Briefly, a reader commented below on Brownie's testimony today, and I thought I'd put in my 2 cents' worth on that issue (more on the speculations of our fate later on; keep 'em coming).
If any of you read any of the emails that went between this dope and his staff, you'll get a pretty good sense of the stunningly clueless shallowness of this guy. The way he got his FEMA job indicates he was not directly in the Bush loop (though so IN that crazy crony loop-de-loop, it's clearly not the least bit funny), just one of the tag-alongs.
But this is where their refusal to take responsibility - both before and after tragedies - comes back to slap them in the butt. Or face, take your pick. The really pathetic aspect here is that Brownie exemplifies this pathology to its logical hilt. Right down to his hoping they'll offer him not only legal protection, but financial coverage.
Hopefully someone with more visibility than I will make this connection. Brownie is Bush run completely amok, without even the politically motivated constraints of Rove, or the evil power agenda of Dick, to control him.
Brownie is Bush had all the real powers that be not swept him up into the TX and US political scene.
Again, compare this notion with the AWOL issues, etc.
For good coverage of today's testimony, visit C-SPAN, rawstory or crooksandliars for direct links to video.
dr. elsewhere
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
IRANEOUS
In light of Joe's most recent post, and the odd nerve gas scare from last night, it does seem pertinent to consider just what the evil ones are up to - besides no good - and how they might pull it off.
Though all the deja vu signs are there for pre-Iran from pre-Iraq, it does not seem likely the identical route will be taken, or even could be. The UN will be tricky, and Congress is not as compliant as it was then.
What made Iraq possible was 9/11. Cheney's directive from last year, originally posted by Joe as "The Most Important Story of Our Time," was for the Air Force to have a nuke-dropping plan in place as a response to an attack on the US.
I'm of the humble opinion that the more we speculate, the less they can rely on the surprise element.
Let's speculate wildly here; don't hold back.
dr. elsewhere
Though all the deja vu signs are there for pre-Iran from pre-Iraq, it does not seem likely the identical route will be taken, or even could be. The UN will be tricky, and Congress is not as compliant as it was then.
What made Iraq possible was 9/11. Cheney's directive from last year, originally posted by Joe as "The Most Important Story of Our Time," was for the Air Force to have a nuke-dropping plan in place as a response to an attack on the US.
I'm of the humble opinion that the more we speculate, the less they can rely on the surprise element.
Let's speculate wildly here; don't hold back.
dr. elsewhere
TW3
Anyone out there old enough to remember TW3? That Was The Week That Was? David Frost hosted; he's now with Al Jazeera, interestingly enough.
As promised, a list of some good in-depth stories that have either gone under-reported in the headlines, or just flat-out un-reported.
NSA EAVESDROPPING
Doncha just love that the media is using this term and not buckling to the Rovian euphemism of “terrorist surveillance”? Without question, the best in depth coverage of the issues regarding the laws, the actions, and especially the administration’s arguments, comes from Glenn Greenwald. It’s worth the time to read through his unassailable points, as they might be your only comfort in the face of this chilling reality I thought I heard Gonzo alluding to (by avoiding it) in the Senate hearings. At least a couple of FISA judges objected, but we should not be surprised, given the old TIA intentions.
McCAIN HEARTS OBAMA…NOT!
No doubt you were immediately numb to this whole idiotic mess, but it’s a real curiosity as to just why Johnny boy would bother to pull such a bully move. To get the unflappable Obama flapped? To diminish a top contender for the Democratic VP slot in ’08? To impress W? Who knows? But soon enough it was revealed that our good bud, Joe Lieberman, was the only other Dem in the room for the meeting, so bets were flying as to how long it would be before the Joker stabbed his Party colleague in the back. To get the real flavor of how weird this whole thing was, first see just how big an ass McCain made of himself, and then see the Joker kiss it.
THE BLUDGET
It’s truly impossible to believe the extent to which the WH hutzpah leaps beyond credibility with their new budget. The entire document is so in-your-face, it’s hard to take it seriously. But of course, we all know better. Still, humor might be the best curative, at least in the initial stages, and no one does that better than Molly.
LEAKGATE
Ok, I hate the –gate thing, too. But there are just too many scandals; one needs shorthand. A couple of nice little plums came in this week on this particular pudding. One, reporter John Dickerson gives us some insight into just how the WH set up the leak; bunch of cagey bastards, they are. And two, Murray Waas points out Cheney's role in the conspiracy.
…AND IN OTHER SCANDALS
In a laughable move to negate any punishment for Hammer of the House, Tom DeLay managed to finagle his way into two crucial committees, House Appropriations (where he’ll have control of money going to NASA in his district) and oversight of the Justice Department, which is of course investigating Abramoff, who insists via emails that Bush must recall their many meetings, and whose investigation now involves the WH since they’re refusing to give up documents.
GOOD NEWS?
It’s all relative, of course. But our hero John Conyers made yet another plea for a Congressional investigation into the many scandals surrounding Iraq, the indefatigable Brad Friedman reports on the downsizing of Diebold, and Charlie Cook looks at numbers that show the Dems could have a shot at the House this fall.
FINALLY, THE NATIONAL GUARD
Funny, but just yesterday I have been wondering whatever happened to those CBS stories on Bush's AWOL status, and this morning Amy Goodman interviewed Mary Mapes, who lost her job at CBS over that fiasco. The interview is in two parts, so the rest will air tomorrow, 8 AM EST.
Democracy Now deserves a plug here. Just the BEST TV/Radio news show going, bar none. Great archives, too, and excellent website for the streaming. And if you're interested, you might want to look into requesting your local public access channel put it on their schedule. I'll have a piece on public access TV (speaking of McCain) next week.
dr. elsewhere
As promised, a list of some good in-depth stories that have either gone under-reported in the headlines, or just flat-out un-reported.
NSA EAVESDROPPING
Doncha just love that the media is using this term and not buckling to the Rovian euphemism of “terrorist surveillance”? Without question, the best in depth coverage of the issues regarding the laws, the actions, and especially the administration’s arguments, comes from Glenn Greenwald. It’s worth the time to read through his unassailable points, as they might be your only comfort in the face of this chilling reality I thought I heard Gonzo alluding to (by avoiding it) in the Senate hearings. At least a couple of FISA judges objected, but we should not be surprised, given the old TIA intentions.
McCAIN HEARTS OBAMA…NOT!
No doubt you were immediately numb to this whole idiotic mess, but it’s a real curiosity as to just why Johnny boy would bother to pull such a bully move. To get the unflappable Obama flapped? To diminish a top contender for the Democratic VP slot in ’08? To impress W? Who knows? But soon enough it was revealed that our good bud, Joe Lieberman, was the only other Dem in the room for the meeting, so bets were flying as to how long it would be before the Joker stabbed his Party colleague in the back. To get the real flavor of how weird this whole thing was, first see just how big an ass McCain made of himself, and then see the Joker kiss it.
THE BLUDGET
It’s truly impossible to believe the extent to which the WH hutzpah leaps beyond credibility with their new budget. The entire document is so in-your-face, it’s hard to take it seriously. But of course, we all know better. Still, humor might be the best curative, at least in the initial stages, and no one does that better than Molly.
LEAKGATE
Ok, I hate the –gate thing, too. But there are just too many scandals; one needs shorthand. A couple of nice little plums came in this week on this particular pudding. One, reporter John Dickerson gives us some insight into just how the WH set up the leak; bunch of cagey bastards, they are. And two, Murray Waas points out Cheney's role in the conspiracy.
…AND IN OTHER SCANDALS
In a laughable move to negate any punishment for Hammer of the House, Tom DeLay managed to finagle his way into two crucial committees, House Appropriations (where he’ll have control of money going to NASA in his district) and oversight of the Justice Department, which is of course investigating Abramoff, who insists via emails that Bush must recall their many meetings, and whose investigation now involves the WH since they’re refusing to give up documents.
GOOD NEWS?
It’s all relative, of course. But our hero John Conyers made yet another plea for a Congressional investigation into the many scandals surrounding Iraq, the indefatigable Brad Friedman reports on the downsizing of Diebold, and Charlie Cook looks at numbers that show the Dems could have a shot at the House this fall.
FINALLY, THE NATIONAL GUARD
Funny, but just yesterday I have been wondering whatever happened to those CBS stories on Bush's AWOL status, and this morning Amy Goodman interviewed Mary Mapes, who lost her job at CBS over that fiasco. The interview is in two parts, so the rest will air tomorrow, 8 AM EST.
Democracy Now deserves a plug here. Just the BEST TV/Radio news show going, bar none. Great archives, too, and excellent website for the streaming. And if you're interested, you might want to look into requesting your local public access channel put it on their schedule. I'll have a piece on public access TV (speaking of McCain) next week.
dr. elsewhere
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The most important story of our time: All the signs are there...
