Thursday, May 27, 2004
bush morphing state election laws to stay on ballots?
Researching this one now. I know it's true for Illinois, although haven't found out whether the law has been changed or is still in the air...
silly weirdness
In the Illinois US Senate race, the Libertarians are putting up a guy named "Jerry Kohn".
Did everyone else have to blink at that one a couple of times?
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
Did everyone else have to blink at that one a couple of times?
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
from the man who should be president
"One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded. We also know - and not just from De Sade and Freud - the psychological proximity between sexual depravity and other people's pain. It has been especially shocking and awful to see these paired evils perpetrated so crudely and cruelly in the name of America.full remarks
Those pictures of torture and sexual abuse came to us embedded in a wave of news about escalating casualties and growing chaos enveloping our entire policy in Iraq. But in order [to] understand the failure of our overall policy, it is important to focus specifically on what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison, and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans? Obviously the quick answer is no, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.
There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.
Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only 'better angels' in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.
Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens.
Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower. When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love to make a groan [sic] man piss on himself."
What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.
The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th."
photo camera? what's that?
Bush spokesman Terry Holt seems to think possession of a "photo camera" is somehow nefarious or indicative of dubious motives?
Only, I guess, when that someone is fighting in a war, and then thirty years later has the gall to try and run for president.
Is this another half-baked attempt to drum up a non-issue to diss Kerry while providing cover for Bush? After all, perhaps the reason there is so little photographic record of Bush in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) is because he knew someday he would campaign for president and wanted to avoid any possibility of unseemly behavior.
Only, I guess, when that someone is fighting in a war, and then thirty years later has the gall to try and run for president.
Is this another half-baked attempt to drum up a non-issue to diss Kerry while providing cover for Bush? After all, perhaps the reason there is so little photographic record of Bush in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) is because he knew someday he would campaign for president and wanted to avoid any possibility of unseemly behavior.
ross attacked by dems and repubs
Seems my earlier belief that all the protest against Dave Ross staying on the air until July is coming from rivals in his own part at least as much as from the state Republican party. This makes sense, by the time the general campaign starts, Dave Ross will be long off the air. But now the primary campaign is in full swing.
One of Ross's opponents is Alex Alben, a very pro-business candidate with strong ties to the "Eastside" community. Alben seems like a good candidate--certainly anyone representing Washington's 8th District will have to be pro-business and high-tech savvy, being home to greater Microsoft-land. (Technically Microsoft's main campus falls in the 1st District--Jay Inslee (D)--forming a little bump on the nose of the 1st as a result of what is doubtless a fascinating political tale.)
Alben is making a major issue of Ross's remaining on the air, even to the extent of purchasing ad time during Ross's morning radio show to complain about Ross being on the air. Takes a bit of hutspa! According to this Seattle P-I article, Ross is refusing to comment on the ads. This seems perfectly consistent with what I know of Ross--he has the highest level of integrity of almost anyone I know. I suspect if asked, Ross would say that things are working exactly the way they should be.
To a certain extent, I think Alben is being a bit disingenuous. His rally cry is: "standing up for fairness in this election, because all candidates need to play by the same rules!" (from his web site). In reality, many political candidates enjoy undue advantage because of their circumstances. No one could realistically claim that incumbents have almost insurmountable advantages by virtue of being able to campaign while in office. Everyone know how much money makes a difference--no candidate has to be well loved by donors if he's got his own deep pockets.
My original take on this situation was that Ross was inviting at least as much hurt on himself as help by staying on the air. Every word out of his mouth is grist for the disinformation mill (as well as providing ample opportunity to commit real gaffes). But I've just been realizing that this is only true of candidates interested in negative campaigning. In fact, by staying on the air, Ross is almost forcing his opponents to go on the attack in order to even the odds.
In addition, in a normal world, Ross would almost certainly spend at least one hour interviewing candidates. How is he going to achieve that? Will we have the surreal experience of hearing one candidate interview another? Not in this reality. So will Alben be left to the almost certainly hostile Dori Monson? (While not really unfair, certainly cruel!)
