I don't much like Starbucks, mainly because I think their coffee is burnt, and this:
What is that? A coffee egg cream? A shake with coffee? What exactly is this monstrosity of calories and sugar?
I never got the appeal of their calorie and wallet busting coffee. The only time I can tolerate their noxious brew is in Barnes and Nobles. Otherwise, they just make the most unpleasant brew around. When it's not burnt, it's ladened with sugar and it just doesn't match even te crappy coffee available throughout New York.
Before I get to that, I will say that I love Krispy Kreme coffee. I think it is everything Starbucks isn't. I just love a cup of the stuff with their donuts. Hot KK donuts are a gift from God and the cold ones aren't bad either.
Now, if they redesigned the flag of New York city, there would have to be a blue paper coffee cup with the Acropolis on it. It is a ubiquitous symbol of New York. Now the brew in this cup can range from ugh to sublime. My candidate for sublime is Puerto Rican coffee. Cafe Bustelo is common in these parts, and it's usually served con leche, which is steamed milk. The one thing which I hate, but which is common, is that they load sugar into it. A regular cup of coffee is a couple of ounces of milk and two heaping teaspoons of sugar. I usually don't keep coffee around the house, I usually drink tea. So when I buy coffee, I have to make sure that they don't put sugar in it or I can't drink it.
Puerto Rican coffee is unlike other coffee in that it's sort of espresso like, but usually served in a regular eight ounce cup, It's thick and a warming brew in winter, not the kind of thing you'd serve over ice in summer. It's the kind of thing, which if you know about, don't pass up.
Now, there's all kind of coffee in New York. My favorite from the past is Chock Full 'O Nuts. I used to get a cup and one of their donuts before class. It was a great cup of coffee an interesting chain, their signature dish was a raisin bread and cream cheese sandwich. Not that I liked cream cheese, but even my mother at them in high school. She really liked the Automat, but that's a tale for another day.
It's also a fraction of the price of Starbuck's brew. The green and white witch is all over the place, but her stores are better than her products. You can loiter in her stores, unlike a Puerto Rican bakery. But they do have the best coffee on the planet, so you need to pick another place to loiiter.
Starbucks does serve a need, which is it allows you to go someplace, with someone, and not have to be in a bar. It's a good place to talk, be asked really hard questions and use your laptop. But the coffee...well, no, it's not that good. In fact, it's kind of insipid.
WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday.
The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:
-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.
-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.
-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.
-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.
-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.
The report was released on the same day that the CPA's inspector general issued three reports that highlighted serious management difficulties at the CPA. The reports found that the CPA wasted millions of dollars at a Hilton resort hotel in Kuwait because it didn't have guidelines for who could stay there, lost track of how many employees it had in Iraq and didn't track reconstruction projects funded by international donors to ensure they didn't duplicate U.S. projects.
Both the GAO report and the CPA report said that the CPA was seriously understaffed for the gargantuan task of rebuilding Iraq. The GAO report suggested the agency needed three times more employees than what it had. The CPA report said the agency believed it had 1,196 employees, when it was authorized to have 2,117. But the inspector general said CPA's records were so disorganized that it couldn't verify its actual number of employees.
GAO Comptroller General David Walker blamed insurgent attacks for many of the problems in Iraq. "The unstable security environment has served to slow down our rebuilding and reconstruction efforts and it's going to be of critical importance to provide more stable security," Walker told Knight Ridder Newspapers in a telephone interview Tuesday.
"There are a number of significant questions that need to be asked and answered dealing with the transition (to self-sovereignty)," Walker said. "A lot has been accomplished and a lot remains to be done."
The GAO report is the first government assessment of conditions in Iraq at the end of the U.S. occupation. It outlined what it called "key challenges that will affect the political transition" in 10 specific areas.
The GAO gave a draft of the report to several different government agencies, but only the CPA offered a major comment: It said the report "was not sufficiently critical of the judicial reconstruction effort."
"The picture it paints of the facts on the ground is one that neither the CPA nor the Bush administration should be all that proud of," said Peter W. Singer, a national security scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution. "It finds a lot of problems and raises a lot of questions."
One of the biggest problems, Singer said, is that while money has been pledged and allocated, not much has been spent. The GAO report shows that very little of the promised international funds - most of which are in loans - has been spent or can't be tracked. The CPA's inspector general found the same thing.
"When we ask why are things not going the way we hoped for," Singer said, "the answer in part of this is that we haven't actually spent what we have in pocket."
He said the figures on electricity "make me want to cry."
But they're free, right? Free to sit in the dark, free to be raped, shot, and robbed from gangs and free to be shot by American soldiers and their Iraqi auxilliaries. Freedom's just another word for no public services, a CIA puppet proto-dictator, and an American ambassador who had no problems with the rape and murder of nuns. Where do I get my ticket to Baghdad. It sounds like paradise to me.
Preach It, Brother Why did Kerry stop talking about faith?
by Amy Sullivan, Contributing Editor
6.25.04
The Democrats have a religion problem. You know it, I know it, and David Brooks knows it. According to a recent Time magazine poll, only 7 percent of Americans think that John Kerry is a "religious" man – this, in a country in which 70 percent of voters say that they want their president to be a "man of faith."
As we all know, the first step toward recovering is recognizing that you have a problem. And while there is plenty of time to change course, too many national Democrats still run the other way when the topic of religion comes up, instead of dealing with it directly.
There are a number of reasons for this. But ultimately, none of them are good excuses.
To begin, many Democratic operatives still think of religion mostly as a constituency problem – that is, they want to know how many Catholic votes in the Rust Belt they can "get" by employing a certain strategy, how many endorsements they can get from religious leaders, and have yet to be convinced that religious Americans are "their" voters. One immediate problem with this mindset is that faith leaders are under special restrictions – whether legal or self-imposed – that don't similarly bind the leaders of other constituencies. Although many would argue that recent statements by Catholic leaders regarding pro-choice politicians amount to endorsements of Republicans, strictly speaking a Catholic priest cannot endorse a candidate. Ministers may come out in support of a particular candidate in their role as individual citizens, but only if they have the support of their congregations – if a pastor appears to be leveraging his position for political influence, he can very quickly find himself in hot water with parishioners. All this is to say that assembling a "who's who" list of religious leaders that support Democratic candidates is a bit harder than finding key labor or African-American or environmental group leaders to give their endorsement.
In addition, this attitude treats religion as a purely functional tool, boiling it down to, "If we do X, we will get Y million religious votes." And that's not how it works. Millions of Americans look to the faith of their political candidates as a proxy for a general moral worldview. Many voters understand that it is possible to be a good and moral person without necessarily having religious faith. But in the midst of a campaign, it can be hard to get a good sense of what moral compass a candidate has. A moderate Democratic congressman from the South who represents a district with a large military base told me that in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, many of his constituents wanted to know that he was a man of faith because he was casting a vote about whether to send their sons and husbands and daughters off to put their lives in danger. Those voters wanted to know whether he believed in souls because they were very personally grappling with the consequences of war.
As David Brooks put it in a recent column, for many Americans, "Their president doesn't have to be a saint, but he does have to be a pilgrim." A candidate doesn't have to hit people over the head with "Jesus talk" to do this. He doesn't have to use exclusive language and he doesn't have to parade his piety. What he can do is frame his message in moral terms. Even better, Kerry already did this early in his campaign as the presumptive nominee, drawing a clear distinction between those who talk the talk (an indirect but pointed jab at Bush) and those who walk the walk. Yet that kind of language has all but disappeared from his speeches.
Another reason Democrats avoid the topic of religion is that they believe it will offend what they see as their secular base. Here's what they should know: There are two groups of people who want to think that there is a secular hold on the Democratic Party – secularists and conservatives. The truth, however, is that while the power of secularists in the Democratic ranks is legendary, it is just that – a legend. While Democratic political offices are staffed by a higher percentage of secularists than can be found among the general population, they are not representative of the party as a whole.
In his column, Brooks cites a study that has become a favorite of conservatives (who cite it constantly) because it appears to indict Democrats as overrun by secularists and as generally intolerant of religion. The problem with this conclusion is that it overlooks a major flaw in the analysis done by Baruch College professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio. They identified secularists within the ranks of Democratic convention delegates by looking at attitudes about fundamentalists. Anyone who held negative feelings about religious fundamentalists (I believe the Christian Coalition is specifically named) was considered to be a secularist. I don't know about you, but I know plenty of people -- and plenty of religious Republicans, for that matter -- who don't think terribly kindly of fundamentalists but who would never ever identify themselves as secularists.
David Brooks, and by extension, Amy Sullivan are dead wrong.
A lot of people, as Ron Reagan distinctly noted, are really uncomfortable when politicians use religion. I, personally, could care less if John Kerry practiced Santeria. It just doesn't matter in this country, nor should it.
Sullivan likes whipping her Bible around and I think her take on this this is dead wrong. Religion is a part of someone's life, not it's entire being. I know a LOT of religious people and they don't limit their opinions to God and worship.
Frankly, I think her whole take on "secularists" is way off base and deeply offensive. There are people who plkace their religion in their public lives, and there are many, many people like myself, who keep our religous beliefs private and as much out of our politics as possible. Just because you don't say Jesus every three minutes, which is pretty obnoxious in and of itself, doesn't mean you don't believe in God. In fact, Sullivan is practicing a rather nasty form of religious bigotry. If you aren't open about your religous beliefs, then you are a "secularist". Religion should be like sex, a private matter.
I don't know what kind of research skills Sullivan has, but I don't think it would be hard to find a bunch of pro-Kerry ministers and other church officials. The GOP has no problem with this.
What frightens me about Sullivan's screed is that she ignores the divisive and bigotted way George Bush has used religion. While he's not too big on church, he's really big on throwing religion in people's faces and using it to hide from his alcoholism. Meanwhile, John Kerry has been a mass-attending Catholic his entire life. Does he throw that fact in people's faces? No. It's not anyone's business, unless they ask. Bush uses religion as a weapon aganist his enemies, as a way to judge them.
What Sullivan is calling for is the grossest kind of pandering and a rank appeal to people on their religion alone. Which is dead wrong. She keeps quoting the rather brain dead and innaccurate David Brooks to make her point. Brooks is one of those elitist snobs who marvel that people actually shop at Target and eat at Outback after buying a Weber grill. I wouldn't rely on his observations of sunset.
The Democrats don't have a religion problem as much as Amy Sullivan refuses to respect religous views which are different and distinct than hers. Her appeal to religous bigotry should be placed in a wastepaper basket and ignored, kind of like a Jack Chick tract.
Soldiers from the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps future guerrilla force stand at attention during a June 1st transfer of authority ceremony. Previous training includes how to sneak away from Americans and hiding their faces with masks.
The so-called transition to sovereignty for Iraq set for June 30 has been trumpeted as a turning point by the Bush administration. It is hard to see, however, what exactly it changes. A symbolic act like a turnover of sovereignty cannot supply security, which is likely to deteriorate further as insurgents attempt to destabilize the new, weak government. The caretaker government, appointed by outsiders, does not represent the will of the Iraqi people. Some 138,000 U.S. troops remain in the country and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in the world, both of which bode ill for any exercise of genuine sovereignty by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
The caretaker government faces five key issues, any one of which could be destabilizing. It must jumpstart the creation of an Iraqi army that could hope to restore security. It must find a way to hold free and fair elections by next January, a difficult trick to pull off given the daily toll of bombings and assassinations. It must get hospitals, water treatment plants and other essential services back to acceptable levels. It must keep the country’s various factions from fighting one another or from pulling away in a separatist drive. And it must negotiate between religious and secularist political forces.
The issue of separatism already has arisen. The U.N. resolution that created the new government neglected to mention the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) or temporary constitution passed by the Interim Governing Council under American auspices in February. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the spiritual leader of most of Iraq’s majority Shiite population, had warned U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan against endorsing that document. The TAL calls for a secular legal code and gives the minority Kurds a veto over the permanent constitution, to be hammered out by an elected parliament in spring of 2005. Sistani objects to the Kurds’ veto. The major Kurdish leaders, for their part, worry that the United Nations and the Bush administration might go back on the promises made to the Kurds of semi-autonomy and special minority rights. Some angrily threatened to secede from Iraq if that should happen. The creation of the caretaker government, which was supposed to help resolve problems of instability, instead has provoked a major crisis with one major Iraqi ethnic group.
Early last January a member of the U.S.-appointed Interim Governing Council (IGC) in Iraq, Mahmoud Osman, gave a revealing interview to Al-Hayat of London. He said that officials of the Bush administration in Iraq had been “extremely offended” when the IGC called for U.N. involvement in the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. The administration, he explained, did not want any international actor to participate in this process; rather it wanted to reap the benefits in order to increase President Bush’s political stock in the months leading up to the November election. He added: “The fundamental issue for Iraqis is the return of sovereignty. The Americans are in a hurry for it, as well, though for their own interests. The important thing for the Americans is to ensure the reelection of George Bush. The achievement of a specific accomplishment in Iraq, such as the transfer of power, increases, in the eyes of the Republican Party, the chances that Bush will be reelected.”
In the end, Sistani and other Iraqi politicians forced Bush to involve the United Nations and to seek a Security Council resolution. He also was forced to give away far more actual sovereignty to the caretaker government than he would have liked in order to get the U.N. resolution he had not originally wanted. In particular, the U.S. military must now consult with the Iraqi government before undertaking major military actions.
But is the turnover really much of an accomplishment? All that has happened is that the Bush administration worked with special U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to appoint the four top officers of state and the cabinet ministers. This group of appointees will then be declared the sovereign government of Iraq.
Shorter Juan Cole: the whole thing is an election year scam.
As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.
It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during the occupation of a country. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about America:
Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi people when we have no interest in violations of human rights—as evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem more just.
That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now.
This also is not the time to ask whether diplomacy was ever given a chance. Or why, for the last 10 years, Iraq has been our sworn archenemy, when during the 15 years preceding it we traded freely in armaments and military aircraft with the evil and despotic Saddam Hussein. This is the kind of question that, while utterly valid, should not be posed right now.
And I certainly will not point out our rapid loss of interest in the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan once our fighting in that country was over. We sure got out of that place in a hurry once it became clear that the problems were too complex to solve with cruise missiles.
That sort of remark will simply have to wait until our boys are safely back home.
Brazil is bringing its own brand of peacekeeping to Haiti
The Brazilian national football team is to play a friendly match in Haiti in August at which tickets will be offered in exchange for guns.
Brazil is leading the UN force keeping the peace in Latin America's poorest state since a civil conflict there in February left some 200 people dead.
Superstars like Ronaldo may be playing and Brazil's President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, may also be in town.
Brazilian troops who deployed this month handed out 1,000 free footballs.
The idea for a match to "alleviate tensions" was suggested by Haitian Prime Minister Gerard Latortue in an interview in May with Brazilian journalists.
"A few Brazilian soccer stars could do more to disarm warring militias than thousands of peacekeeping troops," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.
Shirt demand
Brazil's Sports Minister Agnelo Queiroz said a fixture was being arranged provisionally for 18 August.
The match could give Haiti a rare burst of positive publicity
"Ronaldo's ready to go," he said. "They [Brazil's top players] want to help in Haiti's peace process."
The president, popularly known as Lula, hoped to find time to attend the match, the minister added.
It's a great idea. That's the kind of game Haitians will come from Miami to see. Watching Brazil is always cool, but this is special, especially when Brazil will have to help upgrade the stadium. Maybe this will get Haiti back into international games at home. As it stands, FIFA bands official matches because the stadium is a dump.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army is preparing to notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan, Army officials said Tuesday.
It marks the first time the Army has called on the Individual Ready Reserve, as this category of reservists is known, in substantial numbers since the 1991 Gulf War.
The move reflects the continued shortage of troops available to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fight the ongoing war on terrorism as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Lt. Gen. Frank Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said earlier this month of the Army's troop strength, "We are stretched but we have what we need."
Pentagon officials have echoed that statement explaining that while the military is reaching deep into its resources, war planners have long had contingency plans such as this for when troops are really needed.
Several hundred members of the ready reserve have volunteered for active-duty service since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Those who are part of the involuntary call up are likely to be assigned to National Guard or Reserve units that have been mobilized for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to Army officials. An announcement is planned for Wednesday.
This is a desperate move. The next step is looking to drop enlistment standards and hike pay. Then, comes the draft. Defense Watch has the following article
What We Owe Our Soldiers
By Paul Connors
My last two articles for DefenseWatch have focused on the plight of involuntarily activated members of the Army’s portion of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The articles prompted numerous emails from both officers and enlisted members who have been recalled, as well as from friends and family members who want others to know what is going on. (See “Abuse of Army IRR Raises Ire Nationwide,” June 2, 2004, and “Army Shift in IRR Victimizes Soldiers,” May 27, 2004).
After reading the emails I received, I have grown progressively more pessimistic about the ability of the U.S. Army to redress the personnel shortfalls it faces. To restate a view I have expressed before, I have strong doubts that the Army even possesses the slightest scintilla of interest in correcting its personnel problems. The ongoing abuse of members of the USAR, the ARNG and the IRR offers solid evidence that force planners are clueless when it comes to solving the problems caused by the over-extension of both individual troops and the units to which they are assigned.
As DefenseWatch readers are aware, we have covered the gamut of active-duty personnel and equipment shortages, poor planning and execution of reserve and Guard unit call-ups, armament and vehicle inadequacies, ammunition shortages, abuse of prisoners, fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars in theater and in-transit, poor leadership and the perennial (and never ending) game of point the finger. While the rest of the mainstream news media must be foaming at the mouth as they wait for the next scandal to befall the coalition, they have also forgotten that more than 135,000 American GIs are in Iraq, confronted by a less than welcoming populace, but doing the jobs we have asked them to do.
I spent time this past weekend thinking of all the things I take for granted that the guys and gals in desert cammies can’t take advantage of while they try to get through their tours in Indian country. I like to think of them as the “freedoms” they have temporarily lost while preserving mine. Here’s my short list of what they can’t do while in Iraq:
* Can’t go down to the local watering hole for a beer.
* Can’t go on dates with their girlfriends/boyfriends.
* Can’t hold/hug/kiss their wives, sweethearts, children, parents and other relatives.
* Can’t put on comfortable civilian clothes to take a walk outside or down the street.
* Can’t jump in their car/truck/SUV to go to the mall/supermarket/movie.
* Can’t have a pizza delivered.
* Can’t go anywhere without having to wear a flak vest and kevlar helmet and carrying a weapon.
* Can’t take a walk alone for fear of being sniped at, shot, stabbed, kidnapped or blown up by a bunch of psychopathic crazies who really believe it is their goal in life to destroy all that America stands for.
* Can’t get a break from the likes of Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Leslie Stahl, Tom Brokaw and other left-leaning newcasters who believe that by denigrating the troops in the field that they can unmake an administration they disagree with.
* Can’t get a fair deal from the government they faithfully support through their actions, courage, commitment, fidelity and trust.
While I’ve spent a great deal of time writing about the sacrifices made by recalled members of the reserve components who leave behind civilian careers, families, college studies and other intangibles, I do not want anyone to walk away with the impression that I am not aware of the sacrifices made by members of the regular components of our armed forces as well. No one here at DefenseWatch forgets for a moment that the “regulars” are the now and forever defenders of our freedoms and sovereignty.
When I speak of our “citizen soldiers,” I have grouped them all together in that wonderful polyglot of people who have always stepped forward when the United States has needed its “best and brightest.”
As a “citizen-observer” of the events surrounding our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever conflicts confront U.S. interests, what I find difficult to accept is the sheer indifference to the real needs of the troops at the cutting edge of the spear by many military leaders back at home who are responsible for providing that support.
While some, including politicians, might think a withdrawal from Iraq would spare us the nightly reports of another five dead GIs, such an action will do little (if anything) to resolve the underlying and fundamental flaws in our current military structure. What is painfully obvious, but denied by those in power, is that U.S. armed forces are spread far too thin and are being asked to do far too much with too few real resources.
Have we made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? You bet! Are the mistakes irrevocable? No. Why not, you ask? Because we are Americans and because when we decide to solve a problem or set of problems, there is little short of a major natural disaster that will stop us. Yet, every once in a while, there are obstacles placed in the path of human progress that slow us down.
This is deulsional. We cannot solve the world's problems, much less Iraq's. Americans can and will fail when in a hostile environment. Iraq is doomed because the people are more than willing to watch Americans die and protect the resistance, even at the cost of their own lives. It is time to leave Iraq before we make things worse. No amount of will can change that.
Lately, those obstacles have come from two quarters: the first is the constant carping of a mainstream press that can find no good in the effort, time, talent and treasure that the United States has expended toppling Saddam Hussein and his homicidal regime. The second major obstacle is the civilian staff of the Department of Defense and its willful refusal to accede to requests for an increase in end-strength for the U.S. Army.
While he's right we do owe our soldiers a lot, if he thinks the media is left wing, he hasn't read one piece about US troops stealing from Iraqis, drinking on duty or allegations of non-prison sexual abuse and prostitution. You won't see that in the US media. Unless you go to the movies. He's denying the central fact, that this war is folly and cannot be won. There's no media bias against the troops, none. In fact, their war isn't seen at all on American TV. We have not been honest about why so many Iraqis hate us until it stared us in the face and many people wanted to deny it even then.
There IS no good in Iraq. We have made their lives worse by a measurable degree. getting rid of Saddam eliminated state terror and replaced it with private, freelance terror. This, to most Iraqis, is nightmarish. The media isn't even showing what we've done there. Not in the slightest.
Our Army is in trouble and that's not a problem created at CNN.
(I was thinking of retitling this: "Yankee fans tell Cheney 'go fuck yourself.'")
I just got a live phone-in from the Yankees vs. Boston game in NYC taking place right now. Dick Cheney just got booed by the crowd!
Even as my friend Michael called me from his seats at the game, God Bless America was still playing in the background. During the 7th inning stretch at Yankees Stadium, they play God Bless America and show on the big screen pictures of anyone famous who's in the audience that night. Dick Cheney is apparently in the audience, and as soon as his face went up, the entire crowd started booing! As my friend Michael tells it, this is the blue-collar Bronx we're talking about, and Cheney is still getting booed - not a good sign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. As soon as the camera guys realized Cheney was getting booed, they quickly switched the picture on the screen to someone else.
Michael's read of the situation, as a die-hard Yankees fan: The election is over.
(ESPN just confirmed the story (thanks to Buzzflash for finding this):
Cheney, who visited both clubhouses after batting practice, watched part of the game from the box of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and part from a first-row seat next to the Yankees dugout, where he sat between New York Gov. George Pataki and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Cheney was booed when he was shown on the right-field videoboard during the seventh-inning
Ah, a preliminary to the convention no doubt. I don't think Cheney was under any illusions his ass was popular in the fucking Bronx.
My friend Dave is a lifelong Yankee fan and wouldn't miss a Red Sox-Yankees game unless his job and or life depended on it. And the job, not so much. So, I have an eyewitness to tonight's fiasco:
steve: You go to the game tonight?
Dave: 1918
(This refering to the last time the Red Sox won the World Series. Not being a Yankees fan, this merely amuses me considering how the Mets beat them in 1986)
steve: Well, that may be true, the fate of the Red Sox concerns me not. But they booed the shit out of Cheney, from what I heard
Dave: yeah, big-time
steve: So what happened? I am amused
Dave: they showed him during the seventh-inning stretch, and they might as well have showed Pedro
steve: I'm going to run this on the blog.
Dave: it was definitely spirited
Dave: they took him off after about three seconds because of how loud the booing was
While the Yankees may suck, I truly enjoy the idea of Cheney being booed like, oh, Giuliani and all politicians are, at Yankee games. I don't think he has the balls to go to Shea or that new Stadium in Philly, where they like to fight for fun. At least they didn't chant go fuck yourself, which is likely at Shea.
Now, normally, the only Yankee fan pictures I'd like to see are the one where they cry in defeat to either the Red Sox in the AL Championship or the Mets in the World Series. But I'll make an exception here and say, even though they root for the wrong team, they aquitted themselves well. I think Michael Moore is going to be a very rich man at the end of this summer.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental... Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
—Christopher Hitchens,
Slate.com, on Michael Moore
Well, that's rich, isn't it? Christopher Hitchens crawling out of a bottle long enough to denounce Michael Moore as a coward. I can't imagine anything more uplifting, except maybe a zoo baboon humping the foot of a medical school cadaver.
All journalists are cowards. Hitchens knows it, I know it, everybody in this business knows it. If there were any justice at all, every last goddamn one of us would be lowered, head-first, into a wood-chipper. Over Arizona. Shoot a nice red mist over the whole state, make it arable for a year or two. A year's worth of fava beans and endive for the children of Bangladesh: I dare anyone in our business to say that that wouldn't represent a better use of our rotting bodies than the actual fruits of our labor.
No one among us is going to throw that first stone, though. Not even Chris Hitchens, a man who makes a neat living completing advanced Highlights for Children exercises like the following: "Denounce a like-minded colleague, using the words 'Lugubrious' and 'Semienvious.'" Such is the pretense of modern journalism, that we are to be lectured on courage by a man who has had his intellectual face lifted so many times, he can't close his eyes without opening his mouth. By a man who, if the Soviets had won the Cold War, would be writing breathless features on Eduard Shevardnadze for three bucks a word in Komsomolskaya Vanity Fair ("Georgia on His Mind: Edik Speaks Out." Photos by Annie Liebowitz...).
Which is fine, good luck to him, mazel tov. Everybody's got to make a living. But let's not leave people confused out there. The idea that anyone in today's media is either courageous or cowardly on the basis of what they write or broadcast is ridiculous.
Hitchens is a pathetic old drunk. Why isn't his ass in Iraq covering the war? He is a journalist, even if needs rehab as badly as George Bush. If I remember correctly, Michael Moore makes films. Hitchens, between boozeups, insults people he used to agree with. It's a good thing he didn't become a spy for MI-6, or he'd be cooling his heels in Moscow by now.
Is it some desperate need to be a sad contrarian, reject the support of his friends, or just be on what he thinks is the winning side? Well, if those are his instincts, he's going to hate the next four years.
