a liar" on a cable access news show on Monday.

... Keyes, who has focused his campaign on abortion, said that his statement about whom Jesus would vote for was based on Obama's pro-choice votes in the Illinois Senate.

"Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died," Keyes said. "And I'm not the only person, obviously, who thinks if you are a representative of me, I cannot vote for you if you would ignore the dignity and claims of that child's life. So, yes, I did respond quite logically -- you'll see it's quite logical, right -- with the conclusion that Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
If you want to keep tabs on all of the ridiculous things that keep coming out of Alan Keyes' mouth, there's a blog specifically created for this purpose: Truth About Keyes.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:50 PM




The Coulterfication of Dick Cheney

Frederick has already commented on this, but I thought I'd put my two cents in as well....

What does it say about the state of Republican political discourse when comments by Vice President Cheney are only marginally less inflammatory and repugnant than those of bomb thrower Ann Coulter. Compare and contrast Cheney's comments
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States ..."

with Coulter's response to his comments on last night's Hannity & Colmes [sorry, no link available]:
"This is an issue, which candidate is going to lead, be more likely to defend America to prevent the next attack. I think it's unquestionable that Republicans are more likely to prevent the next attack....However, I will grant that John Kerry will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry."



posted by Noam Alaska at 1:37 PM




Remember When Dick Cheney ...

.... said this during his acceptance speech four years ago in Philadelphia?
"In this election, [the Democrats] will speak endlessly of risk; we will speak of progress. They will make accusations; we will make proposals. They will feed fear, and we will appeal to hope."
Well, it was Dick Cheney himself yesterday who, during a campaign stop in Des Moines, said this about John Kerry:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States ..."
If Cheney had been speaking honestly at the 2000 Republican National Convention, he would have said something like this: "They will speak endlessly of risk; we will speak of progress. Of course, if we're victorious in this campaign and choose to run for re-election in 2004, then it would most appropriate for us to paint the other side as risky."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:26 PM




Kerry's New Ad Campaign?

This would be the cheapest, most effective ad this year. Just a simple ten-second spot, run every hour on the hour until November 2nd.

(prerequisite band music playing American-style theme)

(fade from black, soft focus on Donald Trump)

Trump (pointing into the camera): Mr. President, you're fired! John Kerry, you're hired!

It could happen! "The Donald" has this to say about Bush:
Trump calls the war in Iraq "a total catastrophe" and praises John Kerry: "He's a great guy. He's a very smart guy, and I think he's highly underestimated, and I think he's going to run an amazingly successful campaign. Look at what he did in the primaries. It appeared as if he was off the radar, and all of a sudden he made this great comeback. I have a feeling he's going to do very well."
A great follow-up ad would be one in a similar vein, only with Lee Iacocca instead of Trump. Or perhaps any one of the 204 corporate business leaders who endorsed Kerry in August?

Just a thought about how to counteract the myth that Kerry is unpopular with corporate executive types.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:20 PM




Debating the Debates

As for the news that President Bush may skip one of the debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, let me second the headline from Eugene's earlier post -- Coward! Especially ridiculous is what Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman said Sunday on ABC's "This Week":
We look forward to these debates. We look forward to having a debate about debates.
A debate about debates!? Ah, now I get it. The Bush campaign's preferred debate format is one in which the president debates debates and Kerry debates the (tough) issues. In other words, Mehlman would prefer a debate in which .....
These are sample questions for Senator Kerry:

1) How soon would you begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and what conditions would you set for beginning such a pullout?

2) What specific policies do you propose to stimulate job growth and how much would these policies cost the U.S. taxpayer?

3) How will your diplomatic approach to North Korea differ from the administration's? What if this totalitarian nation continues to sell conventional weapons or other destructive materials to third-world dictators?

4) Given the fact that the baby-boom generation will begin drawing benefits from Social Security, what steps do you propose to ensure the financial solvency of the program? Would you support another increase in the Social Security retirement age?

5) As tensions rise between Taiwan and China, are you prepared to go to war, if necessary, to defend Taiwan from a possible Chinese attack?

These are sample questions for President Bush:

1) What kind of chairs or stools do you find most comfortable for debates?

2) After tonight's debate (first scheduled debate in Miami), are you planning to go to Norman's restaurant to try their one-of-a-kind grilled grouper on mango-Habanero chutney?

3) Should this year's presidential debate include a brief intermission so that country singer Lee Greenwood can perform his hit song "God Bless the USA"?

4) Do you prefer to use a metal or wooden lectern at debates? If the answer is "wooden," please specify your preference -- cherry, oak or maple?

