« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

November 30, 2004

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q The United States Supreme Court declined to take the appeal from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that allowed for same-sex couples to get married in Massachusetts . What's the President's reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that the President continues to emphasize the importance of moving forward on a constitutional amendment that would allow the people's voice to be heard and not allow this issue to be decided by activist judges or local officials who seek to redefine what is a sacred institution. The American people strongly support protecting the sanctity of marriage. I think you can look to the recent elections in 11 states to see the kind of broad support there is for protecting the sacred institution.

Whoa! First of all, when did I wake up in a Theocracy? Seriously! Did we elect a High Priest or did we elect a politician? Paying tithe is considered a sacred institution to millions of Americans too. Should we also put that in the Constitution?

Secondly, what part of individual citizens casting votes in those 11 states does President Bush not consider to have sufficiently met the criteria for allowing "the people's voice to be heard"?

Q But the activist -- the judges of the United States Supreme Court, the Justices just said this is something for the states, that we aren't going to get involved in this. And 11 states are doing it. Why does the President want --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think -- I don't think that they were looking at it from the federal law perspective, but looking at it from the state law perspective of the Massachusetts court.

This is just plain stupid. Does Mr. McClellan seriously think that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court didn't realize that the only reason the case was brought before them was to argue whether the federal constitution trumps the state court's authority? For the justices of the Supreme Court to not look at a single case first and foremost from the federal perspective would be a gross deriliction of duty.

Of course it's obvious that what McClellan is trying to do here is to spin the USSC having declined to take the case as somehow not a blow to President Bush's agenda of quashing state's rights.

It doesn't really matter whether you are for or against gay marriage. Bush via McClellan is arguing that the ratification process for a constitutional amendment is somehow a better mechanism for hearing the voice of the people than direct votes by the people are. McClellan demonstrates that by completely sidestepping a pointed question:

Q And so the President's position -- just to get this right -- is that if a state wants to decide through a majority vote that it will allow for same-sex marriages, the President wants to have the federal government smash that down and make sure that no state can decide that, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that you're talking about what activist judges are doing right now. The activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of society, and the people's voice is not being heard in this process. That's why the President is committed to moving forward with Congress on a constitutional amendment that would protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the people's voice to be heard in this important debate facing our society.

What seems crystal clear is that Bush doesn't want to allow the people's voice to be heard via direct votes. He clearly would prefer working with politicians. Or is he not aware that constitutional amendments are ratified by state politicians?

Why?

Posted by Kevin at 09:06 PM |

Karma...the great equalizer...

...or how the Boy Scout ruling is keeping military recruiters from college campuses.

Posted by Carla at 05:01 PM |

We don't need no stinkin' science

The community that creates it's own reality has decided to further that agenda by slashing funding for The National Science Foundation.

But at least we have all the money we need for the weather museum so Groundhog Phil can know whether or not we have six more weeks of Winter come February. That's the real important stuff don'tcha know.

Posted by Carla at 01:54 PM |

What, me worry?

Posted by Carla at 10:36 AM |

Inept

Despite the best efforts of the Bush Team (and their apologists) to put a happy face on the situation in Iraq, it's pretty tough to paint lipstick on this pig. November has not been kind to the US troops, the people of Iraq or the American Treasury.

Iraq's Oil Ministry is reporting that Iraq is losing $7 billion in potential revenues as a result of sabotage to the oil infrastructure:

An estimated 20 oil wells and pipelines were bombed or set abalze this month in northern Iraq alone, according to an official of the Northern Company. Iraq has oilfields in the north around Kirkuk and in the south near Basra.

Iraq's security crisis and its long, porous land borders left the country's petroleum industry with no effective protection against saboteurs — either Saddam loyalists or tribesmen competing for jobs with the British security firm Erinys International, which has a contract to secure oil wells and pipelines.

Maj. Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin, chief of the Iraqi National Guardsmen in Kirkuk, said that Erinys hires tribes to guard oil installations. For guarding pipelines, he said the going rate is $1,100 per mile secured.

"The tribes are fighting over who wins the largest number of contracts," Amin said, adding that the losers "blow up the pipelines and oil wells in retaliation."

Tribesmen who own land through which the pipelines pass sometimes break them to steal oil for sale.

Brilliant, eh? Looks like Iraq won't be paying for itself any time soon. So who foots the bill? The American Treasury.

The perennial idiots at Halliburton are contributing to the mess as well. According to an investigation for Congress, Halliburton cannot account for a third or more of the government property it's being paid to manage in Iraq.

At least 135 US troops died in Iraq in the month of November.

Medact (a British based charity) is reporting that Iraq's health care system is in crisis.

Iraq's "Green Zone" (the highest security zone in the country) has proven it isn't impervious to attack.

I realize that Bush voters get pissy when they're called "stupid". But frankly they need to get over it. They reelected this clown and his cohorts. Iraq has been mismanaged by these idiots from the word go. And not just a little bit.

Posted by Carla at 10:07 AM |

November 29, 2004

"..so many of your Christians, are so unlike your Christ.."

Thus spake Ghandi.

I have a tendency to be pretty tough on Christians. I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist household. No drinking, no dancing, no dating (until 16+), church three times a week, etc. I witnessed bigotry and hatred and humiliation from the pulpit. These were the lambs of Falwell. It never sat right with me.

The movement by fundamentalists into politics and power really disturbs me. History (and the current Middle East) demonstrates that theocratic rule is corrupt and tyrannical. And as I've mentioned, it's very much like the Pharisees of Biblical times.

So when I see things from self-identifying Christians that are very much like "your Christ"...it moves me. This evening reading this literally brought tears to my eyes. An excerpt:

"I haven't gone to church in over twenty years. Born again in a Southern Baptist church, I had gone to many different churches, including Methodists, Assembly of God, Nazarene, and many more. But more and more, I found the churches were no longer focusing on the message of Jesus, of forgiveness and love, of being humble.
"Now, even more than then, there is arrogance, pride, self-righteousness, even hatred. ... It's breaking my heart. How can people not see?
"Heavenly Father, I forgive all who have ever committed any offense against me. Forgive me for going astray. I could not find You for so long, but You were never lost. I was. Help me to not hate those who are blind. I humbly ask you to forgive me of all sin. Please, give me Your strength to endure what is to come, and keep me from being blinded to the truth. And please, help others to see.
"Even if I cannot be forgiven, I hope you will hear my prayer for others. My heart is breaking for those who cannot see. My tears blind me, my spirit is broken, and I beseech You to reach out to Your children, before it is too late. Nothing is impossible for You. I love you, Father, and I can only trust that You know my heart. In the depths of my despair, for myself and for others, You are the only answer, the only hope. Great God, please forgive all of us, for our hatred, our arrogance, our pride. I pray you hear my plea, in Jesus' name. Amen.

Such humility and love here. In reading the teachings of Christ, THIS is what I see in Christ's words and deeds.

I also jumped in on a discussion regarding Liberal Christians over at Chuck Currie's blog. Chuck writes with the same sort of love and humility as the sermon I linked to above.

So for all you out there that think I'm nothing but a Godless Christian basher...you're wrong about the Christian basher part. :)

Posted by Carla at 05:38 PM |

Bend me, shape me

Props to American Breed

This diary over at Kos inspired me to start thinking about the books, movies and television that helped to shape my political views.

After some thought, I've come up with this so far (they're not in order of influence per se...but order of what came to me as I typed them up):

1. Donahue: The original TV talk show. I watched it almost every day after school. It was always provocative and argumentative. I loved how Donahue challenged his guests to back up their ideas and constantly played Devil's Advocate.

2. The Grapes of Wrath: Steinbeck was a literary craftsman. This work is absolutely shaped my views of poverty.

3. 1984: Reinforced my belief that we must always, ALWAYS, question authority.

4. All in the Family: Archie Bunker pissed me off.

5. Maude: A smart mouthed woman with a spine of steel. And she was in a loving relationship with both her daughter and her husband. THAT was cool.

6. Dr Seuss: Horton Hears a Who, The Star Bellied Sneeches and The Lorax. Seuss' commentaries on how we're not alone in the world, racism and the enviornment make a lot of sense.

7. The Bible: Specifically, the life of Christ. I find his story incredibly inspiring and a model for liberalism. (As I mentioned to Kevin the other day, the quote from Ghandi that says, "so many of your Christians are so unlike your Christ" really speaks my own truth.)

8. Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, Othello and As You Like It all have strong social themes that ring true for me.

Those are the ones I've come up with so far...and I'm sure I'll think of others as I ponder it more.

I'd love to know what TV shows, movies and books helped shaped the political views of PK readers. Comment away.

Posted by Carla at 09:35 AM |

November 28, 2004

George Will hates the free market

In his column for today, George Will expresses outrage at a study showing liberals outnumber conservatives as instructors on college campuses.

In response, Juan Cole wants to know what the big outrage is really all about:

There are all sorts of social-science problems with this allegation. First, what is the population that is being studied? Is it all tenure-track teachers in all universities in all schools and departments? Are we including two-year colleges? Four-year ones? Are we including Economics Departments, Business Schools, Medical Schools, Engineering schools?

If that were the pool, then academics probably mirror the general American society pretty closely. There are about 1.1 million post-secondary teachers in the United States. A lot of the ones in the Red States are conservatives, and a lot of the ones in the engineering schools everywhere are. So it simply is not true that "universities" are bastions of the political left. Moreover, there are almost no leftists in any major economics department in the United States, in contrast to Europe.

