Reality Testing Yubbledew: Election '04 to Katrina

Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are not satisfied with the Bush administration's response to hurricane Katrina. Some are saying that the response was so bad it's caused some sort of crisis of confidence in the ability of our government to do the right thing and protect American values and interests in times of great stress.

Of course, I'm thrilled that my fellow Americans are finally waking up to the fact that this administration is not only incompetent but nearly pathologically focused on its own agenda and interests at the expense of what's best for the American people and the rest of the world. Thank goodness people are finally waking up!

But, um, how is it that an administration can start a war based on lies, send thousands of American soldiers to their deaths, be responsible for killing thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and increase hostility against the U.S. all around the world because of all this aggression—how is it that this administration could do all this and still win the 2004 election!? And why now, after the tragic lack of response to hurricane Katrina, are Americans finally saying “enough!”?

I think I understand this apparent mystery, but I'm not sure. First, a little psychoanalysis for you:

When people of normal intelligence behave in a way that rejects what they experience as real, it requires some explanation. Psychoanalytic theory assumes that inadequacy in reality-testing fulfills a psychological function, usually the preservation of an attitude basic to the individual's makeup. If inadequate reality-testing threatens to undermine such [a] functionally significant attitude, it is avoided.

Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning With Unconscious Racism, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 317, 332 (Jan. 1987).

This is basically what I said after the 2004 presidential election—the horror of what the Bush administration had done in its first term was so great it created a sort of paralysis on the part of those who could sort of see what was going on. If there's a silver lining in the federal government's completely inept response to hurricane Katrina, it's that a majority of Americans finally became—at least for a few days—so shocked, so appalled, so horrified that the defensive mechanism that had previously forced them to deny how awful this administration is turned around and urged them to demand some accountability.

Bush's approval rating is now at an all-time low. How long will it be before our overly-developed psychological coping mechanisms overcome our critical faculties once more? Bush has now promised to spend “unprecedented amounts” of federal money to help rebuild the region affected by the hurricane. Can he buy his way out of this? And do we really want that, knowing that this administration has demonstrated that its number one spending priority seems to be to transfer as much federal money as possible into the hands of private corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel? In addition, it has already said that workers hired in the rebuilding effort will have to work for substandard wages. From where I sit, Bush's speech last night can do nothing to change the fact that this administration doesn't care about the average American; it cares about the corporate American, the only “person” it will ever love.

Be that as it may, the question remains: Why did Katrina wake a majority of Americans up when the Iraq war didn't? Does it have anything to do w/coping and repression? Was the horror of the lack of response to Katrina somehow greater than the horror of waging a war of aggression based on lies? If so, what would that say about our country? Or is it simply that the horror of the lack of response to Katrina was so immediate and obvious and unambiguous, whereas people were able to construct some sort of plausible rationale for accepting Bush's war?

Posted 09:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Flip-Flopper-In-Chief?

So I'm researching this damned DOMA business and I'm reminded that in February 2004 Yubbledew called for a Constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage. He used very strong language to let us know he meant business:

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? I guess this should be a major part of his agenda in his second term, then, shouldn't it? But wait, I've heard absolutely nothing about it since last November's presidential election. Have I missed something, or is “the union of a man and a woman” no longer so important? Don't we care anymore about the welfare of children and the stability of society?

If I was cynical I'd say that Karl Rove timed that February 2004 announcement perfectly to get Christian fundamentalists all worked up in a frenzy so that gay marriage would be a big “values” issue in the November election. That would make Yubbledew's call for a Constitutional amendment seem pretty hollow and manipulative, wouldn't it?

Good thing I'm not cynical.

Posted 08:07 PM | Comments (9)

Shut Out

Whoa. I just got out of jail! Not. Had you going there for a second, though, didn't I? Ok, maybe not. Anyway, as expected, I didn't get arrested or have any cop trouble. I walked. A lot. And carried a sign all over. Someone gave me a sign from Not In Our Name that said “Not Our President!” so I carried it around all day. That was find during the anti-war march, but once I got down around Pennsylvania Avenue and the big parade route, the fur coats and cowboy hats started telling me I was wrong, he just got sworn in, and if he wasn't my president I should leave the country, yadda yadda yadda. Really only about a half dozen people actually said anything; many more just gave me dirty looks. But they were right. He is my president. The part of the sign I liked was the middle (“NO”) and bottom, which said “Not In Our Name.” That seemed like a good message for today: I don't want these things (war, privatization of social security, torture, flouting the Geneva Conventions, destroying the environment, doing nothing to fight poverty and everything possible to make the rich richer, etc—I don't want these things to be done in my name. I know that they are being done, so the only thing I felt able to do today was express my disagreement with them, and I think my sign did that. Anyway, I marched and chanted and it was good. The parade route was as I figured—locked down. They broke Penn Ave. into “zones” so if you entered at one checkpoint you couldn't move down the street more than a block or two. This meant that if you wanted to enter the “protest zone” (at 4th and Penn next to the Canadian Embassy in John Marshall Park), you had to enter.... where? I couldn't figure it out. You certainly couldn't get there from the 14th street checkpoint, and the 7th street checkpoint was shut down when I was there (police going nuts, pepper spray, full riot gear with sticks drawn, etc.), and I couldn't get there from the 3rd or 2nd street checkpoint (near the D.C. courthouse), either. So as far as I was concerned, the parade was a shut out. I could have hung out behind the bleachers somewhere to watch it go by, but I wasn't really interested in seeing the parade, I was interested in being part of protest that the parade would see. Anyway, after walking around for four hours, I was hungry and tired and decided I'd just head home. I didn't want to spend one damn dime today, so rather than buy a hot dog and keep trying, I just headed home. Oh, I did have one fun exchange with some men in suits and trench coats. After I got through the security checkpoint at 14th street, I had my camera in my hand and I turned to take a picture of the security screeners. As I did so, a hand grabbed me and turned me around, telling me I couldn't take pictures of the security. So I said, “why not?” Suit: It's the rules. Me: What rules? Suit: The rules. Me: Who made those rules? Suit: (confused pause) The secret service. Me: Are you secret service? Suit: (more confused pause, looking at suit partner who is no help) I, uh, I'm working for the secret service, yeah. I really didn't want any trouble, but the guy just seemed so clueless and shocked to even be asked any questions I could hardly resist. Still, I was about to go on my way when a riot-gear wearing law enforcer stepped right up to me with German Shepard lunging at me on the end of its leash. “There's no reason for you to be taking any pictures of security,” the guy shouts in my face. My first thought was, 'well, actually, there's a good reason for me to take pictures of this and that is to document any potential violation of my rights.' But hey, I wasn't going to argue with the riot gear and the big doggie, so I just said “ok” and walked off. Not that exciting, really. It gave me the distinct feeling that it would be pretty easy to get arrested around there, but like I said, that wasn't really why I was there. So that's it. G.W. Bush has been inaugurated for a second time after being actually elected for the first time. Hoo-freakin-ray. Pictures here. UPDATE: I finally got through to the DC Indymedia site, where you can read a blow-by-blow of their view of the day, a sort of editorializing summary of things, and more details about the pepper spray party the police hosted downtown. Apparently a group of “anarchists” got a little rowdy around Adams Morgan early this morning, as well. NPR is reporting about 16 arrests, windows broken in businesses and a bank, etc. UPDATE II: A “mainstream media” article about counter-inaugural activities around the country.

Posted 10:56 PM | Comments (2)

It's On

So this is the inauguration day that I still can't believe is happening. Check out these 34 scandals from the first four years of Bush II (and another take on that theme), then explain to me why this man is being inaugurated today. There are many reasons, I know; unfortunately, none of them give me much hope for the future of the U.S. or the world. But hey, I'm used to being wrong, so here's hoping that I'm “the opposite of correct” (as Prof. CrimPro is fond of saying) about how much damage the Bush administration will do in the next four years. That said, this isn't a fun time to be in D.C., what with all the men in cowboy boots and tuxedos topped with cowboy hats and the women running around in their full length furs—on the metro, no less! Last night I had to stand still for the whole ride up the escalator from the metro b/c I was surrounded by these people who didn't understand or give a damn about escalator etiquette. I wanted to shout “stand right! walk left!” until they got out of the way, but instead I just stood there and listened to them talk about how great this whole inauguration party is turning out. Yay yay. So I can see why some people are going to Vegas for the weekend. There's so many stimuli there to overwhelm your senses maybe you could just forget about what's happening here. But I won't be in Vegas. Instead, I'm heading downtown to see what new and dubiously constitutional ways the D.C. Metro Police, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Capitol Police, etc. have dreamed up to make sure protesters stay invisible. GW is closed today (as is most of downtown D.C.) so instead of doing homework, I'll be observing what passes for representative democracy in action. I took some photos of the pre-inaugural set up in the last few days, and I'll be taking some more photos of the actual event (at least what I can see of it) today. If I don't post later today, please come bail me out of jail.* If you haven't already, you might want to check out the Counter-Inaugural 2005 site to see what's going on along those lines. * I'm kidding. I have no plans to be involved with the police except through the lens of a camera.

