Petition circulators demanded payment for signatures collected. A campaign employee said the scene smacked of dirty politics.
By Michael Currie Schaffer
Inquirer Staff Writer
Ralph Nader's presidential campaign this week abruptly abandoned the Center City office that housed its efforts to get on the Pennsylvania ballot, leaving behind a mess of accusations and a damaged building.
The office, on the 1500 block of Chestnut Street, was emptied Thursday after a raucous scene the night before. Police were called as dozens of homeless people lined up to collect money they said they were owed for circulating petitions on the candidate's behalf.
Many of the circulators were never paid, according to outreach workers and interviews with several men who had collected signatures.
"A lot of us were scammed," said Ed Seip, 52, who said he collected more than 200 signatures for Nader.
Nader has until Monday to collect the 25,697 petition signatures required to be on the presidential election ballot. Dan Martino, the campaign's Pennsylvania coordinator, said he believes the campaign is on track to meet that goal.
The quest has drawn national attention because many Democrats believe Nader, who is running as an independent, could drain enough support from John Kerry to throw Pennsylvania's 21 hotly contested electoral votes to President Bush.
Nader has succeeded in New Jersey, where the state Division of Elections has ruled that his name will appear on the ballot. A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General's Office said the deadline for filing challenges to a person's candidacy was Monday, and none was filed.
In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Nader's campaign has accused Kerry supporters of resorting to dirty tricks to keep the candidate off the ballot.
John Slevin, a ballot-access contractor hired by Nader to run the Pennsylvania petition campaign, said all circulators would be paid. And he speculated that the accusations and chaos at the office were the result of political trickery.
"That's the only explanation for it," Slevin said.
He cited both the unexpected arrival of large numbers of homeless people looking for petition work and the calls he received from city officials about payment complaints as examples of possible partisan efforts to derail the campaign.
Slevin began hiring petition circulators two weeks ago with classified advertisements in newspapers and on the Internet.
Petition circulators were told they would be paid from 75 cents to $1 for each valid signature. Half of the money was to be delivered at the end of the day and the balance paid by check the following Wednesday.
But people who showed up Wednesday described a chaotic situation. Lines moved slowly as Slevin and one assistant, protected by armed guards, vetted the petitions for obviously forged signatures. Many in line were shouting and claiming they had been underpaid. As tensions grew, police were called.
Political trickery my ass. The Nader campaign grows sadder and more pathetic by the day. This is wrong. I dare any of the Nader groupies to defend this kind of unvarnished evil. Are these people kidding? They know how bad the economy is, and how desperate people can be. The idea that the Dems would have to put people up to do this, it's bullshit.
I am disgusted by this. I've done field ops, and anyone walking around in the summer heat, looking for signatures deserve to get paid. Fleeing in the dead of night is absolutely despicable.
One of the weaknesses of the left is the ability to blame others for their obvious failure. The Nader people created this mess, and the state should make sure that Nader pays these people. If people are unaware, it is a crime to stiff people on wages, even the homeless.
And if Nader was a decent human, he would make sure they were paid. But considering his track record with his own, white, well-educated workers, I have low expectations this will be solved out of court.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the distinction between soldiers and aid workers is fatally blurred. The relief agencies, trying to remain neutral as they struggle to deliver desperately needed supplies, have lost more than 30 workers in Afghanistan in 18 months.
The UN and the Red Cross were hit by suicide bombs in Iraq which killed 22 people. Many in the international aid community blame the rising death toll on President George Bush and his "war on terror".
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, has been singled out for particular blame. He told NGO leaders in October 2001, just after the 11 September attacks, that they were the "force multipliers" of the military effort against terrorism.
"That was a disaster for us," says Dominic Nutt of Christian Aid, which is remaining in Afghanistan despite the security concerns that forced yesterday's shock withdrawal of Medécins sans Frontières (MSF). "We can't be afford to be associated with the military or politicians. But we're not seen to be neutral any more because of the way the Americans have set things up in Afghanistan."
The trouble had been brewing since the disastrous American foray into Somalia in 1993, when a UN peace-keeping force dispatched to help alleviate famine became transformed into the US hunt for the warlord, Mohamed Farah Aideed. Debate in the aid community then intensified over Kosovo, when Nato provided logistical help for ethnic Albanians fleeing across the border after its bombing campaign started. Nato's humanitarian role was bitterly resisted by some relief agencies such as MSF.
But calls for the clear separation of military and humanitarian roles have become more urgent since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the relief agencies in the firing line because of the perception that they are working for coalition forces. "Christian Aid worked in Afghanistan in the Soviet period and under the Taliban," Mr Nutt says. "This the most dangerous period for aid workers it's ever been. We're now targets."
Seven people working with Christian Aid were murdered in Afghanistan in the past two months, he says. "Those who escaped said the people who shot them were the Taliban, accusing them of being US agents."
Part of the confusion stems from coalition "hearts and minds" teams of US and Nato troops. Soldiers with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams are providing basic health care, digging wells and other work normally done by civilians.
"We all look the same," Mr Nutt said. "Aid workers in comfortable clothes with a bottle of water; soldiers who are not always in uniform; soldiers doing aid work with civilians so nobody knows who is doing what, why and when."
Paul O'Brien, the overseas director for Concern Worldwide, says: "We could use the military for logistical support. In Mozambique, the South African military sent helicopters to rescue flood victims. But for the most part, the aid community wants to draw a line between their role and ours."
In Afghanistan, he says, the military "want to do humanitarian work, so they take off uniform and maybe have their weapon nearby. But the Afghans look at NGOs and the military people; they need to know there is a huge difference between the two".
This is a real problem. Note the soldiers dressed in civilian clothes. Some US units wear Afghan clothes in combat. And Civic Action has been a part of US Special Operations since the 1960's. Civic action is building scholols and wells and improving local facilities. The only problem is there is confusion between the NGO's and the SOF's. This has made Afghanistan so dangerous that Doctors without Borders (MSF-Medicins Sans Frontiers) has withdrawn from the country. They had been there 20 years, since the Soviet occupation.
Because of the blurring of lines, this places NGO workers in grave danger. The SOF have air and artillery on call, all the NGO's have is good will. That does not stop bullets. This, of course, forces NGO's to seek military protection or allows the US greater control of aid. Which, given the way this administration does things, is not accidental.
Take pictures with your phone, win a Yahoo contest
My friend, and former NetSlaves partnet, Bill Lessard, ask that I post this up. So I am.
Yahoo! Announces Launch of Yahoo! Mobile Photos Upload
Consumers on the AT&T Wireless, Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and Verizon Networks Nationwide Can Now Save their Camera Phone Pictures Directly to their Yahoo! Photos Account on the Go
Sunnyvale, Calif., July 22, 2004 – Yahoo! Inc., a leading global Internet company today announced the launch of Yahoo! Mobile Photos Upload for consumers nationwide. Consumers with camera phones on the five major wireless carriers can now quickly, easily and securely save their favorite camera phone pictures directly to their Yahoo! Photos account. This new service leverages the integration of Yahoo!’s suite of leading Internet services into data enabled mobile devices and demonstrates the Company’s continuing commitment to developing innovative offerings for consumers nationwide.
Beginning today, consumers on the five major U.S. wireless carriers (AT&T Wireless, Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and Verizon) can upload their camera phone pictures directly to their Yahoo! Photos account after simply registering their camera phone online at http://promotions.yahoo.com/picturewhatmatters. There is no limit to the number of photos that can be uploaded and the service is available to consumers at no additional charge. Consumers on the AT&T Wireless and Sprint PCS networks can also take advantage of the full color, graphical Yahoo! Mobile Photos service that gives them an easy way to connect to their online photos over their mobile phone.
“Camera phones continue to grow in popularity and we are excited to give Yahoo! users the freedom to do more with the pictures they take on their phones,” said Thad White, senior director, Mobile Services, Yahoo! Inc. “By combining our expertise in developing engaging, easy to use, wireless data services and the power of Yahoo! Photos, one of the leading online photos services, we are giving consumers a new, secure way to save and share the pictures they take with their camera phones.”
Picture What Matters
It’s often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Yahoo!’s Picture What Matters contest is putting that phrase to the test by giving people across the country a chance to share photos of what matters to them with the world. Starting today through August 11, 2004, consumers can e-mail a picture taken with their camera phone representing whatever matters to them and send it to pwmtrs@yahoo.com where they will be automatically entered to win a $10,000 donation to their charity of their choice.
Selected entries will be featured at http://photos.yahoo.com/pwmtrs throughout the program and the site will be updated daily with new photos. The entries will be narrowed down to 20 finalists and consumers will then be able to vote from August 18, 2004 to September 1, 2004 to help name their favorite picture as the winner. The winning picture will be announced on September 8, 2004.
Take Yahoo! With You
Yahoo! is an Internet industry leader in providing a diverse array of innovative offerings for high speed wireless networks. A variety of Yahoo! services with rich graphics and enhanced usability are available to consumers nationwide on mobile devices, including:
· Yahoo! Mobile Photos
· Yahoo! Messenger for Mobile
· Yahoo! Mobile Internet – including Mail, Messenger, News, Sports, Get Local and more
· Yahoo! Mobile Games
· Yahoo! Alerts
Yahoo! has become an essential part of millions of consumers’ lives and the Company is continuing to extend its key services beyond the personal computer, making it easier for consumers to connect with Yahoo! services wherever they are. The Yahoo! Mobile site showcases how consumers can take Yahoo! with them on the go and educates them on the range of Yahoo! products and services available to them on mobile devices.
About Yahoo!
Yahoo! Inc. is the No. 1 Internet brand globally and the most trafficked Internet destination. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif., Yahoo!’s mission is to provide online produces and services essential to consumers’ lives and offer a full range of marketing solutions to enable businesses to connect with Yahoo!’s hundreds of millions of users worldwide.
# # #
Yahoo! and the Yahoo! logos are trademarks and/ore registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. All other names are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
Press Contacts:
Alexa Waltz, Fleishman-Hillard for Yahoo! Inc., 415-318-4110, waltza@fleishman.com
Tara Kirchner, Fleishman-Hillard for Yahoo! Inc., 415-318-4121, kirchnet@fleishman.com
Clearly, Kerry did an excellent job last night, hititng all the key points on the map and making himself more human. Kerry is not what he seems, in many ways. He's the son of a diplomat who grew up away from the US and in bording schools. Despite his last name, he's not Irish, but a combination of Austrian and New England Yankee, a scion of some of the country's oldest families.
Despite one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate's history, he is tough as nails. Other people with his politics would have gone into Legal Aid, but he was a prosecutor. He had no problem throwing people in jail. He has no problem with tough decisions. Instead of going to Harvard or Yale Law, where a bright young man with a million family connections could have gone, he chose Boston College Law School, a place for people who actually want to practice law.
Kerry, in many ways, is the reverse image of Bush. He comes from the same social background, but constantly makes different choices.
I wasn't much of a fan of Kerry in the primaries, but I have always, always respected him. Not just for his service record, but for his 1996 campaign. He was running hard and losing against Bill Weld, the popular former governor of Massachusetts. Weld was extremely well liked, and popular. A Harvard grad, he made his name by challenging Ed Meese in the 1980's. His wife was a Democrat, and if the GOP was a different kind of party, he'd be sitting if not in the White House, somewhere useful.
Kerry was a bit of an enigma. The public didn't know him well, despite his track record of leading investigations and promoting relations with Vietnam. He was always overshadowed by both Kennedy and Bob Kerrey, the former Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor winner. Same name, same service, same general features. Except Kerrey was an extrovert and more talker than thinker. The two were often confused, as they were on the Newshour, when Jim Lehrer said that Kerry had won the MOH, meaning the other Kerrey, who now serves on the 9/11 Commission. John Kerry corrected him and went on with the discussion, which was about Vietnam.
So in 1996, Kerry's back was to the wall. Weld was giving him a real challenge and they had agreed to a series of seven debates on public TV. For some reason, these were broadcast nationwide. Weld was hammering him on the death penalty, which he had opposed. So Kerry turned to Weld, a man he clearly respected, and said "I know what's like to have a man die in your arms". Weld, who is just as bright as Kerry, was stopped cold. He had used Vietnam in a way which was both effective and true. He couldn't have stopped him colder if he had punched him.
Vietnam clearly changed Kerry, and not just in the obvious ways. It made him a compassionate man. He never says it, but his actions after the war indicate this. For the first time, on his Swift Boat, he was with people who weren't prep school or Yale classmates and who trusted him with their lives. He was with average people who never had his opportunities. In many ways, he found out a couple of things about himself, one, he could count on himself in a crisis. He didn't flinch, waver or run. He could stand his ground. Two, he knew what was right and wromg and he would say what it was, regardless of popularity. While prep school may have honed his phyisical toughness, Vietnam showed his emotional stength and character.
And then he led Vietnam Veterans against the war, which was not a way to be popular, if you wanted to go far in politics. Nixon was scared of Kerry, who was everything they didn't want to see in a veteran. He may have been a little scruffy, but he was articulate, passionate and smart. Throughout his career, he has been on many sides of issues, but on Vietnam, he served, then opposed the war.
But whereas Bush construsted a simplistic moral world, Kerry's grew more complex, more nuanced. This is no virtue in American politics.Complexity is ao....French. France, where Kerry spent his childhood summers and where his relatives still live.
It's not that Kerry is aloof or remote, he seems to like people and have deeply loyal friends. It's that he's not outgoing, reserved is a good word. This can seem oftputting to many people. And it hides one of his most telling characteristics, toughness. John Kerry is not only tough, but aggressively so. From Vietnam, where he was so aggressive, he leaped out of his Swift boat and chased down a VC guerrilla with a B-40 rocket launcher and killed him. He chose being a prosecutor. Then, when in the Senate, he used his committees to investigate, first, Central American policy, then BCCI, now Iraq.
To mistake his honest doubts and questioning for weakness would be a mistake. The whole idea of flip-flopping is not about indecisiveness as much as weakness. The Bush campaign wants to depict Kerry, despite all available evidence, as a man unsure of himself, unable to make up his mind, someone too weak to make hard decisions. Coming from the man who read My Pet Goat as 3,000 Americans were being roasted alive by jet fuel, this woulod be funny if it weren't sad.
Americans mistake swagger for toughness. Bush is filled with swagger and false bravado, Kerry with the kind of quiet moral and physical courage good junior officers develop and carry on into later life. And it is important to note that Kerry has moral courage as well.
Yet, there is a contradiction within Kerry which is fascinating. He clearly needs and enjoys public adulation. Part of his motives may be pure, some not, but his motives have been a combination of high moral purpose and self-promotion. It was moral to publicly oppose the Vietnam was, but it also served his aching ambition, one he had since prep school. But what drove that ambition? Partly, the desire for acclaim after a rootless childhood spent in distant places. Partly a genuine desire for public service. He had come from money, and unlike the nakedly commerical Bushes, turned his energies elsewhere.
However, that ambition drove him to take on challenges others avoided. He didn't just join the Navy, he served two tours in Vietnam, one he sought out while the Tet Offensive was raging. With a Yale education and fluent French, he could have sought out an intel billet, or a communications job, like Bob Woodward, also a Naval officer serving in Vietnam. Or he could have avoided military service altogether, like Bill Weld. But he chose combat. Then, he could have quietly gone to Harvard Law and worked in someone's law firm, or followed his father into the Foreign Service. Instead he opposed the war in a public, confrontational way, one which could have closed off any hopes of a political career. No one knew in 1971 if opposing the war was politically wise and given his FBI file, Nixon was seeking to ruin him. The same people still lurk around the fringes and Kerry has shown them down each time.
Then he went to Boston College Law School, and became a prosecutor. Why he didn't go to an Ivy Law School isn't clear, but I think Kerry actually wanted to practice law, which he did.
The latest slander, pushed by the closeted gay Matt Drudge, was that Kerry faked the film of him in combat and wounded himself. Both are ridiculous, since no one volunteers to be wounded. I mean, he was wounded three times in four months. Should he have fought until he was killed?
The thing about Kerry, is despite his background, he has lived beyond the expectations held for people of his sort, while Bush has failed even those.
The speech last night, make no mistake, was an aggressive, even brutal attack on Bush. The first line was the opening shot in a speech where Kerry called Bush a liar and a coward. He never said those words, he couldn't. But the implication was clear and direct. He attacked Bush for failing in Iraq and destroying American crdedibility.
Which was fine. But then he called Bush out, called for an "honest" debate, implying he has to fight dirty to win.
But the whole evening was designed to goad Bush. Bringing out the poised and intelligent Kerry sisters was no accident. While they spoke to their father's warmth and humanity, they also reminded Bush that his daughters are uselsss, drunken party girls. Which is fine at 22, but no asset. But the real comparison is between the Bush girls and Cate Edwards, also 22, but years ahead in maturity and poise.
Then Jim Rassmussen, the SF officer Kerry pulled out of the Mekong, told his story, also reminding people Bush had never lifted his finger to help a soul, much less risked his life to do so, for which Kerry won a Bronze Star. Max Clelland then added on to the scorn for Bush. It was subtle, it was carefully written, and it was well-planned.
Kerry's speech called Bush a liar unworthy to be President, much less send your kids into combat.
KERRY: I know what kids go through when they are carrying...
(APPLAUSE)
I know what kids go through when they're carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place, and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right, when you're not sure that that's true.
As president, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say, "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way, but we had no choice...
(APPLAUSE)
... we had to protect the American people, fundamental American values against a threat that was real and imminent."
Some men might have brushed that off, but Kerry, who has known Bush since 1964, knows it would get him.
Then he called him fundamentally unamerican for abusing the flag and constitution
KERRY: We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.
(APPLAUSE)
You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory, the stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of those people who were here tonight and all across the country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head and it was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men that I served with and friends I grew up with.
For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in: our strength, our diversity, our love of country, all that makes America both great and good.
That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology.
KERRY: It doesn't belong to any party. It belongs to all the American people.
Then he basically called Bush a hypocrite:
You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care, or if you tell middle-class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more.
After which, he went after Bush's use of wedge issues:
We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America; not narrow values that divide us, but the shared values that unite us: family, faith, hard work, opportunity and responsibility for all, so that every child, every adult, every parent, every worker in America has an equal shot at living up to their God-given potential. That is the American dream and the American value.
But then, if as lifted from the pages of the F9/11 script, he tied Bush to the Saudis, but again, not ditrectly:
KERRY: We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for 53 percent of what we consume?
I want an America that relies on its ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family.
Now, if you've seen F 9/11, that statement, and it would have never been there otherwise because the Saudis are "allies" and you don't slam allies, implies Bush is in the pay of the Saudi Royal Family, which his entire family is. He wanted people, especially those who had seen Moore's film, to make that subsconsious link. Brutally effective and well thought out.
Then, of course, he calls Bush out:
KERRY: I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: Kerry, Kerry, Kerry...
KERRY: My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place.
KERRY: And that's why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks.
This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, region from region, group from group
Of course, this isn't serious, because the whole speech was one long attempt to get a rise from Bush. It is rare in American politics to have such a personal and aggressive speech towards an opponent, but Kerry has nothing but contempt for Bush and it dripped from the speech. Because this was not a policy debate, but an attempt to get Bush to react. It was personal. And, it appears, Bush knows it.
Because this morning Bush said "The most important reason to reelect me is to keep Laura Bush as first lady". A none too subtle attack on Teresa Heinz Kerry. Now, most men don't attack other people's wives, but George Bush did. This is the kind of subtle, nasty attack used by alcoholics and dry drunks. Which means Kerry can claim his own mission accomplished.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government scientist finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours by transit police.
Stephanie Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.
Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.
.............
Metrorail has been criticized in the past for heavy-handed enforcement of the eating ban. In 2000, a police officer handcuffed a 12-year-old girl for eating a French fry on a subway platform.
In 2002, one of their officers ticketed a wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy patient for cursing when he was unable to find a working elevator to leave a station. Unflattering publicity eventually led the police to void the ticket.
Willett was the second person arrested this year for eating or drinking, Hanson said. In addition, police have issued 58 tickets and more than 300 written warnings.
Yeah. This makes sense. I've eaten entire lunches on the New York subway. What a waste of time. Jen found this amusing, since she went to law school in Washington. I find it perplexing myself. Just another way to stop Al Qaeda and gang violence. Aresting children and the handicapped along with scientists.
July 30, 2004 | FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) -- A military jury found a soldier guilty of armed robbery Thursday for taking an Iraqi sheik's sport utility vehicle at gunpoint, but concluded he did not deserve prison.
The panel also convicted Sgt. 1st Class James Williams of willful dereliction of duty for allowing his soldiers to consume alcohol in Iraq.
Williams, 37, of rural Westmoreland County, Va., maintains he helped take the SUV only because his lieutenant ordered him to procure a vehicle and because he did not think it was a criminal act, but the prosecution alleged he was simply after a "sweet ride.''
Williams, a soldier with the 101st Airborne Division, declined to comment to reporters after the ruling, but his civilian defense attorney, Bernard Casey, said he plans to appeal.
"Where was the evidence this constituted a crime?'' Casey said.
The jury recommended a reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge, but no prison time. The commanding general of the 101st, Maj. Gen. Tom Turner, will decide Williams' sentence.
With tears rolling down his face when the sentence was read, Williams put his chin down and nodded his head back and forth. The prosecution had recommended a four-year prison term.
"We're lucky that he got this sentence,'' said Williams' wife, Kim. "It could have been a lot worse.''
Said his sister, Russell Perry: "At least he won't be going back to Iraq.''
............
Williams also testified he saw commanders drinking alcohol in Iraq and thought it was OK, but Hoege said just because Williams saw others drinking, that did not make it right.
Another soldier, Alberto Lozano, was convicted earlier in the case and sentenced to 30 months in prison, but the sentence was reduced to one year because he testified against Williams. He was released recently after serving about nine months at Fort Knox. Pavlik, the lieutenant, faces a court-martial starting Aug. 9.
So sticking a gun in the face of an Iraqi and stealing his car isn't a crime? Lying about it isn't a crime? But the telling comment is from the sister, happy he won't go back to Iraq.
All manner of crime is surfacing in Iraq. Soldiers pushing suspects off a bridge, theft of property. Abu Ghraib is the surface of a rotting Army, pushed beyond it's capacity and ability. Carjacking? A 37 year old sargeant carjacking an Iraqi? Jesus. What the hell is going on there. I have no illusions about soldiers and their capacity for crime, petty and large. But carjacking? Jesus.
SAN FRANCISCO, July 29 - Apple Computer sharply criticized RealNetworks, the maker of media-playing software, on Thursday, saying it was investigating the legal implications of RealNetworks's decision to sell songs in Apple's music format. It accused RealNetworks of adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod."
Apple issued its angry statement just four days after RealNetworks started giving away software called Harmony that lets people download songs from its online music store and play them on Apple's popular iPod portable music players, as well as players using Windows Media Player and the Helix format from RealNetworks.
RealNetworks quickly shot back with its own strongly worded response, vowing to continue letting consumers play songs bought on its music service on any of the 70 music players on the market, including Apple's iPod.
"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod," executives of Real Networks said in a statement. "Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility."
The statement added, "There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance, the first I.B.M.-compatible PC's from Compaq.''
While RealNetworks is the first company besides Apple to sell songs in the protected iPod format, other companies sell them in the MP3 format, which the player can also use.
Richard Doherty, a computer industry consultant and president of Envisioneering, said the dispute between Apple and RealNetworks intensified the debate about control over the sale and downloading of music. "Both companies seem resolute in their positions," Mr. Doherty said.
Apple said it was investigating whether RealNetworks's move violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or other intellectual property laws. RealNetworks responded that the copyright act, passed in 1998 to address the issues surrounding the distribution of digital content, explicitly permits the development of software that can share data with programs from other companies.
Apple also warned that Harmony might not work with future versions of the iPod software.
Robert Glaser, the chief executive of RealNetworks, has long been a critic of what he sees as Apple's proprietary strategy with the iPod, asserting that Apple was running the risk of following the same path it took in its development of its personal computer. Many in the technology industries have maintained that Apple's refusal to license its Macintosh operating system to other developers in the late 1980's contributed to the establishment of Microsoft's Windows monopoly.
Apple makes their money from hardware. I have always thought MP3 players cost too much and don't have the battery life and ease of use which would be needed for them to be a mass market product. The reality for Apple is that their last iMac failed and they haven't released the new version for sale. Their switch campaign failed as well. The iPod and iBook are bright spots in an increasingly fragile marketplace for Apple. While I like the iBook, the cost of the iPod has been such that I wouldn't spend my money on it.
And you can bet your ass future versions of Apple software won't work with Harmony. Not that Apple will sell music in the future. As part of their agreement with Apple Corp, the Beatles publishing company, they would refain from going into any music-related industries. Well, iTunes breachesw that wide open.
Jen got an iPod for Christmas and couldn't sync it to her PC and traded it in for sn iRiver. Personally, I've been looking for a cheaper alternative to the iPod frankly. I think paying $300 for a used iPod on eBay is a bit much. Also, I think the capacity doesn't match with the screen size. A 20GB iPod holds tens of thousands of songs. With the tiny screen, how do you organize the music. I don't know, I don't own am iPod. I've been leaning towards a disk=based system, but since Mini-Disc players have gone nowhere beyond Sony, there aren't a ton of choices.
The real player to watch in this market is Sony, who's looking to introduce a Windows-based iPod killer. I've seen the prototypes for this two years ago, but nothing since then. But if Sony jumps in the market, given their Vaio line as well as their reputation in consumer electronics, Apple's little profit center could go poof. The iPod is the survivor of a multimedia marketing strategy which was supposed to tie people into Apple products. Instead, Apple had to make Windows-friendly products.
What they don't want is to have someone poach on their higher fidelity format, and Rob Glazer, who has fought MS over the same issues of exclusivity. The difference is that MS doesn't face the loss of a major profit center. Hell, MS could sell Linux tomorrow as MSLinux and not lose a dime. Apple doesn't have that luxury. Also, given Steve Jobs rampant egomania, he doesn't want to give any ground.
They're black and so are their descendents, no matter who else they come from
Atrios posted the following:
One of the media conversations I'm peripherally aware of (again, in this bubble I don't have the omniscient view of the media borg I usually do) is the "why do people call Obama black?" It's quite fascinating, really, that this is an issue. The same issue was raised when Halle Berry won her Oscar. I'll try to be kind to those raising the it, but they really seem to have a view of race as being genetic or "in the blood," which is, uh, a rather interesting view of race. The "one drop rule" still exists -- not because it's government imposed, but because if you look black people categorize you as black. Now, I look forward to a colorblind society but it doesn't exactly exist right now. Obama is black because people see him as black. The content of "black blood" in him is irrelevant. I highly doubt any of the people saying this didn't think of Obama as a "black man" before they discovered that one of his parents was white.
..............
But, as for why this issue is coming up now specifically, Obama himself says it much better than I ever could:
If I was arrested for armed robbery and my mug shot was on the television screen, people wouldn't be debating if I was African-American or not. I'd be a black man going to jail. Now if that's true when bad things are happening, there's no reason why I shouldn't be proud of being a black man when good things are happening, too.
Nope.
In America, there are two classes of people, white and not-white. If you are white, then you are white, but if you are not white, you are NOT WHITE. Have you ever heard of anyone described as half-white, unless they were visibly another race? No matter how pretty or how smart, if you are not white in America, you are not white.
But Obama didn't have to use the example of armed robbery, all he had to say is if he got into an elevator, some white woman would clutch her purse. The double Ivy League grad (Columbia, Harvard Law) is not white in America, to what degree doesn't matter, he could be half-Mexican like Bill Richardson or Jeb Bush's kids, and they are not white. It's not the degree of blackness you have, but the lack of whiteness.
In Latin America, any white heritage makes you white. Whiteness is the positive value, because when they were shipping slaves west, there were so few whites that interbreeding wasn't only essential, but encouraged. Of course, when you get to Brazil, which had slavery until 1888, blacks are still the vast majority, but still discriminated against based on skin color. One of my professors said that when he was in Brazil, the family he visited hid their black child.
But because of chattel slavery in the US, and the limited number and expense of slaves, meant that any black blood (later to be expanded to other ethnic groups) meant you were black. Now, my great grandmother was Native American, but no one calls us Indians. Most African-Americans from the Carolinas have some native heritage, but black is the catchall phrase used to describe us all.
Up until the last 10 years, interracial dating, if not taboo, was fraught with social and even personal perils. Now, I am race indifferent when it comes to dating, but I know other people who are not. But it's harder to be so.
My friend owns a bar on Third Avenue in the East Village. One day, we're drinking beer and sitting in the window, and watched all these couples pass by. Tall Asian men were with little blondes, so were the black guys, tall white guys had little Asian girlifriends, black guys were with Puerto Ricans. Meanwhile, my friends were sleeping with all manner of European Au Pairs, most of whom were defintely not black. Now, most of my friends date interracially, without even considering it as an issue. Women are pretty and sleeping with them a positive goal. Who cares what color they are?
When some of Thomas Jefferson's black descendents were found, most of who looked as white as any other white person, some of their neighbors began to treat them differently, of course, this was on Staten Island, where racism is a local sport, but still. Any black heritage was seen to make them black, even though Sally Hemmings was only half-black to begin with. She was Jefferson's sister-in-law. It took decades for the white Jefferson descendents to allow their black relatives to be part of the family.
I was watching the Super Bowl with my friends and someone said something about being black. My friend said, well, I'm not all black. I said, "well, 25 percent makes you a member of the club and 50 percent gets you a seat at the table."
Italians love to insult Sicilians by saying they're part black. It's one of the most common jokes heard.
Barack Obama is black because he looks black. His actual heritage is not relevant. His upbringing is not relative. All you have to do in America is look black to be black. Because that is how people will treat you.
I haven't been following the inside baseball, because, at it's heart, a convention is a trade show, but with better exhibits. I don't really care about what the Pennslyvania delegation thinks. I'll read the people who do care, saving me energy.
I don't want to make any judgment about the bloggers until tommorow, but when I hear about some big party for bloggers, I want to bang my head against the wall, playing The Wall at full volume. I'm nearly 40 years old and I've had my fill of parties and ass kissing and playing journalist.
If people are wondering if I'm pissed at not being given creds, I'm not. Why? Because I know how to cover a story. If creds were so fucking important, I would have wheedled them from a friend or someone who reads the site, which includes the DCCC. Or I would have begged for help.
I am so glad I didn't do that, because then I would have written stories like every other blog. And that would have been a moral failure.
You know, I am angry at the coverage. I am disappointed. There are good spots, and people doing good work, but why the fuck aren't people more curious? Why didn't anyone walk around the harbor and look for the helicopters and boats? The speeches are on TV, and while it's nice to hobnob with your political heroes (the thought makes me ill, the only place I care about seeing Ben Affleck is at Fenway Park), what does it really bring to the table.
I do want to read about what is going on in the Fleet Center, but not exclusively. I don't care, and I don't think you do, about gossip. Which most of the bloggers are tossing up in droves. Did anyone look at the platform, try to get a feel for issues? I wanted to do policy stuff, but in the rush of business, and a hellish week in Iraq, I am dancing as fast as I can. It will have to wait until next week. One conclusion: the Dems are lying about Iraq to win the election. Just like Clinton lied about Bosnia.
But I will make this point: real reporters don't just take notes at an event. Political reporters, IMO, suck. They think they know more than they do. But real reporters, like David Halberstam and Peter Arnett, looked for stories, they didn't expect them hand delivered. There is more to reporting than covering an event.
The bloggers didn't need to hang around the hall all four days, there are other stories. But that first press pass is intoxicating, illuminating. But goddamnit, I don't trust politicians who want to throw me a party and pat me on the ass. Something is just fucking wrong with that. It sets ofdf 20 years of bells and whistles. I thought there would be people blanketing the city, hanging around different places.
I wonder if anyone will cover the protests during tonight's speech by Kerry. My hopes are minimal.
PM - Monday, 26 July , 2004 18:30:09
Reporter: Rafael Epstein
MARK COLVIN: The future stability of Iraq remains one of the most pressing issues in global politics. It'll be decided in large part by Iraq's new police force and army.
The army's just been involved in its biggest battle so far, engaging insurgents in a five hour gun fight north of Baghdad, in which 15 insurgents were reported killed.
But one of Washington's most respected analysts says that the bigger picture is that the future of Iraq's forces is not bright.
Anthony Cordesman, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, lays much of the blame at the feet of the Pentagon and the US Congress.
Professor Cordesman has regular access to top political and military figures in the US and Iraq. He says the US-led Coalition is guilty of a gross administrative, moral and military failure in not building and equipping effective Iraqi security forces.
He spoke to Rafael Epstein.
ANTHONY CORDESMAN: I think the most serious problem was that we assumed that they were really not going to have to deal with active counter insurgency. That they were not going to have to be properly trained and equipped to deal with really lethal attacks.
We didn't give them the training from, really, the fall of Saddam on through April of this year. We didn't give them elementary protection like body armour. We didn't even give them the proper communications to ask for American help. And we created very, very large forces which would have been adequate only if there had been no insurgent threat, or we'd been able to defeat it very quickly.
