Entries from October 2004 ↓
October 31st, 2004 — impolite company
Well, the Redskins lost, which is supposed to be a good sign for John Kerry’s prospects on Tuesday. My sister the (American) football fanatic, who is more of an emotional Kerry supporter than one who comes to her decision based on solid facts, told me the whole Redskins-election-predictor theory. Yes, correlation != causation, but, as Salon says, “Everyone knows a football game isn’t going to decide this election. But by golly, when it’s this close, every tea leaf is going to get treated like the Ten Commandments.”
My mother reported in from Florida tonight that she’s been absolutely amazed at the enormous lines at all the early voting sites in West Palm Beach and in Broward County. For some strange reason (she’s a retiree), she was out very early on Friday morning and said that there was a huge line around the Public Library in Delray Beach. Most of the people she knows are voting Kerry, and most of them have voted already.
And one more family surprise: my aunt, a notorious “forwarder”, whose politics have generally been somewhat more hawkish than Paul Wolfowitz, sent me a pro-Kerry e-mail today. I groaned when I got the email, entitled, “10 Things to Know About John Kerry“, certain it was going to be filled with Swift Boat Liar crap or some other distortions. Boy was I surprised when I opened it and read the first sentence: “Election Day is only a few days away. And the campaign of disinformation and distortions against John Kerry is still going strong within the Jewish community.” It then proceeded to outline a number or positives about Kerry, which — even more surprisingly — didn’t ALL concern Israel! The e-mail originated with the National Jewish Democratic Council, an organization which I hadn’t heard of, but, if they can convince my aunt, they must be doing something right!
Then there’s the Electoral Vote Predictor at electoral-vote.com, which is showing Kerry with 283 votes tonight. The knot in my stomach is getting a little looser.
October 29th, 2004 — impolite company
Some people are keeping their sense of humor in the final hours of a grim election season. Here’s a couple of items that made me laugh:
Foul-mouthed Dick Cheney might’ve given this speech to the Republican National Convention had his career path led him to become a Miami drug lord rather than the CEO of a “respectable” company. (Headphones required if you’re watching from work.)
Bush’s one-fingered victory salute. Or, what he’ll say to the nation should he (heaven forbid) win the election on Tuesday.
Weapons of mass seduction. Proudly mining the possibilities of “the economy is getting bigger… and bigger… Oooh… it’s so big….” And remember: The call is free because your grandchildren will be paying for it. (No nudity or foul language, but… probably NOT safe for work anyway.)
October 29th, 2004 — impolite company
It’s coming down to the final hours of the campaign, and in browsing around, I came across this reminder of John Kerry’s original position on the Iraq war. Despite claims otherwise, Senator Kerry has been completely consistent in his position regarding the war in Iraq, his repudiation of any international veto or “global test”, and in his commitment to international cooperation. On October 9, 2002, during the Senate debate over the resolution to give the President power to go to war in Iraq, Kerry said: [emphasis mine]
…Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out…
…If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq , and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right…
…The international community’s support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity…
…By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President’s right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined.
That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate…
October 24th, 2004 — impolite company
Here’s my contribution to lowering the level of civil discourse: Daniel Okrent, the New York Times’ “Public Editor” is an ignorant scumbag who is obviously not qualified to write for the smallest “shopper newspaper”, let alone for one of the most prestigious papers in the world.
For a recap: Times “reporter” Adam Nagourney writes another of his war-hyping, Kerry-hating, front-page articles. A reader writes him an email with intemperate remarks. Nagourney is so hurt by these comments — which are obviously the first negative comments he’s ever received — that he forwards the message to Okrent, the public editor (obviously not called the Ombudsman for a reason). Okrent decries the level of civil discourse in his twice-monthly column, and, while doing so, debases it even more by using his million-plus circulation megaphone to announce the nasty letter-writer’s name and city. The letter-writer is, predictably, beset by right-wing idiots who easily find his home address and phone-number and begin harassing him and his family incessantly, a result which Okrent either intended or is too stupid to expect.
And what is the Public Editor’s response? Well there’s this choice quote in an article in BusinessWeek
“…I decided that someone who goes out at night and paints a swastika on the door of a synagogue doesn’t want it written about either,” says Okrent. “There have to be consequences. [What the blogger wrote] was vile. No one should ever wish that on another person.”
My jaw dropped when I read that. Equating a nasty comment in a private email with public desecration of a place of worship? Surely, Okrent must’ve been misquoted or hyperbolically intemperate in his own remarks. (Besides, the guy wasn’t even a blogger: he didn’t post his message on the internet where it could be read by any number of people; he simply wrote a private letter to a person with whom he disagreed.)