The Seattle P-I story referenced above, used the term "impropriety" several times, as in the impropriety of Ross's decision to stay on the air. Although this term is technically correct (meaning "not proper"), it tends to have connotations that are irrelevant here, and so it feels like too harsh a term. I think this issue is quite complex; it isn't a simple matter of fairness or unfairness, but rather of finding the right balance of fairness/unfairness to a number of different parties.
I will probably support Ross no matter what he does (I earn my living in his district). But, on reflection, I think it would be best if he got off the air as soon as possible. Boo hoo! My mornings will never be the same!
One of Ross's opponents is Alex Alben, a very pro-business candidate with strong ties to the "Eastside" community. Alben seems like a good candidate--certainly anyone representing Washington's 8th District will have to be pro-business and high-tech savvy, being home to greater Microsoft-land. (Technically Microsoft's main campus falls in the 1st District--Jay Inslee (D)--forming a little bump on the nose of the 1st as a result of what is doubtless a fascinating political tale.)
Alben is making a major issue of Ross's remaining on the air, even to the extent of purchasing ad time during Ross's morning radio show to complain about Ross being on the air. Takes a bit of hutspa! According to this Seattle P-I article, Ross is refusing to comment on the ads. This seems perfectly consistent with what I know of Ross--he has the highest level of integrity of almost anyone I know. I suspect if asked, Ross would say that things are working exactly the way they should be.
To a certain extent, I think Alben is being a bit disingenuous. His rally cry is: "standing up for fairness in this election, because all candidates need to play by the same rules!" (from his web site). In reality, many political candidates enjoy undue advantage because of their circumstances. No one could realistically claim that incumbents have almost insurmountable advantages by virtue of being able to campaign while in office. Everyone know how much money makes a difference--no candidate has to be well loved by donors if he's got his own deep pockets.
My original take on this situation was that Ross was inviting at least as much hurt on himself as help by staying on the air. Every word out of his mouth is grist for the disinformation mill (as well as providing ample opportunity to commit real gaffes). But I've just been realizing that this is only true of candidates interested in negative campaigning. In fact, by staying on the air, Ross is almost forcing his opponents to go on the attack in order to even the odds.
In addition, in a normal world, Ross would almost certainly spend at least one hour interviewing candidates. How is he going to achieve that? Will we have the surreal experience of hearing one candidate interview another? Not in this reality. So will Alben be left to the almost certainly hostile Dori Monson? (While not really unfair, certainly cruel!)
The Seattle P-I story referenced above, used the term "impropriety" several times, as in the impropriety of Ross's decision to stay on the air. Although this term is technically correct (meaning "not proper"), it tends to have connotations that are irrelevant here, and so it feels like too harsh a term. I think this issue is quite complex; it isn't a simple matter of fairness or unfairness, but rather of finding the right balance of fairness/unfairness to a number of different parties.
I will probably support Ross no matter what he does (I earn my living in his district). But, on reflection, I think it would be best if he got off the air as soon as possible. Boo hoo! My mornings will never be the same!
Monday, May 24, 2004
clarification
In the last post there's a line about a quality decline of King County "crime fighting". I wasn't stating this as fact or an opinion. This was merely an off-the-cuff and badly phrased hypothetical about a dirty trick that could (but I'm sure won't) be played. I really have no idea what kind of opposition message Dave Reichert will draw, I just assume, since he's sheriff, law enforcement will come into it somehow.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
dave ross for congress
So my favorite talk radio host, Dave Ross, has thrown his hat into the Washington 8th District race to replace Jennifer Dunn. I have mixed feelings: guess I'll be switching back to NPR for my morning commute, assuming they move Dori Monson to mornings.
I think Dave makes a terrific talk host--people trust that either working his way through an issue or taken a stance based on facts, not on party affiliation. That's a good thing. But now what he says will be attacked as pure politics. He'll have lost that precious power to persuade, not by hook or crook, but by fact.
I don't know if he'll make a good congressperson. He sometimes displays a certain grasp of harsh reality (read cynicism) that may enable him to make those necessary evil votes. We'll see.
