I'm trying make a concerted effort to avoid discussing national politics in general, but this was just too good to pass up. Media Matters For America is reporting that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough finally got fed-up with "I can dish it out but I can't take it" O'Reilly and his recent smear merchant tactics regarding NBC and MSNBC:
On the January 4 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough responded to Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's attacks on NBC and MSNBC by asserting that O'Reilly was "way off base on MSNBC, on NBC, and certainly on me. And I challenge you to debate me anytime, anyplace, anywhere."
Yeah, like that's going to happen. Referring to his critical assessments of Bush & Co., Scarborough continued:
"That doesn't make me liberal, that makes me conservative. That may make you, though, a suck-up, if you defend the Republicans that have done that to this country and to our party over the past six years."
So why is O'Reilly so upset with MSNBC? Probably because Keith Olbermann is eating into his ratings big time.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 05, 2007
Sunday, November 12, 2006
What's He Talking About????
My favorite local conservative, Kurt Bonham at FlyAtNight appears to take exception to my recent take on Lassen County's performance during the election. I say "appears" because Kurt's ufocused style of "there's a point in here somewhere" style of writing makes it somewhat difficult to understand where he's coming from.
The first thing he writes is that I'm a "quasi-local Blogger". What the hell does that mean? Living and working in Susanville doesn't qualify me as "local"? Or is Kurt one of those geographic "traditionalist" dinosaurs who believes you can't be considered part of the community unless you were born here? Got news for you, buddy: I was born in San Francisco (ah, gasp!). In Limbaughian logic I guess that makes me and Nancy Pelosi bosom buddies.
The next point Kurt tries to make is that I have some kind of distorted view of the military. He writes the following:
The Professor also provides us with his point of view about the military
And then cites the following paragraph from my post:
“Supporting the Military” in Lassen County means slapping magnetic stickers on your car and rooting for the demise of “islamo-fascists” in front of FOX News from the safety of your up-to-date hi-tech entertainment center; all the while basking in your own tax cuts, going to church on Sunday to pat yourself on the back for being so moral, and adding to your collection of ATVs. But God forbid you would help pay the cost of the “war on terror” with increased taxes or be inconvenienced by a reduction of services or volunteer your vacation time to assisting the war effort, or foregoe profits in your business until the war is over. Whatever analogy FOX news pundits need to conjure up regarding the current war on terror, it is no where near to the sacrifices paid on the home front during WWII. For those without relatives in combat, this is a leisure-time war on the homefront, not far removed from world-wide video game pumped into your house every night.
Only a conservative would take a political accusation against himself and tell the whole world it was really an insult to the military (which is why everyone in the world but conservatives knew what John Kerry was really joking about!). Kurt and his fellow conservatives need to learn how to read and stop trying to "Swiftboat" everything. I was making two very clear points in that paragraph and several others:
1) I find it ironic that Lassen County voters by and large supported sleazeball Doolittle 2:1 over Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown (a man who serving his country while Doolittle was figuring out how rich he could get with political power) and then claim to "support the troops"; and, more importantly,
2) I think "support" for the troops is largely feined by anyone who is not personally connected to the war. It's a cheap argument if you don't have loved-ones doing the fighting.
This is NOT about the military; it is about those who claim support FOR the military while paying no costs themselves. However, in the interest of clarifying my position, let me be clear:
- my thoughts and prayers go to our men and women who are doing the fighting, and to their relatives back home doing the worrying (that includes you, Kurt, if you have relatives in Iraq or Afganistan); I don't believe the Iraq war is doing one thing for our personal security here, and I think the troops need to come home, but don't think for one minute their lives and their relatives' piece of mind aren't important to me;
- I think everyone else has no personal connection to the war and therefore talk is cheap. I think if this is really a "war", then everyone should be paying a cost to support it. If you aren't serving yourself, you should be paying significantly higher taxes to defray the costs from future generations. I don't think businesses should make profits from the war, or during it. If you really want public buy-off on this war as important, then the cost should be shared by more than just those doing the fighting;
- Tell you what else I think: If you think there's no support for the war now, I bet if we were paying high taxes to support it, there would be almost zero support. That's because I don't personally think too much about those who claim to support the war if they haven't demonstrated a personal connection to it. I think most "support" is limited by the pocket book - it's a good thing so long as someone else is doing the dieing and we don't have to shell out any money in support.
So let me ask the Kurts of this world a simple yes or no question: do you think everyone should share the cost and burden of this war?
Kurt then goes on to make the following statement:
The use of the word “God” is a slap at those with religious beliefs. The Professor rants about things he has little knowledge of simply because he has summarily dismissed non-progessives as non-entities. So much for unbiased science.
What is he talking about? Since when is use of the term "God" a slap at those with relligious beliefs? When did I dismiss non-progressives as non-entities? Where was I talking about science in that post? Does Kurt actually understand the English language?
Finally, this gem:
The Professor, an instructor at an institution of higher learning, certainly has a strange view of the educational system
…we will need to continue fighting against using ancient texts written by primitive people as a basis for 21st century policy.