5) Do you plan to glance at your wristwatch a few times during the presidential debate, just as your father did at one of the 1992 debates?



posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:37 AM




Coward!

From the Washington Post
President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday.

The officials said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri.

[edit]

Officials familiar with the issue said he plans to accept the commission's first debate, which is to focus on domestic policy, and the third one, which is to focus on foreign policy.

The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.
Back in June, the Commission on Presidential Debates laid out these guidelines
In the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate the candidates shall be seated with the moderator at a table.

The first presidential debate shall focus primarily on domestic policy and the third presidential debate shall focus primarily on foreign policy. The second presidential debate shall be held as a town meeting in which citizens will pose questions to the candidates. The vice presidential debate shall cover both foreign and domestic policy topics.

In the second presidential debate, the town meeting participants will pose their questions to the candidates. The town meeting participants will review their questions with the moderator before the debate for the sole purpose of avoiding duplicate questions. The participants in the town meeting, to be chosen by the Gallup Organization, will be undecided voters from the St. Louis, Missouri, standard metropolitan statistical area.
Is Bush afraid that, unlike the staged "Ask the President" events he is holding, he is going to be unable to answer real questions from actual undecided voters?

Not at all, say the coward's advisers
A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.

"It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush. "They want two debates that are focused on clear differences on foreign and domestic policy. We benefit from the differences."
This is so pathetic is almost defies belief. But then again, I seen Bush try to answer non-scripted questions before and the results were not pretty.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:22 AM




In the Gay, Gay News

First Massachusetts, now on to Washington! A judge has ruled Washington's gay-marriage ban unconstitutional and that gays constitute a suspect class such as race, gender, etc. In reaction to the ruling an anti-gay organizer says exactly what he thinks.
Pastor Joseph Fuiten, president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and an opponent of same-sex marriage, called the judge's decision "an astounding widening of rights for homosexuals."

Many members of his church, Cedar Park Assembly of God in Bothell, identify themselves as former gays, he said. "I have no black members who used to be white."

"It's a huge leap," he said of the protected-class finding. "Everything flows from that. It entitles [gays] to full protection."
Full protection! Oh the horror!

Well, at the very least Massachusetts won't be all by its lonesome anymore. The rabidly anti-gay right-wing can funnel their money into two states now! Also, unlike Massachusetts, I don't think Washington has an out-of-state marriage license ban. So gays like myself may someday soon be able to go to Seattle and get hitched! Yeah!

And, giving credit where credit is due, the Log Cabin Republicans recently discovered they have half a backbone and have officially refused to endorse Bush/Cheney. (Not that Bush or his cronies will care about the loss of GOP-homo support, but at least it shows that the group has a modicum of integrity and self-respect.)

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:11 AM




Bush Logic

During a rally yesterday
THE PRESIDENT: And then they say, well, how are you going to pay for it? [Kerry] said, oh, just don't worry about it. We'll just tax the rich.

First of all, you can't raise the money, enough money to pay for his promises, by taxing the rich. Secondly, when you tax the rich, you're taxing nearly a million small business owners, because they pay tax at the individual income tax level. Thirdly, you've heard that rhetoric before, haven't you?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Oh, don't worry, we'll tax the rich. Well, that's why the rich hire accountants and lawyers. They dodge, you pay, but we're not going to let him tax you, because we're going to win this election in November. (Applause.)
Or, in plain language
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, John Kerry will try to tax the rich, but they'll all just hire accountants and hide their money so he can't get it.

I, on the other hand, am very realistic about how the rich evade federal law for their own enrichment. I realize that they, unlike you good folks, have discovered borderline illegal ways to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. It's just not fair, but rather than clamping down on them and closing loopholes and actually enforcing tax laws, well, I'm just gonna give 'em tax breaks.

The way I see it, we weren't going to get that money anyway - and at least this way all my friends won't be criminals.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that once we lower taxes, all the tax cheats will probably stop cheating. It's just like when you lower the price of cars, people stop stealing cars. It's the same basic principle. Vote for me in November.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:04 AM




Daily Darfur

Sudan continues to insist that no genocide is taking place and that no more than 5,000 people have been killed.

The prospect of sanctions appears dead and Kofi Annan is still "not satisfied" with Khartoum's cooperation. He wants to increase the number of AU troops from 400 to 4000. Of course, Sudan has declared that it will only accept more troops if they are sent to monitor the ceasefire, not protect civilians.

The Washington Post reports
A State Department report detailing atrocities in the Darfur region of western Sudan concludes that the Sudanese government has promoted systematic killings based on race and ethnic origin, but officials said Tuesday that there was strong debate over whether Secretary of State Colin L. Powell should classify the violence as genocide.
The final report is to be issued tomorrow.