Re the mini-flap about him staying on the air until officially registering in July, this feels like a pseudo-flap to me. I really can't believe Washington State Republican Chair Chris Vance, isn't licking his chops at the opportunity to attack every word out of Ross's mouth for the next two months. Frankly, it feels to me like Ross's decision to stay on the air has more potential to hurt him than help.
Or perhaps Vance, so steeped in the political arena as he is, thinks Ross will pull some dirty tricks with his show--such as running show after show about how the quality of crime fighting in King County has so drastically declined in the past few years--coincidentally since opponent Dave Reichert became King County Sheriff. Knowing Dave Ross as I do--as a longtime listener--it's my bet he'll avoid all issues that smack of negative attacks. I think he will have to be ultra careful of both Repub and Dem operatives trying to bait him into partisanship, though. We'll see if he can do it.
I think Dave makes a terrific talk host--people trust that either working his way through an issue or taken a stance based on facts, not on party affiliation. That's a good thing. But now what he says will be attacked as pure politics. He'll have lost that precious power to persuade, not by hook or crook, but by fact.
I don't know if he'll make a good congressperson. He sometimes displays a certain grasp of harsh reality (read cynicism) that may enable him to make those necessary evil votes. We'll see.
Re the mini-flap about him staying on the air until officially registering in July, this feels like a pseudo-flap to me. I really can't believe Washington State Republican Chair Chris Vance, isn't licking his chops at the opportunity to attack every word out of Ross's mouth for the next two months. Frankly, it feels to me like Ross's decision to stay on the air has more potential to hurt him than help.
Or perhaps Vance, so steeped in the political arena as he is, thinks Ross will pull some dirty tricks with his show--such as running show after show about how the quality of crime fighting in King County has so drastically declined in the past few years--coincidentally since opponent Dave Reichert became King County Sheriff. Knowing Dave Ross as I do--as a longtime listener--it's my bet he'll avoid all issues that smack of negative attacks. I think he will have to be ultra careful of both Repub and Dem operatives trying to bait him into partisanship, though. We'll see if he can do it.
see this movie
Today I braved the local multiplex, crammed with small children and their parents, to see the Shrek sequel. The theater I went to was running three cycles of Shrek 2, about a half hour apart, and all of them were selling out, so I won't be surprised if this movie breaks some weekend records.
I'm not sure what the attraction of Shrek is for me personally, except, of course, its basic core of snorting at sentimentality. One could say that it is an anti-fairy tale, but at the same time a fairy tale is exactly what it is.
It makes me suspect that--all this time I thought I was one of the minority of cynical thinkers willing to take a hard look at the reality behind the illusions of love--actually lots of people see what I see. They're just a lot more well adjusted about it, willing to enjoy the advantages of the illusions without being completely suckered into them.
Anyway, I enjoyed Shrek 2 almost as much as the original. A certain amount of surprise was gone, replaced by a sense of expectation. When you get down to analyzing it, the basic plot is quite simple: Princess Fiona drags Shrek home to meet the folks, Shrek and king don't exactly hit it off, tension ensues between the newlyweds, and they both try to make the other happy by sacrificing their own happiness. As with the original, the devil (or in this case the angel) is in the details. I don't want to mention any because it would spoil the surprise, but there are a lot of them and you really have to pay attention to get them all. I had the rare experience of wanting to turn around and watch the movie all over again.
Not being married and not having manipulative parents, I didn't have a strong sense of connection to the couple's problems in this movie (didn't really in the first one either, being neither a prince/princess nor in love with one, although have to say I did identify with Shrek, so draw your own conclusions). There were more main characters in this one, and I didn't really care much about most of them, so I didn't have quite the visceral reaction to this one that I did with the first. I've read reviews that say Puss in Boots stole the movie, but I'd say that's only because--Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey aside--all the others were either too bland or too predictable. Once again, its the minor characters--the ugly step sister, the gingerbread boy, Pinnochio, that really make things shine.