Cannon here: Those of you who still think that the next target is Syria, not Iran, should wake up and note the distinct aroma of Maxwell House in the air...
The propaganda has succeeded. According to a recent poll, two out of three Americans (roughly the same percentage favoring increased funding for mass transit) now view Iran as a major threat.
A prediction from Russia: Vladimir Zhirinovsky, that lovably weird quasi-fascist, has looked into his crystal ball, and he foresees a U.S. attack on Iran in late March.
Rumsfeld rattles the saber: When a guy like Rumsfeld says that military force is "an option" he usually means "it's a done deal."
The administration line is that Iran will hand nukes to terror groups. Of course, there is no evidence that they have any such intention. If the powers-that-be in Tehran possess even one iota of sanity (and I think they must possess several), they must be praying that no terrorist cell sets off a WMD in the United States -- because the Iranians know full well who will be blamed, regardless of who actually did what.
Making it personal: I have always said that the prelude to war would be marked by a stepped-up demonization of Iran's leadership. That's happening -- and the latest effort comes from a striking source:
Now all we need is the traditional tabloid story in which Ahmadinejad stands exposed as a cross-dresser or a pedophile. Or perhaps he will be portrayed as the rejected suitor of a blonde American woman -- which, if I recall correctly, was the yarn they attached to Osama Bin Laden. Once you see a headline of that sort blaring at you as you stand in line at the grocery store, you'll know it's war.
The document dump: Last -- but certainly not least -- are the "leaked" faked documents. Remember the yellowcake forgeries? Meet their older siblings. (In case Effwit has posted more, scroll down to "White House Takes Iran Propaganda To New Low.") The original story appeared in the Washington Post:
Two further points:
1. What is Michael Ledeen up to these days?
2. The same poll referenced above reveals that the vast majority of the American people still want to see this issue resolved via the U.N. -- not unilaterally. In order to change that opinion, something big will have to take place. Something really big.
The propaganda has succeeded. According to a recent poll, two out of three Americans (roughly the same percentage favoring increased funding for mass transit) now view Iran as a major threat.
As recently as October, Iraq and China were seen as the biggest threats, closely followed by North Korea.In the words of the immortal Homer: "Mmmmmm! Kool-Aid!"
"The threat from Iran has really penetrated, with two of three saying Iran's nuclear program represents a major threat," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "Among people who have been following news about the issue, there's even greater concern."
A prediction from Russia: Vladimir Zhirinovsky, that lovably weird quasi-fascist, has looked into his crystal ball, and he foresees a U.S. attack on Iran in late March.
"The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war," he said. "Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost," Zhirinovsky said.I'm not so sure about that one -- but let us take note, nonetheless.
He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is "to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world".
Rumsfeld rattles the saber: When a guy like Rumsfeld says that military force is "an option" he usually means "it's a done deal."
The administration line is that Iran will hand nukes to terror groups. Of course, there is no evidence that they have any such intention. If the powers-that-be in Tehran possess even one iota of sanity (and I think they must possess several), they must be praying that no terrorist cell sets off a WMD in the United States -- because the Iranians know full well who will be blamed, regardless of who actually did what.
Making it personal: I have always said that the prelude to war would be marked by a stepped-up demonization of Iran's leadership. That's happening -- and the latest effort comes from a striking source:
GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Adolf Hitler...All righty, there we have it: The inevitable comparison to Adolf. As you know, this is the first step in any modern propaganda campaign.
Now all we need is the traditional tabloid story in which Ahmadinejad stands exposed as a cross-dresser or a pedophile. Or perhaps he will be portrayed as the rejected suitor of a blonde American woman -- which, if I recall correctly, was the yarn they attached to Osama Bin Laden. Once you see a headline of that sort blaring at you as you stand in line at the grocery store, you'll know it's war.
The document dump: Last -- but certainly not least -- are the "leaked" faked documents. Remember the yellowcake forgeries? Meet their older siblings. (In case Effwit has posted more, scroll down to "White House Takes Iran Propaganda To New Low.") The original story appeared in the Washington Post:
Analysts cannot completely rule out the possibility that internal opponents of the Iranian leadership could have forged them to implicate the government, or that the documents were planted by Tehran itself to convince the West that its program remains at an immature stage. CIA analysts, some of whom had been involved only a year earlier on the flawed assessments of Iraq's weapons programs, initially speculated that a third country, such as Israel, may have fabricated the evidence. But they eventually discounted that theory.Of course they did. To do otherwise would be Thoughtcrime.
"There is always a chance this could be the biggest scam perpetrated on U.S. intelligence," one U.S. source acknowledged.But hey...just to be on the safe side, let's nuke Tehran anyways. Otherwise, people could get hurt.
Two further points:
1. What is Michael Ledeen up to these days?
2. The same poll referenced above reveals that the vast majority of the American people still want to see this issue resolved via the U.N. -- not unilaterally. In order to change that opinion, something big will have to take place. Something really big.
Dupin' the NSA
Just have to post this portion of a comment recently offered here by a reader. It is priceless, and what a great idea! I honestly think we should all do it, and include calls to our Republican Congressmen/women and Senators, agencies, cabinet offices, etc., maybe making these calls at night to leave on their voicemailboxes. And maybe add a few other key terms, such as "vegan Quaker peace rally," just to make sure all bases are covered. And DEFINITELY send this around to ALL your many friends!
Here it is, and thanks again!
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE:
Thanks to the astute comment by Joy below, I feel it perhaps key to emphasize the point here is NOT to get the attention of the NSA. Instead the point is to overload the system so thoroughly that it crashes, or at least becomes disabled or irrelevant. In fact, I would hope this little strategy would diminish the chances that anyone would get flagged.
Here it is, and thanks again!
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE:
Thanks to the astute comment by Joy below, I feel it perhaps key to emphasize the point here is NOT to get the attention of the NSA. Instead the point is to overload the system so thoroughly that it crashes, or at least becomes disabled or irrelevant. In fact, I would hope this little strategy would diminish the chances that anyone would get flagged.
I think there is a way individual citizens can take this matter of NSA eavesdropping in hand and turn the system upon itself:
Ma Bell meets George Orwell - or How to Stop the NSA and Become an Enemy of The State - A Satire
By now you have probably all read the ACLU’s report on the activities of NSA’s spying technology, eavesdropping 101: What can the NSA Do? (1/31/06) http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23989res20060131.html (also attached). Summary: “This (NSA spy) dragnet approach is not only bad for civil liberties it is also a bad use of our scarce security and law enforcement resources. In fact, the creation of large numbers of wasteful and distracting leads is one of the primary reasons that many security experts say data mining and other dragnet strategies are a poor way of preventing crime and terrorism.”
I think I have hit on an interesting little prank, that if enough of us participate, just might bring this thing to a screeching halt. You may have seen Tony Scott’s 1998 film “Enemy of the State” starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman. The practice I propose is a low-tech variation on their idea of turning intelligence technology upon itself and its masters. I think one of the nonviolent techniques we might be able to employ to frustrate these spooks is as follows:
The next time you call someone, even if it is a routine call to a buddy, your ex wife, your banker, the hair stylist, or the pizza place, read the following announcement at the end of the conversation. It goes without saying that this announcement should also be read at the conclusion of all calls to foreign countries. If you are a Democrat, a liberal, have ever attended a protest rally, written your Congressman or the local newspaper, you can be sure you are on their suspect list. The goal is to get as many other people as possible under surveillance and raise the raw database to infinity. Please keep your line open for a call from me soon. At the end of your conversation read as rapidly as possible the following announcement. Be sure to speak the key words clearly and distinctly, however.
“Before hanging up I would like to have your permission to conduct the following exercise: This is a test of the overload capacity of the National Security Administration’s data mining information acquisition software. This caller, in voluntary cooperation with other patriotic citizens in your area who believe that such domestic spying in addition to being an unconstitutional infringement on the privacy of American citizens, as well as doing nothing to actually enhance national security and in defiance of Federal, State and Local authorities has developed this system to activate, and hopefully overload, the detection software by reading the following key words: Beeeep - Osama - Koran - assassinate - bomb – jihad – Greenpeace – anthrax – Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Thank you for your cooperation. If this had been an actual National Security Emergency and not just the Orwellian manipulations designed to keep a pliant citizenry in a state of constant paranoia and fear, the key words you have just heard would have been followed by: Information - on how to effectively eject these brigands from the offices of trust they have successfully stolen from legitimate candidates. News - without the slimy fingerprints of Karl Rove all over it. And Instructions - on how to non-violently overthrow this government. Good by and good luck.”