So, Mr. Nader, I see you don't believe in fun either
I was reading Joe Trippi's new book( which I will review in detail either tonight or tomorrow)The Revolution Will Not Be Televised when I realized something. Trippi's rep is of a hard as nails consultant, but the tone of the book struck me: he's an optimist. Instead of playing to people's fears, he's talking about a different kind of democracy, one where the Internet provides a real connection between people. And while I think some of his conclusions are a bit much, his tone is clearly upbeat, like a missionary who'd seen the promised land.
And then, I realized why Nader, and to a lesser extent, the Greens, have failed so miserably. This isn't about bashing Nader, per se, athough I can do that any time of the day, it's about how his politics have failed to move people
Every word out of their mouth is about a problem or how we're being screwed. How corporations are evil and want to control the world. It's a pretty grisly and depressing picture. It makes people hopeless and docile. Waiting for a leader to save them. Instead of a cooperative vision of the world, I realized that Nader is quite the opposite. He wants to tell people what is wrong and then force his solutions on everyone. This is not the kind of politics which people will invest their time and effort in. It is politics by remote control, and exactly the opposite of what Trippi and Dean, and now to some extend, Kerry has endorsed.
Think about this: for the last 40 years, Nader has had the pick of the best and brightest. How many wind up embittered and angry after their time with him? How many had their marriages ruined? What was the human wreckage created by a man who respected few boundaries and viciously attacks anyone who opposes him or even have different ideas.
Nader is an elitist and has moved the left far awway from the goals of social justice he is so clearly dismissive of. Instead, he basically hijacked the left after Vietnam and focused on making middle class life more comfortable. Safer cars, attacking fast food. All the while remaining mute about real social injustice. The Greens, by looking for visibility, also skirted these issues or never understood why their fear-based campaigning failed for the most part. The Greens can stand for positive social change, but it has to be cast as a positive change. Conservatives have gained the most mileage when they presented a positive view of their plans for the world. Liberals and progressives need to do the same. They need to stress positive changes, not this doom and gloom which is counterintuative to millions of people.
It may sound fun to call Microsoft evil, but the reality is that Microsoft deserves a great deal of credit for making computers affordable. Without DOS and Windows, we would all be beholden to Apple and whatever they churned out. Microsoft created diversity, a diversity which Linux followed. There would be no internet, no blogs and no jobs if the world relied on Apple to lead the way. That doesn't mean MS isn't a monopolist or doesn't have too much power, but you need a balanced view. Whereas the family friendly face of Nike covers a world wide network slave labor sweatshops.
You cannot truly reach people with fear, and have them stay with you for long. People to embrace positive change, to believe that they're not perpetually on the defensive. People need to believe in more than holding back the tide. The left has indulged Nader's cramped, negative wortld view for 40 years, even as the right was painting their reckless changes as nirvana. All the left could do was act as scolds and nannies and when that failed, they retreated.
Trippi makes an excellent point, which is that you can win when you empower people. That we don't need Naders to tell us what to believe and place a blind trust in him to solve our problems. That millions of people, acting collectively, can bring about change. They don't have to be powerful or wealthy alone, their combined efforts. One of the things which impressed me was the Dean Corps. People who met while working on the campaign, but then took that activism and turned it into direct public service, like cleaning parks and helping charities. The Nader view of the world sounds great, but it doesn't move people to act. Trippi's participatory democracy enabled by the internet has a great deal of potential to invigorate this country without relying on some aesthetic millionaire who plays the stock market, lies about most of his life and treats people badly. We can, if you believe Trippi, and I do, make this happen on oue own, by collective action.
It was about 10 AM on Omaha Beach. Most of the officers and NCO's were dead or wounded. The tanks were at the bottom of the channel. The detroyers were getting as close as possible, but they didn't have wheels. Bradley had to decide whether to send the next waves of troops to Utah and evacuate Omaha. But then, suddenly, small groups of men, often just teenaged privates, were moving off the beach. They didn't have leaders, but they had to get off the beach or die. So they found explosives, used them, called in naval gunfire, and beat the Germans. And they weren't the only ones. Paratroopers dropped into the Normandy countryside all screwed up. Battalions, regiments, even divisions were mixed up. Men from the 101st were fighting with strangers from the 82nd. People they'd never seen before, were trained differently than. But they were Americans, they had the same basic tactics and the only way to survive was to work together. All the interdivisional rivalry disappeared when everyone realized they had no choice but to cooperate. Even though they were teenagers, they knew they had to become a team.
Americans can work together if they choose to. They don't need leaders, just a cause and a way to act. The problem is that for too long we've been looking for leaders, people to show us the way. Well, we know we don't need people to show us anything. We can save ourselves if we choose. The question is will we realize this?
There isn't a day which goes by in which some comment laments John Kerry's campaign. And most of those comments are dead wrong. Bush is going to lose. He is going to lose badly.
Not because of wishful thinking, not because I hold him in disdain. But because time and effort is not on his side. This race is close, now, but it won't be for long. Bush is poised on a cliff to go down, LBJ-like down, with only the economy as a possible buffer against disaster. No incumbent president since Truman and LBJ has faced this kind of war time dilemma and neither ran again. Bush's numbers are bad and getting worse. Bush, as an incumbent, should be above 50 percent, and he's not. Which the big red flag of campaigns and even the Bushies know it. They are desperate for the bleeding to stop in Iraq and it won't.
I'm listening to Howard Stern read letters from active duty servicemen who are going to see Michael Moore's new movie and coming out with changed minds. Which is depressing, as seeing the victims of cons usually are. This is a very different enviroment than any election in our lifetimes. Not because the stakes are so high and they are, but because the way the election is being fought.
In the past, the Democrats have had to deal with a sea of enemies, rich Republicans and their think tanks, low rent campaigning pioneered by Nixon, and brought to fruition by the late Lee Atwater and his acolyte Floyd Brown. But things have changed and for the better. Howard Dean, while not able to run an effective campaign internally, managed to harness the good will of millions of people, far beyond those who gave money to his campaign. The Kerry campaign, which pretty much blitzed their opponents from Iowa on, managed to get much of that good will and then ran with it. While there isn't the enthusiasm for Kerry as there was for Dean, there is still more than enough than for any Democratic candidate in a very long time. It took months for Clinton to become that popular and he was never that well funded. Kerry has beat all expected fundraising totals and is supported by a united Democratic party. The circular firing squad is limited to some Nader supporters who still refuse to see their cult hero for what he is, a tool of the GOP.
But the difference between this and other elections is that the Kerry campaign is not the sole Democratic effort. You don't have to work for Kerry to dump Bush. There's Move On and a bunch of 527 organizations which have created a major distraction for the Bush campaign. The White House has to worry about more than Kerry and his fundraisng. They have a constant rotating set of targets, one day, it's Richard Clarke, the next, it's Michael Moore, then George Soros. None of these men are running for office. Yet, the Bush Administration and by extension, the campaign has to deal with people who are not running for office.
Their entire ad campaign has failed to move the numbers, mainly because the ads suck. From the 9/11 ad, which was amazingly provocative, to the flip flop and defense ads, not only are they negative, they're wrong and overwrought. Bush totally misread how people, especially New Yorkers, would react to seeing a corpse carried out from Ground Zero. It was a tremendous mistake and deeply offensive. Some GOP 527 is ressurecting 9/11 shots, but even they will get the hint soon. The one thing, no one, no one, would have believed, even six months ago, is that 9/11 would be a disaster for Bush. It doesn't matter how much you blame Clinton, he isn't president any longer. Bush is and Bush will bear the brunt of the 9/11 Commission report. Anyone thinking anything different is delusional.
The Bush camapign is as much a captive of events as anything. And the events are all bad. Abu Ghraib, the Plame scandal, losing in the Supreme Court, John Ashcroft repeatedly embarssing himself before the 9/11 commission and Congress. Nothingt has goine right vfor Bush for months. Even Reagan's funeral ended with him getting slammed by Ron Reagan, and open denunciations of plans to tie the Bush and Reagan legacies. Now, rumors are seeping through that Bush is cracking under the pressure. There has to be days when he wakes up and thinks the world hates him. But unlike Bill Clinton, who would have been self-pitying, it would largely be true. He cannot go to Europe without mobs hating him. Not just protesting him, but suggesting he needs a Dutch vacation next to Slobodan Milosevic.
Some "progressives" like Tim Robbins, wonder why Kerry doesn't make some radical leftist statement, and cater to their needs. When Bush does the same to the fundies, people like Robbins get their drawers in a bunch. So why should Kerry risk alienating people who are looking for an excuse to embrace Bush. "Oh, he's too liberal", "he's going to waste our money", are typical excuses. Kerry needs to avoid giving them those excuses, Which is why he's not running against the war, but Bush's management of it. The Europeans are going to tell him no to troops, just like they told Bush. It's a parlimentary non-starter. In fact, expect withdrawals from Iraq, not additions. The fact is that next year, Kerry will have to withdraw from Iraq and leave a weakened government to solve its own problems. Because the choice is moving fast towards a draft or withdrawal and we'll run from Iraq before the sons of the middle class are forced to fight. Not that I think a draft would pass, or that advocating it wouldn't be political suicide, but the numbers are not looking good.
Kerry deserves a lot more credit for running a smart campaign than anyone has given him. The trick is to get the chance to govern, not to be right and lose. Denouncing the war in Iraq may be morally right, but Bush would pervert that into some anti-America screed. So the best way to prevent that is to stay as close to Bush as possible and then hammer him on the management, not the reasons for the war. Now, I wish Kerry could hammer Bush on starting this aggressive, pointless war, but that isn't going to work. It will be far easier to follow the public than lead it. For now, Kerry's main goal has to be to not make mistakes. Why? Because Bush is making so many. A muted comment here and there and sticking to working the base is a smart strategy. Let Bush fritter his money, strength and effort on people not running for office. Instead of letting it leak that the White House has banned staffers from Fahrenheit 9/11, ask the man for a print to show in the White House. Say and do nothing to get more attention to the film and generally ignore it. You don't let your allies sue to get Kerry's sealed divorce records. You don't run stupid ads attacking George Soros. You don't demand his wife's tax records. You ignore him. Moore and Soros and even Move On are not the people you're running against. It's John Kerry. Every second spent debating people not running for anything is a gift to John Kerry.
Why do they do this? Because Bush cannot take an insult. Anything insulting him is deemed a mortal offense. So he wastes time going after Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson and anyone who pops out the woodwork. People who cannot affect his election chances unless he lets them. So he flails about against all enemies, and ignores the things which will nail him. The two most dangerous people to Bush are nowhere near the Kerry Campaign, Michael Moore's warroom, George Soros's Open Society or Move On. They're John McCain and Lindsay Graham. No matter what they say, their quest for answers about Abu Ghraib pose the most danger to Bush and may well ruin him.
People wonder why he ignored Al Qeada, well, Bush ignores all mortal threats to him. Al Qaeda, John Kerry, and when he does act, it's ineffective. Kerry's flanks are protected, Bush's are not and he doesn't even know it. Let someone get indicted in this White House, and it's back to the pig farm. Here's a question: has anyone who seen's Moore film liked Bush more? Of course Moore is disingenious, just because it's true doesn't mean it isn't propaganda. The problem for Bush is not that Moore is a skilled filmmaker, but that Bush looks so bad on tape. Which is the campaign's central problem, which is the best reason to not reelect Bush is Bush.
This article pretty much outlines Nader's strategy for the 2004 race. Anyone who supports his crusade after this is just too lazy to join the GOP.
How this article slipped past the blogosphere is beyond me, but it did. Now, maybe people will notice.
On Friday, October 13, 2000, at Madison Square Garden, the largest of Ralph Nader's "super rallies" kicked his campaign into high gear. It was a great event in many ways. Fifteen thousand ticket buyers cheered songs, jokes, skits, and pep talks delivering timeless radical truths about wealth and power in America. Nader's speech was actually the low point, circulating randomly through riffs about corporate power, health insurance, the environment, and what Ralph Nader had accomplished.
But Nader also served up disturbing untruths. Most notable was his insistence that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"—they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get. I went home angry. But it took me a while to understand that my progressive hero had turned suicide bomber—that Ralph Nader had strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up.
The next day I was invited to a fundraising party in Greenwich Village. There I approached Michael Moore and described how the campaign could use the Web to provide the latest data on battleground states like Florida, where Nader supporters should hold their noses and vote for Gore. When Moore realized what I was suggesting, he puffed up like one of those fish that expand when threatened, leaned into me, poked his finger into my face, and yelled: "You can't say that! You can't say that! You can't say that!"
Later I was introduced to Nader's closest adviser, his handsome, piercingly intelligent 30-year-old nephew, Tarek Milleron. Although Milleron argued that environmentalists and other activists would find fundraising easier under Bush, he acknowledged that a Bush presidency would be worse for poor and working-class people, for blacks, for most Americans. As Moore had, he claimed that Nader's campaign would encourage Web-based vote-swapping between progressives in safe and contested states. But when I suggested that Nader could gain substantial influence in a Democratic administration by focusing his campaign on the 40 safe states and encouraging his supporters elsewhere to vote Gore, Milleron leaned coolly toward me with extra steel in his voice and body. He did not disagree. He simply said, "We're not going to do that."
"Why not?" I said.
With just a flicker of smile, he answered, "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
There was a long silence and the conversation was over.
...................
Milleron's words are so remarkable they bear repeating: Ralph Nader ran so he could hurt, wound, and punish the Democrats. His primary goal was not raising issues, much less building the Green Party. He actively wanted Gore to lose. Where did this passion to punish come from?
In his admiring, balanced 2002 biography, Ralph Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, Justin Martin explains that early in his career, "Nader felt he could achieve anything" in Washington. He testified regularly before Congress and was seriously proposed as a Democratic candidate for Senate and even, under McGovern, vice president. He was so allied with the Democrats that in 1972 he rejected a New Party presidential run because, he explained, that might "help throw the election to Nixon." Nader had access to the Carter White House, where many of his former staffers worked, although his notorious nastiness and self-regard prevented him from fully capitalizing on it.
After 1980, however, he was completely shut out by the right wing—and just as galling, the Democrats tried to ride out the conservative onslaught, challenging it only selectively and knuckling under on electability issues such as crime and energy policy. By 1992, Nader campaigned briefly in a Democratic primary, but during the Clinton years, says Martin, Nader was "a pariah even among the most liberal members" of Congress and was altogether shunned by the White House. By 1996, he'd had it with Democratic gutlessness. Running on the Green ticket against a Clinton who supported NAFTA and "welfare reform," he told Mother Jones, "I think his best nickname is George Ronald Clinton." Nevertheless, Nader did little campaigning. In 2000, after a slow start, he threw himself into the process. Clearly, this election was going to be extraordinarily close, and in a September 2000 interview, Nader discussed playing spoiler:
Rolling Stone: "In 1996, you told the New York Times, 'If I really wanted to beat Clinton, I would get out, raise $3 or $4 million, and maybe provide the margin for his defeat. That's not the purpose of this candidacy.' Since you're planning to raise $5 million and run hard this year, does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?"
Nader: "I would not—not at all."
Martin reports that during the 2000 campaign, "no matter how hard he tried to be evenhanded in doling out criticism of Bush and Gore, Nader did show a bias"—against Gore. "It was clear to many," writes Martin, "that he truly despised Gore, while he was merely dismissive of Bush." Martin was especially struck by a Portland speech where Nader said that Gore was "more reprehensible" than Bush because Gore "knows so much and refuses to act on his knowledge."
Gary Sellers has a simpler way of putting it. Although Nader was the best man at Sellers's wedding, the two are no longer close. After extensive discussions with his old boss in late 1999, Sellers created Nader's Raiders for Gore in 2000. He believes Nader hated Gore, he told me, because "Gore wouldn't return his phone calls."
.........
What does Nader want to do in the 2004 election? Does he again want to defeat the Democratic candidate by taking swing-state votes? "Absolutely," says Gary Sellers. This time the Greens will likely run David Cobb, who is committed to a safe-state strategy. Nader is not. So voters in Florida and other battlegrounds where the differences will again be razor-thin can expect to see a lot of him. The stampede of his prominent 2000 supporters means many of them know what their former hero has in mind. But there are always new suckers to con. In 2004, as in 2000, Nader's real campaign slogan is: "Vote for Ralph Nader. You too can punish, hurt, and wound the Democrats."
The long-time progressive makes a pitch for the disenfranchised Right.
Ralph Nader recently accepted Pat Buchanan’s invitation to sit down with us and explain why his third-party presidential bid ought to appeal to conservatives disaffected with George W. Bush. We think readers will be interested in the reflections of a man who has been a major figure in American public life for 40 years—and who now finds himself that rarest of birds, a conviction politician.
Pat Buchanan: Let me start off with foreign policy—Iraq and the Middle East. You have seen the polls indicating widespread contempt for the United States abroad. Why do they hate us?
Ralph Nader: First of all, we have been supporting despots, dictators, and oligarchs in all those states for a variety of purposes. We supported Saddam Hussein. He was our anti-Communist dictator until 1990. It’s also cultural; they see corporate culture as abandoning the restraints on personal behavior dictated by their religion and culture. Our corporate pornography and anything-goes values are profoundly offensive to them.
The other thing is that we are supporting the Israeli military regime with billions of dollars and ignoring both the Israeli peace movement, which is very substantial, and the Palestinian peace movement. They see a nuclear-armed Israel that could wipe out the Middle East in a weekend if it wanted to.
They think that we are on their backs, in their house, undermining their desire to overthrow their own tyrants.
PB: Then you would say it is not only Bush who is at fault, but Clinton and Bush and Reagan, all the way back?
RN: The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. Until ’91, any dictator who was anti-Communist was our ally.
PB: You used the term “congressional puppets.” Did John Kerry show himself to be a congressional puppet when he voted to give the president a blank check to go to war?
RN: They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer comes to Washington, the puppets prance.
PB: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?
RN: That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.
The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don’t appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, “Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.”
Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.
PB: Let me move on to Iraq. You were opposed to the war, and it now appears that it has become sort of a bloody stalemate. You said you would bring troops out of Iraq within six months. What if the country collapses and becomes a haven for terrorists? Would you send American troops back in to clean it up?
RN: Under my proposal there would be an international peacekeeping force, and the withdrawal would be a smart withdrawal during which there are internationally supervised elections. We would have both military and corporate withdrawal because the Iraqi people see the corporations are beginning to take over their economy, including their oil resources. And we would continue humanitarian assistance until the Iraqi people get on their feet. We would bring to the forefront during the election autonomies for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites. So this would not be like a withdrawal in Vietnam where we just barely got out with the helicopters.
TAC: You often mention corporations. What is the theory behind this or what are the alternatives to corporate economic power? I presume you are not talking about state ownership or socialism, or perhaps you are …
RN: Well, that is what representative government is for, to counteract the excesses of the monied interests, as Thomas Jefferson said. Because big business realizes that the main countervailing force against their excesses and abuses is government, their goal has been to take over the government, and they do this with money and politics. They do it by putting their top officials at the Pentagon, Treasury, and Federal Reserve, and they do it by providing job opportunities to retiring members of Congress. They have law firms that draft legislation and think-tanks that provide ready-made speeches. They also do it by threatening to leave the country. The quickest way to bring a member of Congress to his or her knees is by shifting industries abroad.
Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft.
Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have now is the merger of big business and big government to further subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our government.
PB: Let’s move to immigration. We stop 1.5 million illegal aliens on our borders each year. One million still get through. There are currently 8-14 million illegal aliens in the United States. The president is mandated under the Constitution to defend the States against foreign invasion, and this certainly seems to constitute that.
RN: As long as our foreign policy supports dictators and oligarchs, you are going to have desperate people moving north over the border.
Part of the problem involves NAFTA. The flood of cheap corn into Mexico has dispossessed over a million Mexican farmers, and, with their families, they either go to the slums or, in their desperation, head north.
In addition, I don’t think the United States should be in the business of brain-draining skilled talent, especially in the Third World, because we are importing in the best engineers, scientists, software people, doctors, entrepreneurs who should be in their countries, building their own countries. We are driving the talent to these shores—
PB: How do we defend these shores?
RN: I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here.
Let’s get down to the manual labor. This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to raise the minimum wage to the purchasing-power level of 1968—$8 an hour—and then, in another year, raise it to $10 an hour because the economy since 1968 has doubled in production per capita.
Please continue to tell me how Nader is a progressive and how this isn't about his ego. Please.
The Supreme Court's first review of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism may force a fundamental reordering of constitutional priorities, especially in the way the government may deal with individuals caught up in that war. Amid all the writing by the Justices in today's three historic rulings, no sentence stands out as vividly as this one, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Given the almost limitless claims to presidential power that the administration has been making in court cases and other forums since soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks, that statement - and all that it stands for in the new rulings - must be taken as a severe rebuke.
In countless courtroom briefs, and in a pile of secret internal memorandum only recently beginning to emerge, administration lawyers have sought to justify a new order in which the president may do whatever is deemed necessary to wage this new style of global conflict. That argument appears to have failed utterly, in the eyes of eight Justices of the Court.
Here, in summary, is a first look at a new constitutional order that may arise from the new decisions:
1. In general, the courts are open and functioning, and they will insist upon a full partnership in judging the constitutional necessity of wartime actions that affect individuals - citizens and, sometimes, foreign nationals, too.
2. Congress would be constitutionally entitled to exercise a fuller role, if it were so inclined, as a co-manager of the war when that conflict impacts individual rights.
3. Citizens - even those deemed to be terrorist suspects - can no longer be detained indefinitely and without any rights that the Pentagon does not want them to have.
4. Even foreign nationals rounded up and placed at an offshore Navy base - in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - are constitutionally entitled to contest their detention, perhaps even when that might interfere with military interrogation of them, seeking to gain intelligence information.
In historic terms, the new rulings are at least as serious a setback as the Executive branch suffered in 1952 when the Court, in the midst of the Korean War, struck down President Truman's seizure of U.S. steel mills to keep them open to produce war materiel. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)
"History and common sense," the Court said today, "teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means of oppression and abuse of others who do not present. . .an immediate threat."
In language unmistakably placing the Court in the forefront of the constitutional battles that will continue to be waged so long as the war on terrorism continues, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's lead opinion declared: "Striking the constitutional balance here is of great importance to the Nation during this period of ongoing combat. But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship." There can no longer remain any doubt that "striking the constitutional balance" will be done by the courts, not by the Executive or by Congress. No can there linger any doubt that when the opinions speaks of "our calculus," it meant judicial calculus. It is noteworthy that this view of judicial authority was shared today by all but one of the Justices (all but Clarence Thomas); seldom does this often-divided Court hold together so cohesively on the division of governmental powers.
The President, of course, did not lose everything he had at stake. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that Congress' post-9/ll declaration supporting the President's response to those attacks had authorized the Executive to capture and detain, perhaps even until the end of the war on terrorism, those suspected of being terrorist activists acting in open aggression toward the U.S. Even so, the Court did not necessarily embrace that as an enduring constitutional concept: it added that the idea of detention for the duration of a conflict had emerged from the era of traditional wars, and then commented: "If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel." In other words, a war on terrorism that has no end may turn out to be too long for the Justices to go on allowing indefinite detention.
The most important qualification on that now-acknowledged power to detain, however, is the Court's mandate that when a detainee is a U.S. citizen, the detention can continue beyond an initial - and presumably fairly brief - period, only if the government can justify prolonging the denial of freedom and legal rights. And, such justification is to be judged by a "neutral decisionmaker," not by the President or the Secretary of Defense or a military authority.
Acknowledging that this review process may not necessarily have to be in a regular civilian federal court, the Justices suggested that such a proceeding might possibly be allowed before a military tribunal. The Court stressed, nevertheless, that such a tribunal would have to be "appropriately authorized and properly constituted." That seems to imply that it would not be enough simply to have the President sign an Executive Order, and that Congress may have to do so by legislation. Moreover, any such tribunal must have the full attributes of independence and neutrality that the Justices indicate they are demanding. (Even if such tribunals are created, their makeup, of course, will be subject to future constitutional challenge, if those that emerge seem to fall short of the standards articulated by the Court.
In one aspect of the new decisions, the President seems actually to have lost everything: that was the insistence that the American courts have no role whatsoever to play in overseeing the operation of the big detention facility set up at the Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba. That base was set up in that very place to place foreign nationals at a site beyond the reach of American courts. It was, its challengers have always said, meant to be a "lawless" place. From now on, though, the detainees there have at least some right to contest not only the fact of their detention at the base prison, but also to challenge the actual conditions under which they have to live day by day.
With that ruling, the Executive branch effectively had to forfeit a substantial amount of its control over the entire Guantanamo operation.
These were the specifics of the three rulings today:
By a vote of 5-4, the Court found the 2001 congressional declaration did give the President power to detain citizens and foreign nationals, if they are found on a foreign battlefield.
By a vote of 8-1, citizens detained as "enemy combatants" have the right to a fair process under which they can challenge that designation and their continued detention.
By a vote of 6-3, the Court ruled that the foreign nationals detained at the Cuba base have a right to file lawsuits in civilian courts to contest their detention and conditions at the base.
Once upon a time, there was Michael Moore the First. He never forgot his friends. Come time for the Washington, DC premiere of Bowling for Columbine a while back, he invited his old buddies in Washington—gave them good seats and spent the rest of the evening with them. During his other movie's premiere, he affectionately recognized how much those old friends helped him and supported him after he was mistreated and let go by Mother Jones. He was generous with his words and time.
Now there is Michael Moore the Second. Last night he hosted the Washington, DC premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and who was there? The Democratic political establishment, the same people whom he took to such mocking task on the road with us in campaign rally after campaign rally in 2000. Who was not there? His old buddies! Not personally invited, not personally hung out with.
A few weeks ago, Michael, I sent you a message: "Hey, Dude, where's my Buddy?" It is attached. It has gone without reply. It simply asked you to come back to your progressive constituency and take on the two-party monopoly of our rigged election system—to challenge the pro-warlike, corporate party with two heads, wearing different makeup when it comes to playing toady for Big Business. These are the giant multinationals who have no allegiance to our country or to communities like Flint except to control, deplete or abandon them. It is not that your views have changed, with an exception or two. It is that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo.
