"'America: Fuck Yeah!' That is the favorite line of the red-state styled crusaders for the American way in a fairly vulgar, crass, but culturally significant movie, Team America: World Police. "America, Fuck Yeah!" also seems to describe a kind of pugnacious nationalism that has taken hold of the American personality and just given George Bush a compelling mandate to take his political revolution further.Its an interesting analysis, and I agree with everything he said. Today, he posted a follow up with a great video. I'd definitely check it out.I know that my progressive, erudite acquaintances are going to give me grief for advocating that you all see Team America. . .but do. I think it gives us, via some puppets and special effects, a very good picture of what Walter Russell Mead has called the Jacksonian American. These Jacksonians believe in a core set of values -- apple pie, NASCAR, church, hard work, family values, gay and lesbian stuff hidden from sight. They believe in the country and aren't bent on notions of empire. In fact, they hate our involvement in Iraq or other global problems but believe that America is the only nation that can set the world straight.
According to them, we Americans don't want to be a global cop -- but if we have to, we will -- and we are going to do it our way, damn it.
Listen, the "Fuck Yeah!" crowd just told the rest of the world that Florida was not a mistake; America really wants this guy -- George W. Bush. So learn to live with it, work with us on our terms, or shut up."
But first, a disclaimer from Steve: "BUT WAIT! This clip is very, very vulgar -- some full body nudity, erotic sex, but lots of apple pie, Mom, NASCAR, tanks, and patriotic images too."
Here is the link to the video.
|W|P|110187598833139487|W|P|Steve Clemmons on 'Fuck Yeah!' Americans|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com- Unlike Vietnam, our troops are not torturing anyone or committing any atrocities anywhere.
- Unlike Vietnam, we are beloved by the people we are saving.
- Unlike Vietnam, we have the support of the international community.
- Unlike Vietnam, it is particularly popular in the region where the war is being fought, and among the alleged audience abroad we seek to impress with our wisdom and resolve.
- Unlike Vietnam, our wise leaders have a clear idea of the cultures into which we have inserted ourselves.
Rob|W|P|Outstanding...Alterman has outdone himself.Sadly, it seems many neocons believe a measure of this (and would either agree with Alterman, not seeing the sarcasm...or call him full of shit).
Thus far the only real difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the death toll. And the way things are going that is only a matter of time.
"Now - and let me be exceedingly clear on this - that does NOT mean catering or compromising with racism, ignorance, or bigotry, or selling out our positions. In fact, it means just the opposite. By becoming competitive in the South, we can fight those evils much more than we can by writing off the entire region. All it takes is for candidates to understand the aspects of Southern culture which are positive and seperate from racism and bigotry, and to appeal to those aspects. On the subject of Southern culture, some felt that I was really referring to White Southerners. Well, I am a White Southerner, so that is the prism through which I see things, but I disagree that 'Southerner' is code for 'White Southerner', at least when I use it. The aspects of Southern culture that I am advocating we connect to are shared by both Blacks and Whites, and appeal across color lines. With Southern Blacks, the danger is not that they will suddenly start voting GOP in large numbers. The GOP will be unlikely to duplicate its rural white voter success with them, as the memories of where Republicans stood (and stand) on civil rights are still relatively fresh, but that doesn't mean we aren't in danger of losing their support. The danger is that they will just stay home, disgusted with a Democratic Party that has taken them for granted for much too long and that runs candidates that don't seem to have an authentic understanding of what is happening in their lives. Southerners are, by nature, what I call 'self-idealists'. By that, we tend to want to believe the best about ourselves and our people, and have a sometimes unhealthy tendancy to get too attached to our romaticized notions. This, however, is something that we can turn to our advantage. The fact is, these days, most white Southerners don't consider themselves to be racists, even if they are (without realizing it), and, in fact, look down at those who are identifiable as racists. A candidate who has an awareness of this inner-conflict could easily use it to drive a wedge between well-meaning white southerners who simply haven't let go of their predjudices and overt racists (whose vote I don't want anyway). But to successfully do this, the candidate must understand Southern culture overall, and must not do it in a way that calls these people racists. Rather, by cultivating their self-identification as non-racists, we can turn them against the hate tactics of the GOP."Right on, Aethern. Thanks for your insight. We need more folks like you to help Americans understand the South. I have never been to the South, besides southern Florida (and I missed out on any southern culture down there). I find it very hard to imagine southern culture beyond the stereotypes articulated in the entertainment world. Hopefully, through more of your posts, I can broaden my horizons and help to defeat the "redneck" stereotype. |W|P|110183227829892300|W|P|Understanding the South: Part 2|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- The story was first reported over at The Christian Science Monitor ('They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom')
- From the CS Monitor report: "Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'"
- MSNBC adds another story here. From the MSNBC article: "The report cites a "pervasive atmosphere of hostility" toward the American government that has intensified since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to them.
"The dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars" against the United States, the report said. "American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.""
"At least 133 U.S. troops have died in Iraq so far this month — only the second time it has topped 100 in any month. The deadliest month was last April when 135 U.S. troops died as the insurgency flared in Sunni-dominated Fallujah, where dozens of U.S. troops died this month. The Pentagon's official death toll for Iraq stood at 1,251 on Monday, but that did not include two soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and another killed in a vehicle accident. When the month began, the death toll stood at 1,121, the Pentagon said. It was not clear whether the bombing deaths of two Marines south of Baghdad on Sunday were included in the overall count the Pentagon published Monday."I hope President Bush has realized what he has done to American perception abroad, as well as the heartbreak and anguish he has caused Americans across this country. On The Tonight Show earlier, a clean-shaven and suit-clad Michael Moore carried on what seemed to be a tense discussion with Jay Leno about the election and the war in Iraq. Moore read from his most recent book--a collection of letters he has received from soldiers either in Iraq or on their way over. The letter he read was very powerful, and you could see how moved both Leno and Moore were. Unfortunately, the audience did not seem as respectful or moved as one would think. Evidentally, Michael Moore has a big tendency to pull controversy and 'boos' out of audiences wherever he goes. So, either there are a lot of conservatives in Burbank or Moore just has a bunch of conservative roadies who hate him. Take your pick. They both seem reasonable to me.
|W|P|110179804414984214|W|P|November deaths in Iraq near record|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.Hopefully, this will have a significant impact on our treatment of prisoners. Actually, I don't think prisoners is the right word. Prisoners seems to connote some level of due process, at least for American citizens who are detained. These guys are POWs and should be allowed the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, with the nomination of anti-Geneva Convention Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, I doubt things will change. |W|P|110178599639367686|W|P|Red Cross finds abuse of detainees at Guantánamo|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comThe finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.
The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics."
Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners' mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators, the report said, sometimes directly, but usually through a group called the Behavioral Science Consultation Team, or B.S.C.T. The team, known informally as Biscuit, is composed of psychologists and psychological workers who advise the interrogators, the report said.
The United States government, which received the report in July, sharply rejected its charges, administration and military officials said.
The report was distributed to lawyers at the White House, Pentagon and State Department and to the commander of the detention facility at Guantánamo, Gen. Jay W. Hood. The New York Times recently obtained a memorandum, based on the report, that quotes from it in detail and lists its major findings.
It was the first time that the Red Cross, which has been conducting visits to Guantánamo since January 2002, asserted in such strong terms that the treatment of detainees, both physical and psychological, amounted to torture. The report said that another confidential report in January 2003, which has never been disclosed, raised questions of whether "psychological torture" was taking place.
The Red Cross said publicly 13 months ago that the system of keeping detainees indefinitely without allowing them to know their fates was unacceptable and would lead to mental health problems."
"If what is being alleged is that the professors of History, English, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. at the top 25 universities in the US are disproportionately liberals, then that also raises questions. What is a "liberal?" If he means they vote Democrat, then so did, until recently, Zell Miller. And, what does it even mean to be a "liberal" in your study of Milton or of the French Revolution? Then comes the question of "why"? If that is the question, it should be studied. The rightwing "think tanks" have not studied the question, and have only polemicized about these poorly constructed "studies." (These are the same people who assured us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was 2-5 years from having a nuclear bomb.)"Read the rest, it is well worth your time. |W|P|110175595217685187|W|P|Liberal professors in liberal arts colleges--no way!|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|What is with this? GF Will's column is on this too ... is this all breaking news to some people?Chase
P.S. My friend's fathers friends (who are increadibly conservative) keep telling me to watch out for ... well, liberal arts professors. Proving that not all Americans are stupid.
"Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power." Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court.""Evidentally a decision from the judicial branch of our republican form of government is tyranny. If that is the case, why do so many radical conservative clerics want Bush to appoint radical relgious conservatives like themselves to the Supreme Court? Isn't that only perpetuating the tyranny? I guess that is only if the decision doesn't meet what they want. What a bunch of whackos.
|W|P|110175497532048892|W|P|SCOTUS refuses gay marriage case|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Rob|W|P|Furthermore, a republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways (the President, House of Representatives, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently), it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the government to infringe upon a minority.Man, I love Wikipedia :)Rep. Hostettler (R-IN) has the answer...he came right out and said if the courts decide in a way "we" don't like (addressing a religious group as he said it) then "we" should ignore 'em. As he claimed, they have no Army or Navy, so how are they going to enforce anything?
So much for the balance of power, checks and balances, and whatnot. He's proposing legislation in the 109th Congress to limit Federal court review of cases with regards to the 1996 DOMA. Where does it stop? Chip away at court review of law, and pretty soon we are a two branch government.
Rob|W|P|One more take...this is not a true victory in one sense. The lower court ruling stands, but it doesn't end the battle, as I hoped SCOTUS would eventually do.The challenge that will really decide things at SCOTUS will be on an issue of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Providing Massachusetts doesn't first amend their own constitution, the issue of recognition of a Massachusetts same-sex marriage in another state (with regards to "normal" marriage and Article IV of the Constitution) would generate a true precedent setting ruling...if it's legal in Mass. it either must be a) recognized everywhere in the US (per Art. IV) or not (thus making it sort of valid and sort of not valid). A ruling for (a) would pretty much open the door to challenge bans nationwide. A ruling to (b) would be a death blow.
Now, a state amendment specific to prohibiting gay marriage could also be challenged to the Supreme Court, much as the Massachusetts ruling (challenging the state amendment against the US Constitution). However, the really scary alternative is still the US Constitutional Amendment, which would slam the SCOTUS door. I don't think that route will garner enough support (2/3 Senate-2/3 House-3/4 states) to pass, unless a SCOTUS decision in favor of same-sex marriage (setting precedent nationwide in overturning state bans) pisses off the "religious right" enough to fan the flames and scare up (literally) enough legislator support.
The skirmish was won, the battle rages, and the war is far from over.
"Mr. Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has maintained that the proposed legislation would strip the Defense Department of the ability to provide direct, immediate intelligence to fighters in the field. He dug in his heels today, saying that any move toward compromise would not come from the House.Democrats need to harp on this issue. House Republicans are putting our nation to shame as well as endangering millions of Americans by supporting this piece of legislation. Seriously, we need to get rid of this victimized attitude. It's time to move on and fight the good fights. And this is most definitely one of them."The Senate has got to move on this provision," he said, "or we'll be worse off than we were before."But Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a lead Senate negotiator along with Mr. Lieberman, defended that chamber's approach and invoked the backing of the president and top administration officials.
"The commander-in-chief, our president, supports this bill," she said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's inconceivable to me that the commander-in-chief would support a bill that in any way weakened or undermined the flow of intelligence to our troops."
She quoted Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as saying the bill would improve intelligence to troops in the field, and said that Vice President Dick Cheney backed it as well."