And long after it became apparent that the insurgents were a serious movement, and in large numbers, the US aid effort still failed to provide the level of equipment and training that was necessary.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: How bad is the equipment problem, in your view?
ANTHONY CORDESMAN: Well, the statistics that are being reported by the Department of Defence essentially tell you that only a fraction of the body armour and vehicles are available. Some of the figures border on the ridiculous. The requirement for vehicles for people in the Facilities Protection Service, which has 77,000 men in it, the requirement is for less than 500 vehicles and less than 50 are on hand.
That kind of problem affects virtually all of the services.
Yet another example of gross US incompetence. Not arming the Iraqis adequately kills Americans soldiers.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Americans' overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened in the since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.
The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average income fell even more, by 5.7 percent, and adjusted for inflation the decline was 9.2 percent.
The paper said the decline was due to a combination of the big fall in the stock market and the loss of jobs and wages in well-paying industries as the recession started in 2001.
The paper said before the recent drop the last decline posted for even one year was 1953.
The drop in income has hit government tax collections -- the paper said individual income taxes declined 18.8 percent between 2000 and 2002. Part of that was due to tax cuts passed in 2001.
Yeah, so how is the GOP going to spin this. At the end of the Christmas season, Nieman-Marcus made a large profit, Wal-Mart didn't. Guess where most Americans shop. Now people's incomes are going backwards, new jobs pay less and are less secure and the GOP is going to swear everything is working just fine.
Oh yeah, the deficit is $420 billion. There was no deficit in 2000. Guess where most of our money went: into the pockets of Bush and his friends.
Jen, who sent this along, said the following:
Gilly--Attention America, the economy still sucks! Remember, even though a lot of the "loss" was from multi-millionaires, who took a loss on paper only, the fact that there has been zero growth for anyone else is startling. What the hell does "grew by 1% or dropped by 2% mean anyway? Also, remember, this doesn't count the vast armies of unemployed--the IRS only looks at tax revenue taken in, and if you're off the books, you don't pay taxes.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Posted: 7:53 AM EDT (1153 GMT)
MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- A computer crash erased detailed records from Miami-Dade County's first widespread use of touchscreen voting machines, raising again the specter of election troubles in Florida, where the new technology was supposed to put an end to such problems.
The crashes occurred in May and November of 2003, erasing information from the September 2002 gubernatorial primaries and other elections, elections officials said Tuesday.
The malfunction was made public after the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, a citizen's group, requested all data from the 2002 gubernatorial primary between Democratic candidates Janet Reno and Bill McBride.
In December, officials began backing up the data daily, to help avoid similar data wipeouts in the future, said Seth Kaplan, spokesman for the county's elections supervisor, Constance Kaplan.
The loss of data underscores problems with the touchscreen voting machines, the citizen's group said. "This is a disaster waiting to happen," said Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition. "Of course it's worrisome."
The group is concerned about the machines' effectiveness, following revelations about other problems with the system. Last month, state officials said the touchscreen systems used by 11 counties had a bug that would make a manual recount impossible. Earlier this month, a newspaper study indicated touchscreen machines did not perform as well as those that scanned paper ballots.
Also Tuesday, election reform groups asked a judge to strike down a state rule preventing counties that use the machines from conducting manual recounts from them.
Jeb missed his calling as a ward heeler, who could raise the dead to vote every four years. Does anyone believe this shit at this point. Kerry is no idiot, he's got the best election law lawyers money could buy.
If George would lie to get his war on, Jeb would like to keep his brother in office by any means necessary
When I woke up on Monday, after a few hours sleep on my sister's couch, I stared at the TV and posted to the site over a dialup connection. It was not fun, but it was the only way to get online. Once you have DSL, going back sucks. Once you have wireless, DSL sucks. And here I was at the beginning. Dialing in to MSN. I thought the days of having a dial up account to go online went the way of floppy disks.
But what I saw on TV was interesting. Competing talking heads at various sites around the Hub, as Bostonians call their city, and with good reason. It is a hub. It took me a couple of hours to get going. Mainly because I was waiting for my nephew to wake up. He works Tuesday-Saturday, and Sunday is a day off. We'd spent the day running around, shopping, and then came back. My sister, who works two jobs, doesn't cook much any more, since her boys are 16 and 25. They can order in like everyone else.
I had Dunkin Donuts, because that IS a good New England breakfast. With coffee. Always with coffee.
Then, we went to the Cambridgeside Galleria. Why? To get lunch. Now, you're probably wondering why we didn't go to some kind of trendy Cambridge restaurant or something. Well, I wanted to go to the mall, for one thing. And my nephew works with teens, a job he's great at and will, one day, translate into a teaching job. He worked in business, but he liked kids better. And doesn't much like Bush. Like most black people. So after we ate lunch, he went back into the city and I walked around Cambridge.
The Rock the Vote Bus outside the Cambridge Galleria br />Steve
What I saw there was a voter registration drive working the kids over from Rock the Vote. Miles from the Fleet Center, miles from the so-called action, there was an active outreach campaign, with minority kids pinholing people, asking them if they were registered to vote.
Card handed out in GOTV drive Steve
Rock the Vote tent outside Cambridge Galleria Steve
The mall also had a wireless hotspot, so I worked there for a while. Then it was off to Harvard Square. First, I took a cab to Kendall Square, heart of MIT. Well, it was pretty dull. Then, on to Central Sq, which is betwee the two schools, where I had a 7-11 Chili dog to break a $20. I also bought the Boston Herald, where I read several unhinged articles on the Convention. One reciting GOP talking points. What was amazing was the schizophrenia of the paper, saying Massachusetts wasn't liberal but calling for health care reform. I tossed it in the trash.
I saw a few delegates riding up to Harvard Sqaure. But they were mingling with the locals. Which was important to see. The whole vibe was calm, and the security didn't go as far north as Harvard. There was a button seller doing good business outside the T stop. I wish I had taken a sharper picture, but between them and the Falun Gong protesters, they were the extent of political activism outside Harvard. There were symposiums there, but mostly, it was a cool summer day, where I gathered up my strength (I was lugging my laptop) and people watched. Which is something everyone should do. Not for random reasons, but it allowed me to see various groups of delegates wandering around. Not too many hippies, a lot of professionals, obviously. But they seemed connected, purposeful.
Then it was back on the Red Line to Park Street. When I came out, there were maybe 10-15 MP's including an officer and an Air Force sergeant. Which was insane. There was a couple of protesters, but nothing big. I had missed the big Sunday rally of 150 protesters.
Man protesting, facing clump of MP's Steve
What you'd see outside the Fleet Center is a protest movement with little real energy. Not because they love John Kerry, but because they absolutely hate Bush. The protesters are the typical crunchy sorts, for the most part. The Black Tie folks have a little more energy, but the way Boston set it up, they can be blissfully ignored.
The front says Grassroots Democrats Steve
The one big protest was the anti-abortion rally with the hypocritical teen girls leaving chalk grafitti behind. It's nice to see young people so dogmatic about an issue they haven't faced yet.
Free transport to the DNC Steve
Downtown Crossing had the LaRouche culties, who I suspect were paid workers, holding up signs. Of course, Boston had help tables with convention workers and MBTA employees assisting delegates and random people, like me. What I noticed was that there were more people shopping than usual on a weekday in Boston. Mostly because it was shut down.
La Rouche workers in Downtown Crossing Steve
I then got on the Orange line to Haymarket, which puts you off two blocks from North Station. For some reason, the distance was supposedly a hike, when it was a short walk, maybe five minutes. Bostonians and their directions. Then the security increased. There were cops in dumptrucks, used as barriers, along with concrete barriers. But the police presence wasn't heavy or obnoxious. They were cracking jokes in that wiseass way common in Boston. As I charged up my dying digital camera off of my laptop, I noticed delegates walking up and down the largely empty street.
Empty street near convention center Steve
A lot of women, young guys in ties and khakis. What I realized was that most of these people were the same kind of student government types you hated, if you had any sense, in high school. The same earnest faces, disconnected from brutal reality, willing to suck up to anyone willing help them. This doens't mean they're bad people, but they are not risk takers. After all, what kind of 25 year old wants to do politics. The kind that can't be trusted, of course.
The protesters were pretty ineffectual, mostly because their anger had been sapped. The delegates didn't have time for their fringy nonsense, the press didn't care, and the protesters were not serious.
However, I was impressed with Planned Parenthood's button and sticker effort. Young women, mostly the just out of college set, were walking around approaching everyone but me and handing them stuff. Only after I had left the area, did they hand me a sticker.
At the end of the street, there were three fat guys blathering about how great Bush was. This tall young woman started shouting, mostly to be heard, that her brother had served in Iraq. When she asked one of the clowns if he was a vet, he avoided the question, like all blowhards do. But it was an amazingly civil conversation. No one lost their cool, but then the girl had made her point.
Civil protest with fat, right wing wackos Steve
There something you should never forget about a convention, especially a Democratic convention, is that it really does look like America. The blacks and hispanics aren't tokens, and they aren't ignorant and poor. It is the American middle class in action. Rational, sane people, and very few of the Greens or hippies in action. Even the kids dress seriously. It is rote, to some degree, but it is also important, if no other reason, to remind ourselves of what democracy should be.
After spending an hour watching the people, I walked back towards Faneuil Hall. I was going to hop the train, but it was four blocks away, a distance any respectable New Yorker would walk. For some insane reason, the security increased. There was another clump of MP's, and ninja-suited SWAT of the state and federal variety. SWAT team guys sitting around looking bored. MP's lookig bored. On the way back, I walked by the Holocaust memorial, which is scary effective. Steam rises from the ground into five chiminies with the name of the five Nazi extermination camps. A family speaking Hebrew stopped by as I sat down. As memorials go, it's low key, even striking in its simplicity. You might even pass it by in search of a lobster dinner. But I noticed two gray haired white women dressed in black robes. They were Buddhists from the Pioneer Valley, and their vigil was touching, even if the delegates pretty much ignored it. They were people in a hurry, and these women were not.
Anonymous security goons shoving people out of the way so the famous could appear on Hardball. I did see Ron Reagan sitting on the set outside Qunicy Market wiht David Gergen, but by that time, I was wiped out and full from my lobster roll and chowder dinner. So I sat down. And delegates, two Naval officers and kids doing some more VR stuff were around.
The actual delegates were geeky, wonky, whatever adjective you want. The activists, especially the young ones, were energetic, well as energetic as one could be in what was a very calm, relaxed environment. The best shirt of the day was worn by these two girls, which said "Bitches Vote". As I walked to the State Street station to go home and catch the speeches, I saw even more MP's and as I turned down the block, there was a line of motorcycle cops standing around looking as bored as all the other cops, but without access to brownies and coffee like the Boston SWAT and federal cops.
My day ended, and loaded down with cheap books and loose leaf tea, I went back to my sister's place to struggle with the dial up and watching the speeches.
If I have any conclusions, I'll draw two personal ones and save the critque for Friday, when I've read more sites. One, I am so glad, and grateful I was able to walk around Boston. I've done politics and it so easy to get sucked in the machine, and not see what you need to see with your eyes. Th DNC want people focused in the hall, not outside it. They want you to stay in a cocoon of parties and events, and avoid the Boston people live in. It's just the latest stop on the campaign road show. Instead, I did what I knew I wanted to do, which is see the city beyond the Fleet Center. What surprised me was that I seem to be the only person bothering to do so.
The other is that Boston screwed up. They made people scared, shoved the locals away, bought into the Homeland Security trip and then lost money. Security, as I said before, is important. But, seeing bored cops eat brownies doesn't scare suicidal jihadis much. If this is the security state, it isn't going to make us very secure.
Troops? Egyptian troops? In Iraq? Why not ask us to help occupy the West Bank as well.When Mubarak is hung from a lamp post I'm sure his family will like Arizona just fine.
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2004; 3:57 PM
JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia, July 28 --In talks with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Saudi Arabia today proposed the creation of an Islamic force to help stabilize Iraq and potentially someday replace at least some of the U.S.-led military coalition, according to senior Arab diplomats here.
At a joint press conference with Powell, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal confirmed that the proposal is now on the table but refused to provide specifics until further discussions with Powell over a working dinner.
But a senior State Department official traveling with Powell reacted positively to the initial idea. "We're interested. It could be useful. We have to flush it out," he said. He described it as a "supplemental force."
The Saudi government also talked today with Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who is also visiting the kingdom, about the prospects for a new Islamic force. Saudi Arabia and Iraq agreed today to restore relations and reopen embassies in each other's capitals.
Saudi Arabia has been involved in behind-the-scenes diplomacy for at least two weeks exploring the possibility of a force from Muslim nations. Saud held talks recently with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in Vienna to discuss specifics. The current coalition of 31 countries has U.N. approval.
Although no countries have signed on, a senior Saudi official suggested that Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Bangladesh and Morocco are among strong possibilities. But no countries on Iraq's borders, including Saudi Arabia or Jordan, which already offered troops, would be included.
The Saudis have listed four conditions they want addressed to facilitate formation of a Muslim force, the senior Saudi envoy said. They include that the force would come under a U.N. umbrella; that it be formally invited by Iraq; that it would help replace some of the coalition troops; and that the United Nations would be in charge of the political process in Iraq, including elections.
Don't you love how the Saudis volunteer other Arabs to die in Iraq. Cute plan. Of course, the riots in those countries will make deployment impossible.
Well, of course there was a catch. Do you think our new, weak strongman would conceed power to the UN, and notice who isn't offering troops-Egypt. The largest and best trained Arab army, Given the Moroccan and Algerian records in killing their own people, well, they wouldn't be much help in establishing democracy.
So which Saudi gets kidnapped to make the point that doubling down on a losing hand isn't smart.
Hey, I say we volunteer French troops for the Sudan. Yeah, they South Africa, Holland and Norway will send troops, right? Well, that's what a little birdie told me in Washington the other day.
This is, of course, both desperate wishing by our Saudi friends, and yet another attempt to shine us on.
"Oh ifendi, we will send the men right away," they say in English, and the minute we leave the room. "Stupid infidels, they think we would die to protect the nonbelievers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA."
And if Iraqis will kill Pakistanis to make a point, do Algerians come in kidnapped, bulletproof and bomb proof versions? Because if they don't, they'll die just like 900 Americans have.
At least 68 people have been killed in a car bomb explosion outside a police station in Iraq, exactly one month after the transfer of sovereignty.
Witnesses said a suicide bomber drove a car into a crowded market area, as men queued to join the police.
Dozens of people were also injured in the morning attack in Baquba, 65km (40 miles) north-east of Baghdad.
More than 160 Iraqis have been killed in attacks since the interim Iraqi government took power on 28 June.
In other violence:
* seven Iraqi soldiers and 35 insurgents were killed in a joint multinational and Iraqi raid near the town of Suwariya, south of Baghdad
* two soldiers serving with multinational forces were killed in clashes with insurgents in Anbar province, the US military said
* eleven US soldiers were wounded and at least on Iraqi insurgent was killed in an attack on a US army camp outside Ramadi, west of the capital
* at least one person was killed in a rocket explosion on a busy street in Baghdad
* an Iraqi policeman was shot dead in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk
* on Tuesday night, one US soldier was killed and three wounded in a roadside bomb in Balad Ruz, north of Baghdad.
Burning wreckage
The latest attack was the worst since the 28 June transfer of power, and the bloodiest since a blast in the holy city of Najaf last August killed more than 80 people.
Among those killed in Wednesday's car bombing were 21 people travelling in a minibus, a health ministry official said.
BAQUBA ATTACKS
25 July - Clashes with police leave 13 insurgents dead
7 July - Car bomb during memorial service kills nine
27 June - Six national guards killed at checkpoint
26 June - Three die in grenade attack on political party offices
25 June - Three die in police station attack
24 June - 13 die in town amid co-ordinated blasts across Iraq
"I saw a car overtake a minibus and it slammed right into the queue of people," said Riad Abdul Latif, an internal affairs officer at the police station, who was 100m away when the bomb went off.
Police said young men had come to the police station to join the force. Because of the number of applicants, some had to queue outside.
Yeah, things are turning around in Iraq, for the worse. If this is what happens during the DNC, what happens next month?
One of the protestors near the Fleet Center. Note the dump truck behind him. All were manned by cops
. Steve
Before I get into exactly what I saw, I know you're all waiting with baited breath, I want to discuss the whole Republic of Fear installed in Boston this week. It is, without question, one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. There wasn't just security at the Fleet Center, but at the Cambridgeside Galleria for God's sake. Did they really think someone was going to blow up the nearly empty Sears on a Monday afternoon? What? Was a rampaging cell of AQ members from MIT going to rush over and start the jihad?
I know keeping Boston safe is not a joke. I remember seeing an F-15 fly right over Central Park on 9/11. Jen, who lived in downtown Brooklyn at the time, remembers seeing Blackhawks, Little Birds and Apaches over downtown Manhattan across the river. So security is no joke to me, and I understand the need for it. You can bet the Spanish wish they had better intel and security before March 11. But what is going on in Boston is silly, and as Kos said, security for show. In any other time, the city and state police would have been more than enough. But to not only bring in MP's, but Navy and Air Force personnel as well, without regard as to how they would act in a crisis. Imagine the scene if there was a shooting, not even terrorism, but just a knuclehead armed robbery. I would be scared shitless of being shot by teenaged MP's. Most cities don't arm their part time cops, yet hundreds of MP's are wandering around Boston, armed. They're nice kids, polite, well-meaning, but it will be a miracle if they don't overreact. One we should all pray for.
Not all of their precautions were stupid. Closing the highway and subway near the Fleet Center was sane and rational. All it would take is one stolen gas tanker or a few pipe bombs to kill a lot of people. It is reasonable and rational to prevent traffic near the Fleet Center.
But if I were an Afghan-trained jihadi, who was sucidially reckless, there are so many clumps of bullshitting, chatting, coffee drinking and brownie eating cops, I could make my point with a grenade and a Ruger Mini-14 in Copely Square or Boston Common. They aren't on patrol, they aren't checking people, they're chatting up fellow MP's, saying hello to other soldiers, planning how to spend their massive overtime on top of their 14 percent raise (Boston cops make $80K a year), that any serious people could wreak havoc.
They closed the second story of Faneuil Hall after five o'clock, which to me seemed, well, silly. What are they afraid of, Lee Harvey Oswald II blowing off the back of Chris Matthews head? Anyone with a nand grenade could get close enough to do that. Again, security for show. As was the fence around the building. What did they expect? A North Korean human wave attack?
By the time Delta (who is on call, as they are for all major national security events) arrives, the crazy jihadi has either fled or been killed. The question is how many civilians are shot by panicking cops and MP's in the process?
Security officials say that they are always doing things behind the scenes. Well, sure, but the massive display of force could have been toned down. AQ now stands poised to force the US to spend millions without cause over internet and cell phone traffic. It's more effective than 100 attacks. What better way to keep the country on edge, but with this constant fearmongering and hype. It's cheap ( the cost of a phone call or internet connection), it doesn't have any risk attached to this, and it doesn't expose what sleeper cells there and, oh yeah, AQ gets to see how US security for large events work. They can note the units deployed, how they're deployed and which attacks might work best. They can do this for years to come. And when they do finally strike, they know where the holes are and how to find them.
The Republic of Fear mentality created by Mayor Mennino is at it's height at the protest prison, protest cage, whatever. Not only is it literally a cage built around the North Street T stop, the speaker's stage faces the highway, behind a pillar. So when you enter, you can't see the speakers on stage. This is the most unsafe conditions for protest imaginable, except for carrying a Babe Ruth poster around Fenway in a Yankee jersey.
But you know why this condition exists? Because the protesters are not serious people. Serious people would not have tolerated this crap for 10 seconds. Despite the sometimes clownish demeanor, if Al Sharpton was leading a protest, that cage wouldn't have been a cage, because he would have shut the city down otherwise. The protestors are all theory protesters, the are enraged about things which don't affect their lives.
When I was in the protest cage, some woman was ranting about the Palestinians. And I knew instantly why I hated the ANSWER crowd. Because they are so fucking patronising. You have decent, concerned people, protest groupies looking for a new way to piss off their parents, and waspy anti-semites. But none are serious, not about protest, the Palestinians, or anything else which is more complex than Bush Lied.
While I don't want to divert the conversation, my point is that anyone who genuinely cared about the Palestinians would be as outraged about the endemic corruption in the PA as the occupation. Why does Arafat's family live in luxury in Paris while people live in slums in Gaza and Ramallah? Why does he control the police? Israel doesn't run these things. The PA does. And while I oppose the occupation, I am disgusted with the corruption and the resulting misery created by the PA. Running around, making anti-semitic statements doesn't make much difference if you're a Palestinian kid in the West Bank who just wants a job and a decent life for your family. It's easy for rich, white Americans to patronize these people, and use them as a cudgle in the fine tradition of WASP Jew hatred. Because if it was about more than that, they would decry corruption along with the occupation. Because if the PA is corrupt, the IDF will be replaced with an equally brutal, equally violent PA police and Army. And that means just exchanging bosses.
Serious people, like the fire widows and cops in New York, would never tolerate this kind of restriction. Forget free speech for a minute. Just the physical conditions are so dangerous, and so stupid, should have enraged the protestors to ignore it. As most are. Boston has 400 years of political activism. Restricting it to a cage shames not only Meninno and the city, but all of us. People need to check it out, walk around in it, describe it. Because it is wrong on its face and dangerous to boot.
It's nice to play protest, to march around and play anarchist, as long as you get to stay at Tuffs or Brandeis and keep your scholarship or have the 'rents pay the bills. But it isn't a joke in the West Bank, it isn't a cheap cause. It's people's lives. And while it may be cool to wear an "end the occupation" T-shirt, for most of these people, it's an ideological exercise, or a political temper tantrum. Which is why the tolerated the cage. And I give the anarchists credit. They may be rich kids, but they have heart and some brains, by refusing to participate in the protest prison. Unlike the ANSWER crowd, some of whom still think like undergrads,even at 50, at least these folks listened to their Harvard professors and know what free speech is. I think much of what they're doing is wasted motion, but at least they're doing something more than cheap sloganeering by challenging this nonsense.
In 1988, Bill Clinton gave the first big speech of his national political career, which I saw.
Without question, it was a disaster, like most things that year. Some Republican wag asked why Michael Dukakis was not part of the convention. Well, Michael Dukakis lied about his wife's sobriety when asked and the party never really forgave him. Kitty Dukakis was swilling cologne like a Russian tank driver. But Clinton's speech was like a turd in a punchbowl. It was truly awful, too long, too unfocused, too boring.
However, Barack Obama had better luck. If he were better known, the speech he gave would have been an excellent nominating speech for John Kerry. As it stands, it will serve as a template for Democrats to speak about any number of issues for years to come. Not only does the man drip charisma, he seems to have recovered the voice of the Democratic Party. He talked about money and faith in ways that the Democrats haven't in years.
I posted the text of the speech because it is something that should be read, not just talked about.
Speeches are funny things, they can do as much harm as good. I remember Pat Buchanan's KulturKampf speech in 1992, and the generally horrified reaction to it. Molly Ivins said that the speech "sounded better in the original German". As usual, she nailed it. It was an awful, Falangist kind of speech, the kind of thing which sounds better with an armband on at a rally.
Obama blew the room away. It was the kind of speech where you wish you were there to hear it. I wasn't and I wish I was.
I am rarely impressed by the poise and grace of a politician, because that IS their job. But Obama seems like a winner, such a winner that the Illinois GOP seems afraid of him. Is there no State Rep or Senator willing to risk a run? Scary. And if he has the presence of mind on the campaign trail he did tonight, well, that man is going places.
And as one of Atrios's posters noted, the man refuted Bill Cosby in an intelligent, but blunt, way. Oddly, because Obama is a man who had to find his black identity in the most unlikely and among coolest towards blacks places in America, Hawaii. His mother was white, his father Kenyan, his stepfather Indonesian. Yes, America makes anyone who is even partially black, black, but he seems to have found a black American identity some biracial people never grow completely comfortable with. He grew up literally outside of the black community. When he got to Columbia, he had to define himself.
Now, my family has someone who attended all of New York's major schools, except St. John's. Columbia was, by far, the least friendly towards blacks. Whereas Fordham was indifferent, and NYU not especially tense, Columbia, at least in the 80's, was. It wasn't Princeton icy, but it was a place you could feel uncomfortable. So young Mr. Obama had to make a conscious decision about who he would be. Which is no small deal, and it had to influence him at Harvard, which has a solid tradition of black scholarship (it was the one Ivy which readily accepted blacks as far back as the 19th Century).
Why does this matter?
Because his acceptance of being an American black is not small, not a minor detail. It isn't his heritage, it isn't how he grew up. He had to decide to accept it, and take no small abuse for not being like other blacks. He didn't have family in the South or eat their food, or learned their stories. He had to decide to do that. It's not like he could have said he was white, but he certainly didn't have to become a civil rights attorney in the most racially divided of America's large cities, Chicago. His wife is black, as well. Which means he was comfortable in his skin in a way some people, biracial or not, are never. And he was hammered for it when he ran against Bobby Rush, who may be an indifferent legislator, but is as much a hero in Chicago as John Lewis is in Atlanta. Rush survived being a Black Panther when they were about something and the Chicago PD executed them. Yet. Obama survived the slings of blackness against him and is now poised to head to the Senate, with no opposition, so far, an amazing story.
Yes, it was only a speech, but this is a guy who doesn't seem to take the easy way out of things, and that is a good sign in a person and a politician
Barack Obama speaking at the Democratic Convention in Boston
This is the full text of Barack Obama's speech before the DNC in Boston Tuesday night. It may be long, but before the legends start, people actually read what he said.
On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place: America, which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton's army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west in search of opportunity.
And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential. They are both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.
I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will he counted — or at least, most of the time.
This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.
Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never he the first option.
A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear-eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!
Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.
The man street leading to the Fleet Center. Imagine how a large protest would fill the street. At the end of this street and to the right is the protest cage. Steve
I didn't attend one breakfast, listen to one seminar, and definitely didn't go into the Fleet Center. What I'm reading from bloggers is exactly what I expected, which doesn't make me too happy. But, like I said, I expected the stargazing and note taking. Although it should cause people to judge the media a bit less harshly when it comes to reporting. We're all human and have the same foibles.
Let's establish two things, one no one gives a shit who you have lunch with, speeches you sit through, or where the media is. Two, people do care about real news.
What did I do with my day? Walk around Boston and Cambridge, do a little shopping, and oh yeah, saw how the security was and what delegates did.
My one bit of advice: GET OUT OF THE FUCKING HALL.
Because if you guys don't start telling people what happened, it's a waste of time. And don't come to New York and expect this level of handholding, because it won't exist.
Why am I irritated? Because I read the National Journal and found out only bloggers have decent wi-fi access. And it took the BBC to report how veteran political reporter Walter Means was laughed out of the room whem he said he was objective. Uh guys, that's something I want to read about. And not in the BBC, either.
If you guys hadn't been so impressed with your entry passes, you might have noted the insanely dangerous conditions for protest. The Protest Prison as the sign there called it, is one scary place. It was barely filled when the answer crowd did their apologia for the Palestinians, without noting that even the Palestinians are sick of the corruption of PA. If there is a large crowd, and things get wacky, people will get hurt. Oh yeah, the cops are perfectly poised to drop tear gas in that small area, with two narrow egress and entry points. If something goes wrong, people will get hurt, maybe trampled or killed. It is the most dangerous setting I have ever seen for a protest.
I was happy there wasn't a crowd there. Because the City of Boston was slick, they picked a place to limit protest and a place no delegate has to go to unless they want to. By setting up that pen, they limited protest better than a simple ban. By setting up a funnel to the protest prison they may have a secure area, they also have the potential for a bad riot.
There are a couple of things which you haven't seen in the news. First, the vibe in Boston, despite the complaining, is pretty chill. People are friendly, well as friendy as Boston gets, and despite the insane level of closures of the highways, the trains are still running effectively. They will make you get off at Haymarket, where you will have to walk two long blocks to where North Station is. In New York, the stations would never be so close.
I'll get deeper into my observations tomorrow night (I'm travelling early) and explain what I saw in detail, but the DNC couldn't have picked a friendlier environment for a convention. However, the security is pretty much a joke. There are all kinds of federal cops standing around buying brownies and checking out the girls. There are MP's at train stops, helicopters in the air, and when I looked up, an F-14 on patrol. It is not only fear-based overkill, it sucked in so many resources, it would make me nervous to take the train in Chicago or DC this week.
The abuse of security as fear meme is one that will have to be watched in New York. There are so many cops that you really have to wonder if they could be deployed elsewhere. When you see SWAT guys drinking coffee and chatting in groups, the whole security thing starts to seem stupid. Not that there aren't threats, but they shut down most of the local road net. Which is a major pain in the ass to the people who live here.
But, it's not as bad as they make it out to be, you can still move around the city with relative ease. But then, Bostonians like to be dramatic about such things.
"Isn't she a little young?" A new public service ad campaign in Virginia uses billboards and bar coasters to remind men that sex with a minor is against the law. But will it work?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Corrie Pikul
July 26, 2004 | The Rock Falls Tavern in Richmond, Va., is a typical neighborhood bar: There's pizza, a pool table and a regular after-work crowd. It's comfortable in its predictability -- which is why, when strange new postcards appeared in racks last week, patrons took notice.
"So when I saw my buddy going after this young girl," the postcards read in black type, printed above the address for the statutory rape section of the Virginia Department of Health's Web site, "I knew I couldn't just sit there. Isn't she a little young?"
The Tavern has allowed advertisers to offer postcards in the past -- but to sell a product, not dissuade men from pursuing underage girls. Chip Dell, the Tavern's general manager, who says he "doesn't allow people under the age of 21 into the bar area after 9 p.m.," has mixed feelings about the cards. "I agree with the sentiment behind them, but I don't know how effective they're going to be," he says. He just put out the cards about a week ago, but he's already received feedback from the regulars: "They mostly joke -- say things like, 'I need to send this to my buddy and make sure his wife gets it!' -- to get their buddy in trouble."
The postcards are part of a public awareness campaign sponsored by the Virginia Department of Health. Similar "Isn't she a little young?" messages will appear on 225,000 coasters, postcards and napkins in nearly 150 bars and retail stores in northern Virginia, Richmond and Roanoke. People who don't frequent bars like the Rock Falls Tavern or SJ's Lakeside Tavern on Lakeside Avenue will still have a chance to see the messages -- in giant type, on outdoor billboards in central and northern Virginia. The billboards -- which include the warning "Sex with a minor. Don't go there" -- will be up until the end of July; the bars will keep materials on hand until they run out.
Under Virginia's statutory rape laws it's illegal for an adult 18 or older to have sex with someone age 15 to 17 -- but the Virginia Department of Health isn't targeting the high school senior and her college boyfriend (although, for obvious reasons, the department can't actually say this). Nor is this campaign targeted at the other extreme of the spectrum: pedophiles or disturbed adults with sexual fetishes for young children. "We agreed that people who are going after children 12 and under are not going to be fazed by a billboard campaign," says Rebecca Odor, the Department of Health's director for violence prevention. (In Virginia, it's a felony for an adult to have a sexual relationship with a 13- or 14-year-old child.)
Rather, says Robert Franklin, the department's male-outreach coordinator for sexual violence prevention, who helped initiate the $85,000 campaign, "Our goal is to bring awareness to the issues of statutory rape and sexual coercion."
What really worries the Virginia Department of Health is teen pregnancy and how it relates to sex with minors, technically called statutory rape. "The push for the campaign came from seeing the numbers of teens becoming pregnant by older men," Franklin says. "The campaign is aimed at reducing the number of young girls who have had children fathered by older men."
"Statutory rape is a significant public health problem nationwide," says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. "A large percentage of births from young women can be from older men." He cites several studies, including a 1997 study that indicated that at least half of all babies born nationally to minor women were fathered by adult men. "The fact that Virginia is trying to do something about this is commendable," Benjamin says.
It is estimated that in 2000 the state of Virginia "had a total of 104 births to 14- and 15-year-olds that the age of the fathers would have made their engaging in sex a felony," Franklin says. (The number can only be estimated because just 28 percent of mothers age 14 to 15 reported the age of the baby's father.)
Salon ran a wonderful review of killed pieces later collected in a book, but the reason I'm talking about this instead, is because it is one of the least discussed public health issues in the US. Teenage girls rarely have children for boys their own age. Men my age, 39, are imprgnating girls as young as 14 or 15 years old. While Literotica doesn't run sex with minor stories, most sexual story sites as well as Usenet sex story groups do. They encourage both incest and sex with minors.
Most don't serve a day of jail time or even support their kids. So what you have is a culture where sex with teen girls is not only encouraged, but deemed acceptable "if she looks old enough". It's the same game played in college, where freshmen women suddenly have all these male suitors or why graduate students are found attractive by professors. Men maybe attracted to women for any number of reasons, but someone chasing a teenager is looking for sex.
But it's often not noted how teen girls actively seek these adult boyfriends. Older men have always had a cachet with young women, and not just teenagers. And a lot of parents turn their heads when their teen daughters take up with men five, even ten years older than they are.
