Do you want to know what your Neighbors are Doing?

I mean they could be doing any number of things, couldn't they? Secret things. Scary things.

For example, your neighbors could be donating money to candidates you don't agree with. Think of that. If you are a Bush Supporter, they might have given money to Kerry or Dean or Edwards. If you support Kerry or Kucinich or Dean, well, somebody right across the street might have given money to President Bush.

Well, now you can know thanks to the responsible people at Fundrace 2004. Just go to this page and plug in your zip code. Scan down the list for people that don't share your political convictions and go and visit them. You might want to take some eggs or maybe even some bricks to hurl at their cars, houses, etc.

Attention employers; now you can get a surreptitious lead on the politics of any potential employees. Just fire the ones who give to candidates you don't agree with.

Thank you Fundrace, for your responsible website. But you forgot to track my contributions to the Edwards and Kerry campaigns.

Arianna Huffington's Words of Wisdom

This is from a speech she gave recently, and the whole thing is worth reading.

"In politics, he who controls the language defines the political debate. So we need to take back from the conservatives certain magical words that they have appropriated and perverted: Responsibility, values, family, security, strength and, yes, morality, which the right wing has reduced to sexual morality. Look at Wal-Mart, which considers itself so moral it made a huge fuss of pulling three men's magazines off the shelf at the same time it treats women like second-class citizens, fires workers who try to unionize, and is being sued in 30 states for refusing to pay overtime. So we've come to the point where laddie magazines are immoral, but cheating your workers is not.

We have to change this. And we need to start by taking "responsibility" back. Indeed, in the book I just finished on the subject, I call this moral vision "The Vision of New Responsibility." Personal responsibility is essential, but so is developing a sense of responsibility for others. I have two daughters, 12 and 14, and that's what I teach them -- that's what we all teach our children, unless we want to see them growing up to be Ayn Rand fanatics celebrating "the virtue of selfishness," like, say, Alan Greenspan. Social responsibility is also the essence of extended family, so central to the immigrant experience."

Once Round the Horn

I don't know if you all know what the phrase "Round the Horn" means. It originated in Welsh Farming country, where sometimes young rowdies would go out and run around the corn fields with their arms outstretched knocking down corn and causing trouble. In the parlance of the local gentry, such youths "Ruined the Corn" and the phrase came to mean some purposeless activity.

When Magellan sailed around Africa's Cape Horn, he had with him a very cynical Welsh Sailor who commented that around the horn was as purposeless as "ruined the corn." This didn't make any gramattical sense, but it didn't matter as all the other sailors were Spanish and didn't understand what old "Welshy" was saying.

From there the phrase travelled to some of the early baseball games, back when there were fifteen bases shaped roughly in the head of a cow. Bases 6 through 12 would throw the ball along in quick rapid succession. One of the players, Jonathen "Welshy" Banks thougt the idea stupid and again compared it to "Ruining the Corn." This time, however, his fellow ball players spoke english, and so the phrase entered the english language. Today to throw the ball round the horn is for it to go from First to Second to Third to the Catcher and back to the Pitcher in quick succession. Or something like that. Anyway I use it to refer to a swing round the Liberal Coalition to see what's popping.

And Then . . . has a letter from a grad school on urban education that is well worth considering. It turns out that some of our preconceptions might be wrong.

Collective Sigh posted a reaction to the recent story on Clinton and Bush's pre-September 11th battles against Osama Bin Ladin.

I'm Listening to Tranquility Bass's "They Came in Peace," which is a great song.

Corrente has a great little bit on the infallibility of Karl Rove. Oh, read that wrong. Should be excessive fallibility.

Dohiyi Mir has a very involved but solid read on the moral and practicial implications of the deceptions surrounding Iraq.

Iddybud has a factoid about how our next target, after the election, will almost certainly be Iran.

Meanwhile, over at It's Craptastic, they have a section on Bill Maher's mocking of President Bush's outsider status. I have to say Bill Maher's dead right on this one; President Bush is no outsider.

The Invisible Library has a fascinating critique of the term "War on Terror" and how it may not be entirely accurate.

Trish Wilson highlights President Bush's apparent inability to tell a man from a woman. Or in this case a woman from a man. Or should it be the other way around. I'm confused.

