Sky Bluesky: Politics and Protest

Moussaoui Lives

Thu, 04 May 2006 22:23:55 GMT

At last, the grotesque spectacle is over. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted (however periperally) in connection with the 9/11 attacks, will spend the rest of his life in prison. The United States will not be carrying out his execution.

Those of you who are longtime TMBS readers know my feelings on the death penalty. For you new readers, here goes. I'm against it. Always. In every instance.

Why? Because I have a soul, and I don't believe that I should kill other human beings out of revenge. If I won't do it, I won't have the government, acting on my behalf, do it and dress it up in terms like "the ultimate punishment." It's killing. We, as a civilized society, should not be in the business of executing people. This is not an abstract discussion for me. I've had my opportunity to face this decision directly, when the man who killed my brother was sentenced, and when it came time to make the call, I couldn't do it. I could not be a party to murder, even for a man who had murdered my own brother.

The federal prosecutors had two challenges in this trial. First, they had to convict Moussaoui for something that would tie him to the 9/11 hijackings, even though everyone knows he was in jail in Minnesota when the planes took flight. So they wrangled a conviction on the grounds that Moussaoui should have confessed he was part of the plot when he was arrested in August 2001. As many civil liberties lawyers have explained, this is essentially convicting ZM for not implicating himself in a crime, which he has every right not to do under our Fifth Amendment. The precedent is disturbing, and no doubt will be challenged for years to come.

So part one was successful. ZM was tied to 9/11. The jury decided he was eligible for the death penalty based on this bizarre conviction. Now they just had to push the jury to decide in favor of his execution. This is where the trial went over the edge from bizarre right into horrorshow.

The prosecutors showed video of people jumping from the World Trade Center and hitting the ground. People on fire. Body parts in the street. They played the cockpit recording from Flight 93, the final moments of 40 people's lives who fought to save the U.S. Capitol or the White House from catastrophe. Giuliani was called upon to describe his personal anguish as a witness to the WTC attacks. Phone calls were replayed. Countless ghoulish scenes of death and chaos were shown. Tears were shed by nearly everyone in the courtroom.

"That was a man on fire as he fell through the canopy. Those are the remains of his body," Rosbrook testified in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

And yet the jury refused to execute Moussaoui. When the prosecution mounted an all-out blitz of horror to push the jury to their emotional limit, they maintained their humanity and spared Moussaoui's life. He will not be released, of course - he spends the rest of his life in prison, and will die a tired old man instead of a martyr.

On NPR this morning, I heard that Moussaoui claimed that the United States had lost, because they weren't able to get an execution. When we have a system that cheers murder as justice, when someone like Moussaoui practically begged to be executed by America's hand, and the jury was still able to hold onto their decency, I think the opposite is true. I feel pride today for those twelve jurors, our representatives of justice and, amazingly, of mercy.

Snow Lands in the White House

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:36:54 GMT

Unbelievable. Bush hasn't done enough to alienate the American people. Now, he's appointing Tony Snow, from the Fox News Channel ("We Distort, You Decide") to be his new press secretary.

As many trying-to-be-evenhanded journalists have noted, just because Snow made his living on Fox doesn't mean he's always been a fan of the Prez. Media Matters has looked over some of his past shows and columns, and has come up with a fun list of questions for Snow's first appearance in front of the WH Press Corps:

Do you still think President Bush is a "wimp" and looks "impotent" for not "veto[ing] a single bill of any type"?
With the failure of Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, do you consider Bush's presidency effectively over?
Will you pursue amicable relations with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), even though he "behave[s] in such an inane manner," and "made official his descent into the Moonbat Grotto"?

Check it out here.

The Worst Day of Dick Cheney's Life?

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:58:56 GMT

So the worst day of Cheney's life involves shooting one of his best friends. I still think it was worse for the other guy.

Did anyone else think it was odd that right after Cheney called Harry Whittington to offer his sympathy, Whittington had a heart attack? Is anyone else out there wondering what Whittington did to piss off old Cheney?

I've heard various news folks, and press flaks like McClellan, try to change the tone of this incident by using terms like "sprayed" or "peppered" to describe what happened to Cheney's luckless hunting partner. What happened was that Dick Cheney had a gun and pulled the trigger while another human being was in front of the barrel. Cheney fired a shotgun shell that delivered over 200 small pieces of shrapnel (birdshot) into another man's body.

He shot another person.

Now, that poor man has suffered a heart attack because some of the shrapnel floated up into his heart. Any question of this being a serious incident should now be over.

I can't help but be amused, and a little troubled, at all of the scrambling done by the White House Press corps. The most egregious story I heard was that Scott McClellan heard that the Vice President was "involved in a hunting incident," but didn't get the details until later. Now, if it was me, if I heard that Cheney was hanging out with a group of people with guns, and that there was a hunting incident, I'd want to get the rest of the story in a big damn hurry.

Meanwhile, McClellan was comfortable enough with the VP's shooting skills to make jokes about it. During Monday's press gaggle, McClellan reportedly cracked a joke that a visiting football team was wearing orange because it was their school color, not because Cheney was in the building. Let's all say this together. It's okay for the late night comedians to make jokes about people being shot. They are COMEDIANS. It's not okay for the man who speaks on behalf of the chief executive to make jokes about people being shot.

The State of the Union is ... um ... NINE-ELEVEN!!!

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:16:21 GMT

He's a liar. I didn't even tune in, and I know he's a liar.