In the first movie, I think I was bowled over by the music more than anything else. Seguing from Joan Jett's "Bad Reputation" to "I'm On My Way From Misery to Happiness" was grand, and it brought me to one of my now favorite songs: John Cale's "Hallelujah". And of course who could forget Fiona singing the opening lines of "Like a Virgin"?
The music in this movie is somewhat less inspired, although it could be it needs some growing time. One of the main musical scenes features the song "I Need A Hero", which some people will remember from the movie Footloose. Although I thought it was a great song to use, I was quite disappointed in its presentation. I didn't much like the singer, it was too weak and made me pine for the original Bonnie Tyler rendition. Aside from a little snippet of Hawaii Five-O, I don't remember any of the other music, which is too bad. I can go for days with "Stay Home" or "All-Star" happily ringing in my head.
Aside from the nitpicks, though, I found Shrek 2 utterly satisfying, and can't wait to drag some friends so I can see it again.
Oh--be sure to stay in your seat while the credits roll!
I'm not sure what the attraction of Shrek is for me personally, except, of course, its basic core of snorting at sentimentality. One could say that it is an anti-fairy tale, but at the same time a fairy tale is exactly what it is.
It makes me suspect that--all this time I thought I was one of the minority of cynical thinkers willing to take a hard look at the reality behind the illusions of love--actually lots of people see what I see. They're just a lot more well adjusted about it, willing to enjoy the advantages of the illusions without being completely suckered into them.
Anyway, I enjoyed Shrek 2 almost as much as the original. A certain amount of surprise was gone, replaced by a sense of expectation. When you get down to analyzing it, the basic plot is quite simple: Princess Fiona drags Shrek home to meet the folks, Shrek and king don't exactly hit it off, tension ensues between the newlyweds, and they both try to make the other happy by sacrificing their own happiness. As with the original, the devil (or in this case the angel) is in the details. I don't want to mention any because it would spoil the surprise, but there are a lot of them and you really have to pay attention to get them all. I had the rare experience of wanting to turn around and watch the movie all over again.
Not being married and not having manipulative parents, I didn't have a strong sense of connection to the couple's problems in this movie (didn't really in the first one either, being neither a prince/princess nor in love with one, although have to say I did identify with Shrek, so draw your own conclusions). There were more main characters in this one, and I didn't really care much about most of them, so I didn't have quite the visceral reaction to this one that I did with the first. I've read reviews that say Puss in Boots stole the movie, but I'd say that's only because--Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey aside--all the others were either too bland or too predictable. Once again, its the minor characters--the ugly step sister, the gingerbread boy, Pinnochio, that really make things shine.
In the first movie, I think I was bowled over by the music more than anything else. Seguing from Joan Jett's "Bad Reputation" to "I'm On My Way From Misery to Happiness" was grand, and it brought me to one of my now favorite songs: John Cale's "Hallelujah". And of course who could forget Fiona singing the opening lines of "Like a Virgin"?
The music in this movie is somewhat less inspired, although it could be it needs some growing time. One of the main musical scenes features the song "I Need A Hero", which some people will remember from the movie Footloose. Although I thought it was a great song to use, I was quite disappointed in its presentation. I didn't much like the singer, it was too weak and made me pine for the original Bonnie Tyler rendition. Aside from a little snippet of Hawaii Five-O, I don't remember any of the other music, which is too bad. I can go for days with "Stay Home" or "All-Star" happily ringing in my head.
Aside from the nitpicks, though, I found Shrek 2 utterly satisfying, and can't wait to drag some friends so I can see it again.
Oh--be sure to stay in your seat while the credits roll!
time's michael duffy on washington week in review
I'm a regular watcher of this program--one of the few tv new shows I watch. And Michael Duffy, of Time Magazine, is one of the regulars I most enjoy hearing from.
I was shocked to see how solemn he appeared this week. He's been covering the Abu Ghraib hearings, so perhaps this isn't that surprising. But it is a radical difference from his usual TV personality. Usually he's smiling, talking about people and events with a good light objectivity and a healthy cyncism. For example, talking a few weeks ago about Condi Rice's 9/11 testimony, he joked a bit about her ability to talk her way through an interview ("running down the clock").
