-
WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" during a private White House meeting with governors on Monday.
Democratic and Republican governors confirmed Paige's remarks about the National Education Association.
"These were the words, 'The NEA is a terrorist organization,' " said Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin.
...
He was implying that the NEA has not been one of the organizations that has been working with the administration to try to solve 'No Child Left Behind,' " he said.
Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said of Paige's comments: "Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."
Monday, February 23, 2004
NEA is a Terrorist Organization
A lovely little Secretary of Education we have.
Theocracy Rising
David Neiwert takes a look at the latest actions by our favorite theocrats in Congress.
The RNC Lies
And the New York Times dutifully fails to notice. It really is unbelievable. From Bob Somerby:
Rutenberg's article is amusingly titled, "In Politics, the Web Is a Parallel World With Its Own Rules." The New York Times has its own rules too - thou shalt not fact check the RNC.
...I spoke to soon. The New York Times and NPR apparently have the same rules.
-
EASILY SPUN: How easily are New York Times writers spun? Here is Jim Rutenberg, hopelessly bull-roared in a Sunday “Week in Review” report:-
RUTENBERG: It was a sharp video attack, jarring in a political season that has been unusually short on negative advertising. A woman, sitting at a keyboard, seeks information about Senator John Kerry on the Internet. She unearths all sorts of scandalizing tidbits.
“More special interest money than any other senator. How much?” she says.
The answer flashes on the screen: $640,000. “Ooh, for what?” she says, typing out “Paybacks?” and then reading aloud from the screen, she says, “Millions from executives at HMO’s, telecoms, drug companies.” She add, “Ka-Ching!”
She can only come to one damning conclusion: Mr. Kerry, she says, is “Unprincipled.”
The one-minute spot, introduced a week ago, did not appear on television, but on President Bush's campaign Web site. And so a new bare-knuckled political use of the World Wide Web showed its head: the Internet attack ad.
Rutenberg repeats the content of this ad, and brightly notes that it’s an “attack.” But he is too inept to let readers know that this ad’s attack is utterly false. Does Kerry take “more special interest money than any other senator?” No, and the (hapless) Washington Post piece which led to this ad never made such an assertion. According to Peter Beinart, Kerry ranks ninety-second among U.S. senators when it comes to special interest money. Meanwhile, at his Annenberg “FactCheck” site, Brooks Jackson shot down this ad’s bogus claim too. (He shot it down ten days ago!) Is Kerry first among senators in special interest dough, raising $640,000 in the last fifteen years? Please. “So far, for example, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist reported $1,022,063 in PAC donations for his 2004 campaign alone,” Jackson notes. The Bush ad’s claim is utterly bogus. Rutenberg, typing hard, failed to say so.
But then, the New York Times deals in the factesque. The RNC send out a fake claim, so Rutenberg sat right down and typed it! Meanwhile, one last note, from the Annals of Clowning: When Rutenberg went on to discuss last week’s rumor from Drudge, he applauded the press for “not tak[ing] the bait.” But he’d been yanked from the water himself, ten grafs earlier! This year it matters, Gail Collins has said. But at the Times, hopeless habits die hard. -
Rutenberg's article is amusingly titled, "In Politics, the Web Is a Parallel World With Its Own Rules." The New York Times has its own rules too - thou shalt not fact check the RNC.
...I spoke to soon. The New York Times and NPR apparently have the same rules.
Special Guest Blogger - Tony Knowles
Busy day for me, but for now you can chew on this special guest blog post from Tony Knowles, former governor of Alaska and current candidate for Senate. Available polls show this one to be a close race, but Knowles having the slight advantage. In any case, here he is...
It's perhaps a bit early, but once the sun rises in the West some of the Knowles campaign staff, and at some point perhaps Knowles himself, will be reading and responding to any comments/questions you may have.
-
This has the potential to be a great year in American politics. People are demanding responsibility, accountability and honesty from their representatives in Washington D.C. While there have been disappointments in politics, at the same time we are seeing increased levels of discussion, resurgence and hope in the power of the individual.
