« The Happy Hookers | Main | Cutting, Running, Lying, Dying, Staying, and Paying »
Write To The New York Times Today
Enough.
Enough of the NY Times lazy crap journalism hit pieces on Democrats.
First it was the fifty interviews and no quotes in a story about Hillary and Bill's sex life. That was bad enough. But this morning, they put out a hit piece on John Kerry for his leadership in trying to end the War in Iraq. From Greg Sargeant at The Horse's Mouth, via Atrios:
Then the paper indulges in some highly questionable sourcing as it strains mightily to portray Kerry as calculating and political:
Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign. (Emphasis added.)
Interviews "suggest" a frustration; his "peers" say he's political, though no "peer" is quoted saying so, even anonymously. Meanwhile, the piece also adds high up in the story that Kerry's position leaves Dems "open to Republican taunts that they are `cutting and running' in Iraq" without letting any Dem rebut that argument until the end of the piece. And of course the story features an obligatory reference to Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" campaign gaffe.
This is really cheap stuff -- thinly sourced, factually questionable and bordering on snide -- and it's truly surprising that it got past any Times editor.
Not so surprising. Things have been steadily getting worse.
Using the passive voice to disguise shoddy journalism has got to end. If people aren't going to speak on the record, the Times needs to say so and say why. If not, they need to leave it out.
Today's assignment: BE THE MEDIA. Write to The New York Times and complain about this kind of garbage journalism.
P.S. Greg also adds in an update that the WaPo, in covering this same story, offers little better, reprinting a GOP press release. It's beginning to sound like some editors got some phone calls from some Republicans...
In the meantime, please write that letter to the NYT and post it here in the comments.
Enough is enough.
UPDATE: Feel free to comment on the numerous inaccuracies in the story, too, and post them throughout the blogosphere. If the NYTimes gets the story wrong, we should do what we can to get the correct information out there.
Thanks for the inspiration Casey. Do we have a phone number to call as well?
You can watch Cheney "Dark Side" (PBS) on-line.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Happy Solstice!
Most Americans are in agreement with the Kerry/Feingold bill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1474520&mesg_id=1474520
Maybe we should get the advertisers in the NYT's and write to them too. Tell them how many people are not buying the NYT's due to their shabby journalism and get the advertisers to pull out.
Here's my letter to the NYT:
I was appalled at the shoddy journalism you used in your article about the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Have you finally succumbed to the trash writing of the tabloids? Using phrases like "interviews suggest" and "peers complain" without any quotes, names or reason backing them up is sheer yellow journalism, with the sole goal of minimizing this important effort at keeping more soldiers from dying in Iraq. Your lack of journalistic integrity may well lead to more needless death and destruction. Does that make you feel good about your jobs? You need to hold yourselves to a higher standard. Do you wonder why your readership numbers have gone down? Because I think you probably ought to look at the quality of what your putting out there to answer that question.
Here's my letter. Be gentle.
Very nicely written, Diane! Much better than mine.
VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- President Bush urged North Korea on Wednesday not to test a ballistic missile, saying such a move makes other nations nervous.
But Bush rejected any direct negotiations with Pyongyang over the issue, saying all negotiation should come through multiparty talks.
"It should make people nervous when nontransparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads fire missiles," Bush said. "And so we've been working with our partners ... to say to the North Koreans that, 'This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs.' "
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/21/nkorea.missile/index.html
Black kettle black kettle black kettle ...
Here's my perspective on the multiple amendments from the dems:
Here in Massachusetts we have an old fashioned local government system called Representative Town Meeting. In many towns it all happens in one day - the members approve the budget, trusting the committees to have done their jobs.
In Amherst, it lasts for weeks, with members picking apart many of the articles that are before us. One interesting part of the process is that any member can present an amendment, and we all have to vote on it.
This year, my first as a member, I found it interesting that if there were two choices of, let's say, an amount for a budget line, often - an amendment would be added that would offer a third choice. Most often, that third choice was in the middle. And almost to a vote, the middle choice won.
If we translate that to the Kerry-Feingold amendment, it may have an excellent chance of receiving moderate votes. For those who are on the fence, don't like the war but think this year is too soon, it offers an excellent alternative. It is middle ground. They can vote for it without feeling like they are doing the wrong thing.
I don't have any idea if this was the strategy or not, but it will be interesting to watch. Or maybe I'm just naive and the whole thing will be blown to bits!
This is from Kerry's office - reprints American Prospect:
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/
Friend in Florida says CNN aired the bit about US not being popular in the world & Bush said that was absurd. Saying that doesn't make it so - domestic consumption again.
Listening to NPR & also reading around .. looks like the Immigration bill (Kennedy/McCain) is being hijacked by conservatives even to the right of Bush - will be defeated or languish & not be dealt with this year. They claim their constituents didn't want any sort of amnesty, which if true, is really depressing. Countries where miserable people scapegoat those with even less power usually fall.
When you move onto their front porch, let me know.
Until then, they will still no longer even pretend they care what you think, or what it is doing to this nation.
Without trying to sound bitter, I would like to state as clearly as I can.
Do you know what effect your emails to the NY Times will have? 0.
They can hit the delete button as easy as you can hit send.
THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU.
THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF IT.
YOU ARE ASKING YOUR RAPIST TO PLAY NICE.
At some point, either you must realize you are in a fight for your LIVES, and start screaming and BEATING THEM BACK, ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEPS.
Or, you can pretend that they care what your dying gasps will sound like as they strangle you to death.
You will only have a very limited time to decide if you are going to die FIGHTING.
And you have NO TIME LEFT to decide how.
You know, I am sure some of you believe I am only here to belittle or dash the hopes of BUT
If I were less than 100% honest about what I see then none of you would be able to call me friend.
I am begging you to save yourselves.
Blogged here. Will send to NYT.
Your June 21, 2006 story citing unnamed members of the Democratic leadership's unhappiness with John Kerry's Iraq proposal completely misses the point. That point is this: most rank-and-file Democrats and Progressives that I speak to are sick to death of a party that refuses to take a principled stand on almost any issue, lacks any sense of a coherent moral vision, and relies almost entirely on polls to decide what they currently believe.
Moreover, your reliance on anonymous sources for this story is shameful. There is no critical information communicated to the public through it. If members of the Democratic leadership lack the courage to come out and challenge Kerry directly, then they are truly every bit as impotent as Republicans operatives have claimed. If they refuse to go on the record when attacking a colleague who earned his right to speak about war and peace in the jungles of Vietnam, then your reporter needs to tell them to find another typist to do their bidding.
Sincerely yours,
The media is and will continue to be incredibly lazy and stupid when it comes to this Administration. Grey Lady is too fogged up in the head to be of any more use.