But no, he wasn’t being hyperbolically intemperate — he really believes it! This is obvious, because Okrent repeats that disgusting equation today, in a supposed “apology” on the letter pages of the online Week in Review section of the Times:
Many people were distressed by my mention of various readers’ names in my Oct. 10 column, and particularly by my singling out one who had sent an especially vituperative message to Times reporter Adam Nagourney. My policy: I consider all messages sent to me, or forwarded to me by Times staff members, to be public unless the writer has stipulated otherwise.
Every message sent to my office gets an instant response asking if the writer wishes his or her name to be withheld. No signed comments are published without confirmation of authorship, either by telephone or e-mail.
I published the name of the man who wrote to Nagourney for the same reason that newspapers publish the names of people who commit other grievous acts. The man who vandalizes a church, say, doesn’t want his name in the paper either. But I don’t think his wishes should protect him from public responsibility for what he has done.
Same goes for public editors: I was wrong to call the reader a coward; that was engaging in the same debased discourse that I condemn. I apologize.
DANIEL OKRENT
What a guy! Owning up to his mistakes, right?
How fucking wrong can you be!
“The man who vandalizes a church” (notice how its “vandalizing a church” this time, rather than the more incendiary swastika on a synagogue) is committing a felony act and his name is published when he is arrested and his crime becomes a matter of public record. The man who curses someone in public or private has not committed a crime in this country. (Not yet, anyway.)
If Okrent cannot understand this fundamental difference in the workings of this country, its Constitution and its legal system, then he is just a bully abusing the pulpit afforded him by the First Amendment. For the sake of the continuing freedom of the press, Okrent’s bosses need to set him straight or send him to the unemployment line.
October 23rd, 2004 — impolite company
Honestly, did this ad scare you? It was supposed to. Instead, it’s evoking laughter, as Atrios reports was the case in its airing on Crossfire where Paul Begala said, “Those are puppies… Oh, I’m afraid. These puppies are coming. The puppies are coming.” I’m no expert in animal behavior — other than the misbehavior of my dog and 5 cats — but it seems to me that the pack of wolves were just laying about, when they heard the Bush campaign coming along and decided to run for their lives!
The ridicule is coming fast and furious, from Wolfpacks for Truth, where the stars of the ad allege that “We were tricked by George W. Bush! They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial!”, to the Democratic National Committee’s new ad showing the contrasts between the eagle and the ostrich:
The eagle soars high above the earth.
The ostrich buries its head in the sand.
The eagle can see everything for miles around.
The ostrich? Can’t see at all.
The eagle knows when it’s time to change course.
The ostrich stands in one place.
Given the choice, in these challenging times, shouldn’t we be the eagle again?
Honestly — and maybe it’s because I’m a tree-hugging member of The Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and The Humane Society of the US — when I look at the Republican ad, I see a beautiful pristine forest, inhabited by a group of endangered animals, which this administration has effectively removed from protection under the Endangered Species Act. We shouldn’t be scared of the wolves; its the wolves who should be scared of George W. Bush!
October 20th, 2004 — time-wasters
This has nothing to do with anything, and I’ll be damned if I can remember or figure out where I found the link, but this is one of the most intense optical illusions I’ve ever seen. It’s alive!
October 18th, 2004 — impolite company
Damn, was I wordy in last night’s post! A healthy glass of single-malt (Cragganmore, to be specific) while the wife is out of town, and I’m gone… Anyway, for the benefit of my attention-challenged readers, let me summarize:
- If John Kerry loses the election (heaven forbid!), it will be because he failed to motivate the 50% of the voting-age public who choose not to vote; because he failed to convince Republicans that Bush is not a Republican, but a radical; because he failed to convince the 20% of registered Democrats who voted for Bush the last time that the past four years have been a disaster. It will not be because of Ralph Nader’s 1-4% of the voters.
- I’ve come to like John Kerry, respect John Kerry, advocate for John Kerry, donate to John Kerry for many reasons, the main one being that I don’t have to spit when I say his name. He is the “least worst” candidate with the only chance of knocking off the “most worst ever” candidate. He is not my ideal, but he will do. (See below for some specifications on my ideal candidate.)
- Ralph Nader, when he is not whining about his mistreatment at the hands of the Democrats, or playing dumb when handed a wad of dirty Swift Boat money wrapped in thousands of fraudulent signatures, has a good point about the future of third-party politics in America: unless we actively challenge the entrenched and increasingly corporate-owned and -operated major parties at every chance we get, there is no future political spectrum beyond 2° either side of dead center. Either that or theocracy.
