tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72985642024-03-08T14:54:09.369-07:00Everything You Know Is WrongIf your children ever find out how lame you really are, they're gonna murder you in your sleep.
-- Frank Zappa,
Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.comBlogger254125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1152901014321520632006-07-14T11:07:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.774-07:00I'll take "Adam's Apple" for... um.... nothing?!?I shouldn't allow my personal problems get in the way of blogging but there you have it...<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/14/10650/5842">diary on DKOS pointed me</a> to this, Ann Coulter showing up to stump for Bob Beauprez and the event netted - ZERO - dollars for the Beauprez campaign (<a href="http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=28">from ColoradoConfidential</a>):<br /><blockquote>“We found out the hard way,” says former Beauprez for Gov campaign chief Steve Truebner, “that Ann Coulter is not a major draw for donors.”<br /><br />Nary a one showed up, according to Truebner, leaving Ms. Coulter and Mrs. Beauprez -- the candidate himself was in D.C., working his day job -- to hobnob in the Paramount’s 2d-floor lobby with about a dozen earnest but penniless campaign volunteers, plus some KOA listeners who’d won free tickets to the Coulter show from the station and just happened to be in the vicinity.<br /><br />Smiles were flashed, photos were taken, and cheese/crackers were eaten, just like at a real campaign event. The only things missing were the $1,000 checks.</blockquote>Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1151448709879881952006-06-28T08:46:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.501-07:00The flag survives a desecration attempt and so, time to move on...Despite attempts by unamerican radicals to desecrate our flag and wipe their collective fat ass with the constitution, <a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-3&fp=44a27eda3cc50d11&ei=9MKiRIbcOoXOpwL08riYCw&url=http%3A//www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/&cid=1107367352">stupidity failed by a single vote</a>, keeping America safe from <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/28/hatch-priorities/">drooling fools</a>. <br /><br />Unfortunately, a flag-burning amendment is not the last refuge of these scoundrels and we should expect <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/conservative_agenda;_ylt=Ar0_tqrUcmeGh_7SFvQ6ERiyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--">a long summer of base pandering</a> presented meretriciously with a straight face. <br /><br />The good news is, the Dems have the upper hand if they play smart. The GOP is playing the politics of desperation card and the country is fed up. More, later...Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1151445665476804692006-06-27T12:35:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.417-07:00Not catching up, not keeping upIn my blogging experience (since the halcyon days of 2002), it's sometimes Feast or Famine. I returned yesterday from <a href="http://sloanta.livejournal.com/">self-imposed famine in Longmont</a> only to find I had nothing to say. Today, there's too much to say and so I'll try and fit it all in.<br />------------<br /><br />Although the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/ColoradoGovernor.htm">latest poll has Bill Ritter up by 5 points</a>, the race is far from a slam dunk for <a href="http://www.ritterforgovernor.com/">Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter</a>. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.progressnowaction.org/">ProgressNowAction</a> has put up a wonderful site - <a href="http://bothwaysbob.org/">BothWaysBob.org</a> - illustrating what a wretched liar the Republicans are backing for governor. <br />------------<br /><br />News on another local race: <a href="http://www.fawcett4congress.com/">Jay Fawcett (CO CD-5</a>) picked up an <a href="http://www.squarestate.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1791">endorsement from yet another US miltary general</a>, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry H. (Hugh) Shelton. <br /><br />Jay's exemplary military record makes him a strong candidate in a heavilly red district. It's an uphill battle even though none of the candidates facing the primary are very strong. A Fawcett victory would be a minor miracle and a huge boost for the Democratic party. <br /><br />More on this later....Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1151002836612501262006-06-22T11:44:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.336-07:00Call Allard and ask him, "WTF were you thinking?!?"One would think Wayne Allard (whose constituency includes one of the largest US Army bases in the country, NORAD, the Air Force Academy, and several other military bases) would have voted soundly against the "amnesty for insurgents" bill that was soundly defeated in the US Seanate Tuesday. Then again, Allard is a lame-duck and not seeking re-election, so I suppose he believes it doesn't matter how he votes.<br /><br />Any service person in this area who meets Allard should spit in Allard's sorry face, the way Allard spit on the grave of heroes. Furthermore, El Paso county Dems need to make some noise regarding this vote and use it as a heavy cudgel on whomever Colorado Republicans pick to succeed sorry-ass Allard. As <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115093004324657637">Digby says (and you need to read the entire post</a>):<br /><blockquote>We should... ram it down the Republican party's throats. Here we had a day when two poor American schmucks were just found tortured and killed. We have no moral authority left with which to even condemn the torture --- after all, we've made torture cool again. And yet 19 Republican senators voted for amnesty for their killers. I ask you to contemplate what the Republicans would do to us if the shoe were reversed --- regardless of the merits. You don't have to think very long do you?<br /><br />Politically, this should have been Dubai all over again, a media firestorm, forcing the Republican rank and file to see what was being done in their name. Rove is going to run on the patriot card again, calling us cowards for wantin' to cun 'n run, and here they are proposing to forgive the killers of 2500 Americans while we still have 140,000 more of them sitting over there like sitting ducks for no good reason. We should hang this around the Republican Party's neck and light it afire.</blockquote><br />On the post is a very angry letter from a soldier in Iraq (one I hope is based out of Ft. Carson) and it spells out trenchantly just one more example of how BushCo has mismanaged this war.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1150780894039853752006-06-19T18:06:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.257-07:00OOOOOOH, MANNNNN!!!<a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/">Firedoglake</a> has nore than I can say: <br /><blockquote>Yee Haw! The Codpiece is back with a vengeance! And guess who can’t keep his grubby little hands away from it. You guessed it: Joe Klein.<br /><blockquote><br />Via <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/19.html#a8782">John Amato</a>:<br />"I was up there in the cockpit of that airplane coming into Baghdad," the President told the press corps assembled on the White House lawn after his dash into and out of the war zone last week. "It was an unbelievable, unbelievable feeling." In fact, George W. Bush’s body language—let’s call it the full jaunty—was reminiscent of his last, infamous cockpit trip, onto the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 to announce the "end" of major combat operations in Iraq, beneath a mission accomplished sign. His public language is more cautious than it used to be, but he seemed downright frothy in a private session with the congressional leadership after his press conference.<br /><br /> He called the new Iraqi Defense Minister an "interesting cat" and Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the deceased al-Qaeda leader, "a dangerous dude." Bush had reason, finally, to strut. The al-Zarqawi raid had netted valuable intelligence data that were enabling U.S. and Iraqi forces to roll up al-Qaeda cells—the best haul since the capture of Saddam Hussein, which made it possible for U.S. forces to disable much of the dictator’s inner circle in early 2004. What’s more, the first elected Iraqi government was finally fully in place. Back home, Karl Rove was officially unindicted in the CIA leak case, and the Democrats were busy being Democrats-divided, defensive and confused about the war, with Bush’s favorite punching bag, Senator John Kerry, leading the charge..</blockquote><br /><br />That’s right. Bush is stuck in the mid-30’s, his brain narrowly escaped indictment and he had to mount the most top secret trip since Kissinger went to China (someone left the cakewalk in the rain) yet Klein is drooling and panting over the president’s pants again, getting all hot and bothered when the frat-boy in chief calls the Iraq defense Minister an "interesting cat" and al-Zarqawi a "dangerous dude." Why it’s almost as if Joe got invited to a kegger with the BMOC’s and got to hang with them and "rap" all night about "chicks" (or "dangerous dudes", whatever.)