Loved "The Dark Side" last night on PBS. If there's anything the media has failed us on, its the laughable excuse of a press corps that values entertainment at the expense of reality. And Darth gave them just that. See it.
In fact, I heard it said that if there's one thing one can say about the beginning of this century in American history, its about the FAILURE of the press to regard using the truth for its public. That, in itself, is the end of democracy.
Well, here's one member of the MSM calling it like he sees it...
Dobbs: Congress stiffs working Americans
By Lou Dobbs
CNN, Wednesday, June 21, 2006; Posted: 11:12 a.m. EDT (15:12 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Without much fanfare, the House of Representatives last week voted to give members of Congress yet another pay raise, as it has done almost every year for nearly a decade.
For some reason, our elected officials decided against holding a news conference. Maybe that's because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they raise their own salaries almost every year while refusing to raise the pay of our lowest-paid workers.
Corporate America, the Bush administration and the national economic orthodoxy with which they're in league have consistently argued against helping working men and women at the lowest end of the wage scale by raising the minimum wage. Big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable say it will harm the economy and eliminate jobs.
As is so frequent with the faith-based economics that grips both political parties in Washington, such concerns have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
read the rest here...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html
I laughed out loud at the derision in the last statement above. He didn't pull any punches in the rest of it either.
hat tip to Michelle Lindsay
Check this out...this was in US News & World Report online today:
"I think ”tide turning” see, as I remember, I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of, it's easy to see a tide turn”did I say those words?" -- President George W. Bush, when asked if "the tide was turning in Iraq"
Speaking of NYT (& then CNN):
Cheers to Angelina Jolie,
Jeers to Anderson Cooper (whoever he is).
Let's hope some of this actually benefits
refugees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/arts/television/21cnd-watch.html?hp&ex=1150948800&en=cdbae2185427b7ed&ei=5094&partner=homepage
My letter:
RE: On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 21, 2006
I am unsure whether I am more horrified by the splice job on the truth that passes for journalism these days, or the lack of perspective on where we are as moral human beings. But the article by Ms. Zernike made me ill.
“Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.” The word, Privately, implies that some unknown folks (Senate aides? Former employees? Disgruntled former candidates?) are complaining that John Kerry might be considering a run for office. We do not know who they are or their motivations, so we cannot examine the perspective they offer. But I hope to God he is considering a run, and I am glad he is taking the stand he is taking.
“Mr. Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it.” In his speech at the Take Back America Conference last week, he said the SUPPORT for the war was a mistake. People wept. Another point: he did not support the invasion of Iraq. Ever.
Democrats face “tough re-election fights open to Republican taunts that they are ‘cutting and running’ in Iraq.” The cutting and running frame is obviously popular with the unthinking folks who brought us the mess we are in. Bullies who have invaded a country, imposing their beliefs and values on innocent people, are not really “cutting and running” when they have been roundly defeated. They are giving up the warmongering. Hopefully, learning has taken place, or will, as we survey the deaths, destruction of lives, economic and environmental catastrophes this invasion has wrought.
Truly, I hope so. Kudos to John Kerry for speaking the truth and trying to lead us exactly where we need to go.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, via DU:
AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours
David Lazarus
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
AT&T has issued an updated privacy policy that takes effect Friday. The changes are significant because they appear to give the telecom giant more latitude when it comes to sharing customers' personal data with government officials.
The new policy says that AT&T -- not customers --owns customers' confidential info and can use it "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."
The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.
-more-
http://tinyurl.com/on53q
(Here's my letter. Snarky, I know. But I admit I was thinking about that delete key and wondering why the Democrats in office are continuing to let the media do this. I used that anger to call a few of them.)
I was amazed to see the sloppiness and shabby sourcing that your newspaper is now becoming known for. I'm referring specifically to the article by Patrick Healy and Kate Zernike.
Considering a few weeks ago your paper stooped to the level of who slept with whom by Patrick Healy, just like the comments overheard in a high-school locker room. Followed by Kate's little queen bee-like article that is nothing more than snide whispering into one person's ear and spewing lies to the next person, except instead of limiting her idle gossip to her personal conversations, she's misused her position at the NYT's to spread gossip and smear to the masses.
When did your organization become so efficient at school clique journalism instead standing up against any corruption in government. Is this the quality journalism that makes the New York Times proud?
Please issue Kate her last paycheck and send the queen bee on her way. Perhaps, Karl Rove would hire her overtly as his press secretary instead of the NYT's having that dishonor.
John Kerry is being interviewed by Robert Siegel on NPR.
Robert gave him ample opportunity to talk about his amendment, what he'd said in the past, how the Bush administration is failing now and that being a member of a party doesn't mean agreeing 100% of the time and that's where leadership is demonstrated.
I'm sure the link to it will be available on the ATC page at the NPR website later.
John Kerry is being interviewed by Robert Siegel on NPR.
Posted by: dwahzon at June 21, 2006 04:11 PM
GOOD! This whole thing is about Rove trying to control the narrative on the war. And Murtha, Kerry, Feingold and Boxer are NOT letting them do that.
Now if only the PRESS would do its job...
"It's time for Iraqis to be responsible for their own destiny"
-John Murtha
MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/knowing-your-enemy_b_23499.html
If Jack Murtha is supporting this strategy, then he is obviously speaking for the military brass who speak to him.
If Jack Murtha and John Kerry believe that setting a deadline is not cutting and running, then it's time that more Democrats got behind a couple of former soldiers ready and willing to lead.
CUT-AND-RUN LIBERAL, AND PROUD OF IT
Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Karl Rove is right when he calls us 'cut-and-run liberals.' As you will see, the list of things we want to cut and run from is a long one.
http://www.alternet.org/story/37808/
GOP KILLS BILL TO POLICE HALLIBURTON
Bob Geiger, AlterNet
Republicans in Congress have made it clear they're willing to fight for military contractors' right to lie, cheat and defraud taxpayers.
http://www.alternet.org/story/37849/
OUR PATHETIC STATE OF GOVERNMENT
Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Attention, scandal-ridden Republicans: if you are put in charge of government, the least you can do is run it well.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/37865/
ANTI-CHOICE LEGISLATORS HAVE GONE TOO FAR
Nancy Keenan, TomPaine.com
Let's be honest. Anti-choice legislators have gone too far -- and on June 6th, most Americans seemed to agree.
http://www.alternet.org/story/37877/
Deanna Zandt: RFK Jr. seeking litigation in Ohio election fraud.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37844/
{{{Trolls out in full force on this little story.}}}
Just FYI,
Vote to renew Voting Rights law delayed
Georgia, Texas delegations want changes before renewal
Updated: 12:44 p.m. ET June 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.
read the rest here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459859/from/RS.1/
Posted by: dwahzon at June 21, 2006 04:42 PM
Ahh, those House Republicans--ready to quash immigrants at every turn.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_re_eu/britain_stonehenge
Revelers ring in summer at Stonehenge
{{{DiAnne, this is for you! ;-) Happy Summer Solstice everyone! :-) }}}
Yikes! One of the worst photos I've ever seen of Hillary accompanies this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060621/pl_afp/usclintonpolitics
Democrats wavering on Hillary for president in 2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some Democrats are having second thoughts about Hillary Clinton as their 2008 presidential candidate, wracked by doubts about her cross-party appeal, and disappointed by her position on US troops in Iraq.
