Little Evil Bush

Carter, Gore, Clinton....

First night of the Dem convention, and every one one of them gave a brilliant speech, marvelously nuanced. Both an impassioned critique of Bush and a positive spin on Kerry's achievements. Perfectly correct tone to lay out, for the miniscule middle, the case for change and the reason to support the alternative.

Carter was particularly excellent. Here is a man with impeccable morality and authority on human rights, telling us the real cost of Bush's abuses: loss of American moral authority.

Clinton was at the top of his oratory game. I wanted to listen to him for another hour. Just by talking, he made us understand how much a loss it is not to have a smart, communicative man like him running the country. He made us understand how much policy is connected to persuasion. No one does it better. I am reading his book. He will be remembered as our best President ever.

Gore was, oddly, overlooked by the broadcasts I watched. Was this intentional? I had to hunt out and read his speech. Was it being buried? Gore has become the champion of telling the truth about the Evil Bush regime. He could run this blog. I found his speech in the Times and read it - it seemed pretty mild. Kerry's spin machine had obviously gotten to him. He had a few nice zingers. But I just don't understand Gore's apotheosis these last couple of years: If only this outspoken, courageous Gore had been the Gore that ran against Bush, we wouldn't be in this mess. Why didn't his pollsters tell him that, when he was running.

God, if Kerry doesn't win the White House, it will be the greatest waste of talent - the greatest tragedy - in a generation.

 

I'm tired of spending 40% of the year working to support these incompetent goons. Let's fire the whole lot of them and outsource our Government to India.

The New York Times > National > Congress Vacating Capitol for Five Weeks: "Despite the legislative backlog, Frist found time in July for the Senate to debate at length a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The effort, supported by Bush and conservative Republicans, failed."

Come on, Kerry - get your house in order! This is no time for political novices to lose the ball. Tell Teresa to suck it up and keep her cool. Jeez!

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Morning Briefing: Hillary Clinton to Make the Most of Her Four Minutes Tonight"The potential First Lady had been giving a speech about civility and appeared to use the phrase “un-American” in reference to her husband’s critics. When a reporter from a conservative Pittsburgh newspaper asked her about her remark, she said she did not say it and that he was putting words in her mouth. She asked which paper he was from and then told him to “shove it.” "

Well, I think I might have to correct an earlier sentiment. It increasingly looks like Berger's actions probably were illegal.

What was he up too? Who knows. Obviously, the Kerry team didn't. They were blind-sided by it. And the Bush team certainly has more dirty tricks up its sleave that it plans to push out as the election nears.

In this case, though, it increasingly looks like this was a real slip on Berger's part, and a valid "gotcha" from the Bushies. Score one for the Republicans. After twelve years of making up accusations, leaking classified information, and slandering innocent people, they finally were able to smear someone with the truth. Now, that's original!

It's an old quote, but it occurs to me that I should make a similar proclamation: I am officially "disappointed' that our President is a blathering idiot.

CNN.com - Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat - Jul 15, 2004: "President Bush says he is 'disappointed' that a move to effectively ban same-sex marriage was 'temporarily blocked' in the Senate"

The Republicans go after Berger for removing and returning documents? This was not even considered illegal, just "against procedure." Berger immediately resigns from Kerry's campaign.

In contrast, Abu Gharab has been known about for eight months. No one has resigned; no one has been fired.

The contrast is striking. Republicans will jump on any chance to tar and feather a Democrat for violating a library procedure. Where are the Democrats when Republicans commit heinous crimes?

CNN.com - Berger says he made 'honest mistake' - Jul 21, 2004: "Republicans were in an uproar over news of the investigation. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called it 'absolutely shocking,' while one leading GOP senator, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, demanded that the Kerry campaign divulge whether Berger had provided it with classified information."

A letter-writer on the Andrew Sullivan blog brings up a fascinating point. Does allowing gay marriage "re-define" marriage? Andrew says it does not - gay people want to participate in marriage as it is defined. This writer says it does - marriage is "defined" as between heterosexuals; to allow gay people to marry by necessity means "redefining it" as being between any two people.