Posted 08:54 AM | Comments (3)

Bush Gives World Finger, Again

Last Wednesday the U.S. officially gave up the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After at least one and a half years of searching, the search teams found nothing. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said:

“After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country,” Pelosi said in a written statement. “Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all.”

That's all true; it's just a restatement of what the Bush administration has already admitted. Pelosi called on President Bush “ to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war.” Here's a better idea: Instead of demanding an explanation (which has been a fruitless demand for nearly two years now), why not demand impeachment? Presidents have obviously faced impeached proceedings for far, far, far, far, far less. Oh, but no need, because the president “knows” he did the right thing:

“Nothing's changed in terms of his views when it comes to Iraq, what he has previously stated and what you have previously heard,” McClellan said. “The president knows that by advancing freedom in a dangerous region we are making the world a safer place.”

Awesome. I'm so glad the president “knows” this, despite all evidence to the contrary (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that “advancing freedom in a dangerous region” is what the U.S. is doing). His administration's own statements tell the story of how much reality matters to them. But accountability? Fuggedaboudit. Anyway, it's already taken care of. The president says so:

“We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections,” Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. “The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.”

An “accountability moment.” Beautiful. I mean, as infuriating as this statement sounds, I hope Bush is right. Unfortunately, I fear there are going to be many more “accountability moments” in the years to come (some of them may also be called “blowback” or “unintended consequences of absolutely criminal foreign policy decisions”), but for the world's sake, I hope I'm wrong.

Posted 09:20 AM | Comments (1)

Counter-Inaugural

FYI, if you'll be in Washington, D.C. for the Counter-Inaugural Protests on January 20:

The J20 Legal Support Team is pleased to announce the launch of your support website www.J20LEGAL.org. This website includes our legal manual in both .pdf format for easy download and reading as well as .html format in case you need to read the manual at a computer in which you cannot download or print the manual. We also have Affinity Group Support Forms, Police Misconduct Forms, and will soon have a Know Your Rights handbill. The front page of the website will be updated as we add more information to the website and when news related to the protests is reported. Do not forget to check the website later in the day of January 20 to find out about jail and court support if people are arrested. And after the protests, check back for updates regarding court dates for arrestees and how arrestees can join a list serve and communicate with each other.

When I mention stuff like this, people generally ask: What's to protest? Short of convincing evidence that the election was stolen, some people think protesting an inauguration is pointless, or sour grapes, or even somehow disrespectful of our democracy and electoral system. Maybe. There's also the argument that protest is patriotic and a vital part of our democratic system, that the electoral process is broken (see, e.g., gerrymandering), and that the 49% of voters who did not support Bush/Cheney last November have a right (perhaps even an obligation) to voice their continuing opposition to this administration's policies and ideology. Whatever your thoughts, here are a few more counter-inaugural resources:

• Turn Your Back On Bush, a group that plans to do just that.
• Counter Inaugural, an effort supported by Billionaires for Bush, CODE Pink, and many others. Includes information on events both in D.C. and elsewhere.
• A.N.S.W.E.R., the anti-war juggernaut. The theme of their activities is “End the Occupation of iraq, Bring the Troops Home Now!”
• Not In Our Name, another war protest, which also lists other actions nationwide.
• The DC Anti-War Network, with “Rise Against Bush, Shine for A Peaceful Tomorrow

If you still aren't sure what to protest, how about the fact that the cheapest tickets to the parade are now going for $150!? Is that for real? It looks like yes; if you're connected or acted early you could get free tickets from your federal representative, but at this point, it's pay or... What? I don't see any information for those of us who aren't going to have tickets? I won't be surprised if many of the 23 state (as in sponsored by gov't in some way and as opposed to private) police agencies in D.C. will have plenty of chain link pens at the ready for our inaugural pleasure. All the security and hoo-ha for the inauguration is costing D.C. nearly $12 million; it sounds like that's on top of millions being spent by the federal gov't. More information (not about costs, obviously) is available from the Joint Congressional Committee On Inaugural Ceremonies.

Posted 12:09 PM

CounterInaugural Constitutional Issue

A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), one of the big anti-war organizers, applied for a permit to occupy space along the route of the presidential inaugural parade on January 20th, but apparently the National Park Service is stalling on that permit. According to A.N.S.W.E.R., the Park Service is giving permits to Bush supporters first, and if there's anything left over at the end, maybe protesters will get it. Hmm. Sounds like a bit of a problem with “constitutionalizing the gatekeeper,” meaning making sure that the permit process is fair, equitable, and consistent with the demands of the First Amendment. According to “Constitutional Law in a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)” by Jerome A. Barron, C. Thomas Dienes, “[b]road delegations of authority, even when cast as content-neutral, indirect controls, invite censorship of unpopular views” (427). I wonder if A.N.S.W.E.R. will be able to argue that the National Park Service has an overly broad authority in the protest permit process, and that by denying protesters permits while granting permits to supporters, the Park Service is censoring “unpopular” views. (Putting aside for the moment that some 49% of the country voted against Bush, which hardly makes expression of protest against Bush “unpopular.”) In City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (1988), the Supreme Court said that “a facial challenge lies whenever a licensing law gives a government official or agency substantial power to discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of speech by suppressing disfavored speech or disliked speakers.” (Barron 428). Here, it appears (from the little I know) that A.N.S.W.E.R. could bring an “as applied” challenge to whatever permitting statutes or procedures the Park Service is supposed to follow, arguing that, regardless of how those rules are worded, they give the Park Service substantial power to discriminate, as applied. Of course, by the time such a legal claim came before a court, the inauguration might be long over, so this strategy may be pointless. And I'm sure A.NS.W.E.R.'s lawyers know all of this much better than I do, and I'm sure they know even better strategies for challenging the permit process. I'm just saying, maybe I learned something this semester after all. Maybe.

Posted 08:26 AM | Comments (5)

Moving On

Now a full month after Election 2004, the future of the Democratic party remains unclear. Move left? Move right? Fight fight fight? The fighting is in effect. According to this story, Peter Beinert wrote a popular analysis of what went wrong in which he bashes groups like MoveOn.org, but MoveOn's not backing down. It sent a letter to its members saying:

“We can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers. In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

By “we” MoveOn meant the grassroots supporters who gave time and money to help defeat Bush. And that's the most startling and meaningful thing to come out of this so far, as far as I'm concerned—the size of that grassroots base. Get this:

Financially, the DNC has not suffered terribly under this new regime -- it raised $309 million this year, compared with the Republicans' $385 million. As Arianna Huffington has pointed out, however, the DNC raised its money from a much wider pool this year. In 2000, its donor base was 400,000, while in 2004, 2.7 million people gave to the party.

2.7 million donors, up from 400,000! That's incredible. Maybe the DNC should organize a donor poll and ask all those 2.7 million donors to vote on the direction of the party. At least then it couldn't be accused of ignoring its members. How many donors gave to the RNC? According to the FEC, it looks like the Bush campaign had 210,109 individual donors; however, the number may not be directly comparable to the DNC's 400,000 because many more people may have donated to the RNC generally. The directly comparable number for just the Kerry campaign (not including donations to the DNC as a whole) is 219,493. Pretty similar. Meanwhile, another volunteer inside the Kerry campaign says the campaign itself was utterly incompetent, badly organized and badly run. I don't have much commentary to make on this; I'm just noting it for the record.