<br /><br />Perhaps someone can explain to me the strange male attraction to George W. Bush. I have never encountered anything quite like it. From day one, DC nerds like Klein have had massive man-crushes on Junior, describing him as "loose-hipped" and "swaggering" and showing all manner of strange obsession with his masculine body language. Klein seems to barely be able to contain his squeal as he writes about Bush’s "strut" and his "full jaunty" (which sounds suspiciously like "full monty" — giving full rise, as it were, to speculation about what Klein was thinking about when he came up with it.) But, can someone please tell me what in the hell he’s talking about when says that Bush was "downright frothy?" What in god’s name was Klein doing while he wrote this column? (Don’t go there…)<br /><br />Seriously, this has been a huge problem since the beginning of the Bush administration. And it tracks quite handily with the opposite reactions among the chattering geeks during the Clinton years. Bubba was female friendly (if you know what I mean) and was the object of a great deal of derisive coverage for his tomcat vibe by the priggish DC press. What worked in his favor out in the country — his smarts ‘n sexual charisma — made the Washington media squirm like a bunch of little old ladies caught by accident at a Marilyn Manson concert. And then along came the codpiece and they all fell in love. Wassup with that?<br /><br />On the substance of Klein’s column, such as it is, after he extolls the vitues of Bush’s manly manliness for two paragraphs he points out that his policies are all wrong and that Karl Rove is a lying sack of manure — but that Democrats are icky so we need to stay the course. John Kerry says we should leave by the end of the year and that’s crazy Democratic defeatist talk. Hawkish, man’s man Klein, on the other hand, thinks we shouldn’t get out for another six months. You do the math.<br /><br />It’s a typically shallow analysis that could have been written in his sleep, but the first two paragraphs are carefully crafted observations of the president’s confidence, demeanor and manly assurance. (How many people can manage to get past the first paragraph of any Joe Klein column, do you think?) It’s the image of Bush as some sort of cowboy hero that kept him propped up for so long (if you’ll excuse the expression) and which the press corps has been dying to get another lingering look at. They love their man when he’s all sweaty and swaggering. Preferably in a tight jumpsuit.<br /><br /> But this will do too.<br /><br />Joe’s screensaver:<br /><br />Pay no attention to the transmitter on his back. </blockquote>Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1150756615923000702006-06-18T15:10:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.177-07:00Get busy, push for Net NeutralityMany of you have probably heard that corporate shill Mike McCurry had his ass handed to him on Friday by Amazon.com's Paul Misener at debate hosted by George Washington University. If you haven't watched the debate, you can see <a href="http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=261">the entire video at Politics TV (or just watch the Q&A where McCurry really gets slaughtered)</a>. You can also read <a href="<a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/06/19/telco-argument-implodes-during-dc-debate/">">some the transcript at SaveTheInternet</a> to see how the Telco's argument does it's counter-clockwise spiral down the bowl but the entertainment value of seeing McCurry get soundly spanked is worth watching.<br /><br />If you're unsure about how the Net Neutrality goes, here's the down & dirty talking point. The big Telcos (AT&T, Bell South, Verizon, etc.) claim that unless they can run the internet their way, innovation is dead, and the internet will suck forever. The big Telcos are calling Net Neutrality "regulating the internet".<br /><br />What a crock of shit. What the big Telcos want to do is create a monopoly for themselves, rake in money on services that are currently free (by setting up "toll booths" for those services - such as blogging, video streaming, etc.) and potentially determine which content will be provided to users. In order to argue this, McCurry and the Telcos have resorted to outright lies, claiming that Net Neutrality is an issue advocated by the far left and that if the Net Neutrality amendment passes, traffic on the internet will bog down in an increasingly overwhelmed network.<br /><br />Both claims are nonsense, desperate words to cover fatcat asses. Net Neutrality is supported across the political spectrum, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-pariser/desperate-telcos-when-th_b_21549.html">as Eli Parser points out</a>, <br /><blockquote>Telecom companies also like to paper Congress with propaganda implying that Internet freedom is somehow a left-wing issue. Tell that to the <a href="http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=329">Christian Coalition</a>, G<a href="http://telephonyonline.com/regulatory/news/bell_internet_coalitiion_042406/">un Owners of America</a>, <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/04/21/you-want-to-keep-this-revolution-going-be-ready-to-fight-for-it/">Instapundit</a>, the <a href="http://news.com.com/Financial+sector+awakens+to+Net+neutrality+issues/2100-1034_3-6067523.html">business executives</a>, and the many <a href="http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3765">libertarians</a> who are fighting right along with MoveOn, the <a href="http://news.com.com/Berners-Lee+calls+for+Net+neutrality/2100-1036_3-6075472.html">inventors of the Internet</a>, thousands of <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/=swag">bloggers</a>, and the <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/">SavetheInternet.com</a> Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.<br /><br />As Craig Fields of the Gun Owners <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/50146.html">says</a>, when the left and right agree on an issue like Internet freedom, "it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American." On the proposal to destroy Net Neutrality, most Americans would probably agree.</blockquote><br />The canard that internet traffic will slow to a crawl (and will squelch innovation) is a laugh, pure and unadulterated bullshit. In fact, there is so much infrastructure in place, the companies decades away from using it all. As Fiber Optic Association (FOA) president Jim Hayes said to streamingmedia.com, <br /><blockquote>"The backbone was terribly overbuilt. Ninety-three percent of all the fiber that’s been installed is still unused."</blockquote><br />However, you can decide for yourself and <a href="http://www.freepress.net/congress/bills/s2917.pdf">read S 2917 in its entirety</a>.<br /><br />The bill goes to committee this Thursday; Colorado voters don't have a dog in this fight at that point. However, should Net Neutrality pass the Commerce Committee, Senators Allard and Salazar need to be urged to support the Snowe/Dorgan amendment AKA “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006." Good local coverage of this issue is <a href="http://coloradopols.com/06/?p=1414">over at Coloradopols</a> (where I got this contact info and directions):<br />them.<br /><br />Contact Senator Ken Salazar: <a href="http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm">Click here to email</a> or call:<br />Phone: (202) 224-5852<br />Fax: (202) 228-5036<br /><br />Contact Senator Wayne Allard: <a href="http://allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home">Click here to email</a> or call:<br />Phone: (202) 224-5941<br />Fax: (202) 224-6471<br /><br />If you email, be sure to click the ‘High-Tech/Telecommunications’ choice so that it is directed to the correct place. <br /><br />As I mentioned, there's good coverage of this over at <a href="http://coloradopols.com/06/?p=1414">Coloradopols</a>; you'll also want to catch what's written over at <a href="http://soapblox.net/colorado/showDiary.do?diaryId=1678">Squarestate.net</a> as they have more information and some lively discussion in the comments.<br /><br />It's your internet - for now. If you don't call or email, you have no one to blame but yourself if you start getting charged "tolls" and find that you can't access your favorite site. You have the power but you have to fight to keep it.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1150539605696226922006-06-16T08:13:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.086-07:00Joel Hefley goes for big corporate cockThe matter of Net Neutrality should be a no brainer - they have enough pipe to keep us phat for a long damn time. The jist of this is who is a corporate whore.<br /><br />Obviously, Joel Hefley (who voted against Net Neutralty) is a corporate whore; he voted AGAINST Net Nuetralty. Give him a call and say he's a shill:<br /><br />Congressman Joel Hefley<br />Phone: 202-225-4422<br /><br />Then, call these guys and let them know that if they vote against Net Nuetrality, you'll put bags of dogshit on their porch, light it on fire, ring the bell and run like hell;<br /><br />Senator Wayne Allard<br />Phone: 202-224-5941<br /><br />Senator Ken Salazar<br />Phone: 202-224-5852<br /><br />Get busy - CALL; our freedom depends on it.