Too often politicians in D.C. have decided to use dishonesty in order to confuse and misdirect the voters. The “blogosphere” has become a new watchdog in the fight for truth and it fuels the growing demand for change. I am posting this here to discuss my ideas and to ask for your help in my race for the U.S. Senate.
First, I would like to thank you for being part of this community that is changing politics and returning power to the people. You demand a free flow of information, you help expose hidden truths, engage thousands in the political process and you create an environment that thrives on participation. Your contribution is the most important one of all: your voice.
Thanks are also due to Atrios, who has generously allowed me to talk with you using his blog. I think we can all appreciate the contribution people like Atrios make to this process. By offering his time, input and hard work he provides another place where our voices can come together.
I don’t want to spend this time talking like a politician, telling you about my life and my experience, you can click here to read that if you like. I want to impress upon you why I am running and what excites me about the race so far.
I have said that if there were no Alaska, people would still dream about such a place, a great land where opportunity and freedom are a way of life. That also applies to the entire United States. Opportunity and freedom are at the heart of this country and yet we find them constantly under attack. This is unacceptable. The power to stand up against these attacks is ours.
As a Democrat and a Vietnam Veteran I believe in the importance of national security. But our long term security is jeopardized by unilateral action without imminent threat. We need to take the moral high ground and rebuild the respect of other nations through alliances in fighting terrorism and in addressing non-military issues of disease, poverty and the environment.
We must support our troops by doing more than saying that we support our troops. Supporting our troops means not cutting military benefits and keeping our promise to veterans. It means that we must stand up to John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act and other assaults on the very personal freedoms which our troops are fighting to protect.
Jobs, education, healthcare, civil rights are all at the heart of providing opportunity and securing our freedom. By slashing resources at every level for education, by failing to rebuild a crumbling economic infrastructure, by not fulfilling promises to provide affordable healthcare and by abandoning sensible fiscal policy we are turning our backs on the future. We must reverse this trend, and working together, I believe we can.
We can restore confidence in our economy by refocusing on small businesses, punishing corporate ethics violations and balancing our budget. We can invest in our nation’s future by educating our youth. We can provide affordable healthcare for all working families. We can return America to its role as a leader of nations. All this, and more, is within our grasp if we come together and fight for what we believe.
I am proud to have received Planned Parenthood’s earliest ever challenger endorsement along with the support of NARAL, KIDPAC and a variety of labor unions. Yet the real strength of this campaign so far has come from individual Alaskans. The support and words of encouragement I have received from thousands of Alaskans is humbling, and it reinforces my desire to serve both Alaska and this country in the United States Senate.
This ground swell of grass roots support for my campaign has allowed me to keep a steady lead in the polls. But this will be a close race. 140,000 votes will be cast for the winner in this election and that means that there is a real opportunity for me to deliver my message to each and every voter. I need your help to accomplish this task. To learn more or to contribute click here.
Please ask questions about my campaign and offer your thoughts on my race.
It's perhaps a bit early, but once the sun rises in the West some of the Knowles campaign staff, and at some point perhaps Knowles himself, will be reading and responding to any comments/questions you may have.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
You Just Wait!
I think Ezra is right. So far the Bush re-election team has been a bit of a joke. I mean, Mars? Remember that? And I'm a space fan.
Let's remind ourselves that the strategy that they're using is reminiscent of the one they used to justify the Iraq war. Before, during, and for a long time after the "end of major combat operations," the line was "just you critics wait! we'll find those pesky WMDs yet and won't you look like fools!" I remember Bob "traitor" Novak promising a September Surprise from David Kay, or some such nonsense. Such promises honestly did make war critics a bit hesitant. I mean, if Saddam really did have a nuke under his bed we'd admittedly look like the fools.
But, don't fall for it. Stop being afraid of what's coming. They're nasty, but they really aren't all that bright.
...Richard provides an appropriate quote from All the President's Men:
... and, also, this fits in with the "Osama is cornered!!!" leaks. They may be true, or maybe they're trying to to pre-empt attacks.