Posted 08:01 AM

Fear Breeds Repression

Still a little down after the election last week? Well, let's get over it, shall we? We've got some work to do, people! In that spirit, please read the following rationale for the First Amendment from Justice Brandeis writing in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (emphasis added):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Brandeis was concurring here w/a majority opinion that has since been overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). However, Brandenburg implicitly endorsed Brandeis' opinion, so it's still more or less “good dicta,” and hey, we'll work for that, right? So here's to speaking up, and speaking out! Here's to Sonnets for Democracy! And here's hope “those who won our independence” were right, that “the power of reason as applied through public discussion” will be enough to overcome the tyranny of a certain majority that reared its ugly head one fateful day in November, 2004. The Counter Inaugural might be a good place to begin.

Posted 03:48 PM | Comments (2)

Quickly Now

Heidi's maps of how the electoral vote went down do an awesome job of putting the supposed “mandate” in perspective. UPDATE: More map madness to make sense of the mayhem. Oh, and if you want a copy of the Daily Mirror's memorable post-election cover for posterity, you can get one here. After missing tons of class and reading this semester, I'm going to try to start being a law student again for a while. In the aftermath of this election, I'm less convinced than ever that some kind of legal career is even worthwhile, and still less sure of what direction I should take in such a career. But the question seems to be: Do we need good progressive legal activists, or do we need militant revolutionary leaders? Since I just don't think I'm cut out for the truly radical fight, maybe being a lawyer is my only option. Speaking of revolution, Happy Bolshevik Revolution anniversary, one day late. Do you know how hard it is to read U.S. labor law with the Bolshevik Revolution in your head? Is it just me, or is the world a really sad place right now?

Posted 10:40 AM | Comments (5)

Golden Rule Politics

A proposal for the Democrats: Starting today, start preaching the gospel. Adopt a simple theme, and apply it to every possible issue. I'll make it easy for you: The Golden Rule. As I learned it, the rule is very simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, even simpler but less mantric: Treat everyone else like you would like to be treated. Therefore:

• If you'd like health insurance, you need to help others get health insurance.
• If you would like to know that your children are going to be able to grow up in a world with plenty of clean air and water, you're going to have to start taking better care of the environment.
• If you want social security benefits, you have to be willing to continue paying into the system, and you have to support measures that will keep that money safe for future recipients.
• If you want the right to marry the person you love, and to enjoy all the legal benefits that are attached to such a union, you have to be willing to grant the same to all other Americans.
• If you want a decent wage and some sense of job security, you have to support increased minimum wages, living wages, and other measures to make employers more responsible to their employees.
• If you don't want to have to work in a sweatshop, you're going to have to support trade policies that prohibit sweatshop labor—and you're going to have to stop shopping at Wal-Mart!
• If you would like to know that you'll be able to safely and legally get an abortion if you became pregnant and did not want or could not afford to have a child, you need to support and preserve a woman's right to choose.
• If you want your kids to go to good schools, with good teachers and rich, diverse opportunities, you have to support school funding measures to ensure these schools have the resources they need. (Voucher programs do not qualify here, since they allow people to be selfish in making sure their child gets a good education, while leaving other children and parents to cope with failing schools. Is that how you'd like to be treated?)
• If you want to be free from terrorism and the fear of outside forces trying to control the way your country governs itself, you have to support the autonomy and security of all other nations around the world. Admit that the so-called “American exception” is a cruel hypocrisy that you only tolerate because you're an American, and which you would not tolerate if you were an Iranian, an Iraqi, a Venezuelan, etc.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It's strong, visionary, yet simple. Sure, there is more nuance and complexity to each of these issues than the simple application of the “golden rule” can capture, but that can all be fleshed out as we go forward. The magic is the apparent simplicity of Golden Rule Politics. Most people will just “get it.” It will help the Democrats speak to the millions of Americans who see faith and values as their most important issues, and it will play equally well with more secular voters. Golden Rule Politics is nondenominational; every major world religion I know of has some form of the Golden Rule within its most basic teachings. (Are there any religious scholars out there who would provide textual support for that?) Golden Rule Politics has the added advantage of exposing the Republican view of morality and values for the hypocritical sham that it is. If anything, Bush-type religion may find support in the Old Testament's “eye for an eye” kind of thinking, but it displays little of the moderation and tolerance added by the New Testament. Golden Rule Politics could remind religious conservatives of the values many if not all of them were probably taught as children, and should create common ground between them and the rest of the planet. Disclaimer: I'm no religious scholar, but the beauty of Golden Rule Politics is that it doesn't require any particular religious knowledge or affiliation. If you have those things, you get the history of the ideas, but w/out that background, the rules are still simple and clear. Anyway, it's an idea....

Posted 01:45 PM | Comments (8)

A Partial Explanation

I've heard talking heads say, and I agree, that many Americans have long supported Bush because they simply can't bring themselves to believe that he could have done all the bad things his critics say he's done. And really what we're talking about is this: Many Americans are simply horrified by the thought that their president, the “leader of the free world,” could take them to war and send more than a thousand American soldiers (and counting) to their deaths—on a stack of lies, exaggerations, and intentionally misleading innuendo. For these people, voting Bush out would have been an admission that they were wrong, that their president was a liar, and worse, that he was such an abominable person that would put greater value on oil or global power than he put on the lives of their loved ones and the peace and stability of the world. In this view, voting for Bush was a defense mechanism, a way for people to protect their minds and preserve their basic hope and belief that human beings—Americans, especially, and American presidents even more so—are good, trustworthy, and would never, ever, send thousands of people to their deaths without damn good reasons. Oh, and on a more basic level, voting against Bush would also be potentially admitting that we are not safer since invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power. In fact, it might be an admission that we are less safe because by doing this we have created more terrorists, not fewer, more hatred for America, not less. If you're kind of worried about terrorism to begin with, afraid that there really are shadowy armies of militants around the world who would like to see you or your country suffer, well, wouldn't it just freak you right out to admit that a huge part of what your country had been doing to supposedly make you safer was actually making you more vulnerable to terrorism? The mind recoils, then hand pushes the button for Bush. So yes, this election was about values. People did vote based on their core beliefs of right, wrong, good, bad. But this is not to say that more Americans agree with the republicans or Bush on these things; only that their basic beliefs in the good and the true made them utterly incapable of facing the horrible truth they would have to acknowledge if they decided to vote against Bush. Yes, Bush and Co. are winning the culture war—by bludgeoning the hijacking the basic goodness of Americans and turning it against us. By the way, if you're baffled by the vehemence of the anti-Bush sentiment in the country, look no further than the simple fact that loathing and even hatred are almost unavoidable responses for those who see the Iraq war as a mistake. Many of these people, myself included, really do believe that Bush and Cheney and the whole gang lied, manipulated, and intentionally mislead in order to get the authorization and support they needed to go to war. Exactly why they did this is the subject of some disagreement, but that they actually did it is not in doubt for these people. Can Bush “reach out” to these people who voted for Kerry and “heal the division” in the country? Yeah, sure. But first he'd have to publicly admit he'd lied, apologize for taking us to war on false pretenses, renounce all future interests in Iraq and Iraqi oil beyond a basic desire to see an autonomous and more or less democratic Iraq, invite the U.N. to take over control of all peacekeeping and rebuilding in the country, and maybe revoke every contract given to Halliburton since Bush/Cheney took office and get his Justice Department to bring suit against that company for stealing millions of dollars from the American people. Is any of that going to happen? Ha.