Those reservations were given expression last week at a forum in Washington of liberal Democrats, where the New York senator was roundly booed when she expressed her opposition to setting a date for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.
"I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country," she said in remarks that prompted a chorus of cat calls at the "Take Back America" gathering of liberal Democratic activists.
"Her being booed last week had everything to do with Iraq," said political analyst Larry Sabato.
"The Democrats clearly have moved further to the left on Iraq, and she's not moving with them," said Sabato, who runs the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
{{{More on link. Re: the title of this piece... I saw it and thought "Ya think?!?!? Jeez. Media is only now catching up with what many Democrats feel about Hillary and her stance on Iraq?!? Anyway, Democrats are not "wavering" - they adamantly oppose her sance on Iraq." The rest of the article talks about what she would have to overcome if she did run (the neoCons/Lamestream Media are STILL trying to shove her candidacy down our throats!), with a withering last sentence.}}}
There's only one candidate who can heal the wounds afflicting the Republican Party.
That candidate is Hillary Clinton.
That candidate is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Cyrano at June 21, 2006 05:01 PM
cyrano:
That gacking you hear is the sound of my spewing on the keyboard...
Yikes! One of the worst photos I've ever seen of Hillary accompanies this story.
...
Posted by: NonnyO at June 21, 2006 04:54 PM
Nonny:
Its midterm campaign time. With the Rove-controlled MSM, you expect a shot out of Harper's Bazaar??????
Posted by: Fe at June 21, 2006 04:48 PM
'Scuse me?
That's the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that's up for renewal.
How does that relate quashing immigrants?
If you'll note, one of the Republicans that many here love to vilify, James Sensenbrenner, actually spoke out against the delay.
And his point was "Three-fourths of those whose primary language is not English are American-born."
dwahzon:
The provisions regarding multilingual ballots are under fire. At least that's how I read it:
[snip]
"The dramatic shift came after a private caucus meeting earlier Wednesday in which several Republicans also balked at extending provisions in the law that require ballots to be printed in more than one language in neighborhoods where there are large numbers of immigrants, said several participants."
Voting Right's Act (info):
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/08/the_voting_righ.html
http://www.fairvote.org/vra/fullrep/twofive.htm
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/06/pushing_the_rai_1.html
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=441#
FROM THE FAIR VOTE SITE:
Section 2 prohibits laws and practices that dilute the effectiveness of votes cast by racial and ethnic minorities. In particular, Section 2 prevents states and municipalities from engaging in practices designed to make it difficult for racial minorities to elect candidates of their choice. It is enforceable nationwide, empowering both the Department of Justice and citizens to sue jurisdictions for unfair practices anywhere in the nation. Those challenging a jurisdiction under Section 2 must prove that members of the racial minority generally vote for the same candidates and that the majority community generally opposes those candidates. Given that single-member districts have been the typical remedy in Section 2 challenges, success also has required evidence that a reasonably compact single-member district can be drawn in which the racial minority has a large enough share of the vote to elect a representative of its choice. It is enough to show that the challenged practice or policy has the effect of diluting minority votes; there is no need to demonstrate an intent to discriminate, although doing so strengthens the lawsuit.
and as Mr. Sensenbrenner pointed out... it's not, strictly speaking, an immigrant issue. 75% of the voters whose primary language is not English, are born in the US.
Don't follow the Republican talking points and tie the voting rights act into the immigration debate. These are US citizens who have a right to vote.
Posted by: dwahzon at June 21, 2006 05:34 PM
Yes they are US citizens who have the right to vote. That's why excluding multiple languages on the ballot could be deemed "making it difficult for racial minorities to elect candidates of their choice".
At least, this is how I interpret the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Clarification:
Agreed, it is NOT about the issue of illegal immigration, which is separate, and probably won't get brought up again until next year.
Its about the treatment of those here legally who happen to be immigrants.
(Sorry to interrupt Fe and Dwahzon)
The Nation -- When John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold offer an amendment to the defense spending bill Wednesday calling on US troops to leave Iraq by July 1, 2007, only a handful of Senators voted with them.
If the American people had a say, the outcome would be different. A majority of the public supports setting a timetable for giving Iraq back to Iraqis. And the issue is particularly salient in Congressional districts in play this November.
MoveOn.org, with the help of the polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, recently surveyed voters in the country's top 68 swing districts, two-thirds held by Republicans.
By 50 to 42 percent, these voters want Democrats to control Congress. Roughly half of the respondents are more likely to vote for Democrats, and against a Republican, because of the war. When Democrats embrace Kerry and Feingold's position, their lead increases to 54 to 41 percent over a stay-the-course Republican.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060620/cm_thenation/1593804
(Now back to Fe and Dwahzon...)
My letter:
To Whom it may concern;
I wish somebody from the editorial staff had been in my high school journalism class with Ms. Adamson. She would have fainted or given us a flunking grade if any of my fellow students or I had the intestinal fortitude to submit an article of such poor quality as Kate Zernicke's June 21, 2006 article for our high school paper. She would have reminded us that innuendo is not news. She would have explained that regurgitating opinion pieces and talkig points is not news. She would have told us as well, "Something like that will not get you an interview at the New York Times." I was taught that just because there is a newspaper article about a subject, one should be careful to realize that the editors may not have done their job.
Thank God for Ms. Adamson. If not for her wise guidance, I could have been one of the millions of Americans who would have read Ms. Zernicke's article and actually believed it. Yet, I think most Americans have grown more sophisticated and now recognize incompentence when it hits them so squarely in the face.
Posted by: Cyrano at June 21, 2006 05:01 PM
Pitiful, isn't it?!?
I'm joining Fe... hacking up a hairball.... Ptooey... gaaaaggggg..... kof, kof....
Posted by: Fe at June 21, 2006 05:08 PM
I don't expect a formal photo, but since Hillary is the Rovian neoCon candidate of choice, I'd expect something at least plain-looking if not almost flattering.... ;-)
No, it is not about immigrants, illegal or legal... it's about US citizens.