Try this little prank on your Republican friends when you call them. When the 700 Club has its next telethon – call in and read these key words to them. That should start things moving. Why should we progressives be the only ones under Bush’s magnifying glass?
Mo' Far'
Hi folks,
Working on a list of interesting items that are remaining under the mainstream radar for the most part, due largely to distractions. Of course, the major distraction of the ‘eavesdropping’ issue is a good one, for a change, but there is really so much more going on out there we won't want to lose sight of.
But did want to make sure in the meantime that all of you remembered to visit Maureen Farrell’s second entry of her Top Ten Conspiracy Theories over at buzzflash.
Her section on the media is spectacular, pointing out something that haunts me daily, which is the fact that everything changed when the Fairness Doctrine was dropped in ’87 by Reagan. Think about it; the media morphed into a shrill shilling machine and has never been the same since.
She also visits the stolen elections, applying ‘liberal’ details. (She understandably under-explains Stephen Freeman’s statistical analysis, though; he calculated “the odds that the exit polls were wrong, in that many states, at 250 mill to one,” true. But what makes this figure so very compelling is that it represents that those exit polls were wrong in that many states in the same direction (i.e., favoring Bush). This point is utterly key, as stats would predict that they might be wrong in that many states, but in both directions in a reasonably random pattern across those states.)
Mo’s review of the fundamentalist takeover of our government is a chilling reminder of perhaps the most insidious of all these issues, and certainly the most hypocritical, given the WH position on radical Muslim fundamentalists.
Her analysis of the military-industrial complex presents yet more evidence that we are, folks, quite screwed. However, she interestingly omits the fact that this complex essentially constitutes the definition of fascism, though she does note the connection between our WWII profiteers (Prescott Bush among them) and pre-war Nazis and post-war Nazi industrialists.
She concludes with several points about the war on terror, most of which we’ve known for some time, but her arrangement of these timebombs, replete with her generously linked details, is arresting.
Both parts are keepers; don’t miss ‘em. And many thanks to Joe for first bringing it to our attention.
dr. elsewhere
Working on a list of interesting items that are remaining under the mainstream radar for the most part, due largely to distractions. Of course, the major distraction of the ‘eavesdropping’ issue is a good one, for a change, but there is really so much more going on out there we won't want to lose sight of.
But did want to make sure in the meantime that all of you remembered to visit Maureen Farrell’s second entry of her Top Ten Conspiracy Theories over at buzzflash.
Her section on the media is spectacular, pointing out something that haunts me daily, which is the fact that everything changed when the Fairness Doctrine was dropped in ’87 by Reagan. Think about it; the media morphed into a shrill shilling machine and has never been the same since.
She also visits the stolen elections, applying ‘liberal’ details. (She understandably under-explains Stephen Freeman’s statistical analysis, though; he calculated “the odds that the exit polls were wrong, in that many states, at 250 mill to one,” true. But what makes this figure so very compelling is that it represents that those exit polls were wrong in that many states in the same direction (i.e., favoring Bush). This point is utterly key, as stats would predict that they might be wrong in that many states, but in both directions in a reasonably random pattern across those states.)
Mo’s review of the fundamentalist takeover of our government is a chilling reminder of perhaps the most insidious of all these issues, and certainly the most hypocritical, given the WH position on radical Muslim fundamentalists.
Her analysis of the military-industrial complex presents yet more evidence that we are, folks, quite screwed. However, she interestingly omits the fact that this complex essentially constitutes the definition of fascism, though she does note the connection between our WWII profiteers (Prescott Bush among them) and pre-war Nazis and post-war Nazi industrialists.
She concludes with several points about the war on terror, most of which we’ve known for some time, but her arrangement of these timebombs, replete with her generously linked details, is arresting.
Both parts are keepers; don’t miss ‘em. And many thanks to Joe for first bringing it to our attention.
dr. elsewhere
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
The Faust conspiracy
Cannon here: Every time I start to think that the country is regaining some of its marbles, I come across a news story like this one. In Bennett, Colorado, a teacher showed some youngsters a video containing selections from Charles Gounod's operatic warhorse Faust. The intention, of course, was to introduce kids to opera.
Faust is a good choice for young people because it has many good tunes, the kind you can hum. (I always liked the Soldier's Chorus -- which, if I recall correctly, the Nazis tried to instate as a replacement for La Marseillaise during the Occupation. Don't blame Gounod for that; it's still a fine song.) Alas, some concerned parents in Colorado have decided that this famous piece will somehow turn little Timmy and little Sally into acolytes of the Infernal One.
Absurd. The opera ends with a "Last Judgment" scene in which the prison bars fall away and a chorus of angels proclaims the Resurrection and the Return of Christ. I can't imagine a Fundamentalist Christian not loving it.
Faust was insanely popular for roughly 60 years; it was the Phantom of the Opera of its day. (Andrew Lloyd Webber undoubtedly used the earlier work as his model.) Throughout much of the 19th century, whenever a European or American opera house suffered from slack ticket sales, the proprietors would simply cancel whatever else they were performing and mount a quick-n-dirty Faust, which would sell out. If you've seen the film version of Age of Innocence (which uses music from Faust during the opening credits), you'll know that this piece became, for many in the upper classes, an annual ritual. It was the opera you saw even if you didn't like opera.
At some point in the 'teens of the last century, everyone suddenly decided that Gounod's music was old-fashioned, and performances became less frequent. That was the period when critics started to scoff at hummable tunes.
Still, no-one has ever before accused the work of turning children into Satanists!
When I was young, kids in Los Angeles were often treated (or dragged) to performances of Engelbert Humperdinck's Hansel and Gretel. Although the most popular character in that opera was the Witch, we somehow managed to enjoy her evildoings without giving ourselves over to the Dark Arts. Later, I managed to work my way through all of Wagner without once feeling tempted to worship Wotan and Donner. These days, I prefer the Berlioz version of the Faust story to Gounod's -- but even the mighty Hector has not transformed me into a disciple of His Satanic Majesty.
Is Colorado really so primitive and brutish? I've spent time in Denver, which is a beautiful, cultured city. (While there, I heard a performance of the Emperor concerto played by an "amateur" who was better than many pros.) Does the rest of the state wallow in pseudo-"Christian" savagery and superstition?
Faust is a good choice for young people because it has many good tunes, the kind you can hum. (I always liked the Soldier's Chorus -- which, if I recall correctly, the Nazis tried to instate as a replacement for La Marseillaise during the Occupation. Don't blame Gounod for that; it's still a fine song.) Alas, some concerned parents in Colorado have decided that this famous piece will somehow turn little Timmy and little Sally into acolytes of the Infernal One.
Absurd. The opera ends with a "Last Judgment" scene in which the prison bars fall away and a chorus of angels proclaims the Resurrection and the Return of Christ. I can't imagine a Fundamentalist Christian not loving it.
Faust was insanely popular for roughly 60 years; it was the Phantom of the Opera of its day. (Andrew Lloyd Webber undoubtedly used the earlier work as his model.) Throughout much of the 19th century, whenever a European or American opera house suffered from slack ticket sales, the proprietors would simply cancel whatever else they were performing and mount a quick-n-dirty Faust, which would sell out. If you've seen the film version of Age of Innocence (which uses music from Faust during the opening credits), you'll know that this piece became, for many in the upper classes, an annual ritual. It was the opera you saw even if you didn't like opera.
At some point in the 'teens of the last century, everyone suddenly decided that Gounod's music was old-fashioned, and performances became less frequent. That was the period when critics started to scoff at hummable tunes.
Still, no-one has ever before accused the work of turning children into Satanists!
When I was young, kids in Los Angeles were often treated (or dragged) to performances of Engelbert Humperdinck's Hansel and Gretel. Although the most popular character in that opera was the Witch, we somehow managed to enjoy her evildoings without giving ourselves over to the Dark Arts. Later, I managed to work my way through all of Wagner without once feeling tempted to worship Wotan and Donner. These days, I prefer the Berlioz version of the Faust story to Gounod's -- but even the mighty Hector has not transformed me into a disciple of His Satanic Majesty.
Is Colorado really so primitive and brutish? I've spent time in Denver, which is a beautiful, cultured city. (While there, I heard a performance of the Emperor concerto played by an "amateur" who was better than many pros.) Does the rest of the state wallow in pseudo-"Christian" savagery and superstition?
Eavesdropping
Watched/listened to (on background) much of yesterday’s Senate hearings on Big Brother’s latest exposed crime, and was actually a little heartened by the surprising remarks from our more conservative members, including Grassley, Graham, and Brownback. Most of the members expressed grave reservations about what is going on, but even more so about the logic – or lack thereof – offered up as justification by the AG.