Textbooks are not supposed to promote public policy. Textbooks are supposed to impart the current thinking and historical perspective on the subject being taught. The re-writing of history is not the purpose of instruction. How history is interpreted is fair game. Unfortunately, the Professor wants to re-write educational policy in his own likeness.
What should concern parents and administrators is that the Professor apparently instructs and researches with a predetermined bias that excludes all possibilities that don’t fall within his universe of thought. This is not unbiased science but political thought injected into what is supposed to be science.
Uhh...I was talking about the Bible. But thank you for proving my point. "Textbooks are supposed to impart the current thinking and historical perspective on the subject being taught" - I couldn't agree more!...and the Bible provides no "current thinking and historical perspective" for use in a classroom. As I said, it's an ancient text written by a primitive, tribal people with no understanding of modern science, history or almost any other subject. It shouldn't be used as a textbook or as a basis for public policy (although folks like Doolittle seem to think it justifies the war in Iraq). Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, Kurt.
The first thing he writes is that I'm a "quasi-local Blogger". What the hell does that mean? Living and working in Susanville doesn't qualify me as "local"? Or is Kurt one of those geographic "traditionalist" dinosaurs who believes you can't be considered part of the community unless you were born here? Got news for you, buddy: I was born in San Francisco (ah, gasp!). In Limbaughian logic I guess that makes me and Nancy Pelosi bosom buddies.
The next point Kurt tries to make is that I have some kind of distorted view of the military. He writes the following:
The Professor also provides us with his point of view about the military
And then cites the following paragraph from my post:
“Supporting the Military” in Lassen County means slapping magnetic stickers on your car and rooting for the demise of “islamo-fascists” in front of FOX News from the safety of your up-to-date hi-tech entertainment center; all the while basking in your own tax cuts, going to church on Sunday to pat yourself on the back for being so moral, and adding to your collection of ATVs. But God forbid you would help pay the cost of the “war on terror” with increased taxes or be inconvenienced by a reduction of services or volunteer your vacation time to assisting the war effort, or foregoe profits in your business until the war is over. Whatever analogy FOX news pundits need to conjure up regarding the current war on terror, it is no where near to the sacrifices paid on the home front during WWII. For those without relatives in combat, this is a leisure-time war on the homefront, not far removed from world-wide video game pumped into your house every night.
Only a conservative would take a political accusation against himself and tell the whole world it was really an insult to the military (which is why everyone in the world but conservatives knew what John Kerry was really joking about!). Kurt and his fellow conservatives need to learn how to read and stop trying to "Swiftboat" everything. I was making two very clear points in that paragraph and several others:
1) I find it ironic that Lassen County voters by and large supported sleazeball Doolittle 2:1 over Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown (a man who serving his country while Doolittle was figuring out how rich he could get with political power) and then claim to "support the troops"; and, more importantly,
2) I think "support" for the troops is largely feined by anyone who is not personally connected to the war. It's a cheap argument if you don't have loved-ones doing the fighting.
This is NOT about the military; it is about those who claim support FOR the military while paying no costs themselves. However, in the interest of clarifying my position, let me be clear:
- my thoughts and prayers go to our men and women who are doing the fighting, and to their relatives back home doing the worrying (that includes you, Kurt, if you have relatives in Iraq or Afganistan); I don't believe the Iraq war is doing one thing for our personal security here, and I think the troops need to come home, but don't think for one minute their lives and their relatives' piece of mind aren't important to me;
- I think everyone else has no personal connection to the war and therefore talk is cheap. I think if this is really a "war", then everyone should be paying a cost to support it. If you aren't serving yourself, you should be paying significantly higher taxes to defray the costs from future generations. I don't think businesses should make profits from the war, or during it. If you really want public buy-off on this war as important, then the cost should be shared by more than just those doing the fighting;
- Tell you what else I think: If you think there's no support for the war now, I bet if we were paying high taxes to support it, there would be almost zero support. That's because I don't personally think too much about those who claim to support the war if they haven't demonstrated a personal connection to it. I think most "support" is limited by the pocket book - it's a good thing so long as someone else is doing the dieing and we don't have to shell out any money in support.
So let me ask the Kurts of this world a simple yes or no question: do you think everyone should share the cost and burden of this war?
Kurt then goes on to make the following statement:
The use of the word “God” is a slap at those with religious beliefs. The Professor rants about things he has little knowledge of simply because he has summarily dismissed non-progessives as non-entities. So much for unbiased science.
What is he talking about? Since when is use of the term "God" a slap at those with relligious beliefs? When did I dismiss non-progressives as non-entities? Where was I talking about science in that post? Does Kurt actually understand the English language?
Finally, this gem:
The Professor, an instructor at an institution of higher learning, certainly has a strange view of the educational system
…we will need to continue fighting against using ancient texts written by primitive people as a basis for 21st century policy.
Textbooks are not supposed to promote public policy. Textbooks are supposed to impart the current thinking and historical perspective on the subject being taught. The re-writing of history is not the purpose of instruction. How history is interpreted is fair game. Unfortunately, the Professor wants to re-write educational policy in his own likeness.
What should concern parents and administrators is that the Professor apparently instructs and researches with a predetermined bias that excludes all possibilities that don’t fall within his universe of thought. This is not unbiased science but political thought injected into what is supposed to be science.