A small semantic difference in some ways but a big difference when you talk about denying Americans their right to participate in their democracy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060621/cm_huffpost/023499
Rep. John Murtha: Knowing Your Enemy Rep. John Murtha
1 hour, 33 minutes ago
I am appalled that while manning a traffic checkpoint near Baghdad, three of our valiant soldiers were ambushed, one killed on the spot and two kidnapped, tortured and brutally killed. It is essential that we find the circumstances of their deaths. Why were they in such an isolated situation without additional back-up and who is responsible for these heinous acts?
Despite our most strenuous security efforts in the Baghdad area over the past several days, this area continues to be rocked by violent attacks, kidnapping and murderous acts, frequently aimed at our troops.
I continue to be concerned with the fact that our military men and women fighting in Iraq often tell me that they do not know who the enemy is. They do not know who they can trust; they are concerned that their camps have been infiltrated by Iraqis who are plotting to kill them; one day the Iraqis are smiling and waving at them on the streets, the next day the same people are throwing grenades at them.
I read today that Army investigators discovered that two California soldiers had been shot to death by Iraqi Defense officers who were patrolling with them.
Norman Solomon | Their Barbarism, and Ours
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062106A.shtml
There is no doubt in the slightest that "the words of horror used by John Burns to describe the 'barbaric murders' were totally appropriate. The problem," writes Norman Solomon, "is that Burns and his mass-media colleagues don't talk that way when the cruelties are inflicted by the US military. When journalists maintain a flagrant double standard in their language - allowing themselves appropriate moral outrage when Americans suffer but tiptoeing around what is suffered by victims of the US military - the media window on the world is tinted a dark red-white-and-blue, and the overall result is more flackery than journalism."
{{{ MUST read! I started a letter to a local CBS affiliate today over my outrage at the use of the word 'barbaric' describing the deaths of the two soldiers today, but Solomon does a better job of it. I lay the blame for barbarism at the feet of king georgie, and what is the US military doing when they torture and kill people if not barbaric... and georgie started it by approving torture in the first dam place - torture for torture.....}}}
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bodies21jun21,0,2625235.story
Iraqi and U.S. military officials said the bodies showed signs of torture. "They were killed in a barbaric way," said Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Mohammed Jassim of the Defense Ministry.
Posted by: oncall at June 21, 2006 05:45 PM
Gosh! That was way better than my snark!
US Says No to Talks With North Korea
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062106E.shtml
North Korea said Wednesday it wants direct talks with the United States over its apparent plans to test-fire a long-range missile, but a top US envoy rejected the request.
{{{The US has said no to direct talks with Iran and now Korea. Gee, I wonder why?!? she writes snarkily...}}}
A Message from Iraq
| posted by Shakespeare's Sister | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 | permalink |
This morning I received an email from a reader who asked me if I would be willing to pass along a message from her husband, who’s currently serving in Iraq. After reading the statements from Republican Senators in defense of giving amnesty to terrorists in Iraq, compiled by The Huffington Post (via The All Spin Zone), he sent the following home, with the request that his response to those Senators be published. These are his words, and his name has been included at his request.
I am one of the soldiers that these proposals are dishonoring.
Did any of these men ever serve??? Have to go through memorial service after memorial service day after day for comrades they knew and loved???
Have they had to live in fear every moment of every unchanging, horrible day, waiting for a never-seen rocket or a mortar to kill them—or worse, kill those to whom they are close???
Have they bore body armor in 120 degree heat in the face of an unrecognizable enemy, one who uses terrified civilians as shields?
Have they seen the remains of tanks, HMMWVs, BODIES!!! that were rent asunder by invisible bombs, planted by fanatical zealots???
Have they truly seen the shatter lives of Iraqis, these lives broken by the very people they propose to grant amnesty?
Have they had to pull the trigger with the aim of killing another human being, someone you have never met or seen before, never knowing if the target was truly an enemy?
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/06/message-from-iraq.html
Posted by: dwahzon at June 21, 2006 05:48 PM
dwahzon:
I think we've arrived at a similar place. Only from different sides of the same corral.
NonnyO
Thanks for the pictures of revellers.
I photographed some here - if you don't see them soon, I'll send them. I sent the political ones in to the site - I have others I'll send that were maybe not for internet consumption! LOL
Ok, I've been calling Congress all day and asking them to vote for the Kerry/Feingold bill. This time, I'm calling and giving them the letter (link) from Shakespeares sister and the Gallop information.
I'm asking them to vote for the Kerry/Feingold bill.
Since the President's Rasputin has decided to wave the bloody 9/11 flag one more time, I felt this except from one of my columns has become particularly relevant:
A New York State of Mind
The people of the City of New York, I’m proud to say, never bought into that mindset. The city that was brutally violated on September 11th gave nearly 75% of its votes to John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election. Which brings me to make a make a point that I don’t believe has ever been formally made.
President Bush, you do not have our permission to use the attack against the people of New York City as a justification for your elephantine "war on terror".
Let me reiterate that message: You do not have our permission to justify your war in Iraq on the basis of our suffering, and our loss.
We voted against you in 2004 in overwhelming numbers – in large part because so many of us believed that your policies were only adding gasoline to the fires of hate, and making New York City even more of a target in the years to come.
We further believed that resources which should have been devoted to safeguarding America's harbors and coastlines from a potential biological or nuclear terrorist attack were instead being squandered in an ill-conceived, premature, incompetently run military campaign that, it now appears, will bring an Iranian-influenced de facto theocracy to Southern Iraq.
Furthermore, we know that the plan to invade Iraq was hatched by the Project for the New American Century years before September 11th. We know that key members of your Administration were signatories to that groups’ dubious charter.
Thanks to Paul O’Neill, we know that you were obsessed with deposing Saddam Hussein long before 9/11; and Richard Clarke has described how you were looking for a way to exploit our national trauma within days of the attack.
Your deliberate manipulation of the fears and trauma of the American people in the aftermath of September 11th, for the purpose of eliciting support for your invasion of Iraq, is behavior that more reflects lessons learned from a snake in the Garden of Eden than any religious or spiritual teacher that I’ve ever encountered or heard of. These are strong words, but words that I believe that history will judge as measured, reasonable, and fair. Mr. President, shame on you.
If there is a single authentically religious bone in your body, then I call on you to cease and desist in justifying your misguided ideological crusade in the name of the good people of my city. You do not act in our name; you do not represent our insights, perspectives, and values. If the 2004 Presidential Election results conclusively demonstrate anything, it is that.