I'm totally going armchair quarterback here. I can't stand to see his smug lying face, so I just read the Wonkette liveblog and gathered up some of the talking (head) points afterward. Here's what I've got:

The economy is strong. See, when you have to go out of your way to tell people the economy's in good shape, you're in trouble. I wonder what the good people of Detroit are thinking about the economy. The ones who still have a job that doesn't involve handing programs to Super Bowl visitors, that is.

Fact check: Bush's estimate of job growth didn't include the first two years of his administration, when the economy was shedding jobs like cats on a white couch.

If we were only wiretapping when I came into office, September 11th never would have happened. This sounds like a load of crap to me, and the Washington Post (among others) agrees with the diagnosis. Apparently, the FBI didn't even know where some of the hijackers were until they got onto their respective planes, so how exactly were we going to wiretap them? And look, for the 5 millionth time, what Bush was doing was illegal. Claiming a hypothetical national security reason doesn't make it legal, any more than the black box prisons we've got around the world.

We're on the right track in Iraq. Oh, come on, I don't want even to research how wrong that is.

The budget deficit is on track to cut by half in 2009. Uh, yeah, if you shut down Congress during 2008, maybe. And I'm sure that making those tax cuts permanent is going to do amazing things for the budget deficit.

Cloning, including the reprehensible (I guess) thought of human-animal hybrids, should be banned. Or, as Wonkette put it, "Bush says no to werewolves!"

America is addicted to oil. Oh, fuck you. The world has known this for years, but you just figured this out? This is the president who refuses to raise mileage standards, who made his living (until he bankrupted the company) drilling for oil, who pushes and pushes to drill in ANWR for oil that'll last this country for five and a half minutes, who never met an oil company executive he didn't like. Now we're addicted to oil? Fuck you. Fuck you and your bigass pickup truck that you drive all over your "ranch." Fuck your sudden conversion to environmentalism that will yield exactly zero conservation proposals. Fuck you, fuck you, and furthermore, fuck you.

You see why I don't watch these things?

Political Blockbuster

Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:16:50 GMT

I heard on KUOW yesterday that the new state Democratic chair, Dwight Pelz, and the new Republican chair, Diane Tibelius, have both said that their parties need to reach out to the middle class.

In other bold statements, they both announced that Boeing and Microsoft were fine companies, they really loved apples, and if they had to go out on a limb, they would both have to pick the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.

Equal Rights in Washington, Finally

Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:22:51 GMT

After the drama and gnashing of teeth last year, Washington's gay rights bill seemed to fly through the Legislature this time. Yesterday, the bill passed the State Senate for the first time in thirty years on a 25-23 vote, with exactly one Republican supporting it. Governor Gregoire is expected to sign it on Tuesday. The bill adds "sexual orientation" to state law banning discrimination in housing, employment and insurance based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, marital status and other factors.

The back-and-forth maneuvering by Microsoft was absent this time: they signed a letter encouraging the Legislature to pass the bill, along with corporate giants Boeing, H-P, and Nike. So now the only drama remaining is watching the response by the gay-hating loonies and Republican windbags.

The loonie brigade, led by one Rev. Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church in Redmond. He has threatened a massive boycott of Microsoft, and is apparently instructing people to buy Microsoft stock and then dump it all on May 1st (in honor of the people's revolution?) To my untrained ear, that sounds like stock manipulation.
But let's check in with an expert.

"The chances of him being successful with that are slim to none, and slim just left town," said Hans Olsen, chief investment officer at Bingham Legg Advisers.

Hmm. Okay, then. Windbag.

Meanwhile, Republicans are in competition to see who can say the stupidest thing about this bill. A few selections:

"I believe this bill places us on a slippery slope toward the legalization of gay marriage in our state. ... The governor and others are trying hard to separate this issue - gay rights from gay marriage. The two are linked." - Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester. Ah, yes. Once you let those gays think they're equal members of society, they go ahead and start acting like it. Note: Swecker's also the guy who said that this bill would "trample unrelentingly" on the rights of religious people who don't accept gays. In other words, it would discriminate against people who want to discriminate.

"I think it's very important that we don't go down the road of protecting people because of how they choose to act." Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield.

The topper comes from Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, who mournfully said, "This is a very sad day for the state of Washington," once it became clear there were enough votes to pass the bill.

Come on, people, we're talking about letting people keep their job and their apartments, not giving them the keys to your gun cabinet and kiddie porn collection.

One touching note from Olympia: Eric Ishina, the partner of civil rights bill torchbearer Cal Anderson, was on hand for the bill's passage in the Senate yesterday. The much-beloved Anderson sponsored the bill for eight years before his death from AIDS in 1995. Ishina said yesterday, "I don't doubt that he's really smiling down on us right now."

Boycott Sony and Their Love Monkey

Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:59:12 GMT

"Love Monkey" is a front.

Sure, I almost got sucked in, too. The premise called to me - a young hipster who founds his own record label. It sounded tempting. And one of the real life indie tastemakers, Nic Harcourt, was signed on as music supervisor. This might be worth looking into, says I to myself.

But oh, no. Hell no. The beast that is "Love Monkey" will never illuminate my tv screen. Why? Because it's a goddamn front. A shill. A scam.