But Juan...are you actually saying that the study didn't look at all aspects of college instructors? Could George Will possibly be attempting to parse this to create outrage where none need exist, in order to push more conservatives into teaching positions on college campuses? I'm stunned.

Juan continues:

There would be no way to stack this process politically. The school executive committee is elected at large from all school departments; ours often has economists or biologists on it. The divisional committee often has political scientists. A substandard historian being hired only because he was a leftist would never get through this gauntlet. Each search committee is ad hoc, staffed according to field, and each differs in composition from the others. All the other committees are constantly rotating personnel, by election. There is no possibility of a centralized cabal that could appoint people of only one political coloration. In fact, David Horowitz wants to find a way to use state legislatures and congress to corrupt this grassroots and professional process by politicizing it and focusing on political outcome rather than academic achievement.

(more under the fold)

Since there's no way to stack the process without some sort of state legislature or congressional intervention...then what's the reality?

The most logical explanation for any political bias in some parts of the professoriate in my view is that the sort of persons with the skills to be in a major academic liberal arts department could also be successful in business, lobbying, law, advertising and other well-paying professions. And it is the corporate world and its lobbying appendages that have the marked bias, to the Right. Someone who has academic skills but is a Republican would just have enormous opportunities and could easily become a multi-millionnaire. In contrast, academics on the Left would not be welcome in corporate boardrooms or at a think tank funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, and wouldn't be comfortable in such a position. (All think tanks hire explicitly by ideology, and 17 of the 19 most influential ones in Washington are deliberately staffed by conservatives, but that doesn't bother Will.)

So if you're living in the reality based community with Juan Cole and me, you can see that it's worked out based on market forces. The market has worked it out so that depending upon successes of the individuals in question, they are hired accordingly for teaching jobs on campuses.

Funny how free market works for conservatives until they think it bites them in the ass. Then all of a sudden they're embracing socialism.

Posted by Carla at 03:09 PM |

Hearts and minds be damned!

The US is losing the propaganda war with Al Qaida and radical Islam according to a new report from Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communication. The Task Force is a high level Pentagon panel.

According to the report:

Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of
editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.

(more below the fold)

So a lot of Muslims really hate us. The "winning hearts and minds" thing doesn't seem to be working out so well.

I've been saying for years that Bush's actions have put the US in MORE danger. The report shows that these attitudes from Muslims indeed put the US in much more danger:

Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.

This President can either stop slamming his arrogant brand of foreign policy down the throats of the world or he can continue to set our nation on a path to more terrorist attacks.

The cowboy diplomacy BS doesn't work with terrorists. They're not intimidated and they're not backing down. And why should they? They just got their recruiting posterboy back in office and they're causing major ruckus in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hearts and minds be damned.

It's not just Bush's arrogant talk that puts us in danger. It's his actions as well:

Although many observers correlate anti-Americanism with deficiencies in U.S. public diplomacy (its content, tone, and competence), the effectiveness of the means used to
influence public opinion is only one metric. Policies, conflicts of interest, cultural differences, memories, time, dependence on mediated information, and other factors shape perceptions and limit the effectiveness of strategic communication.

Posted by Carla at 02:24 PM |

$2,156,737.35

According to this site, I'm worth $2,156,737.35.

Personally, I think I'm a bargain at any price.

What are you worth?

Posted by Carla at 08:53 AM |

November 27, 2004

It's a GOP life

Tonight on NBC they played "It's a Wonderful Life".

Mr. Potter...the GOP posterchild.

<

From the film:

POTTER: Have you put any real pressure on those people of yours to pay those mortgages?

BAILEY: Times are bad, Mr. Potter. A lot of these people are out of work.

POTTER: Then foreclose!

BAILEY: I can't do that. These families have children.

GEORGE: Pop!

POTTER: They're not my children.

BAILEY: But they're somebody's children.

POTTER: Are you running a business or a charity ward?

BAILEY: Well, all right . . .

POTTER (interrupting): Not with my money!

BAILEY: Mr. Potter, what makes you such a hard-skulled character? You have no family –– no children. You can't begin to spend all the money you've got.

POTTER: So I suppose I should give it to miserable failures like you and that idiot brother of yours to spend for me.

Oh yeah. Potter is definitely a Republican.

Posted by Carla at 08:34 PM |

If you're Condi...whatcha gonna do?

You've just been made the first black female Secretary of State for the United States of America.

Your boss was reelected by a slim margin. Roughly half of the country wants nothing to do with him. Most of the world (including some of the most powerful nations on the planet) disagree with your policies. Your boss used up pretty much all of his political capital invading Iraq with hubris based on nonexistent threats.

Your predecessor was once a well respected, moderating force but was forced out by your boss (and his own timeline, to some degree) and is leaving his post with a much degraded opinion of him..yet remains the most popular individual in the Cabinet.

So where do you go from here?

Posted by Carla at 03:10 PM |

Sympathy from the Devil

Close enough.

Rummy is apparently suffering from a bout of writer's cramp.

Or perhaps he's just too busy spending our tax dollars on pipe dreams.

Either way, he's just too damn busy to actually sign the letters sent to the families of fallen troops.

And before someone posts in the comments that Congressmen have machines that affix their signatures to constituent letters, don't bother. There's a very big difference between sending a constituent letter in response to a bitch about taxes and informing a family that their loved one has been lost in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by Carla at 11:14 AM |

PK 101

I took a few days off from the blog to get my battery recharged (as well as being on the receiving end of the requisite Thanksgiving Day family fundy recruitment drive)to quite a surprise.

Thanks to a nice note for us from The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandleman, our blog was mentioned in Michelle Malkin's Thanksgiving column.

Ms. Malkin is pretty much the antithesis of everything I stand for in politics. Defending ethnic internment is as low as it gets as far as I'm concerned.

So on that note, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer Ms. Malkin some PK 101. I hope she comes around and reads this blog once or twice a week. Kevin, myself and our readership could offer her an education that she'd never get watching (schtuping?) Sean Hannity.

And who knows? Maybe it would be a mutual education.

Posted by Carla at 10:38 AM |

Crusading for common sense

Amin Saikal, professor of political science and director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University, wrote a compelling and sobering opinion piece a few days ago in Australia's The Sydney Morning Herald. Provocatively titled Moderate Muslims hide when they see the cross Bush has to bear (registration required), he warns that relations between the West and the Islamic world are moving closer to collapse with the reelection of George Bush. Not merely because Bush was reelected. Rather, on the basis of Bush's foreign policy and his well known base of support among the Christian Right.

With the faith-driven Bush determined to change radical political Islam, the Middle East and, for that matter, the world according to America's shifting interests and within a broad Judeo-Christian moral framework, many Islamists - who believe in Islam as an ideology of political and social transformation - and many ordinary Muslims around the world are now bound to become more wary of US policy behaviour than ever before.

They are likely to take extreme exception to Bush's now well-known personal identification with Christian evangelism, his faith-based domestic and foreign policy priorities, his division of the world in terms of "good" and "evil", and his uncritical support of Israel.

To them, Bush's emphasis on forceful pacification and "democratisation" of Iraq as a beacon for spreading political change in the region, and on creating a "democratic" Palestinian state, amounts to little more than a metaphor for exalting Judeo-Christian values over those of Islam and perpetuating the subordination of the Arab-Muslim world to America's global interests as defined by Bush's religious preferences.

This report from Palestine is one small example which supports Saikal's assertion. But there is other evidence which supports it too. Consider the fact that none of the Christian minority groups in the Middle East have sided with Bush's policy. Syria, Palestine and Iraq all have noteworthy Christian communities. None of which are willing to risk being ostracized and scapegoated by supporting the Bush administration's policies in the region. At least some Iraqi Christians appear to be siding with with some of the most outspoken opponents of both the Bush administration and it's interum government in Iraq. And it appears to be a deliberate and pragmatic choice.

Many opinion surveys indicate that a majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world have already become far more receptive to al-Qaeda's messages and causes than to Bush's messianic zeal for democratisation.

Bush's agenda of building bridges to moderate Muslims has failed, because moderate Muslims do not want to be seen in his company.

I think that goes for moderate non-Muslim's in the Middle East too.

As Iraq sinks into chaos and destruction, with reportedly more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians having lost their lives, one wonders how Bush can possibly believe this to be helpful either to the cause of democratising and stabilising Iraq or to the success of the war on terrorism or to prompting many Muslims to be diverted away from radical Islamism to embrace Washington's impositions as a better alternative.

Indeed.

Posted by Kevin at 09:02 AM |

November 25, 2004

Stop posturing and tell me who in the hell is supporting our troops!!

Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained

Ridgeland police donate bullet-resistant vests to soldiers

Well???

(hat tip to Stage Left for the Mercury News link)

Posted by Kevin at 09:56 PM |

Is the CIA a "rogue agency"?

Apparently that's the smokescreen being put up by Senator McCain and other Republicans according to a NYT piece today.

A backdrop to the tensions have been accusations from some Republicans that the agency sought over the summer to undermine Mr. Bush's re-election. Mr. McCain, in suggesting that the agency had been disloyal, has singled out the disclosure of intelligence reports about Iraq whose conclusions were at odds with administration assertions about the war.

Excuse me!?! Americans are supposed to send our boys off to die based on overtly PARTISAN "intelligence"??? Is Senator McCain seriously suggesting that the CIA should have lied because it would have been politically advantageous for Bush?