Posted 01:30 PM | Comments (1)

Another Post-Election Collection

People will be talking about this election for four more years, and maybe long after that, and while I won't be one of those people every day, it's still far too early to move completely on to other things. So first, this awesome map of the vote by county makes the country appear more divided than ever. Perhaps that's why some people are starting to talk less in terms of Red and Blue states and more in terms of a Purple Nation. Still, even though Kerry's support was concentrated in a few small geographic locations, that doesn't make it less significant. This is especially true when you consider that Kerry may actually have won—in a sort of hypothetical sense. Of course, he didn't win, but Greg Palast explains why the discarded and uncounted votes would very likely have put Kerry in the White House. Is this just the talk of sore losers? Perhaps, but we do know that at least one voting machine gave Bush nearly 4,000 votes that didn't exist, and if that happened, oh, about 40 times across Ohio (whether by accident or some other means), the margin of victory is suddenly gone. (A bit more on the evoting problems here and here.) Some Democratic congresspeeps are calling for an inquiry into evoting “irregularities.” With both the executive and legislative (and arguably the judicial) branches of gov't locked up by the Repubs, don't hold your breath on that investigation. The truth may want to be free, but for stuff like this, it's probably going to have to just keep wanting for at least four more years. And it's going to be a long four years; Republican gloating is so not pretty. Meanwhile, lots of people will be talking about how the vote broke down—who really voted for Bush? Sadly, it appears the working class has decided that trickle down economics and other economic policies destined to destroy the middle class are actually good for them. Maybe they appreciate the morbid spectacle, like some kind of sadistic circus act: Come one, come all! Watch as the gap between rich and poor gets wider! step right up folks, to see the gross inequality become even more appalling! I thought we'd all figured out that trickle down economics was just a nice way of describing how the rich piss on the poor, but I guess not. Is this What's the Matter with Kansas? Optimists are speculating that Bush might be more centrist in his first term as elected president/second term serving. Michael Hirsh makes a good point: It would seem difficult for Bush's second term to be more radical than the first, so moving more to the center may be his only option. But no, I don't think so. Bush and Rove etc. are good at what they do; every time you think they've gone as far as they can go, they go farther. I'd like to be optimistic, but we tried that in 2000 and it failed. I'd rather prepare for the worst. Bush's arrogance was on full display in his rare press conference as he admitted that he didn't have the support of the nation before this election, but said that now that he has “the will of the people behind him” he's going to start enforcing rules on the press. That's just the beginning, we can be sure. If you live in a blue state, get your Don't Blame Me t-shirts today. “Responsible clothing for the politically frustrated.” Yeah, but what about D.C.? You can also get a Blame Ohio t-shirt there, and elsewhere you're invited to say Sorry Everybody. All of that is great, but maybe we should start a site called “The Next Campaign Starts Today” because while it's nice to be sorry, it's better to work for positive change. This Ohio mother captures that pretty well:

So what am I going to tell my kids? I'm going to tell them that Bush won. I'm going to tell them that the electoral process worked. I'm also going to remind them that voting is only part of the process. The next part is to do everything we can as citizens and activists to reign in the havoc that Bush and his cronies are prepared to wreak, to find strong progressive candidates who will win the next elections, and to remind the world that here in Ohio, as in the rest of the country, there are lots of people -- half of us for sure, and probably more -- who want our country and our world to be different. We're here, we voted, and we're not going away.

In that vein, Kos says here's to hope, and don't mourn, organize. Cass Sunstein agrees, arguing that “healing” means surrender:

Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now “heal our divisions” is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation.

My sister agrees. Story: Someone came into her office and started moaning about how she hoped we could all put down our swords and come together as one nation. My sister called BS on that and said, “Americans don't need to put down their swords they need to pick them up so they don't get slaughtered by the Bush administration!” Yeah, my sister rocks. So as long as we're picking up the swords, Salon collected some “what to we do now?” thoughts from prominent pundit types, and I obviously agree w/what Arianna Huffington had a to say:

Already there are those in the party convinced that, in the interest of expediency, Democrats need to put forth more “centrist” candidate -- i.e., Republican-lite candidates -- who can make inroads in the all-red middle of the country. I'm sorry to pour salt on raw wounds, but isn't that what Tom Daschle did? He even ran ads showing himself hugging the president! But South Dakotans refused to embrace this lily-livered tactic. Because, ultimately, copycat candidates fail in the way “me-too” brands do. Unless the Democratic Party wants to become a permanent minority party, there is no alternative but to return to the idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy. Otherwise, the Republicans will continue their winning ways, convincing tens of millions of hardworking Americans to vote for them even as they cut their services and send their children off to die in an unjust war.

Camille Paglia offers some good advice, as well:

Progressives must do some serious soul-searching. Too often they are guilty of arrogance, insularity and sanctimony. They claim to speak for the common man but make few forays beyond their own affluent, upper-middle-class circles. There needs to be less preaching and more direct observation of social reality. America is evolving, and populism may be shifting to the Republican side.

Paul Waldman, editor of The Gadflyer, joins the chorus of those calling for energy and activism in the face of defeat:

So where do progressives go from here? First, they should spend the next four years fighting. If Kerry had won, there would be Republicans drafting articles of impeachment at this very moment, ready to fill in the blank of an imagined crime in January. As I did in the article I wrote for the launch of this magazine, I offer the movie quote that best describes today's Republican Party, from The Terminator: “It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop – ever – until you are dead.” There are a lot of very bad things George W. Bush is going to try to do over the next four years, but they can be stopped.

Of course, organizing and continuing the fight doesn't have to mean increasing division in the country. As Maureen Dowd suggests, “ W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.” Somewhere there must be a balance between fighting for what we believe is right, and completely alienating those who don't agree or don't understand. I don't think the balance needs to be that difficult to strike, but obviously we haven't reached it yet. Here's to trying.

---

Miscellaneous other post-election hoo-haw: Why Americans Hate Democrats, a collection of opinions from prominent Democrats that I haven't really had time to digest yet. Still thinking about moving to Canada? Get in line. The last word on Bush's bulge? The SS says it was a bulletproof vest. Ok, thanks. But um, how, exactly, would you have compromised the president's security by admitting that a month ago? One of Newsweek's election post-mortems summarizes the whole Kerry campaign, from the moment party leaders annointed him as their nominee (long before a single primary vote was cast), to getting his ass handed to him by Howard Dean, to being “electable,” to being ultimately defeated. Wow, what a great story. Not. But it is consistent with the idea that Kerry just was never a very good candidate. Do people in red states have a lower average IQ than those in blue states? Probably not (the data in that table appear to be unreliable), but... Alabama vote shows some Old South sympathies. Yay. Ha.

Posted 08:07 AM

Post Post

Ok. Let me get this out of the way. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States for the first time two days ago. There were, um, a few problems, but the outcome appears to be undisputed. Conservatives are ecstatic and some are plotting “revolution.” Many other people think this is bad news. I spent yesterday thinking all kinds of uncharitable thoughts and trying to avoid talking to people so that they would not be infected by my rage, despair, frustration, utter bewilderment, etc. What's there to say? Some people are saying “I'm moving to Canada,” so here's a reader's guide to leaving the country from Harper's Magazine, if you're among those who feel that's the only or best option. Here's why you might want to leave (link via Actus Reus). Mark Schmitt (via Cooped Up) says the Bush administration will now be held to the “break it you buy it” rule because they'll have no one to blame for the problems they create. Let's hope so, but voters didn't seem to care about holding their leaders accountable for their mistakes in this election—why will they do so in the future? William Saletan thinks he knows why the Dems keep losing to this idiot: he's simple, and voters like simplicity.

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

Saletan thinks that simple leader is John Edwards. Maybe, but if he's right about the simplicity message (which has a lot going for it), it seems less important to find that simple leader today than to figure out what the simple message is going to be. How about this: “Democrats: People who care about each other, our neighbors, and the future of the planet and human life on it.” Damn, is that too complicated? Hollywood Phil has a great postmortem roundup of what actually happened in the voting and possibl resons why. In contrast, Atrios isn't interested in thinking or talking about what went wrong with this election. “What matters isn't what was done wrong, but what needs to be done right for the '06 elections.” Well, maybe, but there are lessons to be learned from the Democrats' losing streak, and one way to figure out what needs to be done right for the future is to figure out what you did wrong in the past. In my opinion, the biggest lesson is that pandering to the “center” is a plan for failure. I'm sure there are many more lessons to be learned, but that covers a lot of them. Finally for now, Howard Dean says look on the bright side, and he's right.

Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders. . . . That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” We will not be silent. Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here.

We have to remember that. If all of those who have opposed Bush for the last four years continue working, there's not telling what we can do. If we can start now with the level of passion and organization and activism that we've seen in the last six months, and build on that, the Republicans don't have a chance in 2006 or 2008. But if we fall apart, become demoralized, tune out, drop out, give up . . . if we do that, then we'll lose yet again, and we'll keep losing. Come on people, take the red pill! The rabbit hole is very, very, very deep.

Posted 09:36 AM | Comments (6)

Fun and Games

At the right you'll find a new countdown to Inauguration Day 2009. See, on the bright side it's only 4 years, 11 weeks, 1 days, 2 hours, 42 minutes, 29 seconds until George Bush is no longer president! And here's a great game: Ponder all the possibilities!