The first bill passed the Senate 96-2. This is a bipartisan issue. Let's pounce on that. Let's get Congress movin'.
|W|P|110169097527680489|W|P|No deal likely soon on intelligence overhaul legislation|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Of 268 corporate PACs that donated $100,000 or more to presidential and congressional candidates from January 2003 through the middle of last month, 245 gave the majority of their contributions to GOP hopefuls, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service.According to federal law, corporate PACs receive limited donations from company employees, who can each give up to $5,000 per year. In turn, the PACs can donate up to $5,000 for a primary and another $5,000 for the general election to each federal candidate they support. Basically, just another way that Democrats and the American public get screwed by big business.Twenty-three corporate PACs made more than half their donations to Democratic candidates, according to the study, based on the most recent campaign finance reports available."
Why, oh why, America, did over half of you vote for Bush?
|W|P|110167862519218863|W|P|Corporate PACs favor Republicans by huge margin|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Mr. Wallis said that he had voted forI recommend reading the whole article. I'm working on trying to find video. As soon as I do, I'll post the link. All I have to say is "Go Sharpton!" |W|P|110167836933085193|W|P|Religious leaders get hostile on Meet the Press|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comSenator John Kerry in the presidential election and that the values debate should not further divide the United States or its political parties. "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," Mr. Wallis said. "That should be obvious."
At the heart of this debate is the separation between church and state in America.
Mr. Sharpton, a former Democratic candidate for president, said: "We're talking about whether we have the right to impose what we believe on people that may disagree with us. Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. We don't have a right to tell people we're going to force them to live in a way that we want them to live and, therefore, they're going to heaven."
But Dr. Falwell has linked religious belief with political action. Prior to the election, Dr. Falwell wrote in a newsletter and on his Web site: "I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, and every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush."
Dr. Falwell said today that it was "my prayer and my hope" that Mr. Bush appoints Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion. He said that he believed that marriage was, by definition, between a man and a woman and that he supported the passage of a constitutional amendment defining it as such.
At one point Dr. Falwell asked Mr. Wallis how, as an ordained minister he could vote for Mr. Kerry, who supports abortion rights.
"I wouldn't vote for my mother if she were pro-choice," Dr. Falwell said.
Mr. Wallis replied: "Yeah. You endorsing George Bush. That's fine. But you also called - you ordained him. You said all Christians could only vote for him. That's ridiculous. There are Christians who voted for deep reasons of faith for both candidates."
Mr. Wallis cited Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as the public leader who best embodied that co-existence of church and state.
"He was welcoming," Mr. Wallis said. "He was inviting. No one felt left out of that conversation."
He added: "I think there's a lot of common ground here. If values can be used to bring us together, faith and value should not be a wedge or a weapon that destroys and divides.""
"Southern culture places a high premium on speaking simply and directly (without sacrificing manners, of course), and Southerners are, as a rule, extremely distrustful of politicians who speak like, well, politicians. Southerners also are not particularly interested in the minutae of politics, and tend to make gut-level decisions when voting. This is why George W. Bush is able to gain so much traction here, because he is able to sell himself as a plain-spoken everyman. It is also why it is so difficult to dismantle that image, because Southerners aren't generally the type of people to wade into the murky depths of political bullshit to find the truth. Finally, it is the reason that a candidate like John Kerry was hard pressed to gain ground, because he could not shake the perception of him as a Yankee."This is quite true. As most have noted, John Kerry was quite aloof. He just wasn't able to boil things down to the simplistic nature that southerners, as well as maybe most rural Americans, wnated so that they could understand policy. It is hard to win large voting blocs. The problems rests in the candidate's character and his approach to the people. But I think Democrats offer more character and better political representatives than the Republicans ever will. Here is his strategy when approaching Southerners:
- Direct Connection - A candidate, especially for President, must be able to communicate with voters in such a way as to show them that he/she knows what they are going through, and what is important to them. Telling people that you have a plan, and then referring them to johnkerry.com was just not a good way to do this. The key here is to be able to break down complicated policy into common sense terminology that everyone can understand and relate to.
- Patriotism - Ironically enough, the Old Confederacy is one of the most patriotic parts of the country these days, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Southerners believe in America, and respond very strongly to appeals to this sensibility. Southerners are most likely to support confident leaders who make them proud of the flag. That being said, Bush scored on the first part, but failed with many on the second part of that. The problem is that Senator Kerry failed to convince Southern voters that he would be able to improve on Bush in this area.
- Morality - Religious or not, Southerners take morality pretty seriously, and appeals to this are often very successful. Democratic agendas such as raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, and protecting people from big corporations have huge potential in the South, but they have to be sold in moral terms, not just in policy.
- Innate Distrust of Government - Southerners have a very healthy distrust for government, and are unlikely to be enthusiastic about a 'Federal Program' to fix problems. What you have to do is to find a way to explain the plan in common sense terms, and further explain why it will work, again in common sense terms.
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”Wow, just wow. Take this to heart. It's our new media strategy. |W|P|110167310068208953|W|P|The Politics of Victimization|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comAnd then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.
We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don’t know how.
Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don’t let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he’ll win, not because he’s right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, “loose”, irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.
Even if you do everything right, they’ll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don’t even know they are being hit."
"Liberal political analyst Ruy Teixeira"Now, I don't have a problem with being coined a liberal. I am a liberal, and I'm damned proud of it. But I think this is a clear indication that the modern media equates being a democrat with being a liberal. That, in many cases is true. The problem with this equation, however, is the demonization that conservative and radical Republicans have done to the word. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the "Douchebag for Liberty" himself, Bob Novak, have taken it and turned it into a four-letter word. And it is not. Jesus Christ himself (for all you Christian Conservatives reading this...which I imagine is close to zero) was a liberal. If you don't believe me, read the New Testament (in something other than the KJV) and read the chapter in Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I don't think we should stand up for the demonization of the word any longer. All you liberals out there, come out of the "liberal closet" and profess your liberal-ness. I hope no one was offended by that pun. |W|P|110162498349625620|W|P|2004 Election: Realignment or Tilt?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
dxinoneman2|W|P|Hi,Nice blog. A friend of mine checked out your blog and told me to come here and hopefully find out more about earn work from home as I am looking into joining earn work from home. You can't do enough research before going with the best program. Thanks for the info. Have a great day :-)
"The White House and Republicans in Congress are all but certain to embrace large-scale government borrowing to help financeThis is a bad, bad idea. The fact is that it would just increase that national debt and destroy Social Securtiy. I admit, Social Security is a major problem. There is no easy way to reform it. However, private accounts is not the answer. Maintaining a budget surplus and not going to war in Iraq would've been a great start to reforming Social Security. It still might not have worked, but it might've been more prudent than destroying US diplomacy and any positive image America may have had in the world.President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts in Social Security, according to administration officials, members of Congress and independent analysts. The White House says it has made no decisions about how to pay for establishing the accounts, and among Republicans on Capitol Hill there are divergent opinions about how much borrowing would be prudent at a time when the government is running large budget deficits. Many Democrats say that the costs associated with setting up personal accounts just make Social Security's financial problems worse, and that the United States can scarcely afford to add to its rapidly growing national debt."
Here is some information on how much money we might have to borrow (emphasis mine):
The bolded parts are the biggest reasons why we shouldn't privatize social security--at least right now. During the end of the Clinton years, we had budget surpluses. We should've commissioned study upon study upon study to see what could be done with the future of entitlement programs with a national budget surplus. My guess is that it would've shown that it if privatization was to be considered, it would be dreadfully expensive. However, with a budget surplus, we could counteract the expenses and make a system that works AND lasts."Proponents say the necessary amount of borrowing could vary widely, from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over a decade, depending on how much money people are permitted to contribute to the accounts and whether the changes to Social Security include benefit cuts and tax increases.
Borrowing by the government could be necessary to establish the personal accounts because of the way Social Security pays for benefits. Under the current system, the payroll tax levied on workers goes to benefits for people who are already retired. Personal accounts would be paid for out of the same pool of money; they would allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into accounts invested in mutual funds or other investments.
The money going into the accounts would therefore no longer be available to pay benefits to current retirees. The shortfall would have to be made up somehow to preserve benefits for people who are already retired during the transition from one system to the other, and by nearly all estimates there is no way to make it up without relying at least in part on government borrowing."
And one final question concerning social security: WHY IS NO ONE HOPPING ON THE STORY THAT, TOWARDS THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN RON SUSKIND REPORTED THAT BUSH WAS GOING TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY AS ONE OF HIS FIRST ACTS IF RE-ELECTED AND HE DENIED IT, AND NOW HE IS DOING IT?
Kerry brought this up numerous types on the campaign trail, and the Bush camp continuously denied it. And look what they're doing. Its the first major act of his second term.
So much for following through with campaign promises.
|W|P|110161183397094720|W|P|Republicans look to deepen the US debt|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com- ". . . here was something he saw as a potentially greater threat to his fundamentalist Christian beliefs and traditional family values: something he called the "gay agenda.""--What the hell is a 'gay agenda'? I've never been able to figure this out. Is there a heterosexual agenda? If so, what is it?
- ""In 21 years of organizing, I've never seen anything like this," Mr. Burress, 62, said in an interview. "It's a forest fire with a 100 mile-per-hour wind behind it.""--Why would someone want to call bigotry a forest fire? Oh, wait. I know. It's because their efforts are just as damaging and destructive as any forest fire.
- "Kelly J. Shackelford . . . calls Mr. Burress one of the movement's heroes because he went up against some of Ohio's most powerful Republicans, including Gov. Bob Taft, who opposed the amendment."--This man is NOT a hero. Biggots are not heroes. No one in their right mind would call someone who tries to stomp out these folks' Christian beliefs a hero, and it works the opposite way as well.
Rob|W|P|"Gay agenda"...Sorry, couldn't resist.
I had a discussion with a lady recently (about 2 weeks before the election), the topic of gays came up. She was a self-professed conservative, but claimed to "have gay friends". But on the issue of acceptance in general, she showed her true feelings in a remark that frankly shocked me. She said she had no problem with gays, but didn't think it should be so out in the open, because she "gets nervous with them around my children".
I was speechless. When it fully hit me, I had to ask if she was afraid it was contagious (homosexuality). Her response..."well, you know, they are more likely to do stuff to kids...be pedophiles and such."
Back to the 1950's...
". . . I want to be just a simple blue-state red-state American. I want to take time on this Thanksgiving to thank God I live in a country where, despite so much rampant selfishness, the public schools still manage to produce young men and women ready to voluntarily risk their lives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to spread the opportunity of freedom and to protect my own. And I want to thank them for doing this, even though on so many days in so many ways we really don't deserve them."|W|P|110144536510827097|W|P|Happy Thanksgiving|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Paul Dunlap served 11 months in Vietnam. He knows what it's like to be in a war, not sure who the enemy is.Wow, I'm glad to know our armed forces are picking up the best and the brightest. And the oldest. Who needs a draft when we can start taking everyone's fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers, ahd ship them over to Iraq for us? Maybe that's how Bush plans on being able to privatize social security without it going bankrupt. |W|P|110135406325096853|W|P|US military calls up 53-year-old veteran|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comIt's something he didn't think he would face again. But it appears he will.
Dunlap, 53, is a first sergeant in the Army National Guard Company C 28th Signal Battalion, based in Torrance, Derry Township. The thought of going to war was in the back of his mind, but he hadn't been in combat since he was a 19-year-old Marine in the Vietnam War.
The Pleasant Unity man has been called to active duty for Operation Dragoon, part of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Rob|W|P|Did you also hear about David Miyasato of Kauai, Hawaii? Called up 13 years after leaving active duty and 8 years after leaving the reserves (he served 9 years combined active and reserve time). The committment ends at 8 years.He was let off the hook, the Army called it a "clerical error"...but only after he contacted his senator (Sen. Dan Inouye D-HI)...when he contacted the Army itself, they generally blew him off.