Uhh...I was talking about the Bible. But thank you for proving my point. "Textbooks are supposed to impart the current thinking and historical perspective on the subject being taught" - I couldn't agree more!...and the Bible provides no "current thinking and historical perspective" for use in a classroom. As I said, it's an ancient text written by a primitive, tribal people with no understanding of modern science, history or almost any other subject. It shouldn't be used as a textbook or as a basis for public policy (although folks like Doolittle seem to think it justifies the war in Iraq). Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, Kurt.
Friday, November 10, 2006
PZ, Lassen County And the 2006 Elections
I couldn't help but catch PZ's morning-after cynicism regarding the election - quite frankly, I was having similar thoughts. It is a good thing that power has shifted back to the Democrats, but that is largely superficial and a closer look at the election results belies some major problems bubbling beneath the political surface.
Pro-science candidates and issues generally faired well in this election, at least in Ohio, Missouri (stem cell initiative passed) and Pennsylvania (where anti-science Santorum finally got the boot he deserved!), although Red State Rabble and others will have more work to do in Kansas where two creationists maintained their positions on the state board. On the other hand, gay marriage bans passed in several states, meaning that most people prefer basing their decisions on texts written by tribal peoples than on reasoned thought. And the fact that the Missouri stem cell initiative only barely passed furthers suggests a large number of people still believe a hundred blastocytes are the equivalent of the 5 year old neighbor kid riding his trcycle down the street. Unreasoned religious fanaticism remains a problem at all political levels: local, state, national and the world.
Locally, the election results were less heartening. Lassen County remains culturally primitive, although there is some encouragement that the view might be changing (albeit at a geological pace!). In looking at the overall results, approximately 60% of Lassen County voters tended to go for conservative candidates, 30% for liberal candidates and 10% for everyone else. Most disappointing was that Lassen County voted to keep one of the most vile, corrupt and morally reprehensible members of Congress we have nationwide: John Doolittle. In doing so, they rejected an individual who actually served his country with honor. "Supporting the Military" in Lassen County means slapping magnetic stickers on your car and rooting for the demise of "islamo-fascists" in front of FOX News from the safety of your up-to-date hi-tech entertainment center; all the while basking in your own tax cuts, going to church on Sunday to pat yourself on the back for being so moral, and adding to your collection of ATVs. But God forbid you would help pay the cost of the "war on terror" with increased taxes or be inconvenienced by a reduction of services or volunteer your vacation time to assisting the war effort, or foregoe profits in your business until the war is over. Whatever analogy FOX news pundits need to conjure up regarding the current war on terror, it is no where near to the sacrifices paid on the home front during WWII. For those without relatives in combat, this is a leisure-time war on the homefront, not far removed from world-wide video game pumped into your house every night.
As for the propositions, Lassen County voted against education, for parental notification, against the prospect of alternative energy and to enable developers' to run roughshod over local governments under the guise of "preventing government acquisition of private property". Fortunately the rest of state was somewhat more sensible in its approach. It's going to take a lot more work to bring Lassen County kicking and screaming out of the 19th century.
Locally, I am somewhat discouraged by school board elections. Several potential creationist candidates were elected (I base "potential" only on my assumptions of their positions based on their religious backgrounds - there have been no publicly overt statements regarding changing science curriculum in the community). Of course I'll be watching school curricula discussions closely and the staff at most schools in the area know they have my support (and that of the NCSE and others) should any intelligent design or other creationist "proposals" come forward.
Despite the euphoria over the election, I agree with PZ that the nation (and the world) continue to teeter on the edge of the cultural abyss. At the bottom of that abyss is religious fundamentalism. We will need to continue to fight for the rights of those who do not share the views of religious conservatives; we will need to continue fighting against pro-biblical versions of science that eschew reason for mythology; we will need to continue fighting efforts to place religions of all stripes on a political pedistle free from critique; we will need to continue fighting against using ancient texts written by primitive people as a basis for 21st century policy. We still have a lot of work to do.
Pro-science candidates and issues generally faired well in this election, at least in Ohio, Missouri (stem cell initiative passed) and Pennsylvania (where anti-science Santorum finally got the boot he deserved!), although Red State Rabble and others will have more work to do in Kansas where two creationists maintained their positions on the state board. On the other hand, gay marriage bans passed in several states, meaning that most people prefer basing their decisions on texts written by tribal peoples than on reasoned thought. And the fact that the Missouri stem cell initiative only barely passed furthers suggests a large number of people still believe a hundred blastocytes are the equivalent of the 5 year old neighbor kid riding his trcycle down the street. Unreasoned religious fanaticism remains a problem at all political levels: local, state, national and the world.