Bush's Visit to Vienna Is Marked by Tension
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
VIENNA, June 21 — President Bush, visiting this central European city with the aim of promoting trans-Atlantic unity, instead issued an impassioned defense of his Iraq policy today amid pointed reminders of how far the United States has fallen in the eyes of many Europeans.
"That's absurd!" Mr. Bush declared, dismissing a reporter's suggestion that most Europeans regard the United States as a bigger threat to global stability than North Korea, which has proclaimed it has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is suspected of developing them.
Later, asked about polls showing Europeans have a low opinion of him, the president said: "Look, people didn't agree with my decision on Iraq, and I understand that. For Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us, it was a change of thinking."
Mr. Bush's heated exchange with European reporters — under the glittering chandeliers of the marble-columned throne room in the Hofburg Palace, once the imperial home of the Hapsburgs — followed a summit meeting between the president and leaders of the European Union, who spent the morning talking about a wide range of issues, from nuclear tensions in North Korea to a faltering world trade agreement.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/world/europe/21cnd-prexy.html
Matt:
You've come up with a new meme to Rove's "Cut and Run".
Cease and Desist.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_un
Venezuela criticizes U.S. over U.N. seat
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela condemned what it called U.S. diplomatic pressure against its bid for a U.N. Security Council seat, saying Washington is trying to lobby Latin American nations to keep Venezuela off the council because it would stand up to the Bush administration.
{{{More on link.}}}
So should one event in our nation's history, tragic though it was, cause us to throw out all civil liberties and hand unlimited power over to the executive branch of our government? That's what George Bush is arguing for... that we throw out our whole way of life so that he can have more power to do horrible things so that we have even less of what we once had -- freedom and privacy.
Lieberman is choosing to speak against both the Levin AND Kerry Amendments.
Posted by: Cyrano at June 21, 2006 06:41 PM
Lieberman has changed since 2000. I think Bush has the real Lieberman hiding with Osama in the White House basement.
Question:
Does anybody know or is there any way of determining which Senators/Congress members read the CIA's NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) regarding Iraq's WMD program as discussed in the Frontline program (The Dark Side) last night? I am curious as to which Senators practiced their due diligence. This is a critically important issue, as any Senator who read the report and voted to support the President's right to ultimately invade Iraq should be held resoponsible for their vote. I was entirely unaware that such a document was availabe for the Senators to review before their vote. After learning that document was available, I think the argument, " We relied on the White House for our information." rings a bit hollow. There was more information available, and any Senator who did not review it should be held responsible and not given a free pass.
Lieberman is the new Zoe Miller.
Oncall,
I'm not sure on my accuracy so I probably shouldn't say, but my understanding is that only parts of it were available for review and the rest were labelled high clearance.
Need more imput on this though.
Santorum is now claiming that they've found over 500 chemical weapons in Iraq.
Santorum is now claiming that they've found over 500 chemical weapons in Iraq.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at June 21, 2006 07:00 PM
Matt:
Ahh-The Wisdom and Reasoning of Rick Santorum.
I fondly remember the leaps of logic Santorum made about men and dogs. (Since this is a family blog, we'll leave it at that).
Posted by: Fe at June 21, 2006 07:06 PM
OMG! Thank you for sparing us!!!
Sparrow,
Is this the document that was discussed?
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/harman011604.html
The above is a link to Rep. Jane Harman's assessment of the NIE published in October 2002 on Iraq's WMDs.
And here is more info on NIE's and that NIE in particular from the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7758
The point about "The Dark Side" was that the NIE abour Iraq was written in two weeks, versus the years and months it normally takes the CIA to complete a full NIE on any given nation.
Perhaps that's why when our elected officials said they read the Iraq NIE, they truly did. Its just that it wasn't a very well-researched or vetted document.
Happy Solstice!!
The lightest day of the year .. no matter what!!
As usual, Rick Santorum and Pete Hoestra are completely full of crap.
The shells they are talking about were munitions that were covered in the Duelfer Report three years ago. They were leftover from the FIRST Gulf War.
Therefore, they are lying. FYI, chemical weapons such as mustard gas and sarin gas do not have a fifteen year shelf life. What they found inside the old shells, were TRACES of degraded sarin gas and mustard gas.
Which means that they found shells with something in them that is about as harmful as WATER.
Memo to Santorum and Hoekstra: In order for a weapon to be a weapon, it has to actually be capable of inflicting some damage. The only way those shells would have inflicted damage when they found them , would be if someone dropped them on their foot.
Once again, we see the Republicans are willing to use the troops as campaign props.
From Think Progress:
Santorum: We Found the WMD
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) took to the microphone today to announce a shocking discovery — that WMD have been found in Iraq:
Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. … Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here’s what the administration’s own inspectors reported:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
The White House should immediately announce whether it stands with Santorum or whether it stands behind the review conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. Recall, in October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis:
The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
Fox News isn’t waiting for an administration statement. Their right wing pundits are already peddling the story as truth. Host John Gibson: “Sen. Rick Santorum announcing a startling find … In fact, WMDs were found in Iraq.”
I guess its "gloves off" day in Congress on Iraq.
Posted by: Fe at June 21, 2006 07:41 PM
Fe,
Part of the point of knowing who read that document is to know who had the critical eye to a report with dubious contents. I agree the report was not of a high quality. Yet, in the documentary it was shown that even Bush was skeptical of the information that was presented to him and it was only after Tenet said, "Slam dunk" that he was willing to accept the CIA's report. Similarly Powell had significant reservations about the information presented to him. I wonder if we can find out which Senators read the report, and if they weren't skeptical - why not?
I watched Santorum's speech as he gave it, and I must say, he looked less than confident in what he was saying - as if he knew that he was trying to sell the political version of snake oil.
That information is contained in the Council of Foreign Relations link that I posted earlier.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7758
This is the link to the "public promotional brochure" release of the NIE regarding Iraq's WMD program. It does not contain the "details" of the classified version.
The devil is in the details isn't it? If the details are unsubtantiated, weak connections via unreliable informants, then I have a right to know which Senators voted yes on the resolution after reading the classified version. In the documentary, there is no room for doubt that the "intelligence" was weak. I want to know why such weak intelligence wasn't more forcefully challenged, especially after it was reviewed by some Senators.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf
Thanks for those links dw. Those were what I pretty much remembered.
Back to today, c and l and tp have a comment up already about the faux 'new discovery of wpm'.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/21.html#a8805
News irony
Seattle Times & Seattle P I both had headlines about how the 2 missing American military in Iraq were treated brutally then killed.
Then both radio & TV tonight discuss how yet other American military allegedly tore an unarmed man randomly from his house, murdered him & covered it up.