John E. McLaughlin, a career CIA official who is stepping down from the agency's No. 2 position after less than two months as Mr. Goss's deputy, issued a rare public rebuttal to McCain in Tuesday's Washington Post

Has everyone ruled out the possibility that the intelligence community during this period was simply doing its job - calling things as it saw them - and that people with a wide array of motives found it advantageous to put out this material when the C.I.A.'s views seemed at odds with the administration's?

For his part Director Goss issued a memorandum last week advised his employees that the agency's job was to "support the administration and its policies" and to do nothing to associate themselves with opposition to the administration.

Clearly "we the people" can no longer trust the Goss-lead CIA. His memorandum makes that much stunningly obvious. We won't know if what the CIA officially reports are objective findings based on the data or if it's partisan propaganda. Senator McCain has made his feelings on the matter crystal clear.

Folks, this isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about the American people being able to trust that we're sending our sons and daughters off to die on foreign soil for legitimate reasons!

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go delete the McCain banner link that I've had up at The Independent Voter ever since I first created the site in early 2000. I can no longer in good conscience recommend Senator McCain as a patriotic statesman.

I am deeply disappointed...

Posted by Kevin at 09:18 PM |

Odds and Ends

Some of the more interesting things I've found while surfing Blog Explosion:

This cracks me up! Showing it to some of the guys at work resulted in several interesting ideas. One, that a creative and enterprising individual could possibly create a niche market with highschool aged guys by custom painting the hoods of their cars (they'd be considered studs by their peers!). The other was that a "reality" show along the lines of The Jamie Kennedy Experiment could have a lot of fun combining the first idea with one of those hand-wash car wash places while pretending to be an anxious married man.

Rules of Engagement is a fascinating blog post and the resulting exchange between two guys with military experience about the military's ROE from the soldier's point of view.

Another post from the same blog which dovetails interestingly with our recent discussions on gay marriage: Born Again ... still braindead

Lest anyone get the wrong idea about PK's view of hetero marriage... I offer this poignant post which touched me: To My Wife

What's in Scott's Head makes some astute observations with Clinton-Obsessed Conservatives

Craig Harmon impresses me with his refusal to engage in knee-jerk demagoguery on his blog The Left Ain't Right, and by stubbornly insisting on hearing from the other side before passing judgement. Perhaps I'm revealing my own knee-jerk demagogue side by stating that Craig's style is attypical of right-leaning Republicans, IMHO. In any case, I offer it up as one of the better, more worthy of consideration and respect, examples of moderate/conservative thought in the blogosphere.

Posted by Kevin at 02:14 PM |

November 23, 2004

Yup

Posted by Carla at 07:39 PM |

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Woe to the Reverend Jerry.

That Jerry Falwell certainly is a busy fellow. But Media Matters is keeping an eye on him.

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about the good Reverend..were he around. OH wait...we already know!

Posted by Carla at 07:17 PM |

The Grace in being grateful

The most formative person in my life when I was a child was my great grandmother.

Having been raised in an extended family where alcoholism was rampant, my Grandma Grace was the calm for me in a sea of dysfunction. She was strong and smart and loved me very, very much. My mother and father weren't alcoholics...but my maternal grandparents and my uncles were. The family was always fighting.

My parents loved me deeply and took good care of me...but they were very controlling. For a child who was extremely strong willed and stubborn..it could be a pretty rocky place to be.

Grandma Grace saw my stubborn intelligence and my willful need to carve my own path from the beginning. When my mother refused to let me get dirty because it would mess up my clothes, Grandma Grace would send me out to the garden with a set of spoons and a big jar of water, telling me not to come back in until I'd made her at least three mud pies.

When we went to the grocery store, she'd put me up on the mechanical horse, do her shopping and come by every few minutes and pump nickels into the horse. She gave me "coffee" at breakfast (milk and sugar with a shot of coffee) and showed me how to use the old fashioned wringer washing machine she kept in her basement. She read me stories from the Bible and sang to me while I sat on her lap. I can remember pressing my head into her chest, listening to her old lady voice singing just over the sound of her heartbeat. "You Are My Sunshine" was the special tune we sang together.

We lived about two hours away from her but we'd go visit every weekend. Even though she saw me every week, I'd still get a letter from her every Wednesday. I still have all of her letters, tied up with a ribbon, set aside in a special place. Sometimes I take them out and read them...not even so much for what they say but just to touch the paper and examine her scratchy, practically illegible handwriting. It makes me feel close to her.

This is the time of year where we're asked to remind ourselves what we're thankful for. I have so many things on that list. But my Grandma Grace stands out as someone who taught me something so precious: unconditional, unfettered love. And even though I only had her for my first ten years...all I have to do is find the little rag doll she so lovingly made for me (it sits out on the nightstand next to my bed) and the beautiful letters she wrote to me to remember that love my whole life.

I'll always be grateful to her.

Posted by Carla at 08:18 AM |

November 22, 2004

Overshare

Kev and I have been a part of blog explosion (click the little button at the bottom of the left sidebar for more details) to increase traffic to the blog and get more exposure.

And along the lines of exposure, while surfing blogexplosion today I came across this.

Talk about up close and personal. Yeesh.

Maybe it's a hetero guy thing.

Posted by Carla at 02:28 PM |

Gay marriage is equal rights, not special rights

This piece by Atrios outlines why the denial of marriage to gays is an infringement on their rights.

As long as gays cannot cement their unions with the exact same rights and responsibilities as heteros...there is inherent inequality. From tax benefits to estate planning to employment and medical benefits, gays do not receive equal treatment under the law..even if they draft special legal contracts.

Go read Atrios. It's a compelling argument.

Posted by Carla at 02:07 PM |

Our long national nightmare is over

No more fastforwarding through commercials if you've got Ti-Vo.

Thank goodness the Republican House and Senate and our leader Bush are there to make sure it's illegal to fast forward through the Cortislim commericals with Dr. Greg Cynamon.

Rest easy, America.

Posted by Carla at 02:02 PM |

November 21, 2004

Fans crossed the line

By now I'm sure everyone's heard about the ugly melee between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers. Very ugly indeed. But, I think former NBA star and Yahoo! Sports' NBA analyst Steve Kerr gets to the heart of the matter with this commentary.

Until the cup was thrown, it was business as usual in Auburn Hills.

An intense, physical basketball game; a hard foul by Ron Artest – in retaliation for a hard Ben Wallace foul a minute earlier; an angry response from Wallace; a pushing match, followed by the usual grabbing, holding and yelling as coaches and officials attempted to gain control of the situation. NBA fans have witnessed scenes like this a thousand times before.

It should have stopped there, and it would have – if a stupid fan hadn't thrown a cup at Artest, hitting him in the face.

It will, IMHO, be a travesty of justice if the very stiff suspensions, fines, and loss of pay which the players involved are expected to receive, and rightly so, if the fans who escalated the conflict aren't also held accountable. Steve Kerr makes that case in no uncertain terms. And he's absolutely right.

But what really caught my attention was one member of the Pistons who by all accounts played perhaps the premier role of attempted peacemaker - Rasheed Wallace of the Detroit Pistons.

'Sheed Wallace played here in Portland for several years before being traded to Detroit. And while here he became infamous as the badboy of the NBA. He consistently lead the league in technical fouls and I think for ejections too. Refs and fans alike, not to mention sports writers, pegged Wallace as a trouble causer with a very short fuse.

So why didn't Wallace rise to the bait and let loose if, as he was consistently described, he has an anger problem? Perhaps the truth is that he was simply a passionate player who wasn't able to mask his frustration well enough. Whatever the case, I was very pleased to learn how maturely and responsibly Wallace behaved during this entire ugly incident. He deserves some belated apologies from sports writers who took obvious glee in dissing him while he was a Trailblazer. Rather than portray him as the iconic embodiment of what's wrong with professional sports, they could demonstrate their own maturity by hailing his clearly "above and beyond the call of duty" role in the Pacers/Pistons incident.

Posted by Kevin at 10:58 AM |

Help Wanted

The Center for American Progress has some job openings for progressive minded braniac types.

Posted by Carla at 09:50 AM |

With Gilligan...the Skipper too...

No money for health care, body armor or funding NCLB..but by golly we've got ourselves a Presidential Yacht.Atrios has the scoop.

Posted by Carla at 08:19 AM |

November 20, 2004

Can't you see this is a land of confusion...

There's too many men
Too many people
Making too many problems,
and not enough love to go around

The Federal Communications Commission is the latest tool in the social conservative onslaught on American values. The absurdity of this culture is bubbling to the surface under the watchful eye of FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

Frank Rich explains the real crux of the issue:

As American soldiers were dying in Falluja, some Americans back home spent Veteran's Day mocking the very ideal our armed forces are fighting for ­ freedom. Ludicrous as it sounds, 66 ABC affiliates revolted against their own network and refused to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan." The reason: fear. Not fear of terrorism or fear of low ratings but fear that their own government would punish them for exercising freedom of speech.