Locally, the election results were less heartening. Lassen County remains culturally primitive, although there is some encouragement that the view might be changing (albeit at a geological pace!). In looking at the overall results, approximately 60% of Lassen County voters tended to go for conservative candidates, 30% for liberal candidates and 10% for everyone else. Most disappointing was that Lassen County voted to keep one of the most vile, corrupt and morally reprehensible members of Congress we have nationwide: John Doolittle. In doing so, they rejected an individual who actually served his country with honor. "Supporting the Military" in Lassen County means slapping magnetic stickers on your car and rooting for the demise of "islamo-fascists" in front of FOX News from the safety of your up-to-date hi-tech entertainment center; all the while basking in your own tax cuts, going to church on Sunday to pat yourself on the back for being so moral, and adding to your collection of ATVs. But God forbid you would help pay the cost of the "war on terror" with increased taxes or be inconvenienced by a reduction of services or volunteer your vacation time to assisting the war effort, or foregoe profits in your business until the war is over. Whatever analogy FOX news pundits need to conjure up regarding the current war on terror, it is no where near to the sacrifices paid on the home front during WWII. For those without relatives in combat, this is a leisure-time war on the homefront, not far removed from world-wide video game pumped into your house every night.
As for the propositions, Lassen County voted against education, for parental notification, against the prospect of alternative energy and to enable developers' to run roughshod over local governments under the guise of "preventing government acquisition of private property". Fortunately the rest of state was somewhat more sensible in its approach. It's going to take a lot more work to bring Lassen County kicking and screaming out of the 19th century.
Locally, I am somewhat discouraged by school board elections. Several potential creationist candidates were elected (I base "potential" only on my assumptions of their positions based on their religious backgrounds - there have been no publicly overt statements regarding changing science curriculum in the community). Of course I'll be watching school curricula discussions closely and the staff at most schools in the area know they have my support (and that of the NCSE and others) should any intelligent design or other creationist "proposals" come forward.
Despite the euphoria over the election, I agree with PZ that the nation (and the world) continue to teeter on the edge of the cultural abyss. At the bottom of that abyss is religious fundamentalism. We will need to continue to fight for the rights of those who do not share the views of religious conservatives; we will need to continue fighting against pro-biblical versions of science that eschew reason for mythology; we will need to continue fighting efforts to place religions of all stripes on a political pedistle free from critique; we will need to continue fighting against using ancient texts written by primitive people as a basis for 21st century policy. We still have a lot of work to do.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
What "Supporting the Troops" Means To The GOP
From Positive Blasphemy:
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Charlie Brown Surpasses Doolittle in Funding
Some more political news (then I'll get back to science and archaeology!)....From the Friday Sacramento Bee:
Brown fundraising surges past Doolittle's for month of October
From the article:
New reports filed by the campaigns with the Federal Election Commission show that Doolittle raised about $207,000 during the first 18 days of October, and since then has reported large late contributions totaling about $48,000.
During the same period, the Brown campaign reported more than $416,000 during the first 18 days, and $84,500 in large late contributions.
But there's an interesting tidbit...apparently Doolittle's campaign has some debts. This one in particular is curious:
The debts also included $39,595 in fundraising fees owed to Sierra Dominion Financial Services, the company owned by Doolittle's wife, Julie, and operated out of their home in Oakton, Va.
When that bill is paid, it would bring to almost $107,000 the amount Julie Doolittle's company has been paid for fundraising for her husband's re-election during the 2005-2006 campaign.
Doolittle said he pays his wife a flat commission of 15 percent on what she raises. At that rate, she would have been paid commissions for raising about $700,000 -- or roughly a third of her husband's total receipts.
So is it no wonder there's a follow-up story in today's Sacramento Bee on a potential Doolittle indictment?:
Doolittle legal fate uncertain
Voters go to polls not knowing if he'll face Abramoff case charges.
Voters in the 4th Congressional District will go to the polls Nov. 7 to decide whether Rep. John Doolittle deserves an eighth term without knowing whether he will face federal prosecution in connection with the ongoing investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
And further on in the article:
Additionally, the company of Doolittle's wife, Julie, was hired by Abramoff's law firm from September 2002 to February 2004, receiving more than $66,600.
Her company was initially hired to raise money for a fundraiser for an Abramoff charity; she stayed on the payroll for months after that event was canceled.
A federal grand jury investigating Abramoff subpoenaed records related to her work for Doolittle. But John Doolittle said in February that federal investigators later asked for information about his wife's other clients, which would have included him since his campaign pays her a commission for fundraising work.
Doolittle may have been trying to get his wife on Abramoff's payroll as early as 2000, according to a recently disclosed e-mail written by Kevin Ring, a former Doolittle staffer who later was hired by Abramoff.
The 4th District Congressional race is, like many across the country, very close. Doolittle may still retain his seat at the end of the day on November 7. But if he does so, it will be at the voting fingertips of those who lack moral judgement and moral character.
Brown fundraising surges past Doolittle's for month of October
From the article:
New reports filed by the campaigns with the Federal Election Commission show that Doolittle raised about $207,000 during the first 18 days of October, and since then has reported large late contributions totaling about $48,000.
During the same period, the Brown campaign reported more than $416,000 during the first 18 days, and $84,500 in large late contributions.
But there's an interesting tidbit...apparently Doolittle's campaign has some debts. This one in particular is curious:
The debts also included $39,595 in fundraising fees owed to Sierra Dominion Financial Services, the company owned by Doolittle's wife, Julie, and operated out of their home in Oakton, Va.