I think the problem is with the word "define" - what does it mean to "define" marriage? There are really two realms in which the word is defined, and as people discuss this issue, they inadvertently mix these realms which are not necessarily interchangeable. The first realm is linguistically - marriage is defined as a word in general use. The second realm is legally - that is, how the government would define marriage.
 
If we look at it this way, then I think that we see that both Andrew and the letter-writer are correct. Andrew is correct linguistically, the letter writer, politically. Linguistically, gay people do not want to re-define the word as it is used in general speaking conversation. In fact, gay people already say that they are "married" when they mean that they are in a committed, two-person love-based relationship based on building a life together that is shared economically and emotionally. This is pretty much how straight people mean the term when they say that they are "married" - when they say they are "married" they are not really referencing their heterosexuality specifically (no one really speaks this way) - if that's what they meant, they would say they were heterosexual partners or something like that. So, there is no real linguistic change in the way the word is currently being used, gay people are just applying the same word to themselves.

However, as the word is defined legally, is this letter writer correct? Well, this is actually more complicated than it looks. Several states actually DO NOT define the word married as being bewteen people of the opposite sex. However, some states historically have defined the word that way. It is a hodgepodge, really. In cases where the word is not defined as applying only heterosexually, gay people here have a legal opening to challenge the laws and/or willingness of the state to marry them based on this very legal wording. However, this letter writer is probably correct in saying that in cases where the word IS legally defined as being a heterosexual term only, gay people would need to "re-define" that legal language before they could win the right to marry in that state.
 

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Letters: "My third point of contention with your article is your relentless insistence that allowing same-sex marriage does not re-define marriage. I think your argument would be more persuasive if you simply acknowledged that it did and that it should. (You seem to do that later -- e.g., 'evolving paradigm' and such, but you don't reconcile that discussion with your earlier statement.) You cannot seriously argue that same sex marriage does not redefine marriage because gay people want to enter marriage as it is currently defined. That's just not true, because if it was, there would be no discussion of same-sex marriage at all. Anyone can get married as marriage is currently defined -- a relationship between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman of a certain age (usually >16), unrelated closer than a certain degree of consanguinity (usually second cousins) -- including gays. The issue is that gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex because they are not attracted to them.

So what you are discussing is changing the permissible object of a marriage, the kind of change that should be made through legislation and not through creative statutory interpretation by the courts."

While this is a terrible precident, you can understand why the Philippines had no choice here but to cave (whereas the Koreas and Japans won't). Philippines probably should never have been involved in Iraq in the first place.

All this is only going to make Kerry's job of improving the situation in Iraq all the more impossible.

I hope that Kerry starts coming out with stronger positions now on the daily failures over there (now that Abu Gharib and Falluja have pretty much gone ignored by the press).

The New York Times > International > Asia Pacific > Iraqi Militants Release Hostage After Philippines Withdraws: "Mrs. Arroyo's move, according to analysts, had been calculated to pre-empt a backlash from Filipinos, who have identified with Mr. dela Cruz. About eight million Filipinos work abroad, supporting a sizable portion of the population back home. They send more than $7 billion back home annually, helping prop up a weak economy saddled by huge debts and a gaping budget deficit."

Yet another reason to thank God that there are still some conservatives of conscience, such as McCain:

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote: "McCain (R-AZ), Nay "

This is the "institution of marriage" that Republicans are so eager to defend.

The New York Times > Washington > Obama to Deliver Keynote Address at Democratic Convention: "Republican Jack Ryan dropped out last month over embarrassing allegations in his divorce papers that he took his wife to sex clubs before they split up. "

If you ask me, it looks like marriage could only benefit from the ideals of commitment, sacrifice, and love that gay people would bring to it....

Google is showing pro-Bush, pro-RNC ads on my page. How fucked up is that? They need to look into their ad insertion algorhythm.

I found this term on someone's blog. I love it! "Gender-discordant marriage" sounds pretty diseased, especially compared with something fun like "gay marriage."

(DV) Ireland: Raw Prejudice -- The Politics of Gay Marriage: "gender-discordant couples"

Increadible. Bob Barr's argument that Democrats are pushing the marriage issue is that gay people are coming out on television.