Your old friends remain committed to blazing paths for a just society and world. As they helped you years ago, they can help you now. They are also trim and take care of themselves. Girth they avoid. The more you let them see you, the less they will see of you. That could be their greatest gift to Moore the Second—the gift of health. What say you?
Best wishes,
Ralph Nader
Let me answer, since this is, well, crazy, not that conservative pundits would say that.
Uh, Ralph, you consort with right-wing hacks, and have set about to ruin the Democratic party. Obviously, Moore no longer feels the way you do about these issues, I think you might want to plunk down the $10 to see his film and not rely on a freebie.
Why should he actually bother to talk to you, since you no longer listen to friends, most of whom have asked you to pull out. The fact that you never bothered to have a life, a family, or as far as anyone can tell, sex, may mean that you are not as aware of the bond of human relations than other people are. Moore grew tired of your ineffective antics and consorting with Republicans.
And while your goals may be laudable, they are not the goals which will result in the immediate change of removing George Bush from office. While you let your ego run ramapant, Moore and other committed progressives are working to force Bush from office. And while your conservative patrons may let you believe you'll get Republican votes, the reality is that you're being used by them to harm democrats, the same democrats which have supported you since 1964. Where is your gratitude and loyalty to old friends,huh?
Since 1996 we have carried the banner for free elections, clean elections, and the ten key values for a just nation and world all over our beloved country. But the corporate supremacists and their Two Party monopoly have sent the American people their own message—exclusive, rigged elections, sold elections, no other choices and more and concentration of power and wealth, against workers, consumers, small taxpayers, environment, community, and a sane foreign policy. In fact—the Republican and Democratic Parties have left most voters with only one incumbent party through redistricting and carving up the country into one-party domination. This is not even a semblance of democracy.
We have to break up this political plutocracy of the corporate government with a combination of our efforts that strengthen our efforts rather than subtract from them. There are too many good people in our country who know how to build the good society who have solutions—technical, social and economic—but who have no political voice. We strive to be their voice. Our voice and your voice must find a unison this weekend to range our mutual call for action throughout our land.
In this spirit I had the privilege of selecting Peter Miguel Camejo as my Vice President. He brings so much to our candidacy—knowledge, experience, commitment, precision, civic courage for over 40 years of struggle for justice. He brings bilingual eloquence that for the first time can communicate Green values to thirty-nine million Latinos as a Vice Presidential candidate on a ticket already polling 6 to 7% and 12% among younger voters in their teens and twenties. And as you recall he has run twice on the Green ballot for Governor of California, distinguishing himself in the rerun debates last year before a worldwide television audience.
As you know, what is already in place for our candidacy is important for local, state and national Green Party efforts this year. You can make a decision tomorrow that can amplify your resources, visibility, lasting ballot presence and impact at the state and local level where building the Green Party is so critical. With the Republicans and Democrats supporting the War, the Patriot Act and endless military and corporate welfare budgets, less and less is left for the people, their children and their future, especially the tens of millions of poor people. And this corporate political duopoly is making American people pay for their own oppression, their own deprivation, their own disrespect. Enough of the Politics of Fear. It is time to shift the power. It is time for the Solution Revolution. It is time to choose between fear and fortitude.
On the exercise of free accessible elections at all levels, we are working to bring together Third Parties and Independents.
I find Peter Camejo’s Unity Resolution as being in the interests of state Green Parties and as the best way to keep the Green Party together and advance common pursuits of justice. This resolution will make it possible for the Nader-Camejo campaign to support candidates, help preserve your ballot lines and expand the resources of the Green Party. I have had some experience since 2001 in participating at 43 fundraisers and other activities for Greens in 31 states and the disenfranchised District of Columbia. I felt that this effort was both my duty and pleasure.
Many of you have urged my attendance. In my letters to Greens a few months ago I indicated that the Greens should make their decision by themselves, absorbing all well-intentioned advice, on the merits. There is no role for any dramatic arrivals from this quarter. If you decide on nominations, you will achieve different results than if you decide on endorsements. Some want you to lie low this election and not receive many national votes in the close states. This is a peculiar way to expand your Party and establish a poor precedent that the Democrats will seek to exploit. In any event, it is your decision as delegates to make a deliberative choice. May your conscience be your guide.
Thank you for reading these words. Best wishes for your convention.
Ralph Nader
P.S. I am on my way to our Oregon convention this Saturday, but will try to call your gathering this evening in the spirit of further solidarity.
Maybe the Greens didn't want to be destroyed by the Democratic Party and run off of ballots? Notice, you never joined the Green Party but just used them to run for office. What did they get but the emnity of Democratic voters? Did they get elected anywhere? Did they expand their profile? Nope, and nope. The Green Party experiment was a disaster for them and they now admit it. Your refusal to deal with racial or sexual inequality angered many of the Greens, who care about social justice.
Why should the Greens take your word to support their candidates when you never joined their party. You want the Greens to serve you, but you never made a committment to the Greens comensurate to what you demanded from them. Trusting you, they led their party down the primrose path, only to unfairly catch the backlash to your 2000 campaign. When they finally woke up, they saw that you would destroy their party while having contributed little if anything to them.
Words are not enough, Ralph. You're very good with words, but people need action. Action is what makes the difference in people's lives. Words, no matter how good, will not end the war in Iraq. Only action, starting with the removal of Bush, will do that.
WASHINGTON, June 28 — The Supreme Court ruled today that people being held by the United States as enemy combatants can challenge their detention in American courts — the court's most important statement in decades on the balance between personal liberties and national security.
The justices declared their findings in three rulings, two of them involving American citizens and the other addressing the status of foreigners being held at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Taken together, they were a significant setback for the Bush administration's approach to the campaign against terrorism that began on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker," an 8-to-1 majority held in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi-born United States citizen seized in Afghanistan in 2001. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the basic outlines of the decision.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the campaign against terrorism notwithstanding, "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
In the Guantánamo case, the court ruled, 6 to 3, that federal courts have the jurisdiction to consider challenges to the custody of foreigners. The finding repudiated a central argument of the administration.
"Aliens at the base, like American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts' authority," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "United States courts have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens."
The dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
And in the other case involving an American citizen, José Padilla, the court ruled on what at first glance was a technical issue: that Mr. Padilla filed his habeas corpus petition in the wrong court. A 5-to-4 majority said he should have filed in federal court in South Carolina, since he has been held in a brig in Charleston, rather than in the Southern District of New York.
The majority said, too, that the proper target for his case is not Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but, rather, Cmdr. Melanie Marr, who is in charge of the brig. "This rule serves the important purpose of prevent forum shopping by habeas petitioners," the majority held.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion, joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justices John Paul Stevens wrote an emotional dissent that was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice Stevens wrote that there was ample precedent for finding that the Southern District of New York, where a material-witness warrant was first issued for Mr. Padilla, was the proper court to take up the case, and he lamented that the majority seemed to sidestep the main issues.
"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society," Justice Stevens wrote. "For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."
The American Civil Liberties Union called the rulings historic and said they embodied "a strong repudiation of the administration's arguments that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, "reaffirms that even in a time of war, the president does not have the authority to act as a tyrant."
I think I can forgive the Supremes a little for imposing the Dauphin on us with this decision. They've rejected the imperial diktat of Bush and his aides and reaffirmed the right of people in US custody to have the right to a fair trial. Enough with this tribunal crap and secrecy. If these people are criminals, let's get them in a courtroom and try them before a judge and 12 citizens in the light of day. This is what Chief Justice John Marshall wanted to establish when he ruled on Marbury vs. Madison. That the government was subject to the rule of law, and not merely its own whims.
Bush, like many bullies, wanted to power to impose fear, not justice. He has set up a secret gulag of CIA jails and a large prison in Guantanamo in contravention of not only international law, but our own customs and laws. While the Republicans are circle jerking themselves over their fictional handover of power in Iraq (I say wait two days for the ZResistance response), everyone else is elated that the SCOTUS didn't fall for Bush's night and fog terror techniques. Bush wanted to abrogate the law in order to fight this "new war" and it isn't working. The idea that we could hold people in perpetuity is profoundly unamerican and just plain wrong.
Needless to say, the fact is that the US cannot make a case against most of these people and even the guilty ones have been tainted by the interrogation techniques and violation of their human rights. I want real terrorists jailed fairly, so we can say to the world we live up to our ideals. Not to use the techniques of dictators to prove our point. We can defend our democracy in the light of day, not in some self-created back alley.
WING voters may be in relatively short supply this year, but they definitely exist, and a surprising number of them may be listening to Howard Stern on their way to church.
A new analysis found that 21 percent of voters were either undecided or so tentatively committed to one presidential candidate that they would be willing to reconsider. That is low compared with the share of voters up for grabs at this point in past elections - 33 percent in 2000, 27 percent in 1996 and 31 percent in 1992 - but enough to give one candidate a decisive victory.
"People have been saying that this election will be a repeat of what we saw four years ago, but there is still a sizable number of voters with a favorable view of both candidates," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which conducted the analysis. "The election might be close, but a candidate who did a really good job of reaching these persuadable voters could win by a gap of five percentage points or more."
Unfortunately for Republicans, a lot of these voters tune their radios to Mr. Stern, who has been crusading to oust President Bush. Mr. Stern is angry at the Federal Communications Commission, which cracked down on stations that broadcast a show of his that discussed anal sex and what the commission called "repeated flatulence sound effects."
Mr. Stern, who has backed Republican candidates in the past, has a mother lode of swing voters in his audience, according to a poll by the New Democrat Network, an advocacy group. Its pollster, Mark Penn, calculates that this "Stern Gang" of swing voters makes up 4 percent of the likely voters this year, nearly as large as the entire Hispanic vote in 2000.
But one bit of solace for Republicans is that Mr. Stern's listeners go to church frequently, which tends to correlate with voting Republican. The poll showed that Mr. Stern's listeners were slightly more likely than nonlisteners to call themselves born-again Christians and were three times more likely to attend church daily. The pollsters did not ask why they went to church after listening to Mr. Stern, so there is no way to calculate how many were performing an act of contrition.
The numbers NDN came up with are pretty impressive:
Now, a new poll says Stern - with an estimated weekly audience of 8.5 million - could be Kerry's key to getting crucial swing voters on his bandwagon.
The survey, for the New Democrat Network, found Stern's listeners include 17% of likely voters, with a quarter being swing voters sought by both parties.
"This means that 4% of likely voters this fall are swing voters who listen to Howard Stern, showing Stern's potential impact on the race," the group said in statement yesterday.
The poll shows that Stern's fans in general support Kerry, by a margin of 53% to 43%.
In the 18 battleground states - including Arizona, Ohio, Colorado, West Virginia and Florida - Stern listeners go for Kerry by a margin of 59% to 37%. A whopping 34% of his faithful are independents.
The PEW study of swing voters lists some of the characteristics of this group:
Who Are the Swing Voters?
The profile of the uncommitted yields few clues about how they might break on Election Day. They are somewhat less engaged in the campaign: Only about one-in-five swing voters (21%) say they have closely followed news about the campaign. That compares with 38% of Kerry voters and 32% of Bush voters. In addition, fewer swing voters say they have given a lot of thought to the campaign just 40% have thought a lot about the election, compared with 60% of Bush voters and 67% of Kerry voters.
Roughly half of swing voters (47%) approve of Bush's overall job performance, which is comparable to Bush's rating among certain voters (48%). Majorities in both groups give Bush positive marks on handling terrorism (57% each). But swing voters are somewhat less likely than other registered voters to approve of Bush's management of the economy and his handling of the war in Iraq.
Uncommitted voters tend to be more moderate in their political outlook than those who have settled on a candidate. In June, 49% described themselves as moderates, compared with 33% of committed voters. Similarly, 45% decline to identify with a party (including 38% who say they are independent), compared with just 26% among the committed. In the current survey, the swing vote group includes more Democrats than Republicans (36% vs. 18%), but that balance has fluctuated greatly over the past few months, as might be expected with voters who do not have strong political preferences.
Swing voters are not especially different from the overall electorate demographically. More are Catholic and fewer are white evangelicals, but otherwise they are not distinctive.
Moreover, swing voters express almost precisely the same issue priorities as voters who say they have already made up their minds. Among swing voters, 32% pick the economy as the most important issue for the candidates to discuss; 31% of those certain of their choice say the same. Similarly, 22% of swing voters want to hear about Iraq, but so too do 21% of the committed voters.
The Hill, the iundependent paper covering Congress, also looked that the NDN polling results:
Radio shock jock Howard Stern is predicting that he will help deliver the heavily sought-after swing voters to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry this November.
On air yesterday, Stern told The Hill: “I’m both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush. More anti-Bush. I encourage people on the air and personally [to vote for him]. Here’s the deal, dude. It turns out the show has a lot of influence among swing voters, voters who are not Republican or Democrat, but intelligent enough to vote for the good candidate.”
Stern said he has never met Kerry but considers him a “good guy.”
Stern’s listeners support Kerry over President Bush by a 10-point margin, according to a poll released last week.
In recent months, Stern has repeatedly lambasted the Bush administration for its crackdown on “indecent material” and called on his listeners to vote the president out of office.
Stern himself is a swing voter. Besides a brief run for governor as a Libertarian, Stern used his position to back two Republican gubernatorial candidates in New York and New Jersey. Both George Pataki and Christie Todd Whitman beat Democratic incumbents. Whitman even promised to name a highway oasis after Stern, and put a plaque with his name in a bathroom along the New Jersey turnpike.
Stern’s vast audience includes 17 percent of likely voters, and they back Kerry 53 to 43 percent over Bush according to the poll. In so-called “battleground” states, Kerry beats Bush by 59 to 37 percent. The New Democrat Network (NDN), a centrist Democratic fundraising organization, commissioned Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, a Democratic firm, to conduct the poll.
On his website, Stern says that he is more influential than conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh because he claims his listeners are undecided voters and Hannity and Limbaugh’s listeners are Republicans.
Don Imus, a New York-based political talk show host, has said on his program that he also supports Kerry.
Nevertheless, the poll shows that voters whose main source of news is radio support Bush 52 to 46 percent, perhaps reflecting the dominance of conservative talk radio.
Scott Stanzel, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman, dismissed the poll’s results. “It’s a partisan Democratic poll from a partisan group that’s just one of the shadowy soft-money groups assisting the Kerry campaign,” he said.
Simon Rosenberg, the NDN’s executive director, responded, “Every poll they don’t like they trash.”
The Bush Administration may have overplayed their hand with Stern. While he was no Bush fan in the last few months, going after him has resulted in a show where Stern wants to hold a Scores party for people who've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, and did a glowing interview with Michael Moore on Friday. Instead of raising doubts about Bush, he supported Gore in 2000, he's attacking Bush every day.
Part of the problem is a serious misreading of the Stern audieince, which hardly the no-neck cretins one imagines. While many on the left hold their nose at an alliance with Stern, the reality is that his audience is the white, middle-class, ethnic audience which has been leaning Republican for more than two decades. The problem wasn't just that Stern was under assault by the FCC, but by Clear Channel, a long time booster of George Bush.
Passion of Howard Stern The shock jock says radio colossus Clear Channel fired him because he criticized George Bush -- and he's sure as hell not going to go quietly.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
March 4, 2004 | From the moment last week when Clear Channel Communications suspended Howard Stern's syndicated morning show from the company's radio stations, denouncing it as "vulgar, offensive and insulting," speculation erupted that the move had more to do with Stern's politics than his raunchy shock-jock shtick.
Stern's loyal listeners, Clear Channel foes and many Bush administration critics immediately reached the same conclusion: The notorious jock was yanked off the air because he had recently begun trashing Bush, and Bush-friendly Clear Channel used the guise of "indecency" to shut him up. That the content of Stern's crude show hadn't suddenly changed, but his stance on Bush had, gave the theory more heft. That, plus his being pulled off the air in key electoral swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania.
This week, Stern himself went on the warpath, weaving in among his familiar monologues about breasts and porn actresses accusations that Texas-based Clear Channel -- whose Republican CEO, Lowry Mays, is extremely close to both George W. Bush and Bush's father -- canned him because he deviated from the company's pro-Bush line. "I gotta tell you something," Stern told his listeners. "There's a lot of people saying that the second that I started saying, 'I think we gotta get Bush out of the presidency,' that's when Clear Channel banged my ass outta here. Then I find out that Clear Channel is such a big contributor to President Bush, and in bed with the whole Bush administration, I'm going, 'Maybe that's why I was thrown off: because I don't like the way the country is leaning too much to the religious right.' And then, bam! Let's get rid of Stern. I used to think, 'Oh, I can't believe that.' But that's it! That's what's going on here! I know it! I know it!"
Stern's been relentless all week, detailing the close ties between Clear Channel executives and the Bush administration, and insisting that political speech, not indecency, got him in trouble with the San Antonio broadcasting giant. If he hadn't turned against Bush, Stern told his listeners, he'd still be heard on Clear Channel stations.
In a statement released to Salon, the media company insists that "Clear Channel Radio is not operated according to any political agenda or ideology." Clear Channel Radio chief Joe Hogan said, "The decision to suspend Howard Stern from our radio stations is based on our regulatory obligation and commitment to airing material that conforms to the standards and sensibilities of the local communities we serve."
Although by far the most powerful, Stern is not the first radio jock to charge Clear Channel with retaliation for anti-Bush comments.
"I'm glad he's pissed off and I hope he raises hell every single day," says Roxanne Walker, who claims Clear Channel fired her last year because of her antiwar views. "I think any time a broader section of the population hears about the Bush administration and the Clear Channel connection, it's a good thing."
Walker, South Carolina Broadcasters Association's 2002 radio personality of the year, is suing Clear Channel for violating a state law that forbids employers from punishing employees who express politically unpopular beliefs in the workplace.
"On our show we talked about politics and current events," she tells Salon. "There were two conservative partners and me, the liberal, and that was fine. But as it became clear we were going to war, and I kept charging the war was not justified, I was reprimanded by [Clear Channel] management that I needed to tone that down. Basically I was told to shut up." She says she was fired on April 7, 2003.
Phoenix talk show host Charles Goyette says he was kicked off his afternoon drive-time program at Clear Channel's KFYI because of his sharp criticism of the war on Iraq. A self-described Goldwater Republican who was selected "man of the year" by the Republican Party in his local county in 1988, Goyette -- more recently named best talk show host of 2003 by the Phoenix New Times -- says his years with Clear Channel had been among his best in broadcasting. "The trouble started during the long march to war," he says.
While the rest of the station's talk lineup was in a pro-war "frenzy," Goyette was inviting administration critics like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter on his show, and discussing complaints from the intelligence community that the analysis on Iraq was being cooked to support the White House's pro-war agenda. This didn't go over well with his bosses, Goyette says: "I was the Baby Ruth bar in the punch bowl."
Soon, according to Goyette, he was having "toe-to-toe confrontations" with his local Clear Channel managers off the air about his opposition to the war. "One of my bosses said in a tone of exasperation, 'I feel like I'm managing the Dixie Chicks,'" Goyette recalls. "I didn't fit in with the Clear Channel corporate culture."
Writing in the February issue of American Conservative magazine, Goyette put it this way: "Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: 'Criticizing Bush' and 'Clear Channel.'"
What all this has led to is four hours of Stern cursing George Bush and feeding into things like pushing people to see Moore's film. Is it a political disaster? Not yet, but it has the makings of one. Even Stern's website is now a collection of anti-Bush articles, among the Playboy evaluations and links to DVD porn. In addition to the pictures of the cast and crew, there are several anti-Bush picture galleries. Stern, who had left his website undeveloped for years, and only posted the odd nude picture or drunken cast member shot, now has a full on, archived, deeply linked website. It's updated daily with new content and links to a ton of anti-Bush stories. Sure, some of the content is racy in that male, heterosexual way, and it lacks a blog, but it is a professionally done website driven by intense anger at Bush and the people around him.
This is just one of the stories highlighted on Stern's website today:
Victims upset at Bush's praise of ex-con --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They say embezzler hasn't paid them restitution
By Gregory Korte
Enquirer staff writer
Touting his program to rehabilitate ex-offenders in Cincinnati on Monday, President Bush put his arm on Tami Jordan's shoulder and called the convicted embezzler a "good soul" and an "inspirational person."
But the victims of Jordan's crime - a small, family-owned business in Fairfield that lost $308,170 to Jordan's deception - say she isn't rehabilitated and hasn't paid the court-ordered restitution.
Susan Morin with her two daughters, Cindy (left) and Carolyn, run a small family business in Fairfield.
(Tony Jones photo)
"Of all the people in Cincinnati they could pick out as an example, and they picked her," said Susan Morin, the owner of Gorman Supply Inc. "She's on the front page of every paper, sitting with the most powerful man in the country, and I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to pay my bills next week. Is that fair? Where's my federal program?"
In the town hall-style meeting at a Corryville halfway house, Bush highlighted Jordan as an example of how faith-based programs can help rehabilitate ex-offenders.
The president called on Congress to commit $112 million over two years for drug treatment, student loans and housing for ex-offenders. Rep. Rob Portman, R-Terrace Park, introduced that bill, the Second Chance Act of 2004, Wednesday.
Republicans and Democrats at all levels of government - from Cincinnati Vice Mayor Alicia Reece to the Republican president - are putting an increased emphasis on rehabilitation.
All agree that the government should do more to help convicted felons become productive citizens after they've paid their debt to society.
As the Jordan case shows, people will disagree about how large that debt is. Jordan spent 21/2 years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women and six months at the Talbert House before being freed in August.
While Jordan worked at Talbert house, a small part of her wages were garnished. But now that she's off parole, she hasn't paid a cent of the remaining $310,000 in restitution, the Morins said.
"If she stole $310,000 from someone and still hasn't paid it back, that would make me very unhappy," said Robin Piper, prosecutor in Butler County, where Jordan was convicted. "Quite honestly, I liked the old parole system, where if they didn't make payments, they run the risk of going back to prison. Now when they do their time, they're out."
Why is Stern's poised to have such a potential impact? While the GOP can denigrate Move On.org and call Al Gore crazy, they do so at their own peril with Stern. A man with a vicious angry streak, loyal fans and five hours of air time today is a dangerous opponent. And unlike Rush the junkie and Sean "too stupid to think" Hannity, his audience is ideologically diverse. The FCC attack has backfired on them, any escalation could make things that much worse.
Also, the reality is that Bush's campaign ads aren't working, according to Sidney Blumenthal, while Stern's assault is:
Since March 3, the Bush-Cheney campaign has spent an estimated $80m on mostly negative advertising, to eliminate Kerry at the starting gate. The strategy was the acceleration of the lesson of Bush's father's victorious effort in the 1988 campaign when, 17 points behind in mid-summer, he shattered Michael Dukakis with a withering negative attack.
Now, Bush's opponent is not only moving ahead, but the failed assault may insulate Kerry against future offensives. Bush had every reason to believe that his attack on Kerry's image would succeed. After September 11, he was able to impose his explanations on the public almost without resistance and to taint anyone who contradicted them as somehow unpatriotic.
With Congress in Republican hands, checks and balances were effectively removed. Most of the media was on the bandwagon or intimidated. Cheney himself called the president of the corporation that owned one of the networks to complain about an errant commentator. Political aides directed by Karl Rove ceaselessly called editors and producers with veiled threats about access that was not granted in any case. The press would not bite the hand that would not feed it.
But Bush's projection of images can only faintly be seen on the screen, which is overwhelmed with Bush's past images of triumph unreeling in reverse. The majority of the people had supported the war in Iraq because they believed that Saddam was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11. Bush envisioned the Iraqi war unfolding into a new world order: the liberation of Iraq resembling the liberation of France, democracy flowering throughout the Middle East, and the Palestinians submitting quietly to Sharon's fait accompli .
But the neoconservative prophesies had been advanced by suppressing the scepticism of the US intelligence agencies, the military and the state department. Without deranging and dismissing the professionalism of the basic institutions of national security, Bush would not have been able to sustain his reasons. Bush's battle is not with image, but with the unravelling of his reality.
Having Howard Stern against you doesn't help you either.
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S.-led coalition authority handed sovereignty over to Iraq today, two days ahead of schedule, to thwart terrorism and give the initiative to the interim Iraqi government, a coalition spokeswoman said.
Ambassador Paul Bremer ``handed legal authority'' to Iraq's Chief Justice Medhat Mahmud in a ceremony at 10.30 a.m. local time, Victoria Whitford said in a phone interview from Baghdad. The handover, which was scheduled for Wednesday, was brought forward at the request of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, ``who was ready to take control and put his policies into force,'' she said. Bremer later left the country, Sky News reported.
``Restoring security'' in the country 15 months after the U.S.-led invasion would be his government's top priority, Allawi, 59, said in a press conference broadcast on television networks. ``Tackling the terrorists is now our responsibility,'' he said.
Iraq, the Middle East's fifth largest oil producer last month, has suffered sustained attacks by insurgents throughout the country and on its oil infrastructure, resulting in disruptions to its crude exports.
The more than 150,000 foreign troops presently in Iraq have been unable to remove the terrorist threat in the country, which has resulted in the death of close to 700 coalition forces.
One U.S. marine is presently being held hostage and one British soldier was killed today after a bomb attack on a convoy in southern Iraq, Agence France Presse reported. More than 11,000 Iraqis may have been killed over the last year, according to IraqBodyCount.com, a media Web site. To date, 629 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action, the U.S. says.
The fraud which is the the alleged handover of power in Iraq today will do nothing. The Iraqi government, weak as a newborn kitten, is run by a thug. Iyad Allawi is Saddam without the psychopathic sons. He and the people around him talk bloody, not that most Iraqis care, but he is regarded as an old line baathist thug. The kind of man who, while in medical school, strolled into class with a machine gun and said "we're having a strike". Of course he landed in jail for a year for that little stunt.
On his shoulders, lies the hope for democracy in Iraq.
I'd bet that neither democracy or his head is long for resting on his shoulders.
The Bushies may have made their worst mistake by tagging a day to handover. All the TV anchors are there, like something will happen when one set of unelected puppets are chosen to take over from another set of unelected puppets. Iraqis are desperate to make this work, but the actual handover is such a mistake, so driven by US electoral need and weakness, that we're losing the war and have no way to win it. The US cannot provide security and the Iraqi forces are absolutely useless. Most are either refusing to challenge the guerrillas or members of them.