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1150399889108290232006-06-15T11:55:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:21.006-07:00Tom Tancredo thinks Catholics are a bunch of damn commiesSoot-black and stupid hungover from his latest cross burning, Tom Tancredo looks for another group to slur (<a href="http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2006-06-08/news2.html">via CSIndy</a>):<br /><blockquote>Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) who helped draft the House bill, has said the Catholic Church's immigrant rights campaign is run by "left-leaning religious activists" who want "blanket amnesty" for the undocumented.</blockquote><br />Although a lapsed Catholic m'self (I was 6-years old when I decided the whole religion thing was sillier than Davey & Goliath), one thing I've admired about the Church is its dedication to social justice. Sadly, the Church's voice in matters of social justice has been drowned out by the idiocy of anti-choice and anti-gay marriage babblers of late but it's heartening to see Catholic bishops taking a stance on an issue that adheres closest to the words and deeds proscibed in the Gospels.<br /><br />I really hope <a href="http://www.winterforcongress.com/">Bill Winter</a> pushes Tancredo on this. A lot of bingo money gets pushed to the candidate who doesn't imply that Catholics are a bunch of commies.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1150326027475319542006-06-14T14:01:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:20.920-07:00Everything you know is WRONG!!!So, you thought this was a blog about national politics?<br /><br />I started this little blog back in 2003, have given up on it several times. Obviously, I can't let it die. However, I want to change the emphasis <span style="font-style:italic;">again</span> and try and focus on the local political scene, advocate for local liberal candidates, work for change here at home. It's my firm belief that change on a national and global level begins with our own backyard.<br /><br />What I learned from Yearly Kos (no, I wasn't there but I followed the party closely) is that local blogs are going to create a blue US map. There are thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of liberal blogs but this is the only blog for my congressional district.<br /><br />That doesn't mean I'm giving up pretending I know what I'm talking about on national issues - with the GOP today, the jokes write themselves. It also doesn't mean that I'll ignore races outside of my own district; I'd love to see <a href="http://www.angie2006.com/">Angie Paccione</a> defeat the odious Marilyn Musgrave, <a href="http://www.winterforcongress.com/">Bill Winter</a> take the racist Tom Tancredo's seat, and I urge readers in those districts to donate time and money to get Paccione and Winter elected. If we decide that 2006 will turn Colorado blue, we can make it happen.<br /><br />You local Coloradans can also help me by dropping me a line (I'll check my email more often than the comments) and giving me a heads-up on any news or issues pertinent to Colorado voters. <br /><br />Welcome to my new blog; let's take our state and country back!Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1128222925729020512005-10-01T17:50:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:20.768-07:00They've broken out the white sheets, the crosses and the gasA contradiction I've noticed about GOoPers is, on the one hand, their high dudgeon when the left accuses them of racism - "You're playing the RACE CARD card (goddamn, I'm soooooooo sick of seeing that term "race card" because, in itself, it SOUNDS like a term a racist uses) - then, on the other hand, they use an Appeal to Authority to justify the obvious racism that seeps through.<br /><br />Check Sully's ongoing affection for Murray's "Bell Curve" and the recent defense of Bennet's stupidity.<br /><br />I mention this because if you check any blog, left or right, where race is an issue, you can read the comments and read just how stupidly racist rightards are. No apologies, "that sack of shit doesn't speak for me" but "well, if you look at the statistics..."<br /><br />Except, as Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Looking at the trees but neglecting the forest fails to tell us anything. Bennet (in his now infamous blunder) quoted "Freakonomics" but failed to see the larger picture. <a href="http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/09/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics.html">Levitt clues him in</a>: <br /><blockquote>It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide. (The homicide gap is partly explained by crack markets). In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement. Empirically, what matters is the fact that abortions are disproportionately used on unwanted pregnancies, and disproportionately by teenage women and single women.</blockquote><br />Go to the link I just included and watch the righties squirm: they indeed want to justify their racism, without apology and with drooling alacrity. Without looking back and without embarrassment, they reveal their true colors (usually with the kind of witless sarcasm one sees on Free Republic of LGF).<br /><br />My own sense is that quasi-racists like Sully want Murray to be right so they can justify a larger conservative fallacy, that some people are just genetically predisposed to rule while the rest (no matter their merit) are meant to serve. Utter shit, we know, but Sully and his ilk will draw on such pseudo-science in order to rationalize their closet monarchism. However, the vast majority of these neanderthals are simply enamoured by the notion that, by virtue of skin color, thay are superior to those with a darker skin color. It has nothing to do with the kind of Tory politics favored by Sully or, say, George Will, and everything to do with the kind of tribalist hoodoo that we should have evolved out of a long time ago.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1127239424113916552005-09-20T10:47:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:20.687-07:00Check this out while I tidy upOver in the DKos diaries, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/20/94241/6949">Bonddad has a brilliant rebuttal</a> to a RedState.org post rationalizing the fiscal madness of the Bush administration. Imagine a conservative justifying these kinds of deficits in a liberal administration (or don't, lest you're dying to have your head explode). <br /><br />One thing Bonddad doesn't address is, if running up deficits is indeed a brilliant fiscal strategy, why do the Bushies keep paying lip service to a balanced budget (i.e. "Oh we project a balanced budget, um, sometime in the future...")?<br /><br /><a href="http://trustygetto.blogspot.com/">Trusty Getto</a> emailed me a fine critique of my "rules" and I am going to consider his recommendations and make a few revisions. He doesn't think I should apply pure logic to the discourse and his point is well taken. However, when fallacies arise, they will be duly noted (and you're forewarned that there are a couple of fine logicians lurking hereabouts). <br /><br />I have to put in some bullshit administrative/office hours today and revising "the rules" might be a fine way to kill some time. If anyone else has suggestions, please email them to me (instead of using the comments). I still think arguments put forth here should be judged on their soundness and validity but I concur with Trusty that they shouldn't be narrowly critiqued through a lens of pure logic.<br /><br />A work in progress...Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1127205022507056462005-09-19T23:21:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:13.101-07:00Changing gears - my first questionWow, I got off track....<br /><br />One of the problems with writing a left-y political blog is the redundancy throughout the blogosphere. I concur that it's heartening to hear all these voices raised to reiterate that "Bush sucks" but that's hardly interesting or groundbreaking. Thus, my reluctance to post, not just in the last 11 days but in the past few months. <br /><br />I want to find a niche as well as honor the intent of this blog which was not really to be a left-wing echo chamber but to ask questions of the right and the left, to gainsay the conventional wisdom, to examine what works and what is sheer idiocy. When I was getting my Philosophy degree (yes, many of you know me as a therapist but I also got a degree in Philosophy in order to secure my future as a well-paid waiter), I was known within the the Philosophy department at my school as a bit of a maverick. A "soft-Marxist" certainly but also a bit of an iconoclast and I tended to step on more leftist toes than conservative toes.<br /><br />My intention here, on a daily basis, will be to examine where the US has come from and where it should head. I'm hoping for an honest dialogue from all sides of the political wading pool. I'm asking for people to enlighten me.<br /><br />I start today (I'm hoping this will be an ongoing series) by critiquing the notion of a "strict constructionist" approach to the Constitution. As I see it, the intellectual underpinnings of my political opposition is founded on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism">republicanism</a> (small 'r') functioning within an iteration of <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/">federalism</a> (also defined <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism">here</a>). <br /><br /><a href="http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html">Lakoff's metaphors</a> aside, I believe that liberals and conservatives in the US mostly diverge with Constitutional interpretation, narrow versus broad interpretations of what the framers meant when drafting the Constitution. <br /><br />Obviously, we can't divine the intent of dead men. Those of you on the right will certainly accuse me of deconstructionism with this (and further) arguments but I don't think it's unfair to place this first question in the context of the times with which the US Constitution was written.