Something To Consider

The President and his party have decided to go on the offensive early. Don't believe me? Well then I'm going to personally punch you in the face.

Wait a minute.

Apparently I am no longer allowed to punch people in the face. In a surprisingly quick court action, every single person in the United States, Canada and Guam has, in a class action action, been protected by a restraining order against me punching them in the face. So instead of punching you in the face, I'm going to have to resort to quoting the New York Times.

"Mr. Cheney's speech was scathing and was the White House's most detailed and pointed criticism to date of Mr. Kerry. The vice president's delivery was notable, too, for the sarcasm within its measured tones. It was his first major policy speech of the campaign, which has begun direct attacks unusually early for a general election."

So let's all take a moment and consider what it means for the President to go so quickly on the attack. One thing it could mean is that the President is holding a pair of deuces (one called the Economy, one called Iraq) and he doesn't want to run on that hand. So instead of running on his own record, he's going to run against Kerry's.

There's a related story at the Times about President Bush's eagerness to begin the attack.

"He likes campaigning, and he likes combat," said Charles Black, a consultant to Mr. Bush's campaign. "He doesn't like sitting back and taking a lot of punches from anybody. It took a lot of discipline the last few months for him to do that. There were times when he wished he could respond, but you can't go fight nine people at once."

Mr. Bush, by all accounts, is relieved that he has finally engaged his opponent, and is happily making day-to-day campaign decisions as well as setting long-term strategy about defining Mr. Kerry."

If only he'd turn his energy towards doing those sorts of things that would give him something to run on, but I suppose you have to stick with what you're good at.

Differing Points of View

"The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"

One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.

After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.

Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it. "
- Ann Coulter

"Too many Americans too easily ignore the contributions made in blood and treasure by our European allies in the Afghan conflict. Early in 2002, Spain sent 120 peacekeepers to the International Security Assistance Force. Last May, they lost 62 of those soldiers when an airplane bringing them home crashed in Turkey. There were no mass demonstrations demanding the end of Spanish participation in that international coalition.

Neither ideological inconsistency nor moral cowardice explains why the Spanish electorate dumped the discredited conservatives. The Bush administration’s reckless drive to war in Iraq, against majority dissent in Spain and elsewhere, undermined support for the United States. Since then, people around the world have been confirmed in their worst suspicions about the purported causes of that war. Now we are discovering the destructive impact of the lies told by our own leaders and diplomats, about Baghdad’s weapons of mass destruction and cooperation with Al Qaeda."
- Joe Conason

Just something to consider. Of course putting Ms. Coulter up against Mr. Conason might not be the fairest of competitions.

Warning. Low Posting Ahead.

But here's a really old Tom the Dancing Bug to Cheer you up



And if you like that cartoon, go buy a Tom the Dancing Bug Book.

Differing Opinions

"Don't give me this public airwaves business, either. The public airwaves argument vanished long ago with what they're putting on the public television airwaves.

Radio cannot compete with the smut that's on television. I don't care who on radio is out there. They don't compete with the crap that's being televised every night into everybody's home with little teeny bops watching it and so forth. Now if we sit idly by and let a federal government start to define what is okay for somebody to say on radio and what isn't -- and in this area it has to do with decency regarding obscenity and smut and so forth -- what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerry-John Edwards-Bill Clinton-Terry McAuliffe types end up running this country someday again and decide that conservative opinion is indecent, decide that that causes violence, decide that that is somehow damaging to the culture?"
Rush Limbaugh, February 26, 2004

"In the free marketplace, you're welcome to say whatever you like, but if people don't want to buy whatever you're selling, no whines. As long as the airwaves remain in the public domain, the public has a right through its government to stifle the profane rants and juvenile outbursts of our lesser-evolved brethren. Ain't democracy grand?"
Kathleen Parker, March 17, 2004

Of course Rush's comment is pretty self serving; he makes his money in radio, he doesn't want anybody messing up his meal ticket. But these two do show the essential split in the Republican Party; between those who would destroy the mechanisms of government and those, like Ms. Parker, who would use those mechanisms against viewpoints and positions and entertainment they don't like.

Never Mind

Apparently there has been correction. Last week, it was reported that Senator Kerry stated ""I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."

It turns out that what he actually said was ""I've met more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."