1. What is the worst thing that's going to happen in the next four years because of Bush's election?
2. What is going to be the worst long-term consequence of nearly a decade under Bush?

Posted 08:19 AM | Comments (11)

Center? No. No. No!

Ok, really, I'm going to think and write about something other than the election someday soon. But not yet. First: The results of this election do not show that the Democrats need to move further to the center. No no no! Bush-light has failed for the past three elections—it has failed miserably! Yet I keep hearing pundits claim that this is the message to the Democratic party—you've got to move to the middle. Are these people insane!? The Democratic party needs to provide a real alternative to the Republicans, not try to be more like them! How many people did you know or hear about who said prior to this election that they didn't really care for Bush but they didn't really know what Kerry was about or how he was different? I know of many, and many of those people apparently voted for Bush. And the reason they didn't understand what Kerry stood for or how he was different is because he was too afraid to take real stands on issues to set himself apart from Bush. He was playing for the center, and he lost the whole field. And that's exactly what Gore did, too. And that's what happened to most of the mid-term races in 2002. Lots of people felt it was time for a change this year, but they didn't see how Kerry would give that to them. So they decided to stick with the devil they know. Democrats! Wake up! Stand up for what you believe in and tell the mythical “center” (which is moving further right every freaking day!) you're not going to pander to it anymore! Show the world what a farce the Right's “moral values” are by standing up for your own values—peace, equality, justice, environmental conservation, sustainable economies, living wages. . . basically, humanity before profit. There's a winning ticket waiting at this station and it's just sitting there. If the Democrats claim it, there will be no stopping them. But if they continue to play the Republican game and pretend to care about the “center,” they're going to lose lose lose lose lose. Leadership does not go to where it thinks the people are and try to convince the people it agrees with them. Leadership goes where it thinks the people ought to go, then it shows the people why it thinks they ought to go there, and asks them to join together to help move that direction. Democrats have to lead or lose, that's all there is to it.

Posted 08:15 AM | Comments (9)

The Day After

!#?@*(^$!@*)$@%T#!!????????!!!!??????

Posted 07:57 AM | Comments (4)

See you on the brighter side

So I'm off to help out Impact 2004 protect the election in Philly. I hope there's no election fraud and the trip turns out to be a total waste. The good thing is, at least it will distract me from surfing the web for news for the next 30 hours or so until we know that John Kerry won, for sure. So I hope everyone who reads this votes or has voted. Find your polling place and do your little democratic thang. And If you have any problems voting please report them to: 1-866-MY-VOTE1 or 1-866-OUR-VOTE. But yeah, so barring massive election fraud or some other catastrophe, the next time I post here John Kerry will be president-elect and everyone will be scratching their heads wondering how the hell George Bush ever got appointed president in the first place. ;-)

Posted 05:10 PM | Comments (4)

Positives for Kerry and final pre-election craziness

We all hope that within 48 hours we'll know who the next president will be, and I can't imagine there are really that many people who have not decided how they plan to vote. (Although I've heard pundits saying that many “undecideds” claim they decide at the last minute, either on their way to the polls or even in the voting booth.). Still, if you're one of those who is still looking for reasons to vote for Kerry, don't miss Half-Cocked's megalist of reasons why he's voting for Kerry—and why you should, too. Here's another “Why for Kerry” from blogger Ed Cone. Also, if you haven't yet read the Kerry campaign's own description of Kerry's record, you really should. Sure, you can expect it to be biased, but after all of the Bush campaign's rhetoric about how Kerry's a flip-flopper who's got nothing to show for 20 years in the Senate (which is just flatly untrue), it's only fair you know Kerry's side of the story before you make up your voting mind. I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning saying something like all the issues are breaking in Kerry's favor, but now there's a new category that voters are considering, the “other” category for issues like “leadership” and “security,” and that category is starting to break for Bush. Hype! Don't you believe it! Every time I hear Cokie Roberts it's like fingernails on a chalkboard; she's a Republican spinmeister in the guise of an NPR commentator (which is a lot like a wolf in sheep's clothing) and I long ago learned not to trust a thing she says. This spin has Rove written all over it. But that's nothing. It's down to turnout, and the Dems have the lead there. Polls of the huge numbers who have already voted give Kerry a big lead in Florida and Iowa. Of course, there's no way to predict how the widespread and growing voter suppression efforts will affect the outcome. It seems an Ohio judge is trying to limit some of those efforts by ruling that challengers won't be allowed at all in Ohio:

A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election. State Republicans planned to appeal. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional. She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting. . . . Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters. Republicans said they wanted to prevent voter fraud. Dlott said in her order that the evidence “does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges.”

It's hard to believe the ruling will exclude all challengers, but would it be a bad idea if it did? Why don't we leave it up to the poll workers to determine who's registered, who's not, and who should be put in the question (provisional) pile? But nevermind, no need to worry. The Redskins lost yesterday, which means Kerry will win tomorrow, game, set, match.

Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (1)

Kerry not Scary

For a good number of people, it's really not hard to figure out why to vote against Bush. For example, here are 100 reasons and Bush by the Numbers has more, just for a start. But some people seem to have greater trouble finding reasons to vote for Kerry (rather than simply against Bush). If you're among those, I suggest you watch “Going Upriver”, a short documentary about Kerry's service in Vietnam and his role in the anti-war movement when he returned to the U.s. The film is available to download from Internet Vets for Truth, or you should be able to find it at your local movie rental shop. I watched it last night and was extremely impressed with the courage Kerry showed both in going to Vietnam and in trying to end American involvement there. The film shows us a Kerry who was never really radical in any way. He went to Vietnam because he thought it was the right thing to do to serve his country. While there, he learned that wasn't necessarily so. He saw lots of senseless death. He came back to the U.S. and acted very reasonably and deliberately, and with restraint and caution, to convince U.S. people and leaders to end American involvement in Vietnam. Apart from “Going Upriver” and Kerry's Vietnam-related record, you'll find more reasons to vote for Kerry if you read the Rude Pundit's endorsement, and look at Kerry's long record of support for progressive issues. Of course, as Time wrote:

Friends and enemies alike can find in his 19 years and 6,500 votes in the Senate whatever they are looking for: bold words that suggest fresh ideas but a lack of follow-through that suggests political caution; shifting positions on education, welfare and affirmative action that show either a capacity for growth or an absence of core beliefs.

Perhaps that's why the Kerry campaign has done such a poor job of using that record to Kerry's advantage. Other people have made important distinctions between the candidates' positions, and it's not hard to find summaries of where Kerry stands. In this comment thread on Three Years of Hell, someone named Martin argues that what defines Kerry is a continuous effort to do the right thing, even when it's unpopular:

John Kerry spent twenty years in the senate, and while he was there he did his damndest to make each vote count. This has got him attacked for flip flopping, but I'm telling you that those votes were about trying to do the right thing, each time even when it didn't matter. He wasn't voting against weapon systems, he was voting against pork. He wasn't voting against $87 billion for the troops, he was voting against $87 billion without a budget or a plan attatched. Things in retrospect that seem like a good idea. Those votes are hard to explain on the campaign trail, but I don't care. This was a guy who tried to do the right thing.

The rest of Martin's brief comments are worth reading as a concise list of reasons to vote for Kerry. As the Bush campaign points out, Kerry has a “liberal” record. Bush wants you to think that's a bad thing, but I'd encourage you to look past the label and the rhetoric. Kerry has shown good judgment, real concern for the environment, for the poor, for promoting peaceful and mutually beneficial solutions to both America's problems and those of the larger world. My read of Kerry's record shows someone who has always been drawn to big ideals, and who has had impressive successes and failures in pursuing those ideals. Kerry has spent his life working to make the world a safer, more peaceful, more fair and equal place for everyone. He's also frequently focused on the responsibilities of elected representatives to their people; time and again he's investigated and tried to end corruption, abuses of power, injustices perpetrated by leaders but paid for by the powerless. If you find that record objectionable, by all means, vote for someone else. But if that sounds more like the goals and values and priorities of the country you'd like to live in, vote for Kerry.

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (4)

Osama bin unforgotten

Top of the news is the Osama video. His major point? We don't hate freedom, we want to be free:

“Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands,” bin Laden said. “To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster,” he said. “I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security.” “If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones,” he said, referring to the 19 hijackers. “We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours.”