Rich also points out that companies which own these stations also own major newspapers. And they're all on "Operation Sanitization". Out front in this operation are Republicans...with their deliberate and willful ignorance worn like a badge of honor:

The reductio ad absurdum of such a restricted news diet is Jim Bunning, the newly re-elected senator from Kentucky. During the campaign he drew a blank when asked to react to the then widely circulated story of an Army Reserve unit in Iraq, including one soldier from his own state, that refused to follow orders to carry out what it deemed a suicide fuel-delivery mission. "I don't read the paper" is how he explained his cluelessness. "I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information." That's his right as a private citizen, though even Fox had some coverage of that story. But as a senator, he has the power to affect decisions on the conduct of the war and to demand an accounting of the circumstances under which one of his own constituents was driven to revolt against his officers. Instead Mr. Bunning was missing in action.

For our public officials to be informed on the key issues is basic to their job description. Yet these are the values we're told are important. This is what the folks in the "red states" voted for.

Posted by Carla at 09:10 PM |

Official Malfeasance in the Pentagon

The champion of fiscal responsibility, Senator John McCain, released internal Pentagon communications which reveal "systemic Air Force failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption."

At issue is the Air Force/Boeing deal to lease Boeing tankers for refueling purposes which Congress finally blocked earlier this year. The contract was criticized from the start as being too costly. But, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff consistently defended the contract. McCain consistently criticized it as a waste of the taxpayers money. He and others argued that buying the tankers outright would save billions of dollars, but that they aren't needed in the first place.

The Washington Post write up says,

McCain said top Air Force officials have recently been trying to "delude the American people" into believing that a single person is responsible for misconduct in the $30 billion leasing plan -- namely, Darleen A. Druyun, the Air Force contracting official who pleaded guilty two months ago to overpricing the tankers as a "parting gift" to Boeing before she became one of the firm's executives.

"I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers out of billions of dollars," said McCain, who said he will keep pursuing internal Defense Department and Bush administration communications until "all the stewards of taxpayers' funds who committed wrongdoing are held accountable."

In fact the internal Pentagon communications which McCain released show that Air Force Secretary James G. Roche and Marvin R. Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisitions manager, were actively involved with Druyun in trying to ram the Boeing contract thru and to silence any and all critics.

The reality of the situation is that Air Force Secretary Roche was actively advocating for Boeing's interests and against the American taxpayer's interests.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a statement hailing Roche for serving "our country capably and with honor." Which is nothing less than what I expected from him. He doesn't care and he never has. Nor does President Bush, for that matter. Else he'd be holding Rumsfeld accountable.

Posted by Kevin at 02:52 PM |

The exit poll conspiracy

Rumors of voter fraud on the part of Republicans continue despite what appears to be no physical evidence of vote tampering (that I've seen).

One of the more persistent issues driving these rumors seems to be the exit polls. On Election Day, exit polls were going strong for Kerry. Obviously the end result didn't match up to the exit polls.

It's my understanding that it's common for exit polls to favor the Democrat for a number of reasons. But pollster John Zogby says something is "terribly wrong".

I am admittedly on the fence here. I see how the numbers don't add up and how there are some pretty weird statistics in Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire. It does give me pause.

But until someone can show some physical evidence, I remain a skeptic.

Posted by Carla at 08:03 AM |

November 19, 2004

Carla: girl detective

With the GOP's rather shady vote this week to allow DeLay to stay in his leadership job if he's indicted in Texas, Josh Marshall is in the process of compiling the list of how the various congresspersons voted.

I thought it would be interesting to see how Oregon's only GOP Congressman, Greg Walden, voted. Josh said Oregonians who've called Walden have been getting the run around. Being a rather persistent individual, I decided to give it a try.

I called Walden's office in Medford late this afternoon and spoke to a very pleasant woman on the phone named Barbara. She assured me that she didn't know how Walden had voted but that she would forward my request to the DC Office and they would most certainly email me back with my answer the first part of next week.

I'm not in Walden's district...but I grew up in that region and know tons of folks there. If they refuse to tell me because I'm outside his district, I may just have to have a friend from my hometown call and she how she fairs.

I'll keep you posted.

Posted by Carla at 04:44 PM |

November 18, 2004

States take on stem cells

With the Bush Administration's tight fisted (and cowardly) approach to embryonic stem cell research essentially written in stone, two states are taking the lead:

Wisconsin's governor is proposing millions to support embryonic stem cell research. Governor Jim Doyle (D) said the proposal would build on the nearly $1 billion already paid by Wisconsin for high tech facilities.

passed a $3 billion stem cell research program. Proposition 71 will have the state fund $300 million a year in stem cell research over 10 years.

All this is happening at the same time that the Bush Administration is trying to force the UN to ban all cloning of human embryos including those for stem cell research.

Wisconsin and California will end up being the big beneficiaries of their foward thinking proposals. This is potentially a huge boon to the health care industry. Researchers (and jobs) will move to the states that are forward thinking enough to do this sort of research, especially with it's potential to cure so many illnesses.

Posted by Carla at 06:19 PM |

Just say no to Arnold

Last night on AOL's front page, they had a link to the Arnold Schwartzenegger campaign to change the Constitution to allow Arnold to run for President.

Kevin and I had a discussion about this last night and we both agreed that it's unlikely Arnold could win support for this change. Neither of us support Arnold for President, either.

Kevin can address his reasons as he sees fit. I dislike Arnold for several reasons.

On a gut/instinct level... the guy is a pig, IMO. Every time I see him interviewed, he gives me the creeps. From smoking the big fat cigars to his sleazy reputation with women, I just have a tough time not seeing him as a mysognist. This is admittedly the most shallow of reasons...but for me personally, I can't get past it.

Also, he's been pretty ineffective at fixing the budget problems in California. Since this was the main reason his predecessor was sent packing, it's a pretty big deal. Arnold made all sorts of promises during his campaign about repairing California's budget problems and so far hasn't lived up to them.

Third, I've never heard Arnold take responsibility for any of the problems in California. He does the Bush thing of blaming Democrats for every problem he encounters. From California's energy crisis (that was clearly NOT the fault of Democrats) to the budget crisis to the state's cash flow problems, Arnold refuses to take a personal responsibility stake.

I'm not a Californian so maybe I just don't get it. Any Californians or Arnold supporters out there want to set me straight?

Posted by Carla at 01:37 PM |

Star Duds Boondoggle

Remember the space-based missle defense system that the entire Bush admin was focued on instead of heeding the Clinton admin's warnings about al Queda, and which they've pushed thru with great fanfare since 9/11? Well, U.S. scientists are saying that it won't stop most missles.

Oh... and it's costing a lot of $$$.

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing Congress to raise the national debt ceiling so that we don't default on our ability to borrow more money with which to pay for useless crap like the Star Wars missle indefensable system.

Posted by Kevin at 01:05 PM |

Iranian nukes?

The Dreyfus Report exposes the recent Powell statement about Iranian nukes for the big fat zero that it is.

Seemingly lending credence to a less than credible Iranian dissident exile group (anyone remember Ahmed Chalabi???), Powell said that he had seen info that suggests that Iran might maybe... yadda, yadda, yadda. Absolutely nothing new or informative came from Secretary Powell's statements. Which begs the question of why talk openly about what if's and maybe's?

How many times does this administration have to get burned relying on "intelligence" supplied by exile groups with a history of exageration before they wise up? Or is that beside the point. Might they be more interested in providing a pretext, however flimsy, for their further military aspirations?

Posted by Kevin at 12:57 PM |

The Legacy of King Bill

The Clinton Library opens today in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This seems like as good a time as any to ponder Bill's legacy. In the wake of the recent elections..it's hard to say whether or not his impact on the Democratic Party is really positive.

I personally think the guy was a great President. He presided over some incredible peace and prosperity. He also worked his ass off on the Middle East peace process. But he was also a lightning rod...and he and Hillary still are an obsession for the rightwingers.

He moved the party more to the center. But he also pushed out the liberals which are arguably the soul of the party.

I'm having a tough time deciding if Clinton is ultimately a blessing or a curse.

Posted by Carla at 07:28 AM |

November 17, 2004

Sorry folks

We've had some problems with our domain hosting service this afternoon. This is the second time this week that we've been down due to unknown problems with our host. Hopefully it'll be another year before we have any more such problems. In the meantime I'm tentatively scoping out other domain host options. But, that'll be a worst case scenario. I really, really, really don't want to have to go to the trouble of moving all of our files to another server.

In any case, I extend our apologies for any frustration you experienced trying to access us today. Believe me when I say that Carla and I were both highly frustrated too.

Posted by Kevin at 09:37 PM |

You get what you pay for

Our blog was down most of the afternoon and evening, it seems.

I'm too tired now to rant about it. So someone else can write the rant for me. Best rant gets a 10 minute shopping spree at the PreemptiveKarma Boutique.

As soon as we get it up and running..circa 2010.

Posted by Carla at 09:20 PM |

November 16, 2004

Crooks

House Republicans are proposing a change to their rules to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post.

They have no choice if they want to keep Tom DeLay in his leadership job after his perp walk.

Posted by Carla at 07:07 PM |

Falluja fighters are homegrown

The LA Times is reporting that the vast majority of fighters in the Falluja battle are Iraqis, not foreigners.

This assertion is based on the number of captured men. The Times reports that with over 1000 captured between the ages of 15 and 55, only 15 are confirmed foreign fighters:

There was evidence that an organized force of foreign fighters was present. One dead guerrilla bore Syrian identification. A number of insurgents believed to be foreigners wore similar black "uniforms," each with black flak vests, webbed gear and weapons superior to those of their Iraqi allies.

But despite an intense focus on the network of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab Zarqawi by U.S. and Iraqi officials, who have insisted that most Iraqis support the country's interim government, American commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemies is about 5%.