So that changes everything and we can expect a lot of articles from conservatives admitting that although this particular story turned out to be false, that's exactly the sort of thing Kerry would say.

Got pointed this way from This Modern World.

A vote for the Democrats is a Vote for Al-Qaeda

"Voters in Spain pulled the lever for al Qaeda on Sunday, and it may only be a matter of months before Osama bin Laden tries to replicate the results in the U.S."
- Joel Mowbray

"When the next bomb goes off--perhaps this time in Poland--the families of the dead should blame the people in Spain who voted to run from terrorists and cower before them instead of standing strong against them.

Sound cruel? Perhaps, but it is the sad truth. The majority of Spaniards decided to follow the illogical path of blaming their President for the attack in Madrid instead of the people who actually carried out mass murder. In doing so, they handed the butchers a victory. Terrorism and murder have been handsomely rewarded this day."
- Barbara J. Stock

"From the standpoint of a political campaign, the Popular Party of Spain made one of the gravest screwups in history, one that spells nothing but trouble for Spain, the United States and the security of the world.

They let al-Qaeda decide who will lead their nation.
- Jay Bryant

Isn't Democracy terrible? I mean without Democracy we wouldn't have to worry about the opinions of the people. Think how much President Bush could accomplish if he didn't have to worry about the election in November. Think about how much more Al-Queda would fear us if they knew that President Bush would be in office for the rest of his life, coming after them. Maybe it's time we as a nation reevaluated what democracy means to our enemies. To them it is weakness. It shows how weak our society is. Perhaps if we abandoned Democracy it would show them how dangerous we really are.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich Nietzsch

What's striking in the discussion of the tragedy of Spain is the constant repetition by the right that such things can and probably will happen here again as well. In other words, if you support President Bush because you hope there will be no more terror attacks, you have hoped in vain. He hasn't the power to stop terrorist attacks. And yet no conservative president should be held responsible for such attacks, because the alternative is capitulation.

The conservatives propose that there are two alternatives and two alternatives only; the belligerent go-it-alone policy of President Bush and his advisors or total surrender. But, here in reality, there are other alternatives.

"One year ago, I came here to say that the most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. But that thus far the Bush Administration had "provided too little support, provided too little leadership, and provided too little vision for the common defense of our homeland." One year later we gather again - and the same is true. Whether it has been providing funding and equipment for firefighters, ensuring that cargo in our ports is screened, guarding our chemical and nuclear facilities, or working with local communities across the country to give them the resources they need - this Administration has given our homeland security efforts short shrift. And you deserve better.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little. When the focus of the War on Terror was appropriately in Afghanistan and on breaking al Qaeda, President Bush shifted his focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's pushed away our allies at a time when we need them most. He hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden. And time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the War on Terror - whether they're overseas or over here - the weapons, equipment, and support they need.

In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.

And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them."
- John Kerry

Rush Limbaugh Speaks

"All you have to do is look at the headlines and the news stories in their partisan media, which is, in this case, the mainstream press. They're all ecstatic and excited about this. The headlines talk about how Bush has lost an ally, Bush in trouble on war on terror, blah, blah, blah. Well, the opposite of that is, Kerry not in trouble, Kerry aided by Spanish election. And the terrorists are the ones who won that election, so what's good for Al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party."

Link here.

You all know this is going to be a dirty campaign, don't you?

Negative Ads

Hot on the heels for my somewhat humorous attempt at a Kerry Commercial, Salon has a story on Alex Castellanos, master of the negative ad who is now working for our very own President Bush. Actually, since their story came out first thing this morning, and my "ad" came out this afternoon, they beat me to the punch.

For those of you who don't know Alex Castellanos (like me before I read this story), here's a little taste of what he'll bring to the Bush Campaign.

"It was during that 1994 Florida campaign, working for Jeb Bush's first but failed bid for election, that Castellanos showed why he's considered one of the fathers of the modern attack ad.

Castellanos launched a classic October surprise. Less than two weeks before the election, with his candidate ahead in the polls, Castellanos produced a raw, emotionally charged spot featuring a Florida mother whose 10-year-old daughter had been murdered in 1980. On camera, she complained that Chiles had refused to sign the killer's death warrant, "because he's too liberal on crime." Addressing the people of Florida, the mother said, "I know Jeb Bush. He'll make criminals serve their sentences and enforce the death penalty. Lawton Chiles won't."