When that bill is paid, it would bring to almost $107,000 the amount Julie Doolittle's company has been paid for fundraising for her husband's re-election during the 2005-2006 campaign.
Doolittle said he pays his wife a flat commission of 15 percent on what she raises. At that rate, she would have been paid commissions for raising about $700,000 -- or roughly a third of her husband's total receipts.
So is it no wonder there's a follow-up story in today's Sacramento Bee on a potential Doolittle indictment?:
Doolittle legal fate uncertain
Voters go to polls not knowing if he'll face Abramoff case charges.
Voters in the 4th Congressional District will go to the polls Nov. 7 to decide whether Rep. John Doolittle deserves an eighth term without knowing whether he will face federal prosecution in connection with the ongoing investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
And further on in the article:
Additionally, the company of Doolittle's wife, Julie, was hired by Abramoff's law firm from September 2002 to February 2004, receiving more than $66,600.
Her company was initially hired to raise money for a fundraiser for an Abramoff charity; she stayed on the payroll for months after that event was canceled.
A federal grand jury investigating Abramoff subpoenaed records related to her work for Doolittle. But John Doolittle said in February that federal investigators later asked for information about his wife's other clients, which would have included him since his campaign pays her a commission for fundraising work.
Doolittle may have been trying to get his wife on Abramoff's payroll as early as 2000, according to a recently disclosed e-mail written by Kevin Ring, a former Doolittle staffer who later was hired by Abramoff.
The 4th District Congressional race is, like many across the country, very close. Doolittle may still retain his seat at the end of the day on November 7. But if he does so, it will be at the voting fingertips of those who lack moral judgement and moral character.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Support Charlie Brown for Congress
Ok, I know I've gone astray on the congressional races this year, but it IS an election year, it IS an important mid-term election, and I DO want Brown to beat out Doolittle....So, just to prove I'm doing what I can around town:
Also wanted to let NiteSwimming know that I really did put the bumper sticker she gave me to good use:
Why Should Anyone Vote For John Doolittle? No, I'm Serious, Really...Tell Me Again...
To suggest Doolittle supports our troops in Iraq and elsewhere with anything other than a dollar bumper sticker on his car is an immoral statement to make. Doolittle and the Republicans have already started to "swiftboat" Democratic and Independent veterans who actually bothered to join the service and, well...serve. (Which makes it clear to me that it's not about supporting the military, it's all about supporting the Republican Party). Just compare Doolittle's actions on supporting the military with Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown's:
A career military officer-- so expect the Republicans to swiftboat him and disparage his service like they do with all American fighting men and women who challenge them-- Charlie was flying rescue helicopters in hostile fire while in Vietnam while Doolittle was seeking 3 consecutive deferments. "He talks the 'support the troops' line, but he always votes against benefits for veterans and troops when it comes to spending dollars on medical care, education and equipment for active duty servicemen... He votes no on a bill that would have given $430 million to the V.A. for hospitals but turns around and votes to approve $700 million for a train track to benefit casinos in Mississippi." (from Down With Tyranny!)
So how many deferments did Doolittle get? And why? And why would anyone think that someone who went to all the trouble to get deferments would now be accurately touted as "supporting the troops" (yeah, from a distance!)...
Here's another one I found, although somewhat dated, written by an Iraqi War veteran:
Doolittle suggests that if you do not agree with the political decision to go to war, then you do not support the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’ve traveled all over this country, and met people both for and against the war. Regardless of which side they fall on, everyone I meet supports the warriors. Many send care packages, body armor and helmets. Others advocate for veterans rights or volunteer to help homeless veterans and families coping with the absence of a loved one. Actions speak louder than words.
Career politicians like Doolittle say they support us, because that’s all they can do. Yet their voting records, official actions, and appalling misuse of taxpayer dollars tell a very different story. Veterans, both past and present, are not fooled by the empty rhetoric.
Finally, this take from ActBlue sums it up nicely:
Before you look into who Charlie Brown is, you might already know something about the incumbent he’s running against. John Doolittle is one of the most venal and corrupt Republicans to ever walk the halls of Congress. The people of CA-04 would actually be better off with no representative at all instead of this brazen political prostitute they have now, someone who is readily available for all Big Business interests—as long as the money is right.
So tell me again, why should anyone vote for John Doolittle????????
A career military officer-- so expect the Republicans to swiftboat him and disparage his service like they do with all American fighting men and women who challenge them-- Charlie was flying rescue helicopters in hostile fire while in Vietnam while Doolittle was seeking 3 consecutive deferments. "He talks the 'support the troops' line, but he always votes against benefits for veterans and troops when it comes to spending dollars on medical care, education and equipment for active duty servicemen... He votes no on a bill that would have given $430 million to the V.A. for hospitals but turns around and votes to approve $700 million for a train track to benefit casinos in Mississippi." (from Down With Tyranny!)
So how many deferments did Doolittle get? And why? And why would anyone think that someone who went to all the trouble to get deferments would now be accurately touted as "supporting the troops" (yeah, from a distance!)...