Both cases seem to be making many Americans very squeamish and neither would have happened had we never gone there.
The media is so full of propaganda that it's really hard right now to get enough distance to get any kind of picture of what's going on.
We go from 2 weeks ago when the focus was on the weakness of the Republicans and Bush's falling ratings, the dismal situation in Iraq - to a period when the Republicans seem to be getting their way (no amnesty, no minimum wage increase etc.), Bush travels (Iraq, Europe) are played up as positive, & the Democrats are being portrayed more negatively.
It doesn't seem like the same world. This is before an election, of course. There may even be a delay in renewing the Voting Rights Act (after 40 years or so), so it isn't dealt with til after the election.
It's still the Solstice, there is still sun here.
Hoekstra? Santorum?
hahahahahah
It has to be Hans Blix
or forget it.
For fun Solstice pictures, please click on the link:
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/
Would love your comments. I was proud to see all the artistic activism this weekend at our parade!!!!
Ahh, those House Republicans--ready to quash immigrants at every turn.
Posted by: Fe at June 21, 2006 04:48 PM
Including ones that vote for them in overwhelming numbers. Even Rove can get idiotic.
Harold Ford is running as a a conservative Democrat in an extremely conservative state, and many here may not agree with his politics, but he is gifted, bright and articultae and may be the kind of conservative Democrat we need to finally break through in the deep south, who promises not to make the kind of mistakes that Harvey Gant did:
"For all of his potential liabilities, Ford has an added advantage: He's a gifted orator.
After leaving Smithville, he drove to nearby Cookeville, home of Tennessee Tech University, where he addressed hundreds of rising high school seniors at the annual Boys' State convention in a noisy cafeteria.
Ford stepped up onto a chair to speak. Soon, the din quieted.
It was the toughest crowd of the day — with questions challenging his views on Iraq, immigration and his "fancy" tastes.
"Yes, I wear suits and I like Starbucks coffee," Ford shot back. He challenged the questioner, a 16-year-old Republican activist, to force his side to talk about substance.
Watching Ford navigate the questions that night, Sean Ochsenbein, an 18-year-old Republican and son of an Army veteran, said he would vote for Ford. So did his father, also a Republican.
"When I look at him, I don't see color," the younger Ochsenbein said. "I see a person that looks outgoing and wants to solve problems. To me it looks like he has a tan."
Oncall,
Your LTE reminded me of this obit...
http://www.montoursville.k12.pa.us/NSTOY/Links/Motivational%20Minute/Friedman.htm
Catch this!
Among the fundamentals Hattie introduced me to was The New York Times. Every morning it was delivered to Room 313. I had never seen it before then. Real journalists, she taught us, start their day by reading The Times and columnists like Anthony Lewis and James Reston.
I have been thinking about Hattie a lot this year, not just because she died on July 31, but because the lessons she imparted seem so relevant now. We've just gone through this huge dot-com-Internet-globalization bubble — during which a lot of smart people got carried away and forgot the fundamentals of how you build a profitable company, a lasting portfolio, a nation state or a thriving student. It turns out that the real secret of success in the information age is what it always was: fundamentals — reading, writing and arithmetic, church, synagogue and mosque, the rule of law and good governance.
The Internet can make you smarter, but it can't make you smart. It can extend your reach, but it will never tell you what to say at a P.T.A. meeting. These fundamentals cannot be downloaded. You can only upload them, the old-fashioned way, one by one, in places like Room 313 at St. Louis Park High. I only regret that I didn't write this column when the woman who taught me all that was still alive.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Tom Friedman is an award-winning author and foreign affairs columnist of The New York Times.
****
Maybe NYT needs to be reminded of their fundamentals and their roots.
"It was left to some conservatives to offer Democrats comfort. Historian Francis Fukuyama, who has broken with other neo conservatives over Iraq, said the conservative era may be ending. "It does seem to me that the country is way overdue for one of those big pendulum swings back," he said.
Senate rejects bid to raise minimum wage:
By DAVID ESPO
Associated Press
"WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate refused today to raise the minimum wage, rejecting an election-year proposal from Democrats for the first increase in nearly a decade.
The vote was 52-46, eight short of the 60 needed."
Since we were talking about election images a few days ago, certainly images of Cunningham getting out of his Rolls Royce against rejection of an increased minimum wage today, and a pendulum reflecting the country moving back to the center and some balance, might be an interesting and dramatic approach.
http://photos.imageevent.com/kayakbiker/macropbase/large/Miriam%20New%20Flower%20Linders.jpg
What a bee sees as it comes in for a landing ..
Happy Solstice!
Ira:
I like Ford (TN) because when that lady from Ohio impuned Murtha a couple months back (I sure wish Hackett had won that seat), if I recall correctly, Ford was one of those leading the charge to shut that BS down -- and directly, on the floor, in real time, not in an op-ed column the next day.
Chuck in Houston
al-Qaida Second-In-Command Issues Video
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader has issued a new videotape calling on Afghans to rise up against U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan in the wake of rioting last month in Kabul.
The video by Ayman al-Zawahri - which would be his sixth this year - was reported Wednesday by IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Va.-based contractor that provides counterterrorism intelligence services to the U.S. government.
``I am calling upon the Muslims in Kabul in particular and in all Afghanistan in general and for the sake of God to stand up in an honest stand in the face of the infidel forces that are invading Muslim lands,'' al-Zawahri said, according to a translation by IntelCenter.
http://guardian.co.uk breaking news
NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAPPEN - EVEN 9/11 COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY A GOVT THAT WAS NOT INEPT
Emergency tax cut for Billionaires
by Louise Slaughter, Congress Rep
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/21/184643/479
which Senators read the report, and if they weren't skeptical - why not?
Posted by: oncall at June 21, 2006 08:39 PM
oncall:
Can't peer into a Congressperson's mind nor heart, nor is my hindsight a perfect 20-20, but I'm willing to bet that's what the "9-11 Factor" did to what were usually sensible beings: they suspended their disbellief long enough to vote for the IWR.
Happy Solstice - it's still not midnight
DiAnne:
Its not midnight, but IT'S REALLY HOT in the Bay Area. Can't even turn on a light without sweating.
Needless to say all the windows and doors are open. It's been a great day.
Fe
That's great! I'm headed to bed because I have to get up at 6 AM. My day was actually pretty stressful so I had a stiff drink & Googled "The World is Going to Hell." Strangely, I got this = LOL!
Myth: The world is going to hell in a hand basket.
Fact: Society is constantly improving.