We're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq whether they like it or not. And if we have to kill them all to do it..then by golly that's just the way it's going to have to be.

Posted by Carla at 06:57 PM |

Rice replaces Powell..frying pan into the fire

Bush announced today that he is naming National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to replace outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell.

This would be the same Condoleeza Rice that ignored warnings about Al Qaida during the transition from the Clinton Administration and during the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. This is also the same Condoleeza Rice that filibustered the 9/11 Commisssion in an effort not to answer questions. And this is the same Condoleeza Rice that didn't know for MONTHS about the stashes of missing weapons in Iraq..because someone in her chain of command didn't bother to mention it.

Loyalty trumps competence with this crowd every time.

It's also worth noting that the most incompetent member of Team Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, is staying put.

Posted by Carla at 06:24 PM |

November 15, 2004

Finding our phoenix

In order to have an effective opposition in this country, it is crucial that the national Democratic Party get it's act together. Immediately. The ashes of the 2004 election aren't yet cold...and the Dems absolutely need to recover and begin the work of rebuilding the party at the national level.

Toward that end a new Democratic National Committee Chair needs to be elected. The ineffective and incompetent Terry McCauliffe is out, having announced his retirement several months before the election. Thus the search is on for a new Chair to be elected in the coming weeks.

Already there are names floating about. Tom Vilsack (Govenor of Iowa), Howard Dean and Simon Rosenberg appear to be the main individuals being discussed.

The DLC wing of the Democrats appear to be throwing their support behind Vilsack, a moderate. Vilsack's main reason for wanting the job is to keep the Iowa Caucus as one of the first parts of the primaries candidate selection process. Huh? The national party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and Vilsack's main issue is the Iowa Caucuses? Besides that, the moderates in the Democratic Party have been in charge for the last three elections...and they're 0-3. The status quo ain't working. It's time to clean house.

Simon Rosenberg I admittedly know nothing about. In fact I'd never heard of him until I read his name over at Daily Kos. But here is one Kos Diary that gives him a glowing reference.

And then of course there's Dean. The moderates are completely apoplectic at the idea of Dean taking the reins at the DNC. They say he would be a "disaster". A disaster as opposed to losing the Presidential election that we should have won and losing more seats in the Senate and House? Dean has the understanding of the grassroots and the power of those who passionately believe in him (myself included). He's also a student of George Lakoff, who I sincerely believe is a crucial cog in getting Democrats to articulate their beliefs and principles.

Whoever ends up taking over McCauliffe's job needs a very grand vision and absolutely must want to get the Democrats and progressives their own echo chamber that gets massive media attention. They need to continue to build at the grassroots level. The Democrats at the local level did extremely well..even in many states that went for Bush. The bones are there. But the national party must do the heavy lifting required to make the opposition a force to be reckoned with.

Posted by Carla at 02:42 PM |

November 14, 2004

They get letters

This letter to the editor appeared last Thursday in my local hometown paper (name withheld):

I have found it very disturbing that people are trying to rid this country of God and his principles. The most recent incident is the issue of the Ten Commandments being in the courthouses. Who do these people think they are that they can waltz in and try to hack away at the foundations of our country?

Our founding fathers built the constitution around these 10 rules that consist of mostly common sense.

In my opinion, there are six commandments that are completely common sense. As a matter of fact, three of thesee--you shall not murder, you shall not steal, and you shall not give false testimony against your neighbor--are actually laws today with two or more (you shall not commit adultery and you shall not covet your neighbor's belongings) being laws in previous civilizations that were neither Hebrew or Christian.

The last of these six is the commandment to honor your father nad mother. This is one of the most important commandments, and is the only one in the first five listed that has to do with someone other than God.

The other four out of those top five are, you shall have no other gods before me (God), you shall not make for yourself any idol, you shall not misuese the name of the Lord your God, and remeber the Sabbath by keeping it holy. These seem to be the focus of the argument of removing the Commandments from the courthouses. However, can you not look away or simply ignore them?

This country was build on these 10 simple rules so why should we take them out of courthouses? Just because they are there doesn't mean that you need to abide by any more than three of them.

The following is my letter that I submitted in rebuttal:

(below the fold)

In last weeks Beaverton Valley Times, XXXX XXXX from West Slope discussed his concern and discomfort with the 10 Commandments being disallowed in courthouses around America. XXXX went on to say that "our founding fathers built the constitution around these 10 rules that consist of mostly common sense."

I agree with XXXX that the 10 Commandments are a series of very common sense rules that are a good idea to live by. They are not, however, the foundations of US government nor the US Constitution.

James Madison (one of the main Constitutional framers) and Thomas Jefferson both argued for the Constitution as based in English common law. Jefferson himself argued that American laws derive from English common law and that common law in turn owed nothing to Christianity or to the Ten Commandments:

". . . we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta [1215 CE], which terminates the period of the common law...and commences that of the statute law.... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century.  But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.... Here, then, was a space of about two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.... If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law....We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is....Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England?  We may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.” (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.  From Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed.,The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XIV, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp. 85-97.)

The 10 Commandments, while being good rules to live by, are wholly religious. It's a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the doctrine of separation of church/state, also embraced by Jefferson. This has been consistently upheld by our US Supreme Court.

The argument that we should "look away" or "ignore" the posting of the 10 Commandments is unreasonable, from my point of view. Should we allow people to be naked in public and ask those who are offended to merely "look away" or "ignore" them?

It's our job as citizens to know and understand our rights, priviledges and limits as citizens. Sometimes it takes more than common sense. Sometimes it requires us to delve deeply into these issues and understand their complexities and realities. Our founders made these decisions for very important reasons. Reasons that today are more important than ever.

Carla XXXX
(location withheld)

Posted by Carla at 06:36 PM |

Carla's education

Last week I asked those individuals who are against gay marriage to explain it to me. It's very difficult for me as a moral individual with strong progressive principles to understand why there would be such an aversion to equal rights and priviledges for our gay citizens.

85 comments are listed under that thread. I've read through them several times. I was especially looking for the thoughtful and reasoned comments from each anti gay marriage advocate who posted.

Most of the comments appeared to me to be from individuals who have no problem with gay marriage and were trying to come up with a guess or an assumption as to why some folks are opposed to gay marriage. I suppose that's because Kevin and I attend to attract moderate to liberal readers (I think) and from what I can tell those individuals tend to not have such an aversion to gays marrying.

From what I have gleaned, the general reasons appear to be:

(See the rest under the fold)

*Marriage is the only proper context for sexual activity. Same sex couples engaged in sexual activity are too much for the majority heterosexual community to visualize and accept. Therefore gay marriage cannot be sanctioned by the majority hetero community.

*There is a distrust of gays with children. Marriage is the proper vessel for raising children, as it were. If gays were to be given recognized marital sanctions, children would be in danger of being raised by a gay couple who would molest the child or treat them improperly.

There was also a third reason that crept up...which I felt didn't really address the aversion to gay marriage. Some commentors included the decisions of judiciary at the local level which allowed gay marriages to be recognized as legal. In my opinion, this is an extension of the root aversion to gay marriage, not the root itself.

Having read all of these things it appears to me to boil down to one thing: Prejudice. It's all based on feeling...not reason. There is no reason based explanation (at least expressed here) as to why gays shouldn't be able to marry AND raise a family.

To my knowledge, no credible study exists that says gays cannot raise children that are just as healthy and well balanced as those raised by a heterosexual couple.

I'm heterosexual and I have no desire to have mental images of gays engaging in sexual activity. My personal discomfort shouldn't trump another individual's rights.

In terms of the judiciary, the "activist judge" meme is garbage, in my opinion. The job of judges is to interpet the law and rule accordingly. In regions where gays were being afforded the right to legally marry, state and local laws were vague or strictly required rights to be afforded to all citizens. What's being shoved down the throats of the citizenry now are laws which make marriage the providence of heterosexuals, not vice versa.

I'm really disappointed by my findings here. I generally have hope for humankind that we can do what's right by people. After having gone through this exercise, my hopes are a bit dashed.

Posted by Carla at 12:30 PM |

Ashcroft reveals his inner fascist

Herr Ashcroft expressed his displeasure with the Founding Fathers by lashing out at federal judges on Friday.

"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war."

What Ashcroft is venting about here is the courts not passively acquiescing to the Bush administrations attempted end-run around the Constitution by keeping prisoners in Gitmo Bay, Cuba instead of holding them here on American soil, so as to avoid having to comply with the Constitution.

As anyone who didn't sleep thru civics class in high school knows, the Founding Fathers quite deliberately divided power between the President, the legislature, and the courts. And they also deliberately gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which it enshrines.

Herr Ashcroft went on to vent, "Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people."

Again, as anyone who didn't sleep thru civics class knows, the Founding Fathers deliberately didn't make the courts accountable to the people. That the Attorney General of the United States would so openly argue against the very principles upon which this country was founded, and clearly with the presumption that "we the people" are too stupid to grasp any of it... is truly disturbing and bodes ill for the future of this nation if it isn't forcefully rebutted.

(cross-posted at Indie Castle)

Posted by Kevin at 10:24 AM |

November 13, 2004

Hitchens finally loses it

Christopher Hitchens argues that Bush's election win is a victory for secularists.

Maybe Hitch should have a chat with Arlen Specter.

Posted by Carla at 05:44 PM |

Cheney off

Sometimes ya just gotta let off a little steam.