Let's remind ourselves that the strategy that they're using is reminiscent of the one they used to justify the Iraq war. Before, during, and for a long time after the "end of major combat operations," the line was "just you critics wait! we'll find those pesky WMDs yet and won't you look like fools!" I remember Bob "traitor" Novak promising a September Surprise from David Kay, or some such nonsense. Such promises honestly did make war critics a bit hesitant. I mean, if Saddam really did have a nuke under his bed we'd admittedly look like the fools.
But, don't fall for it. Stop being afraid of what's coming. They're nasty, but they really aren't all that bright.
...Richard provides an appropriate quote from All the President's Men:
-
Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.
... and, also, this fits in with the "Osama is cornered!!!" leaks. They may be true, or maybe they're trying to to pre-empt attacks.
Pop Quiz
Which right wing blowhard said this at a recent appearance?
...the answer can be found here.
-
If I were gay, I would marry Hillary.
...the answer can be found here.
Hitchens in VF
Apparently Hitchens has a pretty critical piece on Gibson's The Passion in this month's Vanity Fair, in which he writes this line:
Maybe Hitchens was just jealous of all the attention that Easterbrook was getting. I really can't comprehend how an editor of a major magazine would let that line through.
...just wanted to add that I'm not trying to claim that this line convicts Hitchens of serious anti-Semitism. I was primarily chastizing the editor for letting it through. Hitchens does have a rather odd history, and it's pretty hard not to think that Hitchens came within millimeters of becoming an actual holocaust denier during his period of flirtation of David Irving. If Irving's undoing had happened a couple of years later Hitch may have thrown himself over the cliff. But, since then Hitch has discovered he has Jewish relatives and seems to have adopted the kind of condescending philo-Semitism which is all too common these days.
It was a poor way to phrase whatever the hell he was trying to say.
-
It isn't all that hard to upset Jews, as Gibson must have known he would, and it's even possible to suspect him of doing so in order to create a climate of emotional publicity."
Maybe Hitchens was just jealous of all the attention that Easterbrook was getting. I really can't comprehend how an editor of a major magazine would let that line through.
...just wanted to add that I'm not trying to claim that this line convicts Hitchens of serious anti-Semitism. I was primarily chastizing the editor for letting it through. Hitchens does have a rather odd history, and it's pretty hard not to think that Hitchens came within millimeters of becoming an actual holocaust denier during his period of flirtation of David Irving. If Irving's undoing had happened a couple of years later Hitch may have thrown himself over the cliff. But, since then Hitch has discovered he has Jewish relatives and seems to have adopted the kind of condescending philo-Semitism which is all too common these days.
It was a poor way to phrase whatever the hell he was trying to say.
Trackback
The wonderful folks at Haloscan have implemented a Trackback feature. I've just added it, and now we can see if it works...
Anyway, not having ever used it before I'm not entirely sure how to make use of it. But, basically, if other bloggers want to they can "ping" the trackback system so that their post will be linked in the "trackback" link.
Anyway, not having ever used it before I'm not entirely sure how to make use of it. But, basically, if other bloggers want to they can "ping" the trackback system so that their post will be linked in the "trackback" link.
Cut the Crap
The attempts by our Pravda press to cheerlead on the economic news is really getting old. Weeks ago, Brad DeLong debunked the whole "the Household Survey is picking up the self-employed while the establishment survey is not" idea, which was used to claim that measured is a GOOD thing, because, you know, the truth is all these people are now running their own businesses selling their crap on Ebay building custom-made vanity sculptures for their CEO overlords.
As Brad pointed out, and he points out again today, the Household Survey does indeed pick up the number of self-employed, but that number hasn't actually risen significantly.
And, people, even Uncle Alan Greenspan isn't buying this particular story.
As Brad pointed out, and he points out again today, the Household Survey does indeed pick up the number of self-employed, but that number hasn't actually risen significantly.
And, people, even Uncle Alan Greenspan isn't buying this particular story.
Fact Check Everything
It's time for the media to recognize that they cannot put everything the RNC and their goons claim as fact into print. They lie. When you print their lies, you are lying too.