Here's another one I found, although somewhat dated, written by an Iraqi War veteran:
Doolittle suggests that if you do not agree with the political decision to go to war, then you do not support the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’ve traveled all over this country, and met people both for and against the war. Regardless of which side they fall on, everyone I meet supports the warriors. Many send care packages, body armor and helmets. Others advocate for veterans rights or volunteer to help homeless veterans and families coping with the absence of a loved one. Actions speak louder than words.
Career politicians like Doolittle say they support us, because that’s all they can do. Yet their voting records, official actions, and appalling misuse of taxpayer dollars tell a very different story. Veterans, both past and present, are not fooled by the empty rhetoric.
Finally, this take from ActBlue sums it up nicely:
Before you look into who Charlie Brown is, you might already know something about the incumbent he’s running against. John Doolittle is one of the most venal and corrupt Republicans to ever walk the halls of Congress. The people of CA-04 would actually be better off with no representative at all instead of this brazen political prostitute they have now, someone who is readily available for all Big Business interests—as long as the money is right.
So tell me again, why should anyone vote for John Doolittle????????
Doolittle: ACLU Membership = Supporting Pedophilia
Congressman John Doolittle has nothing of substance to offer the people of the Fourth District here in California, so in order to get you to vote for him, he's forced to has to go through extreme twists of logic to claim that his opponent, Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown, is in favor of protecting pedophiles. Here's the logic: Brown is a member of the ACLU; the ACLU defends rights of the citizens of the US to constitutional protection; the US Constitution grants freedom of speech, freedom of speech allows you to say things that are not correct, moral, valuable or true, but that's a right you have that's guaranteed; organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) put out a magazine that is for most of us, quite vile, but that's a right they have under the Constitution; two members of NAMBLA once raped and killed a boy (not a "right" under the constitution in anyone's book, even the ACLU); the right of NAMBLA to put out vile material was defended by the ACLU;
....hence, Doolittle's logic that everyone who supports the ACLU also supports pedophilia.
Doolittle is a mental midget and the only people who buy into his kind of "logic" are equally dereft of any intellectual ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Unfortunately, Doolittle depends on the intellectually vacuous to get votes. He can't win with thoughtful people - people who actually stop to think of why they pick a candidate, as opposed to those who vote based on whose name happens to be on the last yard sign they passed on the way to the election precinct.
Only a stupid person actually believes Charlie Brown (or any of us card-carrying members of the ACLU) actually supports pedophiles.
....hence, Doolittle's logic that everyone who supports the ACLU also supports pedophilia.
Doolittle is a mental midget and the only people who buy into his kind of "logic" are equally dereft of any intellectual ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Unfortunately, Doolittle depends on the intellectually vacuous to get votes. He can't win with thoughtful people - people who actually stop to think of why they pick a candidate, as opposed to those who vote based on whose name happens to be on the last yard sign they passed on the way to the election precinct.
Only a stupid person actually believes Charlie Brown (or any of us card-carrying members of the ACLU) actually supports pedophiles.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Dick Cheney and Ken Ham Have The Same Audience
We all know that Ken Ham from Answers In Genesis is most effective getting his message out when the audience is comprised of six-year olds...
Apparently the same goes for Dick Cheney...
Apparently the same goes for Dick Cheney...
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Doolittle Is Simply Bizarre
Congressman Doolittle is simply a bizarre individual. From an editorial in the Sacramento Bee today:
In style and substance Doolittle was much like his mentor, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: shrill, mean-spirited and divisive. Doolittle is no consensus builder on the great issues of the day. Watching him, voters could see why the atmosphere in Congress is so poisonous.
Doolittle seems not to have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable. For every question, whether on Iraq, infrastructure, tax policy, health care or ethics, he turned the issue to his opponent's membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. It's an odd point to focus on.
No kidding, especially since the ACLU spends a lot of time defending conservative viewpoints, contrary to what conservatives say about the ACLU. They simply try to defend this little thing called the Constitution. But there's more on Doolittle's biblical views as well:
Doolittle's views on the Iraq war are simply bizarre. The conflict, he said, "leads to what the Bible ultimately says": Armageddon will take place in the Middle East. The Bible mentions the Euphrates River in Iraq as the place of prelude to the final battle of Armageddon that will bring about the world's end.
Again, this is simply ludicrous...and very dangerous. Basing public policy on your personal interpretation of biblical passages, especially when it's someone else's life being affected and not your own, is in a word, sick. I'm not sure at this point what distinguishes Doolittle from members of the Taliban. Both rely on faith, not reason, to guide their actions.
The Bee closes out the editorial with this:
Listening to Doolittle, it's hard to imagine him contributing to creative solutions and good-faith negotiations on any of the country's difficult issues. Is this really the kind of congressman the people of the 4th District want representing them in Washington?
Of course it isn't. Hopefully the good folks in Lassen County will vote for someone with moral integrity for a change.
In style and substance Doolittle was much like his mentor, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: shrill, mean-spirited and divisive. Doolittle is no consensus builder on the great issues of the day. Watching him, voters could see why the atmosphere in Congress is so poisonous.
Doolittle seems not to have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable. For every question, whether on Iraq, infrastructure, tax policy, health care or ethics, he turned the issue to his opponent's membership in the American Civil Liberties Union. It's an odd point to focus on.