Newsweek said "there's nothing else like it on tv," and they didn't know the half of it. In the ultimate example of cross-pollination and secret product placement, Sony BMG is calling the musical shots at "Love Monkey." As Thomas Bartlett pointed out on Audiofile, they're promoting their own artists through the show, putting up their new acts to be the new signees at the new "indie" record label. So all of those people who are supposedly new and unsigned and being "discovered" by Mr. Indie Hipster Lovemonkey are really part of the giant monstrosity that is SonyBMG.

I'm sure there are those who might defend the creators of this commercial chimera. It's a show about rock bands, they might whine. How are you supposed to find good bands now without the help of a label? Oh, let's see. "Square Pegs" was able to get Devo on their show and the Waitresses to do their theme song back in the day - they sure weren't owned by any goddamn music label. Shows like "The O.C.," "Joan of Arcadia," and "Gilmore Girls" are able to come up with lots of good, compelling, occasionally indie artists, and they aren't owned by any goddamn music labels. (I'm willing to believe that there's a little bit of product placement fees going on there, but I can overlook that. It's a difference of degree. The above-mentioned shows exists as shows first, and have music as an incidental part of the show. LoveMonkey is looking to be a music promotion machine disguised as a tv show.)

Y'all might remember that I've got a bit of antipathy towards Sony for hating their customers. They hate their customers so much that they planted rootkits surreptitiously on millions of CDs to keep them from doing things with "their" CDs that Sony didn't want them to do. The rootkits have destroyed computers, allowed viruses to seep in, pissed off the world in general and set Sony up for lawsuits by the score.

So now unsuspecting millions are going to watch what they think is a tv show, but it turns out to only be an infomercial for the SonyBMG beast. Don't be taken in. Fuck Sony.

If you end up watching it, then you only have yourself to blame. You've been had. You've been took. You been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Led astray. Run amok.

Stompity Stomp

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:28:03 GMT

I've been holding off on commenting on Al Gore's firebreathing speech on MLK Day, where he declared that Bushie and his wiretapping henchmen had been "breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently." While I couldn't be more impressed, I was made a bit nervous by Scott McClellan's assertion that they were merely following in the extra-legal footsteps of the previous administration.

According to the mouthpiece, Clinton's use of certain physical searches without warrants could be, and was, justified with the same argument that Bush was now using. I've been holding off because I was concerned that the mouthpiece might have a point. It's not too hard to imagine that Clinton would occasionally push a legal boundary. Presidents do that - power corrupts, etc. Was Bush just doing the same thing that Clinton did?

Well, according to Mr. Gore, no. And furthermore, no.

First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
"Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The AP has also pointed out the difference between the Clinton situation and Bush's lawbreaking ways. So all McClellan's managed to do is keep Al Gore's name in the papers for another couple of days, and give papers a chance to point out another way in which his boss is breaking the law in new and unprecedented ways. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Diatribe of the Week

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:48:14 GMT

So here's a funny story. I was posting diatribes on TableTalk, and one of them got picked by Salon's editors as a post of the week.

There's a thread on TableTalk titled "How Do You Determine Race?" Race is one of those amorphous things that has always intrigued me. It's been fascinating since my childhood when I read "Black Like Me" by John Howard Griffin (I think I was eleven or twelve.) In college, I started getting into hip-hop, and one of the new acts around '90 or '91 was a group of what appeared to be white kids, including one with dreadlocks, who called themselves Young Black Teenagers. Race is one of those subjects that's difficult to pin down but fascinating to study and consider. So I enjoy discussions that dissect race and study it and attempt to break it down.

What drives me crazy (and you'll see this in the post that Salon highlighted) is people who, for either reasons of politics or simple naivéte, want to pretend that there is no such thing as race. There is no such thing as color, they say, we're all one people, we're all stardust and golden. I only see people, not skin color. The Ward Connerlys of the world want to eliminate racial preferences, and ultimately, any recognition of the role race has played historically in this country. The naive ones (in my experience, almost always white) simply want to deny the existence of race in order to liberate ourselves from the country's racist conquistador history. Neither of them have a firm grip in the reality of dealing with race on a daily basis. Whether or not we declare our country free of racism, the history still exists and still affects people of color.

Whether or not my Mexican-American father pretends he's just part of the human race, it doesn't stop people from looking at him and wondering if he speaks English or Spanish. It didn't stop the landlord in Colorado from evicting him because he thought that, like like all the other Mexicans, he was going to move fifteen members of his family into a two-bedroom house.

Maybe in a hundred years, it won't be this way. Maybe we'll have evolved into a multiracial society that can genuinely accept its diversity. But for now, denying that race exists seems foolhardy in a country where racist attitudes still are so prevalent. It creates a sense of false security which only makes the near-inevitable collision with racist behavior that much more painful.

The post that Salon flagged was my attempt to clarify for one of the stardusters that race does indeed matter. I went to sleep last night thinking that I was doing nothing but flaming other posters and picking fights online. I guess the editors-that-be thought I was actually saying something after all.

Letterman Comes Out Swinging

Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:00:21 GMT

I don't often go to David Letterman for hard-hitting political debate. So I was stunned to see him disembowel Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday night's show. If you haven't seen it yet, go to ~~Salon's new Video Dog section~~ Crooks and Liars to see the video.

Letterman ditched his wacky-guy persona for the interview, sitting straight, his jaw set. Once or twice, you could see Letterman's face redden (as when O'Reilly takes a shot at Cindy Sheehan) as if he's about to take a swing at him. I was satisfied to see Letterman deflate O'Reilly's anti-Christmas conspiracy. But then suddenly he was picking a fight with O'Reilly on the Iraq war. He responded at one point to Bill's (feeble) points on Iraq by calmly asking a rhetorical question, "What about - why are we there in the first place?"