There is gratifyingly abundant and surprisingly astute press on the event out there (I’m particularly happy that it’s been tagged as “eavesdropping” and not “terrorist surveillance”), so I’ll not bore you with my breakdown beyond expressing a couple of things here.
First, my outrage that Gonzalez was allowed to testify without being sworn in. Shades of Condi before the 9/11 Commission. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??
Also, why has Ashcroft only been “invited to appear” instead of required to testify? Are we setting up a string of precedents? Shades of the mining execs simply walking out of their testimony; better things to do. Are we to understand that appearances before Congress are optional and inconsequential.? Don’t have to show, don’t have to tell the truth? Congress means nothing???
However, one point I have not heard raised by anyone as yet, though admittedly I have not yet combed the net for such a reference. Whenever AG was questioned about the nature and extent of the eavesdropping, he would hedge by saying something about “this program” not allowing in-country surveillance, etc.
Now, I plan to comb the transcripts for the details of these points he is making, but listening to his responses in vitro was remarkable for its not-so-subtle implication that there ARE programs in place that ARE doing just those things in question. Is he referring to the Pentagon incarnation of Poindexter’s TIA? Were the committee members not allowed to pursue these allusions because of the parameters of this hearing?
In any case, that caught my attention, so if anyone out there has run across a similar reaction, please share!
There is gratifyingly abundant and surprisingly astute press on the event out there (I’m particularly happy that it’s been tagged as “eavesdropping” and not “terrorist surveillance”), so I’ll not bore you with my breakdown beyond expressing a couple of things here.
First, my outrage that Gonzalez was allowed to testify without being sworn in. Shades of Condi before the 9/11 Commission. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??
Also, why has Ashcroft only been “invited to appear” instead of required to testify? Are we setting up a string of precedents? Shades of the mining execs simply walking out of their testimony; better things to do. Are we to understand that appearances before Congress are optional and inconsequential.? Don’t have to show, don’t have to tell the truth? Congress means nothing???
However, one point I have not heard raised by anyone as yet, though admittedly I have not yet combed the net for such a reference. Whenever AG was questioned about the nature and extent of the eavesdropping, he would hedge by saying something about “this program” not allowing in-country surveillance, etc.
Now, I plan to comb the transcripts for the details of these points he is making, but listening to his responses in vitro was remarkable for its not-so-subtle implication that there ARE programs in place that ARE doing just those things in question. Is he referring to the Pentagon incarnation of Poindexter’s TIA? Were the committee members not allowed to pursue these allusions because of the parameters of this hearing?
In any case, that caught my attention, so if anyone out there has run across a similar reaction, please share!
High Roads
Wow. How cool to get so many interesting comments. Thanks so much; lots to think about.
First of all, for the query about Cheney’s threat to Wellstone, I confess red-faced that I committed my own pet peeve: never make a claim you don’t back up. Fortunately, an astute reader submitted precisely my source on that assertion. Hope that is sufficient, and thanks for the great save!
Also, thanks for the reminder about McCain; sloppy – and partisan – of me. And, I have a vague memory of Kerry actually addressing that flip-flop vote issue, but the media was not in the habit of giving his rebuttals any air time. I’ll see if I can’t find that reference for you.
The biggest response, though, seemed to take issue with the idea of staying above the fray and taking the high road. Many good points were made, but – though I certainly empathize with the frustration in these comments – I hold to my position for a number of reasons.
As for the numerous sports analogies, I simply refuse to go there, Super Bowl Sunday notwithstanding. From where I sit, the biggest problems we suffer in politics exist precisely because too many political operatives think of it as a game. I’ll have more to say about this notion in a day or so. For now, suffice it to say that regardless of the need for meathead power linemen, everyone must still play by the rules, which is the point of the high road position. Plus, the stakes are so different. In a game, everyone walks away, in many respects as if nothing of consequence has really happened. However, in politics, the lives or at least livelihoods of everyone are at stake; what happens makes all the difference in the world. Literally. I’ll never forget overhearing during the post-2000 election fiasco someone (from southern football territory) express shock that Gore would not concede because, like, when the clock runs out, man, the score is the score. My apologies to sports fans, but that really opened my eyes to a dangerous perspective; like I said, I’ll share those thoughts soon.
For now, I’ll instead stick to the basic image from the Scottish ditty. Maintaining the high road is not a luxury for when you’re on top. It’s a commitment, to bend to the sports analogy, to the way you play the game. The biggest problem in politics – probably always but certainly now – is that those who are in power (certainly now) got there by abandoning the high road when their numbers were down. Then once in power, these compromised souls are loathe to give it up, so they’ll continue compromising to keep power. Plus, because they are so tainted from their compromised rise to power, they are bribable, which certainly compromises their effectiveness for anything but maintaining power. Power definitely corrupts, but that includes the desire for power. As far as I’m concerned, compromised integrity is ALWAYS – and I do mean ***ALWAYS*** – a big mistake. THE big mistake. Throughout this entire power-blinded process both principles and the point of one’s politics are abandoned in the grab for power.
Now, I’m not saying those in the minority should abandon cleverness or strength of wit (or even the brute strength of a strong “line”). Being down should always bring out our creative juices, though never our evil instincts. That’s one of the advantages of having rules in both games and politics; there’s really no challenge when you can pull out all the stops to win. And pulling out all the stops only works, however crudely, if the only point is to win. Those juices should be applied NOT toward how to regain power and prevail at all costs, but toward how to recover while playing by the rules. The fact that Dick’s “W” crew has resorted to all the sleazy and rule-dissing tactics does not mean either that their methods have necessarily been successful, or that they should be taken as prescriptive. On the former point, the jury is still out. I’m convinced that all the sleaze and corruption and fraud and extortion and bribery and outright lying and murder and torture, all these heinous acts will come back not just to haunt these thugs, but could very possibly destroy the Republican party forever. (Today’s Senate hearing on eavesdropping gave me hope that the former could happen, and that the latter might not have to; more on this later.) And the repug tactic of making Kerry look like a wimp also backfired, in my opinion (assuming as I do that Kerry won a majority of votes in ’04); the polls show that voters now see W and his party for the lying sleazebags they are. No, I don’t think that advising someone to break rules will EVER bring about the result you ultimately want. And Kerry did stand up for himself, but without letting himself get pulled down into the muck. Had he responded to the Swiftboaters with a defense, he would have only looked defensive. It takes a strong and special kind of individual to “keep your head when all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on you.” I do admit, though, that I was disappointed he didn’t file a libel suit, as John Dean suggested he had legal grounds to do.
There is a very distinct and important difference between addressing the low road and falling into it. One can – and definitely should – address the low road. If I gave the impression that low tactics should be ignored, then my bad; nothing could be further from the truth. But I don’t think Kinsley was terribly circumspect in what he was suggesting. He did not delineate the many ways in which the Republican tactics, as successful as they may appear to have been in terms of simply “winning,” have woefully diminished any semblance of a civilized political terrain we might have ever had.
I instead believe very strongly that, despite all the temptations, it is quite possible, and definitely preferable, to address the problems of the low road while still maintaining the principles of the high road. If we abandon those principles, we have become what we claim to abhor. And we will have lost the very things we strive – or claim to strive – to protect. Which, to my mind, is tantamount to losing everything.
What all this boils down to is the real issues and where the peoples’ sentiments actually lie. When you look at the numbers, the populace falls solidly within the policy territory of Democrats for almost every issue that really matters, and has for a long long time. When the Repugs saw that their policies were actually out of step with the public’s sentiments (as far back as Nixon, and certainly Reagan), that’s when they started using all the double-speak and ad blitzes and diversion tactics we’ve come to know and loathe. That has eventually morphed into stealing elections (showing just how desperate they’ve become), which now threatens to undermine the entire process, of course.
There is simply no real need to resort to any of these criminal measures. For cryin’ out loud, folks, the TRUTH is so abundantly on our side, it makes me wonder why anyone would suggest the low road at all! Of course, there is always the question of what we do with those truths. We unfortunately do not have the media on our side, and the Democratic Party has quite admittedly been a deer in the headlights, partly because so many of them compromised so much with the leanings of the DLC and other ways, and partly because it is the very nature of this party to NOT move in lockstep. This is something I normally champion, but now would like to see set aside, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of recovering our democracy. BUT, regardless of the wrongheaded administration and the media and the Democratic Party, we DO have the blog, which has taken on the role of pamphleteering in the tradition of Tom Paine and Franklin. It’s a very powerful tool, and the stats suggest that this sphere is leaning in our direction, with more blog action for liberal sites, and ALL the bloggie nominees for best weblog this year weighing in as quite liberal. What we are doing is working.
