WOW...I TALKED TO ONE... a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

I got home this evening and my wife told me I had a message from a person neither one of us knew. When I listened to the message, I figured the gentleman (who sounded like he'd seen some years) was calling to take me to task for the following letter to the editor, which appeared today in our local paper:

The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" should be more accurately named "Swift Boat Veterans for Selective Quotation."

In their new television ad, they have a tape of Kerry saying the words, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," and then an offended Vietnam veteran appears onscreen to admonish Kerry for those words.

But what the ad's selective quotations leave out is that Kerry was paraphrasing honorably discharged, decorated Vietnam veterans who had testified that these rapes and decapitations happened. Kerry was not accusing these soldiers of anything. In fact, in their statements to which he refers, they themselves admitted to the rapes and decapitations.

Kerry was referring to the statements of these soldiers in his 1971 testimony to the Senate; he wasn't saying anything about them that they hadn't said about themselves.

But you don't have to believe me, just go to a search engine and type in "John Kerry testimony April 22, 1971," and you will get a transcript (C-Span has it in its entirety). You will see that in the Swift Boat veterans' latest ad, they are trying to create the impression that Kerry was accusing his fellow soldiers of something horrible, when in fact anyone who actually reads the statement will see that he did no such thing.

In fact, if you read it, you will learn that Kerry's antiwar group had a lot of support from soldiers in combat at that time.

Finally, given the statements made by the soldiers Kerry paraphrased, Kerry and his group were right and in fact had a moral duty to work to end the Vietnam War. And he had every right to speak up about it because he volunteered to go there and was decorated for his service.

He was calling in reference to the letter, but he was calling to express solidarity with my sentiments! He went on to say that he had been a long-time Republican, but Bush had changed his mind! I talked to an actual former Republican--or at least a Republican for Kerry! I had heard tall tales about them and their disgust with Bush, but I thought such people were an urban myth--too good to be true!

He himself is a veteran of Korea, and he has no stomach for the way the Swift Boat Liars are trying to discredit Kerry. He went on about that and related how he had written several letters to the editor himself (one in response to the father of a high school friend of mine), even as recently as two weeks ago.

Broken Camel's Back

The gentleman said that the final straw for him was Bush's Medicare card fiasco. Being in his early seventies, this man qualifies for Medicare and is offended by the ruse of the prescription drug "benefit". He pointed out how prescription drug costs had gone up at 3.4 times the rate of inflation in the first quarter of 2004, essentially negating any savings from Bush's plan. He actually said "Bush isn't for me, he's for the pharmaceutical companies!"

My new friend didn't like the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, either. He said, "One or two kids a day are coming home in body bags, and none of them are named 'Bush'--they're all 'someone else's kid.'" He also felt that Bush and Cheney's sensitive handling of the Najaf situation was tying the hands of the troops and he agreed with me that even though it's not popular to say it, that situation is like Vietnam all over again.

He doesn't like our new governor, either. He said Haley Barbour is "a joke!" He said that Barbour will be lucky if people don't end up harming him physically! He is contemplating putting a sign in front of his house that says "Screw W. and Haley--I'm voting for someone else if that's the best you can do!"

I mean, this guy was amazing! He said a friend of his told him that he wouldn't vote for Kerry because Kerry is "unfit to serve." He told the friend to go watch the Swift Boat ad and then read the transcript to get just how out of context Kerry's remarks are being taken. He said the friend hasn't yet emailed him back.

The gentleman said that he wants to educate himself rather than be spoonfed all the crap from the Republican goon squad. He said that since 2000, Bush has lost four votes--his daughter and son-in-law, his son, and himself. He said his son has always been a Democrat and told him "Dad, you just don't get it--Bush is not helping you." He finally took his son's words to heart when he saw the crazy things Bush has been doing.

Simply amazing...I've never received such a call. The fact that he took the trouble to look up my phone number and actually call me...Kerry on!

"HE'S MADE THIS THE CENTRAL THEME OF HIS CAMPAIGN"

Buchanan just defended the Nixon White House on Scarborough Country and made the claim for about the 10,000,000,000,000,000th time that Kerry's 'Nam reocrd is fair game because he's made it the central issue of his campaign. But, say Buchanan and his fellow travelers, Bush has not done the same.