<br /><br />At the time of its inception, the Constitution was the guideline for a country that was about a tenth of the size it is now (geographically) with little intent of grabbing much more territory. Indeed, had fortunes changed slightly it's not difficult to imagine that much of the continental US would be either French or Spanish (and even Russian), if not Native American. There is nothing to indicate that the framers held any pretense for empire much less exporting The Grand Experiment on a global scale.<br /><br />Furthermore, in the late Eighteenth-century, the US was a largely agrarian society that had no notion of its industrial potential. Considering that provisions were made for slave-owners, it could be argued that the framers envisioned a country with an economy driven largely by "gentleman farmers" (and a few "hard-scrabble" farmers) with a some urban bourgeoise tradesman, a system that reflected most progressive European economies - with the exception that government would be democratically elected. <br /><br />Considering those humble expectations of the country, the framers believed that <a href="http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html">government would serve minimal administrative functions</a> in order to facilitate inter-state commerce (i.e. an objective judiciary to decide crimes or <a href="http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=4">disputes of rights</a>, the institution and maintenance of urban and rural infrastructure, a standing army to secure borders, and a minute legislative/administrative tier to oversee all these functions) but not much else. Although such a view, in this day and age, is considered a kind of fundamentalist libertarian utopian dream, it nonetheless provides the philosophical foundation for modern conservative thought.<br /><br />So here is my first question: is the historical milieu of the framers relevant to a country that was far more complex than anything they could have conceived? <br /><br />That's my question. I hope we'll proceed from here and it should be obvious that my agenda will be to undermine the foundational philosophy of the conservative argument (I make no pretense of being purely objective in this). However, I am setting aside shrill indictments in the interest of inviting an open, informed dialogue. I'm not certain that we'll solve anything and, frankly, I propose to shatter conservative contra propositions. <br /><br />I will provide <a href="http://ninothemindboggler.blogspot.com/2005/09/guidelines.html">guidelines in another post</a>. I'd like an answer to this first question and I'll live with deviations from the rules until those guidelines are posted. You can think of this as a bridge game: I know what cards I hold and what cards I will show but you can also play your cards as you see fit. However, your best play will be to answer my bid - as you see fit.<br /><br />The game is on.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1127210855332317042005-09-19T01:45:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:13.243-07:00GuidelinesThis series is about open and honest dialogue, not about out-shouting one another or playing hit-and-run trolling. I live in the service of truth, not agenda or dogma. If you can enlighten me, great; if I am wrong now but you guide me towards being correct, I thank you. <br /><br />However, certain rules apply, most of them laid out long ago by Aristotle - logic. Arguments based on intuition - my gut - just don't cut it. Our system of justice ostensibly relies on the rules of logic (in a perfect world, I concur) but more importantly, empiricism is founded on this entire system. Logic provides proofs for mathematics, geometry - what more could you ask? Obviously, you won't be seeing any arguments here about "Intelligent Design".<br /><br />Left or Right, I will delete comments that do nothing to further the discourse and reduce the discourse to name-calling or indulge in the <a href="http://www.omegapage.com/foundations/Studies/logical_falacies.htm">following fallacies</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Distraction</span><br /><ul><li>False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options<br /><li>From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false<br /><li>Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn<br /><li>Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Appeals to Motives in Place of Support</span><br /><ul><li>Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force<br /><li>Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy<br /><li>Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences<br /><li>Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author<br /><li>Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Changing the Subject</span><br /><ul><li>Attacking the Person:<br /><dl>(1) the person's character is attacked<br />(2) the person's circumstances are noted<br />(3) the person does not practice what is preached</dl><br /><li>Appeal to Authority:<br /><dl>(1) the authority is not an expert in the field<br />(2) experts in the field disagree<br />(3) the authority was joking, or in some other way not being serious</dl><br /><li>Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named<br /><li>Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Inductive Fallacies</span><br /><ul><li>Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population<br /><li>Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole<br /><li>False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar<br /><li>Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary<br /><li>Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms</span><br /><ul><li>Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception<br /><li>Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Causal Fallacies</span><br /><ul><li>Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to be caused by the other<br /><li>Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause<br /><li>Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect<br /><li>Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed<br /><li>Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect</ul><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Missing the Point</span><br /><ul><li>Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises<br /><li>Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion<br /><li>Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fallacies of Ambiguity</span><br /><ul><li>Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings<br /><li>Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations<br /><li>Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Category Errors</span><br /><ul><li>Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property<br /><li>Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Non Sequitur</span><br /><ul><li>Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A<br /><li>Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B<br /><li>Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Syllogistic Errors</span><br /><ul><li>Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms<br /><li>Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property<br /><li>Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate<br /><li>Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject<br /><li>Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises<br /><li>Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies<br /><li>Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fallacies of Explanation</span><br /><ul><li>Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)<br /><li>Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)<br /><li>Un-testability (The theory which it explains cannot be tested)<br /><li>Limited Scope (The theory which it explains can only explain one thing)<br /><li>Limited Depth (The theory which it explains does not appeal to underlying causes)</ul><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fallacies of Definition</span><br /><ul><li>Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)<br /><li>Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should be included)<br /><li>Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)<br /><li>Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)<br /><li>Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)</ul><br /><br />Finally, and I don't know why this should be stated but I'll put it out there anyway, just to codify this entire thing: your arguments must be <span style="font-style:italic;">consistent</span>, meaning, if they are going to to be used to validate a proposition, that argument must validate all propositions following the original proposition. If you're going to argue from complexity, you need to either devise a new argument or a new proposition.