But we must be patient; these criminals cannot get away with all their crimes forever. Each of us can only control our own actions, and anyone who compromises integrity and principles must deal with the consequences of those decisions, if only in guilt or latent karma. Think about it, folks; what we are so ticked about with this administration is that they refuse to play by the rules of our democracy, shredding all sense of decency and fair play, along with the Constitution, in their lust for power. We’re flirting with the same fate if we abandon the very principles we would hold them accountable to. I am firmly and unabashedly suggesting an adherence to something akin to Gandhi’s approach, which need not be limited to the question of resorting to violence. We must hold our leadership – Democratic AND Republican – to this high road, because we risk becoming the very hypocrites we despise unless we keep to the high road ourselves.
The Republican Party chose instead long ago to pull out all the stops and “win” at all costs. But all they’ve won is tainted power, so all their time is spent scrambling to stay on top and keep those who know the truth about them quiet, again at all costs. Sadly, many Democrats have gone along to get along, but that’s a slippery slope, and those can also be removed from power (hear that, Joker?). All compromises from the high road lead downhill to the low.
This is not the road I choose, nor is it the road I promote for any fellow citizen, or fellow human, or even for politician. It is and always will be the low road, and sadly not the road less traveled.
Peace.
dr. elsewhere
First of all, for the query about Cheney’s threat to Wellstone, I confess red-faced that I committed my own pet peeve: never make a claim you don’t back up. Fortunately, an astute reader submitted precisely my source on that assertion. Hope that is sufficient, and thanks for the great save!
Also, thanks for the reminder about McCain; sloppy – and partisan – of me. And, I have a vague memory of Kerry actually addressing that flip-flop vote issue, but the media was not in the habit of giving his rebuttals any air time. I’ll see if I can’t find that reference for you.
The biggest response, though, seemed to take issue with the idea of staying above the fray and taking the high road. Many good points were made, but – though I certainly empathize with the frustration in these comments – I hold to my position for a number of reasons.
As for the numerous sports analogies, I simply refuse to go there, Super Bowl Sunday notwithstanding. From where I sit, the biggest problems we suffer in politics exist precisely because too many political operatives think of it as a game. I’ll have more to say about this notion in a day or so. For now, suffice it to say that regardless of the need for meathead power linemen, everyone must still play by the rules, which is the point of the high road position. Plus, the stakes are so different. In a game, everyone walks away, in many respects as if nothing of consequence has really happened. However, in politics, the lives or at least livelihoods of everyone are at stake; what happens makes all the difference in the world. Literally. I’ll never forget overhearing during the post-2000 election fiasco someone (from southern football territory) express shock that Gore would not concede because, like, when the clock runs out, man, the score is the score. My apologies to sports fans, but that really opened my eyes to a dangerous perspective; like I said, I’ll share those thoughts soon.
For now, I’ll instead stick to the basic image from the Scottish ditty. Maintaining the high road is not a luxury for when you’re on top. It’s a commitment, to bend to the sports analogy, to the way you play the game. The biggest problem in politics – probably always but certainly now – is that those who are in power (certainly now) got there by abandoning the high road when their numbers were down. Then once in power, these compromised souls are loathe to give it up, so they’ll continue compromising to keep power. Plus, because they are so tainted from their compromised rise to power, they are bribable, which certainly compromises their effectiveness for anything but maintaining power. Power definitely corrupts, but that includes the desire for power. As far as I’m concerned, compromised integrity is ALWAYS – and I do mean ***ALWAYS*** – a big mistake. THE big mistake. Throughout this entire power-blinded process both principles and the point of one’s politics are abandoned in the grab for power.
Now, I’m not saying those in the minority should abandon cleverness or strength of wit (or even the brute strength of a strong “line”). Being down should always bring out our creative juices, though never our evil instincts. That’s one of the advantages of having rules in both games and politics; there’s really no challenge when you can pull out all the stops to win. And pulling out all the stops only works, however crudely, if the only point is to win. Those juices should be applied NOT toward how to regain power and prevail at all costs, but toward how to recover while playing by the rules. The fact that Dick’s “W” crew has resorted to all the sleazy and rule-dissing tactics does not mean either that their methods have necessarily been successful, or that they should be taken as prescriptive. On the former point, the jury is still out. I’m convinced that all the sleaze and corruption and fraud and extortion and bribery and outright lying and murder and torture, all these heinous acts will come back not just to haunt these thugs, but could very possibly destroy the Republican party forever. (Today’s Senate hearing on eavesdropping gave me hope that the former could happen, and that the latter might not have to; more on this later.) And the repug tactic of making Kerry look like a wimp also backfired, in my opinion (assuming as I do that Kerry won a majority of votes in ’04); the polls show that voters now see W and his party for the lying sleazebags they are. No, I don’t think that advising someone to break rules will EVER bring about the result you ultimately want. And Kerry did stand up for himself, but without letting himself get pulled down into the muck. Had he responded to the Swiftboaters with a defense, he would have only looked defensive. It takes a strong and special kind of individual to “keep your head when all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on you.” I do admit, though, that I was disappointed he didn’t file a libel suit, as John Dean suggested he had legal grounds to do.
There is a very distinct and important difference between addressing the low road and falling into it. One can – and definitely should – address the low road. If I gave the impression that low tactics should be ignored, then my bad; nothing could be further from the truth. But I don’t think Kinsley was terribly circumspect in what he was suggesting. He did not delineate the many ways in which the Republican tactics, as successful as they may appear to have been in terms of simply “winning,” have woefully diminished any semblance of a civilized political terrain we might have ever had.
I instead believe very strongly that, despite all the temptations, it is quite possible, and definitely preferable, to address the problems of the low road while still maintaining the principles of the high road. If we abandon those principles, we have become what we claim to abhor. And we will have lost the very things we strive – or claim to strive – to protect. Which, to my mind, is tantamount to losing everything.
What all this boils down to is the real issues and where the peoples’ sentiments actually lie. When you look at the numbers, the populace falls solidly within the policy territory of Democrats for almost every issue that really matters, and has for a long long time. When the Repugs saw that their policies were actually out of step with the public’s sentiments (as far back as Nixon, and certainly Reagan), that’s when they started using all the double-speak and ad blitzes and diversion tactics we’ve come to know and loathe. That has eventually morphed into stealing elections (showing just how desperate they’ve become), which now threatens to undermine the entire process, of course.
There is simply no real need to resort to any of these criminal measures. For cryin’ out loud, folks, the TRUTH is so abundantly on our side, it makes me wonder why anyone would suggest the low road at all! Of course, there is always the question of what we do with those truths. We unfortunately do not have the media on our side, and the Democratic Party has quite admittedly been a deer in the headlights, partly because so many of them compromised so much with the leanings of the DLC and other ways, and partly because it is the very nature of this party to NOT move in lockstep. This is something I normally champion, but now would like to see set aside, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of recovering our democracy. BUT, regardless of the wrongheaded administration and the media and the Democratic Party, we DO have the blog, which has taken on the role of pamphleteering in the tradition of Tom Paine and Franklin. It’s a very powerful tool, and the stats suggest that this sphere is leaning in our direction, with more blog action for liberal sites, and ALL the bloggie nominees for best weblog this year weighing in as quite liberal. What we are doing is working.
But we must be patient; these criminals cannot get away with all their crimes forever. Each of us can only control our own actions, and anyone who compromises integrity and principles must deal with the consequences of those decisions, if only in guilt or latent karma. Think about it, folks; what we are so ticked about with this administration is that they refuse to play by the rules of our democracy, shredding all sense of decency and fair play, along with the Constitution, in their lust for power. We’re flirting with the same fate if we abandon the very principles we would hold them accountable to. I am firmly and unabashedly suggesting an adherence to something akin to Gandhi’s approach, which need not be limited to the question of resorting to violence. We must hold our leadership – Democratic AND Republican – to this high road, because we risk becoming the very hypocrites we despise unless we keep to the high road ourselves.
The Republican Party chose instead long ago to pull out all the stops and “win” at all costs. But all they’ve won is tainted power, so all their time is spent scrambling to stay on top and keep those who know the truth about them quiet, again at all costs. Sadly, many Democrats have gone along to get along, but that’s a slippery slope, and those can also be removed from power (hear that, Joker?). All compromises from the high road lead downhill to the low.
This is not the road I choose, nor is it the road I promote for any fellow citizen, or fellow human, or even for politician. It is and always will be the low road, and sadly not the road less traveled.
Peace.
dr. elsewhere
Conspiracies, theories, and lies
Cannon here -- and I do apologize for not posting more regularly during this time of woe for Yours Truly:
One of the hippest pieces out there right now is Maureen Farrell's overview of the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories surrounding the Bush Administration. My only problems concern the opening (which is weak) and the title: Many of the matters Farrell deals with are not theoretical.