Wrong.

Bush made his own military service a campaign issue the second he declared his illegal war on Iraq. And he deserted. Went AWOL. Got special consideration to get in and special consideration to get out. It is shameful the way his spokesmen throw up their hands and say "Gee, who are we to trample on the constitutional rights of veterans--what they're doing is perfectly legal and we have nothing but utmost respect for John Kerry's noble service." They only trample on the constitutional rights of "terrorists" who are American citizens, holding them without charges or allowing them to see an attorney, and so forth.

John Kerry VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam. Bush did not. Nor did Cheney. Only in rightwing echo chamber America would some fat guys with a 35-year-old grudge (but whose noble service the Left-Handed Leftist respects utterly) be allowed to get away with this.

OK...They don't like ANTIWAR KERRY

One of the guys in the latest Swift Boat ad says "John Kerry gave the enemy for free what they tried to take from us in torture" or words to that effect. He says "Kerry demoralized us." If you're being tortured and held in a tiny cell in the Asian jungle, how is John Kerry demoralizing you? Did Charlie beat these guys with bamboo and then force them to listen to Kerry's testimony on the radio as further torture? Was Kerry's testimony even on the radio? Would American news even be broadcast into Vietnam on a frequency that VC could easily pick up? Could the VC risk tuning a radio into a frequency to pick up an American broadcast without giving away their position?

Antiwar John was trying to do everybody in Vietnam and the United States a favor--he was trying to help end a senseless war that by most accounts we should have never been fighting in the first place. He was trying to get hostilities to end so the POWs could be released. How in God's holy name is that demoralizing?

The New Swift Boat Veterans Ad

The new ad, debuted on cable news shows tonight, is highly disingenuous--in fact, it's perfidious in the way it "quotes" Kerry's testimony before Congress in which he said:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several
months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command....

OK, pay attention here, because that paragraph above is very important and is always left out by rightwingers when they bring up the next paragraph. When you read the next paragraph, remember that Kerry is paraphrasing what "over 150 honorably discharged...veterans testified to." PAY ATTENTION--Kerry is not making the accusations that follow himself--he is quoting OTHER PEOPLE.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped,
cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot
at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle
and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and
very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this
country.

ONCE AGAIN--Kerry is PARAPHRASING what other people said. Yes, it helps his antiwar argument, but Kerry himself IS NOT making these accusations. But when you see the new Swift Boat ad, you will hear Kerry's voice saying the words that come up on the screen devoid of context.

For example, the ad shows a picture of Kerry before the Senate, and you hear his voice saying "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." and though I can't remember exactly what the narration is, it gives the impression that Kerry is accusing the soldiers who then appear in the ads of these horrible things.

But you can see for yourself that that is not at all what Kerry said--not in letter or spirit. These Republican types are scarily good at this sort of smear. They know most people will not take the time to look up Kerry's actual statement and will just shake their heads in disbelief at how Kerry could say such a thing about his fellow soldiers. BUT HE DIDN'T.

Here's another quote from Kerry's Senate testimony that you don't hear about--soldiers in combat, under fire, SUPPORTING Kerry. Not everyone likes the fantasy of a Buchanan or a Hannity (neither of whom served in the military) of the noble soldier who only wants to fight to the last, no matter the lack of righteousness of the cause, in blind obedience to his country's leaders. That is fascism. There were then (and are now) soldiers who don't wish to fight anymore, especially after the realize the wrongheadedness of their mission:

...I don't want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there,
but let me try to say as straightforwardly as I can, we had an advertisement,
ran full page, to show you what the troops read. It ran in Playboy and the
response to it within two and a half weeks from Vietnam was 1,200 members. We
received initially about 50 to 80 letters a day from troops arriving at our New York office. Some of these letters -- and I wanted to bring some down, I didn't
know we were going to be testifying here and I can make them available to you --
are very, very moving, some of them written by hospital corpsmen on things, on casualty report sheets which say, you know, "Get us out of here." "You are the only hope he have got." "You have got to get us back; it is crazy." We received recently 80 members of the 101st Airborne signed up in one letter. Forty members from a helicopter assault squadron, crash and rescue mission signed up in another one.