Chris Woods|W|P|I hadn't heard that, but thanks for pointing it out. It's insane what this administration is doing. I cannot wait for 2008."Many Democratic lawmakers are interpreting Sen. John Kerry’s active participation in selecting the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as the strongest signal yet that the defeated presidential candidate is keeping his options open for a bid in 2008. Last week, Kerry contacted nearly every elected member of the House Democratic leadership, and other powerful lawmakers, on behalf of Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa. On Monday, Vilsack issued a statement that he was no longer pursuing the chairmanship. But Kerry’s aggressive support of Vilsack has convinced many key House Democrats that Kerry wants to install a chairman who would be in Kerry’s debt and would not attempt to dissuade the Massachusetts senator from seeking the highest office again. Lawmakers and top House aides say that Kerry’s involvement in the DNC race is the latest of several clear signals that he does not plan to fade into the political horizon. They speculated that Kerry could depend on Vilsack’s loyalty, noting that he was on Kerry’s short list as a potential vice-presidential running mate and that Vilsack’s wife publicly campaigned for Kerry in the Iowa caucuses."I don't know why, but I don't think it would be a good idea for Kerry to run again in 2008. But I hate making predictions on who should run if he doesn't. The election campaign is still three years away. I can't help but think of this dialogue between Josh Lyman and Leo McGarry from an episode of "The West Wing."
JOSH: Leo, the-the Democrats aren't gonna nominate another liberal academic former governor from New England. I mean, we're dumb, but we're not that dumb. LEO: [pause] Nah. I think we're exactly that dumb.|W|P|110133116396697936|W|P|Kerry in 2008?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.Kristof presents a great point. If any kind of Islamic writer wrote this same type of story from a Muslim point of view, Christians and other religious groups across the country would demand that they be burned at the stake. Americans no longer have a sense of cultural decency and understanding. Just as Saudi Arabia and Iran have been and are continuing to be taken over by radical religious fundamentalists, so is the United States. The recent elections of many radical conservative Senators, as well as the re-election of President Bush, have show the true colors of some of the people of America. They demand a fundamentalist Christian approach to governance. They want religion involved in state affairs. They want foreign policy to be dictated to President Bush via Pat Robertson and his constant communication and blessing from God.The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard."
America suffers from the same kind of radical fundamentalism as do Muslim nations in the Middle East. The only difference is that we've yet to become violent. But I suspect that may only be a matter of time.
Kristof also points out a few other interesting things in his piece. I sure hope Jenkins and LaHaye take him up on his offer.
|W|P|110132862851635907|W|P|Is the second-coming coming?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.
I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.
Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books. . . . Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.
If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?
Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.
Gentlemen, do we have a deal?"
"The euro rose to another record high against the dollar today after the Russian central bank said it might increase its euro holdings in an effort to insulate itself against further weakness in the American currency.This just pretty much spells bad news for the US, and even worse news for our economy. I'd like to see Bush try and do something about this, through an economic development package of some sort. However, I definitely am not going to place all of the blame on Bush. The Federal Reserve is going to have some tough work ahead of them. Godspeed. |W|P|110125675301291141|W|P|Russia weighing more investment in Euros--not dollars|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comLike the United States Federal Reserve and its other counterparts, the Russian central bank holds huge reserves of dollars, euros and other currencies as a means of defending its own currency, the ruble, and smoothing out foreign-exchange market movements whenever necessary. Nearly two-thirds of its $113 billion in foreign-exchange and gold reserves are denominated in the dollar, which has reigned for decades as the premier global reserve currency.
Alexei Ulyukayev, first deputy chairman of the Russian central bank, said today that the institution was considering altering the mix of its holdings, a move that the Russian bank and others have been hinting at for some time.
"Most of our reserves are in dollars and that's a cause for concern," Bloomberg News quoted him as saying in Moscow. "Looking at the dynamics of the euro-dollar rate, we are discussing the possibility to change the reserve structure.""
"Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday showed reporters a handwritten legislative proposal from an IRS employee that slipped into and nearly stopped the massive appropriations bill passed by Congress this weekend.Well, the story that the IRS wanted the language and not Rep. Ernie Istook seems more plausible now. It also explains why Sen. Stevens became so enraged during debate over the language when Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) accused Republicans of inserting the language. Sen. Stevens got so upset at one point in time that he pounded his lectern quite forcefully, seeming to break his microphone that was attached to the lectern. The part about the story that irks me the most is that Sen. Stevens still says that the intent of the language was commendable:Stevens said the note proves that neither he nor any other Republican had crafted the potentially privacy-invading language. ... Stevens said the IRS provision had been cleared by senior Democratic staff members, along with Republican staff. He has the e-mails to prove it, he said. So when other senators criticized him for sneaking it into the bill, even after he explained what happened, he blew up, he said.
"God that made me mad," Stevens said Monday."
"The language's intent is worthy, Stevens said. It provides authority for agents designated by Appropriations Committee members to enter IRS facilities and check up on the agency as part of Congress' oversight responsibility, Stevens said. The language inadvertently went too far and allowed the congressional investigators to look at actual tax returns instead of just IRS records related to those returns, he said."
Is he out of his mind? I know elderly people begin to lose memory and thinking capacity as they get older, but this guy must be senile. I don't think anyone, besides the current committee chairs who already have the power, should be able to look at any tax returns of Americans or IRS records related to those returns unless through due process in the American legal system.
And I'm sure that if Sen. Stevens was a member of the minority party in America, he'd agree with me too.
|W|P|110125531268547102|W|P|Sen. Stevens proves IRS responsible for tax provision|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"What does the new Bush team remind you of? Funny you should ask. To me, the closest historical parallel would be the Soviet politburo under Brezhnev, where loyalty to the faultless was placed above competence and ideological fealty to a discredited belief system held trump over reality. Think about it. John D’iulio, Anthony Zinni, Eric Shinseki, Paul O’Neil, Christy Whitman, George Tenet, Colin Powell, etc. What do the people—all of whom have been forced out of the administration in one way or another--share with one another? Each has, whether you agree with them or not, a certain degree of competence; a willingness to examine the realities of a problem before arriving at the solution; the respect of some of the professionals with whom they work; and a commitment to working with those around them who share their goals, regardless of party or ideology. Sure some of them screwed up, Tenet being the most obvious example, but even his screw-ups pale besides those who have been promoted or asked to stay, including, particularly Ms. Rice and Messrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, and of course, Cheney. The new rules for Mr. DeLay are another symbol of Soviet-style governance, as is the apparently immaculately conceived law to allow apparatchiks to examine our tax records whenever the spirit moves them."It seems to be a pretty compelling comparison. However, we can make judgment now, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next two to four years. I'm guessing it'll be a lot of flaws and follies and not a whole lot of successes. Like David Brooks of the NY Times points out, it is gonna be tough work to keep the party unified. Especially if they are already having problems. |W|P|110125096947674379|W|P|Bush Adminstration = Soviet Politburo?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"I have spoken with Congressman Istook and he assures me that his office is not responsible for inclusion of the IRS provision into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the so-called omnibus bill. I regret any confusion my earlier remarks may have created."Hmm...I wonder how long it took them to work that out. Istook must've kissed some serious butt to get that apology. |W|P|110124561334906761|W|P|Frist apologizes for accusing Istook|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"It is a rare day when members of the United States Congress try to read the minds of the members of a grand jury in Travis County, Tex. Apparently Tom DeLay's colleagues expect him to be indicted.I particularly like how he uses moral values in this sense. At least one fifth of the people who voted for DeLay, other House and Senate Republicans, and President Bush all cited 'moral values' as one reason why. But now look at what DeLay and House Republicans are doing. When things aren't going their way, they change the rules to fix the problems. Is that moral in anyway? I don't think it is.Last week Congressional Republicans voted to change their rule that required an indicted leader to relinquish his post. They were responding to an investigation by the Travis County grand jury into political contributions by corporations that has already resulted in the indictments of three associates of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader.
Yet no member of Congress has been indicted in the investigation, and none is a target unless he or she has committed a crime. The grand jury will continue its work, abiding by the rule of law. That law requires a grand jury of citizens, not the prosecutor, to determine whether probable cause exists to hold an accused person to answer for the accusation against him or her.
Politicians in Congress are responsible for the leaders they choose. Their choices reflect their moral values."
But it is not the first time Republicans have changed the rules for their benefit during this adminstration.
Look at what President Bush and the White House Counsel has done. They couldn't figure out a way to hold Jose Padilla, a US citizen, without giving him his consititutional rights, so they declared him an enemy combatatant and locked him up. We haven't heard from him since. Moreover, check out what we've done to the Geneva Conventions. Do they even apply to any Americans any more? I doubt it. It is gonna suck for the US so bad when we actually have to fight a nation that follows them and decides to say they don't apply to them either.
But finally, the Republicans are even thinking about changing the rules in the Senate so they can benefit. Those nasty filibusters...right? Majority Leader Bill Frist has been considering an effort to elminate the filibuster when considering certain pieces of legislation.
All of these acts are outrageous. But at least they give Democrats some big things to run on in 2006. If we can stay unified to then.
|W|P|110122646899206351|W|P|Ronnie Earle writes op-ed piece|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Three weeks ago the Republicans won an impressive victory. So what have they been doing since?|W|P|110118638097742433|W|P|Brooks predicts problems for the Republicans|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comFirst, they had an intraparty argument over whether to keep Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman. Then they had an anguished intraparty dispute over whether to bend their rules to protect Tom DeLay. Then on Saturday, they had a long, heated debate about intelligence reform, which ended with 80 to 100 House Republicans defeating or at least stalling a bill that was strongly supported by
President Bush and the Congressional leaders. Forget the Democrats. Bush's biggest problem over the next few years will be keeping his Republican majority together."
Rob|W|P|And I wish 'em all the joys of division. Maybe if they are busy infighting they will fail to get together and do real harm.One can always hope.
Chris Woods|W|P|Oh yes, indeed. Like John Edwards said, "Hope is on the way."I guess he was talking about Republican infighting.
"Wow, I'm glad things are becoming embarassing for the Republicans. I really hope this bad news streak continuing. The Democrats could get a big boost out of it. EssentiallyA $388 billion government-wide spending bill, passed by Congress on Saturday, was stranded on Capitol Hill yesterday, its trip to the White House on hold as embarrassed Republicans prepared to repeal a provision that could give the Appropriations committees the right to examine the tax returns of Americans.
Top GOP lawmakers disavowed the provision, expressed surprise that it was in the bill, and blamed both the Internal Revenue Service and congressional staffs for incorporating it into the omnibus spending package funding domestic departments in 2005."
"The results of the presidential election are still being parsed for what they say about the electorate's supposed closer embrace of traditional cultural values, but for the network television executives charged with finding programs that speak to tastes across the nation, one lesson is clear.It is interesting to see that all of these voters who voted for Bush because of his moral fortitude, excellent values, honesty, and compassion still love to tune into to sex and murder shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "CSI." I just don't understand these voters. You would think that if there is such a large outpouring of support for these angry "family" groups or the radical religious right that there would be a bigger movement for reform and regulation in television and movies. But the only actions we see being taken are towards one-time broadcasts, like "Saving Private Ryan" un-cut on Veteran's Day and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl.The supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld.
In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.
The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say."
Why are so many American's hypocrtical? Someone answer me that.
|W|P|110117501395425094|W|P|"Moral values" folks like sinful TV|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. Citing his responsibilities as governor, Vilsack said "these challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share. As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."This is probably good news for the Democratic Party. Someone with greater political skills, a better unifier, and with a greater gift for organizing and motivating Democrats is needed. Now I just hope he isn't planning on running for a third term. He's a great guy and all, but his wife and lieutenant governor are much better Democrats.
|W|P|110116051890296765|W|P|Iowa Political Report--UPDATE|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Chase Nordengren|W|P|I still think Dean should be leader of the DNC.And Vilsack swears he won't run for a third term. Chet Culver (D-Iowa SecState) says that Vilsack's the only candidate that would stop him from running.
