For The Trees
A weblog for Liberals who are FED UP with Bush and the Right! About the Authors: Dave Johnson John Emerson Richard Reich Thomas Leavitt
Recent Posts: BEST OF STF: Dave's: Articles not at STF: The ATLA Speech on building a progressive infrastructure Lowering the Bar The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors On the Right and their communications infrastructure: Why Republicans Win Win or Lose The "Conventional Wisdom" Machine Some History of the Conservative Movement HOW TO FIGHT BACK An Amplifier Of Our Own Don't Blame the Democrats How They Do It 1 2 3 4 Getting Rolled Other: You're Gonna Get Drafted Scalia and Self-Government Who is Our Economy For? Voting Machine Story Link Collection What's Wrong with this Picture? (Voting Machines) Like Meat in the Supermarket Get Active Thin Line 1 2 3 Fixing Social Security Seeing the Forest I, II, III "Incredibly Positive News" The Breadth of It The Republican Crony Club Moon Bush Ralph Nader is a Scab John's Best Of: Kerry Smear Page Bandar Bush 9/11 Commission Report Damages Bush -- if you read it Florida Goon Squad Intimidated the Supreme Court The Use and Abuse of George Orwell Zizka's Archives (John's previous identity) Zizka Sampler News Sources: AlterNet BuzzFlash Common Dreams Cursor Drudge Retort Information Clearing House Smirking Chimp TruthOut What REALLY Happened Links to Other Weblogs: |
Friday, April 01, 2005 This Blog Has Moved This Blog Has Moved to seeingtheforest.com. Please help out. If you clicked a link that brought you here, let the referring site know that they have an out-of-date link and ask if they might change it to seeingtheforest.com. THANKS! Thursday, March 31, 2005 Democracy Arsenal Democracy Arsenal, a new blog from The Security and Peace Institute: " The Security and Peace Institute was formed in 2005 as a joint initiative of the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation. The Institute works to advance a responsible U.S. foreign policy based on strong defense, collective security, capable international institutions, and effective promotion of democracy and the rule of law. SPI supports fellows, sponsors research and convenes foreign policy conferences and meetings." Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Bill Bradley Describes VRWC in NY Times Piece Today Sounding like a Seeing the Forest regular, in A Party Inverted, former Senator Bill Bradley today describes how the Right has built a network of organizations that have become the foundation for the Republican Party, and how this structure supports their candidates outside of the election cycle. This is a must-read! To further the party's ideological and political goals, Republicans in the 1970's and 1980's built a comprehensive structure based on Powell's blueprint. Visualize that structure as a pyramid.He describes how this structure supports candidates. The Republicans have this massive structure in place so it doesn't really matter who they run. As I have said here, just look at who they run and tell me they are better candidates! At the very top of the pyramid you'll find the president. Because the pyramid is stable, all you have to do is put a different top on it and it works fine.This understanding of how much the Right is doing outside of the election cycle that directly affects elections is so important to get. From Win or Lose, The Right's machine is not oriented around the election cycle, it is constant, yet this is why they win elections. Their organizations provide a drumbeat of propaganda all year, every year, working with the latest PR and marketing techniques, utilizing the latest research into the psychology of persuasion, exploiting the latest trends, etc. Because its marketing is constant, their politicians have it easy -- they just show up and echo the ideology that this machine has been pumping out and ride along on the rest of the resulting public opinion. Their politicians are almost interchangable, their work having been already done for them by the organizations, they have only to show up and say the right things and they have an automatic base of support.Now go here and give them some money so they can fight the Right, here to study up on what has been happening to us, and here to read up on Progressive Infrastructure to give "our side" a voice. Blog Change Coming Friday On Friday Seeing the Forest is going to switch over to its new site. That site will be at Seeingtheforest.com. The blog you are reading now is located at seetheforest.blogspot.com, and I currently have a "redirect" set up for Seeingtheforest.com that sends everyone here. On Friday we leave Blogger and blogspot (and all the problems) behind for good. I will change the "name servers" for SeeingtheForest.com to point to the new blog. Many of you won't have to do anything because you'll just be sent to the new location automatically. But people who have bookmarks set to "seetheforest.blogspot.com" will continue to come to this site. I suspect that most blogs that link to Seeing the Forest are linking to that incorrect address. So if you find yourself wondering why Seeing the Forest is not being updated, it is because you are looking at the old blogspot site, missing out on all the fun. I know that some of you fear change, and a few of you can be very excitable, so I have worked hard to make sure the new blog looks just like the current one. (Yes, I messed up a perfectly good template to do that. Over time I promise to make it look better. But I just had to get away from blogger before anything else!) And I know that many of you depend on Seeing the Forest for your very life essence. Yes, I recognize and respect and shoulder the tremendous responsibility that you have entrusted me with. With which you have entrusted me. So I will make sure that there are posts here on Thursday and posts there on Friday, and continuity of the flow will be assured. AND I will make sure that anyone who comes here to the blogger location will be able to get to the new location. On top of that I have made sure that all the links and archives at the new location are correct. So you can find old Seeing the Forest posts to read on slower days, and relive better times. How the Liberal Media Myth is Created Everyone should read eriposte's series at The Left Coaster, How the Liberal Media Myth is Created. I insist. The series covers how this myth is created using: Part 1, "tone" of media coverage Part 2, "catch-phrases" like 'right-wing extremist' v. 'left-wing extremist' Part 3, "newspaper headlines" Part 4, "topics" covered Part 5, "think-tank" citations Part 6, surveys of journalist ideology or voting preferences Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Interest Rates For a one-year CD I can get 3.16%. But that is lower than the current inflation rate AND gas is up to $2.35 a gallon and rising fast around here, housing prices up 20% last year. WTF? The government is telling us that it is wrong, just wrong, to try to save money. Monday, March 28, 2005 Finally Leaving Blogger I been bloggered so long it looks like up to me. I'm finally going to leave Blogger. Oh my God they give bad service!!!!!! I signed up a Moveable Type account at LivingDot, and will start the process of getting to know the new software and setting up a blog template. I'll switch over soon. Not sure how to handle the last two-and-a-half years of archives... but I'll figure it out. If you have Seeing the Forest bookmarked or blogrolled, make sure you are using "seeingtheforest.com" as your bookmark and not the "http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/" address. Seeingtheforest.com will always point to the current Seeing the Forest blog. P.S. I have been trying to post this since last night but Blogger keeps crashing. Insulting Bloggers The National Press Club Welcomes ... Jeff Gannon? You've heard of Jeff Gannon. He's the right-wing male prostitute that the White House was using as a shill to deflect critical press questions. Well, now the National Press club is including him on a panel (1st paragraph only) as a --- BLOGGER!!! And, of course, they aren't putting any actual bloggers on the panel. Yes, the same day that the prestigious Washington, D.C., journalism organization plans to present a lunch talk by former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, it will also allow the former White House reporter/sex site operator to be on a panel discussing bloggers and online journalism.Responging to this, The Agonist has organized An Open Letter To The National Press Club Members of The National Press Club, Housing Bubble/Crash Putting Stock in Property, "This is more exciting than a mutual fund," Boome said. "It feels safer too. You buy a piece of dirt, you feel you'll always have a piece of dirt."Angry Bear: Housing: Speculation and the Price-Rent Ratio I was going to link to and quote from a number of recent articles, and then I found Housing Crash Blog, and its links to recent articles on the subject. So just go there. Sunday, March 27, 2005 Moderates, Academics, and Democrats Recently on Kos and MYDD there's been a discussion of the left blogosphere which traces back to an old post by Kevin Drum. The gist of the discussion is here: If you remove Atrios, the left blogosphere is neatly divided into two mutually-linking spheres: the moderate/intellectual (academicky) types - Drum, DeLong, Yglesias, TPM, Tapped, Crooked Timber - and the left activist types - Kos, MyDD, Digby, Left Coaster, Pandagon (only this one surprised me a bit). Even at the modest 5-link level, none of these blogs link to anyone on other side.Here are a few points I'd like to add to the discussion: The moderation of the journalists (TAPPED, Marshall) has