This is a public health issue and people treat it as personal foible. Besides the psychological damage created when these older men abandon them, there is the issue of the higher risk when these teenagers give birth and the burden they create on their families and the state because these men will not support them.
It isn't really aquestion of sex or the age of consent laws, because as the article states, we aren't talking about college students, but kids who are sleeping with men.
Also, the abstinance campaign ignores this, by assuming teen girls sleep with teen boys and we have imperical proof to the contrary. A 25 year man screwing a 17 year old girl is not interested in abstinance or anything like it.
I'm a bit loopy from a two day going away party for my friend., who's moving to Miami with his wife, and while I'll miss him, the clear blue water and key lime pie is enough to make me understand why he moved. Of course, they got stupid drunk the first night, when I left early to pack, and the second night, to break down my computer. I wish I had taken a picture of Jen playing Big Buck Hunter II, because honestly, I was surprised she took to it. When you say kill Bambi or Rudolph, even as a game, most women recoil in horror. Not Jen. Her scores were better than mine and I'm not a bad shot.
But what I want to talk about is how times have changed. I've been online since 1996 as a writer, and the sea change was subtle, but serious. Blogs eliminated much of the technical aspects of running a website, and brought down the costs for production. So the emphasis shifted from design to content, as some of us predicted that it would.
The web has married print to timeliness. I can go online at any point ofthe day and publish a story. It's not hard. I'm sitting in my sister's living room, writing this, on a dial-up connection, listening to Radiohead's 2=2=5, which is a pretty intense anti-Bush song.
What I don't the media realizes is why the blogs have such power. And it's simple: ads. Kicking in money to websites is not a bad thing, I've asked for it, and I've done it. So I think it's a good thing. But it's important to have ad-supported sites. In fact, it's critical. Ads are reliable, or at least predictable, money. The more ad money we can raise, the fewer fundraising drives we have to do. And that's a good thing for everyone.
In my book, Henry Copeland, of blogads, will go down in internet history as the first honest ad broker, Instead of selling clicktrhoughs he allows site owners to sell demographics. And frankly, demos sell better than clickthroughs. Before him, ad brokers stole money and paid pennies on the dollar. Copeland does and 80-20, which is more than fair considering hehas to pay forther server technology to run the ads.
I don't think readers understand why being an ad supported site is so critical. when we did NetSlaves, we were desperate to be an ad supported site and we could never make that deal. In less than a year, I've made a fairly decent income from ads, raising the prices as the market gets better. But ads, if not steady, are predictable and that means you can run your site and make money to live on.
People debating over which ad Atrios or Kos or I (and that would be a short debate) take are missing the larger point. We are not political campaigns. If Fox News wants to buy space, let them, because they're directly supporting a website which opposes their world view. It's not an ideological test, but a matter of financial survival. And that is more important, by far and away.
While the news media fawns over the words, they don't get that the financial survival of the blogs is the real trick, along with the use of better tools. Anyone can go online, but not everyone can build a financially successful site and keep it going. Nora Ephron, who was a reporter before she was a director, was once asked about writer's block, and she said, she didn't have time for it, she had a deadline to meet. Do you know what a journalist with writer's block is called? An ex-journalist.
Blog writers now have contractual obligations to keep their sites up. I think there's also a moral obligation as well. I could write about the convention from the comfort of my DSL line and wireless network at home, but I feel a moral and financial obligation to spend at least one day in Boston. A lot of people would like to be here, but can't, for any number of reasons. It's not just publish when you're in the mood. There's money involved and that makes a different. Make no mistake, money is the seed which grows into blogs. It's not just campaigns which have benefited from the explosion of support from the left.
There's a post on Kos which amplies my point about what we're doing here in Boston. Besides, shopping and eating cheesesteaks. Part of it is learning how to cover live events, like the radically different GOP convention next month. Because there won't be much hand holding. I'm more than likely to not cover anything live because I think it will be dangerous to do so. But not from Al Qaeda. There are people who have real grievances against Bush and the GOP and they won't be nice about it. I expect gay groups out in force and none too happy, the same with cops. And the loudest and angriest group will be the workers poisioned at Ground Zero while the government lied, something the Soviets didn't do at Chernobyl.
But the media is going for the easy story and not the real one, which the first truly successful and commericially viable publications on the web. And they happen to be blogs.
The odd thing about all this talk about blogging by the mainstream media is that they don't get what we're doing.
Conventions, by their nature, are rote affairs, with predetermined outcomes. I can't say that I expect anything more than stargazing (wow, Ben Affleck is really tall, I didn't know Bill Richardson was so funny), because I think most of the bloggers are going to get overwhelmed by the press of news, if they don't have a journalism background. Some people will do well, but some, without training or a sense of how to cover an event, may be swamped by the convention.
But this is to be expected. And to be honest, this is a perfect training ground for people wanting to learn about the news. Sure, some of the folks going there will be fooled by this debate or that floor statement, and call that some kind of news story, but many will learn about what reporting is. I would hope those who want to blog news, and there are issues people, event people and protest people as well, had dug up the AP style book or a basic reporting guide. Why? Because while ignorance is bliss, being an amateur reporter is hard on the reporter and tiring for the subject.
If bloggers are going to learn how to cover a spot news event, this is the place and time, a relatively friendly event, lots of activity and a small city. Some folks will shine, some will not, but that's the way it is with news. Will we supplant the reporters? No. Because they will do what they do. Will there be a fresh voice for the news? Not really, because this isn't really a news event, so fresh is unlikely.
But, the reason people need to blog the DNC, and there are a lot more than 30 people going to cover this thing, is to learn what they can and cannot do. This is a good way to break into the big time of reporting on things and not just commenting on them. People shouldn't judge the DNC as a test of bloggers, per se, but a training experience, one hopes more like Taranto than Dieppe. There are a lot of smart, thoughtful people blogging, but few who have ever covered spot news.
Why?
Because the RNC will be serious business. There won't be time to learn and to figure things out. I expect serious confrontations and some open hostility to the RNC and their delegates. People will have to know what kind of risk they feel comfortable with, and things they can deal with. I wouldn't send any inexperienced people into New York's streets in August. It won't be smiles and pats on the back.
My approach to this is I will spend a day watching the circus, and then use the TV to start to discuss policy issues. I couldn't take four days of this stuff, but I owe all you kind people something more than what you can read on the news. Besides, I want to get some outlet clothes and cheap lobster.:) Hey, it's $10 on the bus each way. It's more expensive to go to the Hamptons.
I don't know how I'll handle New York yet, but I expect violence on a serious scale. From the cops and fire widows, to be honest, who will be protesting en masse.
Here are Steve's simple rules for blogging the DNC:
1) Remember, you are a witness, not a reporter. Don't pretend to be one, don't try to use press facilities, and tell people who you are up front. They have an absolute right not to talk to you or assist you.
2) Do not ignore police instructions or argue with the cops. You do not have a press pass, unless you have one. And if you don't, you may well be arrested if you go where cops tell you not to go.
3)Self-survival comes before all else. At the first sign of trouble, run, get on a bus or train, get away from the scene as fast as you can. Whether an unlikely terrorist attack or cops beating anarchists silly, run from trouble to a safe area. This is no game. Reporters have expensive lawyers to help them. You will not.
4)Study maps, study train routes, so you know where you're going. Even take a digital picture of the place you get out of, so you can find your way back. You do not want to be lost in a strange city.
5)Always be polite when dealing with anyone. Always.
6)BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WRITE. Libel suits are expensive, so if you see a delegate you know from home with what you think is a hooker, don't use his name unless you know she's a sex worker. You can say a lot, but if you have questions, google libel law and see where it falls.
7)Be honest. Don't alter events to make them more exciting. I know people are going to be excited, instead of world weary like me:). Don't make little things big, unless they are big. A delegation threatening to walk out is not big, it could be a political tactic. Walking out, that's big. The same with comments. There will be a lot of hanger ons, people who will intimate access they do not have. If you hear something weird, check it out before you run it. People will try to play you, for their own goals, for their candidates, to get hype for their career. Be careful, and trust your instincts. Don't do stuff that other people want you to do. Say no and mean it.
8)Have fun. You're a blogger, not a reporter. Much of what will happen will happen on TV. If you want to go shopping, or see Harvard, do it. You're probably not being paid. So you work as hard and as long as you want, then stop. You'll have days of work, and you aren't on deadline. Relax, and use the blog to your advantage, you can post that biting commentary from Starbucks as well as the press center. So don't think you have to follow all the press rules.
Artists and Activists United for Peace, a black and Latino public-action group, plans to express its displeasure with the First Daughter at a rally on Sept. 2, during the Republican National Convention.
"We don't think she is of a high enough moral character to teach school, considering her past adventures," said group organizer John Penley. "Her taking this job is keeping a black person from getting the job. We think she and her sister should enlist in the military."
Past adventures including two alleged abortions, an arrest for underage drinking, getting high with Ashton Kutcher, and swanning around the South of France drinking $250 bottles of vodka.
So why is she fit to teach black children in Harlem?
While some folks may say it's not fair to pick on the poor girl, it's not like she's going to Oxford and gets hired by McKinsey. She's what the boys call a frat ho, and the Secret Service allegedly had to clean up behind her partying ways. Not that her sister is much better. If Jenna Bush wasn't the daughter of the president, she'd be someone the frat guys in Austin would avoid on the street when they got real jobs at the lege or in government.
"Oh, that Jenna?" "Dude, everybody at UT hit that, everybody".
I don't know if her taking a job is keeping a black person from getting it, we seem to have such a shortage of teachers, they import them from Austria. But I do know it's a nice way to remind people of Bush's family values in practice, instead of theory. And in practice, people seem to think his daughters are trampy.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't have sex, or that drinking is a sin, but if your father was president, wouldn't you try to act with a little dignity?
This is a compilation of the tips from the earlier Boston post, with some useful links at the end. Thanks everyone who commented. I hope this makes sense.
Restaurants:
Wilson's Diner on (507) Main Street in Waltham. Sure, that means you can't walk there, but if you have access to a car, it's 20 minutes tops, and it's really, really good, and cheap. That's my two cents. Have a good time.
I've worked in Waltham for five years and lived there for three (just moved at the beginning of the month). If you want to go to Wilsons (highly recommended, Bill Griffith even drew it), but have no car, you can take the Fitchburg line out to Waltham and walk about 5 minutes to it. Although you'll have to take the train from Porter Sq. because North Station is closed.
Dinner at Delux (a small bar two or three blocks south of Copley Square, on Clarendon). Best damned pub food I have had anywhere in the country. Best kept secret in the city.
Try coming across the river to Cambridge- it's walkable from the Fleet Center and everything is within walking distance of the Red Line. Central Square has some of the best food in greater Boston, especially if you like Indian or Chinese. Mary Chung's is celebrated all over for their spicy wonton soup, called Suan La Chow Show. Over in Inman square there's Dali, which has the best tapas and Spanish food I've ever seen. Harvard Square has some good stuff, but Central is less expensive and crowded.
There's a good diner on South Street. From South Station go South on Atlantic and turn right onto Kneeland. The South Street Diner is one (short) block up. It's open 24 hours, the food is decent, cheap, and they have alcohol. There's also Mul's Diner on Broadway between A and B streets. That one's not open late though.
The Legal Seafood on Long Wharf is better than any of the other ones in the city. It's also the only one where you can sit outside.
The north end shouldn't be hard to get to. The subway stop at Haymarket will be open, or if you're downtown/Faneuil Hall just walk north on Congress St to North St or Sudbury. Remember the highway isn't there anymore so it's easy to walk there now.
Not sure if you know, but most of the food stalls in Quincy Market are outposts of real restaurants. So if you see something you like, chances are there's a sit down version of it somewhere. For example, the Indian place there is the Bombay Club, which was (and is) a restaurant in Harvard Square.
Durgan Park prime rib. Absolutely delish. Your cholesterol numbers go up by 30 points just looking at it.
The original restaurant, at Haymarket. The others are pale copies.
The waitresses there are a trip too. Two traditions:
* No trays. They stack the plates down their arm.
* Rudeness, or more accurately brusqueness. I know of someone who got fired from being too polite.
I was there once, and my father was suggesting the (very good) Indian Pudding for dessert, and she said, "You don't want that KAKA, get the Strawberry Shortcake." (Yes, she really said KaKa)
I think that she had been told to push the shortcake that day.
My Wife, who eats Dairy in non Kosher restaurants, has had the fish there, Scrod I think, and she thought that it was great too.
Good raw bar too.
The Union Oyster Bar
1) Skipjack's (in Copley Square, always fresh, good value) 2) East Ocean City (in Chinatown, Chinese seafood from the tank, very good value)
Also in the Back Bay there is:
o Stephanie's (Newbury and Exeter, a bit pricey, but good comfort food) o L'Espalier (Gloucestery and Comm Ave, prix fixe, very pricey, but divine!)
If you're looking for something a bit more off the beaten path, though, come to my neighborhood--Davis Square in Somerville! We have great nightlife (Brave Combo is playing at Johnny D's during the convention, and you can also get a tasty meal there), plenty of good restaurants--2 good Indian, including Diva, one of the best in the area; cheap Chinese; even cheaper but *good* burritos at Anna's and Picante; a new Tibetan place that's tiny but very good; Irish bar-type food; a good creperie; an Asian fusion place further down Elm St; Redbones BBQ (the pecan pie is to die for!); Tu y Yo, good Mexican "home cooking" in Powderhouse Sq. nearby; and Soundbites, server of the best damn breakfast in town, up on Broadway in Ball Square--another Buck A Book *and* McIntyre & bMoore, a good used bookstore, several nifty coffee houses (forget Charbucks--try the Someday Cafe, Carberry's--which has the best pastries--or, my favorite, the Diesel Cafe, owned and operated by honest to God diesel dykes and a great place to hang out), a good cheap movie theater, some interesting stores, an Italian grocery, 2 secondhand music stores...oh, hell, I know I'm forgetting things, but West Somerville in general is lots of fun and a great place to hang out. Oh, and word to the wise: Everything at Mary Chung's is either bland or incendiary, and the Suan la Chow Show is particularly the latter...you'll definitely be wanting some ice cream at Toscanini's down the street afterwards to sooth your seared taste buds. Also, Dim Sum at either Grand Chow Show or China Pearl is not to be missed (but not for the faint of heart, if you don't know what to expect).
The only thing I can add to this is that the Café Dello Sport (North End, of course) is the only place so far in the USA where I've been able to get a real Italian espresso. They even spoke Italian there!
Boston is probably one of the most European cities in the States as far as attitudes go. If you go in with a Roman, Parisian or Berliner attitude, you'll get along fine.
Strangely enough, Boston has one of the best Mexican restaurants in the U.S.--Casa Romero--not Tex-Mex, but Mexico City cuisine (i.e., gournet, with evidence of the French influence from the time of Maximillian). Love their Chicken Mole!
Also, it's in an alley off of Glouster Street. You really have to look for it to find it, but it's well worth the trouble!
I recommend checking out two excellent BBQ joints: Blue Ribbon, in Arlington (you'd have to drive there), and Redbones, in Sommerville (take red line to Davis). Blue Ribbon is great, but they have no liquor license. Redbones is quite good too.
Boston Pizza:
As I recall, the pizza in Indianapolis was worse than in Boston, but not by much.
I have a theory that good pizza (at least what a New Yorker considers good pizza) only exists in the area that lies within 75 miles of a line drawn between Philadelphia and New York City.
By the way, the worst pizza I've ever had was in London. Israel had the second worst.
My favorite was pizza is served up at V&T's on Amsterdamn Ave in NYC, a couple blocks south of Columbia U. My second favorite is at Town Spa in Stoughton, MA, about 20 minutes south of Boston. Town Spa pizza is nothing like V&T's, but it's the best pizza in the South Shore where I grew up.
Also, if you think Boston pizza is bad, you clearly have never been to the Rondonia state in Brazil. No sauce, bad cheese, and they put crap like grapes and corn on it. *shudder*
Nah, pizza in PA sucks too (If you really want a laugh order a meatball hero, they come with pickles on). NY's superior pizza and bagels are because of the water. Where I live in downstate NY, we have city water, east of here they have well water. Any bread products in my vicinity are top shelf, east of here they suck donkey balls.
I know of some good pizza places in Cambridge & JP but in general you're right, it's crap compared to NY pizza.
Travel:
Not sure why North Station being closed and Cambrige Galleria are tied together (or maybe they aren't), but you can get there via a shuttle from Kendall Square if memory serves. Or just walk, it's about 10 minutes.
I live in Waltham too, and it's not at all a long trip into Boston either by train or car. Except during the convention, when the train will stop at Porter Square and the cars will stop everywhere. In addition to the diner, there are lots of good restaurants and pubs, including the Burren's sister pub, the Skellig, on Moody Street.I live in Waltham too, and it's not at all a long trip into Boston either by train or car. Except during the convention, when the train will stop at Porter Square and the cars will stop everywhere. In addition to the diner, there are lots of good restaurants and pubs, including the Burren's sister pub, the Skellig, on Moody Street.
The green line is completely closed past north station anyway, due to replacing the el with a subway. Shuttle buses run from Gov't Center to Lechmere. Probably will be a nightmare so the shuttle from Kendall is definitely your best bet. There's another very nice mall in the Prudential center if you'd rather.
If you want to go to Revere Beach, the blue line won't be affected by the convention, other than being more crowded than normal
Things to do:
Hey Steve - I'm a Boston local, and I really appreciate the effort you've put in so far. I have mixed feelings about what they've done to my city (Fortress Bostonia); however, it'll be cool to get a lot of folks out here to see what a great city we have. I especially look forward to reading all you bloggers' impressions.
Boston Harbour Tour - I don't recommend tours in general, and most of the ones here in Boston are downright embarrassing (quack quack). That said, the Boston Harbour tour is a whole different story. It's awesome. Of course, it'll eat up two/three hours or so, and they may not even be doing it during the convention. But if they are, think about it.
Open Mic at The Burren, Tuesdays. Ok, whatever - I think it's cool. It's at the Davis Square stop on the Red Line. Good bar, the crowd gets really into it (and it's a good crowd too - ranges from 20-somethings to 40-somethings), some guys suck, others are awesome. I myself play there now & then. Good place to take relatives who want to go out but don't want to just sit & drink.
For bars, there's always interesting crowds at the Middle East, Phoenix Landing in Central, the B Side Lounge in Kendall, Charlies in Harvard Square, and Cambridge Common between Harvard and Porter.
Bar inside Faneuil Hall
I've always had enough to do in Cambridge, so I rarely go to Boston, but check out Newbury street for fancy shops and restaurants, and Landsdowne St. for nightclubs like Avalon and Axis. Jillians is a multi-level arcade/billiards/bar type place that can be fun in rare, small doses.
I'll be around and looking for trouble during the convention - if anyone wants a travel guide or a drinking partner, send me an email ...
It's the mad photographer again...The Gap that was in Downtown Crossing is gone now (replaced by some sneaker store or another), but the Eddie Bauer is still there. They've just totally renovated the Opera House, and _The Lion King_ is now playing there (good luck getting tickets...)--apparently they did a HELL of a job on the building, because it was about to fall in a few years back. There's a Buck A Book on Franklin St. near Downtown Crossing, and one on Court St./State St. just off Government Center, plus the aforementioned Borders and Barnes & Noble. The Holocaust Memorial is near Fanueil Hall/Quincy Market, across from some of the big "meet market" bars in the neighborhood and is very moving; the Irish Famine memorial in front of the Borders far less so, IMNSHO (and I'm part Irish!)--it strikes me as both mawkish and condescending (the family striding away from the poor starving wretches doesn't look determined as much as snotty); the one on Cambridge Common is much better. Don't bother with Kenmore Square unless you're going to either Fenway Park or one of the establishments on Landsdown St.--all the neat old stores/restaurants/etc. have been bulldozed and replaced by the Hotel Commonwealth, aka the John Silber Phallic Symbol and Monument to Megalomania (yes, I know it's not particularly phallic-looking, but considering that it's basically his goddamn fault that MA has had Republican Governors since 1990, and he's an asshole on a world-class scale, I'm not inclined to be charitable). If you like "alternative" entertainment, try Central Square in Cambridge--you've got the Middle East (upstairs and downstairs), Zuzu's (part of the Middle East complex) and T.T. the Bear's Place for music, and Man Ray just down the street for the goth/fetish crowd (although Thursday night is Campus, the gay night)--the latter has a very strict dress code, though (no sneakers, baseball hats, flannels, polo shirts--basically, wear all black and don't act like an asshole frat boy; they have the code to keep such types from harassing the regulars and assaulting the "sexy death chicks" in attendance, so while it's annoying it's understandable), so be warned.
For random cheap books, try the Brattle Book Shop, it's right in downtown crossing. Lots and lots of books from $1-$5, new and used. West St is right on the other side of Washington St from the Eddie Bauer outlet. The bookstore is just up on the right.
The Old Corner Bookstore. Has New England books, and more importantly, internet access for a minimal fee.
Links
Boston.com-The Boston Globe website with a ton of useful links
July 23 - A 20-year-old Rensselaer County soldier accused of desertion from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum has been taken into military custody.
The Army says Pvt. Anthony J. Wirmusky, of Hoosick Falls, received permission for emergency leave while he and his unit were stationed in Afghanistan, and then did not return to his base.
............
Sgt. Cain Claxton says Fort Drum has seen 645 warrants for desertion issued since Sept. 11, 2001.
Hmm, sounds like 1970 to me. There may be thousands of potential deserters fleeing the Army, and they're trying to hide the scandal. This is being hidden from the press and probably Congress as well.
This is from the Memory Hole, the website which asks uncomfortable questions via the Freedom of Information Act
My Freedom of Information Act request regarding deserters yielded the following documents from the US Army.
First is a PowerPoint presentation using data from fiscal year 1997 to May 2003. The two-page document is here, or you can view both pages as images below.
Second is an Army information paper regarding deserters. It's available as the original Word document here, and as text at the bottom of this page.
The numbers indicate that 22,000 deserted the Army since 1997, but that's a relatively small number. What Drum's numbers indicate is an increasing pace of desertion from combat units and is becoming a problem. Add in a third tour, and these numbers will explode.
DETROIT - President Bush acknowledged on Friday that "the Republican Party has got a lot of work to do" to gain the support of black voters and suggested that the Democratic Party is taking them for granted.
"I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote," the president told the National Urban League. "But do they earn it and do they deserve it?"
Bush's remarks came as a new poll showed overwhelming support for John Kerry among black voters. The poll also showed blacks have yet to entirely warm up to the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The president's speech followed his refusal to address the NAACP, whose chairman, Julian Bond, has condemned the administration's policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq and has urged high black voter turnout to defeat Bush.
Bush pointed to the fact that blacks such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell are key members of his administration. To periodic smatterings of applause from the black audience, he asserted that his prescription of tax relief, education reform and compassionate conservatism is doing far more than the traditional programs of Democrats to address the nation's ills that hit particularly hard at blacks.
"Has class warfare or higher taxes ever created decent jobs in the inner city?" Bush asked. "Are you satisfied with the same answers on crime, excuses for drugs and blindness to the problem of the family?"
He invited blacks to "take a look at my agenda" of boosting small businesses, demanding high standards in the nation's public schools and defending "the institutions of marriage and family."
He proposed an initiative that seeks to expand business ownership among minorities by creating one-stop centers for business training, counseling, financing and contracting.
"Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party?" the president asked. "How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?"
Bush drew on a line from a former Illinois state legislator who once said, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant," references to the symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.
Repeating a line that is part of his stump speech to Republican crowds, Bush declared, "I'm here to ask for your vote." The line drew weak applause from the Urban League audience.
"I know, I know, I know," Bush added. "The Republican Party has got a lot of work to do. I understand that," prompting laughter and louder applause and apparently provoking a vigorous nod of the head from the Rev. Jesse Jackson who was sitting in the crowd.
"You didn't need to nod your head that hard, Jesse," Bush said, triggering more laughter.
After the speech, Jackson said that Bush "has done some gestures, but he talked to us, not with us."
Want some advice? Stop getting black kids killed in Iraq. Otherwise......
Well, he's always got his "wife" Condi to guide him. Uh, why won't the GOP admit the simple fact that they are the party of racists. Now I know some little Uncle Tom on the White House staff fed him those lines, but it's a joke. If this was a colorblind America, Herman Cain and Vernon Robinson wouldn't have wound up with 20-25 percent of the vote after polls showing them winning or running even with white opponensts. White Republicans don't vote for black candidates.
To start with, look at how Colin Powell has been treated by Bush. As a local paper put it: the most powerful black man in government but the weakest secretary of state in modern history. I would say William Rogers was, but the point is that Powell is outside the loop, so outside it isn't funny. He's been disrespected in every way imaginable for a man of his rank and stature. While many blacks disagree with him, he is accorded a great deal of respect, while Rice is sneered at as a Bush lackey.
The idea that Bush could insult the NAACP and then shuck and jive with the Urban League is a joke. You can't dis one and then court the other. They are all related. Don't kick my brother and then ask me for a favor.
The GOP acts like black people are the enemy, even those who try to work with them. Tales of disrespect by GOP politicos towards blacks is common and well-known. So when Bush talks about trusting him, he's either kidding or a fool.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon on Friday released newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, though the records shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer.
A Pentagon official said the earlier contention that the records were destroyed was an ``inadvertent oversight.''
Like records released earlier by the White House, the newly released computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months.
The records do not give any new information toward determining whether Bush kept his National Guard commitments during 1972, when he transferred to the Alabama National Guard unit so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush kept his service commitments, pointing to the fact that Bush was honorably discharged in 1973.
The release came days before Democrats began their national convention in Boston to officially nominate Sen. John Kerry as their presidential candidate. Military veterans are being tapped at the convention to help tell Kerry's story as he prepares to accept the party's nomination next week.
..................
Bush had transferred to an Alabama National Guard unit while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.
The Pentagon had said that the payroll records for that time period had been inadvertently destroyed.
``Previous attempts to locate the missing records at the Federal Records Center had been unsuccessful due to the incorrect records accession numbers provided,'' the Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information chief C.Y. Talbott said in a letter Friday to The Associated Press.
I guess the dog didn't eat his homework. But as per usual in politics, this tidbit was dumped not only on a Friday, but a travel day for most of the political reporters covering US politics. So it won't get massive attention. I'm surprised they didn't release it yesterday, as they did the allegations of 94, non-systemic, individual acts of torture by US troops in Iraq and Afghanstan. Uh, how can 94 seperate acts of torture not indicate a systemic problem?
And how could George Bush miss eight months of Guard duty and not both lose rank and be forced on active duty? And then how did he get an honorable discharge?
Bush's military service is rife with favoritism, excemption and a failure to serve which is astounding, even for 1973. And they want to debate Kerry's medals? Let's debate how you could A) Get taken off flight status B) Be transfered to another unit and never show up C) Get an honorable discharge. Like every other aspect of his life, he was cushioned through the military, and allowed to escape when other people would have been punished. He was apparently UA for eight months. I think if you showed up, you might have complained about the missing checks after a month or two. That's the thing the media has never asked: didn't you miss the money? Why is there no record of your requesting back pay?
Here's the thing, if Bush was attending meetings and not paid for eight months, there would have been a letter, a note, something, saying "Hey finance, I'm not getting paid". Yet there is no such document and no such recollection from the President and his defenders. You can bet the eagle shat for Kerry and his crew every month. So why was Bush's consitpated for eight months with no complaints. Even if he didn't need the money, he might have wanted to get paid for his service.
Everyone is looking for the records instead of the fact that Bush didn't collect his paychecks. Which is a lot more interesting than it seems. I don't know anyone who gives away money they allegedly worked for
Editor's note: Sgt. Jeremy A. Clawson and fellow soldiers with the Kansas Army National Guard's 105th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment have been deployed to Afghanistan from Fort Riley as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Clawson's column appears on the third Saturday of the month, with the next publication on Aug. 14.
This column was reviewed by Clawson's commanding officer and a representative of the Kansas National Guard in Topeka before it was submitted to The Topeka Capital-Journal.
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The evening meal in the dining tent was quieter than usual the day Cpl. David Fraise was killed. Soldiers traversed the gravel roads on Kandahar Air Field a bit slower. Everyone talked softly or remained silent, jaws clenched. The camp had been punched in the gut.
A roadside bomb destroyed Fraise's armored Humvee that afternoon, wounding two other soldiers and taking his life. For Company A, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, this was its first casualty. The unit recently returned from Operation Blue Candle -- a week of missions disrupting the efforts of the Taliban -- which concluded without incident.
I covered Company A, 1st and 3rd platoons, during Blue Candle, but Fraise belonged to 2nd Platoon, which was attached to another unit north of Kandahar. I didn't know Fraise, but I had met his friends. I had interviewed his commander and talked with soldiers who knew him. I felt connected somehow, even if obscurely.
Because I am not part of their unit -- I am in the National Guard and in public affairs -- I didn't know my place. Should I tell that story? Should I take pictures? Would I be intruding?
After the unit sent Fraise's body home, they held a memorial service at the main chapel on camp.
I attended the service, but I hadn't been tasked with covering it as a public affairs event. I took my camera though and asked the battalion leadership if they would like me to take photos.
As soldiers continued to file into the Kandahar Air Field Chapel, I talked with the battalion command sergeant major. He stood close, put his hand on my shoulder and squeezed gently. I asked him what he would like from me and who the audience for the photos would be.
"I'm glad you came. We want something nice for the widow. We want to show her we honored her husband, that we did it properly. This is for her," he said. "Take what you need to take to make that happen
Notice the patch on the first man's shoulder, it's from the 3ID, which means he's already served a year tour in Iraq. When he joined the 25th ID in Hawaii, you can bet he didn't think he'd be going to Afghanistan. Oh yeah, a brigade of the division, normally assigned to support the 2nd ID in Korea, is also in Iraq.
It would hurt less if we weren't turning Afghanistan into some kind of feudal warlord run nightmare.
Neverending war gets soldiers killed or drives them crazy. In WWII,the average time in the line was about 30 days. In Vietnam, maybe half of the tour was spent in actual contact or threat of contact with the enemy. Now, a soldier could spend two full years out of three in combat. Fewer men, higher risks.
At the speed of blog After a Republican congressman resigned unexpectedly, a lefty blogger called for readers to send money to his opponent -- and the cash poured in.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo
July 23, 2004 | On Monday afternoon, July 19, Stephen Yellin, a 16-year-old politics junkie and frequent contributor to the lefty blog Daily Kos, noticed an intriguing development in Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, an area to the north of Philadelphia. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call was reporting that Jim Greenwood, the district's popular, moderate Republican congressman, had unexpectedly decided not to seek reelection, meaning that his House seat was now up for grabs. This is the sort of news that sets partisans like Yellin jumping for joy, and so, of course, he blogged about it.
"I would suggest that we get involved ASAP," Yellin, who goes by the handle MrLiberal on Daily Kos, wrote. Virginia "Ginny" Schrader, the Democrat running for the open seat, "supports civil unions and is against Bush's positions on Iraq and the Patriot Act," he noted approvingly. But she was woefully low on cash -- as of June 30, Schrader had only $7,000 in the bank. Yellin implored Daily Kos' politically obsessed readers to change that situation: "This is completely out of left field, folks, and it gives us another opportunity for a pickup," he wrote. "Ginny Schrader is the luckiest candidate in the nation today, but can her luck hold?"
What happened next was beyond anything that Yellin had expected. Hundreds of people began pitching in, documenting their small donations in the comments threads of Daily Kos and other blogs: "$25.01 coming from me." "$30.01 from me too." "Yeah, this liberal kicked in $20.01." (Daily Kos readers add in the extra penny as a kind of signature for the site, letting a campaign know where the money's coming from.) The tide came in for at least two full days, and when it was over, Ginny Schrader, a candidate who was recently unknown to even the most obsessive campaign watchers, found herself flush with more than $30,000. She was suddenly a political force to contend with.
Thanks to blogs and the Internet, we now live in an age when news can be translated into action -- into money -- in no more than the time that it takes to post a paragraph online. What happened to Schrader was not novel; it's a phenomenon we've seen dozens of times in the past year, ever since Howard Dean put himself on the map with an extraordinary day of fundraising last summer: It starts with a small, hopeful appeal posted on a blog, something short and sweet and inspirational. And then, out of nowhere, the money starts pouring in. Loads of money -- more money than anyone involved in the process had ever dreamed of. In his one-day push last June, Dean raised more than $800,000, a trick he repeated several times during his presidential campaign. In a two-week period in January, readers of blogs sent $80,000 to Ben Chandler, a Kentucky Democrat running for Congress. Stephanie Herseth, running for South Dakota's House seat, saw similar unexpected money spikes during her campaign this spring
First, it's not only a Daily Kos, but internet fundraising thing, to let people know it came from the net, and it started with Howard Dean.
The thing is that it isn't as simple as just gving Ginny Schrader, who was making a nominal run for the seat into a real contender, money. People who sized up the situation saw that Schrader had a chance to win the seat while the GOP had to scramble to find a new candidate with under 120 days before the election. And the district was liberal enough to elect her.