One shouldn't apply the word "theory" to such scandals as secret prisons and spying on peace groups -- in fact, one shouldn't even allow the word "theory" in the same room. Otherwise, the Constant Rationalizers of the red states (who already have an amorphous view of reality in which the Four Horsemen and the Four Food Groups have a roughly equivalent level of solidity) will toss into the "Maybe" file many items that belong in the "Fact" folder.
We've been seeing this tactic quite a lot lately -- a series of baldface fabrications directed toward the goal of fooling non-news junkies with an insecure grasp of the actual. How to spin the Abramoff scandal? Keep repeating the lie that Abramoff gave money to 80 Democrats -- even though, in the real world, he didn't donate to a single one. How to spin the violation of the FISA law? Have Alberto Gonzales declare the illegal wiretaps "legal." (No further justifications necessary: Rome Has Spoken.) How to spin away a difficult individual like Joe Wilson? Discredit the man through a carefully-coordinated prevarication-packed propaganda barrage.
If Katrina hadn't caught the Bushites off guard, they might have announced: "We are outraged that Roy Nagin would set off explosives to destroy the levees." Or perhaps Scottie should have simply kept repeating that "New Orleans was completely unharmed. No lives were adversely afected. Everything is fine. Those images on TV were created by a special effects studio run by Hollywood liberals." At least a third of the nation would have believed him.
This piece on Aussie politics has an opening applicable to our own situation:
One of the hippest pieces out there right now is Maureen Farrell's overview of the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories surrounding the Bush Administration. My only problems concern the opening (which is weak) and the title: Many of the matters Farrell deals with are not theoretical.
One shouldn't apply the word "theory" to such scandals as secret prisons and spying on peace groups -- in fact, one shouldn't even allow the word "theory" in the same room. Otherwise, the Constant Rationalizers of the red states (who already have an amorphous view of reality in which the Four Horsemen and the Four Food Groups have a roughly equivalent level of solidity) will toss into the "Maybe" file many items that belong in the "Fact" folder.
We've been seeing this tactic quite a lot lately -- a series of baldface fabrications directed toward the goal of fooling non-news junkies with an insecure grasp of the actual. How to spin the Abramoff scandal? Keep repeating the lie that Abramoff gave money to 80 Democrats -- even though, in the real world, he didn't donate to a single one. How to spin the violation of the FISA law? Have Alberto Gonzales declare the illegal wiretaps "legal." (No further justifications necessary: Rome Has Spoken.) How to spin away a difficult individual like Joe Wilson? Discredit the man through a carefully-coordinated prevarication-packed propaganda barrage.
If Katrina hadn't caught the Bushites off guard, they might have announced: "We are outraged that Roy Nagin would set off explosives to destroy the levees." Or perhaps Scottie should have simply kept repeating that "New Orleans was completely unharmed. No lives were adversely afected. Everything is fine. Those images on TV were created by a special effects studio run by Hollywood liberals." At least a third of the nation would have believed him.
This piece on Aussie politics has an opening applicable to our own situation:
THERE was a time when scandals felled prime ministers, when even the odd presidency died of shame. Not any more. Just as engines can be powered by the methane from pig shit, leaders in Western democracies seem empowered by their deceits, energised by the venality of their administrations.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
SOTU'D AND FILETBUSTED....
What a week, eh?
There’s been a real domino effect of relieved and audible sighs leading to the inescapable fact that none of us seems to actually ever watch the Prez pat himself on the back for an hour every year. Joe’s relieved that Josh Marshall never watches, and I am likewise relieved that Joe never watches. Spread it around; relief is always better than guilt.
But I tried. Honest, I really did. And I made it right up to the entrance of the Supreme Court Justices. The Chamber response so repulsed me – I thought everyone had confused the date with the Super Bowl – I had to turn it off. Just too many direct comparisons to coronations and touchdowns to force down the democracy delusion, like trying to help the liver go down with a tall, cool tumbler of castor oil. Two hundred and five years after Jefferson dealt with his distaste for the imperial trappings by mailing in his SOTU, our own regressive royalty tosses out fantasies like Marie Antoinette offered up cakes.
But this Prez, he can sure give great delusion, can he not?
Aside from the wish list for reality he dished out – unemployment, crime, drugs and abortions all decreasing?? – he visited upon us a full-blown hallucination. The administration is now (cue the dark orchestral chord) “seeing isolationists.” !?
And what sure-fire weapon does our Fearless Leader propose to employ for our protection?
Initiatives.
More …initiatives.
Yes, folks, to fix the unemployment and economic problems we have the American Competitive Initiative. So timely, so …pre-emptive! And to keep the kids off drugs, in school, and virginal? Why, America’s Youth Initiative, of course! And Laura is on it! Am I the only one wondering what happened to the First Lady’s initiative from last year? You remember, don’t you, those boys’ gangs?
We won’t touch that one, not even with the proverbial 10 foot pole.
This is likely the same reaction those twelve Dems had against the filibuster: Hot Potato! Better you than me; I got mouths to feed, and all those justifiable excuses.
Hard to reconcile that with the standing O our intrepid crew gave the failed Social Security reforms. Think it might have a little something to do with the fact that no one ever watches the SOTU?
As obvious as it seems to be, it’s still impossible to say. I’ve become pretty damn cynical, but I still find I have to believe most of our folks really want to stick it to these thugs. Ya know? Ya just gotta believe that. Somehow.
Whenever these opportunities present themselves to the only viable party left to us, and you watch each and every one of them go off in their various directions to frustrate the cat-herders, one cannot help but wonder what the ones with some remaining conscience must be thinking.
It’s so easy for us to criticize and dismiss them as traitors. And don’t get me wrong; I remain royally pissed. But what can it be like, trying to do the decent thing, if not always the truly right thing, in the midst of this Orwellian rabbit hole? To shamelessly mix satires. And this is not the Red Queen’s Animal Farm, no piggies or Mad Hatter for comical sane relief. No, these dudes play for real – probably their only contact with reality – and they play serious. Dead serious. I mean, Dick Cheney openly threatened Paul Wellstone just two weeks before his plane went down. And we all know that event was sadly just the dirtier, inconvenient side of their game plan.
There is no doubt that altogether too many Dems long ago became part of the problem. All those little compromises along the way (not least of which I count the DLC’s catapult into corporate laps) are making these big ones that much easier to shrug off; a vat of well-boiled frogs, we have.
This is yet another thing these folks are facing besides temptations to deal and concede our democracy away: the very real, very ruthless enemy we face in this White House.
The image that comes to my mind is a rattler. A very big and very nasty rattler. A rattler that will stop at nothing to keep its spot at the top of this mountain. There are no rules, no courtesies, no sense of decency, and it’s all just terribly, awfully nasty.
Not even a decorated war hero – hell, two of them! Kerry and Cleland – could best this evil machinery. How does one fight this monster and maintain the integrity we demand of all our elected officials? Michael Kinsley suggests that the Dems just need to start playing by the Repug rules, which is patently absurd on two counts. One, this assumes that the media would be only too happy to apply the same rules to both parties, but we’ve all seen plenty of evidence to strongly suggest otherwise. And two, the Repug tricks Kinsley suggests Dems embrace - framing the issues, staying on message, putting them on the defensive – all require a certain suspension of the rules, unspoken rules to be sure, but they’re deeply embedded in our sense of good manners and fair play. Many Dems were furious with Kerry for our ‘loss’ in 04, blaming his weak campaign. No doubt there were flaws, but I was always impressed with Kerry’s refusal to play dirty, to get down in the sewage with these brutes, or even to let his gofers to the dirty public work. He truly remained above the fray, and I was never impressed with the suggestions offered up by the armchair quarterbacks.
I don’t claim to have any such suggestions, and I sure don’t have a clue how I’d handle things were I an elected official faced with the bizarre issues facing this hideously skewed Congress, though I can only hope I’d keep my principles high. Emphasis on ‘only hope;’ I admit to being human, with at least this one mouth to feed.
Which is largely why this watershed week has left me feeling like we’re all pretty well cooked. How does one swallow the irony of championing the very filibuster used to block civil rights legislation (I grew up in the South; it was a tough one for me)? Or the irony of fighting theocratic haters of “activist” judges to keep likely the most activist judge in our history off the Court? And losing. Or the irony of watching King George take us all the way back to 1770 while talking more liberal than Tom Paine and Jefferson combined? Enough to make us all lose our lunch.
We’re getting force fed fat back they call prime rib, the media servin’ it up like maitre d’s and suckers lining up for the best table, everyone scared breathless to give a bad review or suggest a menu change, or – perish the thought – call for the chef’s head. On a platter.