Posted by Carla at 05:35 PM |

One reason why I'm still an Indie

In Washington, Indiana, Ohio, Florida and other states there are problems with ballots. In some places more votes were cast than registered voters could have cast. In others questionable ballots are poised to be thrown out or have already been thrown out. What do the DNC and RNC do in response? They selectively challenge procedures for counting votes based on whether doing so will benefit their political party or not. Which is precisely what we saw in 2000 too.

To my way of looking at it this is a moral issue. Central to our entire system of government is the will of the people as expressed by our votes. Any attempt to bump up the vote total of one political party or to suppress the vote total of the other political party is to subvert justice in the most fundamental way imaginable, from my point of view. Yet that is precisely what I see happening in this two-party system.

Just once I would really love to see a politician stand up and fight for every vote to be counted regardless of whether she/he stands to benefit from it. But time after time, case after case I see both major parties starting from a default mode which cares nothing about the will of the people unless it'll benefit that party.

What I see time after time is selective legal challenges designed to benefit the party bringing the challenge. The only time the electoral challenge seems to get broadened to include all votes is under popular pressure or media pressure. But that never seems to be the default mode for either the DNC or the RNC. And to be perfectly blunt about this... I see that default mode as inherently unAmerican. Thus I remain an Indie.

Posted by Kevin at 09:18 AM |

1-2-3 what are we fighting for?

and it's 5-6-7 open up the Pearly Gates, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die!

While Falluja burns, Mosul is in chaos. From Juan Cole:

Az-Zaman reports that telephone calls with residents of Mosul reveal that the guerrillas who took control of the city's streets the day before yesterday have burned all the police stations in the city and have released from jails all the criminals that had been incarcerated in them. In the center of Mosul, eyewitnesses said, the offices of government service agencies and economic targets had been set ablaze. A number of shops were attacked and/or looted.

Armed men roamed the streets and manned checkpoints between city quarters. Mosque preachers called on Mosul residents to flood into the streets to protect their quarters and government offices and shops. The main streets seemed deserted. American troops had withdrawn from the center of the city, but maintained control of bridges.

All signs of Iraqi national guardsmen and police had disappeared. The police chief of Ninevah province resigned (other reports say he was fired by the Allawi government).

So what happens when we "secure" Falluja and go to Mosul? Will we announce it for weeks in advance so that the insurgency leaders can leave and go back to Falluja? Or will they go to another city?

Other reports coming out of the region say that the Iraqi forces fighting alongside Americans are now mostly Kurds. The Kurds were already our allies before we invaded. If this is true, it would be very troubling. It would be a definite sign that we have lost the Sunni and Shia Iraqi population.

Elections in January, eh?

Cole also notes a bit of irony:

it is hard to avoid observing that al-Baghdadi castigated Bush's administration as "fundamentalist" and "right-wing." When even the Sunni Salafis of Mosul consider you too fundamentalist and right-wing, you have probably gone too far.

Gee Juan...ya think?

Posted by Carla at 08:52 AM |

November 12, 2004

Fanning the liberal flames

My afternoon commute today was filled with the gravely, deep toned monologues of Air America's Randi Rhodes. Normally I only catch snippets of Randi's program in my car. But today due to an exceptionally bad afternoon traffic jam, she held me captive for more than the usual segment or two.

Randi is a distributor of red meat for liberals. She gives us a place to put our anger and frustration. I have to admit that I can't listen to her daily because it's exhausting (I don't know how Limbaugh/Savage/Coulter listeners do it. Getting one's anger or outrage stoked all the time is sensory overload, IMO) I do find her show extremely informative and interesting..especially when she gets on a roll.

And today, Randi was definitely on a roll.

(more below the fold)

Today's show may have been a repeat from earlier in the week, I'm not sure. But Randi had her finger on the pulse of the apparent voting irregularities throughout the country, specifically Ohio and Florida.

It's my understanding that irregularities are common in most every election. Randi is gathering evidence to attempt to prove that the outcome in some of the counties was statistically impossible, including places where more votes were recorded than actual residents.

Randi isn't the only one looking in to the voting irregularities. Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (Libertarian and Green Party candidates, respectively) are filing a formal demand for a recount of the Presidential ballots in Ohio.
The Kerry Campaign is scrutinizing the votes as well, but publicly say they don't expect it to change the outcome of the election.

I'm on the fence on this issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the voting in some of these places was hacked into. But it's going to be a huge hurdle to get the vote recounted or scrutinized to the point that Kerry wins. And for me, that would be the only reason to really vest energy into it.

Posted by Carla at 04:42 PM |

November 11, 2004

Running outside the reality based community

It would seem that those prolifers who voted for Bush are running outside the reality based community:

We look at the fruits of political policies more than words. We analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but we found enough data to identify trends. Our findings are disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging

1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue downward. Instead, the opposite happened.

Women have abortions for many reasons, not the least of which is that they believe they can't afford another child. Lack of a reliable mate and lack of proper healthcare (for the child and themselves) are also cited factors.

This presents a paradox for those individuals who are both socially and economically conservative. Healthcare is increasingly in need of government funding. The private sector is unable or unwilling to find ways to fill the need. Further, lack of steady job growth (especially including well paying jobs) contribute to lack of family stability and contribute to women who have unreliable mates. This lack of investment by the government is spearheaded by conservatives.

These policies however undermine their social agenda. Abortion is on the rise..and it can be causally linked to conservative economic policies.

At what point do prolifers take a serious look at how these policies effect their pet cause? Or do they at all?

Posted by Carla at 01:15 PM |

That monkey is still on Scopes' back

The Scopes Trial is alive and well, and still living in Georgia.

Kev is the expert on the evolution/creation debate in this duo, not me. Kev also argues for the side that I would likely not...which is "intelligent design" aka creationism. I'm saying this as an excuse to duck the inevitable debate in the comments on this. I'm not studied up enough on the minutae of both sides to engage in a serious back and forth.

Whether or not you believe evolution is folly or fact, it's the accepted scientific norm. How exactly do folks in Georgia (or other states/school districts trying to follow this same line) expect their future biology/chemistry/medicine majors to survive in their chosen craft without an acceptance of their most basic theories?

Posted by Carla at 10:07 AM |

Day is done...gone the sun...

all is well, safely rest, God is near

On this Veteran's Day, we remember those men and women who've given their life in service to our nation, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thank you.

Posted by Carla at 09:54 AM |

November 10, 2004

Put your right foot in...take your right foot out...

Now that I've established my nonevil, nonCommunist, nonterrorist sympathizing ways, it's time to make one thing perfectly clear: I'm a liberal and I'm not going to move to the center.

I believe deeply in liberal values and principles. And I'm not out of touch with most of Americans. 55 million people voted for Kerry. It's a stretch and a half to say that all of us are out of touch.

Some might point to the Senate races, where Dems took some losses. Point away, I say. Look closer at two of the Republican candidates that won some of those races:

Let's start with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. This is a man who articulates a belief that lesbianism is so rampant in the Southern parts of his state that they can only allow one girl in the bathroom at a time in the high schools. Huh? Coburn also believes gays are the greatest threat we face to American freedom.

And then there is Jim DeMint of South Carolina. DeMint was forced to apologize for saying that unwed pregnant teachers shouldn't work in public schools.

These are your new US Senators. Being out of touch with these two can in no way be considered a bad thing.

Posted by Carla at 02:11 PM |

November 09, 2004

I am not an evil whore who wants to turn the US into a Communist Soddom and Gommorah

I'm getting pretty tired of being told that because I'm a liberal I am an evil, Godless wretch who would just as soon tax the electorate into oblivion while making certain the terrorists will take over the United States and force all of the Christians to convert to some form of Islamic Communism.

I'm not evil and I'm not a Communist. I'm not out to make sure there's an aborted fetus in every garage. I'm not recruiting for NAMBLA. I don't want to ban the Bible and I'm not going to be using the US flag as a substitute for kindling. I don't want to shut down the US military.

I'm not trying to get your kids to become gay (or straight). I am not trying to steal your money so that a lazy person can drive a Cadillac and eat at Wendy's. I don't worship Satan or Tom Cruise. I have no objection to people placing Nativities on their front lawn or if they believe Christ rose from the dead.

I don't want your gun. I don't want your ammo. I don't want to take away your copy of the 10 Commandments.

I'm not an elitist snob.

Please stop telling me that I'm wicked, immoral and without principles by virtue of the fact that I'm a liberal. I'm not going to take it anymore.

Posted by Carla at 07:00 PM |

Credit where credit is due

This last weekend my oldest daughter (16) flew out to Salt Lake City to attend a student conference. On the trip back home on Sunday her Delta flight had a rough landing in Boise due to heavy fog. They were one of the last flights to land until sometime Monday morning.

My daughter didn't know what to do. She had no money and was told that she couldn't spend the night at the airport. After a series of phone calls one of the student conference coordinators was able to make arrangements with an airline to put my daughter up in a hotel for the night.

Now... since she came in on Delta, it was really their burden to carry. But, they refused. Her connecting flight was Horizon Air and, even though they were under no obligation to do so, they agreed to put her up in a nearby hotel, arrange transportation and feed her. They didn't have to do this! But, they did.

So, an FYI to parents with kids flying on the West Coast... go with Horizon Air if you can. They definitely went above and beyond the call of duty for my daughter, and have more than earned the props I'm sending their way here.