There was a fairly sophisticated assement of her chances made within minutes. And that's not even the interesting part of the story. What I found far more interesting, and important was that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and their online contact person, Jesse Lee, was innundated with demands that he bring the DCCC around to support her.
Look, raising money online isn't that hard. This laptop comes from online donations. What is far more important is that the once obscure, if important, DCCC, could be placed under pressure, not by large funbdraisers, not by Congress members, but by ordinary citizens, most of whom have never been to Schrader's district. They were suddenly, publicly, accountable for their actions. And the suspicion was thick in the air that they were going to screw her over.
And because the fundraising base of the Democratic Party has shifted from liberal corporations and lawyers to the general public, the DCCC couldn't ignore them. The people, in this case a few hundred bloggers and their readers, had to be listened to.
It's the biggest unreported story of the campaign. Not the fundraising online, but the connection between the people and the party. There isn't a day where Terry McAuliffe isn't getting e-mail from party activists, regular people and political pros. He's got a lot of voices in his head. Now he can't listen to them all, but he has to listen to some of them, and the people they back, like Howard Dean.
Bush/Cheney, or as I like to call them Sauron/Gollum, flood my e-mail with crap, but it's all top down. Not cross communications.
The reason John Kerry announced his choice of VP online wasn't just a gimmick, but a real response to the people contacting his campaign. You could say Joe Trippi was right, and I think he is, but even he doesn't see the scale of this thing. What the net is doing is more than just allowing people to participate, but demanding accountability from people.
F9/11 should be called the bloggers movie, because it relied heavily on themes pushed in blogs for years. There is no way Moore couldn't read blogs after seeing that film. He picked up on their central themes and used them in a very clever, thoughtful way. Blogs tend to be fragmentary, Moore took them and gave them a coherence the daily news usually doesn't have.
This is the beginning of a sea change in the way that politics are done in this country. Not just because a Congressional candidate got a lot of money, but because that money was quickly followed by a demand for support from across the United States within hours.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT)
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The U.S. Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can Be," but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including breast enlargements, on the taxpayers' dime.
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills.
"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio told the magazine, which said soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off.
On one hand, the Army has a desperate need to train plastic surgeons. On the other, it doesn't get much sleazier or more desperate. Breast implants on the taxpayer dime.
Oh, yeah, you have to avoid Iraq and not get killed there or in Afghanistan or not get your face burned off to take advantage of this. Jen sent this to me, outraged. But then, she has no motivation to join the Army.
I'm not outraged. Not that I like fake tits, I don't. But where I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused.
Going down to Boston, have myself a time, surly faces everywhere, grumpy folks with plenty of temptations...
Boston is a nice looking place, it really is. One of the nicest places in the US, actually. Although the people are rude, ruder than New Yorkers.
Since my sisters live in the Boston area, I'm fairly familiar with the area. I know that D'Aneglos across the street from Boston Commons makes interesting sandwiches, that the Brueggers down the block makes tolerable bagels and the food court near Downtown Crossing is scary bad. The thing about Boston is that the food is wildly uneven, unless you like donuts and coffee.
One of the secrets of Boston is that you can get a good cheesesteak there. They even sell them in South Station with cheez wiz. I like the wiz myself.
But the thing about my take on Boston is that I think the mall food, especially at Quincy Market/Faneuil Hall, is among the best I've ever had, including Inner Harbor in Baltimore. It's the only place I know where you can get cheap lobster, chowder and a fresh, from the brewery, Sam Adams in what is really a mall food court.
Even South Station has good food. Compared to the schlock they serve at Penn Station (excluding cold Krispy Kremes) it's at least interesting, if you like sausages and cheeseteaks.
Now, if there is an upside to Boston, it's seafood. In New York, seafood can be uneven to get and the number of places I'll eat raw bar are few and far between. You just can't trust any raw oyster, you know, unless you like bloody vomiting.
But Boston is different. Seafood is cheap and easy to get.
How easy?
Walk into any Stop and Shop or Star Market and get fresh lobsters from the tank, in seafood cases brimming with shrimp, shellfish and fish. Then there is Legal Seafood Clam Chowder. Now, most of Legal's food isn't that great, and isn't that cheap, at least that was Jen's argument, I've only had the clam chowder and shrimp there for lunch at Copley Square.
Then there's John Harvard brew pub, across from Harvard Yard, which I remember laughing at when I was 18 and checking out colleges. I did buy a Harvard shirt from the Coop (the Harvard book-everything store). The beer is pretty good, and I liked the hash and eggs I had there.
You're probably wondering why I don't eat in diners in Boston, and the answer is simple: there aren't that many that I've found. You have a lot of chains, the malls, and real restaurants. Since I'm usually visiting family and not alone or with someone, the real restaurant appeal is limited. I know there's a few places, but why bother. And for decent dining, when you're with relatives, you're lucky to get Boston Chicken. And the last time I had that, I had the shits for 24 hours.
But the thing about Boston which is great is that you can get real seafood and not go broke. It's not fried like in so many places, it's usually fresh from the water, and because it is such a large market, it's usaually cheap.
I've never had Italian food there, and please don't say "go to the North End". While any other time of year, I might be game, with the convention, getting into the North End will suck tremendously. So I'll pass for another time. Same with a trip to Revere Beach for seafood. No go. Bad enough North Station will be closed and I want to go to the Cambridge Galleria, one of the nicer malls I've ever been to.
If you're coming to Boston for the DNC, it's probably the easiest city on the East Coast to get around. Unlike New York's labryintine subway system, Boston is pretty straightforward
The Boston Subway system
Oh yeah, you have to ignore the locals advice on travel. In dowtown Boston, you can walk most of where you need to go. The stops are a few blocks apart. Bostonians have the habit of making what in New York would be a short walk into an epic journey of train travel. Now, if you're at Park Street, the Boston Common stop (and if you have the time, a trip to Copley Square is recommended.
Trinty Church at Copley Square, next to Boston's major hotels and mall
See the library, walk to the Commons-Boston's Central Park-and then to Downtown Crossing. To Bostonians, you'd have to switch train lines at least once and maybe twice.
Looking towards Park Street from Boston Common. The building is the Park Street train station (Green Line)
You can walk from there down to Downtown Crossing in about five minutes, passing Filenes, Boston's most famous department store and filled with bargains in their crowded basement.
Two blocks north of the Commons is a graveyard. Buried there are among the Revolution's heroes,
Paul Revere and Samuel Adams
Paul Revere and Sam Adams
It's an interesting place, and pretty small. It's along Boston's Freedom Trail, which leads down to Quincy Market and Faneuil Hall
Faneuil Hall
Quincy Market
These are all in Downtown Boston within a mile of each other and worthy of a stop. Now, my favorite Boston stores are Books for a Buck (several locations) and the Downtown Crossing Borders, because it's in a former bank and they still use the vault for storage, but the door is locked open. It's a beautiful building a block from the Holocaust Memorial, which is creepy and minimalist, and across from the Potato Famine memorial.
One other point, if you get a chance, even if you can't go inside, and they hold tours, is Fenway Park. Tickets are hard to get, but
Acroos the street is the Boston Globe store which has internet access if you aren't carrying a wireless laptop.
As you walk east from Park Street, you encounter two odd stores, the Gap and Eddie Bauer outlet stores. Interesting places to be in a downtown area. They have great bargains and there is no tax on clothes in Massachusetts.
You may also be wondering why I'm not talking about bars and nightspots as well. Well, because I don't go out in Boston. I go to see family and they're not in to getting plastered.
Ok, I'm inviting people to add their comments about Boston, including useful tips. I only shop and eat in Boston, so if people who live there have better comments, please add them.
Oh, one point. The pizza sucks. It is inedible to my New York palate. Awful stuff. There may be worse food, but I haven't had it. Just the worst pizza imaginable. Dominos is better, much better. Compared to a New York slice, you have to wonder what went wrong. Undercooked, overcooked, miserable.
But Boston is an easy place to get around and while rude, the people do give you answers to questions. And yes, they're rude, even to a lifelong New Yorker.
Enlisted troops stationed in Anbar province see goals unmet - and some wonder why they're there.
By Tom Lasseter
Inquirer Foreign Staff
RAMADI, Iraq - Scaling back the military and political goals in Iraq's Anbar province has hurt morale among U.S. soldiers stationed there, and some have begun to question openly not only their mission but also the leaders who sent them to Iraq in the first place.
It is not just buck privates. Several sergeants - the backbone of the enlisted military - said they felt the same way.
Instead of neighborhood patrols, most of the convoys these days that leave the bases in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad, are on their way to guard main roads and the government building downtown. There are also observation posts throughout the city, where soldiers sit and watch, waiting for something to happen.
To carry food from one base to the next, a matter of a few blocks, takes four vehicles - armored humvees and trucks - all with .50-caliber machine guns mounted on top.
"I'm tired of every time we go out the gate, someone tries to kill me," Staff Sgt. Sheldon Rivers said.
............
"It's just like the West," Jones said, "when we were trying to settle it with the Indians."
He would not elaborate.
"It means that we have to kill all of them," said a captain standing nearby, half-joking.
Jones shrugged.
..........
Dean motioned down the road to a bridge.
About two weeks ago, he said, a buddy of his was on a patrol that stopped to look at a possible bomb. As he walked around the device, it detonated, sending shrapnel through one side of his face and out the other. The soldier, whose arm also was mangled in the explosion, survived, but the word came down that the bridge was now off-limits for patrols.
"To me it's a month and a half of patrols wasted because we've given them back that bridge," Dean said. "It makes me question the whole mission."
The resistance is winning the war there. Simple as that.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.
"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."
Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.
"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."
Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.
More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.
When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.
"You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."
Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.
"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."
The GOP tried to shit all over that movie for weeks, but the problem is that Moore isn't some hippie who's daddy was a lawyer for Mobil. He knows how to speak to people's real concerns and explain things in a clear, concise way. And the fact is the movie is accurate. It may spin the facts against Bush, but most of what Moore discussed was blogged about since 2001. Only the inaugural riots were news to me.
The media was jealous, but what could they say? He was accurate and he hired the meanest Dem on the block, Chris Lehane, to make sure he didn't get ambushed like Dick Clarke and Joe Wilson. So they couldn't play the game of cheap slurs with Moore. And when Salon tried it, he came swinging with both fists. So, he was smart enough to pack ammo and food for a trip behind enemy lines and now he's winning. Disney looks stupid and the GOP has no response to his film, except to question his patriotism and weight.
He and his friends may vote for regime change, at home
A Shrinking Base Support for War Wanes Among Military Families Facing Redeployment
By Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 21, 2004; Page C01
HINESVILLE, Ga.
Yes, sir, this is Bush country: Real pit barbecues, yellow ribbons on church doors, wild boar in the woods. Fort Stewart 10 minutes away. And one teenage party loyalist greeting guests for his mother's Party for the President, on National Party for the President Day, a boy with impeccable manners who, when peppered with questions by the adults in the living room, blurts out things such as "Condi Rice speaks, like, three languages!"
So why does hostess Michele Bourque sound as defensive as if she were living in Berkeley?
"There's just so much negativity around," she says, explaining her decision to host this party. "There's not a lot of positive affirmation about why George W. Bush should be president. We just want to let people know, he's not as bad as people think."
Bourque is not a balloons and party hats type. Her family just moved to this ranch house outside Savannah and the decorations are spare -- some birthday cards on the mantelpiece next to a portrait of the president and the first lady, plus trays of cold cuts and fruit to feed a couple of dozen people. Alas, only two have turned out this evening, an Army couple from the base.
But between them and the kids, they are plenty enthusiastic. Christopher, the young host, recently wrote Bush a letter to "cheer him up, and let him know how grateful I am for what he did in Iraq." His father, Staff Sgt. Kenneth Bourque, is about to be deployed there. Christopher's twin brother, Andrew, wrote one, too, telling Bush to "relax, have fun whenever he can, because right now he's in for a fight." A form letter response from the president also sits on the mantelpiece.
"Kerry, Kerry, Kerry," says one of the guests, Stacie Young. "These young guys in the squad say, 'I'm voting for Kerry,' " she says, meaning the guys who serve with her husband. "And I say, 'Why would you do that? Vote for your kids! Vote for your security!' "
To her husband, John, a sergeant who fought with the 11th Engineers, the view of Iraq in the media is unrecognizable. In the stories he tells at the party, Iraq is a place where soldiers throw candies to children and drink sweet tea. It's where he saw a sergeant get shot in the neck to save his platoon, where for the first time he felt a sense of purpose. Where "we felt like celebrities, we would march around and the people would chant, 'Saddam bad, Bush good.' "
Many Unhappy Returns
Sometime around Election Day -- rumors on the base say between November and January -- troops from Fort Stewart will be deployed to Iraq. Most here belong to the 3rd Infantry Division, the one known during the war as the tip of the spear. They are the troops who fought in Najaf, led the march into Baghdad, seized Saddam International Airport and Hussein's palaces, who led the fighting the day the iconic was pulled down. So for most, this will be their second tour. But the mood going in this time is very different.
Most have been home long enough to settle into a domestic routine, but not long enough to obscure the memory of watching someone in their unit get shot. Plus, this time the mission is murkier, the enemy more elusive and the return date open-ended.
"The first time I was kind of scared, but it wasn't as bad as I expected. We did our jobs without too much of a struggle," says Spec. Ben Schlabach, who's in a maintenance company. "Now it's a totally different ballgame over there. You don't know who's on your side. You have to be alert, keep your eyes open. You don't know when you'll come home. You just don't know what to expect."
The second time, it's hard to maintain the conviction that the citizenry of Iraq is entirely grateful to be liberated. Spouses have been trained to be on alert for signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, and all have heard the story of the soldier who came home and, when his wife asked him to change the baby's diaper, flung his wife across the room. Any sense of adventure is dampened by the existence of a new Heroes Walk on base, 45 saplings planted in honor of the men of Fort Stewart who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Talk to a soldier eating his burger in the base food court and he'll tell you he's ready to complete the mission and support his commander in chief. "I got a job and I'll go out and do it," says Staff Sgt. Jeff Laplante. Others talk about unfinished business or even revenge, if someone they know was killed. They are professionals, they chose this path and they are deeply patriotic.
But some soldiers say the picture is murkier, particularly if their families are around. In the weeks leading up to deployment, soldiers are psyching themselves up by listing all that they fight for: family, buddies, their home town, democracy and God. Last time around the sentiment extended naturally to the president. Now that connection for some soldiers is what pollsters call soft.
Paul Rieckhoff fought with the division and has since left the Army. This week, he is launching Operation Truth, a nonpartisan group dedicated to telling the public about the war in Iraq from the perspective of those who fought there.
"People can deal with it if it's honest and up-front," he says about the deployments. "But they've broken their word so many times it gets frustrating. Everyone says they love George W. Bush, but when you get over there and see your buddies blown up and then think: 'What the hell are we doing over there?' You start to think: 'Who do I hold responsible?'
"My overall encapsulation is that the public will be overwhelmingly surprised at how many people coming back from Iraq will not vote for George W. Bush."
The military feels screwed. The war in Iraq is going badly, and 10,000 men and women are now scattered around military and veterans hospitals with the situation on the ground not getting any better.
Robert Hodierne, who edits publications about and for the US armed forces, assesses how the views of his readers could affect this year's race for the White House.
We're having a pretty lousy summer over here.
I don't mean to whine. No-one likes a whiner. But gasoline prices are the highest they've been in 30 years. All of our Olympic athletes seem to be on drugs.
We're constantly being warned that terrorists are about to strike. Or not. We're not really sure.
And from Iraq we hear the sickening, sucking sound of combat boots stuck in an oozing quagmire.
In some ways, here's the worst of it: We're caught in the middle of a presidential race.
Last time around, you may recall, most Americans voted for Al Gore.
But because we're a representative democracy and we don't elect our presidents through direct ballots, the other guy won.
And you may recall that the key state that gave President George W Bush that win was Florida.
Well, the battle continues this time around in the Sunshine State.
In America, it used to be if you were convicted of a serious crime - a felony - you lost your right to vote for the rest of your life.
Not many places still have that law. But Florida does.
Democrats have been busy in court trying to get that law changed. Apparently they see a lot of votes in the felon class.
On the flip side, the administration has been working hard to make sure it's easy for our troops overseas to vote.
For a boring variety of tax and retirement reasons, our military members tend to register to vote in just a handful of states.
Florida is one of them.
If, as many assume, most of the military vote Republican, then their votes in Florida the last time around might have tipped the balance for Bush.
Poll
Last year we conducted a poll of our active-duty readers.
We found that, in many ways, the American military is a society apart.
For example, the military is noticeably more religious than most Americans. And they see themselves as more moral.
Two-thirds of our sample told us that they believe the military has higher moral values than their society at large. Two-thirds!
Politically, they describe their beliefs as more conservative than the rest of the country's. You can go a long time without stumbling across a liberal in uniform.
But they surprise you, these folks in the military.
Feminism
They overwhelmingly approve of women in combat. Who'd think a conservative stronghold like the military would be a bastion of feminism?
On the other hand, just as overwhelmingly, they don't want gays serving.
In America the general population describes its political affiliation in an almost even three-way split: a third Republican, a third Democrats and a third independent.
But almost 60% of our military sample said they were Republicans, nearly twice the rate of the general population.
And that, on the surface, would seem to be good news for President Bush.
If everyone in the military and all their spouses voted, they'd make up just 5% of the voting population - a noticeable but not necessarily commanding bloc.
Symbolic influence
But remember Florida. There the military vote could easily have tipped the balance four years ago.
But numbers don't tell the whole story.
Beyond their actual numerical influence is the military's symbolic influence. They're like canaries in a coal mine.
Picture of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib (AP Photo/Courtesy of The New Yorker) A senior US general is investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib prison (AP Photo/Courtesy of The New Yorker)
If a sitting Republican president in time of war cannot hold the military vote, then he's in trouble.
There are many in the military deeply unhappy with the way the war in Iraq is going.
............
The men and women who built this well-crafted war machine feel like the mechanic at the Maserati shop. He watches a rich owner drive his $250,000 high performance car flat out for months without changing the oil.
Driven that hard even a Maserati will break.
A LOT of people are unhappy with the war is an understatement. The military knows the war is being lost and they have no way to win it. And they know it. Which is why Eric Shinseki is planning to run for Daniel Inouye's seat when he retires. Which non-Americans should undserstand is very rare. Generals usually take their Masters degrees and go make money. They don't leave leave the service and run for office. But you get called a liar, only to be proven right over the bodies of the dead, it makes you want to do something. Like run for office.
I think the Post underestimates the deep unhappiness with Bush and his minions. While you have some wackjob battalion commanders, most have to enraged that their men have to send home for bottled water and gun oil. They also know that their missions are pointless and aren't making Iraq secure. They were lied to and they know it and they know if they don't get new leaders, the Army will be ground to dirt.
The Post article is telling. The day holding a pro-Bush party in Georgia can be compared to doing so in Berkeley, is something which should give Bush factorum Karl Rove night terrors. He's not exactly popular with the grunts fighting his war, is he? The active duty wives and families don't know which way to turn, the reserve and Guard families are building a powerful hate towards Bush. Their family members are doing something they didn't expect or want to do.
If Bush loses even a small shift in these families, he's done. While Rove is shoring up the Christian base, he's about to lose another base of support, military families, without even thinking about it.
A member of the 39th Brigade Combat Team, serving with the First Cavalry Division in Iraq. They want to extend his tour for more than thr 24 months he's been on active duty. Lucky him.
WASHINGTON — In yet another sign of the strains on the U.S. military after the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, the Pentagon is considering extending the mobilization of National Guard soldiers who will soon hit the federal limit of 24 months of active service, defense officials said yesterday.
Initially, the decision would affect approximately 450 soldiers of the Arkansas National Guard who are in Iraq with the 39th Brigade Combat Team.
The soldiers, mobilized after Sept. 11 and first sent to the Sinai Peninsula on a peacekeeping rotation, are the first group of guardsmen to approach the 24-month limit that the Pentagon established days after the terrorist attacks in the United States.
Waiving the limit might lead to extended deployments for thousands of other reservists and National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide ammunition to critics in Congress who are pushing the Bush administration to increase the size of the militaryn
Boy, this should motivate people to join the Guard and Reserve. Once in, never out. What did they join, the Mafia or the Army?
And these people are threatening Iran and Syria. Oh yeah, fearsome threat that is.
A US citizen arrested in Kabul over an alleged freelance counter-terrorism operation says he was working with the knowledge of the US defence secretary.
Jonathan K Idema said the US government had abandoned him. Washington says he was a mercenary.
Mr Idema was speaking shortly before he went on trial with two other Americans, Edward Caraballo and Brent Bennett.
The trial, on charges of torture, kidnapping and running a private jail, was adjourned on Wednesday for 15 days.
'Assassination attempts'
Mr Idema told journalists before the trial he had evidence to prove he was working for the Pentagon.
He claims to have helped prevent several attempted terrorist attacks and said he had regular e-mail, phone and fax contact with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and other senior Pentagon officials.
Ex-soldiers blur security
Then during his court appearance on Wednesday he told reporters crowding around the dock the name of a Pentagon official he alleged had asked his group to work "under contract".
The group turned him down, Mr Idema said.
He said his group had prevented assassination attempts on Education Minister Yunis Qanooni and Defence Minister Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim.
Mr Idema said the FBI had interrogated several militants his group had captured over an alleged plot to blow up the Bagram air base with fuel trucks.
The US State Department denies any links with the group, saying the men were mercenaries operating outside Washington's command.
Four Afghans arrested with the Americans were also standing trial on Wednesday.
After the charges were read out, a lawyer for one of the Americans - Mr Caraballo - asked for the trial to be delayed by at least two weeks so the defence could be better prepared.
Presiding Judge Abdul Baset Bakhtyari allowed the request.
'Upside down'
None of the Americans spoke officially in court on Wednesday but three witnesses did appear.
One, Sher Jan, said: "They pulled me out of my house one morning, hooded me and broke a rib with a gun... They poured hot water on me too."
A second, Ghulam Sakhi, said he was tied upside down for a period during 18 days in the private prison.
It would be nice to believe that Idema was working for DOD, but thank God, their standards are not that low. Companies like Custer Battles and Blackwater may be mercenaries, but they are professionals, who hire people who actually served in Special Operations on active duty.
Almost a decade ago, Jonathan Keith Idema sat in an Eastern North Carolina prison cell, blaming his legal woes on a vendetta by FBI agents angry that he refused to name Soviet spies who tipped him off to a nuclear smuggling operation in Lithuania.
Now the Fayetteville resident sits in custody in Afghanistan, accused of running a vigilante anti-terrorist operation in which he rounded up innocent Afghans, held them in a makeshift jail and abused them.
His defense? He was a good American doing his duty, only to be set up by the FBI as revenge for that Lithuanian spy caper.
In the world of Keith Idema, treachery, intrigue and drama are routine.
Idema, 48, has long said he participated in secret missions as a veteran of the Army's elite forces, claiming on his resume that he led a "classified successful rescue mission to the Caribbean for a mid-Eastern prince," was a firearms instructor for Ron Reagan Jr., and was a military adviser in Nicaragua and South Africa.
Much of what he says is difficult to verify, and those who know him have widely different opinions as to his veracity.
.................
For all the mystery of the Lithuanian smuggling deal, Idema stood accused of a run-of-the-mill scheme. He had set up a shell company to acquire more than $200,000 worth of goods to prop up a failing business selling paintball and quasi-military supplies. He was convicted and sentenced to four years. Throughout the trial, Idema courted media attention -- an unusual tendency for a man of his military pedigree.
"That's going to be the death of him," said Patricia Dawn Glosson, his former girlfriend, who was also sentenced to prison in the fraud case. "He likes his name in lights. ... You can't be in black ops whenever you've got a big mouth. It's like having an affair and screaming it all over the neighborhood."
..................
Then came Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent war against al-Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
It was a war well-suited to a man who liked his name in lights.
.......
Friend said his impression of Idema changed after the incident: "I liked him, but in my mind, I'm thinking, 'Who the hell is this guy?' He's clearly not a spy. Not military. He's one of those people who show up in war zones."
Later, as Idema's group was nearing Kabul, Idema said he discovered a cache of videotapes in an abandoned al-Qaeda compound. The tapes apparently depicted terrorist training sessions, and were aired on CBS' "60 Minutes II" in January 2002. Idema was interviewed in the segment as a war hero.
Sometime afterward, he started using the name Jack, like the super warrior in Moore's book.
'A dangerous person'
The question of who Idema really is and what he really does has left many wondering. During the fraud case, Judge Boyle ordered a mental evaluation of Idema. The diagnosis was a personality disorder, but not mental illness.
The court granted him considerable leeway from the conditions of his bail as he awaited trial. He was allowed to travel around the country for Special Operations expos; to meetings in Washington at the Department of Defense and with the International Associations of Chiefs of Police; to Raleigh for surgery on his pet dog, a Tibetan Shepherd named Sergeant.
..............
"Idema is a dangerous person when his violent temper is coupled with the availability of automatic firearms," the report said.
During a court proceeding, an FBI agent detailed several incidents in which Idema threatened to harm people -- by shooting them in the head, snapping their neck, bloodying their face, ripping their heart out, bashing their head in and booby-trapping their car. One man told the FBI that Idema bragged of "slitting throats in Grenada."
Trouble with top brass
Idema relished the mystique of having served in the elite group. An account in Moore's book featuring his alter ego "Jack" portrays Idema impressing a colonel by swimming two laps in a pool with a 40-pound pack on his back -- without once coming up for air.
..........
Idema was given an honorable discharge, according to the court report, but was not permitted to re-enlist after his three-year stint was up in 1978. He joined the reserves.
New chance to fight
That sense of honor drew Idema to Afghanistan, according to his friends and supporters, who say he was eager to meet President Bush's call for all Americans to fight terrorism. His first stint spanned 10 months, and he returned to Afghanistan this past April, said John Tiffany, a New Jersey lawyer representing Idema.
Accompanied by a cameraman, Ed Caraballo, Idema wanted to get footage for a documentary on his life, Tiffany said. Idema returned to fighting terrorists because the opportunity presented itself.
"He is a man of action, a man of conviction," Tiffany said, noting that Idema's primary motivation was principle, not profit. Money, however, was on the line. Many al-Qaeda terrorists have million-dollar bounties set for their capture.
"If somewhere down the road Keith Idema came up with information about Osama bin Laden, and he got paid for it," Tiffany asked, "is there something wrong with that? I don't think so." Accusations that Idema was abusing and torturing his subjects are false, Tiffany said.
..............
Idema's arrest by Afghan authorities, Tiffany said, was likely instigated by the FBI, which he said still holds a grudge over the Lithuanian smuggling incident.
Glosson, the girlfriend, said Friday that she did not know what had happened to Idema in Afghanistan but that she did not think he was acting on his own.
"He is all-American and he is Special Forces to the bone, free the oppressed," she said. "If he's over there, it's because someone else is either supporting him financially or telling him where to go and what to do."
A U.S. State Department spokeswoman said Friday that the U.S. government had not employed Idema or sponsored his activities.
For his part, Idema seemed to savor the role of rogue, like the character Jack in Moore's book:
"One question would remain -- how did Jack, operating completely independently of [U.S. forces] and the Central Command, interject himself so completely in America's war on terrorism? ... Regardless of who he was, Jack got results,
and he is the kind of American that our Afghan allies want to see more of."
THE STRANGE CAREER OF KEITH IDEMA
1975: After graduating from high school, joined the U.S. Army, remained on active duty for three years.
1978: Joined the 11th Special Forces Reserves Group.
1980s AND 1990s: Involved in a variety of businesses that capitalized on his Special Forces background, including a company that trained people in anti-terrorism techniques, a company that sold paintball equipment, and a venture to set up Special Forces expos.
1994: Convicted of 59 federal counts of using telephones and fax machines to commit fraud and conspiracy. Sentenced to four years in federal prison.
1998: Returned to North Carolina after release from prison.
2001: Traveled to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Claimed to advise the Northern Alliance militia in battle against Taliban.
JANUARY 2002: "60 Minutes II" aired report of apparent al-Qaeda training camp tape discovered by Idema.
APRIL 2004: Returned to Afghanistan.
JULY 2004: Arrested in Afghanistan by Afghan authorities, accused of setting up a private jail in Kabul where he abused captives. Charges pending.
First of all, most of the former SF people I've met are the exact opposite of this. They don't say "former killer" as a way of introduction, if at all. They aren't so one dimentional, as Idema, who was a reserve SF trooper. Which such a stinging condemnation from his active duty CO, he would have never been allowed to progress to the Q course (SF training) with such a knock. How he was permitted to attend SF training after the reenlistnment ban is something on its own. But then it was the late 1970's and the Army was desperate for anyone looking to join SF, especially after Vietnam. This was in the days before SF and Special Ops were taken seriously.
Let's understand something: SF is not the Boy's Own killing society. Only intelligent, educatable soldiers are allowed to join. Most later progress on to higher education, combined with service around the world. They tend to be sophisticated, thoughtful people. Not one dimensional like Idema, who only cared about his image and it was an image, as a Special Operator. Unlike the frauds, he was willing to risk his life to live up to that image, which is pretty scary. He might have been able to join the SF reserves in 1978, but any time later on he would have been sent packing. This was a guy who couldn't reenlist in 1978. Jeffrey Dahmer was able to leave the Army with an honoarble discharge in the same period, which out to tell you much about what the Army was about back then.
Real professionals like to work in the dark, both figuratively and literally. They run from cameras, if not like roaches, like tribesmen who fear their souls will be captured by the camera. They don't make documentaries on themselves and they don't place themselves at risk without reason.
A fair rendering of the Idema story is that he was an ex-soldier with some special forces training and a healthy fantasy life. He had a completely immature way of dealing with his chosen profession and many of his peers held him in utter contempt as an embarassing loon.
It is unlikely, but not impossible, that the US military hired him. His bona fides in the SF community seem to be just above faker. Respect is not the word I've seen used, as posted here earlier. Outsiders tend to be impressed with his big talk, but people in the SOC community regard him as a joke.
At best, he's another Duane "Dog" Chapman, a bounty hunter with a big ego and decent to marginal skills, exceeded by his big mouth. At worse, he's lucky to be alive and not hung out to dry by the Taliban. This is a man who thinks he's James Bond, not David Sterling(founder of the SAS). He talks too much, needs to see his name in lights and loves to swagger around with guns. Which is the exact opposite of what an SF trooper should be. You can swagger around with guns, but if you need to be famous, you're usually regarded as a jerk.
In the U.S. Senate race, early returns had Isakson, laden with $5.5 million in campaign cash and a hotly debated record on abortion, rolling past pizza entrepreneur Herman Cain and fellow U.S. Rep. Mac Collins.
Georgia Republican primary for U.S. Senate
3097 of 3150 precincts - 98 percent
x- Johnny Isakson GOP 333,113 - 53 percent
Herman Cain GOP 165,356 - 26 percent
"It looks like Johnny may win it without a runoff," Collins said before the returns were complete.
Isakson was reluctant to agree.
"The numbers have led us to be optimistic, but we're not going to rest until the last vote is counted," he said.
The Republican primary lead of Isakson, 59, a three-term Cobb County congressman and a fixture of state politics for three decades, held in both rural and urban areas of Georgia.
Isakson jumped into the race early — within days of U.S. Sen. Zell Miller's announcement last year that he wouldn't run again. He raised twice as much money as Cain and nearly three times as much as Collins.
Cain, 58, of McDonough, an African-American and the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza, was in a solid second place. Though new to politics in Georgia, Cain ran a well-organized campaign and was edging out Collins in South Georgia, according to an analysis of the returns.
The contest may have shown the limit of religious conservative influence over a rapidly growing Republican Party in Georgia.
In advertising and speeches, Cain and Collins tried to position themselves to the right of Isakson on abortion, calling him "pro-choice."
Money talked on the Democratic side of the race to replace Miller, too, as an underfunded U.S. Rep. Denise Majette was failing in her effort to stay clear of a runoff against millionaire Cliff Oxford, who poured more than $1 million of his own money in the contest.
With good weather and a "light to medium" turnout that state officials said would hit the 30 percent mark, voters also sent at least two of four hotly contested congressional races toward three more weeks of campaigning and an Aug. 10 deciding vote.
In Georgia's four closely watched congressional races:
• In the 4th District, Cynthia McKinney, the former congresswoman trying to reclaim her seat, led former DeKalb County CEO Liane Levetan
Ok, yet another black sellout learns a vital lesson. No matter what people say, how they vote is an entirely different matter. Cain was getting great press, was drawing up close to Isakson in polling, and comes election day and they forget to vote for the negro. How shocking.
The biggest handicap is that these folks have to rely on white votes. Which may work in a Democratic primary where there will be a black turnout to create a base, but in a mostly white primary, candidates like Cain, reviled by black voters, are also mistrusted by white voters. And while people may say they will vote for them, the odds are low that they actually will pull the lever for them. Either they stay home, or they lied to the pollster.