But the last couple times I've seen him, he's been obviously downspirited, and this week was sorrowful to watch. Later in his presentation he did muster up a small laugh about something (about how no one in the military is taking responsibility for anything not written down, I think). But it was more like the kind of laugh you get at a funeral--that involuntary kind to break the tension without forgetting the tragedy of the moment.
Gwenn Ifill was extremely solemn as well this week, particularly during Duffy's segment. Abu Ghraib seems to be weighing extremely heavily on some of our seasoned journalists. Although sad, this is far preferable to Ifill's unseemly "isn't this exciting" sparkle the week of the "Mission Accomplished" speech. (Note: I tried to find this in the WWIR archives but couldn't find it. I may be remembering wrong--I'm sure I'm not--or that little clip has gone down the memory hole.)
I was shocked to see how solemn he appeared this week. He's been covering the Abu Ghraib hearings, so perhaps this isn't that surprising. But it is a radical difference from his usual TV personality. Usually he's smiling, talking about people and events with a good light objectivity and a healthy cyncism. For example, talking a few weeks ago about Condi Rice's 9/11 testimony, he joked a bit about her ability to talk her way through an interview ("running down the clock").
But the last couple times I've seen him, he's been obviously downspirited, and this week was sorrowful to watch. Later in his presentation he did muster up a small laugh about something (about how no one in the military is taking responsibility for anything not written down, I think). But it was more like the kind of laugh you get at a funeral--that involuntary kind to break the tension without forgetting the tragedy of the moment.
Gwenn Ifill was extremely solemn as well this week, particularly during Duffy's segment. Abu Ghraib seems to be weighing extremely heavily on some of our seasoned journalists. Although sad, this is far preferable to Ifill's unseemly "isn't this exciting" sparkle the week of the "Mission Accomplished" speech. (Note: I tried to find this in the WWIR archives but couldn't find it. I may be remembering wrong--I'm sure I'm not--or that little clip has gone down the memory hole.)
snap!
On Bush's cycle spill Saturday, apparently on Drudge (I site I choose not to link to): "Kerry told reporters in front of cameras, 'Did the training wheels fall off?'... Reporters are debating whether to treat it is as on or off the record... "
Now this is an agile mind, to link the incident back to Bush's amazingly patronizing "training wheels" comment made last week to the Iraqis.
How long before Kerry gets a demand for an apology? The Republican outrage words of the week appear to be "reprehensible" and "grotesque" (see the response to Pelosi). Frankly I was glad to see these, having gotten tired of the same old same olds: evil, unpatriotic, hateful, disgusting, offensive, un-American. Any others they could use to hyperbolically characterize their enemies? How about repugnant, destructive, traitorous--oh wait, we've already had that one, haven't we? We'll here's a new one bound to show its tail by November: Satanic.
By the way, here's choice little DeLay quote from 4 months ago...
Now this is an agile mind, to link the incident back to Bush's amazingly patronizing "training wheels" comment made last week to the Iraqis.
How long before Kerry gets a demand for an apology? The Republican outrage words of the week appear to be "reprehensible" and "grotesque" (see the response to Pelosi). Frankly I was glad to see these, having gotten tired of the same old same olds: evil, unpatriotic, hateful, disgusting, offensive, un-American. Any others they could use to hyperbolically characterize their enemies? How about repugnant, destructive, traitorous--oh wait, we've already had that one, haven't we? We'll here's a new one bound to show its tail by November: Satanic.
By the way, here's choice little DeLay quote from 4 months ago...
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today responded to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's speech about the war on terror.When did senior congressmen begin hearing about Abu Ghraib???
"Ted Kennedy has explained to the American people why the Howard Dean Democrats cannot be trusted to protect the national security of the United States," DeLay said.
"His hateful attack against the commander-in-chief would be disgusting if it were not so sad. In his speech, Ted Kennedy insulted the president's patriotism, accused the Republican Party of treason, and resurrected the weak and indecisive foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis.
"Kennedy said there was 'no compelling reason for war.' There are 25 million Iraqis no longer threatened by torture chambers who might disagree," DeLay said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)