Antiwar Then Vs. Antiwar Now

And make no mistake, all this rightwing yammering about how Kerry's service in Vietnam was noble, but it's "what he did afterward" that was so bad has a purpose for us in 2004. What Kerry "did afterward" was what many of us are trying to do right now--stop an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war. And the rightwingers are saying tacitly, "See how we're sliming John Kerry? That's what you can expect. Hell, John Kerry actually fought in the war and we're still able to make him look bad--just think what we can do to you."

If anybody reads this, please forward it to everyone you can think of. I'm not saying it's the best essay on the subject or anything, but if you don't want to forward this particular essay, at least forward a link to the Kerry's statement so at least people can see what he actually said, not a selective edit of it. This Swift Boat smear campaign is a disgrace to our country, to our military, and to the next president of the United States.

PREDICTION a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

I will go on record as saying that John Kerry will get the most votes in the upcoming election. Will that make him the winner? That's harder to say, what with a majority of Republican governors (like our own senior-citizen-hating big fat Haley Barbour) and congresspeople. But just like Gore, Kerry will get the most votes. And hopefully that will translate into a win...

IN A TIME OF WAR a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Listening to Mike Malloy on Air America this evening...I've developed a taste for him. He certainly is a passionate guy. I like his frequent references to the "Bush crime family."

Saw pieces of "Hannity & Colmes" tonight. Hannity promised a tribute video to liberal Democrats or some such. Anyway, he showed Tom Harkin calling Cheney a coward and Al Gore asking "How dare they?" and so forth (I'm sure there was more, but that's all I saw).

Then they cut to his smug, porcine face and he said something like--"Well, there you go. This is the liberal, strident Democratic party, engaging in the character assassination of a sitting president in a time of war while our troops are in harm's way. Remember this when you go into the voting booth" and blah blah blah.

Well, I got to thinking about it, and that phrase "in a time of war" sure has been used a lot by Republicans to heap shame and scorn on anyone with which they disagree. As in, "In a time of war, people shouldn't criticize the government," or "In a time of war, it's inappropriate to question the veracity of the commander-in-chief" and so on.

Which War?

But these creeps are using that phrase to invoke associations with WWII, a war in which we were attacked by Japan and then we declared war on Japan. In this war, Iraq did not attack us, could not attack us, and probably never would have because of the memory of the ass-kicking they received in 1991 (another war I didn't agree with). But Iraq is the country we fought and are fighting--even though we were attacked by Islamic extremists based in Afghanistan.

So my point is, the whole idea that one shouldn't criticize the leaders of our country "in a time of war" is somewhat defensible as impolite (but not illegal, immoral, or unconstitutional) if our country was attacked and then we had to lash out in self-defense against the country that attacked us. But when we are the ones picking the fight, being the bullies? The more criticism the better in that case.

And these chest beating jingos also want to connect this Iraq war with WWII in terms of nobility of purpose, saying that we're fighting against a vicious dictator who killed his own citizens and bringing freedom and sweet, sweet capitalism to their benighted souls.

But when it comes to casualties, they say that the Iraq war is nothing like WWII or lots of other really keen and popular wars. They point out that we've only just now had almost 1,000 casualties--we lost many more than that in Wars X, Y, or Z. George Will argued that in a column today.

So the Iraq war is exactly like WWII. Except that it isn't. Well which is it, you rat bastards? You keep telling John Kerry he can't have it both ways so you can't either!!!

Bloodshot Bill

Heard Bloodshot Bill today for the first time...if you check out his site, you really should download at least "Bloodshot Man"...what great lyrics-- "I been kicked outta school since the 6th grade/for cutting the teacher up with a switchblade" (I know it sounds bad, but when you actually hear it, you can hear his tongue in his cheek).

Looking forward to the new Camper Van Beethoven..."New Roman Times" I believe it's going to be called. Just read about that in the latest No Depression (the one with Willie Nelson on the cover).

Did I already say that the new Mooney Suzuki record kicks ass?