It's like that line from Trading Places. Eddie Murphy is a natural commodities trader, yet when the owners of the company meet in the bathroom they say "do you think I would let a nigger run this firm?" Well, the question is would white southern conservatives let a nigger represent them in Washington? And no matter how hard people like Cain try, or what they say, the answer is hell no. In fact, they are more likely to support a black moderate who represents their interests than a conservative they don't completely trust.
It's not that the larger white population won't vote for black candidates, they will. But when you get into the heart of the GOP, they encourage candidates like Cain, who I found personally odious, but when it comes time to vote, they forget to.
Which is why I laugh when people say the Dems take blacks for granted. They may well, at points, but they don't forget to vote for them on election day. Republicans want blacks to embrace their party, then they forget to support them, much less to vote for them.
Cain didn't just lose, he got his ass kicked.
Now the question is can Denise Majette, the black winner in the Democratic primary win against Isakson? It depends on how the Bush ticket goes. If it stabilizes and things stay close, she's probably a loser. But if Bush tanks and is going to lose in a landslide, well....
The irony is that Majette is a relative long shot to win a Senate seat, but Cynthia McKinney is likely to return to the House.
The way Majette won the seat left a bad taste in many people's mouths because Jewish groups from out of state kicked in a lot of money to her campaign. They were pissed at McKinney for her questioning the Kill an Arab/Kill a Jew for peace program pushed by Arafat and Sharon. McKinney's father, a big time preacher and politico didn't take her loss too well and blamed the Jews, who for once, actually did do some of what they were accused of. But he sounded like a wackjob and few people mourned her passing from politics. Even though it was evident that the McKinneys would have scorched the earth for revenge. Majette's ambition prevented that kind of nasty interencine warfare.
Majette might have lost her seat to McKinney, given that McKinney won the primary. Now, from the Washington perspective, Majette is reliable, and McKinney is a loose cannon. The problem is that loose cannons are popular among black voters, regardless of their ability or effectiveness. McKinney was more noted for being leered at by Bill Maher (she's a very attractive woman) than for any thing she did on the Hill, except for saying Bush had foreknowlege of 9/11. Which helped cause her defeat. Well, two years later, only the insane believe he didn't have any idea, thus giving McKinney a second shot at the seat.
Oh and in other right wing negro news, insane bigot Vernon Robinson also lost his bid for a seat in North Carolina's 5th District.
But a strange thing happened when budget talks began dragging and Schwarzenegger shifted into campaign mode to get his way. Democrats didn't seem to care. Increasingly inside the Capitol, there is a sense that when Schwarzenegger goes to a mall in Chico or a Mexican restaurant in Dixon to talk politics, the people flock to see the Terminator, not the governor. There is a corresponding belief among Democrats that the governor's personal popularity doesn't automatically translate into support for his policy proposals.
...
Enter Nuñez. After Schwarzenegger derided lawmakers as "children," the speaker questioned the governor's integrity, accusing him of "flip-flopping" on the local-government deal. The remark clearly angered Schwarzenegger. When the governor hit the road again to lash Democrats, Nuñez dismissed it as a "dog and pony show."
And the results of these monster rallies?
SACRAMENTO -- The governor's campaign-style visit to Stockton on Sunday yielded only a smattering of calls to lawmakers, far fewer than the number generated when he stumped in Tracy for workers compensation reforms early this year, aides to lawmakers said Monday.
Gov. Schwarzenegger drew 3,000 people to his Stockton rally, but that crowd, filled as much by celebrity hunters as by political activists, didn't translate their enthusiasm over seeing the governor into a desire to put pressure on politicians who disagree with him.
"I would use the word anemic," said Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at the University of California Riverside.
But it seems Arnie has more problems than failed rallies and stupid comments
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - (KRT) - Determined to reform the management of California's $6 billion-a-year prison system, a federal judge on Tuesday threatened to take control of the Department of Corrections from the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In a letter to Schwarzenegger's top prison advisers, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson voiced disappointment that in recent contract renegotiations Schwarzenegger had agreed to concessions "that give up numerous and important management prerogatives" to the guards union.
The strongly worded letter could jeopardize legislative approval of the renegotiated guard contract designed to save the state $108 million. It also could plunge the system deeper into crisis.
Henderson, who asked to meet with the governor, said recently negotiated contract provisions "subtly and some not so subtly" undermine the ability of the court to enforce orders, some of which are designed to improve the way the Department of Corrections investigates abuse of inmates and disciplines rogue officers.
"If the state of California is no longer willing to manage the necessary corrective actions, I must consider the appointment of a receiver," Henderson wrote in a letter dated Monday that arrived in the Capitol on Tuesday.
WASHINGTON -- Nearly as many US soldiers lost their lives in Iraq in the first half of July as in all of June, even as Iraqi insurgents seem to have shifted focus from attacking US targets to aiming instead at Iraqi security forces and government officials.
The relatively high rate of US military casualties has dimmed hope that the handover of power to the Iraqi government would help stabilize the country and reduce pressure on US soldiers.
June was substantially less violent for US and coalition troops than the two preceding months, fueling hopes that US casualties were on the downswing. However, military officials and defense specialists are increasingly concerned that the guerrilla war could last for years and the number of dead could climb into the thousands.
Since the June 28 handover of power, the 160,000 coalition forces have averaged more than two deaths a day, among the highest rate of losses since the war began 15 months ago. By Saturday, 36 US soldiers had died this month, compared with 42 last month, according to a Globe analysis of official statistics.
The casualties have yet to reach the level they were in April, the bloodiest month of the US-led occupation, when 135 American soldiers died, or May, when 80 Americans died, many of them during a three-week offensive in the southern cities of Karbala, Najaf, and Al Kut against armed followers of a leading Shia cleric.
But this month marks an upsurge in the pace and sophistication of the attacks against US and coalition troops, even as more Iraqi security forces, government ministers, and civilians have also become targets.
By Friday, more than 10,000 coalition soldiers had been wounded. In all, 893 Americans have died since the war began in March 2003, most of them in hostile action
There are 900 dead now. And the pace of combat is increasing. But keep in mind, we can hit 1,000 if one large transport is hit. But anyway you cut it, Bush will be going into the election season with 1,000 dead Americans as a major campaign issue, if not on his conscience. And of course, the new PM is Saddam light, executing prisoners in that all too familiar extrajudicial style favored by Iraqi strongmen leaders.
900 dead, 10,000 wounded. And Iraq is more dangerous, more unstable and more of a threat to the US than it was last year.
Unamerican traitor exiled from the proper, decent town of Los Vegas, home of all American values, like whores, free booze and gambling addicts like Bill Bennett
This is the letter eTree President Joe Fitzpatrick sent to the Aladdin management pulling his business from the hotel, after some drunken morons rioted during the Linda Ronstadt show.
Now the management of the Aladdin, a crusty old Vegas hotel, had no idea about that or control. However, when they escorted her from the premises like George Clooney in Oceans 11, they went beyond not liking her comments and acting in the cowardly manner usually exhibited by Sinclair Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communications.
In a democracy, even unpopular opinon should be protected, even at work. But to escort her off the premises like she was card counting was deeply wrong and amazingly unamerican.
Personally, if I were going to Vegas, I'd spend my money in the Hard Rock Casino, long hosts and supporters of Howard Stern and a very good place to get drunk and meet hookers in, or so my friends say. No one who believes in freedom of speech should spend a dime in the Aladdin.
Greetings,
First, I would like to thank you for working with our office manager on room rates, etc. for the upcoming LDI show (October). I'm told that your staff was extremely helpful, even when working with a small firm like ours.
However, based upon this article from the Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040719_975.html, we have decided not to include your offer in our client mailings or utilize it for our own staff. Our decision hinged on two basic factors:
#1, If one entertainer speaking positively about another results in "bedlam" (to quote Mr. Timmins), then one must question if the Aladdin provides a safe and secure environment for guests. Whatever her views, by all accounts Ms. Ronstadt used her mouth, but members of the audience threw objects and destroyed property. This is not only uncivilized, it is dangerous and possibly illegal behavior. By rewarding this sort of behavior, we believe that the Aladdin is sending a clear message that it does not consider itself primarily responsible for safety and order at its facility.
#2, Our clients and staff are typically well educated, technically oriented, people. Demographically, this group is politically left leaning, and quite likely to find Ms. Ronstadt's comments reasonable, if not 100% agreeable. I am not privy to Ms. Ronstadt's contractual relationship with the Aladdin, but the public perception of her being barred from her room and physically escorted from the premises simply for presenting a political opinion is that the Aladdin is openly hostile to Democratic, Independent, or Libertarian Americans.
I'm sure you can understand that we want *all* our staff and our clients to feel welcome and safe. True or not, the perception is that my moderate and liberal staff members are not welcome or wanted at the Aladdin. And, judging from the disgraceful conduct reportedly allowed at the concert, I think that there is a legitimate question as to rather or not they would be safe should they, for example, express a political opinion in a bar or other common area.
Thank you again for your cooperation. I am sorry that we had to take this step. Please understand that it is simply a matter of adhering to long standing policies of staff well being as a priority and political neutrality as a company. This decision in no way reflects upon any Aladdin staff that we have had contact with.
MANILA, July 20 — Iraqi militants released a Filipino hostage today, ending a two-week crisis during which the Philippine government bowed to the insurgents' demand to withdraw its troops, a concession that strained its relationships with countries such as the United States.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo spoke with Angelo dela Cruz, the Filipino truck driver taken hostage on July 7 by Iraqi militants, on the phone this afternoon, shortly before confirming the release to the news media. "Wonderful moment!" the President exclaimed when she heard Mr. dela Cruz's voice. The conversation was later broadcast on nationwide television.
Mr. dela Cruz's wife, Arsenia, burst into tears upon hearing the news in neighboring Jordan, The Associated Press reported.
Mr. dela Cruz was dropped off near the United Arab Emirates embassy in Baghdad, news agency reports said. "We were surprised this morning when the Philippine hostage Angelo dela Cruz was set free in our embassy," the U.A.E. charge d'affaires, Hamed al-Shamisi, said in a statement to Agence France-Presse.
Rafael Seguis, the deputy foreign-affairs secretary, told Mrs. Arroyo on the telephone that the government of the United Arab Emirates had arranged to bring Mr. dela Cruz immediately to Abu Dhabi for a medical check-up.
Mr. dela Cruz's release followed the pullout of Filipino troops from Iraq on Monday, which had been the demand made by the insurgents in exchange for his freedom. Manila's decision to give in to the insurgents drew criticism from other countries, including Iraq and the United States, which called it a mistake that could encourage more such kidnappings targeting foreigners in Iraq.
"Praise God!" a beaming Mrs. Arroyo exclaimed on the phone when the driver said he was all right.
In a press briefing minutes after that conversation inside the presidential palace, Mrs. Arroyo said she did not regret her decision to withdraw the Filipino troops. "I do not regret that decision," she said, adding: "Every life is important."
She called Mr. dela Cruz the "Filipino everyman, a symbol of the hardworking Filipino seeking hope and opportunity."
This isn't their war. Their presence was symbolic and so was their leaving. They weren't going to lose someone whne they were going anyway.
When the right starts whining about Filipino cowardice, remember, the Filipino Army fights terrorism every day at home against Abu Sayyef. Every day. Before then, they fought the New People's Army. So to say they capitulated before terror is a slander, and nothing less.
The Iraq war wasn't what they were promised and they decided to cut their losses. Which is common sense.
They made a Somalia decision. They looked around and realized it just wasn't worth it. Countries sometimes do that. You have to wonder if the Koreans will make the same decision later this year, and if the Aussies will change governments and follow.
Paul Krugman's latest is as scary as it is funny:
The Arabian Candidate By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 20, 2004
In the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate," Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to "use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover."
The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest defender against communist evil.
So let's imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own version. This time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation's defender against terrorist evildoers.
The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy.
After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.
Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.
Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war's aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country's infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.
After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.
Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.
I just spoke with Virginia "Ginny" Schrader, and the news is spectacular. Between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. ET, her campaign has raised $14K online. Some from Daily Kos, some from other sources. This is a blogosphere-wide phenomenon.
She also going to be our candidate heading into November. And more importantly, she hasn't been asked by any prominent local or state Dems to step aside for someone else. That doesn't mean that the party can't change its mind once it has analyzed the situation with a sober mind, but 1) Ginny has put her entire life on hold for this race, and isn't about to drop it, and 2) the money coming in tonight will act as insurance, helping put to rest the "she can't raise money" excuse they might otherwise deploy.
Despite her limited resources, Ginny has already assembled a staff of five full-timers and a host of full-time volunteers, and has been receiving the enthusiastic help of local Dean groups (including one across state lines in New Jersey). I'm not sure if the Philly for Dean people are helping out, but that was one of the best Dean groups in the country. Hopefully they'll lend a hand. Especially since, given the ridiculously expensive Philly media market, her campaign plans on running a heavy ground operation.
Her campaign has already done joint canvassing with the local Kerry effort, and ACT is active in the area. It's going to be a battleground district for the presidential race, and their heavy emphasis on the ground game should have positive repercussions up and down the ticket. Spectacular news indeed.
Normally, I don't post solicitations for candidates, but this is a special case. The sitting GOP Congressman, Jim Greenwood (R-PA), was a moderate who just decided today to not run for another term. This is what we call an opportunity. It's pretty late in the game for her and anything you can send her way should help. This is a chance to take an open seat from the GOP and end the reign of Tom DeLay.
I usually leave the fundraising up to Kos and Atrios, but this, as I said, is a special case. Taking a seat from an incumbent is hard, but like with Obama in Illinois, the GOP is caught by the short hairs and we need to run with this one.
I can't tell you what to give, if anything, but if you want to help a Democrat get elected, she's as good a choice as any. As I said, I will come up with a list of candidates I think need your support, but that's for next month. But because Schrader doesn't have a lot of cash or time, anything you toss her way, and I mean $2, 5, with the usual cent added in so they know it came from the web, is going to help.
I've worked on local campaigns and what they need is money and bodies. She represents a suburban area near Philly. If you don't have the cash, volunteer. The time to strike is now, while the GOP scrambles to challenge her. And in Philly, she'll need money for media.
Most times, I don't like the idea of asking you to give money because then I've taken a side, but sometimes, you have to take sides. She needs the cash, she can win because it's a clear field and it's in a key swing state. Those reasons are enough to count. Any way you can help her campaign, money, field work, lawn signs, do it. You can't change the House and end Tom DeLay's reign except district by district, seat by seat.
And I'll get thing started by kicking in $10.01. I'd kick in more, but I am going to Boston. So, let's do something besides rant.
Update: There is a roaring debate on Kos about this race, but I'd like to make a couple of points:
Political races are as much about opportunity as anything else. If the Dems were prepared to lose the race with Schrader, they should be prepared to win it with her. The DCCC should be willing to invest in her and help her get up to speed. I know resources are limited, but everyone commenting is forgetting one thing: the GOP is in disarray. Greenwood quit with no warning. This is the time to drive on and hit your enemy while they're still stumbling about. The Dems have a standing candidate, the GOP has to find one and that should be an ugly process. So it doesn't matter if they don't have the perfect candidate, they can mold her into one. This is a woman who isn't afraid of the long odds, have run and lost, and having sought to run against a popular incumbent. You don't start political careers being annointed, you have to be willing to run and lose to eventually win.
Also, anyone who can raise $25K in one day is a formidable fundraiser. While Greenwood had $625K, he takes that with him. The new candidate starts from scratch, has to ramp up a campaign, staff and fundraising, at the end of a cycle where the traditional GOP fundraisers are giving money for Bush. None of that would be easy at this late date.
All national campaigns are a matter of allocating resources, but this may well be a Remagen moment.
In the spring of 1945, the 9th Armored Division was pushing to the Rhine river. Now, whenever the First Army came across a German bridge over the Rhine, it was blown. The plan was to have the British Second and US Ninth Armies cross the Rhine in a combined amphibious/airborne crossing. But the men of the 9th entered the town of Oberkassel on the West Side of the Rhine, they found the nearby Remagen Bridge still standing. At first, they waited for it to be turned into metal shavings, but it didn't happen.Eventually, they sent a patrol over the bridge. The Germans blew it, but it didn't go down. There were holes in the roadwork, but it was still standing. So, they threw a battalion, then a regiment over the bridge. Now, the Germans attacked the bridgehead for days with everything they had. But they couldn't push the Americans back.
The thing is that you have to seize opportunities where they lay, not where you want them to be. If you want to win, you have to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition. Waiting for perfection is usually waiting to fail,
Isn't Pinochet cool with those glasses? If he was still running Chile, they'd have sent troops to Iraq. Where they could have kidnapped civilians, run rape rooms and kill troublesome people. Kinda like the US did, but with questions from Congress in in the offing
Get over it
In his meeting with Chilean President Lagos, Bush should show some maturity by forgiving a country that refused to send troops to Iraq; restoring U.S. credibility in Latin America requires it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arturo Valenzuela
July 19, 2004 | President Bush meets today in the Oval Office with President Ricardo Lagos of Chile. The White House is celebrating this meeting as a symbol of the Bush administration's supposed commitment to Latin America, as well as of the presumed triumph of its free trade agreements and free-market economics. But let's not let White House spin interfere with the facts. This meeting -- the first official visit by a Chilean leader under Bush -- is long overdue; it underscores the extent to which the Bush administration has relegated Latin America to the back burner.
Democratically elected governments on the continent are at serious risk. Incomplete economic reforms have failed to generate adequate growth or reduce poverty, and all too many leaders have begun to question the wisdom of market-oriented policies and representative institutions. In this context, Chile stands as vivid proof that a Latin American democracy can successfully meet the challenges of globalization in the 21st century. Yet, despite Bush's rhetoric of support for democracy and open markets as a cardinal objective of U.S. foreign policy, Chile has spent nearly the entire past year out in the cold as far as America is concerned.
................
Instead, the White House chose to punish Chile, along with Mexico, because the two nations as members of the United Nations Security Council refused to support the Bush administration's effort to obtain U.N. approval for a rush to war against Iraq. Although Chile vigorously condemned Saddam Hussein's regime and strongly supported international efforts at containment, it was not persuaded by White House claims that Iraq represented an immediate danger to the security of the world. Nonetheless, Chile worked closely with the United Kingdom to find a compromise that would have strengthened the U.N. inspection system and given Iraq clear benchmarks to meet to avoid an attack. Rather than welcoming President Lagos' initiative, U.S. administration officials publicly denigrated Chile's efforts and shunted the signing of the Chile-U.S. trade agreement to an ignominious ministerial meeting in Miami. Singapore, whose trade negotiations were launched at the same time as Chile's, but which played along on Iraq, won an East Room presidential signing ceremony.
Bush has so subordinated US policy to what people were willing to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the dissent boiler Karimov in Uzbekistan and the Saud Dynasty get a pass while the right fumes at our real allies like France and Canada.
Why in God's name should Chile's stand on Iraq affect our trade policy with them? Why do I get the feeling that some wish Pincohet had never been deposed. Some being the cabal in the DOD
Paul Harris spends 24 hours on the stump with the man who aims to storm the White House, and finds that the Democrats' strategy of inspiring their core supporters is driving a powerful campaign
Sunday July 18, 2004
The Observer
For a moment the grey curtain parted. From behind stepped John Kerry, smiling and startling the posse of journalists at the back of his plush campaign plane.
'How is everybody?' Kerry grinned, walking forward and prompting a quick scramble for cameras and notebooks. Kerry was clearly feeling on top of the world. 'How are you, senator?', one journalist asked. 'Fabulous,' Kerry said, and then repeated: 'Fabulous.'
Kerry has a right to feel good. Only last December his campaign for the Democratic nomination was written off as a train wreck. Now, fighting a Bush administration mired in the Iraq war and with sliding approval ratings, Kerry heads a Democratic party that believes it can win the White House. His campaign is growing and evolving, seeking to turn itself into a winning machine. It is flush with cash, overflowing with volunteers and scoring regular hits on President George Bush. Kerry leads in the polls and basks in the afterglow of naming charismatic Southerner John Edwards as running mate. After a lifetime devoted to politics, this is Kerry's moment.
He knows it, too. With one foot on the arm of a chair, Kerry stood like a cowboy leaning on a gate. 'I am doing great. I have never been better. I am energised, back in shape, good and strong,' he enthused.
...............
Kerry knows he walks a tightrope. The surreal life inside a campaign 'bubble' can do many odd things but should never convince a candidate that journalists have his best interests at heart. After 15 minutes, with the plane beginning to descend, Kerry called it to an end. 'All right, guys, that's enough,' he said, before retreating behind the grey curtain.
An hour later Kerry was standing in a cavernous Philadelphia conference hall. In front of him hundreds of black members of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People cheered his name.
Kerry, a rich white Bostonian, has often been stung by criticism that his campaign cannot appeal to minorities. Certainly few of his top staff are non-white. But that did not seem to matter. 'We love you, John,' shouted one man over the din. 'Gosh, thank you,' Kerry said to the assembled throng. 'There is a lot of love in this room, I am telling you. I want to try and turn this love into votes.'
There is much talk in Democratic circles (and scared whispers in Republican ones) about the 'energisation of the base'. Blacks are certainly the most fundamental Democrat building block. And they were energised in this room. Kerry was confident enough to deviate from his script, ad libbing on topics close to black American hearts: civil rights, crime and discrimination. 'You have not always been greeted with open arms, but you have never flinched from speaking truth to power and you have never lost your faith in the American dream,' he said. Kerry got regular cheers and standing ovations. But, perhaps tellingly, none as loud as when he halted his scripted words to boast of picking Edwards. 'Didn't I make a great choice?', he said with a grin.
..................
The Democrats' Boston convention begins next week in their New England powerbase, which also happens to be the home town of presidential challenger John Kerry.
The line-up features many old stalwarts of the political scene. The prime-time highlight is expected to be Kerry's acceptance speech where he will present himself to America as a leader capable of unseating George Bush. He is also likely to highlight the contribution of his popular running mate John Edwards.
Providing back-up are many speakers from the Democrats' recent successful past including Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Gore has acted recently as one of Kerry's most aggressive supporters and is likely to lead the Bush-bashing. After a row when she was left off the initial speakers' list Hillary Clinton is to introduce her husband, satisfying those who wanted to see a woman on the list, while keeping one of Kerry's rivals off centre stage.
The Republicans will go to the heart of the traditionally Democrat city of New York to hold their convention at the end of August - a month after Kerry will have accepted his nomination. The choice of New York is full of symbolism for the American electorate as it was the focus of the 11 September attacks that have defined the Bush administration.
The choice has guaranteed a huge protest movement in the city itself with many New Yorkers planning to be out of town during convention week ahead of the expected chaos and possible violence. Thousands of extra police and security are being drafted in to keep things calm as anti-war protesters say they expect up to quarter of a million people to demonstrate.
The fact is that this look at the campaign points out one thing which American reporters miss, the Kerry campaign is on its game. He hasn't made any major mistakes, and Bush hasn't stopped making them. Which is unusual over a campaign. The GOP has invented a few things to attack Kerry on, but there's been no mistresses, no draft dodging, nothing to prevent a large victory over Bush. And this it takes the Observer to note this. Which is why the Guardian papers are one of the most trafficked news sites on the Web.
The article hints at the fact that the GOP made have made a mistake in picking New York as the home for their convention. Instead, they face the most devestating protests of the campaign, not by the anti-war people, but by the cops and firemen who hate both Bloomberg and Bush's refusal to fund first r
esponders. You can spin the Peace and Justice people as out of touch loons, even though they're not. You cannot spin cops and firemenas out of touch.
Oh yeah, while Giuliani speaks, people will be more than willing to remind America that he lied about the health conditions at Ground Zero.
You know, with all the talk about Nader, I forgot the reasons I never liked the Greens without him.It's easy to focus on St. Ralph and not get into the reasons the Green Party itself is a bunch of ineffectual failures on their own. As one could draw from their platform
I was listening to Harpers Washington reporter Thomas Frank discuss his new book, What's the Matter with Kansas how one of the poorest counties in America was solidly Republican. Because there was such a cleve in values between the way they lived and what they thought and had been told the Democrats stood for, that they had walked away from the party.
Now, the GOP used racial and religious bigotry to gain their advantage in the South and Midwest, while the Democrats didn't make the economic case which had worked for 40 years.
Why? Because of the new left. They started out as SDS and morphed into the Weathermen. Those who didn't minor in bomb making wound up working for Ralph Nader. You cannot just give credit to the GOP, they merely rode over broken ground until they found daylight.
The wreckage of the old new left can be seen in places like Berkeley, Pacifica Radio and ANSWER. Ineffectutal, riven with internal divisions and consumed with s litany of injustices from Mumia to Palestine, they aren't taken seriously by anyone but themselves. No one in the old new left noticed that black people placed a whole bunch of convicts wrongly convicted over their pet Mumia and had no great love of the Palestinians.
The new new left eventually looked towards Europe and saw how the Green Party, especially in Germany, flourished. Founded by Petra Kelly, the daughter of an American serviceman and a German woman, the German greens successfuly defined a younger, more energetic left.
Every country met trhe challenge of reinvigorating the left differently. In the UK, the moderate left were in two parties, the old liberals and the new Social Democrats. Realizing that they needed to combine to gain any electoral strength, they became the Liberal Democrats. The LDP is the moderate challenge to a badly split Labour, who were cursed/blessed with Tony Blair, who had Clinton's political skills, but Bush's religious fervor and obstinancy, and a bit of Reagan's luck. Also, the Tories are so discredited that they may be a decade from holding a majority. They may distrust Blair, but the party is so split that it is likely that Gordon Brown may lead the party into the next election and win a majority
In the US, there were two different challenges. One, to gain the White House, two, to create a new defitinion of the left. Bill Clinton did the first with an economic message, but his moral failings create a big hole for the values discussion which the GOP has managed to win, over and over.
The Greens were the other way. Based on the European model, the Greens have been spectacularly ineffective in creating a new definition of the left.
Why? Because it so doesn't relfect the concerns of the people they claim to speak for.
What is the most important issue for the Greens? Higher wages? Allowing unions to organize? Worker rights?
Nope.
Instant runoff voting (IRV). What is IRV? Basically, you would rank candidates in orde of preference and then whoever had the most total one and two votes would win, no runoff needed.
I'm sorry, but I think this is one of the dumbest ideas ever to hang a
campaign on. What do Greens promote when you hear from them? IRV. The ONLY people who care about IRV are policy wonks, poli sci professors and their grad school girlfriends. For the working people of American IRV is irrelevant.
It's not even a smart election reform. Instead of blathering about IRV, why npot campaign for either national holidays on election day or two-day, weekend elections. Both would boost voter turnout more than IRV.
*Comprehensive campaign finance reform, including caps on spending and contributions, and/or full public financing of elections.
* Significant lobbying regulation.
*Proportional Representation, instant runoff voting and cumulative voting.
* Abolishing the Electoral College.
*We encourage building alternative, grassroots institutions that support participatory and direct democracy at the local level; and forming bioregional confederations to coordinate regional issues based on natural and ecosystem boundaries.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck is a "bioregional confederation". What does that have to do with politics in the real world.
Their economic positions also live in the fairyland on wonkery
* Greens take an uncompromising position that the care and nurture of children, elders and the disabled are essential to a healthy, peaceful and sustainable society. The work of their caregivers is of value, and we should reward it accordingly.
*Our foundation is healthy, educated children who are raised with love and security.
*All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, a living wage job, education, and support in times of hardship.
*We call for restoration of a federally funded entitlement program to support children, families, the unemployed, elderly and disabled, with no time limit on benefits.
*We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level.
*Public funding for living wage jobs.
*Tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage standards
*Income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive wealth.
There isn't a Congress which would pass a negative income tax. And the Greens don't conceed that Welfare Reform was popular with the poor, who really wanted jobs. Instead of worrying about who gets rich, they need to worry about who hires the poor. A lot of jobs would be more tolerable if people had a decent wage and health insurance.
v
A. EDUCATION
The failing report card of American education is troubling for most every American. Who fails to see the connection between our investment in education and our success as a people? Who believes there is no relation between personal achievement and a quality education – an education that teaches creative and critical thinking skills and a respect for lifelong learning? Where can we best make a difference in our future?
The Green Party maintains that access to quality education for all Americans is the difference that will lead to a strong and diverse community. The Green Party seeks fundamental change in our priorities at the national and local levels, within the public and private sectors, in the classroom and at home, to make education our first priority.
1. Greens support EDUCATIONAL DIVERSITY. We hold no dogma absolute, continually striving for truth in the realm of ideas. We open ourselves – consciously and intuitively – to truth and beauty in the world of nature. We view learning as a lifelong process to which all people have an equal right.
2. Education starts with CHOICE and within public education we believe in broad choices. “Magnet schools,” “Site-based Management,” “Schools within Schools,” alternative models and parental involvement are ways in which elementary education can be changed to make a real difference in the lives of our children. CURRICULUM should focus on SKILLS, both basic skills that serve as a solid foundation for higher learning, and exploratory approaches that expand horizons, such as distance learning, “interactive” education, computer proficiencies, perspectives that bring an enriched awareness of nature (“biological literacy”), intercultural experiences, and languages.
3. We advocate creative and noncompetitive education at every age level, and the inclusion of cultural diversity in all curricula. We encourage “hands on” approaches that encourage a multitude of individual learning styles.
4. PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY should be encouraged by finding ways to help support parents in their efforts to help support their children as more families confront economic conditions demanding a greater deal of time be spent away from home. Parents should be as involved as possible in their children’s education; values do start with parents.
5. STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY is also key to developing intrinsic capabilities. Greens hold strongly to empowerment of individuals; therefore, we support each student recognizing their own personal responsibility: to strive to achieve their fullest potential as an individual.
6. FEDERAL POLICY on education should act principally to ensure equal opportunity to a quality education.
7. Educational funding formulas at the STATE LEVEL need to be adjusted as needed to avoid gross inequalities between districts and schools. Educational grants should provide necessary balance to ensure equal educational access for minority, deprived, special needs and exceptional children. In higher education, federal college scholarship aid should be increased and aimed at excluding no qualified student.
8. Our teachers find they are underpaid, overworked and rarely supplied with the resources necessary to do the work most are sincerely trying to do to reach their students. It is time to stop disinvesting in education, and start putting education at the top of our social and economic agenda.
9. We call on all Greens to include education as a regular part of our meetings so we can be clear about what unites us as well as what divides us.
10. We call for equitable state and national funding of school education and the creation of schools controlled by parent-teacher governing bodies.
11. We support after-school programs for “latchkey” children.
12. We advocate state funding for DAY CARE that includes school children under the age of ten when after-school programs are not available.
13. Classroom teachers at the elementary and high school levels should be given PROFESSIONAL STATUS, and salaries comparable to related professions requiring advanced education, training and responsibility.
14. Principals are also essential components in effective educational institutions. We encourage state Departments of Education and school boards to deliver more programmatic support and decision-making to the true grassroots level – i.e., the classroom teacher and school principal.
15. Use of computers in the early grades should not supplant the development of basic interpersonal, perceptual and motor skills as a foundation for learning.
16. We call for the teaching of non-violent conflict resolution at all levels of education.
17. We recognize the viable alternative of HOME-BASED EDUCATION.
18. We support a host of innovative and critical educational efforts, such as BI-LINGUAL EDUCATION, CONTINUING EDUCATION, JOB RETRAINING, MENTORING AND APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS.
19. Dispute resolution is an important part of resolving classroom or after-school disputes, and a life skill that all children should learn.
20. We are deeply concerned about the intervention in our schools of corporations that promote a culture of consumption and waste. Schools should not expose children to commercial advertising. Schools must safeguard students’ privacy rights and not make available private student information upon corporate (or federal government) request.
21. Within higher education, we oppose military and corporate control over the priorities and topics of academic research.
22. We support tuition-free post secondary (collegiate and vocational) public education.
If you look over this part of their platform, you see ideas with no solutions. I know party platforms are just ideas, but the Greens ideas sound great, but have zero legislative juice. Because they don't have the means or the ability or the interest in making leglislative changes in the real world.
Instead of worrying about electing people, pressure campaigns and alliances would actually work far better in furthering their goals than running some clown no one has heard of for president, which is an improvement over their celebrity driven campaigns of 1996 and 2000.
My problem with the greens is that they make nods towards the working class but have no, zero, ability to talk to them. The party reeks of elitism and a standoffishness that comes from the academic cloister.
A useful green party would emulate the communists and work with unions and workers and try to organize for their benefit.
What is so frustrating about modern American politics is that GOP has hidden that they are the party of the entrenched classes. You cannot write about business for long without seeing the entrenched CEO class rising to the top like scum. The Greens are too quick to say "corporations are evil"without drawing the disintcitions critical to understand how they work. Microsoft, despite sharp business practices, treats their workers fairly well and don't hire slaves. Nike, otoh, is about as evil as one can get without the words IG Farben being used. Without a distinction between companies and their influence, it is impossble to craft serious public policy.
The Greens are also poor field organizers and field workers. They have had some success in local elections, but instead of getting party members it would be far smarter to have their people inside the Democratic Party when practical. But then practical isn't a Green virtue.
Instead of transforming the politicsl process by being the voice of the working poor and lower classes, the Greens are ivory tower intellectuals most comfortable with convincing their own NPR-listening, graduate school student dating core than reaching out to help the poor and working class better their lives. They speak neither to their values nor their economic interest.