No kidding, especially since the ACLU spends a lot of time defending conservative viewpoints, contrary to what conservatives say about the ACLU. They simply try to defend this little thing called the Constitution. But there's more on Doolittle's biblical views as well:
Doolittle's views on the Iraq war are simply bizarre. The conflict, he said, "leads to what the Bible ultimately says": Armageddon will take place in the Middle East. The Bible mentions the Euphrates River in Iraq as the place of prelude to the final battle of Armageddon that will bring about the world's end.
Again, this is simply ludicrous...and very dangerous. Basing public policy on your personal interpretation of biblical passages, especially when it's someone else's life being affected and not your own, is in a word, sick. I'm not sure at this point what distinguishes Doolittle from members of the Taliban. Both rely on faith, not reason, to guide their actions.
The Bee closes out the editorial with this:
Listening to Doolittle, it's hard to imagine him contributing to creative solutions and good-faith negotiations on any of the country's difficult issues. Is this really the kind of congressman the people of the 4th District want representing them in Washington?
Of course it isn't. Hopefully the good folks in Lassen County will vote for someone with moral integrity for a change.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Doolittle Believes Iraq War is Biblically Based
This is precisely why I am beginning to side with Dawkins on the idea that faith may not only be unreasoned, but possibly evil. Our congressman John Doolittle, who never saw a fundamentalist idea he didn't like, apparently has no qualms with linking his own personal faith with sending our men and women into harm's way:
Doolittle rolled religious beliefs into Iraq, noting that the Bible tells him Armageddon will take place the Middle East.
So John Doolittle feels sacrificing young lives is OK because in his view, it's predicted in the Bible. And how would this chickenhawk feel if HE were on the front lines? This is where faith becomes evil and justifies ANYTHING.
Doolittle rolled religious beliefs into Iraq, noting that the Bible tells him Armageddon will take place the Middle East.
So John Doolittle feels sacrificing young lives is OK because in his view, it's predicted in the Bible. And how would this chickenhawk feel if HE were on the front lines? This is where faith becomes evil and justifies ANYTHING.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Olbermann Does It Again
Olbermann hits another one out of the park....
(From Crooks and Liars - an excellent place to get information filtered out by the Republican propagandists...)
(From Crooks and Liars - an excellent place to get information filtered out by the Republican propagandists...)
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Is History Repeating Itself?
We are all too familiar with the mantra that "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"; unfortunately, the human species is notoriously poor at learning from history and preparing for the long-term (we are, however, quite good at adapting to short-term contingencies - which fits much better with evolutionary processes than with intelligent design, but I digress). In a wonderful essay in Saturday's New York Times, Robert Harris draws a prophetic parallel between two nation-states, one two thousand years old, the other more modern, and their respective responses to dramatic events of terrorism. How far the parallels will play out remains to be seen, but thus far the similarities are striking:
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Can't help wondering indeed. Harris goes on to show that, like Al Quaeda, the pirates terrorists were able to spread such fear and havoc that the Roman populace complacently allowed its leaders to assume new, unlimited power to deal with the threat. There liberties and process of law to this time were very, well...American:
Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
Terrorism, however, began to unravel the democratic process as people were willing to swap liberty for perceived safety; and there were plenty of power-hungry politicians waiting in the wings to take advantage of the fear. Pompey the Great prevailed at getting his supporters into power, who then proposed new laws that would limit citizens' rights and consolidate power among those like himself who would ostensibly use it to "fight terrorism". Harris writes:
By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
For those of us who are citizens of the United States, the continued erosion of constitutional rights by the Bush administration, all under the guise of fighting terrorism, strkes an uncanny resemblance to Roman reactions 2074 years previous. For those of us too blinded by American patriotism, Harris (a British citizen) walks us through the connection:
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
But the parallel does not end there; and Roman panic offers us a potential vision of our own destiny:
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It is, of course, doubtful that many Americans see the long term danger of adopting laws counter to the Constitution, instead opting to address the immediate contingency of fighting terrorism "over there". (Harris notes that the pirate threat turned out not to be nearly as real as Romans were led to believe - another striking parallel with today). One can now only hope that history does not, in fact, repeat itself.
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Can't help wondering indeed. Harris goes on to show that, like Al Quaeda, the pirates terrorists were able to spread such fear and havoc that the Roman populace complacently allowed its leaders to assume new, unlimited power to deal with the threat. There liberties and process of law to this time were very, well...American:
Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
Terrorism, however, began to unravel the democratic process as people were willing to swap liberty for perceived safety; and there were plenty of power-hungry politicians waiting in the wings to take advantage of the fear. Pompey the Great prevailed at getting his supporters into power, who then proposed new laws that would limit citizens' rights and consolidate power among those like himself who would ostensibly use it to "fight terrorism". Harris writes:
By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
For those of us who are citizens of the United States, the continued erosion of constitutional rights by the Bush administration, all under the guise of fighting terrorism, strkes an uncanny resemblance to Roman reactions 2074 years previous. For those of us too blinded by American patriotism, Harris (a British citizen) walks us through the connection:
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
But the parallel does not end there; and Roman panic offers us a potential vision of our own destiny:
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It is, of course, doubtful that many Americans see the long term danger of adopting laws counter to the Constitution, instead opting to address the immediate contingency of fighting terrorism "over there". (Harris notes that the pirate threat turned out not to be nearly as real as Romans were led to believe - another striking parallel with today). One can now only hope that history does not, in fact, repeat itself.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Olbermann Strikes a Blow Too!