“I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened. I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision. I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed. We have a problem with how bills like this are put together. On occasions, appropriations staff will take the initiative to insert language they believe will be non-controversial. They do this with the approval of full committee staff, but without the knowledge or approval of subcommittee chairman like me. That is what happened in this case. We have a chain of command problem over whether the subcommittee staff are ultimately accountable to the full committee staff—who represent the full committee chairman—or to the subcommittee chairman. The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case. I will work to fix this as part of the reorganization of the appropriations committee that will take place during the next several weeks. I’m satisfied that nobody intended to breach or to weaken the privacy laws that protect people’s tax returns. But good intentions are no guarantee of good results. Our committee has responsibility for the IRS budget. That includes its personnel, facilities and equipment. This language wasn’t sufficiently reviewed because it was drafted by the IRS, so our staff presumed that it was okay. The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers—but NOT inspecting tax returns. That was also made clear on the House floor when the omnibus bill was brought up. Nobody’s privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there’s no conspiracy.”
"Republican leaders said that their motives had been misread and that there was never any intention to invade the privacy of taxpayers. They promised that the provision would be deleted from the bill in a special session on Wednesday before the spending measure, which cleared Congress on Saturday night, was sent toThis doesn't make any sense to me. Look at the language of the provision:President Bush for his signature. Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, who was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation that provides financing for most of the government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." Mr. Istook is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has authority over the I.R.S. budget.
John D. Scofield, the spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for financing the I.R.S. to have access to that agency's offices around the country and tax records so they could examine how the money was being spent. There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said.
Mr. Scofield said the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices. He said the authority would be similar to that allowed senior members and staff assistants of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, the panels with primary jurisdiction over the activities of the revenue service."
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."Sure seems like its intentional to me. I don't understand how it could be construed as unintentional. Here is what Istook said (via the AP in The Guardian, emphasis mine):
"Istook, chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said in a statement Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service drafted the language, which would not have allowed any inspections of tax returns. "Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized," the statement said."That is just a blatant lie. We need to pressure Ernie Istook. What did he want with American's tax information? |W|P|110109646679574060|W|P|GOP says tax clause was misread|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Lawmakers of both parties said today that the Pentagon played a clear role in the defeat of compromise legislation aimed at remaking United States intelligence agencies. ... Some legislators said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had made clear his opposition to the proposed overhaul, which would have stripped the Pentagon of some budgetary control over its vast intelligence operations. A Defense Department spokesman denied any such Pentagon involvement.Essentially, Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld and his goons, jealous and frustrated because they were losing too much power, held up important legislation that would protect all Americans. This isn't a partisan issue, this is a bastard in the DoD issue. He doesn't care about American or human lives, as shown in the events occurring over in Iraq currently. Rumsfeld just wants to wage war and be powerful. According to some Democrats in the House, there are many members who simply never wanted a bill, and still don't. They'll keep tying things up as long as they have to.The Senate intelligence committee chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, was asked why the Republican-controlled House had been unable to pass a measure sought by
President Bush and endorsed by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and many relatives of victims of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Some of it is turf, quite frankly," Mr. Roberts said on CNN, "some of it is from the Pentagon.""
A lot of President Bush's cabinet is resigning--6 of 15 currently. Let's make it 7 and kick Rumsfeld's sorry ass out of there. All he is doing is slowing down efforts to protect America. Hell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard B. Myers endorsed the House version. Why is Rummy so hell-bent on opposing these reforms?
|W|P|110107112328114374|W|P|Pentagon helps to defeat intelligence reform compromises|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"The Republican Visigoths are crushing checks and balances and driving Democrats (and moderate Republicans) into subservient, obedient roles, sticking antiabortion provisions into major spending bills. Even the suggestion that Congress has an advise-and-consent role on judges caused the Visigoths to slap Arlen Specter into stocks, until he whimpered he would do their bidding.|W|P|110106002448952157|W|P|"Absolute Power Erupts"|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comThe party of moral values deemed that crime pays, shielding Tom DeLay with a rule that someone facing a felony charge can still be a leader.
The ultracreepy Mr. DeLay de-pantsed Democrats on Friday, sneering: "I understand the Democrat Party's adjustment to their national minority status is frustrating, but their crushing defeat ... should show them that the American people are tired of the politics of personal destruction."
Well, yeah. Watching Bush supporters shred a war hero into a war criminal was tiring.
This most secretive administration wants to stop the public from getting any facts that might challenge its story line.
The Department of Homeland Security is making employees and contractors sign pledges barring them from telling the public about sensitive but unclassified information.
Porter Goss has warned C.I.A. employees that they should support the administration and "scrupulously honor our secrecy oath" by letting only the agency's public affairs office and Congressional relations branch talk to the media and Congress.
Senate Republicans have voted to allow Bill Frist, the majority leader, to fill vacancies on powerful committees, rather than abiding by the seniority system - a sword over moderates and mavericks.
The White House says it wants greater harmony, but it's acting like the thought police. Having run into resistance in their bid for global domination, the president and vice president are going for federal domination, pushing out anyone with independent judgment who puts democracy above ideology.
It's a paradoxical game plan: imposing democracy abroad while impeding it here."
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."What a crock of shit. Evidentally Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK) asked for the special provision to be added to the omnibus spending bill. So, do we believe Senate Finance Committed Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) that it was a mistake by a staffer? Or should we believe Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and his congressional aides who said it was at the behest of Istook? I'm hearing things that say we should believe that it was Istook. He's been interested in certain tax returns for a long time. We'll see if this leads anywhere. Members from his district say they weren't surprised by this. Maybe we can uncover another Republican ethics violation. Maybe they won't be able to change the rules for their benefit this time. |W|P|110101445529207932|W|P|Exact language of provision|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Steve Austin|W|P|Nice blog. Please check out my free debt consolidation blog. It is all about free debt consolidation. business|W|P|Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!I have a get me out of debt
site/blog. It pretty much covers get me out of debt
related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
- Beginning during the 109th Congress and before April 30, 2005 Senator Boxer will introduce legislation to repeal the so-called Weldon Amendment whre the anti-abortion provision lies
- No less than 4 hours of debate must occur
- Straight up/down vote
- No amendments
"Breaking a monthslong deadlock, key congressional negotiators reported agreement Saturday on legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the Sept. 11 commission. The agreement, reached in the waning hours of a postelection session of Congress, would create a powerful position to oversee the CIA and several other nonmilitary spy agencies. A new national counterterrorism center would coordinate the fight against foreign terrorists."Hopefully, this will be a bipartisan effort and won't have any secret clauses or stipulations added in that would screw America over. Currently on C-Span 2, a quorum call is being held in the Senate. If this is indeed the final compromise on this bill, be prepared for Democratic filibuster in the Senate by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) over the anti-abortion provision I discussed late last night. I'll try and update throughout the day, as much as I can, but today is my birthday, so I might be a bit distracted.
|W|P|110097544890800816|W|P|Intelligence compromise reached|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.It begins now. The ideological divide in America is shining through--even before the new Congress is sworn in--and American's rights are at risk. Democrats have to start working hard now--filibusters have yet to be removed, as Republican Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist has hinted at. Now is the time to make sure that American's rights are protected. A woman's right to choose is a fundamental right--one that is outlined in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized this right in Roe v. Wade, and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1993.The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including
President Bush, in the election. It would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.
"It's something we've had a longstanding interest in," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee. He added, "This is in response to an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion groups across the country to use government agencies to coerce health care providers to participate in abortions."
The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.
"I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."
Ms. Boxer said that she complained to Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but that he told her that House Republican leaders insisted that the provision, which was approved by the House in July but never came to the Senate for a vote, be included in the measure.
"He said, 'Senator, they want it in, and it's going in,' " Ms. Boxer recalled."
Democrats must support Barbara Boxer and her quest to protect women's rights. We must stand up to Christian fundamentalists. These folks are the anti-modernists in America. They pose as big of threat to democracy as Islamic fundamentalists do. Their contempt for the notion of separation of Church and State is evident. We must fight for all of our rights.
Write to your Senators NOW. Email them. Its the fastest way. A vote could take place tomorrow, or at least a filibuster could. Email your senator and demand that they support Barbara Boxer and other Senators in their quest to stop this terrible provision.
But remember, we can't group all conservatives together. There are the wise and bold ones out there, as the Times points out:
|W|P|110092902663231480|W|P|The ideological onslaught begins|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"On Friday, nine female senators - eight Democrats and one Republican, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - wrote a letter to Senator Stevens asking that the language be changed and complaining that it had not gone through committee or to the Senate floor for a vote.
Ms. Snowe called the language "a bad provision" that would "adversely affect reproductive health access for women across the country." She added, "It is an ill-advised policy that is clearly harmful to women.""
lorraine|W|P|Chris,I absolutely agree. It's time to send a quick note to Boxer and other senators demanding that the provision be removed before the bill is voted on.
If the anti-choice zealots want to outlaw abortion, let them take on the issue head-on, and quit using quiet tricks to try to strip away civil liberties. At least then they'll be out of the shadows.
"I want to thank you personally for what you did in the election -- you rewrote the book on grassroots politics, taking control of campaigns away from big donors. No campaign will ever be the same.What is Kerry offering here? Is this an effort to keep Democrats united in the causes of his campaign? Is he pressing forward with what he fought for--even though he lost? If so, this would be monumental. I think this is a radical step Kerry has taken. First of all, after two straight elections where the outcome has been contested and conspircacy theories (or in the case of 2000, true stories) of a stolen election have been passed among the people, he is going back to work to fight for a process that resulted in his losing the election. He is fighting to make it fair and free for all Americans.You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio.
And your efforts count now more than ever. Despite the words of cooperation and moderate sounding promises, this administration is planning a right wing assault on values and ideals we hold most deeply. Healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA, and the cabinet is being remade to rubber stamp policies that will undermine Social Security, balloon the deficit, avoid real reforms in health care and education, weaken homeland security, and walk away from critical allies around the world.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.
I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
I ask you to join me in this cause.
And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
There are more than eight million uninsured children in our nation.
That's eight million reasons for us to stay together and fight for a new direction. It is a disgrace that in the wealthiest nation on earth, eight million children go without health insurance.
Normally, a member of the Senate will first approach other senators and ask them to co-sponsor a bill before it is introduced -- instead, I am turning to you. Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen. Sign our "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors:
http://johnkerry.com/EveryChild
This is the beginning of a second term effort to hold the Bush administration accountable and to stand up and fight for our principles and our values. They want you to disappear; they are counting on that. I'm confident you will prove them wrong, and you will rewrite history again.
Here is what I want you to know. I understand the strength, commitment, and passion that are at the core of what we built together -- and I am determined to make our collective energy and organization a force to be reckoned with in the weeks and months ahead.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work for our country."
But more importantly, the radical step I see in John Kerry's message is creating a level of accountability. By asking ordinary Americans to co-sponsor this piece of legislation and campaign promise, he is taking his supoorters and proving that he is following through with his campaign promises--no matter the outcome of the election. He knows, as do countless others, that Bush's policies will destroy America and her good name.
By continuing to sponsor grassroots efforts to maintain accountability in politics, Kerry is creating a new wave of momentum for Democrats. He's keeping us together in our time of despair. He's giving us a cause to unite behind and to push forward with. Bush got mandate, or so he claims--but Kerry is operating from the will of the 54 million Americans who voted for him and his promise for healthcare for all American children.
Bush hasn't gone to the people to ask for support for his policies that he's proposing. He's putting them forward for people's approval. But that's as far as it goes. John Kerry is taking the campaign promises back to the people, who are the ones who our President and Congressmen and Congresswomen are supposed to representing.