Boos and hisses to Delta Air for incredibly bad customer service!

Posted by Kevin at 10:25 AM |

November 08, 2004

Explain it to me

< (via Oliver Willis)

This is a sincere and honest question...so please take it in the spirit with which it's given.

I'd really like to know what the big deal is about gay marriage. I understand that it's not "traditional". But why is that such a big deal? I'd especially like to hear from those persons who advocate for laws making such unions illegal.

I'm looking for thoughtful and intellectual points, please. And I'd appreciate it if people would keep the ad hominem out of the comments. I really don't understand why people are so foursquare against the idea of gays marrying and I'd like it explained.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Carla at 12:32 PM |

The unhealthy fantasy life of conservatives

Taxation as a noose around the neck of the American people is one of the cornerstones of conservative ideology. "Tax relief" is presented as a necessity to relieve the burden on the shoulders of the country's economy. Edward C Prescott presents it thusly:

And that brings us back to our framing question about the labor supplies of the U.S. and Europe: The bottom line is that a thorough analysis of historical data in the U.S. and Europe indicates that, given similar incentives, people make similar choices about labor and leisure. Free European workers from their tax bondage and you will see an increase in gross domestic product (oh, and you might see a pretty significant increase in gross national happiness, too). The same holds true for Americans.

Yet as Kevin noted yesterday, taxation isn't necessarily congruent to the ability of a country's economy to be competitive. In fact it can be just the opposite.

Prescott uses his piece to promote the notion that Europeans are vastly overtaxed and therefore the European labor market doesn't work as much. The theory is that Europeans (especially the French...can't let a day go by without getting a dig in against the French, yannow) won't work as much because they can't keep as much of their money...too much of it goes to taxes.

Yet five of the top 10 most competitive economies are in Europe. France is 27, which is relatively high.

Taxation as a burden is a fallacy. Taxation is part of the priviledge of living in a great nation. And when it's used toward effective government (such as Sweden and Finland) it's even more evident the "burden fallacy" erodes America's attempts toward effective government.

Posted by Carla at 11:58 AM |

November 07, 2004

Riddle me this

TaxProf Blog has an interesting post on the new OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) data on tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Here are the 5 highest tax countries:
Country..........Tax Revenue as % of GDP
1. Sweden.......50.8%
2. Denmark.....49.0%
3. Belgium.......45.8%
4. Finland.........44.9%
5. France..........44.2%

Here are the 5 lowest tax countries:
Country..........Tax Revenue as % of GDP
1. Mexico............19.5%
2. U.S.................25.4%
3. Korea.............25.5%
4. Switzerland...29.8%
5. Ireland...........30.0%

Very interesting stuff. But, what does it really tell us? If it weren't for Mexico being ranked the lowest taxed (as a % of GDP) country, one might conclude that lower tax rates equal strong, wealthy economies. But... there is the pesky issue of Mexico being the lowest taxed country on the list.

The World Economic Forum also puts out an annual ranking: Global Competitiveness Report, which is a ranking of the world's most competitive economies. Here's what it shows us:

Country Rankings 2004-2005

1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
4. Taiwan
5. Denmark
6. Norway
7. Singapore
8. Switzerland
9.Japan
10.Iceland
11.United Kingdom
12.Netherlands
13.Germany
14.Australia
15.Canada
16. UAE

Now this is interesting. Finland, the fourth highest taxed country on the OECD list is the single most competitive economy on the planet. Sweden, the very highest taxed country on the OECD data, is the third most competitive economy on the planet. Sandwiched inbetween is the good ol' U S of A, the second most competitive economy on the planet as well as the second lowest taxed as a percentage of GDP.

So, what are we to make of the incessant GOP calls for more and more tax cuts so that we can better compete in the global economy?

Enquiring minds want to know...

(Hat Tip to Rick Heller at Center Field)

Posted by Kevin at 09:37 PM |

Fjording the streams of consciousness

...I think one of the carry outs at my local grocery store has a crush on me. The last several weeks when I have a large order to ring up, this same kid rushes over to bag my groceries EVERY TIME. Even if there's someone else already started on it, he asks them to go to another checkout line to help someone else and takes over. There's at least 25 years differences in our ages (me being the old one...). I'm trying to be flattered, but somehow I'm not.

And while I'm fjording...I'd like to know what people are reading right now. I've just started The Rule of Four. It's in the spirit of The DaVinci Code, but I find the characters more compelling. When I'm finished with this book, I'll be on the lookout for some other good fiction. Suggestions?

My other indulgence this weekend has been movies. I love classic films, my favorite being John Ford's The Quiet Man. For someone who loves great classic films though, I have a lot on my list to see. I have yet to view Casablanca, The Godfather trilogy or Citizen Kane. They're on my list, however. I'd love some ideas here, too.

Lay em on me.

Posted by Carla at 04:27 PM |

Swing with me, baby

This morning I ran across a fascinating article on Swing Voters by Mark Gersh which was published in the July 25, 2004 edition of the DLC/NDOL magazine, Blue Print.

One thing that really struck me in this piece is Gersh's contention that the '96 Perot vote pulled more from Clinton than from Dole. He didn't say so in so many words, but that is the gist of it.

comparing the performance in key voter categories of the last successful Democratic presidential candidacy, Bill Clinton's in 1996, with that of Al Gore's near miss in 2000. Clinton beat Bob Dole nationally by 8 percentage points, while Gore essentially tied George W. Bush. (Clinton's percentage of the total vote only marginally exceeded Gore's, but that was attributable to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1996; had Perot not run, Clinton would have won a solid majority.)

This is interesting to me because the convention wisdom has always been that the Perot vote in both '92 and '96 hurt the GOP to the point that it propelled Clinton into office and sent him back too.

Incidently, Independents are identified as one of several key Swing Voter groups by Gersh. By comparing the Clinton vote in '96 with the Gore vote in '00, Gersh reveals some very interesting swings among various groups. He then breaks it down further by state in several key battleground states, including Oregon, where Clinton did much better than Gore did. All with the goal of trying to help the Kerry campaign identify where to focus their strategy.

Here's how Gersh breaks down Oregon:

I would say that with respect to Oregon, some of the lessons must have been learned because Kerry did much better here than Gore did. It should be noted here that the "High School" block is voters with only a HS diploma, not High School aged voters.

Also interesting is the "Ventura Effect" Gersh cites in Minnesota, which seems to have dissipated because Kerry did quite well in Minnesota compared to Gore in 2000.

But it's that Perot vote that interests me because it defies what I've always heard about the Perot vote. Gersh doesn't really explain it directly. The only other thing he says which seems to address it is this:

At a time when partisan polarization has disguised a growing trend toward voter alienation from both parties, it is important to note that Clinton carried self-identified independents by 8 points, while Gore lost them by 2. That reflects Clinton's superior ability to cast himself as a candidate above his party.

As someone who was an Independent thru both Clinton administrations, and went Indie precisely because of a sense of alienation from both parties, I think what Gersh says here makes a great deal of sense.

In 1992 I initially supported Perot. And that largely on the basis of the whole "reform" message which I was keen on. But, after Perot talked about "black-suited" government agents crawling up his lawn during his daughter's wedding, I quickly abandoned Perot as a genuine nutcase! I then switched to backing Clinton, who I ended up voted for. And I must say that I felt comfortable voting for Clinton on the basis of my desire to see governmental reform. As Gersh says, I very much viewed Clinton as being a candidate above his own party. Significantly moreso than I did Gore in 2000.

In 1996 I supported Dole and ended up voting for him. But, that had more to do with my longtime fondness for Senator Dole as a moderate, sensible politician than anything else. I had like Dole long before I knew who Clinton was. And that carried thru so that I was comfortable choosing Dole over Clinton in '96. Perot was definitely a non-factor for me after the "black suited" agent quip. So, I can't personally identify with what Gersh says about the '96 Perot vote drawing more from Clinton.

I'm curious what our readers have to say on this.

Posted by Kevin at 12:39 PM |

The wise man builds his house upon a rock

and the foolish man builds his house upon the sand

As we're all well aware, Republicans at the national level had a good day on Tuesday. But here in Oregon, the state GOP is on life support.

How did the party of Packwood and Hatfield get this way? A Republican Party that used to be the home of civil rights advocates and public accomodation legislation has become the anti-tax, anti-gay, religious extremism party. The result? Democrats at the local level had a virtual clean sweep on Tuesday.

Is this isolated to Oregon? Apparently not. Democrats around the country made significant gains at the local level.

The Republicans are on a long, slow, foolish march to the far right. Liberals and Democrats have desperately worked to compromise and move to the middle..even to the far right sometimes in a vain hope that they would get some reciprocation. That isn't working and at the local level liberals woke up to that reality long ago. Just like the conservatives of the 60s and 70s, liberals are building the foundation upon the rock of local races, establishing themselves and rebuilding for a national resurgence.

And so it begins.

Posted by Carla at 11:24 AM |

November 06, 2004

In my little corner of the globe, liberals are taking back their goverment.

When I moved here in 1995 an election was underway. Democrats lost that election locally in a lot of ways. The Oregon House and Senate came under Republican control. Gordon Smith (R) defeated Tom Bruggere (D) for Packwood's Senate seat and many of Oregon's local enviornmental iniatives went down to defeat. Oregon had also passed property tax iniatives, changing the structure of school funding to require a supermajority in order to pass a tax increase. In short, it sucked to be a liberal in Oregon at that time.