<br /><br />Too tough? Tough shit, them's the rules and if you think that's too much to ask then don't play. The point is that we cut out all the bullshit ("liberal media" and every other canard) and do with this rationalism. If you're not intellectually prepared for that, stay away.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1126172668948272222005-09-08T02:34:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.975-07:00OK, maybe I'm a bit stupid-ish when it comes to the MSMMSNBC - "BREAKING NEWS!!!" - three nitwits breaking into some hotel. Really. "Breaking news". Where was MSNBC when my tires were slashed?<br /><br />I wonder how "breaking" that news would be if three shitheads were breaking into a hotel (or liquor store or a Ford Fiasco or Stop-n'-Dump) around here. Holy shit, MSNBC wouldn't have a moment for Tweety or Dan "I'm flacid unless it's a celebrity" Abrams or even - God forbid - Olbermann was interrupted every time a few criminals decided to bust a lock and grab some goods.<br /><br />Guess we're going to get "breaking news!!!" when a meth-head holds up a Kwiki-Mart with a tire iron in Butte, Montana...Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1126155640674895702005-09-07T21:01:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.852-07:00A little anecdotal relief from White House spinAlthough I reside in a teeny-tiny patch of blue due west of one of the reddest blotches marring the landscape of this great land of ours, I work in the depths of that red scourge. Indeed, I have to cross it every day (a commute that is killing me with current gas prices) with eyes wide open and head held down.<br /><br />A strange phenomenon: prior to the November election, you didn't see all that many 'W04' stickers on cars. As I've heard from different corners, the last Presidential election wasn't so much about showing support for Bush but stating distaste for Kerry. That seems to have been borne out days before the election because, as I traversed the red sea hereabouts, my count of Kerry stickers relative to Bush stickers was a dead heat. <br /><br />What I found interesting was that, after the election, 'W04'stickers bloomed, as if local drivers felt confident enough to slap the damn things on their SUVs as if to say, "Oh yeah, Oh yeah, I supported the WINNER!" Before the election, my count of 'W' stickers amounted to about 1-in-20 cars; after the election, that count jumped to about 1-in-6. <br /><br />Until this past week. Oddly enough, the 'W' stickers have disappeared. No shit, for the last two days I have not seen a single 'W' sticker anywhere on my trek across town (and today I had several errands to run, so my drive was considerably longer and more circuitous. <br /><br />Believe me, I've had my eyes peeled because I've wanted to roll up on some winger with a Bush sticker so I could shout, "Nice job he did while on vacation, huh?" but no such luck. <br /><br />I'm not sure what that means but I have my suspicions.<br /><br />Adding to that, my groups have been given the opportunity to process their feelings regarding the Katrina disaster (I'm a therapist for court-ordered DUI therapy groups). I've listened to roughly 60 clients regarding the disaster and only two were in Bush's corner. Not everyone expressed anger at Bush and the Federal government but I have to say the vast majority said "Bush should be impeached."<br /><br />Anecdotal evidence, I know, and it probably doesn't mean much, but it tells me that not many people have been swayed by the whirring of the White House spin machine's spew of fallacies over the past couple of days. <br /><br />It's been widely reported on the blogosphere (but it bears repeating here), that the MSM has been dizzied by Rovian spin. A prime example from <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/141812/3897">TPM today</a>:<br /><blockquote>While watching the MSNBC program, CONNECTED, COAST TO COAST with Ron Reagan, a man from the Evergreen Foundation was on air spinning the myth that the President had to "beg" the Governor of Louisiana to take action. Having been on this show several times I called one of the bookers, Susan Durrwatcher, to alert her to the fact that this man was misrepresenting what happened. I offered Susan the following objective, documented facts (see timeline below). Susan thanked me for my "opinion" and said "we just have a different perspective". Stunned, I asked her by what standard of journalism that an objective fact was mere opinion? I asked her to simply look at the documents and correct the record. She declined.</blockquote><br />Perhaps the left is gun-shy when considering the intelligence of the average American (echoing the Daily Mirror's post-election headline, "How can 59,054, 087 people be so DUMB?") and although the left blogosphere is rightfully exasperated by the media carrying White House water, it's not as though this battle is brand new. Although the MSM did an admirable job in its criticism of the delayed response to the disaster, we all knew that their week of sobriety was short-lived and a relapse was imminent.<br /><br />Sure, <a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001055733">recent polls find most Americans ambivalent</a> regarding Bush's performance but in my own little corner of the universe, people are saying something different. As the stories of the evacuees make the rounds, as the true death toll begins to get reported, and as the results of an <span style="font-style:italic;">independent</span> start to come to light, the things the vast majority of my clients are saying will be repeated, louder, with more anger. <br /><br />As far as the sudden dearth of 'W' stickers in this area? My own interpretation is that, although people aren't exactly blaming Bush, they can't exactly bring themselves to support him. And that's not something the polls are reporting.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1125988303768901942005-09-05T20:41:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.754-07:00Want to be sexy? Be liberal!If this is your first visit to this blog (or you have a really tight rubber band around your neck), allow me to explain my political philosphy: I believe politics (in the US) are cyclical. The pendulum swings too far to the left and then, having reached the threshold, turns back to the right. There is no "center", per se, but eventually the center is articulated in the statistical mechanics of the pendulum: it is the place where the pendulum rests twice more than any place on its path.<br /><br />Being big on latin tonight (ex-Catholic schoolboy, me) I'll offer a caveat: by nature, the pendulum always - ALWAYS - tends towards the left. It cannot sustain itself on the right, the right is committed to the old order of the few having much and the many having nothing. Call me a Marxist (you won't be the first) but the algebra is too obvious; take too much and those without will hit back and take it from you.<br /><br />As the world watches, appalled, not just at the results of Bush's economic policies but decades also of Democratic appeasment to corporate interests, the American public begins to ask questions. Was it beneficial to give tax cuts or should we have been funding an infrastructure and safety net? In the eyes of the world, we are an embarassment; inward-looking, we are disgusted.<br /><br />Suddenly, the right-wing canard that "those people should be responsible for themselves and their actions" is equivocated. First of all, "those people" takes on a racist overtone (considering the images that came out of NOLA and the reluctance of our government to act) and makes us wonder how far we really have come since the 60's; most Americans are having problems with that. Secondly, many Americans are beginning to realize that working two minimum-wage jobs still gives most families no opportunity to save and get ahead. The images coming out of NOLA are not of the "lumpen proletariat" but of the working poor, people who have fulfilled their part of the bargain but were no further ahead welfare welch. Indeed, most of the working poor require government assistance to just get by.<br /><br />As Americans drain their resources at the gas pumps and consider the obscene profits raked in by energy companies (and other corprorate CEO's), as our economy continues to go south and the housing boom is shunted, the shift will go towwards the left. It's inevitable. <br /><br />History, my friends. No society has ever benefited from giving the rich a by on their duty to the rest of the world. in fact, if you consider how FDR took the US out of the Great Depression (and why hard-core conservatives hate him), it was through progressive, across-the board taxation that turned the tax income into work programs that built an infrastructure in this country that has not been repeated. EVERYONE was working, investing, saving... just ask your gramma or gampy; the country had it going on BEFORE the war (WW II, the war and time dipshit Dubya attempts to evoke for emotional effect). <br /><br />The US became a world power - THE world power - because of progressive taxation. When a nation offers all workers a chance at a decent life those workers have can build on an increasingly greater legacy, kids in college, adding to the greatness of the American dream. <br /><br />Conservatives have always opposed diversion from the "natural order". They tried (and failed) to defeat integration in the 60's and continue now: NAFTA, CAFTA, a slave class is in their best interest. If they have to appeal to religious extremism (check opposition to integration), they will. They have. <br /><br />Now that Katrina has thrown the US economy into a tailspin (and I suspect the hurricane season is far from over), Americans have had it with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. After all, the US was founded on the notion that anyone can grow up to be president. Clinton did it, but he did it within an America that allowed anyone from the bottom to rise to the top (the fact that he sold out the vision of America that gave him opportunity is a sad statement on our national character). <br /><br />The pivot has come.