A bold and radical move--one that America needs. Keep it up, Kerry. We may have lost a battle, but the war isn't over. All of you out there reading this: spread the word. The fight against radical conservative agendas and policies of destruction continues--and it is all across America. Let us unite to fight. We must live to see the bright light of 2008.
|W|P|110091464038473591|W|P|New John Kerry message|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"The persistence of bloated U.S. trade deficits over time can pose a risk to the U.S. economy, which thus far has proven resilient, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Friday. Policy-makers must not get lulled into a sense of complacency, he said. So far, foreigners are willing to lend the United States money to finance the current account imbalances, Greenspan pointed out. The worry, however, is that at some point foreigners might suddenly lose interest in holding dollar-denominated investments. That could cause foreigners to unload investments in U.S. stocks and bonds, sending their prices plunging and interest rates soaring. The sliding value of the U.S. dollar has made some private economists more concerned about this potential risk. "It seems persuasive that, given the size of the U.S. current account deficit, a diminished appetite for adding to dollar balances must occur at some point," Greenspan said. "But when, through what channels and from what level of the dollar? Regrettably, no answer to those questions is convincing," he said."As seen above, Greenspan warns that the decreasing value could cause foreigners to dump thier investments in the dollar. Essentially what that does is create a destructive effect on the US economy. As the market exchange rate continues to decrease for the dollar, as the story points, prices of American goods with plunge, resulting in destructive profit effects, and interest rates will begin to climb rapidly--which is not good. The Financial Times has an interesting article as well this morning on the issue. It's a subscription service only, so I'll just post what I feel is the most important part of the report:
"The US currency came under renewed selling pressure the moment it became clear George W. Bush had been re-elected president. In the two and a half weeks since then, the alue of the dollar has fallen 2.5 percent against the euro and 1.9 percent against the yen. The falls represent an acceleration of the dollar's steady decline since 2002. Since the start of that year, the greenback has fallen 32 percent against the euro and 21 percent against the yen. . . . Darek Halpenny, currency analyst at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, points to a "very grim" outlook for the dollar in the near term. "With the foreign exchange market now focused entirely on the problem of the US budget deficit and current account deficits, there is a real risk that dollar selling becomes a crisis of confidence," he says. . . . There is a fear in the currency markets that the dollar's decline, which has been gradual and orderly so far, will turn into a rout."If the deline does indeed become a rout like the Financial Times predicts, it could spell economic disaster for the United States. Over at the Daily Kos, DC Poli Sci posted an interesting commentary on the impending economic disaster in America. He points out that the euro continues to hit record highs in its value, the value of gold is up, and consumer prices are up in America. He writes:
"Over the long run, Bush's fiscal policies are bound to drive us into ruin. Let's not forget that the Great Depression came in the middle of 12 years of uninterrupted Republican rule and rape of the economy.His analysis is of course, quite colloquial, but indeed it seems to be right on the mark. Americaneeds to be concerned with these events. It seems that as we continue to ignore the voting problems that are being uncovered in Florida with e-voting, we also seem to be ignoring the dire economic problems on our horizon. The Bush Administration has torn our economy apart with unhealthy foreign policy activities, unrellenting tax cuts, ignoring our international debt, and unrestricted spending. Just today, President Bush signed legislation extending the United States debt limit to $8,180,000,000,000.This time around, we have 1) the budget deficit creating a lack of trust in our economy such that even the IMF is worried; 2) oil prices going through the roof as a result of the instability WE have created in the Middle East and the fact that China is buying up every spare drop of oil on the world markets; 3) the fact that the rest of the world hates us is not inspiring much interest in investing in the U.S.
With the dollar in free fall, interest rates on the way up, inflation rising, what's next? Well, I overheard a little tidbit a couple of weeks ago at a meeting here in Washington to the effect that at the rate things are going, nobody will want to buy our bonds until they go into junk status.
Will it take another Great Depression to bring the Roosevelt coalition that Dean talks so much about back into existence? Will the masses in the red states have to be starving before they realize that having a job and food on the table is more important than whether gays can marry?"
If these unwise and irresponsible actions continue by our goverment, I recommend purchasing a shot-gun, plenty of shells, and can goods. Also, invest in euros. That's a safe bet. Maybe. But who knows, Bush could screw that up to. He has a tendency to spread disaster.
|W|P|110089184482794298|W|P|Greenspan worried about the dollar|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- Paper can be found here, the first listing under the heading of "Voting"
- Wired New reports on the findings here.
- Computer World report can be found here.
"A UC Berkeley sociology professor, director of his school’s Survey Research Center, is scheduled to conduct a news conference at 1 p.m. ET today at which his “research team” will report that “irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes” to President Bush in Florida.This is interesting news. Already Cal Tech-MIT has come out in support of the exit polling results that were done, stating that they were within the margin of error, and thus good indicators. The University of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has come out denouncing the exit polls. This is becoming quite complicated as the universities battle each other. Reminds me of the BCS mess last year. I'll post information as soon as I can get it from UC-Berkely. It could be quite challenging though, since I will be watching the Clinton Library opening, plus having to eat lunch and go to class by 12:30.The advance word of the news conference gives little detail, but suggests Professor Michael Hout might be treading out onto thin ice. His study is said to show “an unexplained discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic machines were used versus counties using traditional voting methods.”
Now for some more bad news from Ohio.
The Dayton Daily News is reporting significant undercounting problems in some of the state's counties that used the punch-hole voting, as in Florida in 2000. The article requires registration to read, so if you're really interested, register and read it. Otherwise, here is Olbermann's analysis of the article:
I think Olbermann sums it up quite well when he says, "What the hell happened?" The unfortunate part is that we may never know. Hopefully, the recount in Ohio by Nader/Cobb will lead us to some knowledge of the dirty tricks that were played on Kerry voters, if any occurred. And they we can just add them to the ethics and legal violations that Republicans are having recently (read: they can be friends with Tom DeLay)."For 40 years, the Dayton Daily News reports this morning, Shirley Wightman has worked at polling places on election days. Two weeks ago, she says, turnout was high - 611 voters - and she and her colleagues paid careful attention to their punch-card, chad-filled, voting stations in Washington Township, Ohio.
“We checked the machines periodically,” Ms. Wightman told the paper, “and I could see nothing wrong with them.”
Yet when the votes were tallied, 168 of the 611 voters had made no choice for president. Unless these were the famed undecideds we heard so much about in the closing weeks of the campaigns, something went terribly wrong. 27 and a half percent of the voters in that “Washington X” precinct in Montgomery County officially didn’t have a presidential preference.
This was the high point of the Daily News’ investigative analysis of the still-unofficial voting results in its county— or more properly, perhaps, the low point. The paper discovered that of the 284, 650 votes in Montgomery, a total of 5,693 registered no valid vote for president. And the percentages were significantly higher in the 231 precincts that wound up voting for Kerry (2.8%) than did the 354 that wound up voting for Bush (1.6%).
Besides Washington X, a second County precinct exceeded 27% ‘undercount,’ as the election professionals, such as they are, call it. Washington X, Kettering 3-A, and five of the other top ten ‘undercount’ precincts by percentage wound up supporting Bush.
Since, as the papers note, political scientists suggested that the poor and the lesser-educated are presumed to have more trouble with punch card voting, there are several logical disconnects here. Given the outcomes in those two precincts, Washington X and Kettering 3-A, were those mostly Bush voters who managed to blank out more than a quarter of their own ballots, or did the precincts wind up voting for Bush because more than a quarter of the ballots had no valid presidential vote?
What happened in the voting precincts in Moraine, Ohio? 2,557 votes were cast at seven sites there. The President won the city by 2%. The number of ballots without a valid presidential vote was 5.6%.
What do the state undercounts in Ohio look like? Did they reduce Bush’s margin of victory? Did they eliminate votes for Kerry? What the hell happened?
The least likely explanations are that these people couldn’t make up their minds, or screwed up only the presidential part of their ballots.
“It is very difficult to believe that a quarter of the people would not vote for president, especially in a year like this,” University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato— an old friend of Countdown— told the Daily News. “If I were the election officers in those areas I would be doing some very extensive checks of those machines.”
As the Ohio recount nears, the number of hotspots continues to multiply. You are aware of the remarkable late night voting lines throughout the state, and the mysterious Glitch of Youngstown which initially registered negative 25,000,000 votes. There is the Gahanna machine which gave one presidential candidate 4,000 extra votes in a community of 600. And the farcical “walling off” of the vote counting in Warren County, because the county head of security was told face-to-face of an FBI terrorism warning there - except the FBI says it didn’t issue any terrorism warnings there.
The Associated Press today carries a report of 2,600 ballots in nine precincts around Sandusky, Ohio that were counted twice— as that paper puts it— “likely because of worker error.” The Clyde precinct showed a voter turnout of 131%, to the dismay of the head of the elections board, Barb Tuckerman.
Ms. Tuckerman, in one of the great quotes of the election, told the News-Messenger of Fremont, Ohio: “I knew there was something amiss.”"
Finally, a little bit of news out of Iowa. The Des Moines Register reports this morning that Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is saying that Governor Tom Vilsack is gaining support for his bid to become chair of the Democratic National Committee. The story can be read here.
Moreover, Iowa led the nation in voter turnout. No surprise there, we predicted it all along. Too bad we went for Bush. Register story here.
|W|P|110079493278451285|W|P|Ohio voting--irregularities and undervotes|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.To me, this is just another example of conservatives preaching ethics and yet violating them without consequences. I must give applause, however, to those Republicans who voted against this rule change, a very gutsy move I must admit, as they had to openly voice their dissent within party ranks. According to the Times article:Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted. The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.
The new rule was adopted by voice vote. Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it."
"Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.Applause to Mr. Shays, and those "handful" of others who let their reasonable voices be heard. And thanks to Josh Marshall, over at TPM, with these passages from numerous legislators on their views of the rule change."This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.
When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.
But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."
- Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): "Republicans have reached a new low. It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."
- Trent Franks (R-AZ): ""In my sincere opinion, it [the possible indictment of DeLay] only provoked the timing. When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."
- Denny Hastert (R-IL): DeLay Rule "fair and equitable"; voting for DeLay Rule a "a good decision."
- Henry Bonilla (R-TX): DeLay Rule "takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" House leadership.
- Kevin Brady (R-TX): DeLay Rule is "a recognition that the rules of politics have changed. The courts and judges and prosecutors are all now part of what used to be the voters' decision. We're in an ugly world."
- $1 million for the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology at ISU [Iowa State University]
- $268,000 to ISU to research livestock emissions at animal feeding operations
- $224,000 to Northeast Iowa Community College to provide training on responding to farm accidents
- $750,000 for the Silos and Smokestacks project, a national heritage area in northeast Iowa that highlights the state's agricultural history
- "New Bush Cabinet Seen as Move for More Harmony and Control"
- "The Bush Revolution" an op-ed by Nicholas D. Kristof
Kevin Cook|W|P|Chris, I really like your writing... good to know there's other insightful stuff out there.Check out my blog at http://cook2020.blogspot.com.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."Now, I'm thinking that this was indeed a very partisan memo. The Times points out that later on in the memo, Goss states that it is the CIA's job to report the intelligence and let the Administration and Congress determine the policy. But I don't think that is what Goss is really doing. Goss was a fierce partisan when in Congress--which is exactly what the Bush adminstration needs in intelligence and at the upper levels of the United States government. As the Times article points out, in the last few months the CIA has been seen as attempting to thwart or demean a lot of the Bush Adminstration's policies, particularly in Iraq. By placing Goss, the fierce partisan, in a position of power, Bush is able to reclaim some control in intelligence, as well as begin building a conservative and hawkish executive in Washington. This is particularly evidenced in the recent Cabinet resignations and reshuffling. The two biggest examples are Alberto Gonzales and Condolezza Rice, as Attorney General and Secretary of State, respectively. Gonzales has been a staunch supporter of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's positions, as well as the head architect of the United State's ignorance towards the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, he is seen as loyal and unchallenging, thus solidifying Bush's adminstration. However, his role is limited, as John Ashcroft was a man much of the same sort. The biggest evidence of concentrating power and trust in the Cabinet through loyal support is the nomination of National Security Advisor Condi Rice to Secretary of State. From SoS Colin Powell was long viewed as the moderate in the position, the only Cabinet member with influence over policy decisions to try and temper the actions of the hawkish Secretary of Defense Donal Rumsfeld and his deputies, as well as other Cabinet members like Rice, and VP Dick Cheney. She is also known as a close confidante of President Bush, now giving him a much stronger control of US diplomacy, if indeed he plans on maintaining diplomatic relations with nations other than Russia, Austrailia, Great Britain--and don't forget--Poland. The United States seems to be in a precarious position now with the death of Yasser Arafat and the continuing failures in Iraq. A more loyal Bush Cabinet and adminstration could spell disaster for those blue-blooded Americans, those that don't trust Bush as far as they could throw him. |W|P|110066812145746370|W|P|Solidifying conservative control of the executive|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"Nov. 15, 2004 — National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be nominated to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state, ABC News has learned.