While the US may be building permanent bases in Iraq, the odds of occupying them are small. Why do most Iraqis want the US to leave, but not immediately? I'd call it the colored people's dilemma. You can't trust the cops, but the thugs are too dangerous to leave alone. They want the kidnappings, rape and violence to stop.
While violence is problem number one, the second issue is the massive fraud left by the GOPCPA. Most of the money has disappeared somewhere, anywhere but where it was supposed to go.
Iraqi money cannot be accounted for by occupying forces responsible for the funds, according to two new reports.
Discrepancies are highlighted in the handling of $20bn (£11bn) generated from Iraq's oil and other sources since war ended last year.
The Coalition Provisional Authority was given responsibility for the country's finances by the United Nations.
The UN stressed that money in the Development Fund for Iraq must be shown to be used in Iraq's best interests.
It was understood that all revenues would be paid into a central fund.
Criticism
But both the charity Christian Aid and the Liberal Democrats are now criticising the CPA, saying no audit of how the money was used had been carried out until April of this year - two months before the handover of power.
Christian Aid described the information regarding the allocation of money as "woefully inadequate".
On 29 May, the CPA revealed $19.4bn (£10.7bn) had been paid into the DFI and spent on a wheat purchase programme, electricity and oil infrastructure programmes and equipment for Iraqi security forces, among other purchases
Shortfall
The Coalition said $10bn (£5.5bn) of the total sum came from oil revenues.
But, according to the Lib Dems, there is a shortfall of up to $3.7bn (£2.03bn) between the amount of oil revenue earned and the money paid into the DFI by the CPA.
Iraq's oil resources generate billions of dollars each year and both studies insist it is not known how that money has been spent.
Helen Collinson, from Christian Aid, said: "For the entire year that the CPA has been in power in Iraq it has been impossible to tell with any accuracy what the CPA has been doing with Iraq's money."
In a separate study, the Liberal Democrats said the CPA was obliged to pay all oil revenues into the DFI, but there appears to be a significant disparity.
Now, while everyone gets upset with cousin Ahmed Chalabi's alleged thievery, no one's asked where Allawi's money has gone. He was thick as thieves with a bunch of baathist generals, including at least one alleged war criminal. Is he as detested as his cousin? No, but few people are. However, unless Allawi gets his own Blackwater Merc team, we will probably see Zarqawi chopping his head off over the net at some point.
The CIA did a survey of Iraqi exiles in the mid-90's, and found most of them were Saddams in waiting. The problem with Chalabi Allawi's tough talk is that he has zero hope of backing it up. The Shia clerics are hoping to stop the bleeding, but the guy is a thug and has been since he was a student. Relying on him to do something useful is pointless, unless people start to rally to the government. And that's the thing which isn't likely to happen.
When thinking about food, we will spend a lot of time concerned about the quality of meat, the cut of the potato, the temperature of the grill or stove. But we often don't give much thought to one of the most important items possible, the conidments.
If you doubt me, go get some fries and eat them plain, no salt, no pepper, no ketchup, nothing. See how far you get.
The condiment is the spice of life for food. It makes ordinary food special and special food great.
Let's take mayonnaise. I detest Miracle Whip, too sweet, too ecch. We eat Hellmans (Best Foods) exclusively. Now there are people who love Miracle Whip, can't live without it. Not me.
My friend's wife is Dutch, when they were dating, we went out for dinner and her and her friends lathered mayo on their fries. I'd never seen such a thing, despite a lifetime of eating potato salad. So I'm watching these Dutch folks eat mayo and potatoes and I'm curious. So I try it one day. Well, it's different, but man, it wasn't bad. I still like Heinz, but it's an interesting variation.
When you go to Atlantic City and points south, out comes the malt vinegar, something only seen in Irish restaurants here. I don't mind it, but I don't get it either. Vinegar and potatoes? Not bad, but I never got it.
There is also mustard. I have no problem with yellow mustard, but it's not really New York. Guldens is the mustard of New York, and when you get a dirty water dog, you get a nice metal stick full of brown mustard. Yellow mustard always seems like the lesser, milder version, although I've used both. Now, I'm defnitely not from Philly, but I love mustard on pretzels. If Philly wasn't such a brawling town, people would realize it's probably the best food town on the east coast after New York. Cheesesteaks, pretzels, real barbecue and soul food. But when you get a Philly pretzel and mustard, you have a magic combination. Pathmark had a sale on frozen pretzels, I like mine saltless, and I bought two packs, hell, you don't get much better than $5 for 5 (if you shop at Pathmark pick them up), heat them up in the micro or stove, you've got a 100 calorie snack.
Mustard is one of the key condiments because it is so flexible. I used to amaze people because I liked mustard on beef. I think it is a fantastic combination, the spiciness and the beef go so well together.
However, when people put it on fried catfish, well, I don't really get the appeal. And I love fried catfish.
If they had a contest for the favorite condiment of black America, it would be hot sauce. There are a ton of brands, but it breaks down to Tabasco and Red Devil, with a bunch of other brands. How popular is Tabasco? It's included in MRE's. I'm sure thousands of Iraqis and Afghans have been introduced to Louisiana's finest. It's not hot in, oh, the Mexican, sense, but it adds vinegar and spice to meals. Fried food, eggs, anything you can think of. Now, as a kid, I didn't much care for it, but my father liked it a lot.
When I was watching Undercover Brother, they made some bizarre joke about black people not eating mayonnaise, which is ridiculous, since you can't mnake potato salad without it. But hot sauce was deemed to be the ulitmate definition of blackness. It's more of a Southern thing, than black, but people love it all the same.
Condiments are the reason to eat some foods, and make other foods tolerable. My mother has the habit of putting ketchup on everything with dinner, which I do not do. Although I do mix ketchup and hot sauce, especially on hash browns.
Condiments are the most personal of things we do with food. No two people like their food the same way, and that bit of relish or the kind of mustard you use, or the onions in red sauce they serve with hot dogs here (everywhere but Nathans at Coney Island) and sell in the supermarkets, all add something to a meal. And the way it adds it is so individual as to mark our territory as firmly as a wolf.
No thinks that when a kid first eats hot dogs with ketchup and then moves on to mustard, maybe after a baseball game, we don't see how that marks a change in the way that kid sees the world. Or how in New York, they only put ketchup on burgers, not mustard and ketchup like they do in most of the country.
Condiments, choosing a brand, a type, are the most personal, defining thing we can do with food.
The European Union has condemned Catholic Church "bigotry" over the use of condoms to fight HIV.
European Commissioner Poul Nielsen made his comments on the BBC's Panorama programme, to be broadcast on Sunday.
Mr Nielsen said: "They are hurting and bringing into great danger the lives of millions out there."
His comments were in response to a Vatican paper that claimed the HIV virus - which leads to Aids - can pass through latex condoms and cause infection.
The paper, published by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, backs up its claims with scientific references.
The Panorama team spent six months researching whether there was any truth behind Cardinal Trujillo's claims about condoms and HIV.
Cardinal Trujillo, who is known in the Vatican for his hard-line stance on contraception, told Panorama last year: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the sperm."
He said: "Scientists realise that there is a degree of uncertainty - it might be 15%, 18%, or 20%."
.......
'Lack of love'
Mr Nielsen, EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, said: "This is where bigotry gets into the big discussion."
He condemned the Vatican's "lack of love for human beings" and "unwillingness to take their situation seriously".
The Vatican refused to be interviewed for the programme.
But Bishop Rafael Llano Cifuentes, Auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janeiro, told the programme "people are being deceived" by the message that condoms can prevent HIV infection.
He said: "The Church is a mother. What mother would allow her son to go on a plane if she knew there was a 15% chance it would crash?"
The same mother who would hand her children over to known pedophiles, and then protect them for decades while entire families were destroyed. Condoms work, this is just propeganda. And we known condoms have worked since the 1940's, when the US Army handed out billions of them to their soldiers.
Clinton's affair with Monica called his character into question; Bush's true colors emerged on 9/11
.....
This weekend Bill Clinton gave the world a look into his character. In his autobiography, My Life, previewed on 60 Minutes, Clinton calls his affair with Monica Lewinsky a "terrible moral error" that sprang from the "darkest part" of his "inner life." Lying about it under oath got him impeached by a Republican House led by Newt Gingrich, who was having an affair with a younger aide at the time, just as the voluble Clinton scourge, William Bennett, rested from his indignations with the Las Vegas chapter of the Moral Majority. The reckless impeachment perpetrated by these pecksniffs crippled the Clinton presidency at a fateful time—when Osama Bin Laden was about to target the "homeland." Historians will doubtless explore the question of how far Bill Clinton's "moral error" and the Republican near-putsch contributed to September 11.
Next weekend, when Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 opens, we will see George W. Bush's Monica Lewinsky moment. Philip Shenon, who covered the hearings of the 9/11 commission, described that scene in an article on the film in Sunday's Times.
For the White House, the most devastating segment of Farenheit 9/11 may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of September 11, continuing to read a copy of My Pet Goat to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers.
Moore stipples his film with damning (and in some cases doubtful) statistics—for example, that Mr. Bush spent 42 percent of the first eight months of his presidency on vacation—and vituperation. But, Shenon concludes, while "Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret,…seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world."
That moment exposes Bush's character. It reveals what his press conferences proclaim: his incapacity. If he were George W. Smith, what job would he be qualified for? Bush's presidency can be seen as one long cover-up of the most obvious thing about him. A life of upward failure, of being his father's son, left him without "sand," my nineteenth century-born father's word for the residue of strength acquired by "standing on your own two feet" and "taking your medicine." Bush never stood on his own feet, never took his medicine—and he has never been his own man. He's the only president to be related to the Queen of England, and his biography is that of a "royal." Prince Charles would make a sorry prime minister. Like Bush, though, he'd give good strut.
Leaders show what they are made of in a crisis. Bush hid in plain sight with those kids. Later, hiding twice over, he used them as an excuse, saying he did not want to frighten them by ending the reading before finishing the book. Later still, and repeatedly, he said he saw the first plane strike the tower that morning (in fact, no one saw that live; the film was not available until the evening) and that he remarked, "That's some bad pilot"—pure strut. As the Wall Street Journal reported, he also magnified his role in managing the crisis, claiming he gave orders others gave. Conflicting accounts of Bush's communications documented by the 9/11 Commission now raise doubts whether, as he and Cheney told the commissioners, he ordered Cheney to shoot down any hijacked planes still in the air, or whether Cheney, in the White House bunker, acted on his own. Maybe Cheney persuaded Bush to stay away from Washington that day less for Bush's safety than for the country's.
George Bush is a weak leader, who has only the comfort of his platitudes to assure him. Bush has possibly the worst combination of a lack of personal courage and an inability to make a decision that is possible in a leader. The Bush-Cheney hellmarch campaign, talks about "calm and steady" leadership. In reality, it's weak and indecisive leadership which gets people killed. The Bushes hate Michael Moore because he has hit a core truth about Bush, one that was true from childhood, the man is a coward. You can say many things about John Kerry, but his personal courage is simply beyond question, no matter how much Karl Rove wishes it was. John Kerry won two of the nation's highest awards for bravery in combat at great personal risk to his own life. Kerry, despite the reputation of flip flopping, has been a courageous politician as well, exposing the bankrupt policies of the US in Central America and the BCCI scandal.
What I have always wondered about Bush is why he took so long to get to Ground Zero? When people write the real histories of 9/11, the person who deserves the most credit, but will probably not get it, is New York Governor George Pataki. While Rudy Giuliani ran around WTC, playacting Napoleon, and George Bush was nowhere to be found, Pataki, who's best friend died in the attack, went on TV, calmly, and told people what happened. Pataki may be a lazy, inept governor, but on that day, he led quietly. After things were settled, he stepped into the background and gave Giuliani unlimited support, calling out the Guard, sending down state troopers and settling a lot of the traditional city-state hostility. Not the kind of thing which gets you awards, but things which matter in a real crisis.
Bush dickered around the country for hours, flying from Air Force base to Air Force base. I can't imagine Clinton doing that. Instead of rushing back to Washington, he hid in the middle of the country and didn't say a word for hours.
What Moore's clip gets at, what it does, is explode the myth that George Bush is some kind of decisive leader, which he clearly is not. A real leader wouldn't have waited until Friday to go to Ground Zero.
Bush has failed every test of leadership possible. His mind is closed, he is a physical coward and a bully, and he cannot inspire others. Sure, he says the right words, but his actions? Closer to Louis the XVI than George Washington.
Bill Clinton let his demons rule his life in a pertty serious way, Lewinsky was the last stop in a lifetime of letting his dick overrule his common sense. What the right and a lot on the left missed was that Clinton definitely loved his wife and daughter, but his home life was so unstable, his mother married five times, it led him to choices he shouldn't have made. A weakminded man doesn't date, much less marry, a Hillary Clinton. Who his mother didn't much like, he thought he should have married some beauty queen, and who was not an easy person to deal with. Clinton showed tremendous personal courage in staying married. He slept on a couch for two months. The most powerful man in the world was basicially begging his wife for a second, or more accurately, a fifth, chance. He could have gone to a seperate bedroom, called a truce and gotten a divorce and had hot and cold running actresses. But he didn't do that.
At no point did George Bush ever make a similar decision. He didn't even confront his drinking, something 16 year olds do. At no point in his life has Bush ever demonstrated courage, personal, political. This is a man, remember, who had to shun Helen Thomas, who is older than his mother, for God's sake. Of course Dick Cheney had to take over on 9/11. Because Bush failed in every way a human, much less a leader, could fail that day.
As a rule, I hate writing about writing. It seems sort of indulgent, but something came to me.
It's a shitty, rainy night in New York, so bad that they canceled the Mets-Yankees game, which angered me to no end. So as I hit Bravo, I saw Silverado, Larry Kasdan's western. While it's no Anthony Mann movie, it's a sweet throwback to the pre-Clint Eastwood days in the genre. However, I realized that it reflected a Hollywood, not Western, sensibility. The two are very, very different.
The real west, as seen on the PBS series Frontier House, wasn't an especially violent or easy place. Most cowboys didn't carry guns, and the staples of Hollywood movies come not from the morays of the old West, but from the imaginations of dime novelists. Gunfights, all the things which are western in our minds, is , as Louis L'Amour said, "about one percent of the population."
The reason this crossed my mind, and this isn't aboiut the west, is that it reminded me of two of the most influential authors of my life, Edward Abbey and Wallace Stegner. Now, I usually read non-fiction, but after college, when I needed some self-improvement, I read a lot of different things. Now, many of you remember Abbey as the author of The Monkey Wrench Gang, a book about people who sabotaged construction companies in the desert. It spawned a whole culture of nasty pranks called Haydukery, after one of the characters in the book. But Abbey was one of the best chroniclers of the West. His humor and spare language was inspirational and accurate.
Stegner, who spent his career as a writing teacher at Stanford, had grown up in the West, and his book Angles of Repose is one of American literature's modern classics, in the league of Catch-22 and The Naked and the Dead. What stayed with me about their writing was the sparseness and beauty of it. It was lean and spare and direct. Things I prized in my own writing. It also used memory and fact in ways to enhance the story. Their West was not the west we knew, but the West they lived and they were very different places.
That led me to read A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, one of the first naturalists and environmentalists. In short, this reading in my early 20's shaped how I wrote and what I wanted to see in my writing. A sort of lean, direct prose which got to the point, lacking weasel words and indirection.
You would assume that my influences would be historical, but for the most part, historians can write well, even engagingly, but you need to understand fiction to understand how to make people come alive. And because the writers who shaped me were writing about the West, they led me in a certain direction
This led me to read John McPhee, who made the point that a well-explained story is the duty of the writer and if he does his job, you'll care about the subject. Which has led me down many different paths.
My favorite writing advice book is Willam Zinsser's On Writing Well, the best guide to writing non-fiction, ever. Now much do I love this book? Well, I searched Strand for a copy to give to Jen when she was getting into serious freelance writing last year as a birthday gift. I have many favorite books, but I reread this book every few years for inspiration. If you want to write non-fiction, this is the book to buy. I'm not one to drool over the beauty of language, I'm more interested in ideas, but Zinsser makes two excellent points, strip your writing down and make it clear.
Why was I was I drawn to the writing of the modern West? Because it was clean and clear and direct. It wasn't the cloying bids for sympathy, covered in doublespeak like Alice Walker and it wasn't the pretentious crap of writing programs. I once dated a woman who had been in one of those programs and we broke it down into the same kind of unlived lives people had and how they blamed their parents for everything. Which is why I never like Dave Eggers. A not serious man in a serious time, hie cutness and cloying nature makes me want to hurl. He wants to be the hero of his own story and that is never good.Cleverness past the point of interest. At least David Sedaris knows he's being funny.
The thing about writing is that it is a unique and personal experiece for evrey person. You can no more write like sonemene than have their DNA. It is intensly personal and distinct. When people ask how I do things, I really don't have an answer, you might as well ask me how I make love. I don't think there is an answer.
The thing about blogs is that they can go three ways, one is intensely personal, another is intensely impersonal, and the other is a mix bewtween the two. Most of what I write isn't personal, because I live a fairly staid life, but that doesn't mean people who do blog about their lives are wrong or interesting. Some people just live with more drama than I can take. But the reason blogs have been so effective politically is that they don't have the massaging most published stories have, writing online allows, no forces, a more direct style. Every medium has different demands on the writer, and the Internet is no different. I write far more bluntly and directly online because like a radio program, there is an element of time in getting and keeping the reader. If I wrote like I assumed you would stay with a piece, you probably wouldn't be here. I use much more vivid, sharp language online because that is what works to keep the reader here. Most of the blogs do the same thing, some without realizing it, because sharp, vivd languauge makes for a better connection with the reader.
Writing requires a great deal of discipline. It's something you have to do every day or not at all. There have been few days since coillege when I haven't written. Of course, you get better over time, but that's not the reason. If you aren't disciplined about it, you can't be professional. Not in the sense of a paycheck, but in the sense of rules, organization and personal pride. That you don't just print any shit which crosses your desk, that you admit error and correct it, that you treat people fairly.
The reason I comment on my own pieces isn't ego, more often than not, I'm surpised to recognize my own writing quoted by other people. I often say "hey, that's clever, or funny or smart" and then realize that I wrote it and I'm stunned. Truly caught by surprise. But it's to engage the reader and break down the wall between reader and writer in a significant way. Once an idea is out there, people, rightfully, will challenge it. Which is why I don't pull comments, except when they're doubled and tripled. No one wants to read the same thing six times. There are legal reasons to pull a comment, but calling me an asshole isn't one of them. Some people get angry when they get insulted online. I was trained early on to expect that, so it doesn't upset me. And I do have a life outside the computer, not everyone does.
The idea, at least to me, is to write things which express an idea which will illumninate a subject, not just to rant. Anyone can call Bush an idiot, but to explain why he's wrong is another thing entirely. That's far more interesting.
If anyone is curious as to why I write, it's pretty simple, I can't imagine doing anything else.
One thing you've got to say for Dick Cheney: No one will ever again dismiss the vice presidency as a pitcher of warm spit. Mr. Major League Potty Mouth has shown that, with obsequiousness to the president and obtuseness to the facts, a vice president can run the world. Right into the ground.
This week, it's not just Democrats who are questioning whether Vice is losing it. Now, even some in the White House are saying it's bizarre that he chose a class photo-op on the Senate floor to suggest that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that you won't even find described in Bill Clinton's "My Life."
While Democratic lawmakers delayed final passage of a defense spending bill so they could mingle with Michael Moore, the once sweat-free Bushies were acting jangly.
First Vice chewed out The Times for accurately reporting that the 9/11 commission said there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Then Paul Wolfowitz called the reporters risking their lives in Iraq craven rumormongers. Then came Mr. Cheney's F-word. (Not Fox, the other one.)
Finally, President Bush got agitated when an Irish TV interviewer said most of the Irish found the world more dangerous now than before the Iraq invasion. "First of all, most of Europe supported the decision in Iraq," Mr. Bush declared. (It's all in how you define "Europe.")
Even as Tom Daschle proposed bipartisan family retreats to heal the harsh mood, even as the Senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act," Mr. Cheney profanely laced into Mr. Leahy for criticizing Halliburton's getting no-bid contracts.
"I felt better afterwards," he told Neil Cavuto during a no-bid interview with Fox News. Hey, if it feels good, Dick, do it.
He said he had no regrets about his "little floor debate in the United States Senate." He didn't want to go along with Mr. Leahy's attitude that "everything's peaches and cream" when the Democrat had just been jawing about Halliburton war profiteering. Peaches and cream have never been on the Bush-Cheney menu, only brimstone and gall.
By playing on the insecurities of an inexperienced leader, Mr. Cheney has managed to change W. from a sunny, open, bipartisan, uniter-not-a-divider, non-nation-builder into a crabby, secretive, partisan, divider-not-a-uniter, inept imperialist. Vice is bounding around the country, talking to his usual circumscribed audiences of conservatives, right-wing think tanks and Fox News anchors. No need to burrow in the bunker when you've turned America into one.
As they used to say about the Soviet Union, the defensive Bush imperialists have to keep expanding because they're encircled. Mr. Cheney's gloomy, scary, contentious world view has fueled a more gloomy, scary, contentious world.
This dovetails with the piece that ran in Capitol Hill Blue a week or so ago. The bubble is begining to burst.
THE White House has strongly criticised the RTE interview with President Bush, claiming that journalist Carole Coleman constantly interrupted him, preventing him from getting his point of view across.
The interview, broadcast from the White House on Thursday, 24 hours before the President's visit to Ireland, so displeased President Bush and his advisers that it led to the cancellation of another RTE exclusive yesterday, an interview with the President's wife Laura.
The interview with President Bush, where he was asked questions about the Iraq war and the Middle East among other issues, was the first with an American president by RTE in about 20 years.
During the increasingly tense interview Ms Coleman asked what she termed "tough" follow-up questions to Mr Bush on issues such as weapons of mass destruction.
Five times during the brief interview Mr Bush asked Ms Coleman to allow him to finish answering his original question.
At one stage he pleaded: "Please, please, please, for a minute, okay. It'll be better if you let me finish my answers, and then you can follow up, if you don't mind."
A spokeswoman for the White House told the Sunday Independent yesterday: "It is true that the reporter interrupted him a number of times and prevented him from making the points he was trying to make."
............
Ms Coleman was not making any official comment on the row but sources close to the broadcaster said she had been "shook up" by the incident. She had also argued that no formal agreement had been reached on the Laura Bush interview so the issue of it being cancelled did not arise.
On the way into the summit luncheon at Dromoland Castle, President Bush is understood to have raised the "snippy" interview in a light-hearted fashion.
An Irish Government spokesman said that "within Government there was an acknowledgement that the interview lacked respect."
Meanwhile, the interview was raised on the Larry King show on CNN, CBS, the New York Times where it was described as "contentious", and in other media.
RTE said it had received a good response from the public with 200,000 tuning in to watch the Prime Time interview which clashed with the England Euro 2004 game while another 300,000 watched it later that night on News 2.
Dear Leader looked like a clown in that interview. And this is SO Bush, he laughs in public, while his aides whine like little bitches. Bush needs more of these interviews. Not less. His answers were fucked up. Whar was she supposed to do? Let him lie?
Here are a few excerpts from the interview:
Coleman: "The world is a more dangerous place today."
Bush: "Why do you say that? . . . "
Coleman: "I think there is a feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place because you have taken the focus off Al Qaeda and diverted into Iraq. Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place? I saw four of your soldiers lying dead, on the television, the other day. . . . "
Bush: "You know, listen, nobody cares more about the death than I do.
Coleman: "Is there a point at which --
Bush: "Let me finish. Please, please, let me finish, then you can follow up, if you don't mind. Nobody cares more about the deaths than I do. I care about it a lot. But I do believe that the world is a safer place, and becoming a safer place. . . .
"People join terrorist organizations because there's no hope and there's no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom . . . so the idea is to promote freedom and at the same time protect our security."
I think the Bushies have confused me, the lifelong liberal Democrat, with my father, a registered Republican. They keep sending me this crap in the mail
Dear Steve,
On Thursday, the campaign launched a web video titled Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed. The video featured Democrats who support John Kerry making negative and baseless attacks against the President. Interspersed in the video were segments of two ads that appeared on a website sponsored by MoveOn.org - a group campaigning for Kerry - in January.
On Friday night, John Kerry's campaign denounced our use of these ads, and called that use "disgusting."
The Kerry campaign says, "The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong."
Yes, unless the GOP wants to pander to some of their loonier supporters, like the Coors family. They still celebrating April 20th?
We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry's coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting.
Yeah. They're hate filled. Look, Bush's worst problems don't come from Kerry, but from Bush. It's not like Kerry set up Abu Ghraib, Iraq's Dachau.
Where was John Kerry's disgust when he hired Zack Exley - the man responsible for encouraging the production of these ads as part of a MoveOn contest - to run the Kerry campaign's internet operation?
These folks hate Move On like the SS hated the Russian Guards units. What gets them so crazy about Move On? That it's popular and it works?
Where was John Kerry's sense of outrage when Al Gore, just yesterday afternoon, compared the Bush Administration to the Nazis saying, "The Administration works closely with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'"
Well, if the salute fits...It would have helped matters if they didn't hum the Horst Wessel Lied as they worked.
Where was John Kerry's anger when Al Gore in May spoke of "Bush's Gulag"?
You mean our secret CIA jails? Gitmo, Kolyma by the sea? That Gulag? All those distinctly unamerican and fear-based programs created byt the Bush Adnmistration and hated by our allies. Hey, he didn't compare them to Dachau and Sachsenhausen, where the Nazis stored their politicals.
Why has John Kerry not denounced billionaire and Democrat Party donor George Soros for comparing the Bush Administration to Nazis. Soros stated, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort Mit ('The enemy is listening')."
Maybe because Soros has a right to his opinion. Like I said before, if the salute fits.....