Of course, he has a point, and neither candidate is really addressing his complaints; neither seems able to say anything other than “terrorism bad.” But regardless of the content of Bin Laden's message, I agree with Dave Winer about how the pundits are spinning this—the bias for Bush is incredible. But even NPR's Daniel Schorr took that spin (that the video helps Bush more than Kerry), and he's usually fairly critical on these things. Sorry, but the fact that Osama's still free to release videos whenever he wants only means Bush's much-vaunted “war on terror” has failed in major ways. Call that spin if you want, but that's how I see it. Elsewhere in the election-related grab bag: Bush's war has killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, a large majority of them the result of coalition airstrikes. Here's an enblogment for Kerry. The Electoral College Meta-Analysis provides yet another way to speculate about how the vote might go. [link via John's Ponderings] along with Electoral College Predictions (which has shifted decisively for Bush today) this seems a good way to sort through the polling madness. The Pentagon is saying maybe the military destroyed and/or moved some of the munitions that are missing from Al Qaqaa. Hmm. John Stewart made an excellent point the ohter night on The Daily Show when he ran a clip of Bush saying this about the Al Qaqaa munitions:

[A] political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not the person you want as the Commander-in-Chief.

All Stewart had to say is, “that's true.” Can you say Iraq, WMD, links to Al Qaeda, and more? I knew you could! In more good news for Bush, imaging experts confirm, the Bush Bulge was not bad tailoring. Jesse Ventura is campaigning for Kerry. He's not pulling any punches:

“To me, a president should not put his personal spiritual beliefs in front of science. If we had that type of attitude, we'd probably still have polio today, if we had beliefs that didn't allow scientific discovery. Now, people may say you're not very religious -- yes, I am. I believe God gave me a brain to use,” Ventura said. Ventura also criticized Bush for the growing federal deficit, saying Bush paid for tax cuts by racking up debt on the nation's credit card. And he had harsh words for the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Ventura says Bush has alienated the rest of the world, and the war has not made the U.S. safer. He says Bush invaded Iraq when he should have been focusing on Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. “I would have hunted down Osama Bin Laden 'til he was dead, before I would have ever entertained anything about Iraq. My parents taught me (to) finish the job at hand, finish the job you got in front of you, before you worry about the other job down the road,” he said. Ventura says leaders shouldn't ask troops to do something they didn't do themselves. He says Bush did not serve with honor when he was in the National Guard, and received preferential treatment.

Sounds like Ventura might like Internet Vets for Truth. So is anyone polling whether Americans think this election will be over next Wednesday? I'm predicting a decisive win for Kerry with 294 electoral votes. In my world he gets Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and all the other states he's basically wrapped up. What's your prediction?

Posted 10:36 AM | Comments (6)

Holding Pattern

Is anything happening with this election? We wait wait wait for next Tuesday. Meanwhile... A Minneapolis ABC affiliate broke big news yesterday, saying it had pictures of the weapons at Al Qaqaa that were after the Americans moved in there. The NY Times has picked up the story. Again, I don't see that it matters whether the weapons were there when U.S. forces arrived. Sure, it's worse if they were, but the fact that the weapons are missing is what's telling as far as this administration's priorities and lack of planning. Pushing to decrease the third-party factor, a group of international Greens implore Americans to vote for Kerry, and basically sum up the position of many Kerry voters:

The Bush administration has acted with a unilateralism that discounts the opinions of, and demeans the humanity of, non-Western peoples. Though John Kerry is far from the ideal candidate, he will in most respects be a significant improvement to Bush.

Speaking of third parties, NPR is airing part of an interview w/George Bush 41 (the former president) where he says third parties always fizzle "and rightly so," as if the fact that third parties have never achieved strong support in the U.S. is some sign that people prefer a two-party system or that the two-party system is better. Bollocks! When you've got two parties w/massive organization and resources combining to marginalize and destroy third parties, the fact that no third ever grows very large shows nothing more than that the two existing parties don't want any competition. Come on, do you really want to vote for this guy? And since it's almost Halloween: Did you ever consider carving your pumpkin with a Dremel tool? They even provide patterns, but these are still better, I think.

Posted 09:12 AM | Comments (2)

Spin Spin Sugar

I admit it. The Bush team is good at what it does, and if there's one thing this administration has done a lot of, it's spinning. The Bush tactic, which is probably really the Rove tactic, seems to be to know your own weaknesses well enough to pin them on your opponent. IOW, accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you're doing. That's what Bush is doing with the spin on the 380 tons of missing munitions—he's making wild claims by accusing Kerry of making wild claims. He's also saying anything to get elected by saying that Kerry will say anything to get elected. Talking Points Memo has the comments I'm talking about. I wish I had the time to examine all the speeches both candidates are giving in this last week of the campaign and compare the claims each is making to see which is lying the most. Of course both of them are spinning, but I'd like to know it's more than my own partisanship that makes me think Bush is spinning harder (aka, lying more). That aside, it's still funny to hear Bush tell audiences that if Kerry had been president for the last three years Saddam would still be in power and he could be giving weapons to terrorists to attack the U.S. Seems like might have been the Bush administration that gave weapons to terrorists, doesn't it? Salon's War Room has even more on that story. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Maybe the Bush campaign never got that memo. But hey, you gotta believe! In the theme of laughing in the face of disaster, Get Your War On continues its ever-brilliant satire of current events:

Do you think Mohamed ElBaradei is currently running around with 380 tons of Schadenfreude?

Elsewhwere in humorpolitik, a campaign to support Bush has decided to support Kerry:

Before breaking with Bush, the Yes, Bush Can team worked earnestly to support him. They went to the Pacific Northwest to promote Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative--and discovered it was enabling the logging industry to cut down our last old-growth forests. They visited a nuclear power plant in Ohio to promote Bush's domestic security policies--and found no one in the guard booth to meet them. In western Pennsylvania, while promoting the President's energy policy, they learned that it allows coal emissions which kill 23,000 people a year. Finally, while defending Bush's war on terrorism, they found out that even Donald Rumsfeld feels the Iraq War has made the world a more dangerous place.

All right, although the depiction of Bush's policies appears accurate, the rest is a joke. But still, their Patriot Pledge is pretty good. Question: Why is the Bush campaign blocking non-U.S. web visitors?

Posted 08:44 AM | Comments (2)

Fool Me Once...

So about those 380 tons of munitions that are missing in Iraq. Some people are saying that the weapons may have gone missing before American troops entered Iraq, that Saddam Hussein's troops removed them sometime after the U.N. weapons inspectors last checked on them and found them secure, but before the U.S. could have had a chance to secure them [link via JR]. As I mentioned in a comment here, that's possible. Yesterday's Talking Points Memo argued that that story was bunk (see also many other posts at TPM from the last few days), but who knows? The point is that even if that proves to be the case, we still learn two things from these missing weapons. First, we learn yet again that the planners of the U.S. attack on Iraq put oil at the top of the list, and thought of little else. Securing weapons was not on their agenda, just like securing Iraq's cultural heritage was irrelevant. They secured the oil ministry and the oil fields first and foremost; everything else was an afterthought. Second, we learn yet again that we really may not be more safe now that Saddam is in jail. When Saddam was in power, these weapons were controlled and contained by the U.N. inspectors. Saddam could not have used them against Iraqis, or American soldiers, or anyone else. Now that Saddam is out of power, these weapons are gone, and most likely they have been and are being used to kill Iraqis and Americans. So yeah, thank goodness we removed Saddam from power. But the weapons inspectors were standing in the way of war; they said and still say it wasn't necessary, and Bush was determined to prove them wrong. Over time, it's still possible that Iraqis will be better off thanks to our invasion of their country. It's possible. But it's also possible that leadership far worse than Saddam—and far more dangerous to the U.S. and Iraq's neighbors—could be elected or could come to power some other way. We just don't know what's going to happen. But my point was about that 380 tons of missing munitions, and the bottom line is: Whichever way you slice that story, it's bad for Bush. He led us into this war against the wishes and advice of the rest of the world. And although he likes to say that everyone was misled by faulty intellignece, that's just not true. Oh, and by the way, that 380 tons of missing munitions may just be the tip of the iceberg. In other election-related bits: 100 Facts and One Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration. Of course, we know Bush supporters don't care about about facts, but still, it's a pretty damning list. And the opinion?