a lot to do with the fact that the career path for committed, aggressive liberal Democrats is pretty puny. What you see on TV, on the talk shows, and on most of the newspapers is almost entirely conservative Republicans, centrists of both parties, and apolitical professionals. Beyond ideology, ambitious journalists can't afford to offend important people in the biz, even if they are egregiously dishonest, and from time to time all of them make a point of saying nice things about whoever they think is the least loathesome guy on the other side of the aisle. Bob Somerby is the person they don't dare to be. Recently he applauded a statement of Josh Marshall's about the dismal state of reporting on this issue or that, but pointed out that Marshall had failed to name any names. Somerby is almost always right, but he names names and has made too many enemies. The people at TAPPED have slammed Somerby whenever they've gotten the chance, and lo! -- Nick Confessore just got hired by the New York Times. I think that the collegiality of academia, combined with excessive doses of Orwell and Gandhi, tend to incapacitate academics for the kind of gutter fighting you need when you're facing Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and Grover Norquist. I think that the habits and ways characteristic of academic institutions are the problem, and I think that many of these habits and ways are also characteristic of the various other kinds of large institutions where Democrats tend to make their careers. The Republicans hire semi-criminal entrepreneurs, and it works for them. Finally, Ivy-League whiz kids bring a lot to the party, but I think that they're too influential. They tend to have a pretty limited class experience, and even the ones who come from non-elite backgrounds can be careerists intent on escaping from their past. To put it simply, I think that the Democrats should hire more people from SW Texas State and fewer from Harvard. Before I get accused of being a know-nothing Maoist-Populist wrecker, I don't think that anyone should be purged because of their background. But I do think that there's been a skew in the Democratic Party which should be corrected. The Democrats' populist roots are still featured at Roosevelt-Kennedy nostalgia fests, but are not very evident in the party's real-time activities. Republican populism is fake, but it works. And finally -- as always, I think that the big fact of today's political world is that there are no good guys on the other side of the aisle, and that Democrats should quit looking for them. (Temporarily out of retirement). Update - Also Ian at Blogging of the President Nuclear I wonder if global warming and world oil demand mean it's time to re-think nuclear energy. In my opinion the consequences of getting our energy from fossil fuels are greater than the risks from nuclear energy. Government DID Help Saudis Leave After 9/11! New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11 The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.The key for me line in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 movie was: Imagine how the press and conservatives would react if, after the Oklahoma City bombing, we learned that Bill Clinton had helped get Timothy McVeigh's family out of the country. Saturday, March 26, 2005 Whiskey Bar: The Passion of Terri Show me the way to the next Whiskey Bar Oh, don’t ask why Oh, don’t ask why Just go read. Financial Ruin From this story about housing prices in the SF Bay Area, House buying: receding dream: "With Bay Area home prices rising steeply over the past two years, most buyers have opted for adjustable-rate mortgages -- often with the option of ``interest-only'' payments -- to ensure affordable monthly payments.The "For Sale" signs are sprouting like mushrooms. It probably won't be long now. How many of you remember the Savings and Loan crisis, and the root causes? Friday, March 25, 2005 Republicans Set Up Phony Front Group to Testify at Hearing! The story is at THE BRAD BLOG. Apparently the Republicans set up a phony front group to testify at a Congressional hearing on voting rights. But what really makes this story good is the pictures in the blog post. (Through Oliver Willis.) Advertising Money Subsidizing the Right, Moonies I visited the Moonie Washngton Times to see this story, Conservative Web site, Heritage split. At the top of the page, at least when I visited, was a large banner ad that said, "Now Hiring," from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with a Department of Homeland Security logo. Clicking the ad took me to this page. How much do you think the TSA paid the Moonies to put the ad there? Did they pay normal rates? Double? Have you seen ads like this in non-right-wing media? WHO is the TSA trying to recruit by advertising with the Moonies, and why? I checked NewsMax, and didn't see any government-paid ads, but you might be interested to know that NewsMax brags that Sears, Hitachi, Citibank, OfficeMax and Purina advertise with them. WorldNetDaily has University of Phoenix, Cisco Systems, Xerox, Blockbuster. Drudge has NetFlix, Monster.com, Starbucks, EarthLink, Sprint... You might want to really think about whether those companies deserve your business. IMPORTANT NOTICE Important Changes to Your Citizenship Agreement - Please read and retain for your records.: [. . .] SECTION 11 Thursday, March 24, 2005 Cursor's Media Transparency It's a good idea to check in regularly at Cursor's Media Transparency and see what they have going on. Also, scroll down. The articles stack. Right-Wingers, Read This TalkLeft: Did Congress Really Want to Save Terri Schiavo's Life? Meanwhile, former Senate majority counsel Julian Epstein was on Larry King tonight. He said Congress didn't really want to save Terri Schiavo's life. He was faxed a draft of the legislation in advance and said he told Congress staffers that the law wouldn't work, but that there were options that could work. He said Congress could easily have assured the reinsertion of the feeding tube by writing an automatic stay into the law -- or by creating new evidentiary rules. Congress' refusal to do so, Julian says, means it knowingly passed a half-hearted law that wouldn't work.They once again got the political use out of the Christians without giving the Christians anything. How long can they keep that up? Apparently, forever. Norman Spinrad: corporate publishing oligopoly dooming science fiction novel Just read the latest "On Books" column for Issac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, written by Norman Spinrad (author of, among others, the classic SF novels "Bug Jack Barron" and "The Iron Dream"). In it, he details the sorry state of science fiction publishing (one look at the lousy design of the IASFM web site is worth a thousand words on the economic state of the industry... not to mention the lack of interior illustrations in recent issues), and a very sad and woleful tale it is. Major publishers count themselves lucky to distribute 15,000 copies of a "mass market" publication. Small press publishers deem 1,000 copies a major success.
The ultimate result, in his view, will be the death of "science fiction" as we know it... and the loss of our society's primary vehicle for cultural transformation. Here's what he has to say on the subject:
You can log one more negative side effect of corporate consolidation and media monopolies... the potential death of our culture's ability to evolve and respond to new challenges. This from someone on our side of the fence - he participated in unauthorized street protests during the Republican National Convention last year (just before he wrote this column). There's a hint, earlier on, that perhaps some of the small press publishers can grow themselves into "independent" publishers... perhaps the answer to the call to revolution he ends the column with is for us, the readers, to set up our own self-contained economic ecology (much like the Christians have done). Santa Cruz's resident curmudgeon columnist, Bruce Bratton, has written for three weeks straight about Jennifer Nix's challenge to major figures on the left, Sleeping With The Enemy, asking why folks such as Michael Moore, Amy Goodman and Jim Hightower choose to make fortunes for media conglomerates rather than helping small independent publishers such as Chelsea Green (her company) grow... even writing these authors and getting no response from any of them. Its a serious question... how addicted are we to the corporate culture we inhabit? Can we really envision an alternative? One for which we'd honestly be willing to put our money where our mouth is? If folks as eminent as the ones Bruce mentions in his column can't do so, what does it say about the chances of the rest of us? --Thomas Leavitt Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Dear Progressive Bloggers You're doing it again. You're not seeing what is really going on. You are missing the bigger picture. You are looking at trees and missing the forest. Do you really, after all this time and all these defeats, think the Right is stupid? You mock the Republicans for blatantly acting politically, and ignore that they ARE ACTING POLITICALLY. In other words, they're acting in the way that will in the long term gain them more support for their candidates and issues. You mock their politicians for flocking to this because of a Republican talking points memo telling them this will gain them a political advantage, yet you do not see that THIS WILL GAIN THEM POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. You're nitpicking details and ignoring the larger narrative. They are "trying to save this poor woman." They are "defending this poor woman's family." Meanwhile, you are pointing out discrepancies in the finer details. "What about her husband?" you ask when they talk about her parents. "She can't feel pain," you say, when they accuse Democrats of starving her to death. How many people hear that they are trying to save this poor woman? Everyone. How many people, over time, will pay attention to the nitpicking details? You THINK what the Republicans are doing is unpopular with the public because you see the issue details in the polls and think they matter. Polls say people wouldn't want to live if they were in her situation. Polls say the state should have precedence over the Feds. But have you seen polls that reflect the larger narrative that the Republican machine is spreading? Do the polls ask if Republicans are trying to save this poor woman's life, while Democrats are trying to kill her? What do you think those polls would say? You point out how hypocritical the Republicans are being without thinking about WHY. Stop arguing details, getting all caught up and pinned down. Start arguing the larger narrative. Tune in to Limbaugh. Go read the Right's press. They are escalating this. Ask yourself why. And watch your backs. Update Never mind polls showing the public thinks Congress shouldn't interfere, feels they would want to die in the same situation, etc. Those are narrow issue points. WE ALREADY KNOW that we win on issues. But they win on the larger strategic narratives. We know all these things and here we are doing it all over again. We're arguing the details of their lies instead of reaching the broader, general public with a larger narrative that reinforces public acceptance of the benefits of underlying Progressive values. Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Contrasts August, 2001, Bush receives a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," leaves for vacation. March, 2005, Bush receives a Republican strategy memo saying "This is a great political issue, ... and this is a tough issue for Democrats," flies back from vacation for emergency Congressional session. Party over country. Church Accused Of Political Activity The IRS is accusing a church of violating its tax-exempt status for engaging in political activities. Read the next line only if you are sitting down. They are making the accusation because of an appearance by a Democratic candidate. Yes, you heard me right: "The IRS has notified a Liberty City church that it is under investigation for possibly engaging in political activity -- putting its tax-exempt status into question.The agencies of the government are being used to enforce a one-party state. Churches and religious leaders publicly support the Republican Party with impunity. Catholic Bishops and Southern Baptists tell their flocks it is a sin to vote for Democrats, but this is allowed. And just to drive the point home, the government investigates a church because it allowed a Democrat to speak. The IRS is also investigating the NAACP for political activity. Not the Heritage Foundation, Cato, American Enterprise Institute, or any of the 500 other organizations in the "conservative movement" network, financed to the tune of $400 million a year, that are the core of the Republican Party. Nope, not them. Next it will be jobs. If you are a Democrat you don't get hired, don't get promoted, etc... Monday, March 21, 2005 Visit A New Blog Visit a random webog from the loooongggg "Links to Other Weblogs" blogroll a ways down the left column here. There are so many good things to read, and it is such a great community of Progressive bloggers. Don't get stuck in a rut. Of course, come back here every day. Oh My God! Not to echo Atrios or anything, but HOLY CRAP! A "conservative" pundit is writing about the corruption of the conservatives! Update - McCain Blocks DeLay Investigation test this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! this is a test to see if I can make it appear at the top of the page. SCROLL DOWN! Bloggered IF you knew to scroll wayyyyy down the page, you are seeing this. I have no idea why Blogger does this sometimes. Bring The Troops Home? Is it really a good idea to bring these guys home, where the Republicans will be making up stories about how treasonous Democrats and Liberals betrayed them, and hate them, and are working with terrorists to kill their families? Warning - the video is probably too disturbing for most of us. (American soldiers in Iraq killing a dog for fun.) Sunday, March 20, 2005 Saturday, March 19, 2005 Drives Me Crazy See the updates at the bottom of this post. I am upset by the tone of John's post below. I just got home from a very long day, and will get some sleep and think about what I want to say about it. Update It was the language, directed at a person, that bothered me. John addressed this. Everything is OK now. Also, I think (hope) Kevin's post might have been misinterpreted. But misinterpreted or not, Kevin quoted and did not address Milbank mentioning "a press that brought the Clinton scandals to light". GOOD LORD, THERE WERE NO CLINTON SCANDALS!!!! Just one guy got a blow job. That's it! After all of the accusations and investigations - investigations that distracted from real issues and threats - not a SINGLE accusation turned out to have any merit at all, and not a SINGLE member of the administration was found to have done anything wrong! The investigations were so thorough and the members of the Clinton administration were so clean that one guy was found to have overbilled clients years earlier, and was sent to Federal prison for a long time for it. That's the whole thing. Saying there were "Clinton scandals" is a right-wing talking point. It is part of a strategic campaign of lies to discredit legitimate government and pave the way for the right-wing/corporate takeover of the country that we have seen occur. Aside from anything else in the post, Kevin should have picked that up and called Milbank on that. Milbank should have understood what he was saying. These are the kinds of things we should all be aware of now. I can't address the rest of what Kevin was saying because I'm not sure what he was saying. Kevin drives me crazy that way, but I have learned to give him the benefit of the doubt because he IS on our side. Update Digby writes about the Clinton Scandals aspect of this: The Clinton scandals were contrived political character assassination that were investigated to the tune of 70 million dollars by numerous Republican congressional committees and Republican special prosecutors and WERE PROVED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT!!! The mainstream press were not muckrakers, they were willing whores and shills for a partisan agenda. They obsessed over a decades old land deal, the firing of some employees in the travel office, some bozo in the basement reading FBI files and Clinton's sex life among many other trivial charges. None of them came to anything. These facts are clear.So here we are. We all watched the media go after Clinton - who ran the most honest, public-serving, dedicated and intelligent government possibly in our nation's entire history. We all watched them repeat and echo every single accusation and lie, no matter how ridiculous. And now we all watch the very same media provide cover for outright theft of the country's savings, absolute corporate crony corruption, even wars of aggression and torture. But it's the way it is and how long do we continue to whine and complain about it before we start DOING something about it? John is right, they have taken over, with The Party increasingly using the power and resources of the state to enforce one-party rule. The country is drifting toward corporate fascism and the question is how repressive and violent might they get toward us, the enemy within? But the Soviet Union fell, and Marcos, and the Shah, and other entrenched one-party states have fallen. So we can't give up hope. We have to try to inform the public and resist the Right's takeover as best we can. Giving up really is not an option, in my opinion. WHY I QUIT Below (slightly edited) is what I wrote in response to this post by Kevin Drum, in which he said "I continue to believe that on a list of problems with the American media, ideological bias barely cracks the top ten." (Remember, guys -- in theory, Kevin is on our side.) This kind of post is why I think that Kevin is worthless, and a good part of the reason why I gave up on blogging, the Democratic Party, and the US. No More IMAX Movies About Science A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano, The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.Thanks to The Blogging of the President. Friday, March 18, 2005 Bloggered Bl;ogger has been acting up for about a week, and it is very difficult to post. Bear with us. Thursday, March 17, 2005 Recommended Read - Too Much Stuff I recommend reading Daily Kos :: Everything I Own, Owns Me: "My 'stuff' makes claims on me daily. And my stuff, and your stuff, is in danger of destroying the world as we know it. Does that sound melodramatic? Follow me after the jump for a view of the real impact 'stuff' has on us--both personally and globally."Lots there to think about. Conservative Pundit Hall of Fame Over at Democratic Veteran go see the "Conservative Pundit Hall of Fame." "Conservative Pundits we salute, who have enlisted and are in Iraq or Afghanistan now as members of the US Forces"It's in the right column. Electronic Voting Daily Kos :: Ghost in the Machine: a collection of e-voting facts. Go scare yourself. Life Disruption Our landlord is selling the duplex we have lived in for 7 years. We have been given a 60-day notice to move