Society is not deteriorating, as conservatives would have you believe. In the last 400 years, Western society has seen continual progress under the Scientific Revolution. This has resulted in social, scientific and economic miracles too numerous to mention. Just a few examples include doubled lifespans, mass education, rising standards of living, not to mention the abolition of slavery, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, dueling, pogroms, serfdom, feudalism, etc. The traditional meaning of "conservativism" is the attempt to conserve the various aspects of society, but why anyone would wish to preserve such a sick society is a mystery. The traditional meaning of "liberalism," on the other hand, is openness to progress and change, and the last four centuries bear testimony to its success.
Argument
According to many conservatives, society has been degenerating for many centuries now. Some go so far as to assert the impending fall of Western Civilization. Quite often this belief also has a religious cast, with predictions of the world ending in an Apocalypse or a Time of Trouble. Is there any evidence to support such pessimism? Yes, but it's always anecdotal, such as particularly horrifying news stories about human behavior at the extremes. Conservatives go on to blame this deterioration on society's growing liberalism, collectivism and secularism.
Fortunately, this belief is sheer nonsense. The last 400 years have been ones of astonishing scientific and moral progress, and no one can seriously argue otherwise. The key to it all has been the Scientific Revolution, which Galileo started in the early 1600s. Human knowledge has exploded since then, resulting in all manner of scientific, economic and social miracles. Consider all the advances that have occurred in the West during the last four centuries:
The West abolished slavery, serfdom, feudalism, the Inquisition, witch hunts, theocracy, dueling, pogroms, polygamy, state-sanctioned torture, censorship of the press, infanticide, child labor, and capital punishment for misdemeanors.
The West also greatly reduced infant mortality, bastardy, religious persecution, racism, misogyny, discrimination, superstition, and war. What few wars do occur tend to be tremendously more violent, but it is also a long-term trend that they are getting rarer. There has also been a sharp drop in institutionalized anti-Semitism -- apparently, the Holocaust shocked Europe out of this 1,500-year tradition.
The West has seen a clear rise in individual rights, civil rights, human rights, sexual rights, global trade, travel and telecommunications, computerization, sanitation, hygiene, free markets, private property and increasingly sophisticated economic institutions and banking practices.
Democracy has replaced monarchy and aristocracy.
Illiteracy once afflicted the vast majority of society, but today has been almost completely wiped out, thanks to the rise of mass education.
Economic depressions used to visit the West once every generation or two. But ever since World War II, depressions have been completely eliminated in all nations practicing Keynesian monetary policies.
Poverty and income inequality have both been considerably reduced. Prior to the 18th century, peasants and serfs were cruelly exploited under feudalism and manorialism. Even by the turn of the 20th century, over 50 percent of all people in the U.S. lived in poverty. Today, the poverty rate has been reduced to 15 percent. In Europe, it's as low as 3 or 4 percent.
Our standard of living is continually rising. Efficiency of survival is greater than ever before.
Advances in medical science have more than doubled our lifespans -- from an average of 30 years to 75 years. Plagues that once killed a third of Europe have been wiped out. Epidemics have dwindled in both number and size. Each generation is taller, stronger, healthier, and faster than the previous.
Average IQs are rising 3 points per decade, in all nations, races and classes worldwide.
Any one of these by itself would constitute a major improvement. Taken together, they provide overwhelming evidence of humanity's upward trend.
Of course, the human race is not completely out of the woods yet. Over-population, pollution, and nuclear war are serious threats to civilization which may do us in yet. But there are global organizations that are dedicated to fighting these threats and educating the public about them. If historical trends are any guide, we may be cheered by the prospect of continual improvement.
The above account simply describes the advance of Western Civilization. Let's take a closer look now at the driving forces behind it: science and society's increasing liberalism.
The forces of change
To put the last 400 years in perspective, we should define "liberalism" and "conservatism" in the historical sense. Traditionally, conservatism has meant the conservation of past beliefs, culture, language, music, tradition, property, family, religion, literature, history, architecture, symbols, land, etc. Liberalism, on the other hand, promotes continual progress and change in all these institutions. Indeed, such change has been occurring at an accelerating rate.
The list of things conservatives would like to preserve may seem quite unrelated at first, but ultimately they can all be boiled down to one factor: information. Society's main activity is the transmission of information from one generation to the next. It does this in countless ways: genetic information is passed on through our DNA, cultural information is passed on through traditional practices, scientific information is passed on through education, linguistic information is passed on through communication, productive information is passed on through apprenticeship, property information (who owns what) is passed on through inheritances (both living and mortal) or market transactions.
Clearly, there was a time when information did not change all that much, and it was possible to conserve it, even for millennia. Property stayed pretty much in the family; science crawled ahead at a glacial pace; the Catholic Church preached the same theology for 1,500 years; even genes differed no more than the local region's, since individuals spent their entire lives in one village. But, as we've seen above, this all started to change about 400 years ago. Increasing ease of travel (especially by ocean) resulted in global trade, travel and communication. People with different ideas, cultures, philosophies, religions and, yes, genes came into contact with each other. The Scientific Revolution began, leading to the Industrial Revolution, and then the Communication Revolution. The Protestant Reformation shattered Catholic hegemony over religious ideas -- and it is no accident that this occurred shortly after the invention of the printing press, which disseminated its ideas. Property became less transmitted by family and more by market transactions in a dynamic economy. And the driving force behind this accelerating change was the growth of information of all types, especially as embodied by science and technology.
The conservative approach to science has been to claim that there are timeless truths, such as Christianity, family values, the work ethic, and patriotism. Hans Morganthau (a famous conservative political scientist in the 20th century) found timeless truths in the work of Thucydides (a Greek historian in the 5th century B.C.) who described the power politics of states and their desire for military security. Morganthau then made the classically conservative statement that the extreme age of a theory is not a weakness, but a strength. (There are many refutations to this sentiment, most notably slavery, which has been almost universally supported by both state and religious leaders since the dawn of recorded history.) When confronted with the argument that science is obviously improving, many conservatives argue that the best knowledge is already known -- for example, in the Bible. Science is just playing "catch-up" to these revealed truths, they claim. (Again, the fact that these ancient sources of "truth" advocated slavery refutes the contention that they are perfect.)
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that information of all types is constantly evolving. Theories are overturned in the light of new findings. People once believed the earth is flat; now they believe it is round. Liberals question those audacious enough to call themselves the "final authority," because they know their knowledge will almost certainly change or improve. They agree with the words of Socrates, who admitted that he was the wisest of philosophers in that he knew he was not wise. (Conservatives should not take false comfort in this: ironically, Socrates was wiser than those who claimed they knew everything.)