I think Letterman just took a leap into having a pronounced (and public) political stance. And I don't think it was an accident that Dave announced where he stood by jumping up and down on Fox News' favorite clown.

Looking Back in Anger

Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:43:50 GMT

The always-reliable Steve Gilliard has a great New Year's wrapup for you hardcore political types.

While you're ringing in the New Year, don't let go of reality. This was a tough year politically and emotionally, both for the boob-in-chief and for the rest of us. Hundreds more soldiers have died or been permanently scarred in Iraq. The leak investigation and the wiretapping scandal have only shown us how craven our president can be and how little respect he has for the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect.

Worst of all, we saw what happens when you fill a cabinet with toadies and bootlickers. Hurricane Katrina demolished an American city, leaving New Orleanians stranded in their homes, screaming to tv cameras on their rooftops for help. And FEMA left them there. If you need a reminder of how callously New Orleans was abandoned, read this gut-wrenching tale posted on DailyKos. (Warning: this is not an easy story to read.)

I heard someone say recently that Katrina was like September 11th for black people. Except that when it all went down, Bush was noodling with a guitar instead of shouting into a bullhorn, and instead of having Giuliani standing with them, they had Brownie worrying about which tie to go with his suit.

So many things are easy to forget in blizzards of confetti and geysers of champagne. Don't forget to celebrate, but while you're celebrating, don't forget what we all learned this year.

Wiretaps and Dictators

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:12:47 GMT

When you have to explain in a press conference that you're not after "some kind of dictatorial position," you're already in trouble.

Like many of you, I'm not surprised that Bush reached for some extra-Constitutional powers to spy on you and me and everyone we know. I'm surprised that it came out in the New York Times. I'm surprised that Bush was so aware of how bad this would look that he called the NYT's publisher and executive editor to the Oval Office to beg them not to run the story. (Kudos to the old grey lady for going ahead anyway, although they lose points for waiting a year.) I'm surprised that there's a bipartisan backlash, and that the White House is genuinely rocked back on its heels. I'm surprised and I'm relieved that so many people are furious about this.

We have spent too long in our post-911 haze of fear and trembling. The old excuse that "they want to kill us" just isn't good enough anymore. Defiling the Constitution destroys America just as readily as bombs and bullets.

It astonishes me to watch Bush wriggling to get the hook out of his mouth. In his mind, spying on Americans (and the greater issue, claiming supreme ruling power in the wake of September 11th) was nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand, leaking the story to the New York Times was "shameful," and the Senate's reaction (refusing to reauthorize significant chunks of the Patriot Act) "endangers the lives of our citizens."

Now, think about that for a second. Republicans and Democrats voted against the Patriot Act reauthorization. He has now attacked members of his own party in the same way that he used to attack Democrats. (Also, it used to work.) This is a man who has lost control of his own party and his political bearing. He's slashing out at any threat he sees. Back in the day, we would have said he was wilding out. He's swinging at shadows, getting angry instead of thinking about strategy, looking for enemies everywhere. He's starting to remind me very much of Nixon. Jon Alter better watch his back.

There is no question that Bush has used 9/11 to justify expanding his own power beyond reproach. Russ Feingold said it best: "The president has stated a doctrine that he can just make up the law and create whatever other powers he wants on his own." He is wrong, he is subverting the Constitution by even attempting this, and he's about to get jumped for it.

Don't rest, people. Bush is in deep trouble. Possibly legal trouble. (Notice how Alter carefully inserts the I word into his article.) But we'll need to keep vigilant. The boat is rocking, but he's not going down without a fight. Stay angry, and keep your eyes open.

Senate Blocks Patriot Act on Cloture Vote

Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:23:46 GMT

I don't believe it. I mean, I do believe it. It's been a rough few weeks for Bush and company, but this is astonishing. I read Senator Feingold on the TPMCafe website saying that they had a good chance of succeeding with this cloture vote. My first thought was that he was amazingly optimistic, but he never seemed like an unrealistic man. I guess he was right.

Quite a slap in the face. Especially when today's headlines are screaming about Bush authorizing wiretaps and other monitoring of "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of Americans without court approval. Remember when we all thought after 9/11 that Bush and his buddies were about to go crazy spying on us? It happened, and America's suddenly pissed off about it. Not to mention the rest of the world.

Anne Lamott and the Parable of the Carpet Guy

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 03:54:13 GMT

I love Anne Lamott. R knows this, and she has accepted it.

I love Anne Lamott the way you love your minister, the way I love the minister who brought me to tears the first time I stepped into his - my - church. I love her - I want to call her Annie - the way you would love an older, wiser sister, although probably one who had either gone into the monastery or owned a house with a rock garden in the backyard.

Annie wrote a column for Salon today, and I just finished reading it, the tears glistening in the corners of my eyes. It's as good as going to church sometimes. She is the only person I can believe who actually tries to do that "love thy enemy as thyself" stuff. She doesn't always succeed, but it's the trying that is so magical to observe.

I have several books of hers on my shelf, including her writing manual Bird by Bird. She writes about writing in the same way she writes about death, or life, or barbecues. I don't want to denigrate her by describing her philosophy, but I love the way she goes back, time and again, to the idea of letting go. You would think that I was talking about God here, but her attitude toward writing is almost identical.