The few timid noises being made these days are most likely only giving the kitchen staff plenty of time to cook up their next piece de la resistance.
Let's consider what this next special du jour might look like, shall we?
Starving in the world's bread basket.
dr. elsewhere
There’s been a real domino effect of relieved and audible sighs leading to the inescapable fact that none of us seems to actually ever watch the Prez pat himself on the back for an hour every year. Joe’s relieved that Josh Marshall never watches, and I am likewise relieved that Joe never watches. Spread it around; relief is always better than guilt.
But I tried. Honest, I really did. And I made it right up to the entrance of the Supreme Court Justices. The Chamber response so repulsed me – I thought everyone had confused the date with the Super Bowl – I had to turn it off. Just too many direct comparisons to coronations and touchdowns to force down the democracy delusion, like trying to help the liver go down with a tall, cool tumbler of castor oil. Two hundred and five years after Jefferson dealt with his distaste for the imperial trappings by mailing in his SOTU, our own regressive royalty tosses out fantasies like Marie Antoinette offered up cakes.
But this Prez, he can sure give great delusion, can he not?
Aside from the wish list for reality he dished out – unemployment, crime, drugs and abortions all decreasing?? – he visited upon us a full-blown hallucination. The administration is now (cue the dark orchestral chord) “seeing isolationists.” !?
And what sure-fire weapon does our Fearless Leader propose to employ for our protection?
Initiatives.
More …initiatives.
Yes, folks, to fix the unemployment and economic problems we have the American Competitive Initiative. So timely, so …pre-emptive! And to keep the kids off drugs, in school, and virginal? Why, America’s Youth Initiative, of course! And Laura is on it! Am I the only one wondering what happened to the First Lady’s initiative from last year? You remember, don’t you, those boys’ gangs?
We won’t touch that one, not even with the proverbial 10 foot pole.
This is likely the same reaction those twelve Dems had against the filibuster: Hot Potato! Better you than me; I got mouths to feed, and all those justifiable excuses.
Hard to reconcile that with the standing O our intrepid crew gave the failed Social Security reforms. Think it might have a little something to do with the fact that no one ever watches the SOTU?
As obvious as it seems to be, it’s still impossible to say. I’ve become pretty damn cynical, but I still find I have to believe most of our folks really want to stick it to these thugs. Ya know? Ya just gotta believe that. Somehow.
Whenever these opportunities present themselves to the only viable party left to us, and you watch each and every one of them go off in their various directions to frustrate the cat-herders, one cannot help but wonder what the ones with some remaining conscience must be thinking.
It’s so easy for us to criticize and dismiss them as traitors. And don’t get me wrong; I remain royally pissed. But what can it be like, trying to do the decent thing, if not always the truly right thing, in the midst of this Orwellian rabbit hole? To shamelessly mix satires. And this is not the Red Queen’s Animal Farm, no piggies or Mad Hatter for comical sane relief. No, these dudes play for real – probably their only contact with reality – and they play serious. Dead serious. I mean, Dick Cheney openly threatened Paul Wellstone just two weeks before his plane went down. And we all know that event was sadly just the dirtier, inconvenient side of their game plan.
There is no doubt that altogether too many Dems long ago became part of the problem. All those little compromises along the way (not least of which I count the DLC’s catapult into corporate laps) are making these big ones that much easier to shrug off; a vat of well-boiled frogs, we have.
This is yet another thing these folks are facing besides temptations to deal and concede our democracy away: the very real, very ruthless enemy we face in this White House.
The image that comes to my mind is a rattler. A very big and very nasty rattler. A rattler that will stop at nothing to keep its spot at the top of this mountain. There are no rules, no courtesies, no sense of decency, and it’s all just terribly, awfully nasty.
Not even a decorated war hero – hell, two of them! Kerry and Cleland – could best this evil machinery. How does one fight this monster and maintain the integrity we demand of all our elected officials? Michael Kinsley suggests that the Dems just need to start playing by the Repug rules, which is patently absurd on two counts. One, this assumes that the media would be only too happy to apply the same rules to both parties, but we’ve all seen plenty of evidence to strongly suggest otherwise. And two, the Repug tricks Kinsley suggests Dems embrace - framing the issues, staying on message, putting them on the defensive – all require a certain suspension of the rules, unspoken rules to be sure, but they’re deeply embedded in our sense of good manners and fair play. Many Dems were furious with Kerry for our ‘loss’ in 04, blaming his weak campaign. No doubt there were flaws, but I was always impressed with Kerry’s refusal to play dirty, to get down in the sewage with these brutes, or even to let his gofers to the dirty public work. He truly remained above the fray, and I was never impressed with the suggestions offered up by the armchair quarterbacks.
I don’t claim to have any such suggestions, and I sure don’t have a clue how I’d handle things were I an elected official faced with the bizarre issues facing this hideously skewed Congress, though I can only hope I’d keep my principles high. Emphasis on ‘only hope;’ I admit to being human, with at least this one mouth to feed.
Which is largely why this watershed week has left me feeling like we’re all pretty well cooked. How does one swallow the irony of championing the very filibuster used to block civil rights legislation (I grew up in the South; it was a tough one for me)? Or the irony of fighting theocratic haters of “activist” judges to keep likely the most activist judge in our history off the Court? And losing. Or the irony of watching King George take us all the way back to 1770 while talking more liberal than Tom Paine and Jefferson combined? Enough to make us all lose our lunch.
We’re getting force fed fat back they call prime rib, the media servin’ it up like maitre d’s and suckers lining up for the best table, everyone scared breathless to give a bad review or suggest a menu change, or – perish the thought – call for the chef’s head. On a platter.
The few timid noises being made these days are most likely only giving the kitchen staff plenty of time to cook up their next piece de la resistance.
Let's consider what this next special du jour might look like, shall we?
Starving in the world's bread basket.
dr. elsewhere
Hey, Joe....
Greetings from the fringe. No really, that’s too kind. I truly dwell elsewhere. Outside looking in, but not so far outside I don’t find myself petrified by our collective fate. And inclined to opine about that…
Joe has asked me to share some of the angles I get from way out …here (? wherever), which is elsewhere from anywhere, most of the time. He’s going to be deeply immersed in a huge project that will require several weeks of his undivided attention, so he took the very risky move of inviting me to fill in.
I am honored, deeply flattered, and not just a little spooked. Truth is, I’m a virgin to this blog thang, so please, be gentle with me. Just for starters, I’m going to have to experiment a little bit with the links and other such niceties.
But, that being said, I’ve never been one to stifle an opinion, especially my own, and can take criticism fairly well, so please, just jump right in. I’m mostly interested, actually, in hearing what others have to say about some of the wide angles I’m inclined to apply to…, well, just about any- and everything. Though I will keep a general focus on this collective fate dilemma for our purposes here.
Before I launch into these waters, a few little things. First, I must warn you all that I simply do not boast the vast wellspring of archival data that Joe draws from like he was turning on the tap. I’ll try to make up for some of that void by asking what I hope are unique questions, or at least questions that are not given enough attention. Joe is also exceedingly skill at this, but it will tend to be more of my focus. I’m so grateful for him and his colleagues in this quest for giving the dark and hidden some light, but I often find myself admitting that, no matter how heinous and scandalous, I’m ultimately not surprised. How much more info do we need, folks? Well, all we can get in the sense of staving off complacency. But this huge question then rears its ugly head in the face of all the evil truths: so wadda ya gonna do about it?
I doubt I or even the collective we will be able to come up with any answers. But perhaps this can be our opportunity to at least grapple with some of the really hard questions, questions totally lost on the likes of Georgie Porgie and Scottie Mac, questions that only each of us can answer for ourselves.
Well, it won’t be ALL like that, but I have a huge list of such questions, and I’m sure you do, too. So I invite you, implore you, to cough ‘em up.
Which is my second little thang: I am really very serious about my interest in hearing your opinions. Call it a perverse sociological study. Just keep it within the bounds of courteous discourse, if you will, please; you know the rules (though they have clearly been abandoned by the public at large).
And last but not least, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Joe profusely for his remarkable breadth of knowledge, for sharing that with all of us for these recent years, and for his depth of perspective. I visit this site every day because he never fails to bring a really provocative and insightful view to the table. For those who recognize this quality, please know that I am humbled to be here. I hope you’ll weather this little doldrum with me till he returns.
Peace.
dr. elsewhere
Joe has asked me to share some of the angles I get from way out …here (? wherever), which is elsewhere from anywhere, most of the time. He’s going to be deeply immersed in a huge project that will require several weeks of his undivided attention, so he took the very risky move of inviting me to fill in.