-
In Washington, D.C., officials with the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign were telling reporters that Turnipseed gave $500 to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
On Feb. 5, the Salon online magazine reported that Bush-Cheney spokesman Terry Holt, citing the Turnipseed-to-Edwards donation, questioned whether the motives behind Turnipseed's comments about Bush's service were "pure" or part of a "political attack."
That donation, as the Mobile Register was able to confirm on Thursday, was actually given to the Edwards campaign by Will Turnipseed, a 34-year-old waiter at Wynlakes Country Club in Montgomery.
Dumbest Idea Ever
Bush's immigration proposal really was the stupidest idea Karl ever came up with:
-
BURLINGAME, Calif. — An uproar over illegal immigration roiled the state Republican convention on Saturday as party leaders struggled to keep the rank and file united behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.
Hundreds of GOP loyalists booed the president at a rally where U.S. Senate hopeful Howard Kaloogian and his allies denounced Bush's plan to give temporary legal status to undocumented workers.
"Enough is enough!" the crowd shouted. "Enough is enough!"
Good News
Look, I really think this poll taken by the Boston Globe is good news, not bad news. It's pretty incredible that just a few months ago a plurality polled supported legalizing gay marriages. That's pretty damn incredible. And, now we have:
Given the margin of error, the jump isn't as huge as the article spins.
The article continues:
This is very strangely worded language. On one hand it's surprisingly high, but on the other hand if I were a poll respondent I wouldn't have been sure if the poll was really referring to "a marriage-type civil union arrangement provided by the state" or just, you know "gay and lesbian relationships."
But, anyway, most people just don't understand this issue. There's confusion. They don't understand that it has nothing to do with the government forcing your church to bless certain types of relationships with religious marriage. Perhaps that's the part that people need to understand. This has nothing to do with the religious aspect of marriage. In fact, that type of gay marriage has always been legal and there are churches all around the country performing same-sex marriages all around the country even as I type this.
It is true that 5 years ago few would have predicted that granting "civil unions" would have been seen almost as a moderate mainstream position. But, now people need to understand that the only distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" is the name, and that is, as they say, truly a distinction without a difference. Now people need to understand that the Catholic Church will never, and should never, be forced to marry any couple they don't want to. And, nor will the pastor at the First Church of St. Elvis. This is a state issue, not a religious one.
Some courageous leaders could easily turn this one around. It's the right thing to do, and it's shockingly close to being the popular thing to do.
-
The survey, taken by phone Wednesday and Thursday, indicated opposition to gay marriage has jumped 10 percentage points since a Globe survey done just days after the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriages.
Then, 48 percent polled supported legalizing gay marriages, while 43 percent were opposed. In the recent poll, 35 percent supported legalizing gay marriage and 53 percent were opposed; the survey of 400 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.
Given the margin of error, the jump isn't as huge as the article spins.
The article continues:
-
A majority of respondents over 40 opposed gay marriage, while about 45 percent of those under 40 favored it. Catholics firmly opposed legalizing gay marriage, while 47 percent of Protestants opposed it and 38 percent supported it.
Sixty percent of those polled last week backed the creation of civil unions for gay couples, while 31 percent were opposed. In November, the Globe asked people if they "think gay and lesbian unions and partnerships should or should not be allowed by law." In that survey, 67 percent supported them and 23 percent were against.
This is very strangely worded language. On one hand it's surprisingly high, but on the other hand if I were a poll respondent I wouldn't have been sure if the poll was really referring to "a marriage-type civil union arrangement provided by the state" or just, you know "gay and lesbian relationships."
But, anyway, most people just don't understand this issue. There's confusion. They don't understand that it has nothing to do with the government forcing your church to bless certain types of relationships with religious marriage. Perhaps that's the part that people need to understand. This has nothing to do with the religious aspect of marriage. In fact, that type of gay marriage has always been legal and there are churches all around the country performing same-sex marriages all around the country even as I type this.