Senior administration sources confirmed that Rice would be Bush's choice. The news comes just hours after the White House announced Powell had submitted his resignation.
Rice, considered to be one of the president's closest counselors, has served as national security adviser since Bush first took office."
More to come later, I'm sure. |W|P|110055958126986277|W|P|Rice is Powell's successor|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"A win doesn't mean that all is well in the Republican Party. Though their candidate came out ahead on Nov. 2, some moderate Republicans are as despondent as Democrats. While Christian conservatives have been credited with turning out like-minded voters in crucial swing states, many moderates say they have been marginalized.The article also discusses the Arlen Specter (R-PA) situation, which can be found discussed and analyzed in detail here. Here is a link to an article discussing Falwell's new initiative. And on to a different story. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC posted on Bloggermann that the Libertarian and Green parties had raised over $150,000 to fund their recount in Ohio. Ohio state law states that a recount costs $10 per precinct. From the post:"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."
Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP. Some Christian conservatives say it doesn't.
"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.
After President Bush's re-election, evangelicals were quickly branded the "it" political group. They have taken a two-week victory lap, appearing around the clock on cable news networks while touting a conservative social agenda.
Out of the spotlight and largely overlooked, some moderates said they feel like politicians without a party.
Issues such as gay marriage and abortion have exposed fissures in the majority party, as conservatives push for what they call "pro-family" policies and moderates urge renewed focus on fiscal conservatism.
Evangelicals have been quick to seize on their moment in the spotlight, launching efforts to expand their influence and criticizing Republicans who don't toe the conservative line on social issues.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced plans last week for an "evangelical revolution," forming the Faith and Values Coalition, which he described as a resurrection of the Moral Majority."
Hopefully the recount can bring some good results, and if not, I hope it will at least brighten the picture in Ohio with regards to voting irregularities or voter fraud. Also over at MSNBC, David Shuster is reporting via Harblogger that provisional ballot recounting has begun in earnest across the state of Ohio. He addresses certain conspiracy theories, such as the hacking of certain ballot counting machines. He also does the math to determine if it is likely that Kerry could win Ohio. In the best of circumstances, Kerry would still probably lose by an estimated 3,000 or so votes. |W|P|110055872093427698|W|P|Cabinet shake-ups and recount news|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"A presidential vote recount in Ohio seems inevitable today with the announcement from Green Party candidate David Cobb that he and the Libertarians' Michael Badnarik have raised $150,000 in donations to meet filing fees and expenses.
That fund-raising goal was set last Thursday; on Cobb's website the two parties now say they're going to try to raise an additional $100,000 for "training, mobilizing, and per diem expenses" for those "thousands" who'll be involved in the statewide effort. They're also calling for volunteers from Ohio, and elsewhere, to be the Green/Lib observers in the county-by-county process, or house out-of-state volunteers."
" No food. No water. No help. As fierce fighting casts a pall of smoke over the rubble-strewn Iraqi city of Falluja, thousands of Iraqi families remain cut off from desperately needed supplies."But it doesn't end there. Numerous civilian reports are saying that many civilians have been killed, and there is one report that a family had to bury their 9 year-old son have he bled to death from a shrapnel wound received during the attack on Falluja. Moreover, in this story, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reports that there have been no civilian casualties in Falluja. That's just down right lies. He must be taking his lessons from President Bush. More from the story:
"A Reuters correspondent who drove through the city saw utter destruction. Bodies lay in the streets. Homes were smashed, mosques ruined, and power and telephone lines hung uselessly. [Marine Colonel Mike] Shupp said the Red Crescent did not need to deliver aid to civilians in Falluja and questioned whether there were any. "There is no need to bring supplies in because we have supplies of our own for the people. Now that the bridge is open, I will bring out casualties and all aid work can be done here." Shupp said he had not heard of any Iraqi civilians being trapped inside the city and did not think that was the case."Who the hell do we have over there giving this guy his information? Some blind guy? This is insane. First, we nominate a man for Attorney General who believes that the Geneva Accords don't apply in many cases to the United States' War on Terror, essentially disregarding international law. Now we're hearing from a Marine commander in the field who doubts that aid is needed and that in a city of 300,000 people they all left before the US attacked. What kind of drugs are they giving our troops. Or maybe he just meant he and his pals had killed all the civilians. I guess we'll just wait and see.
|W|P|110045415526088553|W|P|The humanitarian crisis in Falluja|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
- News on the beginning of provisional ballot counting across the state
- An Associated Press story on the difficulties in North Carolina, site of the worst voting problems in the 2004 election, but stil not as bad as Florida in 2000
- The Kerry Campaign is still working hard to garner votes and help make sure every vote is counted in Ohio, a team of lawyers is still working to verify provisional ballots
- A report attempting to defeat some of the Internet rumors about Cuyahoga County
- Evidentally, Hispanic voters faced many difficulties in Ohio, particularly in Cuyahgoga County
- Finally, an article from the AP detailing flaws that the non-partisan group Count Every Vote 2004 found in seven southern states
- The race is still tight in New Mexico and counting is still continuing. According to the AP, Bush's lead over Kerry is only 6800 votes right now, and one county still hasn't reported
- According to the Washington Post, Ralph Nader has asked for a recount in New Hampshire, where he lost by 335,000 votes
- Hardblogger, over at MSNBC, is keeping up with the election and vote counting stories. More interesting is this post by David Shuster where he talks about the Green and Libertarian Parties' efforts to get a recount in Ohio, and he'll be posting some interesting post-election breakdowns later this weekend (I'll update as soon as he posts them)
- Here is the press realease from the Libertarian/Green Party stating their desire for a recount
TS|W|P|Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places whereyou can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
jon|W|P|Surfing some of the gay pride blogs today I stumbled onto your blog. I liked it! Thanks for the posts..."In any event, if Nader and Cobb are at the edges, questions about Ohio moved back into the mainstream yesterday with another cogent article in The Cincinnati Enquirer. The rationale for the bizarre “lockdown” of the vote-counting venue in Warren County on election night suddenly broke down when it was contradicted by spokespersons from the FBI and Ohio’s primary homeland security official.This seems to be an interesting story to follow. If indeed the FBI and Homeland Security did not issue the warnings in Warren County, then who did? I think these questions need to be answered--and soon. A Cincinnati Enquirer editorial on what happened in Warren County on election night is located here.County Emergency Services Director Frank Young said last week that in a face-to-face meeting with an FBI agent, he was warned that Warren County, outside Cincinnati, faced a “terrorist threat.” County Commissioners President Pat South amplified, insisting to us at Countdown that her jurisdiction had received a series of memos from Homeland Security about the threat. “These memos were sent out statewide, not just to Warren County, and they included a lot of planning tools and resources to use for election day security.
“In a face to face meeting between the FBI and our director of Emergency Services,” Ms. South continued, “we were informed that on a scale from 1 to 10, the tri-state area of Southwest Ohio was ranked at a high 8 to a low 9 in terms of security risk. Warren County in particular, was rated at 10.”
But the Bureau says it issued no such warning.
“The FBI did not notify anyone in Warren County of any specific terrorist threat to Warren County before Election Day,” FBI spokesman Michael Brooks told Enquirer reporters Erica Solvig and Dan Horn.
Through a spokeswoman, Ohio Public Safety Director Ken Morckel told the newspaper that his office knew of no heightened terror warning for election night for Warren County or any other community in Greater Cincinnati.
Despite the contradiction from both security services, Ms. South again amplified, telling the Enquirer “It wasn’t international terrorism that we were in fear of; it was more domestic terrorism.”
So the media was kept two floors away from the vote counting at the Warren County Administration on election night on the basis of a “10” FBI terror threat that the FBI says was never issued."
I recommending following Olbermann's blog, as well as his program, for important updates on what is going on in these investigations, I guess you could call them.
Another blog with a local perspective in Ohio is "Ohio Voter Suppression News." It contains numerous links to articles, with facts and reports contradicting each other on the same story (not the blog, but actual newspapers in Ohio). It seems to me that things in Ohio aren't exactly clear enough to solidly declare fair and accurate elections througout the state.
Another excellent report on the situation in Ohio can be found here via the Boston Phoenix.
Finally, one of the most interesting reports so far, comes from international observers. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Election Observation released it's preliminary report on the election (PDF file, Adobe Acrobat Reader required), with both pre-election and election day results. While not offering any specifics, the report did highlight numerous problems that occurred across the country including: poorly trained officials, malfunctioning equipment, illegal pollwatchers positioned to challenge voters, arbitrary standards, and polling places unequipped to handle the turnout that was expected. I will definitely be interested to see their final report.
Finally, I know some of you are probably wondering if I believe in all of these "Bush cheated" conspiracy theories and all the junk floating around on the Internet. As much as I want to believe everything that I hear, that conservatives purposely played tricks on the election council in Warren County, that Deibold machines we purposely made to malfunction in order to give Bush more votes, and whatever else would help John Kerry have a shot at the presidency, I doubt much of the stuff will offer any real support to our Democratic candidate.
I do believe, however, that results will change and we will see some of the horrific mistakes that occurred in this election, whether through fraud, intimidation, malfunctions, et cetera. I believe that this election was indeed closer in states like Florida and Ohio and that some voters were deliberately cheated out of casting a ballot for their candidate of choice.
I hope the media (both mainstream and on the Net), particularly Olbermann and other bloggers, continue to report on the irregularities of this election. Only through revision and review can things be fixed for the future.
|W|P|110032220866877882|W|P|Is the election really over?|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com- Here is an AP story, likely to be changed to a NY Times writer soon, on what President Bush and British PM Tony Blair plan on doing with things so up in the air in the Middle East.
- Kos, over at the Daily Kos, has this take on Arafat. And it definitely isn't a positive one.
- The NY Times has a fascinating obituary for Arafat, describing his life and his actions in pretty interesting detail.
- King Abdullah II offers his insight into the next steps in the peace process.
- Jimmy Carter also continues offering insight into the future.
- Benny Morris, a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, provides some depth in understanding Arafat.
- The Washington Post's editorial on Yasser Arafat's death.
- Thoughts from A Tiny Revolution on Yasser Arafat's impact in the Middle East.
- Mark Levine's comments, via Juan Cole's Informed Comment.
- The Economist's free report on Yasser Arafat.
"Police said that their biggest concern is that the tens of thousands of Palestinians who flock to mosques for prayers on the last Friday of Ramadan will begin to riot and may attempt to breach military checkpoints and enter Israel."I sincerely believe that this won't happen on a tremendous scale--at least not the scale that Israeli defense and police forces are preparing for. I hope the Palestinian people take their time to mourn--peacefully. When the mourning time has ended, the goal of peace in Arafat's name should be their mission. If not, we may have an even bigger eruption of violence in the Middle East, beyond just the insurgency battles in Iraq. |W|P|110021218706227858|W|P|Israel police raise alert to 'war level'|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"A spokeswoman at the U.S. military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, the usual destination for seriously wounded U.S. troops stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, said 102 Americans arrived from Iraq in two plane loads on Thursday. They joined 125 wounded troops who arrived there from Monday to Wednesday."That is 227 soldiers injured already. What the hell is happening over there? Are we seriously facing that big of a fight in Falluja, or is the MC commander correct in that there have only been 69 injuries and it's just the rest of Iraq that is going to hell in a handbasket? The DoD and the Bush Administration need to get their act together--and quick. The American public are going to be demanding answers soon. Moreover, Iraq's third-largest city, Mosul, is also becoming overrun with insurgent threats and destruction. Again, from the AP via Yahoo! News:
"And while U.S.-led troops fought for the upper hand in Falluja, insurgents in the northern city of Mosul set police stations ablaze, stole weapons and brazenly roamed the streets.As the Daily Kos so bluntly puts it, "So we'll have to attack Mosul (which is 10 times larger than Falluja), pushing all those insurgents back to Falluja. And Iraq's endless spiral of violence will continue unabated." Basically, we're losing--and we are losing bad. America has got to get its act together. Any hope of Iraq stability is fading quickly. And with the death of Yasser Arafat the Middle East could be in for some of its most treachorous times.|W|P|110021108842557285|W|P|Battle for Iraq continues|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comResidents said Iraq's third largest city seemed to slide out of control as grenade blasts and gunfire rang through empty streets and smoke billowed from two burning police stations.