out because the realtor says it will sell quicker if it is empty. (An empty rental as compared to one with tenants?) We have landscaped the yard, and have a vegetable garden. We have two dogs, so it will be hard to find a new place to live. Our whole life is disrupted. My wife's mother, in England faced a similar situation. Her landlord wanted to sell. But England has some remnants of "socialism" so the landlord was required to relocate them into a similar home, with similar rent, and pay the moving costs. The idea was that accepting rent for providing a home brought an obligation to actually provide a home. Welcome to America, where money talks and people don't matter. Wednesday, March 16, 2005 Republican Jihad Bush gives the International community the finger: Paul Wolfowitz to run World Bank. Bush gives the Mother Earth the finger: ANWR open for drilling Update: Here's the roll call for the vote on ANWR - note that 7 Republicans (plus Jeffords) voted to remove ANWR from the budget bill... but three Democrats didn't: Akaka and Inoye from Hawaii (what's up with that?) and Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. Those three votes made the difference ... party discipline would have shifted the vote from 49-51 in favor, to 52-48. If you're a D in Hawaii or Louisiana, I suggest you complain, loudly. If you're from a state with a Republican that voted to preserve ANWR, call your Senator up and praise them, enthusiastically. Tuesday, March 15, 2005 Fox News: Highly Opinionated (really) [One for the "media literacy" file. -Thomas] An Opinionated Network By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 14, 2005; 7:05 AM In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says. By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views. These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism. In a 617-page report, the group also found that "Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals," while CNN is "the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view." The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others. Full text at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33008-2005Mar14?language=printer --Thomas Leavitt Boycott Talking Points Memo I'm boycotting Talking Points Memo until Josh Marshall returns. And Josh has some explaining to do when he returns. Here's what's written there today: I actually agree with Marshall [he is not referring to Josh Marshall - dj] and the DLC on the suicidal purity of the Democratic party’s left wing, embodied by the Howard Dean movement and its fanatical internet contingent...This is written at a blog? Update - 1) It's a guest blogger. 2) I have nothing against Josh Marshall and will start reading his blog again when Josh returns and the insulting and divisive guest blogger is gone. Christians Demand To Be Only Religion In Schools American Family Association of Michigan demands schools not allow students to mention Wicca. Monday, March 14, 2005 He's Gone Delia, oh, Delia Delia all my lifeAnd I remember one night, Tex and meHe's gone. Party and State Merge Will anyone go to jail for this? You might not realize it yet but what you're looking at on this web page is the scariest thing that has happened in America in a very long time. It's the government telling you to support The Party. Sunday, March 13, 2005 Stop Fake News Start Change Now -> Stop Fake News: "Please send an email to the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department and ask them to Stop Fake News. " Government Spent $254 Million Promoting Bush's Re-Election From this story, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News: Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.One specific example is the effort to promote Bush's scam Medicare bill. Note how the taxpayer-funded ads were coordinated with Bush campaign themes: Her Medicare report, for example, was distributed in January 2004, not long before Mr. Bush hit the campaign trail and cited the drug benefit as one of his major accomplishments.Marketing people know that $254 million buys a lot of exposure. This reported $254 million is only money spent by the government on pro-Bush PR. It does not cover pro-Bush announcements, etc. by agencies of the government. And all this is on top of the $3-400 million per year spent by the Right's network of think tanks, which was also outside of the reported Party $300 million-plus campaign spending. It also does not include the 24-hour-a-day Republican AM radio machine, Fox News, Republican newspapers, etc. Blogger Suckitude Everything Lambert says. Except I can't seem to get this to post. Maybe you'll eventually see it, unless it crashes. Or several times if it duplicates itself. Google: a company that refuses to provide any customer support whatsoever. Actually, that's pretty much ALL Silicon Valley companies, no? Skank Bolton I've been grousing to myself, as I so often do, about yet another Bush appointment: John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. This was announced after Rice swept across Europe full of protestations that the U.S. would turn over a new leaf, and work respectfully with others. Well, that didn't last long. Bolton! Only a punk would nominate Bolton. Now I read a story that lends substance to my churning and inchoate disgust. This article recounts the sorry history of the biological weapons treaty. Work on an enforcement mechanism for this treaty began in 1995. After initially signalling support, the Bush Administration sabotaged it at the 11th hour, sending Bolton, after six years of work, with the message that the U.S. did not support an enforcement protocol. This was really about the U.S. claiming full freedom to do any and all work on bio weapons which it chose. Academic experts were horrified and predicted a bio weapons arms race. Here is where it gets interesting: A year later, China discovered SARS and tried to hide it. Three months later, terrified of the possibilities of its spreading throughout China and the world, it notified the World Health Organization, which immediately organized an emergency response on a scale unprecedented for any new illness. The WHO, too, was obviously terrified. I wish this were only about Bolton! Clearly he is a substantial contributor to the decline of international cooperation. Unfortunately the real story is the resulting decline in security which effects each one of us. Chomsky - LINK FIXED My mother sent me a pointer to this... Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste LINK FIXED!!! [...] The elections are run by the same guys who sell toothpaste. They show you an image of a sports hero, or a sexy model, or a car going up a sheer cliff or something, which has nothing to do with the commodity, but it's intended to delude you into picking this one rather than another one. Same when they run elections. But they're assigned that task in order to marginalize the public, and furthermore, people are pretty well aware of it. For many years, election campaigns here have been run by the public relations industry and each time it's with increasing sophistication. Quite naturally, the industry uses the same technique to sell candidates that it uses to sell toothpaste or lifestyle drugs. The point is to undermine markets by projecting imagery to delude and suppressing information-and similarly, to undermine democracy by the same method. [...] --Thomas Leavitt Saturday, March 12, 2005 Fighting Back: Narrow Issues vs Core Values In 'I Have a Nightmare', Nicholas Kristoff writes about the essay "The Death of Environmentalism," seemingly without having read it to the end. Kristoff writes that the environmental movement lost credibility by making alarming claims that haven't come true. He writes, "The Death of Environmentalism" notes that a poll in 2000 found that 41 percent of Americans considered environmental activists to be "extremists." There are many sensible environmentalists, of course, but overzealous ones have tarred the entire field."Is Kristoff unaware that there is a well-funded right-wing movement in this country that uses lies, smears and humiliation as a primary tactic to sway public opinion? "Extremist" is the wording the Right uses to discredit environmentalists, and Rush Limbaugh uses to describe environmentalists on his 20-some-million-listener radio show. No wonder 41 percent of Americans use the word! But Kristoff unintentionally echoes the "conventional wisdom" of the Right's smear campaign -- it's environmentalists' fault people think they're "extremists" because they scream "the sky is falling" like Chicken Littles. It's like saying "if only Jews [blacks, gays, women, etc.] didn't act that way people wouldn't hate them." What I took from the "The Death of Environmentalism" was that the authors think money spent promoting environmental issues might be better spent, in the current climate of public attitudes, on fighting the Right at a deeper level, promoting core Progressive values to the general public, to foster development of a sustainable political coalition to elect candidates who support environmentalism. Read the essay, judge for yourself. From its conclusions: While it's obvious that conservatives control all three branches of government and the terms of most political debates, it's not obvious why. This is because environmentalists and other liberals have convinced themselves that, in politics, "the issues" matter and that the public is with us on categories such as "the environment" and "jobs" and "heath care." What explains how we can simultaneously be "winning on the issues" and losing so badly politically?Read the entire essay. It represents an important turning point in Progressive