It is true that 5 years ago few would have predicted that granting "civil unions" would have been seen almost as a moderate mainstream position. But, now people need to understand that the only distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" is the name, and that is, as they say, truly a distinction without a difference. Now people need to understand that the Catholic Church will never, and should never, be forced to marry any couple they don't want to. And, nor will the pastor at the First Church of St. Elvis. This is a state issue, not a religious one.
Some courageous leaders could easily turn this one around. It's the right thing to do, and it's shockingly close to being the popular thing to do.
Buy Girl Scout Cookies
They're yummy, and some idiots in Texas are boycotting them because they have an affiliation with Planned Parenthood.
Unlike the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts haven't succumbed to the bigots.
Unlike the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts haven't succumbed to the bigots.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Crotch Inspection
I agree with Matt that mandatory pelvic exams for the purposes of sex determination would make for a wonderful judicial order in San Francisco.
As for Josh Marshall's comments on the whole thing - I just don't think they really add anything of substance to the debate. For better or for worse, the Mass. Supreme Court has to a great degree taken the Civil Union Issue Dodge off the table. More generally, it's just time for Democrats to stop being on the defensive on culture war issues. They're on what conventional wisdom and our news media like to pretend is the losing side of these wars no matter what they do. We're the party of homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce, and that's going to be true no matter how many anti-equal rights positions we take or how many Republicans get caught with their genitals being where they aren't supposed to be. And, frankly, no matter what people think of most of those things in the abstract, I don't think people want to criminalize adultery. Lots of people have pre-marital sex. Few really want to get rid of no-fault divorce laws. So, despite all the pretending that we're a conservative country on social issues, once you strip away the preachy BS it's basically a bunch of crap. It's been a long time since there's been much public shaming of adulterers or social ostracism of divorcees, outside tight-knit communities of church-goers.
It's much easier to take a strong, simple, if partially unpopular decision than a complicated, nuanced, and muddled position. Is John Kerry supporting "civil unions" but not "equal marriage rights" really going to win him any votes? Is he going to be able to sweep the issue under the rug by having to clarify, regularly, precisely which wording of which constitutional amendment in which state he would support or be against? Is he going to be able to explain with any clarity just what the hell the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is, other than, you know, one is called "marriage" and one is called "civil union?" And, at the end of the day, does it make a damn bit of difference what it's called? If so, why?
At some point these issues require some courageous moral leadership. These issues are moving much faster than the national politicians, and they've lost control of them. I don't for a second believe that "gay marriage" is particularly popular nationally, but nor do I believe that most people give a damn either. The people who really care aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway. If by some bizarre miracle the US Supreme Court issued a ruling tomorrow mandating states provide for equal marriage rites, there'd be about a week of controversy and then most people would realize it didn't affect them one little bit and they'd move on to other things.
Lyndon Johnson didn't create the Civil Rights movement, and I'm not sure he cared much for it, but at some point he managed to push through legislation which was almost unimaginably far-reaching. He saw where things were headed, and saw what needed to be done and he did it.
As for Josh Marshall's comments on the whole thing - I just don't think they really add anything of substance to the debate. For better or for worse, the Mass. Supreme Court has to a great degree taken the Civil Union Issue Dodge off the table. More generally, it's just time for Democrats to stop being on the defensive on culture war issues. They're on what conventional wisdom and our news media like to pretend is the losing side of these wars no matter what they do. We're the party of homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, adultery, and divorce, and that's going to be true no matter how many anti-equal rights positions we take or how many Republicans get caught with their genitals being where they aren't supposed to be. And, frankly, no matter what people think of most of those things in the abstract, I don't think people want to criminalize adultery. Lots of people have pre-marital sex. Few really want to get rid of no-fault divorce laws. So, despite all the pretending that we're a conservative country on social issues, once you strip away the preachy BS it's basically a bunch of crap. It's been a long time since there's been much public shaming of adulterers or social ostracism of divorcees, outside tight-knit communities of church-goers.