- (Warning: Fantasy ahead!) If Ralph Nader were to deliver his votes in swing states to John Kerry, in exchage for a shot at confirmation as Attorney General, I would cast my vote for him here in my safe state of Maryland, as would millions of others, providing a greater benefit for the cause of third parties than Nader’s focus-free campaign could ever achieve.
Was it worth saying twice?
October 18th, 2004 — impolite company
Over at Lotus – Surviving a Dark Time, Larry is maintaining his lonely fight to ensure that if (heaven forbid!) Kerry loses the election on November 2, it is not blamed on Ralph Nader’s presidential bid. Unfortunately, as he details, it seems that the blame machinery is already gearing up.
He points out that according to a recent New York Times article, Nader’s candidacy is jeopardizing Kerry’s chances in nine battleground states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin). But, this isn’t really the case, Larry says, telling us that
…that statement simply does not hold up. The chart with the article shows average poll figures for Bush, Kerry, and Nader in those nine states. We’re going to assume that the polls are accurate (that is, ignore margins of error, otherwise it becomes impossible to say the figures mean anything at all, which quite possibly they don’t) and to maximize Nader’s effect on Kerry, we’re also going to assume that every single vote for Nader is a vote that would go to Kerry if Nader was not on the ballot. They wouldn’t vote for Bush, they wouldn’t vote for David Cobb or Walt Brown or even Michael Badnarik or some other 3rd party, and they wouldn’t not vote. That is a clearly untenable assumption, but we’re going to make it anyway.
Even with those assumptions, this is what the chart shows: In three states (IA, ME, NH), Kerry is ahead. So Nader’s vote can’t “tip the balance” to Bush there. In four more (CO, FL, NV, WI), Bush is ahead by a margin greater than Nader’s vote, so even with those votes, Kerry would still lose the state. No “tipping” there, either. Only in two states (MN, NM) could Nader’s vote make a difference. Yes, that is two states. But it’s not nine.
Still, two states is enough to do serious damage, right? After all, didn’t Nader’s votes in Florida cost Al Gore the victory there in 2000? Not true, Larry has been saying since at least last December, calling the Nader-blame story a myth.
Most important is Fact One: Al Gore won the election. He won it fair and square and it was stolen from him. He won the popular vote by over a half-million and actually would have won Florida had a statewide recount been done, according to a post-election study by a group of newspapers. (Ironically, the Democrats wanted a more limited recount, under which Gore would have lost. It was the GOP pushing for a statewide recount, under which he would have won.) At that, it doesn’t allow for the infamous “butterfly ballot” business; even Pat Buchanan, the beneficiary of those misvotes, says most of them were intended for Gore. Nor does it take into account the (it seems all but forgotten) fact that at minimum 8,000 people, overwhelmingly minority, were improperly denied their right to vote because they’d been wrongfully purged from the Florida voter rolls – voters who everyone agrees would have been overwhelmingly Democratic. (For more on the GOP’s theft of the Florida election, check out Jews for Buchanan by John Nichols and David DesChamps.) None of that, of course, was Ralph Nader’s fault. But challenging it would mean taking on the GOP directly – and Nader was a much easier target.
Fact Two: It was not Ralph Nader’s fault that Al Gore ran an astonishingly incompetent campaign in which, as even his supporters admit, he never really defined himself or what he stood for, a campaign in which he deliberately rejected the support of perhaps the most effective campaigner of the last few decades (Bill Clinton) – which also made it nearly impossible for him to run on a claimed record of “peace, prosperity, government reform, and budget surpluses.”
Fact Three: It was not Ralph Nader’s fault that the “devastating” debater Al Gore blew three chances at a basically unarmed opponent.
Fact Four: It was not Ralph Nader’s fault that Gore couldn’t even carry his own home state of Tennessee, which would have made Florida irrelevant. (Even with Florida but without Tennessee, Bush could not have gotten more than 267 electoral votes of the 270 needed.)
Fact Five: It was not Ralph Nader’s fault that even after Gore knew the press would target him for “exaggerating,” he continued to do it – nor was it Nader’s fault that Gore seemed unable to respond when the claims of exaggerations were themselves exaggerations, as they often were.
And Fact Six: It definitely was not Ralph Nader’s fault that the Democrats treated Nader voters as naughty children to be scolded rather than as adults to be engaged and acted as if those votes were Gore’s by divine right instead of something to be earned.