Why has Kerry not spoken out against filmmaker Michael Moore who last October compared the Patriot Act to Mein Kampf. "The Patriot Act is the first step. 'Mein Kampf' - 'Mein Kampf' was written long before Hitler came to power."
Because Moore has a right to his opinion, and neither Soros nor Moore are associated with the Kerry campaign.
We created this web video to show the depths to which these Kerry supporters will sink to win in November.
Well, the Kerry campaign isn't associated with Soros, Move On or Michael Moore. But this video is running on the President's website. It's shameful and wrong. Jesus, their internals must look awful for them to sink to this level. Actually, Ken, it shows how desperate you are, not Kerry.
Is this the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who reassured his countrymen we have nothing to fear but fear itself?
You mean the one you guys want to take off the dime? The one who's legacy your allies curse? Now you care about FDR? We could say how could the party of Lincoln become the domain of racist reactionaries? How did that happen?
No. This is John Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed, who have nothing to offer but fear-mongering.
As opposed to the administration, which says "Al Qaeda is coming to kill us all?"
Who exactly are the Iraqi resistance? In a remarkable essay, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad joins the front-line anti-American fighters in Kerbala, Falluja and Sadr City, and discovers that they are not always the well-trained, highly motivated fanatics we imagine
Friday June 25, 2004
The Guardian
By the time I arrive in Kerbala, in the last week in May, the clashes between Moqtada al-Sadr's Shia militia and the Americans have been going on for weeks. Apart from the scores of Shia militiamen running around the streets with RPGs on their shoulders, the streets are empty. The police have evaporated, leaving only their burned-out cars from previous skirmishes with rebel fighters.
We park our car on the outskirts of the shrine area. Normally, thousands of devout Shia pilgrims from Iran, Afghanistan and central Asia would be bustling around on buses, taxis and donkey carts, but today there are no buses, no donkeys, and certainly no pilgrims.
The main street leading to the shrine is terrifyingly empty, with shattered windows and piles of garbage everywhere. As we start along the street, a bunch of militiamen from the Badr brigade, one of the main Shia factions, demand our press passes. They are all dressed alike - in flip-flops, black T-shirts and pyjama pants - and all are carrying AK47s. "I'm sorry," says one ugly militiaman. "You are not allowed in. We have instructions not to allow journalists to take pictures of the shrine because this will compromise the safety of the shrine." As if the hundreds of Americans and militiamen shooting at each other just metres from the shrine are not compromising its safety.
We ask him to check; after a few minutes of creaking noises from the radio, he comes back with a big grin: no journalists allowed.
It takes us a little while to figure out the game that we will have to play for the next three days. The Shia factions, we work out, are very keen not to allow journalists to go into the centre of the city and report the activities of the other Shia factions - they are not yet fighting each other, but they don't like each other much. After all, it's a family issue, and we Iraqis don't like foreigners to mess with our affairs.
So we do a big loop and sneak through the alleys, telling the guards at every checkpoint that we are not here for the fighting but have an appointment with Ayatollah X, Y or Z.
We finally come out of one alley to find ourselves face to face with three gunmen, their heads wrapped in keffiyehs, Kalashnikovs and RPGs in their hands (this is now considered the new Iraqi dress code, or the "muj style"). They are the Mahdi army, a militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr, which, according to the US army, includes highly trained former Iraqi military officers.
I manage to convince one of them to take us to their HQ. He puts his AK on his shoulder and points at the end of the street - "Snipers. Run very fast" - and we sprint across the street.
He leads us through a maze of alleyways which make up part of the old covered souks of Kerbala, the shops heavily barricaded with steel bars, the streets piled with weeks' old rubbish, fighters sitting in groups of three to five, smoking. Every once in a while someone shouts, "Americans, Americans!", and one or two move into a sniping position, shout at each other, and then come and sit down again. They look tired, hungry and bored, fiddling with their RPGs and rifles.
Finally, we arrive at the HQ, 50m from the shrine and a street corner where most of the fighting has taken place in the past few days. They take us to the "sheikh" for permission, a young guy in his early 30s with a big bushy beard who is the local Mahdi commander. I spend the next two days with these men on a clutch of street corners from where they take occasional pot shots at the Americans.
This is the front-line elite, a bunch of badly equipped men with rusted AKs and decade-old RPG rockets. When we first arrive they are brewing tea, piles of RPG rockets stacked on the walls two feet away from the fire.
"So how long you have been here?" I ask one of them.
"Three weeks now." He says he is here because he wants to defend the shrine of Imam Ali. "I'm unemployed and have nothing else to do." He is 17.
Others start to gather around us. "Don't talk to them." "No, do talk to them, they must know what's happening." "Are you Americans?" "Are you spies?" "Who sent you here?" "Take my picture." "No, take my picture with an RPG." "No, don't let them photograph the RPGs - they'll sell the pictures to the Americans."
Suddenly, there are some explosions, and three of them run towards the corner. We hear heavy machine-gun fire and I see American APCs firing at a building in the street.
"Where's the machine gun?"
"I don't know! You had it yesterday!"
"No, you had it!"
"No, no, it's there with Ali."
"Where's Ali?"
"He went home."
"So where is the machine gun?"
"With Ali."
Sadr City in eastern Baghdad
Sadr City is an easy job for a journalist: all you have to do is cruise around looking for trouble. It is a Soweto kind of slum: rubbish-filled streets, ponds of sewage, and thousands of unemployed kids.
It is Saturday, and we are driving through the streets for the second time in the day. It is late afternoon when we see a bunch of kids directing the traffic away. By now we are able to sniff trouble from miles away, but I tell my driver to head to that street. Makeshift barricades are laid in the middle of the road, made of stones, tyres and chunks of car metal. Someone's house has even been dismantled for the barricade.
"Don't go, there are Americans down the street," shouts one of the kids, so we duck into a side road. The battlefield is an empty plot of land by a mosque, surrounded by alleyways.
In one of them, a dozen teenagers, three or four of them wearing Arsenal T-shirts and flip-flops, are emptying a car boot of a mortar tube and a sackful of shells. I am allowed to stay and take pictures, but with the usual proviso: "If we discover that you are working for the Americans, we will kill you."
The target is a police station and three Humvees parked in front. Masked like a western cowboy, the shooter, or the "expert" as they call him, takes measure of the angle and shouts to another fighter: "Give me one!" The other guy produces what looks like a rusted, 2-ft long shell. The fighters here are also Mahdi, and the fighting in Sadr City often feels like one big carnival. All the kids are by now doing their cheering chant: "Ali wiyak, Ali!" "Ali with you, Ali!" If I were an American soldier, I would be expecting a flying shell every time I hear kids cheering in Sadr City. After all, this is the only fun they get, shooting at the sitting ducks.
The expert tosses the shell into the barrel, and a big explosion follows. "Right a bit!" shouts one of the kids at the end of the street. "It fell on a house!"
The second one falls much too far to the left. "It fell on another house, move to the right a little bit!"
The third one falls something like 10 metres away from us, but doesn't explode. The fourth lands by the Americans, and detonates. "Ten dead, I saw it with my own eyes!" shouts another kid. The fifth doesn't leave the tube, and he has to up-end the tube and shake it.
In all, the firefight lasts for an hour, at which, after a few more rounds and a few more civilian houses destroyed,the fighters jump into their car and drive away.
Then the RPG session starts, kids aiming at the Americans and hitting whatever target they fancy. As one prepares to fire his RPG, the rusted rocket doesn't launch.
"Come, you can use mine," says a man
The kids are not the backbone of the active resistance units doing the most sabotage. But their casual nature and ineptitude shouldn't be written off. These kids are resourceful and brave and facing the American Army, which can turn their day into shit at any point.
People forget that war is fought by kids. The horror and amusement levels rank equally high for them.
I think if you take this article and the Asia Times article, you get a pretty good picture of the resistance, which is now both Shia and Sunni. I don't think the best of the resistance has rusted AK's, but this indicates that there are enough weapons for even kids to get decent arms. Which is scary. These kids have to be taught by someone, and not all these guys are street kids gone to war. Balance the two, and you have an idea of the resistance against the Americans, some of it professional and organized, some just kids with guns.
Either way, they are still beating the Americans and operating freely.
This is another reason why I believe in God. The sanctimonious SOB had this up on his site (courtesy of Atrios):
I believe that marriage can only be defined as that union between one man and one woman. I am opposed to same-sex marriages, civil unions, and registries.
I believe that we are all equal before God and should be before the law. Homosexuals deserve the same constitutional protections, safeguards, and human dignity as every American, but they should not be entitled to special rights based on their sexual behavior.
The breakdown of the family over the past 35 years is one of the root causes of some of our society’s most intractable social problems-criminal activity, illegitimacy, and the cyclical nature of poverty.
As an elected leader, my interest will be in promoting laws and educating people about the fundamental importance of the traditional family unit as the nucleus of our society.
In the wake of the recent Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruling that has spawned similar lawsuits in other states, it seems likely that defending traditional marriage and codifying that defense will be required at the federal level. As such, as a United States Senator, I would support legislation such as Senator Bill Frist’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), provided the language remains clear in the defining of traditional marriage and protecting the traditional family unit.
Illinois GOP Candidate Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid After Furor Over Sex Club Allegations
WASHINGTON June 25, 2004 — Illinois senatorial candidate Jack Ryan abruptly abandoned his bid for Congress on Friday, succumbing to a furor over sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and made him a target of late-night comedy.
"It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," said the 44-year-old Ryan, who won his party's nomination in a multi-candidate primary earlier this year.
"What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."
Illinois GOP leaders expressed relief. "Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with the senatorial hopeful.
Top Illinois Republicans held a teleconference to begin the work of selecting a successor to Ryan on the ballot this fall. Their choice will become an instant underdog in a campaign against Democratic State Sen. Barack Obama.
Even so, party leaders wanted to avoid the possibility that candidates for other offices in Illinois would suffer by sharing a ticket with a senatorial candidate battling salacious allegations by his former wife.
After reviewing the polling results, Ryan's advisers told the candidate Friday morning that he could survive the scandal but only after an extremely negative and expensive response. "I won't do that," Ryan replied, according to a participant in the meeting. "That's not me."
The internal polling had Ryan trailing Obama 20 to 25 percent, the official said. That figure didn't worry aides as much as results showing that conservatives were abandoning Ryan. They concluded that the only way to get Ryan's base back would be to go negative immediately on Obama and not let up.
Before the voters got a chance to decide on Ryan's political fate, fellow Illinois Republican politicians rendered their own judgments. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald urged him to remain in the race, but he was virtually alone.
The state's GOP House members met privately on Thursday and officials said afterward the sentiment was unanimous that Ryan should step down. "There must be something to them, " said Rep. Henry Hyde, referring to the disputed allegations.
Word of Ryan's unsealed records soon reached comedy writers. "Jack Ryan, I've heard of going after the 'swing vote,' but this is ridiculous!", jabbed Jay Leno.
Huh? Go negative on Obama? Wouldn't have helped his ass. Unless Obama was a deadbeat dad with a wife and a pregnant mistress, then what could Ryan say? He could whip out the race card, but the guy supposedly didn't have issues with black people. No, negative is no solution. He had no choice, he had to quit. While his base might have tolerated the sex clubs, they wouldn't have tolerated the abusive way he tried to get his wife into one, his adultery, and his lying. Ryan betrayed the party and his supporters. He had to go. Limping along was no answer.
Labor lawyers and workplace experts predicted this week that employers will need to consider more decisive movement to narrow pay gaps between male and female employees as a result of a judge's decision to allow a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to proceed to trial as a class action.
The finding that there was enough information to show that women at Wal-Mart were paid less than male counterparts in equal positions has put pay inequity back in the forefront of workplace issues. Female employees today earn an average of 77 percent of what their male co-workers do, up from 59 percent 40 years ago, according to the U.S. Census.
Although many companies do track pay inequities, the case could force employers to put equalpay rules on a faster track than they might have previously. If a pattern of pay disparities appears to exist, companies are now reminded by the WalMart case that they could become embroiled in a messy, long battle or pricey settlement.
"I think this is going to be the fuse that ignites the compensation analysis that we've never seen before," said John Fox, chairman of the employment and labor law group with the law firm Fenwick & West in Mountain View, Calif.
Tuesday's ruling could include as many as 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees, making it the largest private employer civil rights case in U.S. history.
Wal-Mart lawyers had argued to the judge that statistical differences in pay and positions were caused by differing job aspirations and interests between men and women that exist in the general labor force, and that can't be blamed on the company.
That has been one argument used for years to explain the wage gap.
But according to a new study, 55 percent of women and 57 percent of men want to occupy the most senior role within an organization. In addition, women who have children living with them are just as likely to want to occupy a higher position as those without children at home, the study found.
Even though more women are taking on better-paying occupations, the pay still isn't equal, Department of Labor statistics show.
For instance, 15 years ago more than half of all full-time accountants and auditors were men. Today, there are 561,000 male accountants and 784,000 women. Yet male accountants earn $1,041 on average per week, while female accountants make an average of $756 per week.
There were 6,037 wage discrimination charge filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal 2003, which accounted for 7.5 percent of the EEOC's total private sector cases. The number of wage filings has remained the same in the past decade, according to a spokesman.
The average median weekly earnings of full-time male employees in 2003 was $695 a week, while women earned $552 a week on average. That means women earned 79.4 percent of men's salaries in comparable positions, according to Labor Department figures.
That gap has decreased slightly but steadily during the past 20 years. In 1993, women earned 71.4 percent of what men earned, and in 1983 it was 66.7 percent.
"This (gap) is narrowing quite slowly," said Jane Smith, chief executive of Business and Professional Women/USA. "It will be another 50 years before we see it disappear if it goes at the rate it's going."
See, they're not counting the 20 percent uterus discount. The inclusion of a uterus in your physical makeup means that employers can pay you less money. See, it's biology. They earn less because their uteruses get in the way. Without a uterus, an employee is far stronger and more flexible.
This couldn't happen to a nicer company. Wal-Mart is America's evilest corporation, beating out Nike by a few slave laborers in their stores. Remember the illegal aliens they locked in stores to clean them and paid them $10. Oh yeah, it wasn't Wal-Mart, but their lower than dirt subcontractors. Which is a big and distinct difference, at least Wal-Mart's lawyers hope so.
It is SO fitting that Wal-Mart gets this treatment. It will just add to their suits for exploiting aliens, violating overtime law, among others.
Nader Aide on way to secret meeting with "progressives" at Oregon GOP headquarters
Kos is running this story from AP on Nader getting help from the Oregon GOP
When I write it based on reader reports, it's apparently "gossip" to the Naderites. But what about when the AP confirms that Republican groups are working hard to get Nader on the Oregon ballot?
Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention Saturday in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot.
The groups make no bones about their goal -- to draw votes away from Democrat John Kerry and help President Bush win this battleground state in November.
"We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics, but we'd love to see him make the ballot," said Russ Walker of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group best known for its opposition to tax increases.
The Oregon Family Council also has been working the phones to boost attendance at Nader's event -- with the idea that it could help Bush this fall.
"We aren't bashful about doing it," said Mike White, the group's director. "We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue."
This is sad.
Just really too sad for words.
Ralph Nader used to stand for something more than a personality cult. He used to represent decency in public life, a counter voice to the domination of corporations in American life. He once provided a useful public service in challenging the verities of American business. Unsafe at Any Speed did more than challenge the Corvair, it changed the way Americans lived, made their lives measurably safer.
Yet, now, at the twilight of his career, he is allying himself with the forces he opposed that entire career. Maybe it's ego or frustration, but he and his worshipers seem not to care about the danger Bush poses to the Republic. They are off on their own little quest to tofu America, long after American decided those ideas suck. Nader is trapped in the doctrines of the past and the ineffective. Radical change, ironically, happens slowly, then with one decision from the Supreme Court. The way to change America is to change its laws. We are a nation of laws and lawyers and take great pride in that.
Nader could have been a true ally to the Democrats, the party that not only supported him, but one he fueled with some of its best and brightest people since 1964. Instead, he seems content to serve as little more than a Republican tool. I don't know why he changed or what drove him to his communist-like alliance. In the 1930's, Stalin encouraged the rise of the Nazis so that people would tire of them and turn to the communists. Communists even opposed World War II before 1941, which sat poorly with those who had fought in Spain and which helped to kill the CPUSA as an active force in American politics. The people who had fought the Nazis both on the fields of Spain and the streets of New York didn't understand neutrality in the face of evil.
It isn't that Nader is a flake and an ascetic, but that he is so willfully ignoring the voices of people who he once trusted. People who told him this run is wrong. When people, who opposed you your entire life, who stand for everything you oppose, you need to ask why they are helping you. Has Nader's need for attention outgrown any political sense he had.
Now, I have nothing but contempt for Nader, but I know the role he played in American life. I have respect for that. But it saddens me to see him leave public life, not in a barrage of accolades for a life lived well, but with bitterness and a determination to ruin him. Because it is clear, Nader has to be stopped. He has to be forced out of the race somehow, someway. Leaving Bush in office is too dangerous for Nader to remain as an active candidate. It may not be fair, but it is politics. And politics can be brutal.
Jack Ryan, the Illinois GOP's nominee for the seat of outgoing Sen. Pete Fitzgerald (R.-Ill.), saw his campaign implode Tuesday after the release of highly embarrassing papers from the divorce custody battle over his nine-year-old son.
This came as a surprise to the two of us, despite the fact that we had heard rumors about Ryan--which in retrospect were surprisingly accurate. That's because Ryan looked both of us straight in the eyes and lied to us in an off-the-record lunch two weeks ago.
At one point, we asked him point blank about the files and whether their release would be damaging. Ryan insisted emphatically that the files contained nothing untoward. And we said to ourselves later, why would he lie to us since the files were to be released in a matter of days?
..............
Now a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court has released 400 pages of the files to the public, thanks to a lawsuit brought by two Chicago media outlets. The files, it turns out, contain extremely embarrassing accusations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, (editor's note: the whips, the chains, the sex clubs, yada, yada, yada).
....The fact is, Ryan lied to us about the files' content, which is why we are now reporting what he told us, falsely, off the record. It is difficult to explain how he thought he would get away with it....
The Democrats have fielded an attractive, young, and extremely left-wing candidate. Barring the replacement of Ryan with another Republican candidate (and even then the odds of GOP victory would be very long), the public might as well get used to reading about: "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.)."
Yeah. Remember, the sin here is not an interest in Paris sex clubs, which I freely admit I'd love to go to, not that I'd play along, but hell, I'd want to see the show. Hell, I like it when girls get drunk and strip in my friend's bar. Amateur stripping is awesome. The sin here is lying. Ryan lied to everyone about this. Which makes me question his mental stability. He knew what was in these papers and what they said. He knew how it would affect his campaign, but either he's so self-centered or so sociopathic that he thought he could deny reality. It's not like his ex-wife is going to admit to perjury.
When a candidate has this in his past, he owes his supporters a decent private explaination, if nothing else. It is fundamentally a violation of political ethics to lie about this and then leave the party hanging. Ryan is one scary guy. I would argue that he's nor just a freak with bad judgment, but a sociopath. He lies way too easily about this to make me feel comfortable. Way too easy. He's like Patrick Bateman without the dead bodies.
Editor's note: Coordinated attacks and skirmishes in several Iraqi cities on Thursday killed at least 66 people and wounded more than 250. Forty-four people were killed in a series of car bomb blasts in the northern city of Mosul and 216 wounded. Fighting in al-Anbar province, where there were clashes in Fallujah and Ramadi, killed at least nine people and wounded 27, and fighting around Baquba killed 13 and wounded 15.
"We would like to rectify some information now circulating in the Western media, that's why we took the initiative of meeting you." Our discussion lasts for more than three hours.
Back to the fall of Baghdad "We knew that if the United States decided to attack Iraq, we would have no chance faced with their technological and military power. The war was lost in advance, so we prepared the post-war. In other words: the resistance. Contrary to what has been largely said, we did not desert after American troops entered the center of Baghdad on April 5, 2003. We fought a few days for the honor of Iraq - not Saddam Hussein - then we received orders to disperse." Baghdad fell on April 9: Saddam and his army where nowhere to be seen.
"As we have foreseen, strategic zones fell quickly under control of the Americans and their allies. For our part, it was time to execute our plan. Opposition movements to the occupation were already organized. Our strategy was not improvised after the regime fell." This plan B, which seems to have totally eluded the Americans, was carefully organized, according to these officers, for months if not years before March 20, 2003, the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The objective was "to liberate Iraq and expel the coalition. To recover our sovereignty and install a secular democracy, but not the one imposed by the Americans. Iraq has always been a progressive country, we don't want to go back to the past, we want to move forward. We have very competent people," say the three tacticians. There will be of course no names as well as no precise numbers concerning the clandestine network. "We have sufficient numbers, one thing we don't lack is volunteers."
Fallujah The lethal offensive of the American troops in Fallujah in March has been the turning point as far as the resistance is concerned. The indiscriminate pillage by American soldiers during their search missions (according to many witnesses) and the sexual humiliation inflicted to prisoners, including Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, have only served to magnify the anger felt by most Iraqis. "There's no more trust, it will be hard to regain it." According to these resistance leaders, "We have reached the point of no return."
This is exactly the point of view of a Shi'ite woman we had met two days earlier - a former undercover opposition militant against Saddam: "The biggest mistake of the occupation forces was to despise our traditions and our culture. They are not satisfied with having bombed our infrastructure, they tried to destroy our social system and our dignity. And this we cannot allow. The wounds are deep and the healing will take long. We prefer to live under the terror of one of our own than under the humiliation of a foreign occupation."
According to Saddam's generals, "more than a year after the beginning of the war, insecurity and anarchy still dominate the country. Because of their incapacity to control the situation and to maintain their promises, the Americans have antagonized the population as a whole. The resistance is not limited to a few thousand activists. Seventy-five percent of the population supports us and helps us, directly and indirectly, volunteering information, hiding combatants or weapons. And all this despite the fact that many civilians are caught as collateral damage in operations against the coalition and collaborators."
Who do they regard as "collaborators"? "Every Iraqi or foreigner who works with the coalition is a target. Ministries, mercenaries, translators, businessmen, cooks or maids, it doesn't matter the degree of collaboration. To sign a contract with the occupier is to sign your death certificate. Iraqi or not, these are traitors. Don't forget that we are at war."
The resistance's means of dissuasion led to an ever-shrinking list of candidates to key government posts proposed by the coalition, and this in a country ravaged by 13 years of embargo and two wars where unemployment has been a crucial problem. The ambient chaos is not the only reason preventing people from resuming professional activity. If the Americans, quickly overwhelmed by the whole situation, had to take the decision to reinstate former Ba'athists (policemen, secret service agents, military, officials at the oil ministry), this does not apply to everybody. The majority of victims of administrator L Paul Bremer's decree of May 16, 2003 applying the de-Ba'athification of Iraq is still clandestine.
The network Essentially composed by Ba'athists (Sunni and Shi'ite), the resistance currently regroups "all movements of national struggle against the occupation, without confessional, ethnic or political distinction. Contrary to what you imagine in the West, there is no fratricide war in Iraq. We have a united front against the enemy. From Fallujah to Ramadi, and including Najaf, Karbala and the Shi'ite suburbs of Baghdad, combatants speak with a single voice. As to the young Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, he is, like ourselves, in favor of the unity of the Iraqi people, multiconfessional and Arab. We support him from a tactical and logistical perspective."
Every Iraqi region has its own combatants and each faction is free to choose its targets and its modus operandi. But as time goes by, their actions are increasingly coordinated. Saddam's generals insist there is no rivalry among these different organizations, except on one point: which one will eliminate the largest number of Americans.
Weapons of choice "The attacks are meticulously prepared. They must not last longer than 20 minutes and we operate preferably at night or very early in the morning to limit the risks of hitting Iraqi civilians." They anticipate our next question: "No, we don't have weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, we have more than 50 million conventional weapons." By the initiative of Saddam, a real arsenal was concealed all over Iraq way before the beginning of the war. No heavy artillery, no tanks, no helicopters, but Katyushas, mortars (which the Iraqis call haoun), anti-tank mines, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other Russian-made rocket launchers, missiles, AK 47s and substantial reserves of all sorts of ammunition. And the list is far from being extensive.
But the most efficient weapon remains the Kamikazes. A special unit, composed of 90% Iraqis and 10% foreign fighters, with more than 5,000 solidly-trained men and women, they need no more than a verbal order to drive a vehicle loaded with explosives.
What if the weapons' reserves dwindle? "No worries, for some time we have been making our own weapons." That's all they are willing to disclose.
Claiming responsibility "Yes, we have executed the four American mercenaries in Fallujah last March. On the other hand, the Americans soldiers waited for four hours before removing the bodies, while they usually do it in less than 20 minutes. Two days earlier, a young married woman had been arbitrarily arrested. For the population of Fallujah, this was the last straw, so they expressed their full rage against the four cadavers. The Americans, they did much worse to living Iraqi prisoners."
There is no way in hell the new Iraqi government can do what the US can't, which is beat these people. The resistance is both widespread and popular. It isn't anything like small band of thugs and foreigners which the US and their puppets say they are. ."
Al Gore isn't crazy and don't let the GOP say he is
The bullshit the right has used for four fucking years and seem to never tire of.
Al Gore is not crazy or anything like it. This is the Beltway Kool Kids Klub at it's absolute fucking worst. Gore has been giving a series of policy speeches George Bush wishes he could give. But instead of being noticed for the direct challenge they pose to Bush's policies, the media has treated them as the ravings of a sore loser, which he is not.
The problem is that too few Democrats will stand up for Gore. After he walked away from Clinton, a lot in the party walked away from him. And it's a shame, because it isn't Bill Clinton making these speeches, he's selling books.
I am tired of seeing Gore's accurate portrayal of Bush policy treated like mental illness. Now, the right knows his wife had two nervous breakdowns and have a very good idea of how vicious these attacks are. Instead of debating his points, they ridicule them and the media lets them get away with it. Only the BBC seems to understand the gravity and seriousness of his charges, which are unprecedented for a former American Vice President.