Undoubtedly, the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Even the most biased political observer can see that life is a mixture of both constancy and change. This mix itself, however, has not remained constant throughout history. In the last 2,000 years, the number of constant factors in life have grown smaller, as more and more things in our lives have become changeable. At a rate greater than ever before, humans are changing their culture, religious beliefs, political beliefs, careers, work practices, education, class, station in life, geography, environment, mates, possessions, health, friends, entertainment, hobbies, language, even personal appearance and gender -- you name it, it is coming under increasing change. In the future, people will be able to change their very DNA. This is a mind-boggling possibility. Science is opening new doors to the human experience, allowing humans to do things never before possible. Once, Leonardo Da Vinci regretted that humans could not fly like birds. Now, thanks to science, they not only fly, they are exploring space.
When conservatives argue for the preservation of society (or worse, a past form of society), what they really mean is that they want to arrest or even reverse all progress. They hearken back to a simpler time, usually with rose-colored glasses to avoid seeing the slavery, exploitation, tyranny and misery that existed back then. Here is but one example from the Almanac of American Politics, written by conservative political scientists Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa. After the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, the authors ecstatically declared:
"The 1994 election, the first time Americans have selected national officeholders with terms extending into the 21st Century, has also marked a return to old traditions -- in government a restoration of constitutional order, in society a return to a Tocquevillian America…
"Americans are looking to government not so much for economic redistribution… but for the maintenance of basic order -- not some authoritarian order, it must be added, but to an orderly framework in which people can make their livings, raise their families and work together in their communities." (1)
Of course, De Tocqueville's famous critiques of America were hardly complimentary; he described a nation which preached freedom but practised slavery, prohibited women from voting, and committed atrocities against Native Americans. The young republic was not truly a government of the people, but of rich white male property-owners. It is not surprising why modern conservatives -- who are still primarily rich white male property-owners -- would so eagerly desire to return to a Tocquevillian America. Clearly, what the far right wishes to conserve most is their privilege.
This is the link, in case that was interesting
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialbreakdown.htm
Goodnight, Fe!
Goodnight, all!
Maybe there is hope .. we are right, they are wrong.
Remember that.
conservative humor: (oxymoron)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0625,tomorrow,73565,9.html
ban gay marriage and Iraq will be won
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0625,fiore,73563,9.html
what if they stole an election and no one cared
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0625,sutton,73564,9.html
solstice at the center of the universe - please comment
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal
Just to follow up on the NYT piece yesterday, the Today Show basically parroted the whole thing this morning - Campbell Brown and Tim Russert might as well have been reading it.
Maybe they were.
They could use some letters as well.
Phone both of your Senators right now and demand an immediate end to the war: 202-224-3121.
On Tuesday in the House, Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders) took a stand against permanent bases in Iraq, voting 196-3 against them. The vote split the Republican party, which voted 180-47 with the Democrats. This measure had previously been passed by both houses, but was removed by Republicans in conference committee (which is against the rules: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12211 ).
They may try the same dirty trick again, but they now know we are watching, and there are Republicans on record in opposition. Rep. Bill Young (R., Fla.) said on the floor Tuesday about permanent bases:
There is an obvious pre-election media campaign, just as there was before the last election for an entire year. We have a controlled media, for the most part. Once we truly have a dictatorship, people will begin to tune the media out, as one Bush or another's grinning face will be shown (wearing king robe or military gear in front of the flag, which will have stars added for new acquisitions). The Star-Spangled Banner will be played constantly, or more likely, God Bless America.
From today's Huffington Post:
House Republicans broke a promise Wednesday when lawmakers mutinied and forced the cancellation of a vote to renew the Voting Rights Act. As one of nation's most important civil rights bills, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act was supposed to be a rare moment of bipartisan unity. Instead, some GOP lawmakers nixed the vote because they say it unfairly targets Southern states. Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said "a lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it."
From CODE PINK:
..when Bush visited Iraq on June 13, Iraq's President and Vice President asked him to set a timeline? And in a startling op-ed piece in Tuesday's Washington Post, Iraq's National Security Adviser Mowaffik Al-Rubaie admitted that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and said that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
Yet the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress refuse to set a timeline for withdrawal, saying U.S. troops need to stay to protect Iraqis until there is stability. But when the Iraqi people were asked who they trust to protect their personal safety, only 1 percent said the coalition forces!
And did you know that when we in the peace movement were successful in convincing the House and Senate to approve amendments to the emergency supplemental spending bill calling for no permanent bases in Iraq, the Republican leaders in the joint conference committee simply eliminated the provision from the final bill. Little wonder that 80 percent of Iraqis fear that the U.S. plans to have permanent bases in their country.
I was talking to a friend last night who raised the issue of politics and Iraq, poked a bit of fun at Kerry, but was then humbled when I related to her that the Iraqis, in fact, want a timetable - as do a majority of Democrats and Independents, and I suspect more Republicans that care to admit it at the moment.
If we're going to stay in Iraq until the Shiites and Sunnis bury their centuries' long enmity, we might as well convert - because we're going to be there for a long, long time.
Here's my email to the Today Show: (I'm so disgusted with this)
I was very disappointed in this morning's story by both Campbell Brown and Tim Russert regarding the Democrats plans to bring an end to the carnage in Iraq. There were two things that I found disturbing about this story. The first was that the exact same story - almost word for word - appeared in the New York Times yesterday. This leads me to believe that your "journalists" aren't doing their own work, but plagiarizing from the Times, which itself did a shoddy journalistic job with the article. The only other thing I can think happened is that Karl Rove sent both you and the Times the text of what you should say, and you went right along with that propaganda. Either option is unethical, unprofessional, and un-American.
The second and even more disturbing thing about the story was that your reporters, (and you, NBC, by allowing it), are politicizing and trivializing the Democrats efforts to stop our troops from dying for Bush's mistakes. The Democrats are offering plans and strategies, which we are certainly not hearing from the Republicans, and all you can talk about is that this person or that person might be running for president, and that the Dems can't agree on a plan. WHO CARES?????
The Dems are doing their work - offering plans to bring an end to this fiasco. I've heard NOTHING from the Republicans on a plan to end this mess. Just more politics as usual. And you and your network are contributing to the problem. I can't imagine the outrage and pain you are putting military families, and indeed soldiers, through by your trivializing of this issue. It is NOT about politics. It is about bringing the troops home at some point in the future.
You need to take your jobs and your repsonsibilities to the people of this country - and to our soldiers in Iraq - a little more seriously. This is not a game. It is not a joke. There is certainly nothing funny about it. Soldiers are dying every day and you are complicit in that when you trivialize the importance of the Democrats efforts to bring them home. Tim Russert and Campbell Brown, and NBC and the Today Show should all be ashamed. You've let your country down.