Fred Hiatt had this column on Darfur in Monday's Post
The issues are hard to understand. U.S. and European security is not at stake.

This was more or less George W. Bush's attitude when he was running for president in 2000 and said the Clinton administration had been right not to intervene to stop the 1994 Rwanda genocide, in which some 800,000 people died. "That's an important continent," he said of Africa, "but there's got to be priorities. . . . We can't be all things to all people in the world."

[edit]

But if there is such an anniversary -- if the genocide proceeds deliberately before us, even as we have all been warned and warned again -- what will it say about the Bush presidency? Well, he was very busy in the summer and fall of 2004, and Darfur is far away.
Also, Sam Rosenfeld at Tapped had a good analysis of a recent Emily Wax article.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:43 AM




This Would Be Gold in the Hands of Karl Rove

Or James Carville, for that matter. By which I mean that it could be used to devastating effect, whether or not the attack was fair or honest. What am I talking about?
The Pentagon and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but defense officials said they found two dozen new records detailing his training and flight logs after The Associated Press filed a lawsuit and submitted new requests under the public records law.

[snip]

The records show his last flight was in April 1972, which is consistent with pay records indicating Bush had a large lapse of duty between April and October of that year. Bush has said he went to Alabama in 1972 to work on an unsuccessful Republican Senate campaign. Bush skipped a required medical exam that cost him his pilot's status in August of that year.

Bush's 2000 campaign suggested the future president skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete. Records show Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974 and used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972.

A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time.

Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United State beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records.

[snip]

As part of the mission, the 147th kept two F-102A jets - the same Bush flew before he was grounded - on ready alert to be launched within five minutes' warning.
No mysteries as to how this could be used:
Democratic National Committee communications director Jano Cabrera [said:] "For months George Bush told the nation that all his military records were public," he said. "Now we know why Bush was trying so hard to withhold these records. When his nation asked him to be on call against possible surprise attacks, Bush wasn't there."
Is this a fair characterization? It certainly passes the Rove standard of fairness, but that's equivalent to passing the Madonna chastity test. It's not demonstrably false, but it is heavily spun, which seems to be fair game in this election season.

Those of you in the US who are into the National Guard/AWOL issue might watch the CBS interview with Ben Barnes tonight. These might be the "newly revealed documents" that Josh Marshall understands CBS will be reporting on and that he expects to be the real story (more than Barnes's statements) of tonight's broadcast.

posted by Arnold P. California at 4:55 AM


Tuesday, September 07, 2004


What If?

What if Reuters was running photos of George Bush shooting trap, instead of John Kerry.

Would we be seeing posts like this in The Corner?
I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF THESE, TOO [KJL]
An e-mail: "Notice in the pictures of Kerry shooting trap at Edinburg, Ohio that he has no eye or ear protection. No real trap shooter would do that. It is against ATA (Amateur Trapshooting Association) rules and the rules of every gun club I know. Thanks to the gun club where these pictures were taken for exposing Kerry as a phony by letting him shoot without protection."
Probably not. In fact, if Bush was out there shooting trap without the requisite eye or ear protection, the Cornerites would all be cooing about how manly he is.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:56 PM




Somebody Didn't Get The Message

Over the weekend, I saw that Kerry had turned to Bill Clinton for some campaign advice
In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.
So naturally I thought the Kerry campaign might start downplaying the whole Vietnam angle.

And then I received an e-mail from the Kerry campaign today seeking volunteers. The subject heading?
"It's Time to Report for Duty"
We get it - you served in Vietnam. Now stop milking it.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:44 PM




The Need for Truth

Michael P. Lynch, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Connecticut, has a new book coming out next month called "True to Life: Why Truth Matters."

An essay adapted from the book appears this week in the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required)
In early 2003 President Bush claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. Although White House officials subsequently admitted they lacked adequate evidence to believe that was true, various members of the administration dismissed the issue, noting that the important thing was that the subsequent invasion of Iraq achieved stability of the region and the liberation of the country.

Many Americans apparently agreed. After all, there were other reasons to depose the Hussein regime. And the belief that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat had rallied us together and provided an easy justification to doubters of the nobility of our cause. So what if it wasn't really true? To many, it seemed naïve to worry about something as abstract as the truth or falsity of our claims when we could concern ourselves with the things that really mattered -- such as protecting ourselves from terrorism and ensuring our access to oil. To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go?