I am honored, deeply flattered, and not just a little spooked. Truth is, I’m a virgin to this blog thang, so please, be gentle with me. Just for starters, I’m going to have to experiment a little bit with the links and other such niceties.
But, that being said, I’ve never been one to stifle an opinion, especially my own, and can take criticism fairly well, so please, just jump right in. I’m mostly interested, actually, in hearing what others have to say about some of the wide angles I’m inclined to apply to…, well, just about any- and everything. Though I will keep a general focus on this collective fate dilemma for our purposes here.
Before I launch into these waters, a few little things. First, I must warn you all that I simply do not boast the vast wellspring of archival data that Joe draws from like he was turning on the tap. I’ll try to make up for some of that void by asking what I hope are unique questions, or at least questions that are not given enough attention. Joe is also exceedingly skill at this, but it will tend to be more of my focus. I’m so grateful for him and his colleagues in this quest for giving the dark and hidden some light, but I often find myself admitting that, no matter how heinous and scandalous, I’m ultimately not surprised. How much more info do we need, folks? Well, all we can get in the sense of staving off complacency. But this huge question then rears its ugly head in the face of all the evil truths: so wadda ya gonna do about it?
I doubt I or even the collective we will be able to come up with any answers. But perhaps this can be our opportunity to at least grapple with some of the really hard questions, questions totally lost on the likes of Georgie Porgie and Scottie Mac, questions that only each of us can answer for ourselves.
Well, it won’t be ALL like that, but I have a huge list of such questions, and I’m sure you do, too. So I invite you, implore you, to cough ‘em up.
Which is my second little thang: I am really very serious about my interest in hearing your opinions. Call it a perverse sociological study. Just keep it within the bounds of courteous discourse, if you will, please; you know the rules (though they have clearly been abandoned by the public at large).
And last but not least, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Joe profusely for his remarkable breadth of knowledge, for sharing that with all of us for these recent years, and for his depth of perspective. I visit this site every day because he never fails to bring a really provocative and insightful view to the table. For those who recognize this quality, please know that I am humbled to be here. I hope you’ll weather this little doldrum with me till he returns.
Peace.
dr. elsewhere
Thursday, February 02, 2006
A couple of vote fraud notes...
Arizona: According to this Arizona Republic article (clued into which I became via good old Brad Blog), the FBI has seized ballots in a close Republican primary for the office of state representative in Arizona's District 20. There have been lingering suspicions over this battle for quite a while now.
Here's what's really odd: The County refused an order from a State Senate committee to cough up the actual ballots for inspection. But now they say they are quite happy -- "elated" even -- to comply with the Federal order. What's going on?
Well, on occasion I've ruminated that even paper ballots aren't safe enough, although they are surely better than e-voting. Over time, chain-of-custody issues can make paper suspect.
The controversy raises the interesting prospect of Republican vote fraud being exposed during a primary race. The media won't recognize the presence of sharks in our waters until the creatures start to eat each other.
Pennsylvania: A group called Butler County Democrats for Change is suing to keep voting machines out of PA. One of the heartening aspects of this suit is that it targets ES&S machines. The public keeps hearing about Diebold, and I fear that many will come under the impression that the fault rests with a bad company, not a bad technology.
In Allegheny County, the Board of Elections is still deliberating the issue:
By the way...as I may have mentioned before, Brad Friedman and I have had (behind the scenes) a friendly "running battle" over terminology. He prefers "electoral fraud" to "vote fraud;" in his view, the latter term connotes the (usually false) allegations of voter registration fraud propounded by Republicans. I say "vote fraud" is punchy and I'll continue to use it. How say you?
Here's what's really odd: The County refused an order from a State Senate committee to cough up the actual ballots for inspection. But now they say they are quite happy -- "elated" even -- to comply with the Federal order. What's going on?
Well, on occasion I've ruminated that even paper ballots aren't safe enough, although they are surely better than e-voting. Over time, chain-of-custody issues can make paper suspect.
The controversy raises the interesting prospect of Republican vote fraud being exposed during a primary race. The media won't recognize the presence of sharks in our waters until the creatures start to eat each other.
Pennsylvania: A group called Butler County Democrats for Change is suing to keep voting machines out of PA. One of the heartening aspects of this suit is that it targets ES&S machines. The public keeps hearing about Diebold, and I fear that many will come under the impression that the fault rests with a bad company, not a bad technology.
In Allegheny County, the Board of Elections is still deliberating the issue:
"Obviously we've read a lot of the allegations that people are talking about," she said, referring partly to criticisms that some Diebold officials were too close to Republicans. "Obviously we cannot base our decision on hearsay or what's on the Internet."Cute, huh? The problems with e-voting are now relegated to the "hearsay" file. Why should we even bother accumulating further evidence, when so many are willing to label inconvenient fact as rumor?
By the way...as I may have mentioned before, Brad Friedman and I have had (behind the scenes) a friendly "running battle" over terminology. He prefers "electoral fraud" to "vote fraud;" in his view, the latter term connotes the (usually false) allegations of voter registration fraud propounded by Republicans. I say "vote fraud" is punchy and I'll continue to use it. How say you?
Military rape
They say "Support our troops" -- but some soldiers are committing crimes no-one can defend. Rape of female enlistees has become a serious problem -- a deadly problem:
Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.War always squeezes the civilization out of soldiers. As the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrated, quite a few of our volunteers come from the least-educated sectors of our society, and they are, not unexpectedly, reverting to savagery.
The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview.
It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Why I missed the State of the Union
Appropriately enough, I was in another country (hint: it adjoins the U.S. and it isn't Canada) when Bush gave his SOTU speech. That's as good an excuse as any for missing the thing. Those of you who actually tortured your eyeballs and eardrums with the pronouncements of Fearless Leader must now feel a little envy. Admit it: Don't you wish that you had spent those long, long minutes in the far more profitable pursuit of nursing a tequila in a wonderfully wretched dive straight out of a Sam Peckinpah classic...?
Joshua Marshall's revelation that can't watch these Bush SOTUs anymore frees me to confess same. Is it just party loyalty that made Clinton's orations seem so compelling to me, or did he have the kind of natural talent that forces an audience -- even a hostile audience -- to pay attention?
Dubya has no talent as a speaker -- none whatsoever. Of all the presidents in the media age, three somehow achieved the office even though they could never out-talk a bowl of Rice Krispies: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush. (Does anyone else out there recall the Ford-Carter debates, the most excruciating hours in American political history?)
I'm told that tonight's speech included the line: "We need to direct our children in love." This quotation fits a pattern first noted in the course of the 2000 debates: Dubya loves "love." He feels compelled to stick that word into many public utterances -- and he even uses it in contexts that make "love" sound downright creepy. Didn't he once say something about OB-GYNs who "practice their love" with patients?
Every time he speaks of love, his voice fluctuates a bit, making the sentiment seem forced. I suspect Rove has given his marionette a directive to mention "love" at least once in each major speech -- a decision which may have something to do with abstruse theories of neurolingustic programming.
I was surprised to learn, upon re-entering the Land of the Free, that Cindy Sheehan was arrested -- in a building topped by a statue named Freedom -- for the "crime" of wearing a shirt someone considered inappropriate. I can't wait to see a citation of the exact statute she supposedly broke.
Ah well. If they ruin this country, there are others. No se puede vivir sin amar, mes amigos...
Joshua Marshall's revelation that can't watch these Bush SOTUs anymore frees me to confess same. Is it just party loyalty that made Clinton's orations seem so compelling to me, or did he have the kind of natural talent that forces an audience -- even a hostile audience -- to pay attention?
Dubya has no talent as a speaker -- none whatsoever. Of all the presidents in the media age, three somehow achieved the office even though they could never out-talk a bowl of Rice Krispies: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush. (Does anyone else out there recall the Ford-Carter debates, the most excruciating hours in American political history?)
I'm told that tonight's speech included the line: "We need to direct our children in love." This quotation fits a pattern first noted in the course of the 2000 debates: Dubya loves "love." He feels compelled to stick that word into many public utterances -- and he even uses it in contexts that make "love" sound downright creepy. Didn't he once say something about OB-GYNs who "practice their love" with patients?
Every time he speaks of love, his voice fluctuates a bit, making the sentiment seem forced. I suspect Rove has given his marionette a directive to mention "love" at least once in each major speech -- a decision which may have something to do with abstruse theories of neurolingustic programming.
I was surprised to learn, upon re-entering the Land of the Free, that Cindy Sheehan was arrested -- in a building topped by a statue named Freedom -- for the "crime" of wearing a shirt someone considered inappropriate. I can't wait to see a citation of the exact statute she supposedly broke.
Ah well. If they ruin this country, there are others. No se puede vivir sin amar, mes amigos...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)