(Writing - let go of your illusions of perfection and just let it happen. Your first drafts will suck. Let them. Write your shitty first draft, get it out of your system, and them move from there. Take small steps. Be honest. Don't try to do much at once. This is important work and takes much time and effort, so don't exhaust yourself trying to do it all in one fell swoop. Sounds something like a philosophy, no?)

I read Annie's loving rants on the Talking Points Memo Cafe website, and loved them. She saw politics through the prism of her own broken heart, and nailed things beautifully. It was Annie who first compared (slyly) Bush's wobbly Iraq policy to an alcoholic who was going to stay in denial until he finally hit the bottom. That was back in June: before Scooter's indictment, before Murtha's move, before Iraq started gently asking if we remembered where we had parked our car so we could get the hell out of its house, and before former Prime Minister Allawi was chased out of a mosque by stones and shoes and tried to call it an assassination attempt instead of what it was, a redress of grievances.

...my very wise friend Gil says-and Gil has been sober since before God-that there are three stages in the disease: fun, fun and trouble, and trouble. Fun, for the White House, was the fall of Baghdad and Mission Accomplished. Fun and Trouble held, up until a month or so ago: you had huge body counts, grave global dismay, etc, but you also had the elections here and in Iraq, with all that courage and the purple fingertips. Now?

Well, I don't see where the fun is anymore: I think we are now leaving the fun and trouble stage.

She got it. She just nailed it, and she did it without becoming mean. She pities Bush for his own tragic bewilderment. She hates him, and then kicks herself for having hatred in her heart. Annie to me is so much more authentic than the people who profess to have found the way to a clean and virtuous life. Annie tries to stay on the path toward decency, and sometimes slips, and sees when she slips and tries to straighten herself back out. She's honest. She is candid: hatred and anger and schadenfreude are all fun, yes, and sure, they feel good, but they're not the way life should be lived.

Remember When I Used to Just Be Dumb?

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:03:25 GMT

Searching for, and not finding, the door while trying to "escape" (his word) a press conference. (Insert your own "exit strategy" joke here.)

Musing about holes in his socks at a Buddhist temple.

Joking out loud about being spit on by camels in Mongolia.

Is it possible Bush is trying to mount the ultimate change-the-subject offensive? By acting like an idiot, is he trying to get people to talk about how stupid he is instead of what a failed leader he is?

It's just a theory, mind you.

Murtha's Movement

Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:28:20 GMT

The members of the House were shouting at each other. Jean Schmidt, a wet-behind-the-ears freshman from Ohio, spat venom and then, abashed, asked for her own remarks to be stricken from the record. Democrats were described as "surging" angrily toward the Republican side of the chamber, yelling and booing.

So here's my understanding of what happened. Representative John Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, announced that he had changed his position 180 degrees on Iraq, and called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq as soon as possible. A stunt? I don't think so. Murtha - who, at least in years past, has drawn bipartisan praise for his support for the military In return - has changed the entire tenor of the debate. Suddenly, a leading Democrat - not a fringe-sitter like, say, Cynthia McKinney or Seattle's own Jim McDermott - was declaring that the war was a failure. So Republicans attacked him and called him a traitor and a coward.

Then they committed what, in my opinion, was a colossal strategic blunder: they put what they called "Murtha's resolution" (really, a cheap one-sentence resolution calling for immediate withdrawal) up for a vote.

What did they want to do? Well, publicly, the word was that they wanted to split the Democrats between those against the war and those who wanted to stay the course, or at least weren't ready to jump off the bandwagon. That didn't happen. Nancy Pelosi told her party to vote against the bullshit resolution in order to politically defuse it, and astonishingly enough, the party followed her lead. The resolution failed 403-3.

As I said before, I think the Republicans made a strategic mistake. Two, in fact. They sent the pitbulls (Cheney, most notably) to attack him. A year ago, this would have worked: Murtha would have been shouted down by his own party and the Republicans would have been able to wave their flags long enough to take the spotlight back. But this is not a year ago. Dems are feeling stronger and more confident than a scant year ago, and Murtha growled back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

The big error was in trying to defuse Murtha's resolution (and as the history books may see it someday, Murtha's first blow in the battle to end the Iraqi occupation) with a political stunt. (And contrary to some, I do not believe Murtha's speech and resolution were stunts in any way.) There was an opportunity here for a serious discussion on the war's progress and possibly even a real debate on withdrawal. Instead, the Repubs basically waved a middle finger at Murtha, and at the military, and by the way, at the American people. "Oh, yeah?" they shouted, in their snottiest spoiled-brat voice. "So you want to withdraw, huh? Well, fine then. Let's vote on withdrawing right now, right this very minute, right now. If that's the game you want to play, let's put it to a vote." The American people don't want a staged vote, and they don't want bully politics right now. They want a serious debate. They want their sons and daughters to come home unless someone can offer them a real reason to be over there, being shot at every day, with no end in sight and no political progress on the horizon. They want to know when their boys and girls are coming home - what the benchmark that will signal an end to the occupation. And finally, America wants its politicians to take them seriously. The Repubs, with their cheap stunt and childish behavior, just proved that they don't.

Boycott Sony.

Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:36:45 GMT

Remember when boycotts used to take months, even years, to organize? Now it takes a week.

But yes. Boycott Sony. Boycott them for loading up CDs by respectable artists (Celine Dion not included) with evil software that could destroy your computer. Boycott them for trying to push a license agreement (for a CD?!) that declares that the music on your CD is only yours as long as you stay in the country, as long as you don't burn it on your work computer, as long as you don't file for bankruptcy, and as long as you don't get robbed. Seriously.