<br /><br />The "me first" attitude in the US is on its way out. The way the administration sold the folks of New Orleans down the river (figuatively and literally) turned off too many of the "good Americans" - we've evolved beyond stupid racism and there's no going back. More than that, we're all about to be stung by the kind of poverty that we ascribed to "them" - those conservatives pigeonholed as not having any personal responsibility. Too many of us are about to find out that our current system is oblivious to circumstances or status.<br /><br />The rest of the world has observed the disparity of race and economic status. Circumstnces have kept a majority of Americans oblivious to those facts but that's about to change. <br /><br />For the past 20 years, it's been sexy to be un-PC, ironic, and selfish. However, the pendulum just passed the mid-point and now it's on its way to being conscious of race, gender, and social status. Get used to it. "Liberal" is the new black.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1125198402142933382005-09-03T21:44:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.510-07:00"Blame the nigger!"In light of the entire nation connecting the dots <span style="font-style:italic;">and</span> the MSM waking up from years of stupor to actually get angry at BushCo, I've wondered when the Right-wing Noise Machine would start spewing idiocy. Until now, it's mostly been racist drivel (see <a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ninothemindboggler/112560405049503153/#136583">this idiots comment</a> from my last post), "Looters!" but not much else.<br /><br />Today I got some sense of how the pips would squeak and I have to say, the squeaking is a sorry noise, hardly representative of the quasi-clever quips of previous hand-in-the-armpit wingnut noise-making. Indeed, what's passed as "Support our Preznit" nonsense the last few hours has amounted to the hissing of a balloon on its way to becoming flaccid rubber.<br /><br />Most of the wingnut spittle has amounted to "it's hard work" in the same resigned, whining sigh echoing Bush's resigned, whining performance in the second Bush/Kerry debate. With that pathetic little soundbite we're supposed to put ourselves in the Preznit's Bass Sperry's and see how we would have done, given the pressures of having been asked to cut our five-week vacation short a day early. <br /><br />Let me tell you, my four-year old could have put her Powerpuff Girl sneakers on and done a much better job than the four-year old in Chief (am I the only one who is suspicious why he'd name his dog "Barney"? Do you get the sense he did that because "Barney" is his favorite show?).<br /><br />The pippiest squeak thus far was provided by <a href="http://www.americanprowler.com/util/print.asp?art_id=8693">Ben Stein whose "13 Points No One Should Make Unless They're a Complete Mindless Shill (or the Spread I'm Taking in the Bears vs. the Redskins)</a>" essentially amounted to 11 points stating what an awful disaster Katrina was with the final two points reminding us who is in charge, after all. Uh, I think we got that, Ben, and if that's the money I'll win, well, that hardly fills my tank.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/">Poonan</a>, on the other hand, was impressed with Junior's lip-diddling press conference but what struck me was her reference to The Cranky Old Man regarding 9/11:<br /><blockquote>Remember what Dick Cheney said when flight 93 went down in a field in Pennyslvania? He said he had a feeling an act of significant bravery had occurred on that plane.</blockquote>Cheney's quote being significant since he just managed to step out of the Wyoming anabolic chamber they preserve him in (until they need him to re-invigorate the Death Star) so he could return to Washington to slap Dubya across the head and growl at how everything was foot-fucked while Dick was bathed in the blood of Guatemalan virgins. That and to spur Poonan on with her 30-odd-six, "Shoot those monkeys, you saucy little whore!" while her fat ass slickens her naughahyde seat with a snail-trail of excitement. <br /><br />Over at the Corner, David "say what you will about those cross-burnings but at least they're patriotic" Frum frets that the "left-wing attacks on the Bush administration," regarding Katrina (because the right-wing attacks were perfectly sensible) are contradictory and proves it by, uh, per incuriam, contradicting himself. I can imagine Frum's shaving ritual, looking at himself in the mirror (an act of extreme courage, I assume), shouting, "You're an idiot!" "Yes you are!" "No, I'm NOT!!!" "Yes you're not but I am!!!"<br /><br />Considering the impotence of wingnut answers to criticisms of Bush, it's not surpising that the best we get are echoes of some desperate freeper pooch chained to a tree and and howling for kibble. That argument doesn't even make it to a proper blog post bust gets parroted in blog comments, hit-and-run palaver blathering, "Yeah, what about NOLA's mayor?!?"<br /><br />I don't know where this particularly repulsive meme came from (although, since we all know it amounts to "Blame the nigger!" I asume it was Little Green Footballs) but allow me to enlighten the fuckwits who hold to that tiny-minded argument: the mayor doesn't control Federal assets. In a disaster of this scope (arguably the largest in US history), the Feds move in and try to get everyone fed and housed and the fuck out of the rubble. Read some fucking history (I know, it's something you lack, history and the ability to read) but it's all there, in black and white, shitheads. For fuck's sake, the argument isn't just lame, it's WRONG.<br /><br />The fact that the right is reacting to the criticism should tell us all something about the impotence of the so-called Republican revolution. The success of conservatives in the past 20 years has been their ability to skirt the impression of being reactionary and have been, almost to a note, proactive in spreading shit, true or not (again, check your history and see how much of it has been "true"). That the best they have is to attack Ray Nagin is an indication of utter desperation. If patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel (and we all know how often the right has made that tired poppet dance), blaming the nigger is truly the bottom of the barrel. As I saw <a href="http://jrh1972.blogspot.com/2005/09/america-needs-leader.html">John Howard say</a> (<a href="http://xnerg.blogspot.com/2005/09/quote-of-week-john-howard-on.html">over at Skippy</a>):<br /><blockquote>...anyone can make excuses for why this isn't bush's fault, and isn't the administration's fault, and a lot of those excuses might be valid and might be true, but if you want to sit around making excuses for why you can't do anything, then why the fuck do you become the president of the united states in the first place?</blockquote><br />Answer that, assholes, before you go after the mayor.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1125805083007580072005-09-03T20:13:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.678-07:00Rehnquist is deadThe news just broke that Chief Justice Rehnquist has died.<br /><br />So much for a slow news Labor Day weekend. This is going to throw BushCo into a goddamn tailspin. After completely botching the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort, on the heels of increasingly bad news in Iraq, BushCo doesn't have a sou in political capital. <br /><br />With conservatives attacking Bush on his response to Katrina just as a few were trickling away from support from his adventure in Iraq, this does not bode well at all for Bush's desire to pack the court with conservative activists. Furthermore, it doesn't do anything for Roberts pending nomination. Some may argue that Rehnquist's death would expedite a Robert's nomination (in order to get seats filled on the court) but I doubt that will be the case. <br /><br />If anything, Rehnquist's passing should give Dems pause to consider the ramifications of bending over and playing nice. Indeed, Dems and liberals have complete momentum to force moderate nominations. All they need is a little spine; the muscle is already there - the opinion of the US public. Bush has no capital to spend (less than 40% of which most are fanatical fundamentalists) and as the titular head of the Republican party, he's got a lot of asses to cover.<br /><br />In the midst of the tragedy down in the Gulf, I don't think anyone considered what Rehnquist's death would mean. Obviously, our thoughts were occupied with so many other deaths. I hate to be ghoulish about this but Rehnquist's death is the last thing conservatives needed at this point. There's too much egg on too many faces (and remember the Plame investigation? That's just a few weeks away from getting <span style="font-style:italic;">really</span> hot) and trying to play hardball with a broken back is foolhardy. Pardon the analogy but it would be the same as, after botching the occupation of Iraq, having the hubris to rush into Iran.