It's much easier to take a strong, simple, if partially unpopular decision than a complicated, nuanced, and muddled position. Is John Kerry supporting "civil unions" but not "equal marriage rights" really going to win him any votes? Is he going to be able to sweep the issue under the rug by having to clarify, regularly, precisely which wording of which constitutional amendment in which state he would support or be against? Is he going to be able to explain with any clarity just what the hell the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is, other than, you know, one is called "marriage" and one is called "civil union?" And, at the end of the day, does it make a damn bit of difference what it's called? If so, why?
At some point these issues require some courageous moral leadership. These issues are moving much faster than the national politicians, and they've lost control of them. I don't for a second believe that "gay marriage" is particularly popular nationally, but nor do I believe that most people give a damn either. The people who really care aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway. If by some bizarre miracle the US Supreme Court issued a ruling tomorrow mandating states provide for equal marriage rites, there'd be about a week of controversy and then most people would realize it didn't affect them one little bit and they'd move on to other things.
Lyndon Johnson didn't create the Civil Rights movement, and I'm not sure he cared much for it, but at some point he managed to push through legislation which was almost unimaginably far-reaching. He saw where things were headed, and saw what needed to be done and he did it.
The Times They Aren't a Changing
The Farmer compares congressional comments on homosexuality, then and now.
Flowers from Strangers
The Sf Chron has picked up on the story of strangers sending flowers to the couples in line to get married.
More info here.
... Fiore gives us the Gay Agenda.
...another story in the Strib.
-
Robert Yamaguchi and Raymond Mungo were waiting outside City Hall in the cold early Friday morning when a florist clutching wedding bouquets handed them one. The outside of the accompanying envelope read, "To The Happy Couple, " and the card tucked inside said simply, "With love from Minneapolis, Minnesota."
The men -- who have been together for 23 years and flew up from Long Beach to make it official -- were stunned by the anonymous gift of red roses, irises, lilies and white Gerber daisies.
"Oh, my heart just burst with joy when he handed up those flowers!" Mungo exclaimed as Yamaguchi carried them in his arm like a beauty contest winner. "Some stranger who doesn't even know us is helping celebrate the event -- it's very touching."
The couple's gift has been replicated hundreds of times throughout the week as part of a grassroots movement called Flowers in the Heartland.
More info here.
... Fiore gives us the Gay Agenda.
...another story in the Strib.
Bloggy Goodness
I think Jim C. stayed up all night writing stuff for the Rittenhouse Review, so go take a look.
Ad Fight
Right now I have ads from both John Barrow and Doug Haines who are both competing to be the nominee in Georgia's 12th.
In a different political climate - say, one, in which Dems controlled the Senate and it wasn't a presidential election year - I would have thought that becoming actively involved in some primary races would be quite a useful thing to do. If your party doesn't have an incumbent in the race, then it's during primary season when you have a good opportunity to influence who the candidate - and hopefully the eventual congressperson - is. For those who are concerned about the lack of progressive Democrats in Congress, it's a chance to get them in there. Prove they can win the primary, prove they can raise some money on their own - then the institutional support money comes raining down on them.
But, it wasn't something I spent any time on this year so I really have no opinion about any of the contested primaries. However, if you think either candidate is the kind of person we need in Congress I suggest you lend your support. This is a seat that we "should win," given party registration numbers, so there's a reasonable chance that whoever wins the primary will win the race.
In a different political climate - say, one, in which Dems controlled the Senate and it wasn't a presidential election year - I would have thought that becoming actively involved in some primary races would be quite a useful thing to do. If your party doesn't have an incumbent in the race, then it's during primary season when you have a good opportunity to influence who the candidate - and hopefully the eventual congressperson - is. For those who are concerned about the lack of progressive Democrats in Congress, it's a chance to get them in there. Prove they can win the primary, prove they can raise some money on their own - then the institutional support money comes raining down on them.
But, it wasn't something I spent any time on this year so I really have no opinion about any of the contested primaries. However, if you think either candidate is the kind of person we need in Congress I suggest you lend your support. This is a seat that we "should win," given party registration numbers, so there's a reasonable chance that whoever wins the primary will win the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)