thinking about promoting narrow-interest issues v.s. core values. Square Liberalism: Ibsen's"Enemy of the People" The plays of Henrik Ibsen dominated European drama for half a century, and to this day much of theatre can be thought of dialectically as "anti-Ibsen". James Joyce in his teens was an Ibsenist who taught himself Dano-Norwegian in order to read the plays in the original, and in the stories in Dubliners (to say nothing of some of his youthful works) you can still see signs of Ibsen's realism -- though without Ibsen's reformist message. According to Kenneth Rexroth the slang word "square" came from "squarehead" -- the seaman's ethnic slur for the relatively-stodgy Scandinavians among them -- and Ibsen was the squarest person in the world. For him right was right, truth was truth, and if there's a problem, something should be done about it. The Enemy of the People was probably Ibsen's squarest play. Doctor Stockman, a highly-respected M.D. and community leader in a small Norwegian town, discovers that the mineral waters of the town's soon-to-be-opened health spa have been made toxic by bacterial contamination. He starts to get the word out and proposes a solution, but as the play progresses, his friends and allies -- including the moderate reformists and liberals -- turn against him one by one. At the end of the play he stands alone, having been officially declared "an enemy of the people". Recently the dramatist Christopher Hampton retranslated the play. From his Introduction: "However sympathetic he feels for Dr. Stockman's cause, Ibsen is too subtle and profound a dramatist not to know that there are few figures more infuriating than the man who is always right. Stockmann's sincerity, naivety, and courage co-exist with an innocent vanity, an inability to compromise and an indifference to the havoc caused in the life of his family and friends, as well as his own, by his dogged pursuit of principle." Hampton is wrong. Ibsen was a square, and he wrote the play to show that Doctor Stockman was right, and that his cowardly, corrupt, thuggish enemies were wrong. Everyone in town except Stockman was willing to market a toxic health spa to sick people. An Enemy of the People is a square play. Partly for that reason, it may not be Ibsen's best play -- but "the moral of the story" is absolutely clear. Like a parson bowdlerizing Shakespeare, Hampton felt the need to misrepresent Ibsen in order to make him palatable to the cynical modern audience. I have speculated elsewhere that we may now be living in a post-ethical age. I didn't say in so many words that I think that this is a bad thing -- but it is. Democrats and liberals have found it very difficult to make a strong moral statement to the voters, and this is because the so-called Left has been dominated by a combination of shrewd, careerist inside players, and hedonistic personal liberationists preaching relativism. It should have been possible to achieve tolerance and diversity without making moral relativism into an absolute principle, but that's the strategy that ended up being chosen. The outcome has been crippling. There are square arguments for liberalism, but in the world of today, only the cynical Rovian right can to appeal to squares. (Note: This is a cross-post from my less-political site, Idiocentrism.com. I'm still in retirement.) Framing vs. Fencing Daily Kos :: Framing vs. Fencing: A post-Lakoff analysis. Everybody go read. There will be a test this week. Thursday, March 10, 2005 Blow To Small Business Creation I predict that the new bankruptcy bill will have a damping effect on the formation of small businesses, and this will be one more blow to job creation. This bill makes it just too much of a risk to borrow money to open a laundromat or buy a Subway sandwich franchise. I have a friend who is a dentist. He has been hoping to one day open a practice with his wife, also a dentist. But that takes money. Hearing about the bankruptcy bill, he said this might just clinch it that they won't be opening that private practice. This is what got me thinking about the effect this could have on a national scale, scaring people away from their dream of one day having their own independent business. Gonna Get Smeared Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming. First we'll see stories at NewsMax, GOPUSA and Drudge, then hear them repeated on Limbaugh's radio show, smearing each of these religious leaders and mocking them in a humiliating way. Then there will be a closed-door meeting in the White House from which the leaders will emerge, apologize in front of news cameras saying they made a terrible mistake, that Bush is a glorious leader and prophet. A month later they will all be found dead of suicide with multiple gunshots to the back of the head and body. News reports will say that "liberal bloggers" were responsible for the whole thing. Radio that doesn't suck lives!!! Last week, I wrote about Mark Morford's column on the overall suckiness of corporate radio, All Hail The Death of Radio. I mentioned that I wrote him about KPIG, a local radio station that is definitely NOT corporate radio. Well, apparently I wasn't alone in the impulse to tell him about radio that doesn't suck, because this week he posted a kind of a mea-culpa: And Now For Some *Real* Radio. In it he says, "...I never really fully understood, fully comprehended, fully had crammed into my thick iTunes-drunk P2P-dazzled skull before I decried the mad sad corporatization of the airwaves, is just how many vibrant alternatives exist." And then passes on the collective recommendations of his readers (along with info on how to tune in via the 'net, if possible). --Thomas Leavitt P.S. Guess whose recommendation was number two on his list? :) Wednesday, March 09, 2005 Saddam Capture Another Lie? Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction: "A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated. If Programmers Were As Smart As Longshoremen BAD ATTITUDES: If Programmers Were As Smart As Longshoremen I’ve often said that if programmers were as smart as longshoremen, they’d have a contract as good as longshoremen. They don’t, in part because they’re proud of their weakness. They’re proud that they don’t stoop to organizing. Nosiree, these are libertarians, who would not consider acting as a group. That, after all, would hurt the super-rich scumbags they work for. And since everyone expects one day to be in the position of the exploiter, they certainly don’t want to restrict the exploiter’s actions now. Even if they’re currently the exploited.Through corrente. Tuesday, March 08, 2005 Do Dems Ban "Pro-Life" Convention Speakers? The subject of whether Democrats "ban pro-life speakers" at their conventions is going around again. This originated after anti-choice Pennsylvania Governor Casey was not allowed to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he refused to endorse then-Governor Clinton for President. No More Mister Nice Blog has a great post on the subject, and he uses the magic words: "conventional wisdom." Kevin Drum has recently written about it, as have Atrios and Digby. It so happens that the myth that "Democrats don't allow pro-life speakers at their conventions" came up at a dinner party at the home of some strongly Christian friends just before last year's election. These friends tend to be Democratic voters, but had been getting handouts and magazines at their church, designed to persuade them to vote Republican. One thing my friends had heard repeatedly was particularly influential. They were saying they were likely to vote for Bush because "Democrats don't allow pro-life people to speak at their conventions." I also hear this repeated all the time, and it has become "conventional wisdom." You probably know that the Republicans usually add that Republicans are the party of the "big tent." In fact, you probably hear this repeated word-for-word, because that's how these things work. The "Democrats don't allow" and "Republicans are party of big tent" seems to be a powerful, influential combination for persuading potential voters. But I didn't realize just how powerful an effect these words had on people until that dinner party. So I did some research... Here is the record: Pro-Life Democrats speaking at the 2004 convention: Two members of Democrats for Life were among speakers at the party's convention. Rep. Jim Turner of Texas was speaking in the context of his role as ranking minority member of the Homeland Security Committee. Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island introduced Ron Reagan [also "pro-life"], who spoke in favor of embryonic stem-cell research.2000 Convention: The Catholic Herald: "Eight years after he was denied a forum at the Democratic convention, the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey was given a few moments in the national spotlight. On the closing day of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the governors two sons got the chance to make their fathers points about the sanctity of life.Invocation by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, At the Democratic National Convention, Los Angeles, Monday, August 14, 2000: (Other Catholic archbishops declined invitations to speak in 1984, 1992, and 1996.) "I welcome you to the "City of Angels" with all its vibrant religious, ethnic, and racial diversity. I come to this great convening out of respect for our nation's democratic traditions. I come as a pastor, not a politician; an advocate of values, not candidates.1996 Democratic Convention, Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio: "Mr. Chairman and fellow Democrats, I have the high honor of speaking to you today about an issue that's very dear to my heart, the needs of the vulnerable in our nation, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the children, and the unborn. The moral test of government, Hubert Humphrey said, is how that government treats those that are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick.So the fact is that the Democratic Party conventions HAVE had so-called "pro-life" speakers, including the 2000 invocation by a Catholic Archbishop (who is obviously against abortion) talking about protecting "unborn children." And the fact remains that Gov.Casey did refuse to endorse the nominee that year. Add to this that his kids were allowed to give a "pro-life" speech at the next convention. Democrats simply do NOT "ban pro-life speakers." But they DO ban speakers who refuse to endorse the nominee. As my dinner-party friends can testify, the story carries great weight in persuading people to not support Democrats, by convincing them that Democrats are elitists who ban "pro-life" speakers - banning people who are like them - while Republicans are inclusive "big tent" people - embracing people who are like them. So it is greatly to the benefit of the Republicans that the lie continue to circulate. Repetition is the key to making people believe things. This is an "urban myth" that is useful and powerful so it continues to be repeated. This is another example of the use of repetition of simple phrases to create "conventional wisdom" or what we call "truisms." Such conventional wisdoms include phrases like "Social Security is going broke," "He gassed his own people" and "Children trapped in failing public schools." Finally, let me remind you of the Seeing the Forest rule: when Republicans accuse others it probably means it is something they are doing. From a pre-convention Washington Times (a pro-Republican newspaper) story, More than half the Republicans in the House have signed a formal complaint to President Bush about the failure to give prominent conservative, pro-life party members even one prime-time speaking role at the Republican National Convention.(All emphasis in the quotes above was added.) Update - Paul Waldman adds, "Just a couple more – David Bonior (then House Whip) and Harry Reid have both spoken at a few." Remember These Names Chris at MyDD says, "Remember these names." Well said. These are the Democrats and so-called "moderate" Republicans who voted to let the bankruptcy bill go forward: DemocratsRemember these names. Surprise: America's priorities not on radar of Republicratic Party The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) just release the results of a poll on the budgetary priorities of the average American citizen. Just to show you how profoundly out of touch the leadership on both sides of the aisle in Washington is, let me ask this question: when was the last time you heard a spokesperson or even a leading light of either party suggest cutting the "defense" budget by anything approaching 31% (the overall average amount)?(*1*) Who would think from the natterings of our pundit class that 65% of the American public (Democrats and Republicans alike) would favor cutting the "defense" budget and redirecting a significant proportion of the resulting savings into social services and deficit reduction efforts?!? I found out about this via an article on Truthout (my mother sent it to me this afternoon). Here's the article's sub-header: "Would reduce deficit, cut defense sharply, and increase spending on education, job training, renewable energy, veterans." Sounds like a program I could get behind!!! This is all the more astounding, considering the ongoing effort by The Mighty Wurlitzer to confound and confuse the American public. It appears all they've managed to do is confuse and confound our political ruling class and the media elite that cover them... but, on the other hand, I guess that's all they need to do, right? At least until those of us at the bottom of the political food chain start voting people out of office on a regular basis. If there is a single politician in Washington who has suggested reallocating our budgetary priorities in the manner outlined in this article (or anything even reasonably close), I'd like to know... because I certainly haven't seen anything to that effect. My guess is there isn't. Even among the "progressives". Regards, --Thomas Leavitt *1* The Green Party's platform in both 2000 and 2004 called for cutting the "defense" budget by 50%; here's the relevant language from the 2004 platform: "Our defense budget has increased out of all proportion to any military threat to the United States, and to our domestic social, economic and environmental needs. The United States government must reduce our defense budget to half of its current size. The 2005 defense budget is estimated at around $425 billion, and that does not take into account military expenditures not placed under the defense budget." Take a look at the Green Party's platform, and see what you think... even though I don't agree with all of it(*2*), I think there's a ton of stuff in there to like and that is far more in alignment with the values of the average American (exclusive of a few hot button issues) than not. *2* I think the "steady-state economy" stuff is based on the faulty assumption that economic growth is dependent on the ever increasing consumption of natural resources, as a technologist, whose career has been built on automating systems to enable more to be done with less, I think I have plenty of evidence to argue otherwise. Monday, March 07, 2005 The Truth About TV News: When Opinion Dominates, Everything Becomes Opinion Unless we’re careful, we who are charged with reporting the news could lose sight of truth as our ultimate goal. We could end up in a world where, implicitly, none of us — not the audience and not the reporters — even believe any longer in the truth. (see full article by David Westin in CJR) The UN Ambassador President Bush has nominated "hardliner" John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. "Imagine Jerry Falwell being placed in charge of marriage in Massachusetts." This is where Bush has apparently been getting his ideas about how the country should work with the rest of the world. (Hint: scroll to the lower right hand corner.) Just a coincidence, look at who provides the core funding of the modern right-wing "noise machine" that put Bush into office. Bankruptcy Bill Talking Points Memo - Special Bankruptcy Edition Blog -- a separate blog just for the bankruptcy bill. Sunday, March 06, 2005 Credit Cards In case you haven't heard, there's a new bankruptcy bill making its way through Congress. Read up on it here, here and here. Kevin Drum points out that: "Bottom line: credit card companies now make half their profits from penalties and late fees. They actively seek out customers who are likely to miss payments and end up in a penalty fee spiral, and they make a fortune from them.""And where does the bankruptcy bill come into this? Credit card companies want the ability to make risky loans, but they also want federal protection that protects them from bearing the risk that goes along with making those loans. That's a pretty cushy setup, as long as you can buy yourself enough politicians to make it happen. Apparently they can."He also writes here about amendments offered by Democrats, that Republicans voted down, and other details: "The poor get shafted, the very real crisis of medical bankruptcy is ignored, the rich are allowed loopholes that let them off the hook, and credit card companies can continue on their merry way knowing they won't have to pay the price for their own folly."I stopped using credit cards several years ago. It's AMAZING how good it feels to be free of monthly payments and interest charges. Why would I want to contribute to the machine? If I can't just pay for something I just don't buy it. (Yes, I drive an old beater.) Brit Hume Must Resign! Bloggers and Readers, Here is another story that needs to gain wider attention. Brit Hume Must Resign. Oliver Willis has been on this for 25 days, and we should all join him by blogging about it, writing letters and making phone calls. Here's the background: On February 3rd, Hume intentionally manipulated the words of the 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to make it appear as if FDR supported privatization of social security. This is a brazen falsehood. President Roosevelt's grandson, James Roosevelt Jr., describes Hume's journalistic malfeasance as an "an outrageous distortion". We agree.This is far more serious than anything Dan Rather was accused of. But Hume is getting away with it because we aren't making enough noise. Go read about it, and make some noise! Saturday, March 05, 2005 Digby! Digby! Digby! In The Big Argument Digby writes, I realize that there has been a full generation of brainwashing about how the government is always bad and that everyone will get rich, rich, rich if the government just gets off their backs. But I have a sense that the force of this argument is getting stale. The assault on social security may just be the thing that opens people's minds to what their philosophy really means. And it may just open a window to allow the idea back in to the minds of the citizens that government programs can be an affirmative good. Social Security works. It's more efficient, more fair and more inexpensive than any of the alternatives. People apparently instinctively know this. Since the Republicans decided to bring this to the forefront we should take credit for it and piggyback our new progressive ideas on its back. It's been so long since anyone had the nerve to do it, that it sounds downright