Rebels attacked Iraqi national guards controlling a bridge in the city center, killing five of them, witnesses said.
A cameraman for Reuters filmed gunmen raiding weapons and flak jackets from a police station before setting it on fire [...]
The U.S. military issued a statement admitting that local security forces had been overrun in several areas and said local authorities were doing what they could to restore order [...]
Violence has worsened in Mosul, a strongly nationalist city of three million people, over the past year, but residents said the chaos of the past two days had broken new ground."
J.R. Boyd|W|P|This is something that Americans can have real influence over, if they want. The original settlement plan--as shaped by the US--was for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied terrorities, period. From what I understand, that remains the international consensus today. Unfortunately, the US has blocked it ever since. Israeli policy is US policy. The US gives upwards of 6 billion dollars in military aid to Israel--completely off the spectrum by comparative standards. "Military aid" is money that goes from the US taxpayer to American corporations, and manages to hurt all sorts of people in the process. The defense industry gets its check from the American people, and the hardliners in Israel get to stay in power. So there's a real advantage to being the main obstacle to peace. Arafat was basically recruited in Oslo I to keep his people in line. Israel at that time was moving towards a more standard type of colonialism--namely, hire local mercenaries and let them police their people. For Arafat, follow the Israeli line and be rewarded, like other third world elites. I think the perception that Arafat had "betrayed his duty" in later years came from a failure to do his job. Probably many Arabs did not take him seriously, lending momentum to the more extreme groups.
"Even before the formal announcement, one Senate liberal welcomed the appointment of "someone less polarizing" to the position. "We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee."I hope Schumer is right. However, I believe that this may be an extremely political appointment (I know it is a political appointment overall) because of the fact that Bush drew more support from Hispanics in the recent election. It seems to me that this was a move by Republicans to expand the conservative Hispanic base, as well as solidify what support exists already. If so, then instead of searching for the most qualified candidate to fill Ashcroft's vacancy, the Bush adminstration nominated someone who will bring Hispanic support to the Republican candidate in 2008. Or maybe I'm just full of assertions and conspiracy theories like the above. |W|P|110012428824065825|W|P|Bush nominates new AG|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."Hmm...nice assertion, pal. Meanwhile, the rest of the story can be found here, via the NY Times. Evans' resignation letter is here. I have to admit, I didn't see Don Evans' resignation coming, as he and Bush are good friends. I wonder if it was in an effort to put him in a new position. We'll have to wait and see. |W|P|110004932550189433|W|P|Bush cabinet shake-ups|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
In Democracy and America, Alexis de Tocqueville discusses what he views as the characteristics of American society. One specific topic he addresses is the relationship between democracy, or democratic ideals, and the religion of Christianity. Tocqueville asserts that human actions come from their beliefs and values, which are founded in their religious institutions and their practices. The question then is: What is the contemporary impact of Christianity on American society and democracy?
For the sake of clear analysis, I will examine Christianity as is perceived in the most general of terms by America, as Tocqueville did. The most well known Christian groups in the United States are those “born-again” and those attempting to evangelize through whatever means necessary, known as Christian fundamentalists. The University of Virginia estimates that there are around 30 million of these believers in America. Giles Fraser in The Guardian newspaper explains fundamentalism as such: “The common denominator is a refusal to accept that a sacred text can be legitimately read in more than one way. This goes hand in hand with the belief that scripture has a straightforward meaning, often twisted by clever sophistry dancing to secular tunes of gay liberation, feminism, socialism, and so on” (Fraser). While this may not be a balanced view of all Christian institutions, to some extent it is what many Christian groups offer to do: bring you to salvation by indulging in their particular beliefs. Through this generalization, a clear impact on society and democracy in America can be shown.
One notion that Tocqueville presents in Democracy in America is that “fixed ideas about God and human nature” can come from religion, thus clouding belief and creating stubborn, dogmatic opinion. However, in America, “the practice of their lives prevents them from acquiring such ideas” (Tocqueville 21). He claims that Americans were able to clearly separate their generalizations on religion between what occurs in reality. Thanks to the evangelization mission of Christian fundamentalists, many people are falling prey to the fixed ideas. One contemporary example is homosexuality.
Leviticus, 18:22 from the Old Testament of the Bible says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (New International Version). This is interpreted to mean that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin, thus condemning any belief they may have or a relationship that they may choose to engage in. However, if the Bible is read closely, it should be noted that a father can sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Furthermore, anyone working on Sundays (the Sabbath) should be put to death (Exodus 35:2). What is seen is the antiquated nature of Old Testament Christian doctrine. It is acceptable in today’s America, as well as the world, to do these things.
These attitudes are contrary to Tocqueville’s argument in Democracy in America. The dogmatic and stubborn views of Christian fundamentalists have blinded their eyes to the realities of society, and the true nature of Christianity. Traditional values have changed, but the views of fundamentalists, unfortunately, have not. Thus American society receives a bigoted point of view towards certain groups. Tocqueville addresses the need of religion not to counter every secular societal idea that exists and the affairs of the secular world. He says, “The more the conditions of men are equalized and assimilated to each other, the more important is it for religion, while it carefully abstains from the daily turmoil of secular affairs, not needlessly to run counter to the ideas that generally prevail or to the permanent interests that exist in the mass of the people” (26). Tocqueville recognized that the church was a necessary and critical element of society, but it does not need to counteract what society does because it still has the influence over their believers and congregations.
Tocqueville also made the claim, “In America religion has, as it were, laid down its own limits. Religious institutions have remained wholly indifferent from political institutions, so that former laws have been easily changed while former belief has remained unshaken” (6). At the time of his writing, religious institutions, as it were, did remain entirely separate of the political institutions that existed. A prominent example of Christian fundamentalists attempting to establish a location or tradition of no church and state is the efforts of some 12,000 Christians who plan to move to South Carolina in an attempt to make the state a “Christian domain.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that 28-year-old Cory Burnell and a group he calls the ChristianExodus plan to move to South Carolina and “he plans to reshape the South Carolina General Assembly to make the state a Christian domain. And if the federal government does not stop imposing what he considers its liberal will, he wants South Carolina to secede” (Riddle). Burnell also claimed that a political consultant was working for free for the group to determine twelve Congressional seats where they could run Christians and would be guaranteed a win.
The efforts of this radical group are just one attempt to desecularize American society as well as reshape the structure of government to represent the will of a minority group. The efforts of this group seek to represent only a particular constituency—Christians. This is not among the ideals and theories of representative democracy and the American republic. The Founders chose representation as the way to represent the will of the majority, but keep in touch with all the feelings of those citizens of the constituency.
Democracy in America rests on the diversity of the community and an inherent divide between the Church and the State, as espoused by the Founders. Tocqueville noted the necessary role of religion in American democracy: “All the American clergy know and respect the intellectual supremacy exercised by the majority; they never sustain any but necessary conflicts with it” (27). However, fundamentalists and those seeking to abolish secularism have perpetuated unnecessary conflicts with the majority by ignoring the intellectual supremacy of the majority.
As Tocqueville noted, “It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society” (6). Apply this to contemporary society, however, and we see the inherent problems. Those who are self-proclaimed Atheists are at odds with those believing in a religion. Moreover, those with other religious beliefs have conflicts as well. While Tocqueville is correct in stating that religion did give birth to American society, its doctrine does not belong in government. Religion’s place in society must be valued because of its inherent ability to construct social norms and morals. While these morals and norms may not be universal, but they are constructs of society from whence society can operate.
Tocqueville also offers the notion that religion is necessary to relieve democracy of its natural weaknesses. He says, “Religious nations are therefore nationally strong on the very point on which democratic nations are weak” (22). He furthers this argument by explaining the tendency of equality to offer dangerous propensities, such as isolation. Because no religion puts man’s desires above the glory of the earth, it acts as a counter to the dangers of equality.
This argument by Tocqueville must be qualified. As democracies arise and newly form, religious institutions and those that offer some check on the extreme freedoms and equality that come to nations who might never have experienced these fundamental ideals. Inherent in many religions are civic associations where those of the same belief can come together and discuss the issues that affect them. Tocqueville, throughout Democracy in America, strives to stress the importance of these civic institutions and associations in constructing democracy.
Contemporary America does not have this need because a foundation exists for democratic institutions, and individuals and other groups know how to check undemocratic actions. Today, fundamentalist Christianity attempts to stress the necessity of its role in government by contributing funds to politicians who seek to desecularize America. Their main push is to fix America’s “hedonistic” society. By promoting Christian values and morals, they hope to make America a better place. The problem of their exercise is their contempt towards other religious institutions and groups that promote societal norms and values of the same kind.
Their view is an absolutist view, that only they are correct. This is at odds with what Christianity is all about. Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible proclaims that we should love and respect everyone around us, and that forgiveness is the key to salvation. Tocqueville notes this specifically when he says, “The Gospel…speaks of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith” (23). Fundamentalist Christianity’s absolutist view can cloud their judgment on a multitude of issues.
Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the dangerous consequences of a fundamentalist religion when he wrote, “A religion that became more insistent in details, more inflexible, and more burdened with small observations during the time that men became more equal would soon find itself limited to a band of fanatic zealots in the midst of a skeptical multitude” (25). The Moral Majority of the 1980s could be considered one of the groups that Tocqueville mentioned. Their leader, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, has long been a fundamentalist.
After the events of September 11, 2001, Rev. Falwell said on the television show “The 700 Club,” a Christian evangelization television program, that the primary cause of the attacks was secular groups. On the September 13 program, he said, “I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People of the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face, and say, ‘you helped this happen.’” Falwell’s argument is absurd—that those who secularize society are the ones who destroy it and cause terrorism. Falwell had no justification for his comment, other than his hatred for those who secularize. The entire basis of American democracy for two centuries has been a clear secularization of society. The result of fundamentalist rhetoric is an increase in discrimination towards those who are different from the views of Christians, such as gays, women who get abortions, and Muslims—simply a perpetuation of bigotry.