Isn't that like saying, blacks are pushing black civil rights by walking with integrity rather than cringing?

How can people say these obviously racist or homophobic things in 2004 and they are our Congressmen? They can say this and still hold respectable jobs?

What is inconceivable of this from Bob Barr is that, he's not some ignorant hick from Padua, Ohio - he works in Congress and knows openly gay members of congress, he must have gay friends. This is either the twisted logic of someone blabbering to pander to a constituency without thinking about the logic of what he is saying - or, if he actually believes what he is saying, someone filled with such ignorance and stupidity that it is a miracle he can find his way to the capitol. This is the same ignorant gay-bashing we heard 20 years ago, and kudos to Senator Lautenberg for finally saying it.

MSNBC - 'The Federal Government Should Not Be Stepping In'

How is the Hollywood media pushing the issue of homosexuality?
I think you see it in many TV programs, they have some element of that in them.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?
It has to do with, I think you asked about the cultural issue, the cultural issue of the acceptability of homosexuality, for example. That’s sort of the broader issue, marriage is sort of a subpart of that. It’s, not even subtly any more, been sort of pushing that to be an issue. You have comedians and entertainers rather than saying, “Hey, I’m a great person because I’m smart or I’m a great comedian.” They’re saying, “Hey, I’m a great person and I need your attention, and so forth, because I’m a homosexual.”

Who’s actually doing that besides Rosie O’Donnell?
Of course, Ellen Degeneres a few years ago sort of started that whole trend. I’m not saying that’s why it’s an important issue but it’s one issue why it’s kept alive. I suspect that both parties, if they had their way, would not make this an issue.

I love this contretemps! (see below.)

So who is outsmarting whom? I give this one to Cheryl, but narrowly.

Even if the ad backfires and works to the FRC's advantage (by allowing more conservatives at the convention), that ultimately helps the HRC as more conservatives will alienate moderates and the question is - will losing moderates versus gaining more right-wing conservatives help or hurt Bush in the election. Could be a toss-up but I would say, more likely hurt, as the real conservatives have no choice but to vote for Bush anyway, so giving in to them likely hurts Bush's chances.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Republicans: Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention: "On Friday, as the Senate began debating the amendment on same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, placed an advertisement in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call listing Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Pataki, Senator McCain and Mr. Giuliani. 'Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?' the advertisement asked. 'Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.'
Hoping to turn the same advertisement into a message to the convention planners, Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, sent flowers to Cheryl Jacques, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, with a note that said, 'Dear Cheryl, per your ad in Roll Call - thank you.'"

This is what I said exactly six weeks ago. We pulled out of Falluja just like the pull-out of Saigon - it was an unacknowledged defeat, where we effectively turned over the city to the enemy.

Only this time, the enemy is gathering strength. What do we have now in Iraq? We have the exact same thing that we had in Afghanistan before we outsted the Taliban: an al-Queda terrorist training camp! It's as if the entire operations of the last three years were entirely for naught!

Stupid, stupid, idiodic Bush!!!!

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Insurgents: Falluja Pullout Left Haven of Insurgents, Officials Say: "'The 10 marines that died - those were wasted lives, because we didn't finish the job,' he said. 'Falluja is a time bomb.'"

In all this business of the Evil Bush and his anti-gay, anti-Arab, pro-war Evil agenda, we've all been distracted from perhaps the biggest economic issue of our time, Outsourcing.

This is a global economic shift: as the world shifts to interconnected capitolism and as trade barriers come down, we'll see all jobs that are potentially electronic or mobile shift to the least expensive countries. As that happens, our living standards will come down, theirs will come up. Eventually, the whole world will equalize to an relatively uniform midling standard. Which means lower overall living standards in the U.S., Australia, and Europe.

This is innevitable and unstoppable. Trade protections will only create artificial bubbles that will cause economic shocks and huge dislocations when they finally burst. This is ECONOMIC ENTROPY and is a fact of physics.

Our only possible hope to maintain our accustomed living standards? Find a way to BE OUT FRONT and take advantage of the shifting tides. By that I mean, re-orient our economy to take advantage of new technologies, creative industries, and high-end, personal service for an educated and prosperous workforce.