Every time they denigrate Gore, people have to complain loud and long. It isn't acceptable. Gore is far from crazy, what he's saying not only makes sense, but is true. I don't think Tocker Carlson or the crew from Fox should be allowed to use mental illness to denigrate a former Vice President. It is an insult to the man as well as our intelligence to let this happen.
The use of mental illness as a way to denigrate opponents is what they used to do in the Soviet Union. They would lock away dissidents in mental hospitals, dope them up and keep them silent. It was a gross violation of human rights. And it isn't something we should tolerate in the discussion of political issues in the United States.
This is an excerpt from Al Gore's speech on Wednesday. The GOP has been calling him crazy, yet again.
Which I will discuss in the next post. But I want you to read the words he said and see if you think he's crazy or not.
In more recent decades, the emergence of new weapons that virtually eliminate the period of time between the decision to go to war and the waging of war have naturally led to a reconsideration of the exact nature of the executive's war-making power. But the practicalities of modern warfare which necessarily increase the war powers of the president at the expense of Congress do not render moot the concerns our founders had so long ago that the making of war by the president -- when added to his other powers -- carries with it the potential for unbalancing the careful design of our Constitution, and in the process, threatening our liberty.
They were greatly influenced -- far more than we can imagine -- by a careful reading of the history and human dramas surrounding the democracies of ancient Greece and the Roman republic. They knew, for example, that democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate's long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Though the Senate lingered in form and was humored for decades, when Caesar impoliticly combined his military commander role with his chief executive role, the Senate -- and with it the Republic -- withered away. And then for all intents and purposes, the great dream of democracy disappeared from the face of the Earth for 17 centuries, until its rebirth in our land.
Symbolically, President Bush has been attempting to conflate his commander in chief role and his head of government role to maximize the power people are eager to give those who promise to defend them against active threats. But as he does so, we are witnessing some serious erosion of the checks and balances that have always maintained a healthy democracy in America.
In Justice Jackson's famous concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel case in the 1950s, the single most important Supreme Court case on the subject of what powers are inherent to the commander in chief in a time of war, he wrote, "The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the declaration of independence leads me to doubt that they created their new Executive in their image ... and if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the Executive governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian."
I am convinced that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism, and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without losing our freedom. I am also convinced that they would warn us that democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Our current president has gone to war and has come back into "the city" and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war, which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts, and every individual citizen.
We must surrender some of our traditional American freedoms, he tells us, so that he may have sufficient power to protect us against those who would do us harm. Public fear remains at an unusually high level almost three years after we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. In response to those devastating attacks, the president properly assumed his role as commander in chief and directed a military invasion of the land in which our attackers built their training camps, were harbored and planned their assault. But just as the tide of battle was shifting decisively in our favor, the commander in chief made a controversial decision to divert a major portion of our army to invade another country that, according to the best evidence compiled in a new, exhaustive, bipartisan study, posed no imminent threat to us and had nothing to do with the attack against us.
As the main body of our troops were redeployed for the new invasion, those who organized the attacks against us escaped and many of them are still at large. Indeed, their overall numbers seem to have grown considerably because our invasion of the country that did not pose any imminent threat to us was perceived in their part of the world as a gross injustice, and the way in which we have conducted that war further fueled a sense of rage against the United States in those lands and, according to several studies, has stimulated a wave of new recruits for the terrorist group that attacked us and still wishes us harm.
A little over a year ago, when we launched the war against this second country, Iraq, President Bush repeatedly gave our people the clear impression that Iraq was an ally and partner to the terrorist group that attacked us, al-Qaida, and not only provided a geographic base for them but was also close to providing them weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida of any kind. And, of course, over the course of this past year we had previously found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So now, the president and the vice president are arguing with this commission, and they are insisting that the commission is wrong and they are right, and that there actually was a working cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida.
The problem for the president is that he doesn't have any credible evidence to support his claim, and yet, in spite of that, he persists in making that claim vigorously. So I would like to pause for a moment to address the curious question of why President Bush continues to make this claim that most people know is wrong. And I think it's particularly important because it is closely connected to the questions of constitutional power with which I began this speech, and will profoundly affect how that power is distributed among our three branches of government.
To begin with, our founders wouldn't be the least bit surprised at what the modern public opinion polls all tell us about why it's so important particularly for President Bush to keep the American people from discovering that what he told them about the linkage between Iraq and al-Qaida isn't true. Among these Americans who still believe there is a linkage, there remains very strong support for the president's decision to invade Iraq. But among those who accept the commission's detailed finding that there is no connection, support for the war in Iraq dries up pretty quickly.
And that's understandable, because if Iraq had nothing to do with the attack or the organization that attacked us, then that means the president took us to war when he didn't have to. Almost 900 of our soldiers have been killed, and almost 5,000 have been wounded.
Thus, for all these reasons, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have decided to fight to the rhetorical death over whether or not there's a meaningful connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. They think that if they lose that argument and people see the truth, then they'll not only lose support for the controversial decision to go to war, but also lose some of the new power they've picked up from the Congress and the courts, and face harsh political consequences at the hands of the American people. As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with al-Qaida. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick.
But the truth is gradually emerging in spite of the president's determined dissembling. Listen, for example, to this editorial from the Financial Times: "There was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or ignoble about the opposition to Saddam's tyranny -- however late Washington developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and al-Qaida, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region. It was and is nonsense."
Of course the first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Then the rationale was to liberate Iraqis and the Middle East from tyranny, but our troops were not greeted with the promised flowers and are now viewed as an occupying force by 92 percent of Iraqis, while only 2 percent see them as liberators.
But right from the start, beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind. He repeatedly used this device in a highly disciplined manner to create a false impression in the minds of the American people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Usually he was pretty tricky in his exact wording. Indeed, Bush's consistent and careful artifice is itself evidence that he knew full well that he was telling an artful and important lie -- visibly circumnavigating the truth over and over again as if he had practiced how to avoid encountering the truth. But as I will document in a few moments, he and Vice President Cheney also sometimes departed from their tricky wording and resorted to statements were clearly outright falsehoods. In any case, by the time he was done, public opinion polls showed that fully 70 percent of the American people had gotten the message he wanted them to get, and had been convinced that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The myth that Iraq and al-Qaida were working together was no accident -- the president and vice president deliberately ignored warnings before the war from international intelligence services, the CIA, and their own Pentagon that the claim was false. Europe's top terrorism investigator said in 2002, "We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever." A classified October 2002 CIA report given to the White House directly undercut the Iraq-al-Qaida claim. Top officials in the Pentagon told reporters in 2002 that the rhetoric being used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney was "an exaggeration."
David Beckham fired England's first one over, and though Rui Costa missed soon after, keeper Ricardo saved from Darius Vassell and scored the winner himself.
Michael Owen had given England an early lead in the match when he pounced on a Costinha error to flick the ball in.
But Portugal hit back through Helder Postiga's header and Rui Costa's extra-time scorcher, before Frank Lampard turned sharply in the box to equalise.
However, the shoot-out went the way of the hosts, leaving England to go out of a major tournament on penalties for the fourth time.
And the defeat came after England had made the dream start to their quarter-final in Lisbon.
Not only did England fans commendably respect the Portuguese national anthem, Owen responded to his critics in the most emphatic fashion.
England always has an excuse for losing the big game. Even the BBC reporters were rooting for England. Of course, everyone else was happy as hell that they lost.
Now that's solved, we can still root for France, home of cheese-eating surrender monkeys who are not getting their men killed in Iraq.
Juan Cole, departing from his usual commentary on Iraq, has this to say about Jack! Ryan and the Illinois Senate race. I'm running all of it because I'm pretty much stunned he'd comment on this in detail.
7 of 9 and the Paris Orgy
Science fiction is in the real-world news big time these days. The actress Jeri Ryan, former wife (1990-1998) of currently embattled Republican senate candidate Jack Ryan of Illinois, played the Borg babe 7 of 9 in Star Trek Voyager. For the uninitiated, the plot of Star Trek Voyager is that Captain Kathryn Janeway's space vessel, Voyager, is accidentally thrown to the wrong side of the galaxy, and the crew spends seven years trying to get back to earth (Star Trek is based on the premise that somehow we will find a real-time way around Einstein's finding that things with mass cannot go faster than the speed of light; this premise is unlikely). Among the species the Federation troops battle out there is the Borg, who are cyborgs or hybrids of human and machine. They have a collective mind and lack individuality, and are dedicated to incorporating forcibly all individuals they encounter from other species into their collective. This incorporation appears to be painful and unpleasant, and to involve high-powered buzz saws. When people come out of it they are robotic, lack individuality, and have chrome various places on their bodies.
The Star Trek Voyager creative team hit on the idea of casting Jeri Ryan as a former Borg who has somewhat reverted to being human (she had been born Annika Hansen; the Borg killed her parents). She is therefore the ultimate ice princess, though in hoary science fiction tradition (the genre after all appeals disproportionately to adolescent males), she was made to wear extemely revealing spandex. Viacom (owner of UPN and Paramount Pictures), Jack Ryan, everyone wanted her in leather or spandex or something that left little to the imagination.
Incredibly, Seven of Nine could help throw the Senate to the Democrats. Jeri Ryan was married to multi-millionnaire investment banker turned teacher Jack Ryan, but filed for divorce four years ago. In her filing, she alleged
On three trips, one to New Orleans, one to New York, and one to Paris, Respondent [Jack Ryan] insisted that I go to sex clubs with him. They were long weekends, supposed "romantic" getaways. ... The clubs in New York and Paris were explicit sex clubs. Respondent had done research. Respondent took me to two clubs in New York during the day. One club I refused to go in. It had mattresses in cubicles. The other club he insisted I go to. ... It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling. Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching. I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. We left the club, and Respondent apologized, said that I was right and that he would never insist I go to a club again. He promised it was out of his system. Then during a trip to Paris, he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me we would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and said it was not a "turn on" for me to cry.
The unsealing of this filing, which Ryan fought, has created a huge political scandal in Illinois and has given a big boost to Ryan's Democratic rival, Barack Obama. Most Republicans, who have increasingly tied their political fortunes to an alliance with the evangelical Christians, are defending Ryan, usually by implying that Jeri's charges are untrue and are part of the junk that comes out in any divorce proceeding. Ryan admits, however, to having taken her to the Paris club. Some Republicans have said snippy things like that it was she who committed adultery, not he. The Phyllis Schlaflys should give up this implicit attack on Jeri's credibility. Jeri is popular with the public, more of whom probably know her from a subsequent turn on David Kelly's series about teaching in an urban high school, "Boston Public," than through the niche Star Trek franchise. Ironically, Kelly may have modeled Jeri's BP character, a lawyer who gives up practicing in order to teach, on Jack Ryan, who left Goldman Sachs (having gotten rich when the firm went public in the late 1990s), to teach school.
Obama has taken the high road, and is refusing to attack Jack Ryan on the sex clubs issue. Many Democrats, still boiling mad over what the hypocritical Republicans did to Bill Clinton, seem intent on making an object lesson of him.
Another irony is that Ryan pulled the stunt early in the campaign of having a cameraman follow Obama around everywhere, documenting all his moves. Obama could not even speak to his wife on his cellphone in privacy. Ryan tried to create what French philosopher Michel Foucault called a "panopticon," as a way of intimidating his opponent. This move was despicable, an invasion of privacy, and a form of stalking, and should be illegal. (I think it would be in California, which has proper privacy laws). Now Jack Ryan is going to be the one followed around by cameras, into whose private life strangers are going to poke relentlessly. In that sense, the whole thing serves him right.
But I think Obama is making the right choice in letting the tabloids and the schlock television shows run with this story and keeping it out of his own campaign, which is about issues. For instance, Obama wants to give more tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in Illinois.
The lesson for the Republicans of all this is that the wages of Puritanism are hypocrisy. Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and many other Republicans who tried to nail Clinton had also tried to nail women not their spouses and were no better than Clinton morally. In fact, no one is better morally than anyone else as a matter of ontology or being. Some deeds are better than others, and some people achieve better deeds more often than others. Some people are capable of higher ethical standards than others. But human beings are not in the nature of the case morally perfect beings. Since that is so, it is crazy for the American public to want its politicians to be saints (they aren't), and the desire merely produces hypocrisy, which in turn corrodes ideals and the moral order.
I therefore agree with Jack Ryan that the visits to those clubs should not in themselves disqualify him from public office. Why should we care where he takes his wife? Note that business travelers who stay in nice hotels are known to rent enormous amounts of porn. The travelers, the hotels, and the cable companies involved are all heavily Republican. What is the difference between watching it on celluloid and watching it at a club in Paris? Isn't this the same public that yawned at Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and complained it was only shocking to a 1950s sensibility? Are we going to get to the point where every guy who has ever been to a strip club is disqualified from public service? Are we doomed to have the French and other Europeans laugh at us hysterically yet again?
Journalists keep asking me if the US can prevent Iraq from becoming a "theocracy." Why are the Americans so worried about Iraqis insisting on strict religious standards in their politics, if in fact that is the public platform of the dominant Republican Party in the United States? I think politicians should be permitted wide lattitude in their private lives, as long as they are good at their jobs-- i.e. use their positions to empower the people, to create jobs and wealth, and improve their states or districts. Jack Kennedy did lots of things that make a married couple's visits to some clubs rather tame in comparison. No one I know holds it against him.
The troubling issue here seems to be that Jeri alleges that Jack tricked her into going to the clubs, so this was a compulsion he had that she did not share. (Star Trek fans will not forgive him for this, especially for making her weep. Everyone remembers how brittle 7 of 9 was about sex and romance, what with being a former automaton and all. Starfleet Ensign Harry Kim tried to romance her, and found he had to go very slow.). If Jack Ryan would trick her that way, he might trick the public. So if what she alleged is true (and the Borg are incapable of subterfuge, it should be remembered), that would be the key issue. On the other hand, this all happened some years ago; he clearly had some sort of sex addiction at the time, which he may have kicked by now, and addictions compel people to do things they would not otherwise do. People change.
The one counter-indication I know of is the dirty trick Jack Ryan pulled of having Obama followed around by cameramen. That sounds coercive and manipulative, and falls within his earlier pattern of enjoying forcing others to exhibit themselves (the postmodernists might call it sado-alter-exhibitionism). In essence, he treated Obama just the way he treated Jeri. That is not a good sign.
Bottom line, the question for the good people of Illinois should not be whether Ryan is kinkier than Obama, but a) whether Ryan still uses people instrumentally to get his rocks off and b) whether Ryan could accomplish something for their state that Obama cannot. Even before the club scandal broke, the increasingly Democratic-leaning Illinois voters had seemed to discount Ryan, who after all doesn't exactly have a thick portfolio to be senator. The club scandal probably finishes off his candidacy (perhaps for the wrong reasons), but he was unlikely to have won anyway.
If Bush gets reelected but does not have the Senate, the Democratic Senators will finally be in a position to establish some investigatory commissions into Bush administration actions of questionable probity. If that happens, the country will have Jeri Ryan, ex-cyborg, to thank for it.
OK, let's say that this establishes Cole as a Star Trek geek. But beyond that, he makes a lot of good points, but misses one: Ryan is NOT in trouble for going on the Catherine Millet tour of Paris with his wife. Millet, an art critic, and woman who likes group sex in public, wrote about these clubs in detail in her memoir of her sex life , The Secret Life of Catherine M (ask any woman between 25-40 if you can borrow her copy. The book was quite the hit in these parts). For the curious, these, expensive, exclusive clubs allow public sex. Not just the odd blowjob, but group sex.
Ryan's troubles, at least outside of the fundamentalists and doctrinaire Catholic community, is not that he took his beuatiful actress wife to a sex club. If she had agreed, then who would care, consenting adults and all that. But she didn't agree, tossed it in the custody case and then he said there was no problem with it. If his problems ended with a nasty custody fight, well, that would be that. But it doesn't, he's also accused of having an affair with his secretary.
Basically, and the SCLM will forget this, when people asked about Bill Clinton's wandering penis, he and his wife came clean. She didn't play the little wife and deny it, like Lee Hart, but she said pretty much that her husband was a philanderer. Clinton fessed up, to a degree which protected him later on. Everyone knew he liked the ladies, so when he was caught dick deep in Monica Lewinsky, no one was surprised. Of course, the press missed the real, marriage threatening affair he had in Arkansas, distracted by proven liar Gennnifer Flowers. Ryan did no such thing.
He lied to the state party about the content of the papers, then tried to hide behind his nine year old son. A smart man would have said: yes, what Jeri said was basically true, I was curious and I didn't use the best judgment at the time. I was unhappy, bored, and pressured my wife into things she didn't want to partake in. I deeply regret my actions, because they cost me my marriage and time with my son. It's not something I'd do now, and if I could take back the hurt I caused my ex-wife and child, I would.
Instead of being honest, he stonewalled, lied and acted just flat out weird. Having a cameraman follow his opponent around every step of his day was just freakish and done to no known political effect. Ambition is fine, but Ryan hasn't reconciled his past acts with his desire for public service. You can be a freak and run for office, if you're honest. Ryan's trouble is not his sex life, which is frankly irrelevant, if entertaining, but his dishonesty and cowardice.
His oppoenent, Barack Obama, needs to say nothing and do nothing about this, that's why they have a media. By talking about the issues, he remains blissfully above the fray, while his opponent, already losing badly, (not that I trust the polls), lose even worse.
We're about halfway to my (Jen has two) new laptop. I already have the bag, but the machine is still in play. I am undecided about whether to get an iBook or a Think Pad.
These are my two favorite laptops for different reasons. I don't much like Dell for myself. I build my own machines and while I'll tell people to get Dells because they are cheap and widely supported and if you don't know computers they're simple enough.
But Jen has had real problems with her new Dell laptop and that's enough for me, since the odds are, because of Paypal's quirks, the thing will be bought over eBay. Which is a second choice, but the refurb shops tend to have the same price.
Why not get a brand new machine? For a simple reason: laptops get lost and stolen and spending $1200 for that privledge doesn't make sense to me. I'll run a PIII or an earlier iBook just fine, and save the cash. Also, I won't buy from individuals on eBay anyway. So I don't see much of a difference.
The advantages of the ThinkPad come with price, flexibility, support and sturdy construction. The iBook has style, ease of use. It doesn't really matter to me which I use, I'm leaning towards an iBook if I get enough cash by next Wed. If not, I'll go with the Think Pad. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
However, I'm willing to entertain your arguments either way. I'm genuinely indifferent, but given a choice, I'd like to go with the iBook for weight and ease of use. But the Think Pad is a very good alternative. They're pretty much the final two contestants in Notebook idol.
The Army's powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr's marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say "Operation Iron Saber" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
"I've got to think this was a watershed operation in terms of how to do things as part of a counterinsurgency," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a West Point graduate and one of two 1st Armored assistant division commanders, in an interview last week as he moved around southern Iraq. "We happened to design a campaign that did very well against this militia."
When the division got word April 8 that Sheik al-Sadr's uprising meant most 1st Armored soldiers would stay and fight, rather than going home as scheduled, it touched off a series of remarkable military maneuvers.
Soldiers, tanks and helicopters at a port in Kuwait reversed course, rushing back inside Iraq to battle the Shi'ite cleric's 10,000-strong army. Within days, a four-tank squadron was rumbling toward the eastern city of Kut. And within hours of arriving, Lt. Col. Mark Calvert and his squadron had cleared the town's government buildings of the sheik's so-called Mahdi's Army.
Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, 1st Armored commander, huddled with Gen. Hertling and other senior aides to map an overall war strategy. The division would shift from urban combat in Baghdad's streets to precision strikes amid shrines of great religious significance.
Hunting the enemy in tight city streets broadened to patrolling a region the size of Vermont. Gen. Dempsey first needed the locations of Sheik al-Sadr's rifle-toting henchmen. Average Iraqis, fed up with the militia's kidnappings and thievery, quickly became spies, as did a few moderate clerics who publicly stayed neutral.
This article from the Moonie Times is both overstatement and wrong.
Sadr's base is in East Baghdad, where US troops face a no-go zone. They literally cannot move there. Considering that Sadr's militia were kids, for the most part, and did fight the US Army, they did pretty well for themselves. Their real victory included keeping Sadr alive for one thing, then forcing the clerics to shove SCIRI out of the Imam Ali mosque and establish a neutral cleric there.
It doesn't really matter if they force Sadr's boys out of Najaf and Karbala. It really matters if they can control East Baghdad and that isn't going to happen.
This is another victory like Fallujah, where US Marines cannot patrol, and fundamentalist guerrillas run the town.
The prisoner abuse scandal undermined support for the US
Understatement of the decade.
The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at the new International Criminal Court.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal.
Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support.
For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.
"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said the US deputy ambassador to the UN James Cunningham.
Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council.
In the past, the US has threatened to veto UN peacekeeping operations if its demands for exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague were not met.
Mr Cunningham did not repeat the warning, but said the US would in future "need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to UN authorised or established operations".
The US offered a compromise to the Security Council on Tuesday, asking it to renew the existing immunity for just one more year.
But it was not enough to gain the necessary support of nine out of the 15 council members.
Earlier this month Mr Annan said if the exemption - which expires on 30 June - were extended, it would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.
Here are some Dutch phrases Donald Rumsfeld should learn in his old age:
Prison=gevangenis
Prisoner=gevangene
Torture=martelen
crime=misdaad
war=oorlog
beat=slaan
guard=bewaker
judge=rechter
drown= verzuipen
humiliate=vernederen
sexual abuse=seksuele misbruik
children=kind
interrogate= ondervragen
arrest=arresteren
murder=moorden
imprisoned=in de gevangenis zetten
This should get him through his first few days. Although he'll have to learn what asshole means on his own.
Following this guy's advice will not get you her. No, it won't. Seriously. Go make lots of money and try again.
Since there is a reported snark shortage in the blogging world, I figured this add would allow me to add to snark's depleated stocks. Sometimes you see something so stupid and wrong in the mail, you have to mock it, like the occasional 419 letter from some African genocidal monster's bereaved relative. This is in the same category.
“The Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes YOU Probably Make With Women— And What To Do About It...”
Here Are The Top Ten Reasons Why Men Fail With Women—And How To Make Sure YOU Avoid Every One Of These Deadly Common Mistakes...
MISTAKE #1: Being Too Much Of A “Nice Guy”
Have you ever noticed that the really attractive women never seem to be attracted "nice" guys?
Of course you have.
Wrong. Just wrong. Only a guy would write this. Because what women want, besides Mel Gibson reading their minds are guys who aren't dull and boring. You can be a nice guy, get laid, and not be dull. Also, many so-called "nice guys" are really passive aggressive dicks
Just like me, I'm sure you've had attractive female friends that always seemed to date "jerks"... but for some reason they were never romantically interested in YOU.
What's going on here?
Maybe you're a loser?
It's actually very simple...
Women don't base their choices of men on how "nice" a guy is. They choose the men they do because they feel a powerful GUT LEVEL ATTRACTION for them.
And guess what?
Being nice doesn't make a woman FEEL that powerful ATTRACTION.
And being NICE doesn't make a woman CHOOSE you.
I realize that this doesn't make a lot of logical sense, and it's hard to ACCEPT... but GET OVER IT.
Until you accept this FACT and begin to act on it, you'll NEVER have the success with women that you want.
Yawn. Substitute the word dull. Play PS2 all day, don't expect to have sex. Sorry. Women tend to really hate PS2.
MISTAKE #2: Trying To “Convince Her To Like You”
What do most guys do when they meet a woman that they REALLY like... but she's just notinterested?
Right! They try to "convince" the woman to feel differently.
Well, I have news for you... YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE HOW A WOMAN "FEELS" WHEN IT COMES TO ATTRACTION!
Never, ever, EVER.
You're less likely to change a woman's opinion, but lose weight and clean yourself up and see what happens.
You cannot CONVINCE a woman to feel differently about you with "logic and reasoning".
Think about it.
If a woman doesn't "feel it" for you, how in the world do you expect to change that FEELING by being "reasonable" with her?
But we all do it.
When a woman just isn't interested, we beg, plead, chase, and do our best to change her mind.
Bad idea. One that will never work.
Yeah, he's right here. You cannot petition a woman with pleading. It just makes you look weak. Sorry. Only losers beg.
MISTAKE #3: Looking To Her For Approval Or Permission
In our desire to please women (which we mistakenly think will make them like us), us guys are always doing things to get a woman's "approval" or "permission".
Another HORRIBLE idea.
Women are NEVER attracted to the types of men who kiss up to them... EVER.
Don't get me wrong here.
You don't have to treat women BADLY for them to like you.
But if you think that treating a woman well means "always getting her approval and permission for things", think again.
You will never succeed by looking for approval. Women actually get ANNOYED at men who seek their approval.
Doubt me? Just ask any attractive woman if Wussy guys who chase her around and want her approval annoy her...
No. If a woman likes you, she'll soon insert herself in your life and start making helpful suggestions. Here's a hint for the clueless: if she starts noticing your clothes, that's a short step from picking them for you, helping you with your diet and suggesting you enjoy spa treatments. Trust me on this, getting her permission is a bad idea. She'll be giving you her unsolicited approval if she likes you. Be careful, you might wind up married this way.
MISTAKE #4: Trying To “Buy”Her Affection With Food And Gifts
How many times have you taken a woman out to a nice dinner, bought her gifts and flowers, and had her REJECT you for someone who didn't treat her even HALF as well as you did?
If you're like me, then you've had it happen a LOT.
Well guess what?
It's only NATURAL when this happens...
That's right, I said NATURAL.
When you do these things, you send a clear message:
"I don't think you'll like me for who I am, so I'm going to try to buy your attention and affection".
Your good intentions usually come across to women as over-compensation for insecurity, and weak attempts at manipulation. That's right, I said that women see this as MANIPULATION.
Don't be a mark. Make her buy you things. Live off her welfare check and/or child support. Make her feed you. Why buy her when she should be buying you.
MISTAKE #5: Sharing “How You Feel”Too Early In The Relationship With Her Another huge and unfortunate mistake that most men make with women is sharing how they "feel" too early on.
Attractive women are rare.
Only if your standards are porno-level. In real life, there are plenty of attractive, interesting women. But if you knew that, you wouldn't be reading this ad or ordering this book. Which is a true loser move. Really. Stamp a fucking L on your forehead.