I welcome anyone to tell me what the Greens offer the just out of high school Wal-Mart worker. IRV isn't going to raise his wages, neither is their endless blather. When they start to write bills, give me a call.
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 18, 2004; Page A03
NEW YORK -- They sat there, three diminutive and worried Mexican women, in the shadows in the back pews of St. Jerome's Church in the Bronx. Father John O. Grange noticed and motioned them forward.
The women handed Grange a letter. They had asked for apartment repairs, and this letter contained what appeared to be the landlord's response.
"Dear Tenants," the letter stated, "As you know the United States Government and specifically the Homeland Security Administration is investigating illegal aliens . . . I have given them all the information that I know about my tenants (age, names, work, cars, marriage, country of origin, telephone numbers, children) . . . You should expect a visit in the near future."
Grange, 64, forms a fist and frowns.
"Their hands were shaking as I read the letter -- they were scared stiff," said the priest, who is a founding member of South Bronx Churches, an ecumenical organizing group that is helping the women. "Evil has reared its head and threatens to ruin their hardworking lives."
Much has changed in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world of New York. There are subway announcements advising riders to watch for suspicious people and unattended packages. There is the shared memory of attacks past and the fear of more to come. And for some of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the city, especially those whose visa papers are not in order, the fear is doubled. They worry about more attacks and about those who might take advantage of them in these troubled times.
"This case in the Bronx is a particularly flagrant example of what our constituency faces with some frequency," said Andrew Friedman, co-director of Make the Road by Walking, an immigrant advocacy group that has worked with tenants in Brooklyn who have received similar verbal threats from landlords. "People put up with absolutely ghastly living conditions and feel they can't complain in this security-conscious world."
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund handled several cases in the past year in which landlords tried to intimidate Muslim tenants by threatening to call the FBI. An organizer who works with nannies said that such threats are common -- and that they recently won a court case for back wages against a tennis instructor who warned he would call the Department of Homeland Security.
"We hear about this quite often -- it's our main challenge, because employers know everyone is so scared now," said Ai-jen Poo, who works for Domestic Workers United in the Bronx. "Even people with legal green cards are afraid of deportation post-9/11. It's a double whammy because the economy isn't great."
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in New York report often receiving tips from landlords. "It's very common to hear from landlords," said spokesman Michael Gilhooley. "But our inspectors are careful to balance the tips with the fact that New York has so many immigrants. We prioritize based on threats to public safety."
By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, July 18, 2004; Page A05
All politics is local. But this year, it is getting downright neighborly.
Take Minnesota. The state Republican Party has developed a Web site that allows its activists to tap into a database of voters whose political allegiances and concerns it would like to know. But it is not just any group of voters -- they are the activists' neighbors.
The project, dubbed WebVoter, gives GOP activists the names and addresses of 25 people who live, in most cases, within a couple of blocks from them. The party has asked 60,000 supporters from across the state to figure out what issues animate their neighbors and where they stand in the political spectrum, and report that information back to the party -- with or, possibly, without their neighbors' permission.
Those who seem persuadable will receive campaign literature from Republican candidates -- including President Bush -- with whom the party plans to share its data. Those deemed incorrigible Democrats will be struck from the list.
"We don't want to waste our time or money on people who are not going to vote with us regardless of what we do," said Larry Colson, a Minnesota entrepreneur who helped develop the site. "We would like to be able to hone the message to people who are already with us and then people who are on the fence -- those are the people that we'd like to target."
So when those names wind up in the Homeland Security database, it woiuld be an "accident".
It's one thing to report positives, but another to keep track of negatives. This is the kind of thing which gets people sued.
I'm sitting in my living room, downloading legal copies of music I already own, and watching TV via my wireless connection. The reason I have a wireless connection is simple, someone gave me a wireless card for my old Kanga Mac which works perfectly with my new laptop and I have a card for my desktop. Which I think is a good solution for people with kids. They can keep the DSL in a remote location and control internet access. For me, it's just an easy way to cut down on wires.
But this isn't about wireless. I'll write about my mobile adventures after the convention, I'll go into my coverage plans in detail, but the first day will be live, the other days will deal with policy issues in order to make what's going on in Boston logical. And of course, the main speeches. I'll be honest, even with creds, four days with pols and consultants wheedling you is my idea of hell.
Nor is this about my plans for the convention, which I'll discuss next weekend.
This is about how I'm in the position to do all of this.
As regular readers know, I was in the hospital for two months over the winter and pretty much out of it until May. I'm doing a lot better now, but this site wouldn't be here and I certainly wouldn't be going to Boston if my partner on the site, Jen, didn't keep things, up, answer my e-mail and do a bunch of stuff that I physically couldn't do.
Now, there's a lesson there, one which I'll share.
It's about trust. The one lesson that a man needs to learn is when to trust women.
Now, I have a bunch of guys who are very close, long term friends, people I have known since I was 20 years old and drinking six days a week. I don't miss those days, and I often wonder how we collectively avoided arrest, because there was some close calls. I won't romantize them, because they're mostly about me and my friends acting really stupid.
If there was a drunken adventure to be had, well, if I didn't have it, I know someone who did. Even today, we can still recall the stupidest of these moments.
But at some point, you need to grow out of that crap and become an adult. Now, I still like the occasional drink, I haven't had one in months because I'm trying to control my weight after losing 70 pounds and gaining a few back. But I don't drink every day any more and I try not to get drunk. It's become passe to me. It's part of the reason I have such contempt for Bush. He never grew up, realized that being sober isn't a test but a way to live. Now, I'm not a drunk, but if you drink hard enough, long enough, you'll become one. And since my father had worked with drunks for 20+ years, I wanted to stop well short of that.
Oddly, when I cut back my drinking, I started to date women. Were the two coinciding with each other? Probably not. I was growing up anyway, and meeting women who liked the fact that I was straight, single and reasonably intelligent. Did I do everything right in those relationships? No, but they were better than talking to a bottle of Jack Daniels. Now, I hadn't been completely celebate, but to be honest, it was more important to hang with the boys and drink than worry about the approval of women.
But as I grew older, I realized that women had a lot to offer. Not just for naked coed sports, but in sound, rational advice. Now, there are guy problems, and guys know when they need other male advice. Like, oh, what to do on a date, when to introduce her to your friends, things like that. But there were a whole range of problems, like parental illness and dealing with my sisters and their kids in which guys were helpless about.
As I made friends with adult women, I realized that they actually could be good, loyal friends with really sound advice. Which to a person who was really living a guy-centered life, sports, booze, more sports, antics, this was a revelation. Now, this doesn't mean I've gotten uniformly good advice from women, but the good advice has been really good.
Now, the reason I can sit here and type this is because I trust Jen's advice implicitly. Unlike other people in her life. In fact, it saved my ass more than once. But while I was debating whether to get an iBook or a ThinkPad, once Jen weighted in, well, that was the end of the debate. Not because she wouldn't talk to me if I got an iBook, but because her ideas just made sense. I didn't say "hey, her advice trumps all you folks", but it pretty much did.
Now, she's not my only female friend, just the closest, for a variety of reasons, including my undying gratitude to her for keeping up the site.
But what I like about my friendships with women overall is the compassion and general common sense they offer on a regular basis. If you're going to do something risky and potentially dangerous-call a guy. But if you need solid advice about making real life decisions, you need a woman's thinking.
Oh, I still have chauvinist thoughts, like the jokes we made about these women playing football while their boyfriends watched. We did ridicule the men for letting their women do the hard work. But when it comes to real life, I pretty much cut that shit out. Because when I consider where I would be without the sound advice of Jen and other female friends, well, I'd be poorer for it.
I think the big mistake that men make is not listening to women. Sure, they can nag, but in many cases, they're actually right, especially when you're about to do something stupid. Now this isn't uniform, but in many cases, ignoring advice usually winds your ass in trouble,
Once people get past looks and odd habits, one of the key criteria for selecting a partner, not just for bed, but business as well, is would you trust their advice and instincts. If you can't, they why are you doing anything with them.
Some Republican county organization is selling bumperstickers which say :Kerry is Bin Laden's man/Bush is my man. Except Kerry has never taken a dime from the Bin Laden's and well, we know the Bush family is a subsidiary of them. And of course, that he helped them escape after 9/11. I guess a billion dollars speaks loudly.
But that isn't the point.
When you see some nonsense like this, you don't have to fume quietly. You can take action and make people pay for this kind of crap. But you have to be smart about it. Complaining to them is probably fruitless, do the idea is to cause them real discomfort created by other people. It's called the multiplier effect. Since 50 screaming blog readers can be ignored, that's not the way to go. You want TV cameras and reporters calling people, not just the affected people, but the state chairman.
It's easy to create a controversy, if you seem sane, write politely and well, and target your letters. Don't go into how, in this case, Republicans are evil. Instead, act like a neutral, enraged voter. Saying you're a potential Bush voter is even better.
Dear Congressman(senator, chairman),
As a loyal supporter of the President, I was deeply disturbed to see a bumper sticker:Kerry is Bin Laden's man/Bush is my man. As a (veteran, daughter of, son of, Iraq War vet) I was deeply hurt to see that supporters of the President could sully his name by accusing his opponent of treason. If this is how the Kentucky Republican Party wants to help reelect the President, they may well do it without my vote or financial support.
(if the member is a vet, remind him, if he's a chickenhawk, say the following) Even though you didn't serve in the Armed Forces, I know you are a supporter of our veterans and would reject any attempt to slander their service, even if they are your political opponents.
While I would recommend that you not lie, just spin the facts to your benefit so that they will take you seriously.
The same with the media. Express incredulity at such tactics and express your distress, and forget to mention you detest Bush. The media doesn't trust partisans, so you want to make it clear that you aren't one. They might google your name, but let's be real, only the smartest reporters would do that. But if that is a concern, write the letter and let someone who doesn't have a Google trail sign it.
Remmeber, this isn't about a real expression of outrage. This is creating the climate to put pressure on people using dirty tactics. You want to turn up the heat on these guys and to do that you have to sound genuinely outraged, but not like a pissed off partisan.
The trick in bringing this kind of tactic to light is to sound as calm, rational and reasonable as possible. The best candidate for this is the young mother in a swing district. Vets are also good for this, as are teenagers. But anyone can do it if they mind their tone and contact the right people. This will happen again and again, especially as the Sauron/Gollum campaign spirals to defeat, so save this post and practice it when needed.
The dish of North Carolina, hush puppies, cole slaw and chopped pork
Last weekend, I went to North Carolina for my cousin's 50th birthday, which I mentioned early in the week. However, I didn't mention the food.
North Carolina ain't New Orleans. No cute food stuffs at every corner, no quaint restaurants. In fact, if you had told me I was in South Jersey, I would have believed you. Sure, people don't have donkeys in South Jersey, but they have highways and Taco Bell. But then, I was in the 'burbs and not Charlotte or Raleigh.
When we got there, we had the all-southern cheesesteak sandwich. Yep. If the south is South Philly, that is. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't southern either.
The reality is that America is becoming increasingly homoginized. The TV, except for local news, is the same. Once, you had a Bozo in every city, and an Officer Joe on Channel 11, which wasn't the WB back then. Local TV, before cable was unique, not in when it showed Will and Grace, but what they showed and when. Local news was local, not running CNN feeds or even worse, the Sinclair fake news model of one newscaster in Baltimore for all their stations.
You would think food would make a difference.
Well, if difference is Sonic, Taco Bell and Hardees, sure. But the reality is that you can be in North Carolina or Georgia or LA and watch the same channels. My niece called up my mother one day, and they were both watching the Food Network. With the growth of sattelite radio, we'll all be listening to XM one day at the same time and hear the same song.
But there are differences.
We had lunch in our hotel, and they served Southern standards, butter beans, potatoes, fried chicken, hsuh puppies and one thing I thought was stuffing. Well, it was chopped pork. For some reason, in this part of North Carolina, they like chopped pork bbq. Now, if you're thinking some kind of red sauced mess, well, you'd be wrong. This was chopped pork. Simple as that. I put some in my plate and it was good. Not great, but good.
My cousin's husband is an Air Force officer. He's a maitenance officer in an F-15 wing, and is from Texas. When he was first stationed in North Carolina, where he met my cousin (his future wife), he was a 19 year old airman and was used to Texas barbecue. So he goes into a barbecue joint and asks for a link platter. They looked at him as if he were insane. Now, they love their sausages there, but not barbecued.
So he had to adapt. And this isn't like adapting to KC or Memphis 'cue. In Virginia, they seem to like the pork pulled. In North Carolina, or at least this part, they like it chopped. Oh yeah, it has a nice vinegar taste to it.
His aunt, who along with his mother and her other sister, had driven from Texas. So they're in the hotel restaurant, and she sees a clear amber liquid on the table. She put it on the biscuit she had, and surprise, surprise, it was vinegar barbecue sauce. Ooops. Vinegar? What the hell? She thought it was honey.
Now, our table had the same thing on it, in an oil bottle. My mother thought it was for salad, but I knew better. I put some on the chopped pork, tossed on some hot sauce, a condiment with all black meals, and it wasn't bad at all. Now, I'm not going to buy a pork shoulder for this, but it wasn't bad. The ribs were stewed, but that was OK.
The same night, my cousin's party had exactly the same food, Oh, they had ham sliced up and chopped turkey bbq for the people who didn't eat pork any more. Tasted exactly the same. In fact, they had the same food, and an interesting sheet cake, yellow in the front, chocolate in the back.
The next morning, we went to breakfast, and to be honest, it was a 50-50 trip, did have barbecue, didn't go to Waffle House. Well, there are a lot of Waffle Houses. But no barbecue would have been a complete failure.
But breakfast was interesting. I started off with a pancake. Trust me, there was a lot of food. They had stewed apples, bacon, link sausage, patty sausage, beef carolina sausage, potatoes, scrambled eggs, biscuits, sausage gravy, regular gravy, grits and a pan of melted cheese. I wondered what the melted cheese was for until I saw someone make cheese grits. I passed on the grits the first day. In a nod to health, a minor one, they had margarine instead of butter. But I ate everything else. Including the biscuits.
Now, this was a shitload of good Southern cookin'. Usually hotel food sucks, but since we got a voucher for the food, we would have eaten it anyway. But this food didn't suck. It was good. The eggs weren't runny, the grits were loose, but not watery. The sausages were fresh. The pancakes were ok, but this wasn't about pancakes. And the place was filled with locals. How could I tell? Well, they had on T-shirts and thick, North Carolina accents.
After church, it's the South and church is expected for visitors, we went back to my cousin's house. Where she had LOTS of left over food and a house full of people, also a southern tradition. So she set the food out and we ate it again. There was so much food, we took it home AND took a plate back to our hotel. But to take it home, I had to get a cooler and in rural/ suburban America, there is one place to go: Slave-Mart.
Another one of my cousins, my cousin's other sister had six kids, drove me out to Wal-Mart. This was the largest fucking store outside of Ikea I have ever been in. A full supermarket on one side, and I mean as full as your local Krogers or Stop and Shop, and a full Wal-Mart on the other side. So after 20 minutes searching, we found a cooler for $8.84. Right next to the guns. It was North Carolina, after all. They sold guns and cigarettes in the same case.
Of course, most of the stuff was cheap, the reason people shop at Target, but there was enough of it to awe me, an American who lives in Manhattan.
Normally, I'm not a biscuits fan, but they usually suck up here. With the white gravy, usually milk, flour, salt and pepper, it wasn't bad.
Monday morning, it was the same food, plus sage sausages. Now, I'm indifferent on sage sausages, but the Carolina sausages were pretty good. However, I love link sausages. Just love them. Don't eat them much any more, but I do love them. This time, there was a bowl of shredded cheese. So I, after nearly 20 years, tried grits once again and it wasn't bad. The cheese and the grits were pretty good. It was the same hefty breakfast, because the food on Amtrak sucks and we had a 9 AM train to catch.
It wasn't that the food was unfamiliar, it wasn't. I've been to the South, and I've eaten the food up here. It was the quantities and the relentlessness of the pig which stunned me.
However, my mother was caught by something else: sweet tea.
My first encounter with sweet tea was in Florida, where they gave it away. If you want a soda, expect to pay for it outside any fast food place. But sweet tea? They give it away. And the name is no misnomer. With tea and lemonade, it is as sweet as danish. It is teeth shatteringly sweet and not cut with lemon, as it is up here.
My mother went to eat and asked for tea. They brought her sweet tea, which she didn't know what the hell it was. So she sent it back and asked for hot tea.
There are two traditional iced teas in the United States. The only variation between them is sugar. Southerners swear by their traditional sweet ice tea and drink it by the gallons. In the South, ice tea is not just a summertime drink, it is served year round with most meals. When people order tea in a Southern restaurant, chances are they will get sweet ice tea. Outside of the southern states, iced tea is served unsweetened or “black,” and most people have never even heard of sweet tea.
Sweet tea with a mint leaf
20th Century
1900s - After 1900, iced tea became commonplace in cookbooks, and black tea began replacing green as the preferred tea for serving cold. The preference for black over green tea in an iced beverage came with of inport of inexpensive black tea exports from India, Ceylon, South America, and Africa.
1904 - It was at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis that iced tea was popularized and commercialized (not invented). Due to the hot summer of 1904, people ignored any hot drinks and went in search of cold drinks, including iced tea. Because of this, it changed the way the rest of Americans thought of tea, thus popularizing iced tea.
Most historians mistakenly give credit to Richard Blechynden, Director of the East Indian Pavilion, as being the creator of ice tea at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis. Blechynden also had a concession at the fair selling East Indian Tea in liquid and loose form. According to the book Beyond The Ice Cream Cone - The Whole Scoop on Food at the 1904 World's Fair by Pamela J. Vaccaro:
Both hot tea and iced tea appeared on most restaurant menus at the Fair - at the Barbecue, Fair Japan, the Old Irish Parliament House, the Louisiana and Texas Rice Kitchen, Mrs. Rorer's East Pavilioin Cafe, and so on. It is highly unlikely that all these restaurants jumped on the bandwagon of Blechynden's "new idea," and scurried to the print shops to have their menus reprinted!
What really "stirs the pot" is that "Richard Blechynden" was listed as an official concessionaire (No. 325) "to serve tea in cups and packages" at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 - 11 years before the one in St. Louis. The financial records from the exposition do not list any ledger entries for Blechynden - which raises the question of whether he actually showed up or was just late with his report. But, if he had been there, it would have been odd that he would not have realized that his product was already being sold in hot and cold versions. It would likewise be odd that, in the 11 intervening years, he would have been totally oblivious to the drinkls inclusion in cookbooks and on menus.
1917 - By World War I, Americans were buying special tall iced tea glasses, long spoons, and lemon forks. By the 1930s, people were commonly referring to the tall goblet in crystal sets as an "iced tea" glass.
1920-1933 - The American Prohibition (1920-1933) helped boost the popularity of iced tea because average Americans were forced to find alternatives to illegal beer, wine, and alcohol. Iced tea recipes begin appearing routinely in most southern cookbooks during this time.
1928 - In the southern cookbook, Southern Cooking, by Henrietta Stanley Dull (Mrs. S.R. Dull), Home Ecomonics Editor for the Atlanta Journal, gives the recipe that remained standard in the South for decades thereafter. It is a regional book that very much resemblances the many “church” or “ladies society” cookbooks of that era.
TEA - Freshly brewed tea, after three to five minutes' infusion, is essential if a good quality is desired. The water, as for coffee, should be freshly boiled and poured over the tea for this short time . . . The tea leaves may be removed when the desired strength is obtained . . . Tea, when it is to be iced, should be made much stronger, to allow for the ice used in chilling. A medium strength tea is usually liked. A good blend and grade of black tea is most popular for iced tea, while green and black are used for hot . . . To sweeten tea for an iced drink-less sugar is required if put in while tea is hot, but often too much is made and sweetened, so in the end there is more often a waste than saving . . . Iced tea should be served with or without lemon, with a sprig of mint, a strawberry, a cherry, a slice of orange, or pineapple. This may be fresh or canned fruit. Milk is not used in iced tea.
1941 - During World War II, the major sources of green tea were cut off from the United States, leaving us with tea almost exclusively from British-controlled India, which produces black tea. Americans came out of the war drinking nearly 99 percent black tea.
1995 - South Carolina's grown tea was officially adopted as the Official Hospitality Beverage by State Bill 3487, Act No. 31 of the 111th Session of the South Carolian General Assembly on April 10, 1995.
21st Century
2003 - Georgia State Representative, John Noel, and four co-sponsores, apparently as an April Fools' Day joke, introduced House Bill 819, proposing to require all Georgia restaurants that serve tea to serve sweet tea. Representative John Noel, one of the sponsors, is said to have acknowledged that the bill was an attempt to bring humor to the Legislature, but wouldn't mind if it became law. The text of the bill proposes:
(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'sweet tea' means iced tea which is sweetened with sugar at the time that it is brewed.
(b) Any food service establishment which served iced tea must serve sweet tea. Such an establishment may serve unsweetened tea but in such case must also serve sweet tea.
(c) Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.
If you aren't Southern, you might wonder how you make this tea:
Being a northerner, I didn't like Southern Ice Tea when I first tried it. In the Pacific Northwest (Oregon to be exact), we don't sweetened our ice tea. But it sweet tea just seems to grow on you. Now I crave it! Juanita's recipe is so easy and is wonderful.
3 cups boiling water
1 family-size tea bag or 3 regular-size tea bags
1/2 to 3/4 cup sugar or to taste
5 cups cold water
Ice cubes
Pour boiling water over the tea bags. Set aside and let steep 5 minutes. Remove tea bags.
In a large pitcher, add sugar and pour warm tea over sugar; stirring until sugar is melted. Add 5 cups cold water and stir until well mixed. Cool and serve in tall glasses over ice.
Thousands line up for one-of-a-kind taste of Campero chicken
BY JOSE MARTINEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thousands of Central American immigrants stood on line for up to three hours yesterday, hoping for a deep-fried taste of home at the opening of a Pollo Campero outlet in Queens.
"There's no flavor like it, at least not anywhere around here," said Sergio Sanchez, 18, who was born in Guatemala. "I'll wait as long as I have to for some of that chicken."
The opening of the three-story eatery on Roosevelt Ave. and 104th St. in Corona - the Guatemalan chain's first outlet in New York - caused a stir beneath the No. 7 tracks.
Police barricades were set up to keep the crowd under control. Leggy models in stretch pants shook things up on a stage. And Mayor Bloomberg went to the front of the line to munch on two pieces of chicken, fries and a Diet Coke.
"I can't be in my country, but eating this chicken almost takes me there," said Luz Ramos, 68, a Guatemalan immigrant who now lives in Queens.
Previous Pollo Campero openings in California and Washington also have drawn crowds that would make Col. Sanders spin in his grave.
"Yes, it's just a piece of chicken," said Moises Orellano, 26, who recently arrived in New York from El Salvador. "But it's not just a piece of a chicken - Pollo Campero is the king where I'm from."
"Thankfully, I'm on vacation, so I can spend all day waiting for chicken, if I have
to," said Silvia Esquite of Queens, who left Guatemala in 1988.
Would you turst an overgrown canary (think Tweety on steroids) in a dopey orange cowboy hat?
I was skeptical when I first saw the big yellow bird that is the mascot of Pollo Campero, a Guatemalan chicken chain where they promise "tender, juicy and crunchy" legs, wings, breasts and thighs.
Happily, Pollo Campero makes good on all three of those promises. The place serves up some very tasty bird.
I found myself clucking with approval as I inhaled my $5.95 three-piece meal, which came with two sides. I was left with the biggest pile of bones I'd seen since my last visit to the dinosaurs at the American Museum of Natural History.
Pollo Campero Chicken
I'd never heard of this chain before, because I'm not a Central American. And I don't live in Queens. The last time I heard of lines like this, Krispy Kreme was the store in question. This must be some special fried chicken. The Daily News ran a larger shot in print, and the line was three hours long. For fried chicken.
Fried chicken. Three hours. Maybe I'll convince Jen to make a trip out there one day. Three hours for chicken.
Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.
They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs.
They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death".
The Prime Minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement to the Herald, saying Dr Allawi had never visited the centre and he did not carry a gun.
But the informants told the Herald that Dr Allawi shot each young man in the head as about a dozen Iraqi policemen and four Americans from the Prime Minister's personal security team watched in stunned silence.
Advertisement Advertisement
Iraq's Interior Minister, Falah al-Naqib, is said to have looked on and congratulated him when the job was done. Mr al-Naqib's office has issued a verbal denial.
The names of three of the alleged victims have been obtained by the Herald.
One of the witnesses claimed that before killing the prisoners Dr Allawi had told those around him that he wanted to send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents.
"The prisoners were against the wall and we were standing in the courtyard when the Interior Minister said that he would like to kill them all on the spot. Allawi said that they deserved worse than death - but then he pulled the pistol from his belt and started shooting them."
Re-enacting the killings, one witness stood three to four metres in front of a wall and swung his outstretched arm in an even arc, left to right, jerking his wrist to mimic the recoil as each bullet was fired. Then he raised a hand to his brow, saying: "He was very close. Each was shot in the head."
This is the transcript of an interview the ABC did with the reporter
PAUL McGEOUGH: Um, after a tour of the complex, the sort of official party, if you like, arrived in a courtyard where the prisoners were lined up against a wall.
An exchange is said to have taken place between Dr Allawi and the Interior Minister.
The Interior Minister lives to the north of Baghdad, and on June 19, four of his bodyguards were killed in an attack on his home.
He expressed the wish that he would like to kill all these men on the spot.
The PM is said to have responded that they deserved worse than death, that each was responsible for killing more than 50 Iraqis each, and at that point, he is said to have pulled a gun and proceeded to aim at and shoot all seven.
Six of them died, the seventh, according to one witness, was wounded in the chest, according to the other witness, was wounded in the neck and presumed to be dead.
MAXINE McKEW: And the victims, they were, what, foreign or local insurgents?
PAUL McGEOUGH: They were - one of the witnesses described them as Wahabis, the Iraqi colloquialism for foreign fighters who have come into the country or local Iraqis who have taken on their Islamic jihad, if you like.
The reference is very much to their appearance - very short hair, very scraggly beard and four of them were described as Wahabis, the other three were described to me as normal Iraqis.
................
MAXINE McKEW: And of course, I have to ask you again - I'm sure that the Baghdad rumour mill would be thick with stories about Dr Allawi.
Why are you so confident that you can't put this story into that same category?
PAUL McGEOUGH: Because it came from two eye witnesses.
You're right about the Baghdad rumour mill, it's ferocious.
And versions of this story are on it and it was as a result of hearing this story as a rumour that I proceeded to check it to investigate it, to see if it had a factual base.
I used, as I said earlier, personal channels to make contact with the two witnesses to establish that they were in a position to know in terms of somebody trying to come at me with a story, that wasn't the case.
They did not come to me.
They weren't offered or volunteered to me.
There was an element of chance involved in meeting one of them, which would have made it impossible for him to have been a set-up for me, and listening to their stories, their stories sounded credible.
I had a colleague sitting in by accident on one of the interviews.
He was impressed by the credibility and something that's very important with a story like this in this part of the world, particularly where you're interviewing through interpreters I had a very sound, to me on the ground, a very valuable set of Iraqi eyes and ears listening and also believing the account.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Well, at least he didn't chop them up.
This kind of thing will sit very poorly in Congress. Murdering the unarmed is not the way to bring justice to Iraq, forget democracy. We always knew he was a thug, but this? Maybe Chalabi should have been placed in charge. After all, he'd farm out the killing. This is so....1968. Shooting prisoners in the street. Except of course, the ARVN won the battle for Saigon and Allawi's army doesn't exist, and what does is penetrated by the resistance. We wanted a strongmen, we got a weak, soon to be killed strongman.
The rape rooms have returned, and they include children.The bodies are the last of Saddam's victims. They have been joined by those created by the Americans
When speaking to the ACLU, Sy Hersh says there is video of US troops sodimizing Iraqi boys
I haven't had much to say about this because there isn't much to say. This is the worst command failure since Kasserine Pass, maybe Pearl Harbor. There is no recovery from this, no escape. Gen. Sanchez was fired for this, they won't say a word about his firing, and that IS what it was. It will take decades and many trials to have any hope of dealing with the Arabs from any position of trust again.
My only question is who thought this up. Despite the IndyMedia/Counterpunch crowd, it's not how the Shin Bet operates or the Mossad. Did the interrogators think they would break Arabs by raping their children? Did they think they would get good intelligence doing this?
All we did was draw one of the most effective intelligence shields over a resistance movement in the history of warfare. We have NO IDEA of who the leadership of the resistance is, no idea of how they operate or who directs them or any clue as to the penetration of the resistance into the government. My bet is that one of the government's ministers is a resistance leader. They have people inside Allawi's office, inside every base, they own the security services.
Even people inclined to work with us stopped cold after Abu Ghraib. And that doesn't mean Scott Pelley's report, but the rumors which flooded Baghdad in the fall of 2003. Usually, a resistance movement gets people killed in large numbers. Leaders are often killed rapidly. Not only have we not killed any resistance leaders outside of combat, but none have been rounded up. Even if we grab them by accident, average Iraqis will not point them out. This is a gross failure, failure like having the British read Enigma signals.
Every word from CENTCOM and Bush about the war should be regarded as a lie. Every word. Because we're losing the war. In Monday's USA Today, the Marines admitted that they were barely holding on to Ramadi, which would mean the US would lose control of Al Anbar province, Iraq's largest. The US has a few outposts, but the resistance controls most of the city.
The use of torture was so amazingly counterproductive and so reenforced the resistance, one has to wonder why no one stopped to think.
There is, of course, a simple answer. Arab life is cheap. Arabs are not humans like Americans, so they can be tortured, raped and even killed with impunity. Of course, as Sy Hersh was told to by an Israeli "we hate Arabs, they hate us, but one day, we know we'll have to live with them as neighbors. If we had done the things to Arabs in your prisons what you have done to them, we could never live with them."
Even Sy Hersh seems perplexed as to how Americans could rape teenage boys. I am not. Americans have a long, deep racist streak, everyone, black, white, it doesn't matter. Arabs have been the popular enemy of our imaginations for a decade. One could look at any number of movies and video games and see Arabs as the people Americans kill and humiliate. So when stuck in a strange country, surrounded by hostile people who do not speak your language, not wanting to be there, it's easy to hate people who think are trying to kill you. This is where Bush's lies turned into poison. Those soldiers were told that they were protecting the United States, and the people they had in custody would as soon kill 3000 Americans as breathe. Which was untrue.
It is a short step from that to prison rape. Told that they had to break these prisoners, they took their children and raped them. It doesn't take much to suss out the perverts in a unit. Given the odds of having a pedophile or two around, and the penchent of 19 year olds to have sex with anything that moves, it wasn't hard to find potential rapists. Especially when placed under the color of authority. There were enough willing people, and all it takes is one or two, to take care of the deed. And you don't need many victims either. Word would spread like a flood when people realized what happened. Like the Nazis did among themselves, sexual perversion seems to have been encouraged at Abu Ghraib. It was a very sexualized environment, with both rape, and apparently group sex among US soldiers. Once you introduce sex, not as subtext, but as a major theme of the environment, then you're creating the atmosphere for all kids of misbehavior, including rape.
We had created a sexual playground for the troops and the worst kind of sexual slavery for the prisoners. Many Americans will die for the sins of those prison guards.
Yellowcake uranium: what Saddam didn't buy from Niger
Joseph Wilson vs. the right-wing conspiracy Gleeful conservatives insist the Senate Intelligence Committee report impeached the former ambassador's claims about Iraq and uranium. But Wilson is firing back.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Mary Jacoby
The dispute over the committee report centers on its interpretation of two facts. One is that Wilson told his CIA debriefers that during his Niger trip, he spoke to the country's former prime minister, who told him that members of an Iraqi delegation in the late 1990s expressed interest in expanded commercial contacts with Niger. The former prime minister told Wilson that he interpreted the comment to mean that Iraq was interested in buying uranium, although the word "uranium" was not mentioned in the Iraqis' conversation, he said. The prime minister, fearful of United Nations sanctions that prevented trade with Iraq at the time, dropped the subject, Wilson reported.
But because the ex-minister believed the Iraqis were seeking uranium, the Senate report concluded that whether Iraq sought uranium in Africa remains an open question -- a conclusion Wilson disputes. It further reported that far from debunking the notion that Iraq was seeking uranium for weapons, Wilson's trip to Niger actually bolstered the story, at least in the view of some intelligence analysts, who found the news that the former prime minister believed the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium convincing. But no sale of uranium ever took place, Wilson reported, and that conclusion is not in dispute. Wilson did report that Iraq's neighbor, Iran, had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from Niger in 1998.
The report also quotes an internal CIA memo written by Wilson's wife, Plame, stating: "my husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Based on Plame's internal memo and other evidence, three Republicans -- Roberts and Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Kit Bond of Missouri -- wrote additional views appended to the report, concluding that "the plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested" by Plame. The three GOP senators criticized their Democratic counterparts on the panel for refusing to endorse this conclusion.