The accusation produced panic inside the Chiles campaign. "We had done all the research [on relevant death sentence cases] and we couldn't figure out how we missed this guy," says Krog. Aides quickly unearthed the answer: Florida courts were still hearing the killer's appeal, making it impossible for Chiles to act.

The Palm Beach Post condemned the attack ad as a "despicable lie that proves again why Jeb [Bush] is unfit to be governor." The Orlando Sun-Sentinel accused Bush of demagoguery, protesting the spot was "shamelessly false, irresponsible and tasteless," while the Miami Herald complained it had "sunk to new depths."

The ads backfired on Bush, allowing Chiles to win one of the closest gubernatorial races in Florida history."

The article is great, although it does suffer from a little too much of the horse race. The tone of the article is essentially that its ok to go negative and deceptive in your ads if they are effective. Effectiveness is the only criteria for judging political ads; and therefore the only reason to be honest is that over dishonesty might hurt the campaign (if the people catch on). I understand the view point, but still think honesty is good in and of itself.

One other thing. If Kerry wins, we are going to see the end of Campaign Finance Reform for a while. President Bush has an enormous amount of money, and if he can't parley that into an electoral win, than the argument that money buys elections will disappear.

My Idea for a Kerry Campaign Commercial.

Fade in on a group of Al-Queda Terrorists practicing something.

Voice over - "We are all afraid of Terrorist attacks, and we all recognize the need for a tough president to deal with them."

Camera switches to clip of John Kerry who says, "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."

Voice over - "Tough Words Mr. Kerry. Let's look at how the Republicans respond."

Clips of various Republicans calling on Kerry to apologize.

Extra Smarmy Voice Over - "Oh my, it seems that Mr. Kerry's tough talk has upset these Republicans. They think he should apologize."

Switch back to Al Queda shots.

Voice over - "Remember these guys? They say some pretty hurtful things too, Mr. President. If you and your buddies are so scared of a little tough talk, how can we trust you to stand up for America?"

Switch back to Kerry, flexing and looking super tough.

Voice Over - "Vote for Kerry if you want someone tough. Vote Republican if you want a bunch of crybaby apology-askers."

There it is. I'll trust the Kerry campaign to compensate me fairly for my super brilliant idea.

Paul Greenberg asks the Tough Questions

Apparently France is still evil. And Greenberg assumes in his latest article that the foreign leaders that Senator Kerry was commenting on last week (when he said, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that.") were from France. He suggests, as I did, that Kerry's use of the term leader may not mean the same thing as the head of the state.

Unlike me, however, Greenberg broadens the definition of the term leader to include newspaper editors. "Of course it doesn't have to be a government leader who's been whispering into John Kerry's ear. How about an insufferably smug editor like Jean-Marie Colombani of Le Monde, France's snootiest journal?" Hmmmmm. That doesn't make a lot of sense actually.

Greenberg then offers this touching (and by touching I mean stomach churning) historical analogy.

"Suppose, for example, that John Kerry hadn't been born in the United States but in Paris a generation or two earlier. What with all those Czech Jews in his family tree, would he have been rounded up with the other Jewish children and handed over to the Gestapo for transport to Buchenwald?

And today, would John Kerry's name and memory be as forgotten as the rest of France's collaborationist past? Instead of France's favorite candidate for president of the United States, would he be just one more part of a forgotten era? And one the French are only too happy to forget."

Well, we can suppose all sorts of things, can't we? Suppose Mr. Greenberg had been a pilot in World War II and had been stranded in France. And suppose he became one of the many pilots aided by the French Resistance to find safe escape back to England. Would he still be as critical of France as he is? Yes, of course he would. Past actions are really irrevelant; what matters is a nations ability to do whatever America (and by America I mean George W. Bush) says. If the French would just follow our lead blindly we'd let up on them. As long as they insist on acting like an independent nation that thinks for itself, well, they won't be on our Christmas Card List.

What I can see from My Window

Here's what I can see from the window in my "computer room."



So as you can see things are going great. Sort of.

New Quote

And a New Quotes Page. Share and enjoy.