So protect yourself. Don't buy any of the CDs that have evil copy-protection (i.e. customer-spying) software. Better yet, don't buy any Sony CDs. Demand they that change their evil, paranoid, pirate-fearing, devious software-planting, RIAA-shilling ways.

And don't forget the most important part of any boycott - tell Sony why you're boycotting their giant evil corporation asses. (My suggestion: call their toll-free number, tell them you have defective CDs, and demand a refund.) Tell them it's not good enough to apologize for this incredible violation of trust with its customers. They need to recall the DEFECTIVE product (every CD infected with copy-protection software), create a way to remove the crap off people's computers, and promise to never do it again.

(As it turns out, my MMJ CD doesn't have the evil rootkit software on it, but I still don't like copy-protection schemes.)

Sony needs to be punished for this. Even Microsoft (fellow evil corporation) isn't standing by them. This is an opportunity for consumers like us to strike a real blow, not against Sony, but against every music company and every company that decides it's all right to spy on the very customers that keep them in business.

Initiatives vs. Reality

Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:48:05 GMT

Initiatives are funny critters.

This year, there are two diametrically opposed initiatives on the Washington ballot purporting to solve the medical malpractice crisis of recent years. (The crisis involves a few, or a swarm, of doctors who have stopped practicing because of high malpractice rates.)

In a nutshell, the initiatives pit the state's doctors against the state's trial lawyers. I-330 says that the problem is caused by greedy trial lawyers, and patients who, while they may have been harmed by reckless medical professionals, have won "lawsuit lottery" judgments of millions and millions of dollars, endangering all doctors by their own greed. Their initiative would limit the rights of patients to sue doctors, cut damage awards, and (most symbolically important) cut lawyers' fees.

I-336 targets two villains: insurance companies, and renegade doctors. Their initiative increases reporting and accessibility of medical malpractice claims, adds accountability for doctors who consistently are found guilty of malpractice, and creates a new state-run medical malpractice pool.

Now, I'e done a tiny bit of work on medical malpractice and know the general arguments. The most compelling argument I've heard suggests that increases on malpractice rates can be closely linked to rises and falls in insurance companies' investments. In other words, if the insurance company loses money in the stock market, or if the stock market crashes for everybody, get ready for rates to rise. I haven't studied the numbers in detail, but that's the argument that rings true for me, because I don't trust insurance companies.

The advertising campaigns have been interesting to watch during this race. I-330 is getting all of the ads, for and against. I have not yet seen a single ad in support of I-336. Instead, the doctors are taking out huge full-page ads and running nonstop tv commercials pro-330 and anti-336, bashing trial lawyers for being greedy. And the opposition has been running their own ads, attacking not doctors (because doctors aren't exactly a good villain), but the insurance companies that they say are behind the initiative. The opposition ads also don't mention I-336 at all - only 330. It's an interesting campaign, strategically speaking - I'm curious whether it'll work.

I'm certain that a lot of voters will cast the "pox on both your houses" move, and vote down both. Several organizations - most notably (for a health care issue) AARP - are recommending "no" votes on both. (Full disclosure: I have a dear friend who is highly placed in the No on 330 campaign, and another friend in the Yes on I-336.) Many people - including me, at various moments - are saying that this an issue for the legislature, not popular initiatives. But the stealth campaign on I-336 intrigues me. I'm wondering if they're waiting for voters to be completely overwhelmed and disgusted with information overload on 330, and pull the lever for 336 because they haven't been bludgeoned with commercials about it. Maybe it'll look like the reasonable one by comparison. I'm not sure how it'll play out. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Alito - Here's One Question

Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:37:45 GMT

Bush tried time and again to convince people that Harriet Miers was the most qualified person for the Supreme Court. Or, as he put it, "the best person I could find."

So my question is this - which rock was Samuel Alito hiding under, that he never turned up until Harriet Miers pulled her nomination?

To put it another way - if Sam Alito is so perfectly qualified for the Supreme Court, how come he was Bush's second choice?

That's the big question. Everything else comes after. What was wrong with Samuel Alito's resume that caused Miers to be picked up before him? What does Bush know about him that the American people don't - yet?

Miers - Out!

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:41:53 GMT

Harriet Miers has withdrawn, bringing to an end (for now) the remarkable fragmenting of the Republican base over her nomination to the Supreme Court. Sam Brownback is on NPR right now, praising the "strength" of Miers' retreat, and pounding the drums about needing a true conservative like Priscilla Owen on the court.

Her resignation letter contains two interesting tidbits. First, no surprisingly at all, she targets the fight over the release of White House documents as the reason for her withdrawal. Not the assault by nearly every influential conservative, and not her embarrassingly lightweight writing, and not her tragic inability to pay her bar dues, and not her juvenile love letters to George W. on far too many Christmas and birthday cards to mention. No, it was all about the separation of powers.

Second, Miers expresses hope that Bushie will be able to appoint a judge with "a conservative judicial philosophy" and someone who "will interpret the law, not make it." My guess is that she's trying to make good with the conservatives who torched her nomination, and make it easier for Bush to nominate a right-wing loonie like Owen or Janice Rogers Brown. But I still don't see how he's going to get one of these clowns through the Senate with launching a filibuster that he may or may not be able to overcome.