But times, they are a-changing. In 2000, Democrats and Republicans had a tie in the Senate. Last Tuesday, Democrats regained control of the Oregon Senate. In my county, Democrats won across the board:

In Tuesday’s election, state Rep. Mark Hass, a Raleigh Hills Democrat in the House District 27 race, handily won re-election over Republican challenger Gabe Schomus, 66 percent to 30 percent. Libertarian Christi Feldewerth of Beaverton received 3 percent of the vote.

State Sen. Ryan Deckert, a Beaverton Democrat, also easily defeated Republican Jay Omdahl, 64 percent to 36 percent, in the Senate District 14 contest.

State Sen. Ginny Burdick, a Southwest Portland Democrat, also won re-election in the new Senate District 18 that for the first time included Tigard and King City. Burdick defeated Republican John Wight, 62 percent to 34 percent. Libertarian Roger F. Garcia received 3 percent of the vote.

With the addition of three Senate seats, Democrats now will have an 18-to-12 margin. It’s the first time in nearly a decade that Democrats will control one of the Legislature’s two chambers.

In House District 29, which includes Forest Grove and Cornelius, Democrat Chuck Riley defeated Republican Mary Gallegos, 48 percent to 41 percent. Libertarian Tom Cox received 9.5 percent of the vote.

Other Beaverton-area incumbents also won re-election. State Rep. Brad Avakian, a Democrat, had no opposition in the House District 34 seat. Rep. Jeff Barker, an Aloha Democrat, defeated his Pacific Green Party challenger, Steve Geiger, 80 percent to 16 percent, in the House District 28 race.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, a Northwest Portland Democrat, defeated two challengers, Libertarian David E. Long and Constitution Party candidate Thomas E. Humphrey Jr. in the House District 33 contest. Greenlick received 75 percent of the total vote.

One of the key races of note is the Gallegos/Riley race from Forest Grove. This includes some of the most conservative pockets of the Oregon electorate. And these aren't necessarily the Wall Street conservatives. These are religious conservatives. This definitely bucks the national trend.

How are progressives winning elections in these very conservative regions? Part of it may be redistricting that took place after the 2000 census. But that doesn't explain the Gallegos/Riley race.

So what was the key? This area of Oregon was huge for Howard Dean. We love Howard. People in this area picked up on Dean's model of grasssroots activism at the local level. This morphed into "Carry Oregon", which worked successfully to carry Oregon for John Kerry and for Democrats.

Carry Oregon kept everything local. House party fundraisers for Kerry sent their money to Carry Oregon, which kept the funds in Oregon to help in this state. It went to Kerry's race AND to other races in Oregon to help progressives and Democrats win. It helped a region of Oregon that could go for Republicans go for progressives and Democrats instead.

As Kevin reminded me today, the old saying that "all politics is local" is so true. Carry Oregon implemented the Dean model and created a successful strategy. I'm hopeful that progressive campaigns around the country look toward it for their races as well.

Posted by Carla at 10:13 AM |

November 05, 2004

What constitutes a "mandate"?

Cheney says that Bush won a "mandate" with his election victory. Bush himself talks about the "will of the people" and "political capital."

Here's how the numbers break down:

Eligible voters: 200 million

Number who voted: 120 million.

Number who voted for Bush: 59.5 million.

That means that President Bush won re-election with the votes of less than 30% of the eligible voters. Yet his policy choices will affect 100% of the eligible voters.

Where's the mandate?

Don't get me wrong here. If the situation were reversed and Kerry had prevailed with similiar numbers, no doubt there would have been talk of a Kerry mandate from Democrats. And no matter which way the elections go, the partisans buy into the whole mandate rhetoric.

I've read several times over the years about how much higher voter participation is in other democracies in the world. And yet here we sit in our myopic world talking about near record levels of participation when in fact only 60% of those eligible to do so participated.

Where's the mandate?

Posted by Kevin at 08:26 PM |

No more compromise

When I see pieces like this, I know that liberals cannot compromise. Not with people who write things like this:

The left bewitches with its potions and elixirs, served daily in its strongholds of academe, Hollywood and old media. It vomits upon the morals, values and traditions we hold sacred: God, family and country. As we learned Tuesday, it is clear the left holds the majority of Americans, the majority of us, in contempt.

This is the moral scum that we are to deal with in the aftermath of this election. This man literally oozes with the contempt that he accuses others of having. His "sacred values" worship no Christ-like God figure of Biblical times. But a monster who sucks off the money of his followers and his own greed and lust for power. A man who rejects knowledge and spurns academics.

I wish major newspapers would print more pieces like this from evangelicals in positions of power. Whenever I read James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or something like what this guy wrote, it reminds me that I can't stop fighting men like this. Men who reject the principles of integrity, honesty and equality.

If Heaven indeed exists...these men wouldn't be fit to shine St. Peter's shoes.

Posted by Carla at 01:47 PM |

And let me guide you to the purple rain

Prince

Silver linings are the ones we usually look for amongst the clouds. But apparently the linings from Tuesday's clouds aren't silver, but purple:

via Boing Boing (thanks to Donald for the link)

Also in that purple lining are some interesting statistics on voting trends in the battleground states. Democrats gained more states in the partisan index than did the GOP (via MyDD):

States Moving From pro-RNC Partisan Index to pro-DNC Partisan Index
2004 2000
IA DNC +2.1 RNC +0.2
NV DNC +0.4 RNC +4.1
NH DNC +4.2 RNC +1.8
NM DNC +1.3 RNC +0.5
OH DNC +0.5 RNC +4.0
OR DNC +8.0 RNC +0.3
WI DNC +3.4 RNC +0.3

This trend continues through other states. See the link for more.

So while we lost the overall, we made some important gains. And with the incredible infrastructure and energy put together by the grassroots liberals of this country it will get better.

Posted by Carla at 12:22 PM |

Gimme Dean

Having loosed my sackcloth and ashes and finally come through the haze of my flu induced brain mush (for the most part), I'm ready to put my Deaniac hat back in place.

About a year ago, Howard Dean had begun to give liberals their voice back. He and his team figured out how to do excite the grassroots and how to debate the values of progressives. After the value laden fiasco votes of last Tuesday, I believe it's time for Howard to take the reins of the Democratic National Committee.

It's obvious that people aren't looking for an issue based (let alone reality based) set of perceptions to vote on. Those that voted for Bush didn't do so in general because they were worried about the economy or terrorism or Iraq or healthcare. They did it for a set of percieved values.

Dean (with the help of people like George Lakoff) have found the importance of the need for progressives to articulate their values. And just what are they?

Progressive core values are:

*Caring and responsibility, carried out with strength

*Protection, fulfillment in life, fairness

*Freedom, opportunity, prosperity

*Community, service, cooperation

*Trust, honesty, open communication

These fall in line behind the progressive principles of equity, equality, Democracy, Government for a better future, ethical business practices and a foreign policy that reflects our values.

Dean gave voice to those values and principles. I can think of noone more suited to lead liberals, progressives and Democrats.

Posted by Carla at 11:59 AM |

November 04, 2004

Mo nails one

I have been a critic of Maureen Dowd in the last year...feeling she'd lost her ability to write columns that give proper perspective and were too formulaic.

Today she nails one.

Reaching out to Red Staters isn't priority one. And we can't win by doing it.

Update: As an illustration of the uphill climb that liberals have, Kos has a story about a woman who is pregnant with two kids, recently divorced by a military husband, working a job for $6 an hour and driving a broken down car while paying $2.15 a gallon for gas.

She voted for Bush because of "family values".

I understand that people get upset when those of us who supported Kerry think Bush voters are stupid...but c'mon.

Posted by Carla at 09:38 AM |

Mourning has broken

The mourning period has ended but unfortunately the good fight will have to wait for a day or two, at least for me.

I seem to have contracted a very nasty flu bug. I've been out of commission since yesterday afternoon with a gnarly headache and I can't seem to keep anything down. I'm only out of bed now because my brain feels stir crazy in bed for so long.

I do have lots of thoughts and ideas swirling around in my little brain. Apparently even in the throes of nausea my brain still doesn't shut down.

I'd like to know where everyone sees the 2nd Bush term going. And where the Democrats need to go too.

Posted by Carla at 07:51 AM |

November 03, 2004

The Great Divide

Exit polling showed that compared to the 2000 election Bush lost ground among college educated voters. And he gained ground with women without a college education. And the recent PIPA survey found an pretty fundamental disconnect between what Bush's supporters believe about a wide variety of issues and what the facts actually are. And both pre-election polls and exit polls showed a simple majority believing that the country is on the wrong path.

All morning I've been pondering what this says about America and more importantly where the root problems are. It seems to me that lack of information isn't the problem. Lack of truthful, objective information is. But it's more than just that. There has to be a desire to know the objective truth. And that is what seems to be so sorely lacking. Party loyalists knowingly accept white lies as objective truth because they want to believe the worst about "the other guy" in order to justify their own preferences to themselves.

While I've always been partial to the GOP's philosophy that schools, especially primary and secondary schools, place too much emphasis on social engineering at the expense of the so-called "three R's." It seems to me that the single greatest problem with our schools and indeed with our society is the apparent lack of knowledge on how to think critically. Which is to say, the ability to analyze a given assertion and find logical fallacies within it that reveal the hidden prejudices or agendas of the source. If I tell you that I am the fabled Man In The Moon you're not going to believe me. W