In his letter to the committee, Wilson disputed the Republican senators' characterization. "There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip," he wrote. A CIA spokeswoman declined to comment. In an interview, Wilson said that his wife was stating facts about his background, not pushing that he go to Niger.
The Washington Post story, meanwhile, took the disputed Senate report conclusions even further. It stated in its lead that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife ... contrary to what he has said publicly." In the interview, Wilson argued that the Post story failed to make clear that only the intelligence panel's Republicans, and not its Democrats, came to that conclusion. He said he has written a letter of protest to the Post.
Of course, the CIA is now saying they asked her about her husband, because he was one of the few US citizens with a security clearance who had experience in both countries. Even if Joe Wilson wasn't her husband, the CIA would have found their way to his doorstep. What sane person sends the father of their infant children to a flyblown African country to look good? Her career didn't need it, since she was on a promotion track ( she had been pulled from the field to work in headquarters, not a demotion for most people) and he was a consultant. Wilson has no reason to lie. But then, everyone who opposes Bush is a liar, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, John Kerry, Michael Moore. All these people lie, even though there is no evidence of these lies. Ever.
If Ms. Plame had suggested that her husband should go to Niger, why would he lie about it. He was the former ambassador to the country the neighboring country of Gabon, and one of the few experts in Francophone Africa and Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq. These are public facts, not a secret. Why wouldn't the CIA seek him out? Why wouldn't his wife recommend him? He was qualified for the job, regardless of who brought up his name.
But they have to smear him, no matter what. Because the Dauphin can never be wrong.
July 16, 2004 | The hunt for John Kerry has now been contracted to a hired gun.
A private detective retained by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- the Texas-based group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military record -- is contacting veterans who may have information about the incidents that led to Kerry's Vietnam decorations. According to a former Kerry crew member, several of the Massachusetts senator's old Navy comrades have refused to talk with the detective, a former FBI agent named Thomas Rupprath -- and some have complained that the detective tried to put damaging words in their mouths.
Rupprath's efforts are clearly intended to discredit Kerry's military record, which should surprise nobody familiar with the "Swift Boat" group. Its leaders are conservative Republicans embittered over Kerry's later antiwar activism and determined that he should never become the nation's commander in chief. Two months ago, their opening salvo against the Democratic presidential nominee fizzled -- in part because it was revealed that several of the same officers now criticizing Kerry had written strongly positive evaluations of him as a young lieutenant decades ago.
Registered as a "527" organization with the Internal Revenue Service, the "Swift Boat Veterans" group can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for campaign activities, but is prohibited from working directly with the Bush campaign or the Republican Party. Its spokesmen have repeatedly denied any GOP sponsorship, although several of the group's leaders have longstanding ties with the Republican Party.
Now Rupprath is pursuing the questions raised by the anti-Kerry veterans -- such as the nature of the wounds that led to the awarding of three Purple Hearts to the young lieutenant, and the circumstances under which he was decorated for valor. In a brief interview with the Dallas Morning News – which broke the news of his investigation on July 12 -- the detective said: "We're not making any accusations until I think we have them truly buttoned up and can be presented in as authentic and credible a manner as possible."
During the past two weeks, in fact, Rupprath has been inquiring about the now-famous firefight of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry ordered his crew to beach their boat on the shores of a Mekong Delta canal and then ran ashore to kill a guerrilla wielding a grenade launcher. The consensus among Kerry's former crew members is that his action saved all their lives, since otherwise the guerilla could have fired a round with enough explosive force to destroy their boat. His Navy superiors agreed, awarding him the Silver Star.
Two points: one, this is a 30-year old grudge being played out. They hate Kerry for protesting the war, and many of their questions are a load of crap designed to smear him.
Two: This topic should have been dropped by the Bush campaign after Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant discussed the whole episode around the medals. I simply cannot believe they want to keep going back to this issue where Bush looks so bad and Kerry was a genuine hero who volunteered for more combat duty after a tour on a destroyer. He asked for a transfer to what was called the Brown Water Navy, where he knew his life would be in jeopardy. And he did so during the Tet Offensive. At the same time, Bush was using his daddy's friends to get a job far from combat. At some point, they're going to force Kerry's hand and he's going to tell the truth snd call Bush a coward. If this doesn't end, Kerry or one of his surrogates are going to land this right on Bush's doorstep. I would have dropped this months ago.
Bush clearly had special favors done for him to get him into the Guard and while in the Guard. Kerry served willingly in combat. Would you, if you had the brains of a spider monkey, want to remind people of this fact. Two sons of privledge, one serves in combat, one hides from it and can't even do that correctly. They shot their wad on this with Max Clelland, and it won't work twice.
The outing of Congress Republicans hoped the federal marriage amendment would electrify their conservative base, but two gay activists countered by spreading fear and loathing on Capitol Hill.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mary Jacoby
printe-mail
July 15, 2004 | Michael Rogers, a Washington political activist, decided several weeks ago to launch an Internet campaign to publicize the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian members of Congress and their staffs, if they favored the federal marriage amendment. Drawing on a network of informants, he began posting on his Web site the names of gay congressional staffers who work for anti-gay members of Congress. "It's about exposing hypocrisy," Rogers told Salon, adding that he was prepared for some nasty hand-to-hand political combat.
................
Gay activists could not contain their glee at the spectacle of disarray. "They are hiding behind a procedural vote because their campaign to write discrimination into the American Constitution has been an unqualified failure," Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for gay Republicans, said in a statement. "As many as 60 senators were prepared to vote against the amendment. Rather than face certain defeat, the ....................
But with Bush forcing the fight over the amendment as a means of exciting religious conservatives, Aravosis said the matter is far from settled. And Frist warned after Wednesday's vote, "This issue is not going away." In the House of Representatives, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, vowed to pursue the amendment in September.
For these driven political reasons, Rogers said, he will not be dropping what's become known around Washington as his "outing" campaign (although Rogers insists he is merely highlighting the sexual orientation of congressional aides who are already "out"). Now, Rogers said, he plans to turn his effort against hypocrisy on a new target: married heterosexual members of Congress who rail about the need to protect the institution of marriage while engaging in extramarital affairs.
Well, what are people supposed to do? Be victims forever?
If you want privacy, then you better respect the privacy of others. For years, these people have worked against their ownn interests, and people have a right to defend themselves. If people are going to propose taking your rights away, well, lets propose exposing your hypocrisy. Everytime this conmes up, the gay community argues the propriety of this, but come on, if any situation was a condition red, this is it. This fundamentally dishonest debate needs to cost someone something. This is an abuse of human rights and of the consitution. And if you're working for an anti-gay Congressman, someone might want to highlight your sexual habits if they are in contravention of this.
I don't want the government in my or anyone else's sex life. Because if the government comes for gays today, where will it end? Abortion? Sodomy? These people won't stop at this alone, they never do.
And adding the straight adulterers is a brilliant move. They want to protect the sanctity of the family, stop boffing the junior staffers. Yes, it may cause discomfort to some families, but let me tell you how black people deal with these folks, we make them pariahs. Clarence Thomas, anyone? Gays have, in my opinion, too tolerant for too long. If black people want to run with the GOP, fine, but don't expect any love from the community. It's about time gays treated those among them who work to harm the community in the same way. They want to forever and completely deny the right of people to marry, and that is both wrong and cruel. Anyone assisting in that effor needs to be exposed.
WASHINGTON, July 14 - In the annals of Washington conspiracy theories, the latest one, about Vice President Dick Cheney's future on the Republican ticket, is as ingenious as it is far-fetched. But that has not stopped it from racing through Republican and Democratic circles like the latest low-carb diet.
The newest theory - advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress - holds that Mr. Cheney recently dismissed his personal doctor so that he could see a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems make him unfit to run with Mr. Bush. The dismissed physician, Dr. Gary Malakoff, who four years ago declared that Mr. Cheney was "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" despite a history of heart disease, was dropped from Mr. Cheney's medical team because of an addiction to prescription drugs.
"I don't know where they get all these conspiracy theories," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist, who has heard them all. "It's inside-the-Beltway coffee talk, is all it is."
It may be inside the Beltway, but in recent days the Washington summer clamor about dropping Mr. Cheney has so greatly intensified that Mr. Cheney himself was forced to address it on Wednesday. Asked in a C-Span interview if he could envision any circumstances under which he would step aside, Mr. Cheney replied: "Well, no, I can't. If I thought that were appropriate, I certainly would."
In the interview, to be broadcast Sunday, Mr. Cheney also said that Mr. Bush "has made very clear he doesn't want to break up the team," but that chatter of his stepping down was to be expected.
"I suppose right now, because we're in the run-up to the convention, people don't have much to talk about so you get speculation on that," he said. "It's normal. When we get to the convention, I think that'll put an end to that." Who would replace Mr. Cheney has nonetheless became a favorite Washington guessing game, with the names of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Senator John McCain of Arizona whispered about the most. Never mind that neither has a particularly cordial relationship with Mr. Bush, and that neither has expressed interest in the job. Other names that keep popping up include Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.
There is also something of an under-the-radar campaign among Republicans promoting their friends for a job that may never come open. As an example, boosters of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, have long tried to toss his name in the mix, despite the fact that friends of the president say he would never pick Mr. Giuliani.
The reason for the talk isn't far fetched at all. Dick Cheney is electoral poison. People hate him and distrust him. And his demeanor is nasty. People didn't want him in 2000. They certainly don't want him now. But Bush is such a weak leader and so dependent on Cheney, it's unlikely he's going anywhere. If Karl Rove is Bush's Stonewall Jackson, Cheney is his Jeb Stuart. He can't move too far without Cheney. And if anyone thinks Cheney will go quietly, well I wouldn't bet on that.
H. L. Mencken is said to have guffawed and slapped his thigh in delight at times as he would write about a typical day at a presidential nominating convention. Those long-ago times are enviable for their unpredictability — eons removed from the scripted conventions that will soon be offered to the nation once more as lean cuisine for thought. All the more reason to hope, then, that this year's one potentially risky innovation — accepting dozens of free-form online bloggers as accredited convention journalists — may lace the proceedings with fresh insight and even some Menckenian impertinence.
People who think the mushrooming world of wannabe polemicists and their Web logs, or blogs, is merely a high-tech amusement should talk to Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican.
In Web lore, bloggers are credited with relentlessly drilling Senator Lott after he expressed segregation-tinged nostalgia for the Strom Thurmond presidential campaign, a story that the major news media initially missed. Mr. Lott was subsequently forced to quit as majority leader.
Beyond its power as a source of news and commentary, the Internet has proved itself to be the ultimate fund-raising tool. Bloggers can be crass and biased, but politicians no longer scoff at their rich online realm. Hence the red carpet at the conventions — at least for some of them.
The Democrats, needless to say, are already paying for their venturesome invitation. They received applications from 50 bloggers and later announced there was room for only 30. Conspiracy theories are already abounding on the blogs of the disinvited. Such is Web life. We do wonder whether a blogger's buccaneer self-image will suffer from having to wear a garish credential necklace just to watch conventioneers as they mainly say, "Nice to see you!" to each other. Will bloggers be tamed into centrism? Or, like Mencken, will they gleefully report that the convention's main speechmakers are "plainly on furlough from some home for extinct volcanoes"? Log on to find out.
Another Gail Collins editorial. She is usually the fairest of the Times editorialists. I am genuinely shocked to see the Times not sneering at bloggers, but then they have a pretty hefty investment in technology. I wouldn't say the disinvited were going to tin foil hat territory, but they were pissed that the DNC was so disorganized. I'm shocked only 50 applied. I would have thought they would have had hundreds of people begging to get in.
But it raises a larger point: why didn't the DNC just accredit people like they do mainstream reporters. Instead of paying their entire freight, which I have ethical problems with. It's a nice gesture, but there's a reason people pay their own way. It's to avoid the influence of those paying. I never got around to applying, but it doesn't matter. I rather be on the streets talking to people than listening to spin.
One can support a set of ideas and not be a puppet. Blogging is about bringing one's critical faculties to a situation, not just defending a point of view. Now, as a trained jounalist, I know the best unreported story of any convention is in the street, not in the building. You can cover that on C-Span.
I don't know what the Dems expect from the bloggers. If it's uncritical coverage, they'll be disappointed. If it's a way to get new kinds of coverage, well, they may get what they expect. I have no idea. I wasn't planning to be inside anyway. And I'm paying my own way, so....
I need to thank all of you for my new laptop. I really appreciate your generosity and support.
I bought a ThinkPad T21 off of eBay three weeks ago. I just got the machine today. It was a slow delivery, but the machine runs nicely. Plays DVD's, plays MP3's, the sound is not Dolby, but it looks like a rugged machine, and is light, about 4 lbs, I can lift it with one hand.
It came with a combo CD-DVD drive and best of all, no dongles. Not one.
The drive was bare, but that was a blessing, not a curse. It may not be the newest, fastest machine around, but it is a pretty cool, pretty useful tool.
Now, I know some of you thought an iBook was a good idea, but the ThinkPad was several hundred dollars cheaper, a difference of $300, or more. Instead, I managed to wind up with a sleeve, laptop bag and machine for about $500. Which is what I needed.
Now, I have to thank the person who donated the Kanga Mac. That machine saved the site as I was barely able to sit after leaving the hospital. A laptop allowed me to get back to work. The new laptop looks like a travelling, online beast and looks ready to come with me to Boston. As long as the ad money is paid, I should be on my way.
I will still use the Mac, as well, but because it weighs so much,it probably won't leave the house any time soon . The advantage of the ThinkPad is that it can run concurently with my desktop, same OS, which is XP Pro, same everything.
Of course, I could give a lot of credit to Jen, who basically suggested that I get the ThinkPad, but I've always liked ThinkPads and when I found a PIII in my price range, well, that was the end of the debate. But her advice was, as usual, sound and well thought out.
When I started writing online, I never thought people could or would be so kind. Once again, all I can do is thank you and try to live up to the faith you have in me.
OK, anyone who reads this site knows I'm an openly heterosexual male. I like naked women, the way they smell and look, God, women can smell so good, and not perfume either, ah....Ok, back to the topic at hand. I don't really care if two men or two women get married. I really don't.
If it's a sin, that's God's business. If it's up to the state, why should they care? As long as the two people getting married are consenting adults, then why should it matter? It doesn't affect me, my pornography viewing habits or maturbatory fantasies, much less my actual, human to human, sex life. There may be an extra wedding or two to go to, but hey, that's life.
Now, I'll be honest and say I find the idea of two guys holding hands and saying vows downright fucking funny. I think it's silly as hell. It looks silly, and sounds silly. But that's because I'm a straight man and I am disposed to reject homosexual behavior on an intimate, personal level. However, that doesn't mean because I'm giggling like a five year old that those people be subjected to my whims. I can't have an erotic, loving relationship with another man. That shouldn't mean that those who can should be subjected to my feelings on the subject.
Just because I have lingering feelings of homophobia doesn't mean I get to impose those feelings on society. And it doesn't mean that if two men are in love and want to get married, my giggles should rule their lives. My personal ignorance and bias should not harm other people.
The reason I began to support gay marriage, and despite my giggles, I do, is because of children. I think it is immoral to destroy families because some people don't want gays raising kids. I cannot imagine what it would be like if a lesbian couple, who had raised one of the partners kids since they were toddlers, was forced to give them up by angry grandparents, because they had no standing as parents.
The anti-gay marriage bills are as anti-family an act as one can imagine. Gays have kids, they have them naturally, they adopt them, they make families. It is immoral to rip those families apart because people are bigots. I don't have to sleep with men to understand that everyone should have the same rights before the law.
I don't really think it matters what two single people do. But for gay families, these bills would not only make the parents second class citizens, but prevent children from everything from inheritance to power of attorney to all of the rights children may want to exercise for someone they regard as a parent. It also prevents the gay parent from caring for what is in essence a stepchild.
Why should children suffer because adults are bigots, and that is, in the end, the only reason people oppose gay marriage. They don't have a legal reason, or an ethical one, just fear and homophobia.
Mary Beth Cahill
Campaign Manager
John Kerry for President
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043
Dear Ms. Cahill:
On Thursday your campaign hosted a fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall at which Sen. Kerry said, "Every performer tonight in their own way either verbally through their music through their lyrics have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."
I called on your campaign to release the performance that Sen. Kerry said represented the "heart and soul" of America so that all Americans could see for themselves what John Kerry thinks represents the "heart and soul" of our country.
Do most Americans in their hearts, think that calling the President a "thug" and a "killer" represents the "heart and soul" of our nation? We don't think so, but we think voters should decide for themselves by watching the celebrities John Kerry said captured the "heart and soul" of America.
Your Senior Advisor Tad Devine said that you believed that releasing musical performances "might violate copyrights and licensing agreements for the entertainers who performed and allow the Bush campaign to use the tape in commercials against Kerry and Edwards"
I have been assured that "fair use" rules of copyright would allow you to release the tapes of these musical performances to the news media under 2 U.S.C. 107. To allay the other concern you relayed to the news media, Bush-Cheney '04 pledges to refrain from using audio, video or transcripts of the event for any television, cable, satellite or radio advertising. We look forward to seeing this spirited display.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
July 13, 2004
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager
BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.
Dear Ken:
Over the past several months, allies of the President have questioned John Kerry’s patriotism while your staff has criticized his service in Vietnam. Republicans and their allies have gone so far as to launch attacks against his wife and your campaign has run $80 million in negative ads that have been called baseless, misleading and unfair by several independent observers.
Considering that the President has failed to even come close to keeping his promise to change the tone in Washington, we find your outrage over and paparazzi-like obsession with a fund-raising event to be misplaced. The fact is that the nation has a greater interest in seeing several documents made public relating to the President’s performance in office and personal veracity that the White House has steadfastly refused to release. As such, we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:
? Military records: Any copies of the President’s military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.
? Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President’s former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?
? The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it’s ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts’ time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.
? Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President’s biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.
? Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House’s involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.
We also wanted to wish you a happy anniversary. As we are sure you and the attorneys representing the President, Vice-President and other White House officials are aware, today marks one year since Administration sources leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to Bob Novak in an effort to retaliate against a critic of the Administration.
In light of the fact that the Administration began gutting the laws protecting the nation’s forests yesterday, we hope you will accept the paper on which this letter is written as an anniversary gift. (The one year anniversary is known as the “paper anniversary.”)
If you ever wondered what they paid the White House staff, take a look here
Here are some excerpts:
Suspected traitor and Cheney lackey: Libby, I Lewis $157,000 Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Defiler of the Constitution: Gonzales, Alberto R $157,000 Assistant to the President and White House Counsel
Professional liar: McClellan, Scott K $157,000 Assistant to the President and Press Secretary
Presidential "wife" and incompetent national security advisor: Rice, Condoleezza $157,000 Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Sauron: Rove, Karl C $157,000 Senior Advisor to the President
Tool of the Sauds and Bin Ladens: Baker, III James A. $0 Special Presidential Envoy On Iraqi Debt
Oh yeah, Bush makes $400,000, more than, but not excessively so than his staff, which doesn't make him a good CEO. He should be making 20 times more than his staff, as is the custom in modern America.
God, another day, another Nader story. Are we becoming obsessed? Or is he pissing us off to the point where he can beat him in preperation of beating on Bush. Today, we'll do an annotated version of the Salon interview conducted by David Talbot.
Now, for anyone who knows my history with Salon, it is clear I hold Talbot in low regard. But not as low as Nader. Sad, but true.
Nader opened the conversation by charging that Salon had not solicited a response from him when preparing two recent critical pieces about him -- "The Dark Side of Ralph Nader," by Lisa Chamberlain, and "Strange Alliance," by Eric Boehlert. For the record, Chamberlain made repeated phone calls to Nader's campaign office and Zeese's cellphone seeking a comment from Nader or his spokesman but received no replies. And Boehlert spoke to Zeese on the phone, quoting him in his piece.
Nader: Why didn't your reporters call for a response?
Talbot: They did.
Nader: Since [Lisa Chamberlain] was writing about the campaign, wouldn't you have the decency to call our campaign office?
Talbot: It's always Salon's procedure, whenever we do a critical article on anyone -- whether it's the Bush administration or you or anyone -- to give them a chance to respond. That's always our policy.
That's everyone's policy. There is NO WAY, NONE, Salon would run a piece on Nader without getting his comment.
Nader: Look, I've been in journalism too, and when I was doing a critical piece on someone, I would call.
Talbot: Look, Ralph, I'm just not buying your premise that our reporter didn't try to reach you. Someone in your organization is not giving you the right information...
Nader: Wait, wait, wait! No, I'm telling you, if you make a call and you don't get through, and you're not working under deadline because you're working on the damned thing for three or four weeks, you write a letter. You write a letter! That's what I do. You write a letter!
Letter? Should I use a quill and send a Pony Express rider as well?
Talbot: Our track record with you is that you've ducked every request we've made for an interview. We've called your office, we've gone through your friends, old Nader Raiders, people you trust and like. We've tried a number of ways to speak with you. And you've repeatedly avoided us. So what we decided when we contacted you again recently -- and again tried unsuccessfully to get you on the phone -- was that we were getting the same old runaround. You obviously weren't going to talk with us.
Nader: See, it's funny because Kevin doesn't have any recollection you called this office.
What a sad lie. I don't particularly trust or like Talbot, but come on, this is the real world, the idea that Salon would run a piece on Nader without seeking comment? Come on.
..............
Nader: How about the second piece ["Strange Alliance: Why Is Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire Publishing Ralph Nader's Latest Tome?"] -- this complete smear? I mean, this one doesn't even pass the laugh test. Where's your banking done? Do you know any major publisher that isn't owned by a pig conglomerate?
Talbot: Rupert Murdoch is not a typical media mogul. You and I know what his agenda is and what his impact has been on American politics and culture.
Nader: Hey, wait a minute! If he had censored my book, you would've written an article saying, "Hey, now we can prove that these conglomerate CEOs are censorious and anti-democratic because they rejected Nader's book!" Six of one, half dozen of the other. You had it both ways, didn't you?
Talbot: You of all people, Ralph, know -- because we quoted you on this very subject -- what an unusual and unusually noxious role Mr. Murdoch has played in the American media landscape. And for you, of all people, to deny that and say, "Oh he's just another run-of-the-mill media mogul" is disingenuous.
......................
Jesus. It speaks for itself, doesn't it. I rarely get sad reading something, but man, this is so sad, so depressing. It's painful to read.
Talbot: This is different. He is paying you a good advance to publish your book because he has political interests in what you're doing in the presidential campaign.
Nader: He's paying me money to fight the likes of him and everyone else!
Talbot: That's not what his interest is this time, Ralph. He's interested in having you sabotage the Democratic effort to unseat President Bush.
Nader: If you read the book, which I hope you'll do and then review it, you'll see it's not a campaign book.
Neither was Four Trials, but somehow, that's being republished for the campaign.
................
Nader: [Laughs.] Are you serious? Do you hear Kevin laughing? We're skewered to the wall every day, every hour, by every conceivable media. Don't make yourself something special.
I guess he really dislikes the blogs
If you really take our campaign seriously, why don't you support our right to be on the ballot and not dirty-tricked by the Democrats?
Oh, because election laws are not dirty tricks, for one thing and he knows that. Nader cannot follow the law and get on the ballot when challenged. Which is why he is using GOP money to play spolier.
Talbot: I support your right to be on the ballot, Ralph, if you don't get dirty money to do it. That's one question I'd like to pursue with you. Your own running mate, Peter Camejo, has just said that he doesn't think you should take money from GOP fat cats.
Nader: Have you written articles about Democratic candidates over the last 10 years accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from Republican fat cats playing both sides of the aisle?
Talbot: I thought you were supposed to have higher standards.
Nader: No, I want you to answer my question before we get down to specifics.
It's one thing to take money from a company, it's another to take it from far right GOP activists using your campaign to hurt the things you say you believe in. It's not like Ken Lay was giving Dems money to resegregate the South. Nader's contributors are doing so to harm the Democratic Party.
............
Talbot: Look, you know and I know who we're talking about here. The San Francisco Chronicle just named several Republican high-rollers who are funding you and yet have no interest in your consumer rights agenda.
Nader: Really? Will you ask the Democrats to give back all the money they've gotten from Republicans?
Talbot: Why are these groups giving you money and trying to get you on the ballot? They have no interest in your political agenda. They're working to get Bush elected so he can keep the war going and keep supporting his rich friends.
Nader: Wait, wait, wait. Working to get someone on the ballot is working to give someone their free speech. I have no problem with that.
Which is why I say a vote for Nader is a vote to kill American soldiers. He so doesn't get the difference.
............
Nader: What about the Democrats hiring three corporate law firms to harass us and drive us off the Arizona ballot? Does that bother you? In other words, what you don't like are Republicans getting us on the ballot so we can express our free speech.
Talbot: I don't support any effort to block you from legally getting on a state ballot.
As far as I know, election law challenges are standard politics. Not some dirty trick reserved for Ralph Nader and his cult.
..........................
Talbot: They're buying access to Kerry -- a man you have met with and honored, and said he's significantly better than Al Gore. But the reason they're giving money to you is not to buy access -- it's to keep Bush, a man you say [has been a disaster for the country], in the White House.
Nader: This is ridiculous. You're treating Republicans like they're all criminals. Did you ever hear of Republicans who might work with us on issues over the years, who might believe in civil liberties even though they might prefer a Republican ticket?
Talbot: Look, you and I know that those kinds of Republicans are few and far between. And I challenge you to show me that the bulk of this money you're getting from conservatives is meant to advance the cause of American consumers. I just don't believe that. And if that's not the case, why is your own running mate, Peter Camejo, saying that you should give back this money?
God, I do not envy Talbot here. He's asking him a question everyone should be asking him, and Nader's answers don't just suck, they're sad.
Nader: OK, now I've flushed you out. Now you've come out. I'm an expert in flushing out bias, prejudice and prejudgment. And you've demonstrated all three. Until you go after the Democrats for obstructing us with dirty tricks and using both Republican and Democratic money -- they used a Republican law firm, by the way, among their three law firms -- until you're even-handed, I will declare you hopelessly prejudiced.
Is he insane? No, seriously. I expect the tin foil patrol to appear next. The Dems are using the law, as the Harvard-trained Nader should fucking know. It isn't a dirty trick to challenge petitons or how they were gathered. Nader can't make the cut and he knows it.
...................
Nader: We're not going to play the fascist game of the two-party monopoly barricading itself from any competition, with all kinds of statutory obstruction that cost third parties immense time and money if they can surmount them. This is a dictatorship, which you don't seem to understand...
Talbot: I...
Nader: I've got another phone call, I've got to go. Bye-bye.
He thinks this is a dictatorship? So when did the FBI come and torture him? Because that IS what dictators do to dissidents.
This is a 70 year old man ranting like some hopped up high school junior having just read the Communist Manifesto. No one is a fascist here, this isn't a dictatorship, if it were, he'd be in jail or dead. Nader refuses to abide by election laws and he's whining about them now.
I mean he sounds like a paranoid liar, and Talbot, who is not one of my favorite people, is concilatory, at worst. He's trying to reason with Nader and it just doesn't get through. Nader is willfully blind to the effect his GOP "supporters" are trying to have.
It's amazing Nader would say these unhinged things, but said them he did. It's like seeing a mask revealed and it isn't pretty.
No one on the left wanted Nader to do this, to be so willfully self-destructive and blind to the harm he's causing.
Once you read this, what choice do the Dems really have but to use the law to crush his campaign. My God, I thought he was unsuited to be president before, but now? He lies like Bush for God's sake and right in front of you. What a truly scary and paranoid man.
Spozhmai Maiwandi, left, listened as Saddudin Shpoon read a news report on a Voice of America broadcast in Pashto
Juan Cole has a piece on the Voice of America's Arabic Service. Here is a background piece by Felicity Barringer of the New York Times, explaining the role of VOA.
by Felicity Barringer
The Voice of America, born during World War II, nurtured in cold war propaganda and remade in the 1990's as a source of objective information for a global audience, is under renewed pressure to be a salesman for government policy in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
Suddenly, as attacks on Afghanistan begin, people all over Washington have opinions on the mission and quality of an agency often ignored as a bureaucratic backwater. That is because in countries whose people have limited access to objective news, radio services like the BBC and the Voice of America attract substantial audiences.
But as the VOA reaches out to distant countries, the hatreds fed by those countries' wars reach back into the VOA's studios. Its Pashto-language broadcasts are under constant attack by anti-Taliban emigres, who call the service the Voice of the Taliban. The State Department, sympathetic to the critics, tried, unsuccessfully, to stop the VOA from broadcasting any of its recent interview with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader.
......
The broadcast group's 1,200 employees are used to having international and bureaucratic controversies seep into their daily lives. But there is anew intensity to today's debate. In a recent e-mail message to his staff - before his boss was replaced last week - the VOA's news director, Andre deNesnera, wrote, "During the past few days, there has been a systematic attack on the Voice of America - more specifically, an attack on Article One of our charter, which states that we should be a 'reliable and authoritative source of news' and that our news should be 'accurate, objective and comprehensive.'"
Mr deNesnera's probable new boss, Robert R Reilly, seemed to echo these sentiments last week. Mr Reilly, a conservative in the information agency's policy division - essentially, the government's editorial page - was named last week to replace the acting director, Myrna R Whitworth. (His appointment is expected to win quick approval by the board of broadcasting governors.) In staff meetings and a later interview, he said, "I would not allow the integrity of our news operation to be compromised." To do so, he said, "would be a devastating blow to the public diplomacy of the United States and a squandering of the fund of trust that has been developed over the decades in our overseas audiences, who turn to VOA for accurate and objective news."
The words, which Mr Reilly used at a staff meeting and repeated in the interview, were welcomed by the journalists. But some expressed concern about a 20-year-old memo reflecting Mr Reilly's onetime view of VOA. The memo, written to Charles Z Wick, the Reagan-era head of the United States Information Agency, concluded, "It is time we recaptured the words 'balance' and 'objectivity' from the rhetorical excesses of the left and re-established them to stand for the full truth about this country - the last and best hope of freedom in the world." Asked about the memo last week, Mr Reilly said: "It's a wonderful document of the cold war era. This is a different war and a different era."
Alan Heil, author of an important history of the Voice of America, sends along dire news about the service.
For Arabic broadcasting, this development is rather as if the government abolished National Public Radio and replaced it with Mr. Pattiz's Westwood One pablum and top 40 list. Americans should please communicate with their members of Congress about this fiasco in American public diplomacy.
Radio, if it is to serve and survive, must hold a mirror up to the nation and the world. The mirror must have no curves, and be held with a steady hand." ---Edward R, Murrow
Murrow's statement as warclouds gathered over Europe in the late 1930s might well apply today to the nation's largest overseas network, the Voice of America (VOA). The situation at the Voice is deteriorating quickly, despite steadfast efforts on the part of its professional staff to retain its place as a globally respected source of news and information about Middle East, U.S. and world events.
VOA News Director Andre de Nesnera was transferred from his position to senior diplomatic correspondent of VOA July 1 by VOA Director David Jackson. This was no routine personnel move. De Nesnera is an award-winning journalist who had been a steadfast shield against efforts of the presidentially-appointed director over the past two years to second guess VOA news copy, particularly on Iraq. No VOA chief executive has taken such a hands-on approach to the newscasts in at least half a century.
De Nesnera's removal occurred just four days before 450 employees of the Voice (managers, journalists, producers and engineers---about half its staff) circulated a petition on Capitol Hill calling for an investigation of the Voice's oversight board, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors. The BBG since 2002 has:
--Closed VOA Arabic and replaced it with Radio Sawa, a 24/7 pop music service aimed at youth, rather than intellectuals, government leaders, educators and movers and shakers in Arab society,
--Reduced VOA's global English service from 24 to 19 hours a day, with more cuts to come next October on the eve of the U.S. presidential election. VOA can barely be heard in the Middle East in English as a result of these cuts and it will get worse: there will be only 14 hours on the air daily next winter.
--Abolished ten VOA language services to central and eastern Europe last February 14: Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak and Slovene.
The inevitable consequence of these reductions (some of which were made to reprogram funds for the Board's new Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV services) is to weaken significantly the Voice of America's reach around the world.
In technical as well as programming terms, VOA is being reduced to a shadow of its former self --- especially in the Middle East. Board member Norman J. Pattiz, chairman of its Middle East subcommittee, wasted no time after Sawa went on the air on March 20, 2002 in ordering reallocation of VOA frequencies in the region to enhance his pet project. He directed the powerful 500-kilowatt Kuwait and Rhodes medium wave relay stations to serve only Sawa in Arabic, 24/7. That meant that VOA English, Persian, and Kurdish had to rely solely (at least for nearly a year) on less accessible shortwave transmissions to reach their listeners. This was also the case on the Kuwait facility for RFE/RL's Persian Service and its in-depth Arabic language program, Radio Free Iraq. In 2003, however, a much weaker medium wave transmission (105-kilowatts) was added in Kuwait to broadcast parts of VOA Persian, VOA English and Radio Free Iraq.