fresh.Digby finds words from FDR that do sound fresh and inspiring. There's more good stuff, so go read. And in Mr. Positive, Digby writes, I still maintain that whenever somebody says that we must present an alternative, we should say "We have presented the alternative. It's called "Social Security". It works very, very well and Democrats are damned proud to have created it."And in Listening To Liberals Digby writes, And here is one liberal who doesn't believe that everything that comes out of the unregulated free market is good culturally. For instance, I think that right wing talk radio is the biggest cultural pollutant in our society. I can't conceive of anything more pernicious than hours and hours of eliminationist rhetoric, lies and propaganda being pumped into people's cars, offices and homes throughout the country. Somehow, I just can't get as worked up about fictional cable television shows that feature nudity and profanity when real live Americans spend the day listening to people talk about me in ways that sound an awful lot like they'd like to kill me.All in one day! Digby! Digby! Digby! Friday, March 04, 2005 Social Security and 2018 President Bush was on the news talking about the "crisis" that Social Security faces in 2018. I haven't heard the truth about this repeated often enough, so here it is: Everyone who makes $90,000 or less pays a big chunk of their income into the Social Security Trust Fund. This money was supposed to be saved to pay for our retirement. Bush called this saved-up retirement money "the people's money" and used it to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich. So while OUR taxes were supposed to be building up a huge reserve for OUR retirement, Bush has been giving it to the rich. It is projected that Social Security will stop bringing in extra revenue in approx. 2018. This is where the money that was supposed to be saved comes into play -- Bush spent it, and doesn't want to pay it back. THAT is why he says there is a crisis in 2018! Bush says this is Social Security's problem! He calls it a "crisis" and says we need to cut benefits. I think it is Social Security's problem like it's the bank's problem if I can't come up with the mortgage payment, and I tell the bank they need to lay people off so they don't need my money. CNET: "The coming crackdown on blogging" Declan McCullagh's latest is an interview with Bradley Smith, a Republican FEC commissioner, about the potential effects of being forced to apply McCain-Feingold campaign donation regulations to the Internet. Here's the first paragraph: "In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines." Apparently (perhaps because of the Talon News/GOPUSA scandal), the regulatory issue has produced a partisan split--there was a 3-3 vote to not to appeal the Internet related portion of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's latest order. I'm not sure what the Democratic Party appointees' rationale for this vote was (they're not quoted), but, at least on the surface, the postulated outcome is fairly alarming... links to candidate websites being categorized as campaign donations, along with forwarding press releases to email lists (for example). UPDATE:Ellen Weintraub, who is apparently acting as a spokesperson for the Democratic Party FEC appointees, has this to say about the issue: Bloggers, chill out already! --Thomas Leavitt Blog Reader Survey - Important to Blogs and to STF This is a reminder repost - especially if you were unable to take the survey because the site went down. Please take the blog reader survey. On question 16 please let them know that you came from "Seeing the Forest." The really helps Seeing the Forest, and helps blogs in general. From Henry at Blogads: The survey should take about four minutes to complete. The results will help us communicate with advertisers, the press and the public about the huge and unique audience that blogs serve.Blog Reader Survey. "Seeing the Forest" at question 16. Blog Reader Survey. "Seeing the Forest" at question 16. Blog Reader Survey. "Seeing the Forest" at question 16. Friday NOT Cat Blogging P-Niss Blogging Friday from the farmer at corrente. Prepare yourself before reading. Probably not work-safe. The President of the Republican Party -- Only It's time Bush explained why he only talks to supporters. Democrats are not welcome at Presidential events. Period. No questions, and especially no answers. Are we citizens or subjects? It's time to start making some real noise about this. Don't go quietly. And, of course, watch your backs. Thursday, March 03, 2005 Fighting Back Here is a comment I left over at Digby's blog: (Edited to make me look better.) I come out of marketing and marketing people know that if you spend a lot of money to repeat something over and over it will effectively get many if not most people to think that whatever you are saying is true. That's why people think that one soap is better than another or Shell is better than the no-brand discount gas station, etc. And the Right has spent a lot of money - billions - and built up the channels for repeating things over and over. It's really a very simple, basic thing if you think about it. They spend a lot of money to repeat a core ideology and people start to accept it. Duh! So what do we do about it? We start to spend a lot of money to repeat over and over that Progressive solutions are better for regular people. And we learn how to do it with modern marketing methods. We learn how to craft a message specifically for this demographic or that demographic, etc. We learn how to craft our message into language that resonates emotionally, etc. We fund organizations that train Progressives in media techniques so they come across better on TV. We do all the things the Right is doing -- which are all the things modern corporations do to sell soap to you. It really is just like selling soap. But I think the core is that we have to start repeating the UNDERLYING message, that Progressive values benefit regular people. THEN we tie narrow issues to those underlying values. That is the key thing the Right has learned about how to sell their issues. They start by selling the ideas that underly the issues. After people come to accept these underlying ideas THEN they tie it to the issues. And all of this gets your candidates elected. So spending money on this is better and longer lasting than money spent on election cycle stuff. Jews Need Not Apply House Votes to Ease Ban on Hiring Bias, Under current law, religious organizations that participate in federal job-training programs cannot discriminate in hiring or firing for jobs financed by taxpayers. The House bill would remove that prohibition, meaning that a church or synagogue could use a person's religious beliefs in determining employment for a federally financed job. Wednesday, March 02, 2005 Corporate Radio vs. "fringe" rock and pop Mark Morford's latest column, All Hail The Death of Radio, is a long rant about the utter suckage of corporate radio. His usual brilliant dissection of the pathetic. I sent him a note about KPIG. Here's what KPIG says about themselves: http://www.kpig.com/info.html What is KPIG? We're an anachronism - a throwback to the days when real DJs picked out the music, and listeners expected something more from a radio station than just a couple of hundred songs repeated over and over, with some "big voice" guy yelling about how great it all is. We're also - to the amazement of all of the radio "professionals" who make the rules we thumb our noses at - very successful, though we try not to let it go to our heads. *** And, yes, they are successful: with a weak signal, they regularly challenge ClearChannel stations for top ratings in their local market. this link R&R; labels it a "Triple A" station, which is defined thusly: http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/format?code=aaa Radio Station Format Definitions: Adult Album Alternative "Triple-A" stations target an adult audience with a large variety of music that hovers on the fringe of mainstream pop and rock, including Americana, alternative rock, alternative country, blues, folk and world music. The selections stay away from rap or any of the "hard stuff." Typical artists heard on AAA stations include: Shawn Colvin, Eric Clapton, Amiee Mann, David Gray, Bob Dylan, Cowboy Junkies, Dave Mathews Band, U2, Tracy Chapman, R.E.M., Train, Blues Traveler, Cold Play, Depeche Mode, Lucinda Williams, Josh Joplin Group. *** Interesting... so, all these bands and singers are on "fringe" of mainstream pop and rock?!? Tracy Chapman?, R.E.M., Bob Dylan?!?, Dave Mathews Band, U2?!?, Depeche Mode? Says a lot about corporate radio, doesn't it? Incidentally, these aren't the bands that KPIG typically plays... 