If the past informs the future, four more years of the Bush Administration will be a tragic period in the history of the United States and the world

That's what Molly Ivins and others said in 2000—Bush's record in Texas showed he'd be a disastrous president. Now his record as president has proven that. And still he polls at 50%? How!? Why!? Elsewhere, Greg Palast reports on a new potential Florida vote scandal—are Republicans planning mass voter challenges on Nov. 2? The law says any voter can challenge any other voter for any reason, which effectively means that any voter could bring voting to a complete halt at any polling location in the nation. If Republicans stationed challengers at majority Democratic polling places, they could easily suppress a lot of Democratic votes. Of course, the Dems could do the same, or some malicious third party could play the spoiler for all. Palast is basing his report at least partially on some “caging” emails via which Republicans have exchanged lists of voters. I guess we'll know soon enough wether this is anything but speculation. More from Salon's War Room. The War Room also suggests that Justice Rehnquist's condition may be more serious than we're being told. The stakes just get higher and higher. For your audio-visual election-related pleasure, Eminem, now a political activist, suggests we mosh for the future. Errol Morris has also released a cornucopia of Republican-to-Democrat “switcher” vids. For your old-school gonzo journalism take, Hunter S. Thompson is still fighting the good fight. As far as the horserace aspect of the election goes, this electoral college predictions site is rather fascinating. Depending on which numbers you consult, Kerry has a 74% or a 28% chance of winning. Yeah, I'm thinking polls are pretty helpful at this point. Not! And don't forget to download your Kerry or Bush jack-o'-lantern carving templates! Whichever one you find more scary could make a great halloween decoration!

Posted 07:47 AM | Comments (6)

Election Protection

By the way, although my last post suggests this, let me be more explicit: If you're a lawyer or law student and you'd like to help make sure voting is free and fair next Tuesday, get in touch with your local Impact coordinator to see how you can help. Impact is non-partisan, so this is a great way to help out, regardless of your political views. If you'd like to be more activist and partisan about your election protection and you live in or near a swing state, I'm betting ACT can set you up with ways to help out. Does anyone know of other cool election protection opportunities out there?

Posted 01:27 PM

Laughing in the face of disaster?

It's good to know I'm in good company in being unable to focus on much besides the election. Half-Cocked (and others) might be interested to see this little Nebraska tidbit from Electoral Vote Predictor:

A new poll in Nebraska answers that age-old question: could Nebraska split its votes in the electoral college with a resounding: NO! Bush has huge leads in all three congressional districts. Similarly, Kerry is way ahead in both of Maine's congressional districts and the Colorado referendum is behind. Looks like it is going to be winner-take-all in every state.

It's a shame about the colorado referendum which would split electoral votes among candidates according to their percentage of the total vote. We need electoral reforms like this, but it's not surprising that Colorado isn't going to be the state to lead here. Other numbers on Electoral Vote are also somewhat depressing. Right now it predicts a Bush electoral college win of 285 to 247, and continued Republican domination of the Senate. People should think about that when they go to vote: Do we really want Republicans controlling every branch of government for another four years, or would a little balance maybe be a nice change? So the question of the day: Are negative developments in Iraq and Chief Justice Rehnquist's hospitalization a combined “October Surprise”? While you think about that, have you thought about voting absentee? If you need to vote absentee in D.C., MD, or VA, this article will tell you basically what you need to do. For my own record:

District absentee voters also can cast their ballots in person at the Fourth Street office, above the Judiciary Square Metro station, through Nov. 1. Voting hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. For more information, voters can call 202-727-2525.

And the DC Board of Elections (or the site of your local election board) might be a good site to check out in the coming days you can be sure of your polling place, ID requirements, etc. Try My Polling Site to find the details you need. [link via Letters of Marque] I spent a couple of hours last night at a training session with the President of IMPACT 2004, which has led one of a couple nationwide efforts to protect the right to vote on Nov. 2. I'm currently signed up to hop a bus to Philadelphia Nov. 1 so I can be there all day on the second watching the polls in a non-partisan way. But I'm kind of torn. I could also go to Ohio starting Saturday and returning after the polls close. I wonder which would be more valuable? Will all those partisan ACT volunteers descending on Ohio be like the orange hats for Dean in Iowa? Some people argue that the huge influx of out-of-state partisans knocking on doors and trying to turn out the vote in Iowa caused Iowans to vote against Dean, rather than for him, because they felt invaded and overwhelmed. I'd hate to see something like that happen to Kerry in Ohio. But hey, that's all like serious and stuff. It's just an election, right? So here's Monster Slash, a funny little flash video highlighting the Bush administration's stellar environmental record. Is it good to be able to laugh at the folly of our supposed leaders? And here's a demo of Diebold's new voting machines. Is it good to be able to laugh at the potential implosion of democracy?

Posted 08:16 AM | Comments (1)

Concentration Impossible

Ok, it's official. There's just no way I'm going to be able to concentrate this week. Did you see this about the 380 tons of weapons we “lost” in Iraq? And these most excellent numbers showing Bush's chance of winning plummeting? Yeah, ok, those numbers might be out of date as the disclaimer at the top of the page says, but they're still way more interesting than anything I could possibly be reading about closely held corporations right now. Tell me again why I took corporations law? Stupid stupid stupid. It's going to be a long week.

Posted 03:42 PM | Comments (2)

Reasons 1-2 to vote for Kerry

There are so many reasons to vote for Kerry (all of which are reasons to vote against Bush), I don't know where to begin, but since the election is so close I might spin every post this week into a reason to get to the polls and get us some regime change. Then again, I might not. But today I am, and the first two reasons are two overlooked news stories that should convince anyone that this administration is not good for America. First, the ongoing scandal of sweetheart deals for Halliburton. Billions of dollars in giveaways to the vice president's former company, the company from which he still receives benefits, and very few people seem to care. In another day, something like this would have been enough to bring down an administration all on its own. Unfortunately, the Halliburton scandal is far from the only blight on the Bush administration; we also have the backdoor draft. Two members of the National Guard have sued the military, claiming that the so-called “stop-loss” policy that extended their enlistments was illegal.

Attorneys for the soldiers, citing the report of the Sept. 11 commission that found no evidence of any “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaida terrorists, say the executive order did not cover “nation-building service in Iraq.” In the absence of any declaration of war by Congress, the soldiers say the involuntary call is a violation of their enlistment contract. “This is not a frivolous lawsuit,” said Michael Noone, a military-law specialist at Catholic University of America and a former judge advocate in the Air Force. “I had assumed the government had an ironclad case, but the complaint looks valid on its face. I'm really curious how the government will respond.”

The fact that I only heard yesterday about this lawsuit means it's just not getting enough coverage in the media. Oh, and look, here's another one. Why isn't Kerry talking about this every day? Of course, the lawsuit also raises the whole issue of the so-called “war on terror,” which can't be a war because war never declared. Nor can Bush be a “wartime president” as he and the media like to say. Sadly this is almost as much a failure of Congress as it is a failure of the Bush administration or the media. I could probably go on all day about reasons to vote for Kerry all day—and I could even talk about some positive ones, rather than just the “reasons to vote against Bush” variety above—but I probably better go to class. Class blows, but it's better to go than to miss. P.S.: Unless you'd like your dreams to be scary, haunting, and traumatic try to avoid researching the death penalty in the wee hours of the morning just before you go to sleep. Of course, maybe dreams like that would be good preparation for a halloween or the prospect of four more years of Bush, but still, I don't recommend it.

Posted 08:13 AM | Comments (2)

Nine More Days?

I don't know if I can take it. The election is only nine days away but I fear they're going to be the longest nine days of the whole darn odyssey. I'm not concerned about the polls so much, both because they're not really changing much and because they may not be measuring a pretty large number of newly-registered voters and cell phone users who could swing the election either way, although they're perhaps more likely to break for Kerry. Still, even if you're not hanging on the polls, there are little bits of news every day that could change the race. For example, how will Wolfpacks for Truth skew the results? ;-) Probably not much, since, according to a new survey, Bush supporters live in a fantasy world. The summary of that survey's results shows that Bush supporters stubbornly refuse to believe findings of the 9/11 Commission or dozens of other experts on issues related to Iraq and terrorism. According to Steven Kull (via Alternet), director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the survey, this is classic cognitive dissidence:

“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq,” Kull says. He added that this “cognitive dissonance” could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey. The poll also found a major gap between Bush's stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe Bush's position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters believe, for example that the president supports a range of international treaties and institutions that the White House has vocally and publicly opposed. In particular, majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assume that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent). In August, two-thirds of Bush supporters also believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority in the PIPA poll, it's not much of a drop considering that Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the first, most widely watched presidential debate in late September. In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush. Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate's and Bush's positions on the same issues.