The Board, meanwhile, abolished RFE's widely listened to Persian Service (Radio Azadi) on December 1, 2002, and replaced it with a Persian language pop music sibling of Radio Sawa named Radio Farda. Farda also was given a place on the weaker Kuwait medium wave frequency, and has gradually been able to increase its substantive news content. But unlike the old RFE Persian Service, it was given a 24/7 schedule on shortwave which still consists of about two thirds music. (The Board decided, in launching Farda, to retain VOA Persian, but only three hours daily --- strengthened a year ago with daily hour long TV transmissions including call-in programs to Iran.)
Now, the Board is abolishing Radio Free Iraq, the U.S. government's last really substantive radio voice in Arabic to the Arab world. RFI will go off the air on September 30, at a time of great uncertainty in Iraq's transition and three months before the deadline for holding the first elections there.
It is true that VOA Arabic used to be on what Pattiz has called "scratchy shortwave" as well as medium wave facilities before the service was abolished in 2002. The big (and costly) innovation has been in leasing terrestrial FM facilities in the Arab world to get Sawa's signals out there in FM and medium wave --- much more popular among listeners than shortwave. VOA Arabic was on the air 7 hours a day. Sawa is on 24/7. VOA Arabic cost the taxpayer $4 million dollars in its final year; Sawa cost $34 million in its first year. Most surprisingly perhaps, Pattiz insisted on the reallocation of many of those "scratchy shortwave" frequencies to Sawa, which devotes about three quarters of its airtime to pop music. The Board also negotiated a contract for a 500-kilowatt medium wave transmitter in Cyprus, greatly enhancing Sawa's reach during nighttime hours into Egypt. (Egypt, unlike Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Djibouti and many of the Gulf emirates, so far has refused to permit Sawa to broadcast on a local FM frequency.)
In terms of expenditures though, these radio initiatives are dwarfed by Pattiz's investment in U.S.-originated satellite TV in Arabic. The Board launched Alhurra TV last February 14, entering a field of more than 170 mostly indigenous channels in the Arab world. The first year cost of Alhurra (The Free One, in Arabic) exceeds $100 million, including $40 million from a Department of Defense supplemental. Thus, in the current budget year, the Board is spending more than a fourth of its total budget for worldwide broadcasting on Sawa and Alhurra-TV.
The early returns on Alhurra are mixed. Although e-mails and some surveys have been favorable, there also have been criticisms of its professionalism in the region and in the West. As one Lebanese-American editor in Washington noted: "The training wheels came off when Alhurra carried cooking and fashion shows during live coverage by Al Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and others of violence in Fallujah and during the Israeli assault on Rafah. It's ridiculous," the editor added, "and Alhurra was not being taken seriously during a recent visit I made to the region. There's nothing worse than not being taken seriously when you are a journalist."
Small wonder, then, that the VOA staff has called for a Congressional investigation of the Board and its oversight of the Voice. That seems overdue. In the post 9/11 world, with anti-American sentiment at its peak, the nation has not a moment to lose in getting its international broadcasting to the Arab and Muslim worlds right. It can do so by reinforcing--- rather than destroying---the time honored principles of timely, accurate, objective and comprehensive reportage and programming to reformers in those countries yearning for a brighter day.
Alan L. Heil Jr. is a former VOA deputy director and author of "Voice of America: A History" (Columbia University Press, 2003)'
What this means is that at a time when the US needs to influence the Arab world's intellectuals, instead, they play pop music in a misguided attempt to win over younger listeners. Alhurra is, as the article states, regarded as both an American puppet station and a joke. There is a reason the BBC is still widely listened to in the Arab world, credibility.
What Heil doesn't say, but clearly fears, is the fiasco of Radio/TV Marti. Usually jammed by the cuban government, both channels often broadcast into snow as a political payoff for the Cuban exile community. Widely regarded as a tool of US policy, it has little, if any, effect on Cuban policy or the Cuban people. Instead of playing it straight, like the BBC, American politicians have been tempted to use VOA and various services to influence politics in various regions.
Radio Sawa and Alhurra may get some audience, but because they don't have any intellectual heft and a clear pro-US bias, their potential effect is probably limited. In fact, Iraqis regard Alhurra with open contempt.
There is, of course, a larger question here. Why is the US spending hundreds of millions on programming which has neither the respect nor the interest of Arab opinionmakers. By trying to influence the young Arab masses, all they do is signal an open disrepect for Arab intellect and media. Al Jazeera and its sister stations have managed to gain the trust of their audience. No one and nothing tied to the US will do the same thing unless the station is completely independent. As long as the US attacks Al Jazeera, it will enhance it's reputation at the cost of allowing any US voice in the region. Pop music and news bulletins are not the soultion in a region where there is a large appetite for uncensored news and opinions.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The leader of America's largest civil rights organization on Monday attacked African American groups that he said were helping white conservatives promote a right-wing agenda.
Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, condemned the groups as a "collection of black hustlers" who have adopted a conservative agenda in return for "a few bucks a head."
"When the ultraconservative right-wing attacker has run out of attack strategy, he goes and gets someone that looks like you and me to continue the attack," Mfume said in his opening address to the NAACP's annual convention.
"They've financed a conservative coalition of make-believe black organizations, all of them hollow shells with more names on the letterhead than there are people in their membership," he said.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/13/2004
We're kidding, right?
Surely we don't mean to suggest that George W. Bush should have spoken to the national convention of an organization committed to his defeat in November.
The president runs on the ticket of a party that depends "on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power," says the left-wing organization's chairman. "By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality."
From there, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond's comments blend into Michael Moore reality. This wing of the Democratic Party is so bitter and angry that its escalating rhetoric approaches meltdown.
What is really mystifying is that anybody would think that Bush -- or any Republican, for that matter -- has an obligation to pay homage to an organization whose leadership abhors them.
Those who do make the mistake of assuming that black America is a monolith, of one mind and voice, and that to speak to that constituency, any leader has to accept the liberal Democratic filter. It's absurd.
The president certainly has an obligation to speak to the concerns of minorities, including blacks and Latinos. That doesn't mean, however, that the only -- or the appropriate -- forum is the NAACP or, in the case of Latinos, the liberal National Council of La Raza. Nor should he choose the National Organization for Women to speak to women or People for the American Way to speak to people who might be receptive to his message.
Yes, Bush does own the NAACP a visit. Whether they like him or not. Regardless of what some white conservatives want to believe, the secular heart of the black community lies within the NAACP and Urban League. To not speak to the NAACP is a slap in the face to the entire black community. While I personally think the NAACP represents much of the worst of the bougie black mentality, that doesn't mean I don't get or like the obvious insult George Bush issued this week.
If you do not talk to the NAACP, you do not talk to black America. Conservative blacks have no traction and no respect within the wider black community.
What whites don't get is that while black social life is conservative, it is tempered with a measure of social justice.
Over the weekend, I went to my cousin's 50th birthday party in central North Carolina, the kind of place where people grow corn in their front yard and keep donkeys around, rural farm country. Now, it being North Carolina, this doesn't mean the people are backwards or unsophisticated, just that their surburbs, and this would be a far suburb of Raleigh, abut rural areas. No shacks, no rusting farm equipment, which you can see south of Richmond, but a place familiar to most Americans.
My cousin and her sister and husband are church people. They go to church regularly, They listen to gospel music for fun. They are evangelicals. In fact, my cousin's husband is a serving Air Force officer. Now, with that combination, one could be in for a very long weekend of hectoring and sharp questions about faith and politics.
Instead, they are some of the nicest, friendliest, most generous people I know. They prayed for me when I was sick and seemed extremely concerned about me ever since. Now, I like my cousins, which is a good thing, even though I still not only consider myself a Methodist, but feel comfortable within that tradition.
Of course, I went to church with them on Sunday. One cannot avoid church in the South on Sunday, especially if you're black, even more so if your relatives are religious. I would normally watch Meet the Press, but as a measure of respect, I went gladly.
Now, my religous faith is far more liberal than theirs and some of the expressiveness of their service is, well, vastly different than a Methodist service.
But what Amy Sullivan missed in her screed, and what became obvious to me, is fellowship. People don't just join a church, they become part of it's community. The black church, especially, is more than about religion, but about fellowship and community. Which is where social justice comes in. While some people may want to ban gay marriages, and homosexuality is despised throughout black life, signing petitions and conducting campaigns are distasteful to many. Even though my cousins are what anyone would define as conservative Christians, that doesn't mean they're bigots or closeminded. And the ministers who march in lockstep with the religous right are not representing a majority views by any means.
When you hear this debate about values, I think it becomes a conversation between liberals of faith and conservatives of faith, each using their religion to endorse their politics. My family isn't perfect, but they have values based on more than religion, even if it is a major part of their lives.
Bush misses the point. The NAACP can no more be divorced from the black church than heat from summer. The same people who support the black church support the NAACP. You cannot insult or demean one without doing the same to the other. You can't refuse to speak to the NAACP and then expect to go to black chruches and be received well. It can't happen. There is no workaround. Either you show proper respect towards the NAACP or you are insulting the entire community. The black church is the core of black social and political life, the NAACP is the secular heart of black America. They are extremely close to each other. Bush cannot work his evangelical movement contacts to reach black voters after this.
Let's make war on trial lawyers who represent crippled kids and their families
Edwards and the family he helped
The GOP war on trial lawyers Is John Edwards an economy-draining, ambulance-chasing social pariah, as Republicans and big business claim? Ask his clients, like 5-year-old Valerie Lakey.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve
July 13, 2004 | On a summer evening in 1993, David Lakey took his little girl swimming at a recreation center in Raleigh, N.C. Valerie Lakey was 5 years old, a good swimmer, and she and her friends liked to splash around in the children's wading pool that stayed open a little later than the big pool where they usually swam.
That's what Valerie was doing when a nearby mom heard her call out for help. Valerie was sitting on the bottom of the shallow pool, and the suction from the drain was holding her down. David Lakey raced to free his daughter but couldn't. Other parents jumped in the water to help, but they couldn't get Valerie loose. Valerie was scared, and she began to say that her stomach hurt.
Time passed, and somebody figured out how to turn off the pool's pump. The suction broke, and Valerie was released from its grip. But as David Lakey pulled his daughter from the water, blood and tissue filled the pool. Valerie's intestines had been sucked out.
David Lakey slumped to the ground on the side of the pool. He held his daughter on his chest, praying as they waited for an ambulance. Over and over, he told Valerie, "Daddy loves you. Daddy loves you. Daddy loves you."
This account of what happened to Valerie Lakey comes from "Four Trials," the book John Edwards wrote last year as he prepared to run for the presidency. Edwards represented Valerie in a lawsuit against the company that made the drain cover in that swimming pool. A jury awarded her $25 million, compensation for a life of intravenous feedings and colostomy bags.
Tucker Carlson has heard about Valerie's case. It's the one, apparently, that causes him to dismiss John Edwards as a "personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases."
................
By portraying John Edwards as an ambulance-chasing, playground-closing personal-injury lawyer, the Bush-Cheney team hopes to turn off swing voters who might otherwise be attracted to Edwards' populist image while simultaneously shoring up Bush's support from big business. As a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers told the New York Times last week, "Trial lawyers are the pariahs of the business community, which is more frightened by them than terrorists, China or higher energy prices."
But there's a problem for the Republicans: Lawyers like John Edwards, and clients like Valerie Lakey. The GOP and its allies in business and the media can articulate broad economic policy reasons for tort reform, for cracking down on lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, for reining in the forum shopping and other abuses that sometimes accompany big class-action lawsuits. But it's tough to pin any of those problems on Edwards -- no one has charged that he filed frivolous lawsuits -- and it's hard to trump stories like Valerie Lakey's with statistics about what Republicans call the "tort tax."
Edwards practiced law in North Carolina for nearly two decades. He spent the first two years of his legal career as a junior associate in a law firm that represented corporate defendants, then moved on to the plaintiff's work for which he became famous. He represented children who developed cerebral palsy in lawsuits against their mothers' doctors and hospitals; a woman who underwent a double mastectomy based on a false diagnosis of cancer; he represented a child whose parents were killed when their car was smashed by a big rig; he represented Valerie Lakey.
"The Republicans want to put Edwards out there as a 'trial lawyer,' but I don't think it cuts deeply as an issue because he's not your stereotypical, caricaturable ambulance chaser," says Ferrel Guillory, director of the University of North Carolina's Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life. "The kind of clients that Edwards represented are everyday folks, folks like you and me, people who feel aggrieved by powerful forces out there, whether it's an HMO or a hospital or something else."
Mike Dayton, who watched Edwards' career while working as the editor of the North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, said that Edwards' clients "were almost to a person these catastrophically injured or killed plaintiffs. They're certainly sympathetic in their own right, and it's hard not to feel the pain of those people and want to do right by them."
Not surprisingly, the Republicans have generally steered clear of discussion about the clients Edwards represented. It's easy to make hay over million-dollar recoveries for spilled coffee at McDonald's -- especially if you ignore the fact that the woman who spilled the coffee was seriously injured, that McDonald's refused an offer to settle the case for $20,000, and that a judge later reduced the jury's award of $2.7 million in punitive damages to just $480,000. It's harder to say much -- at least, not without sounding as crass as Tucker Carlson -- about the sort of cases Edwards handled.
........
And then there's Carlson's larger point, that Edwards would give the money back if he really cared about the little girl. Bush could have given his buyout back to the Texas Rangers if he really cared about the team. Cheney could have given his pension back to Halliburton if he really cared about the company. The Rangers might have been able to hold onto Alex Rodriguez, and Halliburton might have been able to charge the military less for gasoline in Iraq. No one suggests that businessmen like Cheney or Bush should work for free. But to undercut Edwards' populist image, the Republicans suggest that Edwards should have done just that.
This is the dumbest, most out of touch campaign the GOP could possibly wage. Yes, people hate lawyers, they don't think much of personal injury lawyers, except when they represent crippled little children and their working class parents. Or maybe American movies have been about other things lately. But the way I remember it, laywers who represent working people against greedy corporations are heroes.
Why didn't he give back his fee to his clients? Because they agreed to give it to him. He told them it would be a third of the settlement and they were happy to get him as a lawyer, regardless. Without his effort, they would be living in pernury and their daughter institutionalized.
The GOP campaign, not just with Bush, but along the line, is in trouble. This is a desperate, stupoid attack. What are they going to do when his clients, people greviously wronged and saved by Edwards, start to come out of the woodwork? Attack them? Because they will make great character witnesses for him. He helped my family is not something Bush/Cheney should want to hear in commercials.
To put a fine point on it, just as John Kerry yanked an SF officer from the drink while being shot at, John Edwards saved people at the worst moments of their lives. He got them the money to live a decent life and care for chronically ill family members. Sure he got rich, but not because of his clients, but because greedy corporations were held to account. Without his work, they would have never paid a dime.
Talking about his career is great for the Dems. Let's encourage this misguided campaign so Edwards can recount some of the trials he won, and bring his former clients into the media. Yes, let's do that.
The price of fandom is pretty high at times, but I wanted to pass this on
I have a problem that probably falls more within King Kaufman's purview than your own, but I am hoping you have some insight for me. The problem is baseball. Well, baseball and this terrific new woman I have been seeing. Here's the thing: I love Major League Baseball. It is one of my consuming passions. Nearly every day from April through September, I am listening to a baseball game on the radio, watching one on television, or sitting in the stands at the local ballpark. In idle moments -- sitting in traffic, or waiting in the checkout line at the grocery -- I find myself contemplating strategy: Is it better to throw more pitches and try to get strikeouts, or pitch for contact and hope that your infielders can handle easy ground balls, thereby minimizing your pitch count? I am fiercely loyal to my local team -- I will not mention their name for fear of alienating any sympathetic baseball geeks who might be reading -- and as much as I try to objectively assess the soundness of their personnel choices or chosen style of play, I live and die with their slumps and hot streaks.
But there's this woman. She is funny and smart and beautiful and she doesn't even care that I am a responsible adult who is nonetheless completely obsessed with baseball. She finds it charming, if you can believe. She is eager to learn more about the game. She thinks I make baseball sound even more interesting. There's just one problem: She roots for my team's biggest rival. I won't mention their name, either, because they are a team that is intensely beloved by intellectuals and romantics and as soon as I say who they are, you will lose all sympathy for me. And I want you to be sympathetic. Because this hurts me.
She hasn't traditionally followed baseball closely, and if you asked her why she chooses this rival over my team -- which she says she likes very much, too, just because I have so winningly made a case for them in recent months -- she will cite various multigenerational family loyalties and geography and her team's Tragic History, and the bottom line is, she is very adamant about cheering for them, if she is going to be following professional baseball.
So recently, these two teams, her team and my team, went head to head, and my team lost. And badly. And repeatedly. Which would make me kind of miserable under the best of circumstances. But I feel even worse because I know that, not so deep down, she is happy. She is unhappy for me, because she is wonderful and kind and I think she may love me a little. But she is happy for herself.
And I can't stand it. My knowledge of her happiness is eating away at me. It feels like disloyalty -- I care so much about my team, and how can she take pleasure in something that is causing me so much pain?
While I don't disagee with the answer Cary Tennis ran, my reply would have been a bit different.
Who cares who she roots for? It doesn't matter that she likes the Red Sox (they think she's a Cubs fan, but whatever), but that she appreciates baseball. That's the thing. A lot of women don't care for baseball or any sport. Some make game attempts, like Jen's interest in learning football via Madden 2002, which blew up her machine, but for the most part, ANY sports interest is better than none.
If you wanted a fellow fan, run a personal ad and say "Only Yankee fans allowed" or some such nonsense. Look, women already know that saying good things about the Yankees push my buttons. One of my friends wanted to send me a Yankee bobblehead. I wouldn't want that shit in my home.
One of my closest friends is a diehard Vikings fan. He even goes to Minnisota for games. Drinks with the players. And he converted his wife into Vikings fandom.
But the point is that, while some days it might be really annoying to have a Red Sox fan jumping up and down while the Yankees get hammered (wouldn't bother me a bit, being a Mets fan), it's a good thing that she cares about the game. And in the end, caring about the game is more important than caring about the team. As long as she likes sports, that's a good thing. I dated a Blue Jays fan. Big deal, she liked baseball. Which was a good thing.
It's when she ridicules or refuses to understand why you like sports is when you have problems. Not liking sports, you can deal with. Treating one of your favorite hobbies with disdain you can't.
Every vote for Nader condemns an American soldier to death
Dean and Nader: practical versus dreamy idealism
Ralph Nader and Howard Dean battled over the soul of the progressive movement, Friday
"We're taking apart the Bush Administration in ways that the Democratic party is afraid to," Nader said, emphasizing his campaign's antiwar stance and his take-no-prisoners assault on the influence of corporate contributors and lobbyists.
"This is not going to help the progressive movement in America," moaned Dean, who tried his best to suggest that Kerry is a legitimate standard bearer for that movement and added, "I wish you were on our team, Ralph, because we need you."
Anyone who imagined that Dean and Nader might have found some common ground with regards to the fall race came away from the debate sorely disappointed. But the truth is that no one who has spent much time watching Nader's campaign this year expected him to back off at the behest of Dean. While Nader has admitted to having been impressed with many aspects of Dean's insurgent campaign, these guys were never ideological soul mates. Nader was, and is, far closer to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich, who continues to challenge Kerry for the nomination--albeit without much notice from the party or the media.
The Nader-Dean debate was less a serious dialogue about the possibility of forging a united front against Bush's reelection than a reminder that, while Nader and many Democrats share policy stances on issues ranging from opposition to the war to support for fair trade, single-payer health care and public financing of campaigns, they have not reached any kind of consensus with regard to the necessity of cooperation in the immediate political moment.
It wasn't for lack of trying by Dean, who agreed to debate Nader as part of a stepped up effort by Kerry backers to reach out to left-leaning voters who could stray from the Democratic fold. While Dean stopped short of accusing Nader of costing Democrat Al Gore the presidency in 2000, the former candidate did suggest that Nader could cost Kerry the presidency this year.
Describing the threat of a second Bush term as "an extraordinary emergency," the man whose own candidacy shook up the Democratic establishment almost as much as has Nader's, declared, "When the house is on fire, it's not the time to fix the furniture." Sure, Dean admitted, he might have differences with Kerry on some issues. But he argued the "progressives must unite behind Kerry" line with passion.
Nader was unconvinced. At several points, the independent candidate read down a list of sharp shots at Kerry--"corporate clone," "lesser of two evils." And then he reminded the Vermonter that those were Dean's own words from the primary season.
Nader allowed as how he preferred "Howard Dean the First," who took on the party establishment last year, as opposed to "Howard Dean the Second," who he accused of carrying the establishment's water this year.
Predictably, the conversation grew heated.
Dean accused Nader of peddling "disingenuous nonsense," and then noted that a group Nader founded, Public Citizen, had hailed Kerry's stances on many of the issues that are of concern to progressives. After a few more jabs at Nader, Dean announced that, "My purpose here is not to smear Ralph Nader."
At that point, a bemused Nader interjected, "Oh, no, not at all."
By now, the crowd was laughing.
But Dean remained serious, and on message. "I ask you not to turn your back on your legacy," he pleaded with Nader. A few minutes later, Dean banged on the independent candidate for what he suggested was just such an abandonment, citing reports that the Nader campaign had accepted the aid of religious right groups, such as the Oregon Family Council, in its quest to achieve ballot status.
"The way to change the country is not to get in bed with right-wing, anti-gay groups to get on the ballot," said Dean.
Nader griped about efforts by Democrats to keep him off ballots. Dean told Nader to renounce the Oregon Family Council and other right-wing groups that have allegedly aided his candidacy.
"Just renounce them!" demanded the Vermonter.
"Alright, I renounce them," Nader replied. But then he demanded that Dean renounce corporate wrongdoers that have donated to the Democrats, which the governor did. Then Dean started talking about someone else Nader should renounce. And, when all was said and done, neither Nader, nor Dean, had convinced the other man of much.
The problem is that it isn't alleged. The groups now openly announce their desire to help Nader get on the ballot.
Now, while away, I saw much of the Dean-Nader debate, and Nader came off second best. The thing is that Dean, having actually won elective office, was more able to deliver hammer blows against Nader's musty idealism.
But to me, this debate has gotten painfully simple: if you want to save Americans in Iraq, vote for Kerry. Not because he has some great anti-war stand, but because he isn't tied to Iraq the way Bush is.
Every vote for Nader is a vote to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
Why?
Because he isn't going to win and the man who could win will not have those votes.
So, there are two ways to keep the war state going. One, vote for Bush. Two, vote for Nader.
Now, some of you might say: but Nader is against the war.
My reply is: so fucking what? He isn't going to win and every vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Nader is great with talk, but sabotages any action he can't control. So if you want to see more American dead, vote Nader. If you like crippled teen soldiers, vote Nader. If you like widowed 20 year olds, vote Nader.
Ralph Nader's selfishness and short sightedness works against his professed goals and towards not only the continuation of the war, but the expansion of it.
Talk is cheap. It will not save one American life. Maybe Kerry won't end the war, maybe he will. But maybe is better than the Bush/Cheney/Nader/Canejo ticket. Nader runs blocking for Bush. For years, Nader has been allowed to do what he wants electorially. Now, with lives in the balance, Nader continues a campaign who's consequence will be to undue his life's work and extend Bush's term.
What Nader's slogan should be: Republican lite, our formula is different, but you get drunk all the same.
I'll be away from my desk for most of the day, so I'm going to allow a rare open thread. Jen may post during the weekend, if she has the time, but if anything happens, discuss it here or go to our friends, Kos and Atrios.
I will be checking in during the weekend, but I'm taking a break. Remember, in two weeks, I plan to be in Boston, so I need some time to attend to myself, in a truly relaxing way. It is the summer and blogging may be interrupted by life.
IN New York, demand for great barbecue tends to outstrip supply. A few weekends ago, thousands of 'cue-seekers descended on Madison Square Park for the Second Annual Big Apple Barbecue Block Party, hoping for a shot at Mike Mills's Memphis baby backs and Ed Mitchell's North Carolina ribs.
The lines were epic. Some waited it out. Many fled to nearby Blue Smoke, figuring that New York barbecue is better than no barbecue at all. And quite a few - present company included - hopped on the subway to Chinatown and sated the craving with a huge pile of Cantonese spareribs.
New York does have its own thriving barbecue tradition, but it's more about star anise than smoke. At places like Big Wong King and Kim Tuong in Chinatown, pit masters turn out hundreds of racks of magnificently glazed ribs every day, with the moist meat, salty-sweet perfume and burnt edges so beloved of barbecue fanatics across the land. And at other Asian restaurants up and down the dining scale, from Nam and 66 to Big Wong and Pig Heaven, chefs have capitalized on New Yorkers' passion for Chinese spareribs by developing their own styles. With judicious spicing and steaming, a glaze here and a dry rub there, Asian ribs have evolved into a hybrid Asian-American-New Yorkese barbecue. They may not be authentic anything, but they might still hold their own at the Jack Daniels invitational.
"I think the ribs here are as good as any I ever had in the South," said Jason Washington, a construction worker ordering takeout ribs at Kim Tuong on Chrystie Street last week.
New York's first wave of Chinese restaurateurs came from Canton, where pigs are affectionately referred to as "long-nosed generals" and roasting pork is a respected art form. Cantonese cooking fell out of fashion in the 1970's, when New Yorkers discovered "real" Chinese regional cuisine, but the spareribs have endured. In Chinatown in Manhattan, as in market streets in China, almost every city block has at least one window full of irresistible barbecued pork, ready to eat on the spot or to take home to stir-fry with greens.
The best ribs are often the ones that came out of the oven most recently, so popular places with a high turnover, like the always mobbed Deluxe Food Market on Elizabeth Street, are good bets. The Ollie's chain of Chinese restaurants, which goes through more than a thousand pounds of barbecued ribs a day, makes sure that they are fresh by doing two large-scale roastings each day at a commissary in Flushing. Each restaurant gets fresh ribs before lunch and dinner.
The traditional method for making Chinese spareribs calls for marinating whole racks in rice wine, soy sauce and sugar (or another sweetener), then roasting them in a hot oven. The ribs are hung on hooks so that the heat can move evenly around the meat. The sugar in the marinade caramelizes during the roasting, creating a dark reddish-brown crust, shiny as fresh lacquer, that acts as a Pavlovian signal to barbecue lovers. (Red food coloring can also play a part, but good ribs should be more brown than red.)
The ribs at Pig Heaven, a Chinese restaurant on the Upper East Side, have just the right balance between sweet and meat. At Big Wong, a sugar syrup is brushed on the ribs as they hang in the window, just waiting to be ordered, hacked into small pieces and devoured with a stack of napkins at the ready.
The oven used in Chinese roasting looks very much like a modern American barbecue "pit" - a metal box with heat at the bottom. But the heat source is gas, with none of the aromatic wood smoke that defines American barbecue. In fact, smoke is the enemy of Chinese roasting; to prevent it, and keep the meat moist, cooks keep a pan of water in the bottom of the oven.
"The moisture makes the meat soft, so you don't have to cook it as long as American barbecue," said Romy Dorotan, the Filipino chef of Cendrillon, an Asian restaurant in SoHo. Mr. Dorotan's ribs are marinated in the Chinese style, then coated with an American-style dry rub and cooked in a man-size Chinese roasting oven in the restaurant's basement.
His ribs differ from those in Chinatown because the spices in the rub - ground star anise, fennel seeds, cardamom, mustard, coriander, black pepper and some Sichuan peppercorns (stockpiled before the ban against importing them began to be enforced a couple of years ago) - toast slowly at low heat and create a smoky-sweet crust. The meat falls off the big bone into soft shreds, like American ribs; Chinese ribs tend to be chewier, better for gnawing.
Ah, I'm not a massive ribs fan, but they look pretty damn good, don't they?
Since I liked the article, like the last one, sent by Leila, I run it and leave to to wax poetic on the joys of Chinese ribs. I like duck and roast pork more, actually.
One of the regular posters, Leila, sent this to me the other day, and I'm just getting around to it. She sent me an e-mail about this parade in Northern California on the 4th of July. Besides the casual hatred of things different, there was a surprise at the end. Did I ever tell you I hate surprises?
The Stars and Stripes flew everywhere on Sunday, but Old Glory had plenty of company in Fremont -- the flags of Italy, Qatar, Mongolia and Ireland were among 25 nations represented in a parade that's caused hurt feelings all around and raised the timeliest of questions: What does it mean to be an American?
Vice Mayor Steve Cho's proposal to include flags of other nations started innocently enough two weeks ago, but angered residents who said America's Independence Day would be diluted.
The controversy grew until a plan to have the Boy Scouts carry the foreign flags was jettisoned early last week. But the flagging flag vision was revived Friday when volunteers agreed to carry the symbols of 25 countries -- along with American flags -- along 10 blocks of Fremont Boulevard.
There were only a handful of "boos" from the crowd of about 8,000, and a police officer who accompanied the group said there no problems. But the gesture still riled some.
"This is our birthday -- not theirs,'' said Rob Murdy, 49, who's lived in Fremont 22 years. "I'm all for diversity and letting people come here and keep their traditions. But this is July Fourth, and I think the American flag doesn't need to share this day with the flag of any other country. It's just not right."
However, most people seemed to feel that the international tribute didn't detract from the parade and was appropriate for a thriving city whose 210,000 residents have roots in about 120 different countries.
................
Meanwhile, some African Americans were angry about a Confederate flag on a float of a dozen historical flags from different eras of U.S. history.
"I'm happy to see all those flags from other countries, but that Confederate flag is a racist symbol,'' said Doris Enright, 43, of Fremont, who used the opportunity to educate her 11-year-old son about slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. "It's one thing to see it in a museum or something. But that should not be in a parade. It has been embraced by racist groups, and it is a sign of division."
Art Bouldin, who rode on the float dressed as Uncle Sam, said the inclusion of the flag was not intended as an insult or endorsement of a political stance.
"It's just a group of flags from Betsy Ross and 'Don't Tread On Me' on up to today,'' Bouldin said. "We did this exact same float last year and there was no controversy. It's a shame that everyone is getting upset over flags -- kind of takes the fun out of a great parade."
It wasn't? So next year, let me whip out my Swastika and fly that in a parade and see how long it lasts.
Today's SF Chronicle printed a letter of mine about flying Confederate flags in the Fremont, California 4th of July parade. My cousin-in-law Jenny Lipow, from the Jewish side of my husband's bicultural family, called me this morning to tell me it was in the paper. She teased me about my multiple identities. She's heard me say so many times: "As an Arab-American..." and now she opens the paper to see me writing "as a white Californian with Southern ancestors."
It's no secret that I am bicultural. My father is Lebanese, my mother is a Southerner whose family came to Virginia in the early 17th century. I talk about my Arab identity more, but some days my Southern history rises up and demands to be heard.
Saying "as a white Arab-American Californian whose mother is a native Southerner" would distract from my main point. Not only African Americans find the Confederate flag offensive. White Americans who consider themselves patriots and pledge allegiance to "one nation, indivisible" ought to reject the "Stars and Bars" as well.
Growing up in the South, listening to my Georgia-born grandmother talk about Sherman's March, leafing through my mother's scrapbooks of her 1960 arrest and jail sentence for trying to integrate a lunch counter - I felt that slavery and the Civil War were very real parts of my personal history. When I see the Confederate flag, I don't see just a harmless symbol from days long past - I see the banner of men who fought, killed and lost their own lives for a terrible, shameful cause. To this day the Confederate flag is seen in the South as code for "whites' rights" to dominate Black people and turn back integration and voting rights.
I don't want to ban that flag - free speech and all - but I want people to think about what it really means.
She then wrote the following to me:
With all the Kerry hoo-ha, you might be too busy to care, but I thought you'd like to know. This Confederate Flag thing won't die. Not just in the
South, either. Didn't Ashcroft have some connection to a COnfederate apologist group? And now here in California.
I really wonder if the guy was as disingenuous as all that. Or maybe some white people truly don't get it and don't care to. Anyway, I hoped to make the point to the sort of Republican, flag waving white person who might fly the Confederate flag that it's not just about slavery and black people, (which is enough for me but not for these types) it's about treachery against the Union, the United States of America.
When it comes to the flag of my ancestors oppresors, I always care. Just like Jews care about random Nazi flags. Which is what I told her, but it's been a busy news week. I've only seen one scene in Gone with the Wind. It's where they burn down that fucking mansion, burn it to the ground. Best scene in the movie.
The Onion got it right last week with their new flag of Georgia
Duncan Campbell and Kitty Logan in Kabul
Friday July 9, 2004
The Guardian
When Afghan police burst into the large suburban house in Kabul, they were not expecting to see three men strapped to the ceiling and hanging by their feet.
This was supposedly an import business, after all.
But as they released the men, and five other captives who were also in the house, officers realised they had stumbled upon a private jail where Afghan prisoners were being locked up and tortured.
Yesterday, Afghan security forces and the US military admitted they appeared to have uncovered a freelance counterterrorism mission by bounty hunters, who may have been lured to the country by the prospect of earning multimillion-dollar rewards.
At the heart of their investigation is a former American special forces soldier, Jona than Keith "Jack" Idema
.jpg)