Ah Ha, Hush That Fuss

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:45 GMT

" When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up and I said, 'No, I'm not'. And he said, 'Well, if you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested.' I said, 'You may do that.' "

Hundreds of radio stations yesterday paid tribute to Rosa Parks in the only way that seemed fitting: by playing that Outkast song.

It's interesting to me the role that Rosa Parks played in the civil rights movement. As NPR put it yesterday, she was an icon. She wasn't a "leader," in the way that Dr. King was: she didn't lead marches or speak at rallies. She wasn't an organizer, though she was active in the NAACP. She wasn't even the first person to be arrested for sitting in the "white person's" section. She was a symbol, a member trained to be a symbol, in the same way that I helped to train dozens of members when I was an organizer.

Members take the hardest jobs, and often the most frightening. I trained members to speak at press conferences, to testify in front of legislative committees, to lead rallies and marches, and sometimes just to be the presenter of hundreds of signed petitions to the targeted official. It's hard, on the organizer's end, to pick the right person: you need a combination of ego (to be the center of attention) and humility, of eloquence and heartfelt honesty. Members are often the most overlooked part of any nonprofit: they're given the most lip service, but in point of fact, organizations get lost in their own machinations, their political stands, their connection to the powermakers, and they forget that they stand on the backs of their members.

We used grassroots members as speakers for very simple reasons: no one cared what I thought as an organizer. I wasn't on Medicare, or Medicaid, or food stamps. I wasn't on Section 8 housing. I had no story to tell. I could offer statistics to prove our political case, but nothing quite tells a story like an actual, living, human being. Organizers and political leaders can only do so much: to really have an impact, you need members.

So Rosa Parks was a grassroots success story. She exemplified every black person who ever had to suffer with unjust laws that proscribed their humanity. She was an ideal candidate - quiet, meek, yet possessed of an inner strength beyond all bounds. Rosa Parks was a rock, and was exactly the right person to become exactly who she became. Every day as an organizer, I was looking for someone to become the next visible member, the next embodiment of our latest political campaign. People are powerful: think about Rosa Parks, James Meredith, Jackie Robinson, Polly Klaas. Think about Cindy Sheehan. The individual story is always, and is justly, more powerful than any intellectual, statistical, or in some cases, rational, argument that can be made.

Rosa Parks became a symbol for the civil rights movement, and suffered for it. She and her husband lost their jobs after her famous case. She feared for her life, and fled for Detroit, where she lived until her passing. We warned our members constantly that there were negative effects of going public with a personal story, and Mrs. Parks truly suffered for her single act of defiance. But in the end, she was strong enough to handle it, just as Dr. King and her companions at the NAACP saw when they decided to use her court case to launch the boycott that became the first chapter of the modern civil righs movement. Rosa Parks was a symbol, an icon, a living reminder of all that our country has gone through (and toward the end, a symbol of all we still have to overcome.)

People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.

Stealth or Sellout?

Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:21:47 GMT

When Harriet Miers was first announced, there was a furious rush to find out anything about her. Lefties found a few tidbits of information to be nervous about - she'd given to prolife causes, she thought Bush was "brilliant." Nothing dramatic, though. On the other hand, the right-wing blogs and blowhards started making a great fuss about how disappointed they were.

So I was intrigued, and thought that my grand theory of Republicans trying to pick conservative judges was holding true.

And then I got worried that it was a fake, a feint, a trick. Ed Schultz announced that the R's and the conservatives were making a straw man argument, and that secretly they were thrilled with the evangelical, conservative, inscrutable Ms. Miers. It's all about abortion, Ed was saying, and on abortion Miers was clear, and Bush was winking and nodding with his comments about her. "Trust me," he said. "I know her heart." See! She's going to overturn Roe!

And I can almost buy the straw man argument, but here's the problem. They're all angry. Pat Buchanan. George Will. Richard Viguerie. Trent Lott. Sam Brownback. Hundreds more. The only guy I think is happy is James Dobson, and he could just be nuts. Listen to Chris Lydon's recent show featuring several righty blogers, and the infamous Mr.Viguerie, and tell me they're making a shill argument. These people sound furious, indigant, and they keep sounding different points about why they're disappointed. Viguerie spoke with dismay about how bad this misstep would turn out for the Republicans in the 2006 elections, and how Bush should have taken the opportunity to energize his base. It sounds to me that he's energized them, only in the wrong direction.

Arm in Arm with the Unprepared

Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:17:20 GMT

So last week, General George Casey told Congress that only one battalion of Iraqi soldiers was ready to fight on their own. One battalion equals about 500 or 600 soldiers - compared with the 130,000 or so U.S. soldiers fighting a losing battle over there.

Bush tried in his last press conference to gloss over the point, saying that over 80 battalions fighting alongside American troops, with 30 battalions were "in the lead" - whatever that means.

NPR seemed to suggest that there was a contradiction between these two numbers. I don't see a contradiction at all. It's quite simple: a handful of Iraqis have been trained, after all this time, probably because of the ongoing chaos, unpredictable attacks, and propensity for people applying to be soldiers to be blown up in line.

But while there's only a handful of soldiers who are ready to fight on their own, lots more are fighting alongside American troops: thousands of soldiers who are incapable of holding down a firefight or an assault on their own, and who desperately need American soldiers to keep them safe.