I’m not so sure I agree with points 3 and 5, since I thought that Gore easily won all three debates, and, as far as exaggerating goes, I didn’t see that as something Gore was doing, rather it was part of the media’s storyline which would be enforced and the facts be damned! Still, Larry’s remaining 4 points are indisputable. The election was Gore’s to lose, and despite his many errors, missteps and bad judgments, Gore still won it and saw it stolen. Besides, at the time, we didn’t know that George W. Bush would be the radical president he has turned out to be. Running on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and claiming to be a “uniter, not a divider”, the consequences of the wrong choice didn’t seem so dire.
This time, though, the choice is clear: returning Bush to office will be a disaster which is certain to haunt us for generations to come. So, a vote for anyone but John Kerry — the only candidate with a chance to defeat Bush — is a vote for Bush, right? Well… maybe…
Here’s the problem: John Kerry is not my dream candidate. He is, what Nader in a recent interview with Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! called the “least worst” candidate. The candidate I want to win has much more liberal — perhaps impractically liberal — positions.
- I want a candidate who believes that gays and lesbians should have every right held by heterosexuals.
- I want a candidate who believes that corporations — legal constructs, licensed to exist at the will of government — have no part in elections and no First Amendment rights to express themselves. (I wouldn’t mind a death penalty for criminal corporations, either.)
- I want a candidate who believes that the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” enshrined in our founding documents means that good health — an essential part of two-thirds of those fundamental rights — should not be available only to those with wads of cash; my candidate finds it unconscionable and embarrassing that we are the only major Western democracy without a national healthcare plan. (And please save any bullshit about how its too expensive and it will bankrupt us and how our medical system is the best in the world, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Canada, our neighbor to the north with a wonderful national health service just posted a 9 billion dollar budget surplus, reduced its public debt, and still manages to have a life-expectancy 2.5 years longer than the US, an infant mortality rate 1/3 lower than ours, and an HIV/AIDS infection rate half ours.)
- I want a candidate who is willing to challenge American ingenuity, as John F. Kennedy did with the space program, to end our dependence on fossil fuels before this decade is out.
- I want a candidate who will state categorically that without the right to determine what happens to her own body, a woman can never be anything but a slave to the state and a second- or third-class citizen.
- I want a candidate who will set an example for the rest of the world by beginning to destroy our nuclear arsenal, and challenge other nations to do the same for the good of all humanity.
- I want a candidate who will work with the world community to get us the hell out of Iraq and keep us the hell out of unnecessary foreign adventures. (Notice, I didn’t say “get us out of Afghanistan.” We have a job to finish there, finding and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. Once that’s done, then we should get the hell out of there.)
- I want a candidate who respects the sacrifices of the men and women who have served their country, suffered for their country, lost limbs and suffer horrible sicknesses because of their service to their country. Respect for veterans includes fully funding VA hospitals, providing a new GI Bill, and promising never to send another soldier into an unnecessary war.
- I want a candidate who rcognizes that the Constitution is not a magical, infallible edict from on high, but one whose all-too-human authors expected it to be a living, changing document. Realizing that the current Electoral College system is broken, that gerrymandering has removed electoral choice in 90% of Congressional districts, that the bars to entry of a third party are unreasonably high, my ideal candidate would call for a new Constitutional Convention to address these issues and bring our Constitution in line with the realities of modern times.
- I want a candidate who recognizes that vast portions of our economy are subsidized by our willful ignorance of the unaccounted-for costs of pollution. If the price of cars, for instance, included the environmental costs of their manufacture and use, I bleieve that even Bill Gates would be riding a bicycle.
Is John Kerry my ideal candidate? Not by a long shot. Is Ralph Nader that candidate? The Nader who spent decades in selfless public service is much closer, but not nearly close enough. Does my ideal candidate exist? I don’t know… I don’t even think that if I were to run for president I could possibly fulfill all my expectations. And I suspect that there are millions and millions of people just like me. What are we supposed to do while we wait for that ideal candidate to appear? Do we vote our conscience and take the chance that our defection from the “least-worst” candidate will allow the worst candidate to waltz into another 4-year term where he can strengthen his disgusting and disastrous legacy to the detriment of our nation and our world? We can’t.
The other side of the choice is also highly unappealing. By voting for John Kerry, I am voting against my own beliefs and making it all the more difficult for a true third (or fourth or fifth) party to emerge and take its place in the major leagues. The more we subscribe to the either/or, Republican/Democrat mindset, the less likely it is that there will ever be true change. The more we let distasteful and anti-democratic political maneuvers — like trying to keep Nader, a legitimate candidate, off the ballot — become accepted strategies, the less likely it becomes that we will ever see needed reforms appear on the ballot. The more we allow our electoral process to be driven by the kingmakers in big business and big media and big politics, the less likely we are to ever reclaim democracy for the people.