BUT WE AREN'T DOING THAT. To do that, we'd need to do these things:

1. Invest and be out front on new technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnologies, and microelectronics. Sadly, we are losing ground on this to Japan and Korea.
2. Invest in education so our system is AT LEAST as good as those in India and Rumania, and our workers can compete on the soon to come level playing field. Sadly, our educational system is far behind these up-and-coming soon to be new first world countries.
3. Re-orient our social morality to re-introduce courtesy, politeness, inclusiveness, and a help-they-neighbor attitude that will make companies want to do business locally rather than abroad. Take advantage of Americas multicultural nature to make us the one country that IS and UNDERSTANDS the world, so that the world looks to us to lead the way with entertainment and marketing products that speak across cultures and transcend differences, and make us a sole supplier of world-wide reach. Sadly, instead, we are inculcating people with selfishness, divisiveness, and violence, and making us a parriah not just to other countries but to our own companies, who don't want to work with our own attitude-poor workers.

If we don't start attacking these three issues NOW, America will be a third-world country by the time I'm ready to retire....

The New York Times > International > Europe > Voters in Much of Europe Seem to Want the Ins Out: "All parties, in other words, are struggling to deal with a new era in Europe, where social protections have become too expensive and a globalized economy, with jobs being outsourced to Poland, Slovakia and, especially, China, has made vigorous economic growth almost a memory."

So Bush is so desperate that he is trotting out McCain. But McCain isn't running for President - Bush is. In fact, Bush beat back McCain and the moderate Republicans. This tactic will have to backfire, I'm sure. After people start comparing Bush to McCain, they'll realize just how short the W. comes up.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry Embraces Former Rival, Citing 'Courage and Conviction': "President Bush's campaign wasted no time belittling the new Democratic ticket, launching a television advertisement that featured what Mr. Bush's campaign described as 'John Kerry's first choice for a vice presidential running mate,' Senator John S. McCain of Arizona. Mr McCain, a former Vietnam veteran, was approached by Mr. Kerry about being his running-mate."

I've seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" and read the many reviews, the handwringing, the denunciations. But still the movie is popular. Why? This is the most accurate review I've seen so far.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Moore's Public Service

The only point I had against the movie - I felt that Moore was exploiting the Army kids he portrays as shallow and sadistic. Not that Moore's technique isn't pure exploitation to begin with: he exploited the victims of the Columbine shooting nearly as much as he does the Flint mother in 9/11. But at least he is supportive of their moral situation. And I certainly have no sympathy for political pundits who become his victims, such as Charlton Heston or the members of Congress. But these kids are serving our country, shallow or not, and sure, they can become the pawns of attrocities. But as I've said before, the ones responsible are the Evildoers at the Pentagon. Moore doesn't make that connection; instead, he goes out of his way to vilify our young servicemen and women, in the same way that Rumsfeld and Bush are doing. Do these kids, naive as they are, really have to be the scapegoats for the Left as well as the Right? All we needed was some context of how they found themselves in this situation, and who put them there, and who ordered them, and how they were trained to respond this way in OUR OWN culture. There certainly are enough facts - but Moore left this out. That did offend my sensibilities in an otherwise hilarious and entertaining movie.

The New York Times > International > U.S. Launches Airstrikes in Falluja: "The police chief also said militiamen loyal to al-Sadr kidnapped 25 policemen Tuesday in Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, in response to the arrest of two of their colleagues but released 16 of them on Wednesday.
Ahmad al-Shibani, an al-Sadr spokesman, confirmed the kidnappings, but said all 25 had been freed. ``We just wanted to teach them a lesson,'' he said."

And what would that lesson be? The lesson is, al-Sadr and his forces now control Iraq, not the so-called "interrum government" or the police force.

Bush is just better at it, that's all. Saddam's methods were simply too crude.

CNN.com - Saddam in court: 'The real criminal is Bush' - Jul 1, 2004: "'This is all a theater, the real criminal is Bush,' Saddam said, during one outburst, referring to the U.S. president."