[edit]

An unswerving allegiance to what you believe isn't a sign that you care about truth. It is a sign of dogmatism. Caring about truth does not mean never having to admit you are wrong. On the contrary, caring about truth means that you have to be open to the possibility that your own beliefs are mistaken. It is a consequence of the very idea of objective truth. True beliefs are those that portray the world as it is and not as we hope, fear, or wish it to be. If truth is objective, believing doesn't make it so; and even our most deeply felt opinions could turn out to be wrong. That is something [the current administration] would do well to remember. It is not a virtue to hold fast to one's views in face of the facts.

[edit]

It is vital that a government tell its citizens the truth -- whether it be about Iraq's capacities for producing weapons of mass destruction or high-ranking officials' ties to corporate interests. That is because governmental transparency and freedom of information are the first defenses against tyranny. The less a government feels the need to be truthful, the more prone it is to try and get away with doing what wouldn't be approved by its citizens in the light of day, whether that means breaking into the Watergate Hotel, bombing Cambodia, or authorizing the use of torture on prisoners. Even when they don't affect us directly, secret actions like those indirectly damage the integrity of our democracy. What you don't know can hurt you.
If you want to read the entire essay, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:00 PM




And Another Thing

Still wondering why New Yorkers don't show Shrub much love? Check out the opening to his Labor Day remarks in Missouri (the same ones with the bizarre OB/GYN line that I--and I now realize Atrios--blogged earlier).
Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. It's a beautiful part of the world. People are good people here.
Ah, yes, the yeomen of the heartland. The real Americans. "Good people."

As opposed to those bad people with their citified ways who actually f***ing died on 9/11, but whom the administration continues to shaft by not paying for security at our ports, transit links, and so on while funneling "homeland security" money to red states that al Qaeda has never heard of.

Yes, I'm bitter. And the Necropublican Convention's celebration of Dubya's brave words from Ground Zero especially rubbed salt in the wounds--those of us who were in the neighborhood on 9/11 remember waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting for our President to show up for three days. And we remember how he broke off the attempt to shut down the people who actually did this to us so that he could pursue an ill-planned, ill-advised, illegal vendetta and make it more likely that we'd get hit again.

But as long as he's taking care of the "good people" of the heartland, it's all OK.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:47 PM




This Is Just Weird

When I first read it, I figured it was a slip of the tongue that might be interesting to those with Freudian tendencies, but it turns out it's in the official on-line text of a recent Dubya campaign speech in Missouri.
Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.
And just in case you think this is the work of someone with a bizarre sense of humor in the office that puts stuff up on the website, the video shows the man himself uttering these cryptic words.

Suggestions as to what on earth this was all about are welcome.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:41 PM




We Are Doing a Great Job

And we are going to pass a meaningless resolution that says so
House Republicans plan to use this month’s legislative agenda to focus pre-election attention on national security and prevent the Democrats from changing the subject to domestic issues that could help Sen. John Kerry’s White House bid.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-World's Biggest Asshole) and his forces want to pass a resolution as early as this week that would highlight the successes of the war on terrorism, echoing the themes of the GOP convention last week and seeking to build upon the political momentum Republicans grabbed in New York.

The resolution will address the nation’s success in routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and its accomplishments in capturing and killing al Qaeda operatives, thwarting terrorist plans, toppling Saddam Hussein and introducing democracy to Iraq.
Your tax dollars at work.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:53 AM




The Early Blogger Gets the Post

I was going to post on the Bush administration's well-timed Friday afternoon press conference announcing a record increase in Medicare premiums, but since the Carpetbagger beat me to it, I'll just encourage you to read his post.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM




Secular Modernists vs Religious Anti-Modernists

If you're an American Prospect reader, you may have read a couple of articles earlier this year -- Ayelish McGarvey's "Reaching to the Choir" and Robert Reich's "Bush's God" -- examining evangelical liberalism and the growing tension in our society between so-called "secular modernists" and religious anti-modernists. In the August issue of AP, Michael Hayes, a political science professor at Colgate University responded to these articles with a letter:
As an evangelical Christian, I find myself on what Robert Reich calls the “anti-modernist” side of contemporary conflicts. I suspect most of the moderate to liberal evangelicals recently profiled in your magazine ... would find themselves on the anti-modernist side as well. This surprises and troubles me, as I consider myself not only a modernist but also a strong Democrat, a defender of the separation of church and state, and a long admirer of Reich’s writings.

As a Christian, I accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God and believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth. At the same time, I recognize that these views are not held universally. Many people reject religion altogether, while those who believe in God disagree among themselves as to which religion is the true faith. I join with the secular liberals in believing such differences must be settled, if at all, through discussion and persuasion rather than through coercion.

The real conflict is not between secular modernists and religious anti-modernists. Those who would impose onto others their vision of truth -- whether secular or religious -- pose the real threat.