And they get a LOT of attention from men.
So does beer.
Most men don't realize this, but attractive women are being approached in one way or another ALL THE TIME.
An attractive woman is often approached several times a DAY by men who are interested. This translate into dozens of times per week, and often HUNDREDS of times per month.
And guess what?
Attractive women have usually dated a LOT of men.
Or not. Here's what nimrod here forgets. Looks are only part of the package. A lot of women, more than you would think, play down their looks and are socially uncomfortable with male attention. One size does not fit all. But if you figured that out, you wouldn't be here, would you?
That's right. They have EXPERIENCE.
Dirty sluts
They know what to expect.
And one thing that turns an attractive women off and sends her running away faster than just about anything is a guy who starts saying "You know, I really, REALLY like you" after one or two dates.
This signals to the woman that you're just like all the other guys who fall for her too fast... and can't control themselves.
Or it could signal you're an obsessive stalker who may harm her. It isn't natural to be that into someone so quickly and when you are women think you're a weirdo. Seriously. Also, putting away the white short sleeved shirts, hornrimmed glasses and pocket protectors really help. They do. So does a bath.
Don't do it. Lean back. Relax.
There's a much better way...
MISTAKE #6: Not “Getting”How Attraction Works For Women
Women are VERY different from men when it comes to ATTRACTION.
You need to accept this fact, and deal with it.
When a man sees a beautiful, young, sexy woman, he INSTANTLY feels a sexual attraction.
But does the same apply for women?
No. I mean, women sleep with Colin Farrell because he's sensitive and brooding, not really cute. Yep, that's it.
Do women feel sexual attraction to men based mostly on looks? Or is something else going on?
Well, after studying this topic for over five full years now, I can tell you that women usually have their "attraction mechanisms" triggered by things OTHER than looks.
Please continue doctor
Have you ever noticed that you see a lot more average and unattractive men with beautiful women than the other way around?
Think about it.
Women are more attracted to certain qualities in men... and they're attracted to the way a man makes them FEEL than they are to looks alone.
If you know how to use your body language and communication correctly, you can make women feel the same kind of powerful sexual attraction to you that YOU feel when you see a hot, sexy young woman.
But it's not an accident. You have to LEARN how to do this.
And ANY guy can learn how...
Yeah, there's some secret mojo that your dad figured out with your mom, but will elude you forever, unless you buy this book. Think about this: you are here because your dad fucked your mom stupid, repeatedly, until your scurvy ass popped out in a sea of placenta. Is your dad a genius? Unless he teaches at MIT, probably not. And then if he does, you really have to wonder how you got here. But if your dad could figure it out, you can too. Really. Unless you're part of the Hefner clan.
MISTAKE #7: Thinking That It Takes Money And Looks
One of the most common mistakes that guys make is giving up before they've even gotten started... because they think that attractive women are only interested in men who have looks and money... or guys who are a certain
height... or guys who are a certain age.
And sure, there are some women who are only interested in these things.
Yes. Some are. Some will sleep with you for a bump of cocaine. You get to find out which. Oh, and it doesn't take money. Ask any woman on a TV court show looking to get her money back. Does buying people ever work? Even ones with vaginas?
But MOST women are far more interested in a man's personality than his wallet or his looks.
There are personality traits that attract women like a magnet...
And if you learn what they are and how to use them, YOU can be one of these guys.
YOU DO NOT have to "settle" for a woman just because you aren't rich, tall, or handsome.
Let me say this again: If you know how to use your body language and communication correctly, you can make women feel the same kind of powerful sexual attraction to you that YOU feel when you see a hot, sexy young
woman.
Yes. Driving a Porsche works really well. So does cunnilingus. And a sense of humor.
MISTAKE #8: Giving Away All Of Your Power To Women
Earlier I mentioned that it's a mistake to look to a woman for approval or permission.
Well, another similar tactic that a lot of guys use is GIVING AWAY THEIR POWER to women.
Said differently, guys try to get women to like them by doing whatever the woman wants.
Another bad idea...
Women are NEVER attracted to men that they can walk all over... Women aren't attracted to Wussies!
And buying this book will turn you into he-man:fucker of women. Yes indeedy. Look, no one likes a doormat, women or men. But you do know women run marriage, right? You do know they take the power and make you do silly things like paint rooms, take kids to soccer when you be sleeping and shop for things like vegetables. Why? Because you liked fucking her so much you married her. That's why. Remember, this book will not turn into Hugh Hefner. It will turn you into your dad.
MISTAKE #9: Not Knowing EXACTLY What To Do In Each Type Of Situation With Women
Now I'm going to blow your mind...
A woman ALWAYS knows what you're thinking.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. If you believe this, you believe Iraq is going well. Most women have NO idea most men look at them sexually. If yous say "most men in your office have already decided if they would sleep with you", they'll try and argue you off the point. Every time. And most men will agree. What women are good at is nailing your lying ass. Lie to a woman, expect to get caught.
Women are approximately TEN TIMES better than men at reading body language. That's ten TIMES.
I know, it might be hard to believe. But for example, if you're out on a date with a woman, and you want to kiss her, she knows it.
Yeah, because you're all over her, touching her and pulling you towards her. I figured that out at nine.
And if you don't know exactly what to do and exactly HOW to kiss her, and you just sit there looking at her and getting nervous, she won't help!
And you won't help if she can't fetch your beer and root for the Giants. You wouldn't want them to put sex therapists out of work, would you?
And this goes for ALL aspects of women and dating...
Approaching a woman, getting her number, asking her out, kissing her, getting physical... everything.
If you don't know what to do in each situation, you will probably screw it up... and LOSE EVERYTHING.
And you KNOW it.
It is VITALLY important that you know EXACTLY how to go from one step to the next with a woman... from the first meeting, all the way to the bedroom.
OK, Your dad didn't need this book and he got your mom. You love your mom, right? Do you think your dad should have gotten a book and upgraded? No? Because you love your mom, right? You can do as well as your mom, right? Your dad did. You can't match your dad? What kind of loser are you?
MISTAKE #10: Not Getting HELP
This is the biggest mistake of all.
This is the mistake that keeps most men from EVER having the kind of success with women that they truly want.
I know, guys don't like to make themselves look weak or helpless. We don't like to ask for help.
Hey, I've been there myself.
Let me tell you a little about me and how I figured out how to be successful with women...
About five years ago I became fed up with the fact that I didn't know how to approach, meet, and get dates with women that I was attracted to.
It frustrated the hell out of me.
One night I was out with a friend, and I saw a woman I wanted to ask out, but I just couldn't get up the nerve to do it. I can still remember that night... right on the spot I made the decision to do whatever it took to
learn how to be successful with women and dating.
Well, after a lot of hard work and trying all kinds of crazy things, I finally figured it all out.
I can now approach just about any woman and get her number almost instantly. I've dated models, I've dated actresses, and I've dated nice, normal, regular girls as well.
No hot sexy sluts? What good is your book then?
It has been a very rewarding experience. I no longer feel that sick, insecure feeling... like I don't know how to meet women... and I might wind up alone.
I know that anytime, anywhere, I can go out and meet attractive women.
So can anyone. You just meet them. Now getting them to sleep with you is another story entirely.
I've written a book on the topic, and I've done seminars on both coasts of the United States... and taught tens of thousands of men all around the world.
I Now Have A FREE, Three-Times- A-Week Email Newsletter...
...But the REALLY GREAT news is that I now publish a free email newsletter three times a week that teaches any guy how to increase his success with women DRAMATICALLY.
And I'd like to invite you to sign up.
It's free, there's no obligation, I'll never share your email address with anyone, and you can easily remove yourself anytime with no hassles (and no, I'll never pull any of these tricks where I send you a bunch of unwanted
junk email when you try to remove yourself).
Of course, it even get's better than that...
In addition to my free email newsletter, I also have a killer downloadable eBook that you can download right now and be reading in literally MINUTES from right now.
It's JAM PACKED with dozens and dozens of specific strategies for overcoming fear, approaching women, getting phone numbers and email address from women quickly, great inexpensive or even free date ideas, and how to take things to a "physical" level smoothly and easily.
Ok, now that you've read his pitch, do you really think that will make you do better than your dad? Look, there are no magic answers. If you think you're going to get some hot model because you read this book, you better have a broker's salary to go with it. This spam is no different than any other get-rich-quick scheme and about as likely to work. People are people and you do best when you deal with them as people, not some kind of prize for following advice. Women are people, they have personalities and if you actually relax and try to relate to them like you would men, except for the sex, of course, you might find someone.
Remember, the goal here is not going to get you to be a proto Hugh Hefner. It's going to get you married, with kids, in the suburbs or in an apartment wondering if you can pay for private day care. If you follow his advice, despite your best efforts, some woman will fall in love with you, drag you through a too expensive, annoying day called a wedding, eventually get pregnant, saddle you with children, who while devoted givers of ties and underwear will cost too much, get in trouble and eventually try to get a better looking woman than the one you wound up with, and that's just the daughters. Your sons are a whole different kettle of fish.
So before you invest, remember all the shit you gave your dad. Do you want to have some little ungrateful spawn of your loins run your car into a ditch drunk, smoke weed in the garage, get into fraternity sponsored bar fights and have sex in his room with the little tramp from school? Well, if you take his advice, that is what awaits.
'(June 19, 12:51 pm PDT) - The day I talked to Michael Moore, I'd read an item in the New York Daily News claiming that this so-called man of the people had a hot tub installed on the balcony of his Manhattan apartment.
Asked about this earth-shattering news earlier this week, Moore laughed. "I don't have a hot tub. I don't even have a balcony."
For his part, Moore has set out to expose bigger lies in "Fahrenheit 9/11," a sprawling look at the Bush administration's role in Iraq.
Moore's movie seems to argue the whole Iraq war was launched by Bush for personal reasons.
"I'm saying it's primarily for personal reasons," said Moore in a phone conversation from his Manhattan apartment.
"Personal reasons first because, as he honestly said, 'They tried to kill my daddy.' And personal reasons also for wanting to distract the public from the relationship his family has had with the very country that was behind the murder of 3,000 Americans."
Moore is referring to Saudi Arabia, the nation that bred Osama bin Laden. A justifiable leap?
"Look, if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been from North Korea, the headline ... would have read, 'North Korea attacks the U.S.' If 15 of the 19 had been from Cuba and were funded by Cubans, the headline would have been, 'Castro attacks the U.S.'"
Here's an idea: since the Bushies want to have July 15 as Party for the President Day, I say we make it see Fahrenheit 9/11 day. Take a friend, a family member, even a Republican, although they're rare in this neck of the woods. Why? Because you could throw a Kerry party, but that's just aping the GOP and well, he's having a massive party at the end of July anyway. Instead, I'm all for driving the Bushies crazy. And one way to get to the dry drunk is to enlist people to see a movie we know he must hate with every fiber in his uncured alcoholic body.
Let them have their little party. And we'll all go to the movies instead.
Unable to attend party for Bush, having been killed in husband's unnecessary war.
Laura Bush sent me this e-mail tonight
Dear Steve,
In his Inaugural Address, President Bush called on all Americans to reach out to our neighbors and work together to strengthen our communities.
Today, I'm asking you to reach out to your friends, family and neighbors by hosting a Party for the President on July 15th.
On that day, I will join you and tens of thousands of supporters in a live conference call. To sign up to host your Party and join this nationwide event, visit our website at http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Party/.
A Party for the President is a simple, free volunteer event that brings together local friends and neighbors who support the President. At these parties we'll provide you with exclusive campaign materials and most importantly, postcards that your party attendees can fill out and mail to undecided voters in your area.
I encourage you to reach out to your neighbors and ask them to get involved in this event.
Thank you very much for all you have done and will do in this campaign. George and I really do appreciate it.
I look forward to speaking with you on July 15th.
Sincerely,
If I could send a reply, it's a mass mailing and you can't, but if I could, this is what I would say:
Dear Laura,
I would no more hold a party for your war criminal husband than run naked down the street. You may find the term war criminal harsh, even intemperate. Well, imagine if Iraqi intelligence officers and MP's beat, humiliated and raped your twin daughters, you wouldn't call Saddam Hussein an ill-served leader. It is a war crime and just as Keitel and the German high command wound up in the dock at Nuremberg, your husband's morally indefensible warmongering should land him a similar place before the International Criminal Court.
It would be best for this country if your husband and Vice President Cheney resigned and hopped on a flight to The Hague where they deserve to be. But not being a fantasist, I know that is unlikely to happen. Instead, all we can do is work towards the humiliating landslide defeat he has earned with his incompetence and general arrogance.
George Bush has shamed the office of the Presidency and himself by his squandering of American good will after 9/11, an event where he did not cover himself in glory. He even abandoned the people of Afghanistan, who seemed to be happy to be liberated from the fanatics of the Taliban. All we have given them is poppies and unchecked warlordism. His actions have killed 840 Americans and thousands of Iraqis, most of whom wanted to do no more than live unmolested lives.
What is even worse is that Osama Bin Laden not only remains alive, but Al Qaeda remains an ongoing threat. Your husband's other wife, Condoleeza Rice, is starkly incompetent in her job and should have been fired long ago. So should have George Tenet, but that's another story.
So instead of throwing a party for President Bush (I can't afford the beer and hookers), I'd rather take a group of people to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on the same day. I think, if you saw the movie, you might actually learn something about your husband's disastrous, murderous foreign policy.
David Hackworth wrote this on his site and while some people may like to depict the US Army as inept killers, there is another side. Now, I'm not nearly as sanguine as Hackworth is about our troops. There are a lot of problems in the Army in Iraq. But, at a time when bad soldiers get a lot of press, soldiers who spent their time beating the helpless, orders or not, we need to remember there are soldiers fighting the war and that they are not all bad men.
In future months and years, pundits, analysts and historians will spend a lot of their time hashing out if and where George Bush and his generals went wrong in Iraq. But this time around, no one will be able to bash the American grunt. Our combat soldiers -- infantry, tanker, cav trooper, engineer, military police and cannon-cocker -- are the best I've eyeballed since 1939, when, as a 9-year-old shoeshine boy at a small Army base in Santa Monica, Calif., I first became obsessed with soldiers and Marines and started trying to join up and go "over there" with my new older buddies who were dressed in battle green.
The men in the Army and Marine frontline platoons and companies today are motivated, bright as hell, well-trained, well-led and well-disciplined, and they know their kill-or-be-killed trade cold. Our grunts in Iraq have such heavy responsibilities laid on them -- holding back angry Iraqi crowds, deciding whether or not to shoot -- yet handle potentially explosive situations with max professionalism and cool. In my day, captains made those kinds of decisions, not Pfc. Snuffy Smith.
Mike Plummer, who's skippered rifle units from platoon to division in war and peace during a distinguished 35-year career, says: "American soldiers around the world are serving as peacekeepers, security, nation-building and then going on combat operations ... doing multiple tasks never envisioned a few years ago and pulling them off. No question they are mentally, physically and skillwise equal to their best predecessors."
Just think about the dangerous missions our kids undertake in Iraq. How any minute a roadside mine could explode and rip their bodies to shreds, or a sniper could shoot from the cover of a crowd of noncombatants, making it impossible to return fire. Nothing plays on the nerves like the possibility of death or cruel wounds that are a gunshot away in a frontless war. But our kids just breathe deep, do the steely stare, hold their positions and take their lumps as they follow politically correct, highly restrictive Rules of Engagement that would test even a conscientious objector.
I have a photo of 20-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Jason Murray on my desk. His face and body bear scar upon scar, he's been blinded, and most of his front teeth have been blown out. He was wounded so badly last March that he was evacuated with a body bag at his side ready for immediate occupancy. Yet there he sits in a perfectly pressed uniform that would please even his boot-camp drill instructor: military creases, brass shined to a high gloss, wearing his ribbons and medals -- sporting a big, proud grin.
Because of demanding recruitment standards, first-class initial combat training at tough bases such as Columbus, Ga., or San Diego and high unit-training standards that produce the finest ordinary combat soldier I have ever seen wearing boots, Marine and Army combat-arms outfits today are filled with such spirited warriors. And I don't think we've ever had brighter, better-educated people assigned to our combat platoons -- unlike days past, when guys with the high-powered brains were stashed back in the rear with the gear and cheer, and grunt duty fell mainly to those less blessed or less connected.
What we need to remember is that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are better than their leaders, many of whom cannot tell even a basic truth. They go to their deaths lacking water, armor, even ammo. They do the best they can in circumstances created by the ineptitude of people who have never carried a rifle in the desert heat. It doesn't make them all heroes, but it sure makes them bettet than their bosses at DOD. It is also a major reason the military doesn't want a draft.
Dasha prods the 's' shaped chocolate bar in front of her.
You can understand why she's in no rush to eat it - the Ukrainian student has just been served pork fat covered in chocolate. "It's salty on the inside and very sweet on the outside. It's unusual yes, but it's completely disgusting," says Dasha Khabarova.
Forget deep-fried Mars bar. One of the unhealthiest snacks in the world can now be found in Ukraine. For years people here have loved pork fat, known as salo. Normally, small slices of the white fat are eaten with black bread, raw garlic and vodka. But this new twist is designed to appeal to Ukraine's love of all things fatty.
Eurovision fan
For the equivalent of £1 you can now get four small sticks of salo covered in chocolate at Kiev's poshest Ukrainian restaurant. "Our head chef likes to experiment so now we have this new creation." says Roman Novitski, the manager of Tsarske Selo restaurant. "It's turned out quite well, and most people seem to like it."
After Ukraine's victory at the Eurovision song contest, Kiev is gearing up to welcome thousands of visitors from Europe. Chocolate salo is likely to be one of the dishes they are offered especially as Ruslana, Ukraine's winning entry is a fan of it.
And you can also get hold of the sweet salo - nicknamed Ukraine's Snickers - in Ruslana's home city of Lviv in Western Ukraine.
"I love it as it's unusual. I was given the first serving of Lviv's chocolate salo. Perhaps they were testing my bravery, but I ate it and I'm still alive!" Ruslana laughs.
But the chocolaty pork fat should come with a health warning, according to Dr Svetlana Fus from the Kiev Medical Research Centre. "It's the worst combination you could have. I think that people should steer clear of the Ukrainian Snickers."
Remember all the crap we ate as kids, pig feet, Spam, head cheese, vienna sausages?
Stuff you wouldn't touch now?
This is worse, much worse.
Pork fat with chocolate. Of course, Jen sent this to me with a warning that is was bad for my heart. Ok, she may be smarter than me, but not by so much that I couldn't have figured that out on my own.
Jack "Pervert" Ryan or Barack Obama: You make the call
Vote for this man. At least he doesn't frequent Parisian sex clubs with his (former) actress wife, then screws his secreatry.
If you live in Illinois, you'll know who this man is, Barack Obama. He stands a very good chance of being the Junior Senator from Illinois next session of Congress.
I saw this little item in Kos's diaries (a great place to read about obscure issues. although this race isn't obscure) and was stunned.
CHICAGO -- Amid the cold world's uncertainties, there is the comfort of having one incontrovertible axiom: If something seems too good to be true, it isn't true. Something, or someone.
Then along comes Jack Ryan.
Six-foot-four and Hollywood handsome, he grew up in this city's northern suburbs, graduated from Dartmouth, simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard's law and business schools, then was made partner at Goldman Sachs where he made a bundle. The man who made him partner, Jon Corzine, made a mega-bundle, ran successfully for Senate from New Jersey, and in this election cycle is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, charged with defeating Republican senate candidates.
Three years ago, when Ryan was 41, he walked away from moneymaking to start his real life. Or resume it. Earlier he had been doing what his family has always done, which involves making the rest of us seem like moral slackers.
Ryan, who keeps in moral and physical trim by going to mass and the gym each morning, left Goldman Sachs to become a teacher at Hales Franciscan High School in the heart of the huge African-American community on the South Side. In an area where some schools send more young men to prison than to college, Hales Franciscan has for six consecutive years sent all its graduates -- all African-American boys, most from homes poor enough to qualify for the school lunch program -- to colleges, including Notre Dame, Northwestern, Georgetown and the Naval Academy.
``That,'' he blandly says of his career change from high finance to high school, ``is what our family does.'' After Harvard he worked as a volunteer in a migrant workers' camp in Texas. Such stuff runs in the family.
His mother saved a failing Catholic school in Chicago. His uncle, a Jesuit priest, started a school in a Hispanic neighborhood. There the students are in school four days a week and work one day. Five students share a $25,000-a-school-year job, each earning their tuitions. Ryan's sister was a sixth-year medical student at Northwestern when she left to open a medical clinic for indigent and immigrant Hispanics. With a verbal shrug, Ryan says, ``That's what we're supposed to do.''
Now he is seeking a rendezvous, of sorts, with Jon Corzine. Ryan is campaigning for the Republican nomination for the Senate seat held by Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican who is retiring.
Maybe to a man who can move his mistress down the street from his wife and kids, this might seem moral, but to the rest of us, this guy is a fucking freak.
Now, I'd like to go to a Parisian sex club, Catherine Millet makes them sound real interesting, but if I took my (future) wife there, I might not fuck her in public. And then, I might not cheat with my secretary.
I don't get this. Even before Ryan's sex life exploded in the papers and on the net, what was the point of this piece? A little local boosting? Ryan is getting his ass kicked, and even factoring in race, Obama is clearly a superior candidate with a great future.
Here is the AP story on Jack Ryan and the Illinois Senate race:
CHICAGO (AP) Before Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan finished a news conference in which he discussed allegations by his former wife that he pressured her to have sex in clubs while others watched, calls for him to get out of the race began.
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, said Ryan needs to quit the campaign for the good of himself, his family and his party.
``There's no way the people of Illinois are going to countenance this behavior from a Senate candidate from the Republican Party,'' LaHood said.
Former Gov. Jim Edgar also distanced himself from supportive comments made earlier on Monday, before documents containing the allegations by Ryan's former wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, were released. Edgar had said he had talked to Ryan about the custody documents related to the Ryans' divorce and was satisfied that they contained nothing ``monumental'' and ``we ought to move on.''
But after the documents were released, an aide said Edgar had not been given a full description of what was in the divorce files.
Ryan told the governor nothing about the allegation of visiting sex clubs and pressuring Jeri Ryan to have sex in public, said spokesman Eric Robinson. The version Ryan presented to Edgar was limited to visiting one Paris nightclub that turned out to be so ``avant-garde'' that the couple felt uncomfortable and left, he said.
Robinson would not comment on whether Edgar was upset by the discrepancy or whether Ryan should step aside.
During the news conference, Ryan said the party leaders and public officials he spoke with were given all the information that was released by the judge.
Ryan said he had no plans to withdraw.
``My intention is to stay in the race,'' he said.
In the court documents, Jeri Lynn Ryan said she angered Ryan by refusing to go to the clubs. The ``Boston Public'' and ``Star Trek: Voyager'' actress did acknowledge infidelity on her part, which she said took place after their marriage was irretrievably broken.
In the documents Ryan denied the allegations, saying he had been ``faithful and loyal'' to his wife.
In the news conference held after the documents were released, Ryan repeatedly refused to comment on the allegations, saying his response in the court papers spoke for itself and that he would not discuss them again.
``It's not helpful for my son or for she or me to reopen this allegations,'' Ryan said. ``I am sticking by the exact things I said five years ago.''
U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., who is retiring and whom Ryan is hoping to replace, remained supportive of Ryan.
``Divorce cases and child custody cases are by nature acrimonious and allegations on all sides are often unreliable or sensationalized. The Jack Ryan that I know very well is a good and decent man,'' Fitzgerald said. ``He has a lifetime of achievement and accomplishment and good works and I support him and continue to support him with enthusiasm and confidence.''
Democrat Barack Obama, Ryan's opponent in the U.S. Senate race, did not return calls for comment Monday night.
Jeri Lynn Ryan charged during a custody hearing that Ryan took her on surprise trips to New Orleans, New York and Paris in 1998, and that he insisted she go to sex clubs with him on each trip.
She said that after going out to dinner with Ryan in New York, he demanded that she go to a club with him.
``It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling,'' she said. She said Ryan asked her to perform a sexual act while others watched, and she refused. (Editor's note: this is the infamous Hellfire club in the West Village)
Illinois, it's your choice: pervert or negro. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Parisian sex clubs. But don't run on family values if you like to fuck in public. If he didn't want his life exposed, he shouldn't have dragged his wife to sex clubs and then run for Senate. Now, I'm listening to Ryan hide behind his nine year old son on Howard Stern as he plays a clip from the press conference. If Jack Ryan was smart, he'd quit, because it will only get worse. If he were a man, he'd cop to his perversions. Either way, it looks like Illinois is going to send another black Senator to Washington.
I usually watch the Daily Show, but rarely am I clapping at something Jon Stewart says. Tonight he had Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes on, with his book about Saddam and Al Qaeda. I've always wondered why people go on the Daily Show, since they are not your friends.
But tonight was special.
Opening the show, he nailed Dick Cheney in a lie about the now non-existant meeting between Mohammad Atta and the Iraqi secret police. Since Atta was learning to fly in Florida at the time, unless he could violate the time-space continum, he wasn't in two places at one time. Well, on Meet the Press, Cheney said the meeting was confirmed, but on CNBC, he denied ever saying it. Funny thing about Lexis-Nexis and videotape. They keep the evidence.
Then he had Hayes on and pretty much went for him. Most of the time, Stewart will make a joke or two to deflate the Republicans, hell, he was civil to Karen Hughes. But he prety much ridiculed the book and Feith's crazy memo it was based on.
Stewart said something which was brutally effective and brilliant.
You said ....which made the case for war, weapons of mass destruction, anti-US propeganda, and oppressing their own people. However, you can't tell me which country I'm talking about.
Then he turns to Hayes, "with all due respect, your book is a crock of shit. I've learned more about what other countries were doing than Iraq.
"You know, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi and we haven't done too much to them."
The great thing was that Stewart kept it light and funny while gutting this wacko and his crazy views. I was clapping I was so impressed and the audience started to cheer.
Why is it that the Daily Show are acting more like reporters than the real press?