But Nader himself needs reclaiming. The more Nader focuses on the strategies needed to counter the disservice being done him, the more he loses sight of his message. The more tainted money he accepts from the Swift Boat Liars, the more he denies that there is anything wrong with accepting this money, the more he allows Republican organizations to use him as a strategic blocking device in battleground states, the closer he becomes to a Machiavellian caricature of himself. What is his message? What does he seek to accomplish? What do I want to accomplish with my vote?
I know it’s not the most original thought, but, here’s my idea, fantasy, whatever: Ralph Nader meets with John Kerry and offers him a deal. If Kerry will commit to nominate Nader to the Attorney General post in his administration — a post where Nader (if he could actually get confirmed) will be best able to realize his anti-corporate agenda — Nader will endorse Kerry and request his supporters in battleground states do the same. Meanwhile, in safe states, like Maryland and New York, voters will be asked to see their vote as a referendum on the two-party system. If they like the choices, Kerry supporters should cast their votes for Kerry. If, however, they are voting for Kerry for strategic reasons, they should consider casting their vote for Nader or another third-party candidate. Result: Kerry wins, Nader has a voice and an ear to listen to it within the party, third-parties reach the threshhold for federal matching funds and a place at the debate table in the next election cycle. More importantly, voters start to feel like they actually have a choice, and that maybe, just maybe, that ideal candidate will actually have a chance to be heard when he or she finally comes along.
So, what do you say, Ralph?
October 15th, 2004 — impolite company
I’m not blaming the Coast Guard, I’m blaming the naive belief that we can possibly create an inpenetrable border over our more than 12,000 km of land boundaries and 19,000 km of coastline.
Why bring this up? Well, just yesterday, the US Coast Guard boarded Tiger Woods’ honeymoon yacht (ironically named Privacy) in port at San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico. Seems the captain neglected to notify officials 96 hours in advance that the 498 ton vessel (!) was coming into port — a new regulation for ships over 300 tons. So, the ship was in port when a routine harbor patrol noticed the ship and noted that it was not expected to be there. There’s no indication in the story of how long the ship was in the harbor before the patrol boat “noticed” and sent in an armed boarding crew. (We’ll leave the imagined stories about what the Coast Guardsmen discovered when they hit the master bedroom to Jon Stewart.)
The response from the Coast Guard spokesman was unusually honest for a government official, when he said:
…the advance notice provision and routine patrols do not prevent the occasional ship from slipping by.
“That’s certainly an issue we’re working on,” Russell said. “You’ve got to understand there are 361 ports and 95,000 miles of coastline [not sure about this number-- ed.] and while we’d certainly like to know everything that’s approaching the United States, we’re not quite there yet.”
So, they can’t guarantee that a 155′ yacht will be detected entering into a busy port, docking and beginning to refuel its 12,000 gallon tank. Yet our president and Il Duce of Homeland Security want us to feel secure because they make my 65 year-old mother take off her shoes at the airport before flying to West Palm Beach.
How big was the boat that blew up the USS Cole?
October 14th, 2004 — impolite company
Winona LaDuke, the Green party candidate for Vice-President in 1996 and 2000 has announced her support for John Kerry in this year’s presidential contest.
I am voting for John Kerry this November. I love this land, and I know that we need to make drastic changes in Washington if we are going to protect our land and our communities. I am committed to transforming the American democracy so that it is reflective of the diversity of this country. I believe in a multi-party system and a multi-racial democracy. I believe there are many opinions, not simply two, that merit a hearing on any issue. I believe we should be working harder to increase the numbers of people of color, women, and Native people elected to office because we are this country and we are what America looks like. I’m voting my conscience on Nov. 2; I’m voting for John Kerry.
What I find interesting about her endorsement is that she only mentions Ralph Nader in passing, regretting that the Democrats are “…investing positive, grassroots energy in a campaign to deny ballot access to Ralph Nader…” She spends the rest of her endorsement in Indian Country Today discussing Kerry and his failings and her assessment that while he may be a “…diamond in the rough on issues like genetic modification, tribal budgets and building a more inclusive democracy, he has potential.”
Her lack of comparison between Nader and Kerry or Green Party candidate David Cobb and Kerry is curious. Has this ardent third-party supporter decided that, in an election with such clear differences between the parties, there is no room for the luxury of a spoiler such as Nader?