95% of the time, when I tune them in, I hear something I've never heard before... and sometimes, I even like it. Mark Morford says that this recently happened to him for the first time since 1996. Corporate America's lack of imagination and risk-aversion is costing it a fortune... and improvershing our culture in the process - as KPIG's success demonstrates by contrast. Sad, isn't it? --Thomas Leavitt Obstruction The Congress will not investigate anything this administration does wrong. It is not in the interests of The Party to do so. Senate Intelligence Chairman Opposes C.I.A. Abuse Inquiry: "The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is opposing a request by the panel's top Democrat to investigate possible misconduct by the C.I.A. in the treatment of terrorism suspects, Congressional officials said Tuesday."Impunity. Nuke But No Sound The Carpetbagger Report : If a congressman calls for a nuclear attack, and only blogs notice, does it really make a sound? The STF Rule At TalkLeft, Global Electronic Surveillance for Dummies, The United States has fewer than 5,000 spies operating around the world, for example, but 30,000 eavesdroppers.I left the following comment: Remember the "Clipper chip" controversy, where the right-wingers stopped the Clinton administration from certifying a standard encryption chip that would be built into our phones and computers? They claimed that encryption would ENABLE the government to listen in! So now none of our phone calls or e-mails are encrypted and pretty much anyone can listen in.The STF rule: If Republicans are accusing others, it means they are DOING it! They accused the Clinton administration of wanting to listen in on everyone's conversations. So today no one has encryption, with the result that anyone can listen in. (Explain again how putting encryption into phones and computers lets the government listen in? A lot of smart people actually bought into that one.) Tuesday, March 01, 2005 Ask Rupert This just in: Anything you'd like to ask Rupert Murdoch? A Lot Of Money Is Going To Be Lost A lot of money is going to be lost. I mean, a LOT. Speculators Seeing Gold in a Boom in the Prices for Homes, In several metropolitan areas, from Miami to Riverside, Calif., where the real estate market is white hot, rapidly rising prices are luring a growing number of ordinary people into buying and selling residences they do not intend to occupy, despite warnings from some economists that prices cannot continue to rise as steeply as they have in the last few years.Oh it's going to be bad. Really, really bad. I'm taking another break I won't be posting for awhile while I'm thinking things over. In the past I've always come back eventually, but I'm not promising anything. I really dread the next four years. I expect the worst from Bush -- specifically, war fever plus McCarthyism. There have been a number of positive changes in the Democratic party, but Democrats as a group still don't seem prepared for what's going to happen, and it may be too little, too late. At the beginning of my blogging career I was happy just to vent, but over the last year or so I've tried to figure out a way to make something of my political writing. That really hasn't happened -- I still seem to be speaking to the same small audience of people who basically already agree with me, without really getting my message out the generic Democrats or the big-time bloggers -- much less the party leadership. I will always be angry about the crappy 2004 campaign, the overpaid consultants, and the unresponsive and bureaucratic Democratic Party (and Kerry campaign) -- and especially, the New Dems who are only now finally realizing that perhaps their destruction of the left wing of the Democratic party left them vulnerable to attack. Lieberman's hot wet kiss with Bush at the State of the Union speech was just the killing blow. I noticed that Martin Peretz has just offered the Democrats some helpful advice. The man who gave us Michael Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Mickey Kaus, and Andrew Sullivan. The neocon who stayed behind to fight a rear-guard battle against the enemy and subvert him -- i.e., us. The fifth columnist. The media is hopeless, and we need something completely new -- a new national newspaper, new national TV and cable networks, and a new national radio network. Radio is only halfway there, and the others don't exist at all. It would all cost about half a billion, and while people tell me that the money is out there, I don't see much happening. Right now there is no career track for openly liberal, openly Democratic media people. You can sit back and watch all of them fudging, refusing to burn bridges, and primping their moderation cred -- hoping for that invitation to go on TV, or maybe even to write for the Times eventually, like the liberal Kristoff. I might also mention that there's a considerable pool of talented bloggers out here who've been self-financing all along while the dud consultants have been pulling down six-figure incomes for losing over and over again. After awhile, that kind of thing gets old, and I know of at least two well-respected bloggers who are just plain flat broke. Republican bloggers seem to get support, although they don't necessarily tell anyone about it. I think that the academic and administrative roots of most Democratic leaders disable them for the hoodlum politics of today. They're used to describing reality as it is at a given moment, "managing" things, keeping the lid on, and judging people by their credentials. They're cool and civil and don't know how to respond to deliberate provocation, or to people whose goal is to shake things up and change things. The Republicans, by contrast, hire semi-criminal entrepreneurs and give them a chance to show what they can do. And the Republicans win. The whole "reality-based" slogan is utter crap. Democrats deal with the world as it is, and Republicans deal with the world as it can be made to be. That's why the Democrats are always blindsided, and why the Republicans always win. The Democrats are yesterday, and the Republicans are tomorrow. "The point is not to understand the world, but to change it". And for those who don't understand it yet, "character" means, among other things, macho. The can-do hands-on do-what-you-gotta-do thing. The academic habit of discussing everything to death is not what you're looking for in the man in charge. (Macho -- Margaret Thatcher had it, Indira Gandhi had it, Golda Meir had it. It's not just a guy thing.) The United States has been taken over by a cult -- the hardcore 30% who think that that nuclear war is a fun idea, that France is an enemy nation, that the Confederacy was perfectly wonderful, that Armageddon is coming soon and is something to pray for, and that the federal government should be starved to death. They're the bad guys, but the ones who you really have to blame are the ones who don't bother and don't care: the cynics, the apathetic, the non-voters, the game-players, the media careerists, and the self-described "moderates". By the time those guys get the idea, it will probably be too late. The American people have spoken, and sometimes you end up feeling that the problem is really them. P.S. I meant to say this the first time -- the absence of a liberal Democratic media career track also pulls Democratic political pros, and even Democratic politicians, to the right. They always have to think about what they do afterwards, so they don't want to burn any bridges either. Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Susan Estrich and George Stephanopolous are the worst examples I can think of, but there are tons of them. Monday, February 28, 2005 New Report - Social Security Administration Politicized The Stakeholder talks about a new report on the politicization of the Social Security Administration. From the post, Pelosi, Waxman: SSA Politicized: "The report, based on a review of over 4,000 pages of Social Security documents from 1995 to 2005, reveals that the agency has systematically altered agency publications, press releases, PowerPoint presentations, website content, and even its annual statements to foster the impression that Social Security is 'unsustainable' and 'must change.' The agency's new pessimistic tone and emphasis echo President Bush's warnings about the future of Social Security."This is a blatantly illegal use of a government agency to promote a political party, unprecedented in American history, but who will do anything about it? The Republicans in Congress will block any attempts at oversight. The Justice Department's job now is to enforce Party ideology instead of American laws. The Federalist Society judges are in place to block any non-Party law enforcement attempts. The media is intimidated and non-functional - you probably won't even see anything about this report in the mainstream press. We are the frog in the water as it heats, and the water is starting to bubble now. It has been coming on slowly, and seems like just a very small step away from the tricks and schemes we were reading about a month ago. But think back. Before Bush came along the idea of a government agency telling the public to support one political party's ideology over another's - while Congress refused to do anything about it - was unimaginable in America. This is how things like the Soviet Union come about - when government agencies ignore the country's laws and promote The Party, and get away with it. Look where we are, with Party control over all agencies of government, government-sanctioned torture, a press that reflects the ideology of one and only one side -- and our country committing wars of aggression. When do they start on us? Go read the report at The Stakeholder. And watch your backs. Sunday, February 27, 2005 Saturday, February 26, 2005 Priorities Rolling Stone (via /.): A review of fines levied by other federal agencies suggests that the government may be taking swear words a bit too seriously. If the bill passes the Senate, Bono saying "fucking brilliant" on the air would carry the exact same penalty as illegally testing pesticides on human subjects. And for the price of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps at two nuclear reactors. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.) Copyright © 2002-05. |
Blogger's RSS feed OR Search using Atomz Please help Seeing the Forest meet expenses. You can contribute using Paypal or Amazon by clicking either of the following buttons. Thanks! I took out the Amazon "donate button" because they are a red company, helping fund the right. Archives |