The translation is that Bush's failed plan for stabilizing Iraq, and inability to successfully train Iraqis to protect their own country, is putting American soldiers out in the field with thousands of people who are not ready to be on the battlefield. Which means our soldiers are not safe with people who are fighting alongside. Remember that, every time you see a new face on the evening news of another kid who was shot down in Iraq. Remember that, and if you're in the mood, thank George for putting our soldiers into battle without the equipment they need and without Iraqi troops who are capable of fighting alongside them. Make sure he knows how grateful you are.

Race, Class, Katrina, Bling

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:40:08 GMT

I read a thoughtful and gently angry column by Jerry Large in this Sunday's Seattle Times. (Yes, kids, I didn't read the Sunday paper until Wednesday. Blame it on the baby.) Without raising his (literary) voice, he laid out some firm and unflinching opinions on race in this 21st century.

George Bush doesn't hate black people, but he may have the same trouble empathizing with poor black folks that I suspect most everyone else has to some degree. Poor people don't count as much as other people, and that didn't start with the hurricane.

My appreciation for Large's vision was not undercut by the ad next to his column, which advertised a business-rating website with the line "Whose bling is worth your benjamins?" Okay, first, they're mixing their eras - "benjamins" was just so mid-90's. But maybe it didn't matter, because both phrases were hiphop lingo - black-people-speak - that had entered the (white) mainstream. So whatever - it's always hip to mimic black folks when advertising restaurant reviews, especially restaurants that black folks will hardly ever appear.

This country verily swims in race relations disasters. The newspapers and radio stations have been buzzing with somber discussions of race and class issues, but Kanye West said it best two weeks ago - the race tensions in New Orleans weren't created by Katrina, they were only exposed for the world to see.

There have been a million discussions, but there may be none better than Chris Lydon's approach on Open Source Radio. His guests seemed refreshingly clear-eyed, refusing to buy into the suggestion that Bush had suddenly discovered race problems in his country. It's sad to think that Bush has only just realized that there are race-related issues in this country just now, but they wouldn't even give him that. Instead, they attacked him for using the argument that racial inequity was a result of long-ago problems - Jim Crow, slavery - and not his own administration and previous administrations' consistent attacks on the underclass, not to mention their own upper-class "affirmative action" in the form of tax cuts for the rich.

One of my favorite moments was a call-in by Hampshire College Professor Falguni "Tina" Sheth, who managed to tie the us/them dynamic of Katrina media coverage to both Bush's inadequacy as a uniter, and the Democrats' failure to mount any meaningful resistance or opposing voice. She makes complicated and occasionally convoluted points (check out her blog post here) - a Hampshire trademark.

If you didn't hear this, go listen to the replay. They'll be talking every Monday about race and class issues. I'll tune in - you should, too.

How to Sound Edjicated like the President

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:31:24 GMT

It's easy to badmouth the president for his recent stupid remarks about the New Orleans levees being breached. I mean, WTF? The man who insists he doesn't have time to read newspapers is now saying that he wasn't prepared for the largest natural disaster this country has ever seen because the media told him not to worry?!?

But now that I read this quote again, I realize that Bush never said that the press told him not to worry. He was hearing voices, apparently. His exact quote:

"And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. And that was what I was referring to."

Now, friends, when I tell people that I heard voices, but that the voices were probably over the airways, they tend to look at me like I'm crazy. But whatever. Let's take it as a learning opportunity. As a matter of fact, this is a perfect chance to assemble a lesson on ...

HOW TO SOUND SMART LIKE THE PRESIDENT DOES
(a tragically recurring feature)

(All examples may be found in the original press release on the White House website, just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up.)

Sometimes, you want to sound smart, even if you don't know very much about your subject matter or, well, anything. Mr. Bush uses some very simple and well-tested (by tenth-graders in speech classes) methods to make his speechifying sound smarter. To wit:

1) Use reflexive pronouns often, especially when referring to yourself. Example: "And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet." This clarifies that you are speaking about your own person instead of some random person named "I."

2) If you find that you are repeating yourself, try mixing up the phrase you're repeating. For example, switch from active to passive voice. Example:

When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. [...] And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. [...] But as the man's question said, basically implied, wasn't there a moment where everybody said, well, gosh, we dodged the bullet, and yet the bullet hadn't been dodged. (emphasis mine)

3) Don't be afraid to interrupt yourself. It makes you sound like there's a lot going on in your head. Example: "But, again, there's -- what I think Congress needs to do -- I know Congress needs to do -- and we're doing this internally, as well -- is to take a sober look at the decision-making that went on."

4) Act like your word is golden, even if you're pulling dates and facts out of your ass. Example:

"I knew that a big storm was coming on Monday, so I spoke to the country on Monday* morning about it. I said, there's a big storm coming." Correction on White House press release: * Sunday

5) Refer to yourself by your title. It shows that you know what office you currently hold. (Some people don't realize that you know which office you hold.) Examples:

Now, as far as my own personal popularity goes, I don't make decisions based upon polls. I hope the American people appreciate that. You can't make difficult decisions if you have to take a poll. That's been my style ever since I've been the President. And, of course, I rely upon good people. Of course, you got to as the President of the United States.

Editor's note: did you catch the reflexive adjective in the first sentence? Sneaky!)

I had pre-signed emergency declarations in anticipation of a big storm coming [...] which is, by the way, extraordinary. Most emergencies the President signs after the storm has hit. It's a rare occasion for the President to anticipate the severity of a storm and sign the documentation prior to the storm hitting.

6) Always act nice, even when you're being an ass. "And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that."