Keith Olbermann is nothing less than a hero for the media, our constitution and American values. In reacting to President Clinton's interview on FOX, the right-wing propagandists can do nothing better to refer to the former president as "crazed". Locally, conservative Kurt Bonham from Fly At Night can come up with no better counter than that "KO lives in a fantasy world of self-perpetuating greatness"; and "Olbermann is like many who think that they speak with facts but should simply admit that it is all made up to meet their out of control agenda" (This from a man who requires no ad hominem attacks be left on his blog, only that commenters stick with substance...really?). Fly At Night provides no counter facts of his own, only refers the reader to this individual, who fairs no better at intellectual prowess:
Watching this douche clumsily trying to channel his paranoid rage into lofty rhetoric has been one of the true joys of blogging these past few weeks. There’s nothing so pathetic, or entertaining, as someone stupid trying to sound smart; the fact that it’s happening on national TV every night makes it almost too good to be true. And the best part is, the nutroots keep egging him on. Each time he gets a little angrier and the prose gets a little purpler and nastier, and the nutroots fist pumps get a little faster and more intense. We’re building to something here; Olby might not know it yet but he’s fast running out of room to run. Soon he’ll reach the point where there are no more accusations to level at Bush and he’ll have to cross the final frontier. He’s not there yet, but give him time: he’s been scrupulous about referring to the UK terror plot as the “purported plot,” a qualifier that for some reason doesn’t manifest itself when the subject turns to, say, Haditha. He’s inching his way towards the big one. Soon enough.
Gee, I'm speechless. I guess that's the kind of paragraph that would be effective in any debating class...so full of fact and argument that you just obviously see the logic of why we all should stop watching Keith Olbermann. Apparently Keith is a moron because he delivers his views with passion (only Rush Limbaugh is supposed to have passion, everyone else is "crazed"). You can get the transcipts of Olbermann's discussions here. But for the moment, compare some of Olbermann with the paragraph above:
The Bush administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11. The Bush administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors. The Bush administration did not understand the daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The Bush administration did not try.
Moreover, for the five years, one month, and two weeks, the current administration and in particular the president has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But for this president. To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it...
...Except for this: After five years of skirting even the most inarguable facts that he was president on 9/11, he must bear some responsibility for his and our un-readiness, Mr. Bush has now moved on, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards rewriting history, and attempting to make the responsibility entirely Mr. Clinton‘s.
Of course, he is not honest enough to do that directly. As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: The very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is-not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
This president and this administration has done more to put us at risk of additional attack than any previous administration. The world is getting tired of American imperialism...so are at least half of all Americans. I really don't think those who support Bush know how lonely the world is getting for them.
Watching this douche clumsily trying to channel his paranoid rage into lofty rhetoric has been one of the true joys of blogging these past few weeks. There’s nothing so pathetic, or entertaining, as someone stupid trying to sound smart; the fact that it’s happening on national TV every night makes it almost too good to be true. And the best part is, the nutroots keep egging him on. Each time he gets a little angrier and the prose gets a little purpler and nastier, and the nutroots fist pumps get a little faster and more intense. We’re building to something here; Olby might not know it yet but he’s fast running out of room to run. Soon he’ll reach the point where there are no more accusations to level at Bush and he’ll have to cross the final frontier. He’s not there yet, but give him time: he’s been scrupulous about referring to the UK terror plot as the “purported plot,” a qualifier that for some reason doesn’t manifest itself when the subject turns to, say, Haditha. He’s inching his way towards the big one. Soon enough.
Gee, I'm speechless. I guess that's the kind of paragraph that would be effective in any debating class...so full of fact and argument that you just obviously see the logic of why we all should stop watching Keith Olbermann. Apparently Keith is a moron because he delivers his views with passion (only Rush Limbaugh is supposed to have passion, everyone else is "crazed"). You can get the transcipts of Olbermann's discussions here. But for the moment, compare some of Olbermann with the paragraph above:
The Bush administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11. The Bush administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors. The Bush administration did not understand the daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The Bush administration did not try.
Moreover, for the five years, one month, and two weeks, the current administration and in particular the president has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But for this president. To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11, 2001 or the nearly eight months that preceded it...
...Except for this: After five years of skirting even the most inarguable facts that he was president on 9/11, he must bear some responsibility for his and our un-readiness, Mr. Bush has now moved on, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards rewriting history, and attempting to make the responsibility entirely Mr. Clinton‘s.
Of course, he is not honest enough to do that directly. As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: The very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is-not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
This president and this administration has done more to put us at risk of additional attack than any previous administration. The world is getting tired of American imperialism...so are at least half of all Americans. I really don't think those who support Bush know how lonely the world is getting for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