Reply to: anon-32736904@craigslist.org
Date: 2004-06-02, 7:02PM EDT
Hey, I have it all so to speak plus my freedom to choose to see women my age or younger women. And right now I would rather have some fun meeting new people from all over the country who may be interning in Dc this summer.I am looking for someone of above average intelligence possibly an entreprenur possibly not, hopefully creative, and very optimistic. A girl that can refinance the beach house in her spare time betweeen working and jogging and funning.A woman that is never at a loss for words or actions.
this is in or around Mclean
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
Ok, Bill Clinton lives in New York, OK, so let's spare the cheap jokes. But what kind of guy is this? Besides a dick.
Well, "women his age" means he's probably in his late 30's. Because before then, the concept of younger women kind of goes over your head. Trust me on that. They're all women. It's only to people over 35 that people will notice when you show up with a younger woman. And the women who are your peers will hold it against you. And by sticking with an intern, he knows when summer ends, he can get a serious girlfriend he can take to function and not be leered at as a dirty old man. Because the intern will be long gone back to school.
This guy is looking for a cute, naive girl to fuck over the summer and then dump. I mean, if you're trolling for interns, you're saying "I want teenager or early 20 trim." Or someone who you can lie to with ease. And anyone harping on their "freedom" is a guy who just recently got released from some long term committment. And to share that freedom with DC's version of the nubile teenage sex goddess, the kind who wakes you up with a blowjob. And to shove her in the ex's face. (eg Howard Stern).
But he knows the waters he's fishing. If you've ever seen Election, you know who I mean. The really smart about books but dumb about life 20 year old who cares more about sex with older, well off men than morals or common sense. Kind of like that Jessica chick who got fired from Mike DeWine's office.
He doesn't really want a woman who can do those things, because the last thing he wants is a confident, intelligent woman in her 30's. He's checking out of making relationships work and buying into having some summer fun. Which is fine, but can get messy.
Of course, this is entirely sleazy and low rent, but it is amusing. I mean he's saying he wants a sex bunny, but one who can read.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
See, he has a laptop. And he even has sex. Of course, shagging Skinner's mom is no major accomplishment.
Bumped
OK, the laptop drive is going well. I estimate that we're a third of the way there. As an eternal optimist, I've already gotten a laptop bag. A nice blue one. And as usual, I'm impressed by the generosity of people and their kindness.
I am still undecided between getting an iBook or an XP notebook. I lean towards the iBook or Powerbook because they're easier to deal with on the road. And the DLC is not providing a stipend for my commentary or the book. I'm too goddamn grumpy for them.
However, like they say on WNYC, the sooner we get the cash, the sooner we stop pestering you. If the contributions continue at the pace they have been, this will all be over by by Friday. Remember, this is specifically for a laptop and ancillary items. The blogads have been going well, and I've just hiked the prices, which are still a fraction of more popular sites. A mere fraction. I promise to do the demographics for advertisers soon.
We're working on ways to raise money which have less to do with begging in the future, but we figure that ads will keep the site going over the summer without any more begging until Labor Day.
One other point: yes, I know I make typos. Yes, I appreciate having them pointed out. But the point of the exercise is immediacy. Only Billmon and Josh Marshall write even as close to much original material as I do. Part of the price of that is a certain lack of precision in my typing. The trade off is speed for accuracy in typing. If I instituted a delay in posting, there would be a loss of immediacy in the commentary. Words do get left out and mistyped, but I'm not updating once a day.
I'm going back to using a text editor with HTML and spellcheck, which is easier on the PC with Windows than in Mac OS 9.
The one point where I get grumpy is with unsolicited writing suggestions. While my ego remains fairly in control, that's one area where I get my back up. I don't mind the complaints about the spelling, since I know that's fucked up. But suggestions on how to write are distinctly unwelcome. Why? Because I've worked with partners in the past, and I work with Jen, because she only suggests ideas, not actual suggestions on writing. I know it's a character flaw, but hey, we all have them. As long as you point out ideas we're cool. The idea of doing this site is to do what I want, the way I want without having to go to a committee. And I don't. Jen writes here because I trust her implicitly. I don't need to tell her what to do and she
doesn't disappoint me.
I know you want to all feel involved with what we do. My best advice is this: do it. This isn't TV. You can play along. You may not write well, you may not get a massive audience, you may just wind up venting. But the difference between me, Kos, Atrios, Billmon and you is that we have blogs and you don't. But you could. And writing gets better with practice. There is no entry fee, no price of admission. I know some of you do blog, but more of you should. The thing about the net is that it is not TV. If you disagree with me, I love the comments, but you should use the space and light of your own blog to do that.
I loved posting on Kos, but it was like living in a relative's house. Eventually, you have to move out and be on your own, set up your own place and establish your own rules. Which is why I love to comment on other people's comments. I can do that and not pretend to be a neutral arbiter. And defend my work.
I know that there will always be a hierarchy of blogs, because some people have better ideas and write better than others. But that shouldn't intimidate you. I started this blog because I had things to say. Raising money, being in magazines, none of that ever occured to me. I won't plead naive, I've been in the Washington Post in the past, but when I express my gratitude and astonishment at the reaction to my work, I am really surprised. I've written for a long time, had praise for a long time, but I've never gotten this reaction to my work. Saying what you think is healthy, not just emotionally, but politically. Too many Americans are polite to the point of muteness. We need more voices, more active people. A democracy needs voices like a car needs gas.
It's ego gratifying to think that people rely on my work, but the idea should be that we all participate in the exchange of ideas. If I do nothing else, that would be a really good thing to do.
Save them from digging up FDR and spitting on his grave
DEMOCRATS FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE URGES PUBLIC
TO SPEAK UP AGAINST ATTACK ON FDR, JFK COINS
Other Means of Honoring Reagan Are Available Without “Erasing” FDR and
JFK;
Web Site Set Up to Get Out Message to 4 Key Senators, U.S. Mint
Director
WASHINGTON, D.C.///June 21, 2004///Americans who cherish the memories of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) are being urged today to let it be known that they do not want the images of the two American heroes removed from the dime and the 50-cent piece as an ill-conceived tribute to former President Ronald Reagan. Democrats for America’s Future (DAF) unveiled today a special Web site at
http://www.SaveTheFDRDime.org to give concerned Americans the means to speak up and be heard by four key Senators and the director of the U.S. Mint.
Visitors to the special DAF Web site will be able to send an email directly to the Senators – Sam Brownback (R-KS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) – who have been appointed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to report back by mid-July 2004 on specific recommendations for a Ronald Reagan commemoration. U.S. Mint Director Henrietta Holsman Fore is being included in the focus of the DAF outreach effort since she already has the authority to proceed independently to put the Reagan image on the dime or 50-cent piece.
The threat to the coins honoring two of the most revered Democrats of the 20th Century is considered very real since related legislation either has been introduced on Capitol Hill or is being promoted by major groups and individuals.
DAF Executive Director Jennifer Petty said: “It simply isn’t necessary to trash the memories of FDR and JFK to honor Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, many of the people who are attacking the Roosevelt and Kennedy coins are pursuing a two-track agenda under which they wouldn’t just honor President Reagan. They also want to exploit this as an opportunity to tear down and vilify the memories of two of the greatest Americans: FDR and JFK. No serious Republican or independent who cares about American history can stand by idly and watch this unwarranted and vicious attack on these bona fide American heroes.”
As proof of the hidden-agenda attack on FDR and JFK, Petty pointed to a vicious diatribe against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a June 8th Bruce Walker column, ”
“The Case for the Reagan Dime.
The suggested email message text on DAF Web site to the senators and the U.S. Mint director reads, in part: “I am a big supporter of the exemplary life and good works of Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Both FDR and JFK served their country during times of war and times of peace. They earned their spot on the dime and the half-dollar piece. Their images should not be dumped on the ash heap of history in order to make way for any other President.”
James MacGregor Burns, a Williams College professor and noted FDR biographer, said: “I may not have agreed with Ronald Reagan on very much, but I liked him as a person. However, you display a real ignorance about Ronald Reagan if you think that he would support any attack on the memory of FDR, who Reagan regarded as a personal hero. Even after becoming a conservative Republican, Reagan remained a huge fan of President Roosevelt. I simply refuse to believe that Ronald Reagan would countenance the removal of FDR from the dime to make way for his own image. In short, he would be horrified by this idea.”
ABOUT DAF
Democrats for America's Future
(http://www.americasdemocrats.org) is dedicated to getting everyday Democrats involved in returning the Democratic party to its roots – and success at the ballot box. Democrats for America's Future makes a difference by: recruiting grassroots Democrats across the country and
providing them with up-to-date information; urging Democratic leaders to stand up to President Bush and his right-wing allies; and educating the public about the Bush Administration's true record. Membership sign-ups and member donations are accepted through the Democrats for America's Future Web site at http://www.americasdemocrats.org. The DAF board of advisors includes: James Carville; former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich; and Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun, former
U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois and a 2004 presidential candidate.
CONTACT: Stephanie Kendall, Democrats for America's Future, (703)
276-3254, or skendall@hastingsgroup.com.
The fact is that FDR made modern America. From the GI Bill to Social Security to the WPA, FDR saved this country from both communism and fascism and made a decent life for people. Before FDR, college was for the rich and lucky, after, the sons and daughters of the working class could make a better life. The elderly didn't die in penury and people could actually own a home.
While Grover Norquist and his buddies may want to cannonize Reagan, his family wants no part of it, and Americans should want no part of it. Reagan never said a bad word about FDR.
We did not deify FDR, despite what he did to make modern America. His official legacy is much smaller than it should be. To take away this simple honor is revolting, especially in the face of the Reagan family's opposition. We need to let the GOP know that they cannot dispose of American heroes at will. FDR deserves far more than we can give him. We should not be taking away what little we gave his memory.
You can argue Reagan's policies all you want, in the end he deserves and will get some honors. But if you do this, why not just wreck the World War II memorial and put up a Nazi flag, since that is what you're doing when you remove part of the honors and legacy of FDR. It's not about party, but decency. Of course, these idiots wish there was no New Deal or social justice. They think they would be on top anyway. Let's not have a case of national amnesia and give these people their way.
Recently, Oprah had a show with this guy who says people can become millionaires if they stop drinking starbucks coffee and drop their cellphones.
This is a popular financial solution offered to many in the middle class today. It's far easier to blame shopaholism or unmet psychological needs for financial problems. There is the desire to see financial health as a social, not political, issue. If is far easier to blame the affected for their problem than an unfair tax code and stagnant wages.
There is little question that the American standard of living has declined over the last three decades. People work longer for less. Few people want to talk about the cost of school districts, mortgages and an increasingly cannibalistic workplace. There is a direct link between the way that the people are taxes, the loss of jobs, still at the pace of 80K a week, and the fact that being middle class is the route to lifelong debt and workaholism to pay ones bills.
Even when you factor in ignorance and personal greed and selfishness, there is an economic story which goes way beyond the numbers one gets from the media and chat shows like Oprah. Personal financial trouble is less a personal failing than the result of economic trends. This isn't to discount the errant stupidity of people and their lust for things like 42" TV's and new laptops. But the reality is that the economic system is rigged to make sure that people fail and go broke.
How? The demand for credit cards and debit cards in transactions. Try renting a car or making a major purchase without a credit card. Try traveling without one. As we have eliminated cash from our daily lives, except for walking around money, there is a disconnect between what we spend and what we owe. Even college education is debt funded. So when people enter the workplace, they are thousands of dollars in debt. This limits where they can work and what they can do.
Instead of being politically honest about these issues, much of the discussion, like with food, is on personal discipline and not corporate responsibility.
Two businesses, worth millions, are insidious vultures on the American worker. Rent-to-own stores and payday cash advance have extremely high, passing in to usury, interest rates on the money you borrow from them. Rent to own litters poor areas like roaches in a dump. Find poor people, you'll find rent to own. But even the middle class are vunerable to payday loans. The rates don't seem bad until you figure out the actual interest rates. Paying 10 dollars to borrow $100 doesn't seem bad, but that's a ten percent interest rate per week. Which is pretty horrible. Companies grow fat on the profits.
Why do Americans buy so much crap? Part of it is effective marketing, part, ingrained ignorance about financial planning.
What are the major financial mistakes people make, which go beyond lattes?
Well, the first is the overly expensive wedding. People spending $30-40K, the cost of a home down payment, on a single day. The debt for a wedding can last for years, even past a marriage. So much emphasis is placed on that one day, often because of years of fantasy planning, that a couple's finances are seriously impacted by this.
Then, people get too much credit and buy instead of using cash. There's nothing wrong with large screen TV's you pay cash for. Using credit for a depreciable device is silly. TV's do not get better with age. The same with any electronics, especially computers.
The most important financial decision most people make and blow is their mortgage. Instead of paying it down and relying on it as a distant source of future wealth, people, incredibly, pay off their credit cards with it. Which is amazing. They incur debt on their most important asset for junk debt. If Congress had changed the bankruptcy laws to give credit cards primacy in repayment, people would have been forced into penury. Outside of Iraq, this was the Bush Administration's worst idea.
What people don't realize is that federal policy on taxes has been to pass the burden downwards. Federal tax is the one which smacks people in the face, but is not the one which cost the most. Local and state taxes, which have not been cut, in fact, have gone up exponentially, harm consumers far more, yet get little play. Americans are paying more taxes for fewer services and working longer to do so.
The most important mistake is not, as many of these experts would say, is not saving enough, but not watching what you do save. Managing your 401K is much more important than any bank savings you could make, and most people have no idea on how to manage their 401K's. People wind up broke because of several reasons, some personal, but most because of economic systems designed to work against them.
Hail to the Moon king The deeply weird coronation of Rev. Sun Myung Moon in a Senate office building -- crown, robes, the works -- is no longer one of Washington's best-kept secrets.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John Gorenfeld
June 21, 2004 | You probably imagine your congressman hard at work in the Capitol debating legislation, making laws -- you know, governing. But your newspaper probably didn't tell you that one night in March, members of Congress hosted a crowning ritual for an ex-convict and multibillionaire who dressed up in maroon robes and declared himself the Second Coming.
On March 23, the Dirksen Senate Office Building was the scene of a coronation ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative Washington Times newspaper and UPI wire service, who was given a bejeweled crown by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill. Afterward, Moon told his bipartisan audience of Washington power players he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin -- the murderous dictators had been born again through him, he said. In a vision, Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
To many observers, this bizarre scene would have looked like the apocalypse as depicted in "Left Behind" novels. Moon, 84, the benefactor of conservative foundations like the American Family Coalition -- who served time in the 1980s for tax fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice -- has views somewhere to the right of the Taliban's Mullah Omar. Moon preaches that gays are "dung-eating dogs," Jews brought on the Holocaust by betraying Jesus, and the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped in favor of a system he calls "Godism" -- with him in charge. The man crowned "King of Peace" by congressmen once said, according to sermons reprinted in his church's Unification News: "Suppose I were to hit you with the baseball bat to stop you, bloodying your ear and breaking a bone or two, yet still you insisted on doing more work for Father."
What, exactly, drew at least a dozen members of Congress to Moon's coronation? (By the Unification Church's estimate, 81 congressmen attended, although that number is probably high.) The event was the grand finale of Moon's coast-to-coast "tear down the cross" Moonification tour, intended to remove Christian crosses from almost 300 churches in poor neighborhoods -- the idea being that the cross was an obstacle to uniting religions under Moon. Yet the Dirksen ceremony was sold as a celebration of world peace. According to a cheery promotional video released by Moon's International and Interreligious Federation for World Peace, the ceremony marked the dawn of "the era of the Eternal Peace Kingdom, one global family under God." Moon's coronation also cured God's pain, the announcer explains.
Ok, there is weird and there is weird. This qualifies as the second. Coronation? In the halls of Congress? What the fuck? Isn't the point of Congress that we don't have kings? Especially crazy Korean ones? Why are Congressmen entertaining a man who wants to become dictator of the United States?
Jesus, I've seen some wacky shit in my day, but this takes the fucking cake? What does he have? Nude pictures of these people. I'm more than a little speechless, here.
A Christian version of Birthright - a program in which young Jews can receive a free trip to Israel - may sound like a strange proposal to some, but Adam Watson, a senior at George Washington University, certainly doesn't think so.
The political science major was walking around his Washington D.C. campus earlier this year when he saw a huge sign advertising a free trip to Israel. "I went up and tried to apply, but I was rejected," recalls Watson, who wears a pin with adjoining Israeli and American flags fastened to his jacket lapel. "I didn't realize that you had to be Jewish to go on Birthright."
And so the fourth year student from Pennsylvania signed up for the Israel Experience College Scholarship Program - a new and completely subsidized Christian evangelical initiativ```e sponsored by the New York-based Eagle's Wings Ministry. The program has been recently dubbed by some as "Birthright for Christians," and for good reason, it seems.
For Watson, and for the nine other devout young Christians who accompanied him, the trip to Israel this month has been something of a spiritual mission. Though it is geared towards preparing the students to help in public relations for Israel, it is also intended to give them an appreciation of Christianity's roots in the Jewish faith and Jerusalem - a Birthright-esque program for the next generation of active and identified Christian evangelicals.
"I've always had a heart for Israel because of religious and spiritual reasons," Watson added. "Now I can go back to my college campus and say that I support Israel and not just because the Bible says so."
The program, which is in its first year, is the brainchild of Reverend Robert Stearns, a minister from New York and the founder of the Eagle's Wings Ministry. Stearns is a long time Zionist and lived briefly in Israel several years ago, where he worked with the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem. He didn't even know about the existence of Birthright-Taglit when he first developed the Israel Experience, and he insists that "it was the Israelis who came up with the idea" that it was a Christian version of the Jewish program. Stearns realizes that the analogy may seem presumptuous or offensive to some and is quick to clarify that "God has given this land to the Jewish people." Jews, and not Christians, he also explains, "are custodians of this land. But having said that, Christians share a spiritual claim to Israel. Rome is not our mother. Jerusalem is our mother."
So will this include all the Lebanese and Iraqi Christians who might want to see the West Bank?
This is creepy as all hell. What's next, Hadassah chapters in Mississippi? These people don't really like Israel or Jews, they just want to claim their stake before end times arrive. Of course, the Rapture is based on a gross misreading of the Bible, and those silly left behind books are less accurate about the world than the Lord of the Rings. But they don't want to take any chances. So they better get there and stake out their claim before all those Jews die.
These people are not interested in helping anyone but themselves. Israelis should approach them sane people approach a strange pit bull. Because their stated agenda is to convert the Jews and watch the others die and go to Hell.
Presumptious and offensive? Nah, just diabollical and sneaky. These folks have their plans and it's not just blind support for Israel.
I'm not much for Clinton hagiography myself, but the old gang is spoiling for one more fight with the Big Dog and it looks like they're gonna get an asskicking.
As a core of Democratic partisans cheer the return of their champion, Bill Clinton, to the limelight in time to pitch in on the campaign trail, many of his old antagonists are gearing up again.
Mr. Clinton appeared on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" last night to promote the release of his book, "My Life," tomorrow, and his foes were ready with a rebuttal.
Citizens United — a conservative lobbying group whose president, David Bossie, Mr. Clinton writes, helped to foment the Whitewater scandal — bought advertising time in several markets during Mr. Clinton's interview on "60 minutes" to argue that the former president was responsible for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"Here is what you might miss in Bill Clinton's new book," the advertisement begins, reciting a list of terrorist attacks abroad during his presidency.
In the buildup to the release of "My Life," the talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, another villain of Mr. Clinton's narrative, has begun calling the book "My Lie." And a column in the American Spectator, once the leading journal of Clinton-bashing and another target in his book, pronounced "a long hot Clinton summer is upon us" and derided Mr. Clinton's expressions of contrition for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
"Yes, it's terrible to be caught," the Spectator wrote, "though rather delightful to commit moral error when no one is looking."
In the conservative Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes, the executive editor, called Mr. Clinton "Calvin Coolidge without the ethics and self-restraint
Well, Fred, at least he's not a war criminal. But that's just my opinion.
But the Times, which never liked Clinton didn't stop with this silly article.
In his "60 Minutes" interview, Bill Clinton calls his intern idyll "a terrible moral error," illuminating "the darkest part of his inner life." Not to mention the hardest part on his back since, astonishingly, he says he spent months sleeping on the couch. (Was the Lincoln bedroom always occupied by donors?)
"I did something for the worst possible reason," he told Dan Rather about his march of folly with Monica. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."
Just because he could. What a world of meaning is packed into that simple phrase. His "could" reflects a selfish "Who's gonna stop me?" power move, stemming from a droit du seigneur attitude, as opposed to "should," signifying obligation, or "must," indicating compulsion.
The former president engaged in a relationship of choice, not necessity.
As a friend of mine explains: "It's a guy thing. We're not likely to get up off the couch if we don't have to. We might cheat with a chick who just happens to be there if we feel we could get away with it."
In his memoirs, Mr. Clinton complains about Republican droit du seigneur, writing that impeachment was driven neither by "morality" nor "the rule of law" but, as Newt Gingrich said: "Because we can."
The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad — because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.
No, MoDo, it wasn't. It wasn't even close.
I love how Dowd, who's single, places Clinton's sex life in this special catagory of perversion, while her sex life has never been touched by such actions. In her nearly 50 years, she's never slept with someone she shouldn't have? Some married guy, or someone with a girlfriend? It's one thing to sleep with a Monica, an act many of us are guilty of, especially as we grow older. It isn't right, but they don't call it temptation for nothing. It's the thing we all struggle with. In that sense, Clinton was wrong, and he admits it.
Bush is getting people killed. If a blowjob would stop it, I'd escort the woman into the Oval Office and hold Condi down with a rope. I mean Laura. Two wives, one man. They never accused Clinton of that little trick.
But what she's saying here misses the point by a mile and a half. Bush is doing things which violate the basic contract between the public and his office. We talking potential treason and war crimes. Not in some casual, Che-shirt wearing leftist way, but a test Robert Jackson would find Bush passing. Aggressive war, torture, economic crimes against Iraq, which is what shock therapy is when you occupy the country. And the Plamne case is treason, pure and simple. Treason. Not anything else.
Bill Clinton hurt his family. The blood flows from Bush like a river. There is a vast difference between the two and it's a shame the VP of the Beltway Kool Kids Klub doesn't see it. Clinton made bad decisions which affected his marriage. Bush's bad mistakes kill teenage soldiers.
Along with the error filled book review by Michiko Kakutani today, the Times embarssed themselves with their coverage.
The thing about Clinton that the media never got and the public did was that his flaws were human flaws, understandable. Only inside the Beltway were people hypocritical enough to attack Clinton for the sport they all played. The high dudgeon Dowd and the Irish Catholic Media Mafia worked themselves into was comical to the rest of America, who liked Clinton more after Monica than before. The blowjob was a bad thing to do, but it didn't destroy a country and send 825 Americans into their graves. That's a major difference, Mo. A major difference.
But let the media and the right go in for another round of Clinton ball, reminding the voting public exactly how much they hated them and why they voted for Clinton, and stuck by him when they were going for him full tilt. John Kerry is a lucky man, and this may be the best bit of luck he's had so far. By digging up all the old Clinton dirt, they remind people of how silly the GOP can be and it's money, time and effort that they won't spend on Kerry.
So to Drudge and the rest of the wingnuts, I say have at Clinton. Rip him apart. Lose yourself in Clinton hate. Need some help. Make Clinton the issue. See, he's not running for anything, so the more effort you spend on him, the less you will on Kerry and the current election. Please refight the past. Please.
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A03
He has preached for months that gay marriage could be the downfall of Western civilization, but the Rev. Gary F. Smith is worried that the message is not getting across to his flock at the Church of the Nazarene in Leesburg.
"There's quite a bit of lethargy in the pews," he said. "By and large, it's a lay-down-and-roll-over-and-play-dead attitude."
Across the country, evangelical Christians are voicing frustration and puzzlement that there has not been more of a political outcry since May 17, when Massachusetts became the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
Evangelical leaders had predicted that a chorus of righteous anger would rise up out of churches from coast to coast and overwhelm Congress with letters, e-mails and phone calls in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
But that has not happened.
"Standing on Capitol Hill listening, you don't hear anything," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of the country's most vigorous Christian advocacy groups.
Perkins and other evangelical leaders contend that the outrage is out there. They say it has not been felt in Washington because defenders of traditional marriage are still in shock, or are focused on winning state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, or are distracted by the war in Iraq and other issues.
But a few skeptics on the Christian right, as well as many on the Christian left, are beginning to conclude that there is more fervor for a constitutional amendment in America's pulpits than in its pews. And politicians of both parties say the issue has had less grass-roots sizzle than they had expected.
"So far, it's really been a top-down issue," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a strong opponent of gay marriage who has used his chairmanship of a Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution to hold three hearings on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
Though he is convinced that gay marriage is going to be a "huge" issue, Cornyn said, "what it's going to take is some more bottom-up concern about whether people are losing control of their lives."
Senate Republican leaders said last week that they plan to bring the amendment to a vote in mid-July, a move that evangelicals hope will energize supporters around the country even though the amendment appears headed for defeat. Despite President Bush's endorsement, it is at least 15 votes short of the 67 needed for passage in the Senate, congressional staffers said.
In the first electoral test of the issue's currency with voters, Democrat Stephanie Herseth narrowly won a special election on June 1 for South Dakota's lone congressional seat. Her opponent, Republican Larry Diedrich, tried to make gay marriage a major issue but was "unable to pin [Herseth] down," said Mark Berg, Diedrich's campaign manager.
Herseth's spokesman, Russ Levsen, said the freshman lawmaker opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions and would support a narrowly drawn constitutional amendment that makes the distinction. "She gave sort of a nuanced answer, and her opponent claimed she was waffling, but his argument didn't resonate with the voters," Levsen said.
Democratic campaign consultant Bob Doyle said that, like Herseth, most of the Democratic candidates in this year's tight congressional races in the South and Midwest "have taken this issue off the table" by supporting a constitutional amendment. In the presidential race, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic challenger, has said that he opposes gay marriage but does not favor a constitutional amendment.
Many evangelicals believe that gay marriage has the potential to galvanize their community as no other issue would, including abortion. But as a "vehicle for mobilization," the push for a constitutional ban has three