To close this subject, it is important to remember the question answered: What is the contemporary impact of Christianity on American society and democracy? In the America of the past, Christianity laid a foundation for social values and positive living in a secularized world. Tocqueville always stressed the underlying need and role of religion in democracy. If he saw how Christian fundamentalists were behaving today he would be quite upset. As Tocqueville noted, notions of religion and politics were kept separate to maintain a functioning democracy. However, in the present day, Christianity (as shown in the public sphere) has adopted a certain fundamentalist attitude that seeks to destroy secularization and blur the line between church and state, so that the two can be seen as almost one. Finally, the reader must be reminded that this is not what all Christianity is like. Multiple different Christian segments continue on the same path that Tocqueville discussed in the 1830s. If those sects maintain their traditions, the impact on society and democracy can indeed be a positive one; however, it is those who radicalize their approach that hurt American democracy and Christianity. |W|P|109996534292985058|W|P|A milestone for The Political Forecast|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com"As a candidate for public office, I chose not to place my beliefs in the center of my appeal for support because I am also a Jeffersonian; that is to say, I believe that one's religious beliefs - though they will and should affect one's outlook on public policy and life - are personal and that America is a secular, not a theocratic, republic. Because of this, it should concern us that declarations of "faith" are quickly becoming a condition for seeking public office. Declarations of "faith" are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs. There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state. The other is rank hypocrisy. Having claimed moral authority to achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind."Hart himself was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical break off from Ameircan Methodism. He went to college to teach religion and philosophy. I think Hart nails what the problem of Christian evangelicals has done to the Republican Party, particularly the incoherent blend of faith and politics. We need more folks like Gary Hart in the Democratic Party.|W|P|109992796457119496|W|P|Politics and religion don't mix well|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
J.R. Boyd|W|P|I think solid messages come from people organizing on their own behalf, creating popular movements which political parties can't ignore. As long as the Democrats are managed from above, they will behave conservatively, in accordance with the interests (economic and otherwise) of those at the top of our society. Chris Woods|W|P|How would you suggest organization from the bottom? It takes a lot to coordinate small groups to achieve a bigger goal, even if the goals they are working towards is similar.I agree that top-down management definitely isn't the most constructive thing, but on some levels (such as funding for a nationwide effort) it is necessary. More should be done by state parties to coordinate smaller and more local efforts. Here in Iowa, both the Democratic and Republican state parties are super-organized and are very capable of organizing local events. If local party movements could form, working inconjunction with the state and national parties I think we could definitely see the emergence of an effective and broadbased party that responded to grassroots efforts and the needs and wants of the American people.
J.R. Boyd|W|P|This post has been removed by a blog administrator. J.R. Boyd|W|P|How would you suggest organization from the bottom? It takes a lot to coordinate small groups to achieve a bigger goal, even if the goals they are working towards is similar.I think it happens all the time. People organize themselves around things that are important to them, seek out like-minded others, build coalitions, etc. You're right that it takes work. It takes work to coordinate people--to say nothing of raising their awareness in the first place. That takes a lot of work. But it's happening all the time, amongst all kinds of different groups, and often in comprehensive ways. Take the anti-war movement which, with regard to Iraq, was basically global in scope, and organized "from below" by ordinary people, especially in the US. The anti-war movement didn't come from the national parties. It came from ordinary people deciding for themselves what they believed in and organizing to stop the war. And it wound up informing primary candidates like Sharpton, Kucinich, and Dean. I agree that top-down management definitely isn't the most constructive thing, but on some levels (such as funding for a nationwide effort) it is necessary. More should be done by state parties to coordinate smaller and more local efforts. Here in Iowa, both the Democratic and Republican state parties are super-organized and are very capable of organizing local events. If local party movements could form, working in conjunction with the state and national parties I think we could definitely see the emergence of an effective and broadbased party that responded to grassroots efforts and the needs and wants of the American people.Any concentration of power or authority has to be justified. If it can't be justified then it deserves to be challenged and dismantled, thus serving to diffuse that power and broadening the scope of human freedom. That's just the difference between democracy and totalitarianism. Sometimes authority can be justified--possibly in the cases you cite. But the point is that people have to be engaged in the process to safeguard their own interests. Democracy means popular involvement, and meaningful popular control over social and economic concerns. "Popular" means the bottom of the hierarchy, not the top. So people need to be setting the agenda for the local, state, and national parties, not the other way around. Without popular organization and mobilization the parties invariably become what American philosopher John Dewey called "the shadow cast by big-business over society." That means, left to their own devices, the national parties pursue interests quite apart from what benefits you and me. This is capitalism, after all.
Chris Woods|W|P|Thanks for the insight on all of this. It definitely has given me something to think about, and clarified some things in my mind. Keep the comments coming, and I'll try to keep 'em coming on "Wars of Compassion.""Two days after his record loss in the U.S. Senate race, Republican Alan Keyes conceded defeat during a radio interview Thursday. But he said he would never congratulate the winner, Barack Obama, because the Democrat stood for "a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country."|W|P|109967815198041927|W|P|Keyes doesn't concede to Obama|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comKeyes sounded a defiant note Tuesday night when he addressed supporters, but then dropped from public view after losing to Obama 70 percent to 27 percent, the biggest gap ever in an Illinois U.S. Senate race.
He resurfaced, in voice only, Thursday during a phone interview on WYLL-AM, a Christian talk station in Chicago. In the interview, Keyes said he accepted the election results but blamed his poor showing on other Republicans and the media.
He reminded listeners that throughout his campaign he had said he was "engaged in a battle between good and evil." Because of that, he said, he did not feel that he could offer his congratulations to Obama.
"I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward that which I believe ultimately stands for and will stand for a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country?" Keyes asked rhetorically. "I can't do this. And I will not make a false gesture."
Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama, declined to address Keyes' comments.
"Everyone has to make their own decisions. The people of Illinois rendered a very clear decision on Tuesday by handing Alan Keyes the greatest electoral defeat in Illinois Senate history," Gibbs said. "Barack Obama's attention is focused on the very important work for all of the people of Illinois."
Earlier, Gibbs had told the Chicago Tribune that he talked five times on election night with a top Keyes staffer who was trying to get his candidate to concede. The Keyes aide, Dan Proft, apologized repeatedly for his candidate's behavior, Gibbs said.
Proft confirmed that he had spoken to Gibbs on Tuesday but said the conversation was private and declined to discuss it.
Republican leaders had imported Keyes from Maryland to take over the Senate race after primary winner Jack Ryan dropped out. But many of those same leaders quickly began distancing themselves from Keyes as he uttered a series of controversial campaign charges and statements that they considered undignified and unnecessary.
Following Tuesday's loss, top Illinois Republicans, including many conservatives, said Keyes' harsh rejection of those who do not share his views undermined his campaign.
But on Thursday, Keyes said it was Republicans who were "Republicans in name only," as well as a news media out to get him, who were responsible for his defeat.
Keyes said he was counting on GOP voters to come "back home on Election Day, rather than vote a socialist into office who stands against everything they profess to believe as Republicans ... But maybe that was in part due to the campaign of distortions in the media, so that they were unable ... to see what I was standing for."
Keyes has said he expects to stay in Illinois, and several Keyes staffers and volunteers from out-of-state have said they also may stay.
In his radio appearance, Keyes said that he will be working with his backers to reform the Illinois Republican Party - and push it to re-emphasize the "moral priority" that was foremost in the minds of many who voted for President Bush.
"We are going to be working with folks who have worked with us in the course of this campaign, in order ... to speak to the true priority of the heart of the people of Illinois and elsewhere. That is a moral priority," Keyes said."
"President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.I recommend reading the rest of the piece. It is excellent, even better than the piece that I posted from The Nation earlier. Never surrender, never die. We will go on. We must. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "So often the darkest hour is that hour that appears before the dawn..."|W|P|109963216250202161|W|P|Never surrender|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comDemocrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.
Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes."
"The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.She gets everything right on target. The dangers of Christian fundamentalism in America have been foreseen for over a century. I'll soon be posting an entry with excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville on the problems of radical Christianity. Tom Friedman, the NY Times' resident moderate (and sometimes Bush supporter) also addresses some of these problems in his piece "Two Nations Under God." Some excerpts:W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."
The president says he's "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?"
"And when George W. Bush was elected four years ago on a platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle, I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.Friedman hits the bullseye too. Garry Wills, an op-ed contributor to the Times, also addressed this topic with his essay "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out." Again, some excerpts:Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?
At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out."
Wills is an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University. Here are some other articles from the past few days on these topics: "Is the red post-election tinge a mandate? Don't bet on it" from the Christian Science Monitor. "A drubbing for same sex marriage" from the Christian Science Monitor."This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated."
Hopefully I will add more articles later.
|W|P|109958982360028446|W|P|Columnists address "moral values" and religious divisions|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com" Perhaps more astonishing than the polling on the murky issue of morality (why aren't poverty and unjust war considered immoral?) are the figures reported in the New York Times: "Voters who cited honesty as the most important quality in a candidate broke 2 to 1 in Mr. Bush's favor..." The most mendacious Administration in American history won the honesty vote?She got it right. We've got to stand up and fight. Let's define our mission, our strategy to reclaim America. We have to. If we don't--let's not go there. Progressive America, come together with a voice of stregth. Our time will come again. Make it sooner, rather than later.|W|P|109954042779215146|W|P|"The Nation" tells us to stand and fight|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.comBut this morning, we woke to a country at war with itself--as well as Al Qaeda. As America fights Islamic fundamentalism abroad, progressives are re-fighting the Enlightenment here at home. (The two new Senators from Oklahoma and South Carolina are leaders of our homegrown Taliban.)
This is war at a very deep level about how this country will proceed and this war isn't over, it's just renewed.
And we should be thinking about the indispensable work of resistance. We need to identify legislative and administrative choke points where Bush's initiatives can be blocked, and make clear to both legislators and their constituents that the days of go-along in the interest of non-partisan comity have to stop.
We need to give a clear sense of priorities and red-lines so that people aren't fatigued by constantly being asked to protest--and we need to identify and work for some early victories, at both the local and national (and international) levels...BECAUSE we all need to remember, and remind ourselves, and everyone else that there are two Nations--not Bush's America and some dissenters-- especially since I'd be willing to bet that numerically there are more of us.
In the end, this election is about what kind of people we are, what kind of country we'll be. Half of the electorate dissents from Bushism. The election still represents an expression of the strength of opposition to the radical and reckless course Bush has followed, despite the ugly campaign."
millersam|W|P|Four more hours!"Recent press reports have stated that machines in at least one precinct were not properly calibrated to ensure an accurate accounting of the number of votes cast." These allegations are completely unsubstantiated and have no factual basis whatsoever."Conservatives are already starting to spin things and play head games. Don't believe the stuff they spew--democracy can be renewed today by voting for Kerry and the Democrats. Get out there and vote--NOW! |W|P|109941467090455642|W|P|Breaking down the lies|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com
Today is the day. The day Americans come to the polls to make their choice for the leader of the greatest nation on the planet; the strongest advocate for the people of the free world. Today Americans have the choice of two men: the incompetent liar who is unwilling to admit his mistakes or the man sometimes verbose and unclear but definite as a leader of our country.
America, you have the choice tomorrow to continue the long, slippery slope of the past four years by casting your ballot for George W. Bush. His domestic policy of tax breaks for the rich and the destruction of the middle class have done terrible harm to the country. But there is another option.
Today, America, you can choose the candidate who has served his country—politically and militarily—for three decades. You can choose the candidate who has a plan for peace in Iraq, a plan to bring our brave and valiant troops back to the homes and families they have been longing for. You can choose the candidate who will protect Social Security, who believes health care is a fundamental right for all, and a candidate to protect and fight for the middle class. That candidate is John F. Kerry.
Over the last four years, America has taken the wrong path. The events of September 11, 2001, presented the Bush Administration with a choice. There was the path of international unity and the prospects for an all-encompassing war on terror with America’s allies. There was also the path they chose, a darker and more destructive path—the one that left us alone (or with Poland) against the common belief of many Americans and others around the world.
But now we have a chance to get back on the right path—the one towards righteousness, hope, and community. The only way to get back on this path is through the solid leadership of one man—John Kerry.
America, you have the choice. A vote for Bush is a vote for hell. Another four years of inhospitable living, mostly in a state of fear and anxiety.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for hope for the future. A vote for Kerry is the path to redemption as a nation. John Kerry needs your support. Whether you live in a so-called “battleground” state or not, we can’t win without you.
Thank you to all of those involved in the volunteer process from the caucus and primary season until now. Those that have fought to get out the vote deserve our gratitude as well. And finally, thank you to those who voted early for Kerry and have spent the rest of their time working to get him elected—you folks make democracy work.
America has never been so divided, but we have the chance for unity again with John Kerry. He can bring America back together through listening, tough work, and compromise.
America, join me tomorrow in casting a vote for the 44th President of the United States of America, John Kerry!
|W|P|109937104138200797|W|P|My final plea for this election|W|P|ChristopherDWoods@gmail.com