Michael Hayes
Professor of Political Science,
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY
I think Hayes is in denial when he writes that "differences" between the two world views can be solved "through discussion and persuasion." Perhaps a handful of disagreements can be solved or mediated through dialogue, but it's naive to think that most or all of these differences can be addressed so neatly. After all, most of the issues that define the fault line between secular modernists and religious anti-modernists concern the nature and status of laws.

Consider the plethora of questions that are at the heart of this chasm:
* Will abortion be legal? In most or in all circumstances?

* Should same-sex marriage be legally recognized? Should this issue be determined by federal or state law? If not gay marriage, what about civil unions?

* Should federal funds for drug rehabilitation, homeless shelters and other social programs be disbursed to religious groups that will actively proselytize to recipients of these tax-funded programs?
Since the issues that divide secular modernists and religious anti-modernists extend to matters of law, Hayes must recognize an inescapable outcome: one side of this debate usually ends up "impos[ing] onto others their vision of truth."

The real question is whether religious people, if they truly respect the separation of church and state, will work with secularists (and, bear in mind, some of us secularists may be "anti-modernist" on some issues) in identifying moral principles to guide the nation -- principles that transcend religious or secular thinking.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:36 AM




Daily Darfur

It's just more of the same: Peace talks are going nowhere; The attacks continue; The delivery of humanitarian aid is being hampered by rains and continuing violence; and the UN says it is "not yet time" to consider imposing sanctions on Sudan.

Passion of the Present has more news.

But I want to use today's installment of the Daily Darfur to focus instead on the never-ending war between Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army.

From the AP
While the world focuses on the crisis in Darfur, three times as many people have been suffering for many more years in two other conflicts involving the Sudanese government.

And, while money has flowed in to help the 2 million people in Sudan's Darfur region who have been caught in 18 months of civil war, few funds are available for the 6 million Sudanese and Ugandans affected by related conflicts that have lasted more than 18 years.

[edit]

[A UN official] recently returned from a trip to northern Uganda, where more than 1.6 million people have fled their homes because of an 18-year-old civil war between government forces and the rebel Lord's Resistance Army.

The rebels, operating from bases in the southern region of neighboring Sudan, rarely try to hold territory in Uganda and concentrate their attacks on civilians. The group has abducted more than 30,000 women and children to use as servants, concubines and child soldiers, according to UNICEF.

As a result, more than 90 percent of the population in northern Uganda has taken shelter in 180 refugee camps.

[edit]

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Ugandan government supported the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Army in its battle with the Sudanese government in Khartoum. Sudan's government, in return, backed the Lord's Resistance Army, a cult-like group that has little contact with the outside world.
UNICEF reports that more than 12,000 children have been abducted by the LRA since June 2002.

Photos from the AP

Two young boy's get treated for severe burn wounds in the Lira hospital in northern Uganda, Monday, Feb 23, 2004, after a massacre believed to be committed by the Lord's Resistance Army rebel group in the Barlonyo camp 26 kilometers north of the town that killed at least 200 people. (AP Photo/Karel Prinsloo)


A Ugandan soldier walk past a charred body, Monday, Feb 23, 2004,in the Barlonyo camp 26 kilometers north of the Lira in northen Uganda after a massacre believed to be committed by the Lord's Resistance Army rebel group in which at least 200 people were killed. (AP Photo/Karel Prinsloo)


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:20 AM




A Dutch MP Who Could Never Be Elected in the U.S.

I leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing or not.

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:27 AM




The Kerry Campaign Comes to Holland

How come no one invited me?

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:23 AM


Monday, September 06, 2004


Shame

Forget the Swift Boat Veterans, forget Fahrenheit 9/11, forget all of the other controversial campaign-related tactics by the candidates and their supporters. However these tactics are attacked and defended, there is one thing that we should all be able to agree is out-of-bounds: disenfranchising voters on the basis of race.

Unfortunately, we don't all seem to agree about this. Check out this sorry list of stratagems to suppress minority votes in recent years. Then read the entire report on the web or download it in pdf format.

Though whites' awareness of the problem has grown a bit in the past four years, most white voters think the big problems in Florida in 2000 were things like hanging chads and butterfly ballots (if they think there was anything problematic about the election at all). But these problems, bad as they were, were ad hoc and unintentional. The more serious issue was the deliberate suppression of the black vote, which is why many Congressional Black Caucus members boycotted Congress's official counting of the electoral votes after their objections were ruled out of order by then-Senate President Al Gore.

All indications are that we're in for more of the same this time. Don't let them get away with it again.

posted by Arnold P. California at 4:57 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com