So there you have it: Kerry supporters are more well-informed and have a more realistic view of the world than do Bush supporters. Isn't “faith-based” government a wonderful thing?

Posted 02:28 PM | Comments (4)

Eerie Sports Analogies

Congrats to the Red Sox. Since I know nothing about baseball and pay zero attention to it normally, I am shocked to learn that Boston might face Houston in the World Series. Another way to put that: Massachusetts might face Texas in the Series. Is it just me or would that be an incredibly eerie coincidence? And the Series starts Saturday. Which will be over first: The World Series or the presidential election? Oh, and do you really want a president who feels threatened by people asking him silently to protect civil liberties? Or how about a president who suppresses CIA reports he doesn't like? Houston, I think we have a problem. Is Bush a pirate or an emperor? UPDATE: About the potentially eerie symbolism of a Massachusetts v. Texas World Series? Nevermind: Cardinals 5, Astros 2.

Posted 09:20 AM | Comments (6)

Stewart Stuffs Crossfire

Jon Stewart said yesterday on CNN's Crossfire that the show is hurting America. Get a transcript, download an mp3, and if you can figure out BitTorrents, you can get the video, too (all links from Scripting News). Wow. I didn't see it, but I listened to it and it's incredible. Tucker Carlson told Stewart he should get a job at a journalism school; Stewart replied seriously: “You need to go to one!” Salon's Charles Taylor says Stewart's appearance was completely consistent with his stance on his own show and I tend to agree:

Stewart's “Crossfire” appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't “nice” like he is on “The Daily Show.” But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade.

Will this cause mainstream journalists to do a serious gutcheck? Probably not, but maybe a ball is now rolling that will lead there eventually. Thanks, Jon. Early stories about this elsewhere:

• Jon Stewart Torches from the NY Daily News
• Left Hooks and Right Jabs: Stewart Tangles With Carlson from WaPo
• Jon Stewart bitchslaps CNN's 'Crossfire' from MTV News
• JT Juice 10-16 From Journal Times Online (Wisc.)
• Jon Stewart to Tucker Carlson: “You're a dick.” from Alternet

Posted 06:34 AM | Comments (4)

Post Debate Hurry

This would be me having no time to say anything more than I thought Kerry did a great job last night, Bush did much better than in the first two debates, and Bush really did say he wasn't worried about and no longer thinks about Osama bin Laden. That's the only little “fact check” I have time for, but if you spot good bits that expose the mistatements or misrepresentations of either candidate, I'd love to hear about them.

Posted 09:03 AM | Comments (1)

Pre-Debate Thoughts

Ok, so the final debate is tonight and it's pretty important. Here are a few tidbits for your brain to kick around as you watch.

One: Get your debate bingo cards here or here.

Two: Bush's Court Picks: Be Afraid. Very Afraid.

Three: From the GW Bush Flip Flop Catalog, something to consider while you listen to Bush talk about putting money in your pocket and neglect to mention any plan for paying for his massive tax cuts:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” — Alexander Tyler, 1778

Four: The following is a transcription of a scene in a 2000 episode of The West Wing entitled “The Midterms.” At least that's what TiVo says; I can't find it on the episode guide. Anyway, it's directed at those who think U.S. public policy should be based on literal readings of the Bible, and might be food for thought when Bush talks about how he's guided by god. Below, President Bartlett is speaking to a right-wing talk radio host:

President Bartlet (PB): I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an “abomination.”

Host (H): I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

PB: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

H: 18:22

PB: Chapter and verse! I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you hear. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:07. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

H: Silence.

PB: While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarrity, insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it ok to call the police?

Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean -- Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.

UPDATE: The Unreasonable Man writes to note that the above quote from Tyler may be a hoax. Also, here are two more pre-debate nuggets for you. The first is from an open letter to Bush and Rumsfeld:

Under the military way of life and thought, a commander is responsible for errors that occur under his command whether he knew about them or not. Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, you are responsible for the inaccurate intelligence assessments, inadequate troop strength, Iraqi prisoner abuses, inadequate logistical support for U.S. forces, and fraudulent contracting billing for the Iraq reconstruction. And you should care about every combat death or injury that occurs.

The second is simply the latest on the Bush bulge. L. and others have speculated that after all the attention the back bulge got in the first debate, Bush moved the radio device from his back to his front. Was he looking quite a bit thicker around the middle than usual? Did his coat appear to fit rather poorly for a man who probably has custom-tailored suits? Will this be one of the mistakes left for historians to decide?

Posted 11:23 AM | Comments (17)

Two Years Ago Today

As noted here one year ago, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq on 10/11/02. Such a sad and tragic mistake, but maybe next time they won't be so quick to do it. Nah, I didn't think so either. Another sad thing: So many of the links in that post from a year ago are broken. What good is the web when its links are so tenuous the cannot even last a year?

Posted 11:27 AM

Dred, Electoral College, Alternatees...

One: Could it be that Bush's mention of the Dred Scott decision in last Friday's debate was some coded red meat for the anti-abortion crowd? Wow. That's some serious rhetoric going on. More here on judicial nominations as an election issue. The ACS Blog has also picked this up, as did Fables of the Reconstruction, and now Salon, too. Two: According to a U of Minnesota economist, Bush currently has a 55% chance of winning the electoral college. The page is constantly updated, so it's a good resource to continue checking as the election closes in. Three: Today is Columbus Day. While celebrating the “discovery” of America seems a little perverse, until 5 p.m. last night, I still thought we had the day off from school today. Woops! I was so wrong. Good thing I didn't do a single bit of homework all weekend since I was planning to do it all today on my day off. Yeah, good thing. Four: Shopping for a law student or law-type person? Check out Law School Stuff, featuring shirts w/slogans like “gunner,” “working hard to be average,” and my personal favorite, “Public Interest Law: Twice the schooling, half the pay.” Now if we could just get them to use sweat-free shirts... Five: Speaking of sweat-free shirts, an Alternatee would make a great gift for the progressive politico on your gift list this season. Try the Bar Code Prison or the U.S. World Domination Tour to make some serious statements. All Alternatees are printed on gear from American Apparel, which means means it's sweat-free, but unfortunately not union-made. I disagree with their choice to shun unions, but the fact that they treat their workers so well makes up for that somewhat. Six: I seem to have become a sort of gunner pariah in my labor law class, mostly b/c the law we're learning could be more appropriately termed “anti-labor law.” It all makes me so mad I just can't keep my hand down, and then when I ask a question Prof. Labor Law goes off on a lengthy answer that's generally fascinating but doesn't really respond to my question and tends (I think) to bore most everyone else who's not as fanatical as I am about the subject. To my classmates: I'm sorry. I don't mean to do it. I will try to keep my mouth shut. I promise.

Posted 10:33 AM | Comments (1)

Post-Debate 2

Ok, so I'm beginning to accept that not everyone saw the same debate I did, or at least it didn't leave them with the same decisive impression. Whatever the press consensus is, I thought Kerry was incredibly strong, and Bush was just frightening misleading, angry, and incoherent. Of course, you'd expect little else from me, wouldn't you? But remember, I have never been a strong Kerry fan. The truth is, with his performance in these debates I feel like he's finally earning my support rather than just getting it by default. Here's a roundup of some good bits I've seen about the debate so far: Factcheck.org has already fact-checked both candidates' performances last night, and it's pretty much what you'd expect—they're both full of it. Watch Bush flip out on Charlie Gibson. Read how Bush bungled one of the few references to authority he even attempted when he tried to talk about the Dred Scott case. Scott Rosenburg hits Bush hard on his infallibility and the condescension he continues to express for the rest of the world ("I know how these people think!"). Josh Marshall also has good thoughts on the godlike president and he's going with the center spin that the debate was a draw. The AP's summ