<br /><br />Hmmmmm... come to think of it, Bush may be that fucking stupid. God help us all. <br /><br />RIP, William Rehnquist.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1125604050495031532005-09-01T11:56:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.597-07:00And so it begins<blockquote><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050901/w090128.html">NEW ORLEANS (AP)</a> - The evacuation of the Superdome was suspended Thursday after shots were fired at a military helicopter, the chief of the medical evacuation service said. There were no immediate reports of injuries.</blockquote><br />Why would anyone fire at a military helicopter that refugees would assume was there to help?<br /><br />There's no way of knowing, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that word was spread that Bush was flying over NOLA to survey the disaster and the shooter was hoping that Dear Leader was riding in the chopper. <br /><br />It's become clear that the vast majority of people who could not evacuate before Katrina hit were folks who did not have the means to escape. No cash, no credit cards, no car, no way to flee the storm. Now, with the federal government slow to respond to the disaster, the poor have been left to die. Not just in New Orleans but in all of southern Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Tens of thousands of people left without food, shelter, or medical care. Whatever low wage jobs they had are gone. Whatever meager belongings they possessed were washed away in the flood. <br /><br />It's not going to get better. Reuters is already reporting <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/ts_nm/bt_weather_katrina_poverty_dc">palpable class anger brewing in Biloxi</a>, MS and if the "man on the street" interviews are any indication, the sentiment is widespread. <br /><br />The images that are coming out of New Orleans aren't being lost on the poor around the country and they're wondering what will happen if a disaster hits their community. Most likely, they're getting the sense that will be likewise neglected and regarded as expendable.<br /><br />As the rich continue their garden party with Bush's tax cuts, the poor are taking stock of their place in America. I just read <a href="http://www.gawker.com/news/condoleezza-rice/index.php#breaking-condi-rice-spends-salary-on-shoes-123467">this, about Condi Rice spending thousands of dollars on shoes</a>:<br /><blockquote>What does surprise us: Just moments ago at the Ferragamo on 5th Avenue, Condoleeza Rice was seen spending several thousands of dollars on some nice, new shoes (we’ve confirmed this, so her new heels will surely get coverage from the WaPo’s Robin Givhan). A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice’s timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!” Never one to have her fashion choices questioned, Rice had security PHYSICALLY REMOVE the woman.</blockquote><br />Am I the only one who thinks our country is beginning to resemble 19th-century Europe? As a student of history, I recall how the workers and peasantry responded then and it's not much of a stretch to think that it might happen here, now.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1124939711032568182005-08-24T18:55:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.428-07:00Dredging up the old corpse to see if it still stinksIf the air, the past day or two, has been redolent with the reek of a Rove, it's not because Uncle Karl has been asking Junior to pull his finger. It's a familiar stench, yes, but far more foul than anything Rove could muster up from the brimstone pit of his colon.<br /><br />For almost a year after the war, lip-diddlers of all political stripes were heard whistling a trite and simple tune, "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops, you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy and you support the terrorists." Of course, anyone with a salt shaker-full of brain knew that song and dance was utter hooey but it was catchy and like the Macarena, got the best of normally sensible and nominally intelligent people. Democrats and Republicans alike could be heard reciting the verses verbatim and no matter where you turned, the damned song was being blasted out of some pinhead's piehole.<br /><br />Eventually, the song got old and as those things go, when it piped up people could be heard muttering, "Uh, could you change the station?" As the war dragged on and it became evident to everyone that the war had nothing to do with terrorism, that the reasons for the war were a web of fabrications and lies not worthy of a three year-old, people began to think that maybe supporting the war had nothing to do with supporting the troops, that maybe, by golly, the troops were better off backing out of a turd hunt so completely botched, so perfectly fiddlefucked, that it could have only been hatched in the tiny minds of an idiot child and his oatmeal-brained buddies. <br /><br />Not many people wanted to hear it. Whenever it got played (usually in places with a playlist limited to 4 or 5 songs, all of them stale), the vast majority was reminded of how foolish they had been to sing along, flail their hands in the air like zombie minstrels and line-dance to a truly awful and inauthentic melody. An ugly memory, it was best buried and forgotten, like a trove of old pornography. <br /><br />So here's the stench: someone snuck into the back yard to dig up the stinking corpse and dance it around on a stick like it was suddenly new and alive and minty fresh. Bush <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/08/bush-takes-on-cindy.html">dangled it around in Idaho earlier today</a>, telling the handful of people who are still willing to endure his bullshit that, "I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050823-secdef3741.html">Rumsfeld took his turn</a> shaking the bag of bones (observers were stymied at times deciding who was who), comparing thos against the war to Stalinists. Having seen the corpse dance around like a klansman at a cross-burning, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/165411/706">The American Legion decided it ought to have a turn at letting the long pig dance it up</a> at it's Honolulu convention (what with the luau theme and all). <br /><br />Having subjected you to this lengthy mixed metaphor, I'll drive a stake in its heart and, unlike the perseverators on the right, give this thing a quick demise. I'll only add that if you want to know who revived the tired tune of "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops," you need only look as far as Karl Rove. I assume he's banking on the collective short-term memory loss of the American people since the reappearance of the played out song occured today in a big way. Which should announce to all of us that their crew has truly run out of ideas.<br /><br />Unfortunately, we'll hear this song for the next few weeks because Junior and his tittering nitwits will think they have discovered something really cool. <br /><br />What they won't expect is that the American public has added a new verse to the tired old song, a reprise actually, from an old song that never gets stale:<br />"We won't get fooled again!"Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1124681071340985252005-08-21T19:52:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.345-07:00Evidence of spine detected in several recent CNN incidentsIn an amazing discovery this past week, scientists and television viewers alike were astounded when small evidence of a spine was exhibited in two separate incidents on CNN. <br /><br />The first discovery occured on <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/18/bn.02.html">Wolf Blitzer's talking puppet show "The Situation Room"</a> when "resident curmudgeon" Jack Cafferty objected loudly to CNN's gleeful licking of the BTK Killer's balls. Cafferty revealed his spine when he said:<br /><blockquote>We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Publicity is this monster's gasoline. It's what kept him going during the years he was playing cat and mouse with the cops and murdering innocent people. He loved being the BTK killer. He loved reading about himself in the newspapers, watching the television stories on the local news in Kansas, on the nights before he got caught.<br /><br />Doesn't anybody get this? This thing should have been sentenced in a closed courtroom in 30 seconds and thrown into a hole to rot. I'm a little embarrassed to be a part of the media on a day like this.</blockquote><br />Later in the day, Bob Costas bowed out from licking the same balls while also refusing to hump the non-existent corpse of Natalie Holloway. Asked to fill in for the Larry King (who was due for his semi-annual re-inflation):<br /><blockquote>Costas, hired by CNN as an occasional fill-in on "Larry King Live," refused to anchor Thursday's show because it was primarily about the Alabama teenager who went missing in Aruba. Chris Pixley filled in at the last minute.<br /><br />"I didn't think the subject matter of Thursday's show was the kind of broadcast I should be doing," Costas said in a statement. "I suggested some alternatives but the producers preferred the topics they had chosen. I was fine with that, and respectfully declined to participate." </blockquote><br />In the meantime, media experts are baffled how any amount of spine might have infiltrated the newsrooms at CNN. Some experts are speculating that CNN chief Jon Klein has devoured so many brains and hearts that the emergence of spine may have emerged from under "tons of fat".Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1124567886348390932005-08-20T12:32:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.265-07:00BlowbackAlthough I'm not particularly enamoured with the "politics of the center" (especially as it's <a href="http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/19/161613/989">described by some Democrats</a>), there is something to be said for its potency. For better or worse, it's how most Americans vote.<br /><br />"Blowback" is a phenomenon that is not unique to American politics but is certainly characteristic of our system. Things move to far to the left and the voters are easilly swayed towards the right. Sure, the organization and effectiveness of the right-wing noise machine during the past two decades had an undue influence (especially in the erosion of worker's rights and the primacy of the corporation) but the sentiment that was played on was an unsettling disturbance of heartland values. <br /><br />Clinton didn't help when he lied about Monica. Although the entire affair was trifling at best, it still perpetuated a perception that Democrats were corrupt after years of ethical problems within the Democratic party. God knows I was no fan of Clinton but oh how I wish he had been honest about what went down with Monica.<br /><br />What resulted was less "blowback" and more a hard snap to the right - and the country suffered, continues to suffer. <br /><br />Fortunately, I see the blowback shifting back to the left. If the Dems can't (or won't) take advantage of this, maybe it's time for a strong third party of true progressives. The inertia is with us. The SCLM is beginning to see the entertainment value in the problems of Rove, De Lay, Taft, et al and Dems need to shout louder, jump higher. <br /><br />Read the polls and fuck conventional wisdom because the tables can be turned in 2006 with some effort and righteous indignation.<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />Yes, I "blew back". Too much politics on my Daddy blog so I decided to revive this thing. We'll see how it goes.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1111815863638275862005-03-30T08:55:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.104-07:00The Culture of Life is Dead - From the Neck, UpThe reason I haven't weighed in on the Terri Schiavo fiasco in days is because I find the whole thing idiotic. This issue is really just the anti-choice crowd grandstanding for the sake of creating some kind of medical and legal precedent so they can overturn Roe v. Wade. <br /><br />It is placing principle over common decency. <br /><br />The so-called "culture of life" twits have, in their lip-diddling pathology: put up "wanted" posters featuring the faces and addresses of the judges ruling on this case and the representatives who did not vote the way the "culture of life" crowd preferred, made death threats against not only against those judges/representatives but also threatened their family members, offered a $250,000 "bounty" for the murder of Michael Schiavo and $10,000 for the murder of Michael Schiavo's attorney, consistently called for overturning 200-and-some years of the US Constitution by having law enforcement forcibly remove Terri Schiavo from Michael Sciavo's custody... among, oh, a dozen other attrocities.<br /><br />Nice. Way to conduct yourselves like rational, law-abiding adults. Put your hypocrisy out there for us all to see, show us just how valuable "culture of life" really is as a guiding principle. And, oh yeah, by all means, don't distance yourselves from the numbskulls spouting garbage science, screaming for murder, and otherwise tainting your philosophy with abject ignorance. <br /><br />Finally, remember that none of the people on the "culture of death" (or whatever you're calling it) side of this issue has called for the murder of anyone. Nope, no, shut it, no sophistry here, don't say the other side is calling for the murder of Terri Schiavo, that argument is groundless and disingenuous. Don't cover your own hypocrisy with a clumsilly constructed straw man.<br /><br />Enough for me, my rant doesn't compare to <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/27/Columns/Living_will_is_the_be.shtml">Robert Friedman's piece in the St. Petersburg Times</a>:<br />Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:<br /><ul><li>In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.</li><br /><li>I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.</li><br /><li>I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.</li><br /><li>I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.</li><br /><li>I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.</li><br /><li>I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.</li><br /><li>I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.</li><br /><li>I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.</li><br /><li>I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bobby," as if they had known me since childhood.</li><br /><li>I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bobby's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.</li><br /><li>Even if the "Bobby's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.</li><br /><li>In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.</li><br /><li>And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.</li><br /><li>I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.</li><br /><li>Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."</li><br /><li>I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.</li><br /><li>And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.</li></ul>Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1111697283739202132005-03-24T12:27:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:12.023-07:00CNN = Christian News Now?!?Perhaps I should be sorry that I broke my boycott of CNN but on some piquant level, I'm glad I tuned in to watch how low that sorry-ass network has sunk. They're down on their knees, certainly. Praying for better ratings, perhaps, or preparing to receive the host of some hieratic phallus. <br /><br />When I awoke today and saw the news that the <a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-03-24T190447Z_01_HOL457530_RTRUKOC_0_RIGHTS-SCHIAVO-COURT.xml">US Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on the Schiavo case</a>, I tuned in CNN to see what kind of noise they were making. From what I'd been reading around the blogosphere, CNN (and the rest of cable/network television news) had put themselves firmly on the wrong side of the issue - at least as far as <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000854900">polled Americans feel about this case</a> and I tuned in to CNN with a kind of I-told-you-so glee. <br /><br />James Wolcott clued me in how bad things had gotten at CNN with his report of CNN correspondant Bob Franken reporting in Florida. I missed that episode but I caught Franken and another reporter giving exclusive coverage to the right to life extremists with unashamed and appalling bias. On the screen rants some idiot preacher pleading with Jeb Bush to intervene stormtrooper-like to save Terri Schiavo, saying "if this was an african-american person who was being denied the right to attend a school or eat at a lunch counter, wouldn't we demand that the governor intervene?" <br /><br />These people are shameless (i.e. Tom DeLay calling Michael Schiavo "a terrorist") in their willingness to twist the truth and indulge hate rhetoric to suit their agenda but CNN is especially venal in its genuflection to these nutjobs. <br /><br />That report was followed immediately by yet another "lookee here" for Ashley Smith and the obligatory hosanna for "The Purpose Driven Life". <br /><br />I'm not sure <a href="http://dcmediagirl.com/index.php?entry=entry20050323-224559">DC Media Girl is entirely correct</a> that CNN is trying to outFox Fox but that CNN is doing what it can to capture the narrow demographic of the rabid evangelical right.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7298564.post-1111484562418605362005-03-21T22:22:00.000-07:002006-10-17T11:17:11.947-07:00"Quorum? We Don't No Steenk-ing Quorum!!!"I know a little Robert's Rules of Order but little about US constitutional law. So I ask, <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11189149.htm">how does this happen</a>?<br /><blockquote>The Senate approved the measure on an unchallenged voice vote during a rare Palm Sunday session that came amid charges of cynical political maneuvering. Only three members were on the floor and the bill's prime sponsor, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, served as presiding officer.</blockquote><br />If I was a congressman or a senator could I break into the chambers and just make shit up?<br />"Beets are the national vegetable"<br />"Lord Vadar rules the empire with the dark force"<br /><br />I still don't get why no one finds this is a dodge by Tom DeLay to get out of ethics charges. As I said in the last post, grasping at straws in order to divert attention from DeLay's problems.Puckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14664535689082594733noreply@blogger.com0