I'll leave you with this thought for the day:

"Dreams are free, motherfucker!"-The Minutemen

ROCK AGAINST BUSH Vol. 2 a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...
Got the new "Rock Against Bush" comp. at the station...The music is good but doesn't do a whole lot for me. The companion DVD is awesome, though. There are six political shorts, one of which features my new heroine Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. I'm not sure if what's included on the DVD is her "Independent Media In A Time Of War" in its entirety or if it's truncated, but what's there is awesome. There is a transcript of it here. Just to give you an idea of its brilliance, here's an excerpt from the transcript about Iraq war coverage:

AMY GOODMAN: You have not only Fox, but MSNBC and NBC, yes owned by General Electric, one of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers in the world. MSNBC and NBC as well as Fox titling their coverage taking the name of what the pentagon calls the invasion of Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. So that's what the pentagon does and you expect that, they research the most effective propagandistic name to call their operation. But for the media to name their coverage what the
pentagon calls it. Everyday seeing Operation Iraqi Freedom you have to ask, if
this were state media how would it be any different?

Wow...one more for good measure...

AMY GOODMAN: For awhile in talks before the invasion, I've been saying as we see the full page pictures of the target on Saddam Hussein's forehead that it would
be more accurate to show the target on the forehead of a little Iraqi girl
because that's who dies in war. The overwhelming majority of people who die are innocent civilians. And then what happens on the first night of the invasion?
Missile strikes a residential area in Baghdad. They say they think they've taken
out Saddam Hussein. Independent reporter May Ying Welsh who stayed their as the
bombs fell, who you heard on Democracy Now! on a regular basis, went to the
hospital right after that first attack and there was a four-year-old girl
critically injured from that missile attack and her mother critically injured
and her mother's sister. That's who dies, that's who gets injured in war. Ghandi asking, you know when he was asked what do you think of Western civilization? He said I think it would be a good idea.

The Greg Palast and Robert Greenwald film excerpts on the 2000 election are very good (in one of them, Vincent Bugliosi describes the five majority justices in Bush v. Gore as "criminals in every sense of the word" who should be behind bars). Patton Oswalt's apocalyptic comedy routine is obscenely hilarious.

The Revolution Starts...

Played "F The CC" from the new Steve Earle album "The Revolution Starts Now" on my program today. A listener called and expressed her dissatisfaction that our station would play such a song. Now to be fair, the song does say "fuck" about twenty times. But in the edited version I played, the word is very carefully and totally bleeped out. The listener said "Your station is better than that. That's why I listen to you and not to other stations that play that kind of stuff all the time." I thanked her for her comment...

But for Pete's sake, when did adults get so damn sensitive? I mean, "fuck" is just a word. It only has as much power over a person as that person lets it have. How do people with such delicate sensibilities expect to get through life? You're going to hear someone swear at some point--are you gonna shrivel up and wither away upon hearing it or are you gonna be tough? I mean, come on...

Not only that, but whatever one thinks of him, Steve Earle is a critically-acclaimed, challenging, straightforward artist and his music deserves to be played on the radio. No other station in this godforsaken town is going to play it, so that's why we will. Granted, we don't have to play that particular song, but I feel that our listeners want to hear such things because they've probably read about it and want to experience it for themselves.

KERRY KERRY QUITE CONTRARY PT. 2 ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

A little more on my smear ideas...

I know that some on the left might say that my suggestions to smear Bush are all fine and dandy, but they're just about little piss-ant issues. They might say that we should take him to task on bigger things, like the war, the deficit, etc.

Well, that would be nice, but it is better to stick with the piss-ant issues, because that's what the befuddled public can relate to. For example, everyone can relate to alcoholism, but most people have a hard time getting their head around federal budget numbers. That's why Bush's drunkenness makes for a better smear issue than his lying about the tax cuts helping the middle class.

OK, another thing...When this smear campaign gets going good, what should be done if a reporter or a TV host or radio interviewer tries to call us on something or bring up some pesky facts? What should be done is to defend your position. Defend it. Don't acknowledge that the person trying to harangue you might have a point. Defend your assertions even if the proof that you're being faced with is incontrivertible. People like to see someone who has the "courage of their convictions" even if they're dead wrong. Even your defense descends into nonsensical gibberish, defend it. Do not admit you're wrong.

Also, always accuse those who don't agree with you as partisan hacks, i.e. O'Reilly's attacks on Krugman on Russert's CNBC show recently. Don't be afraid to associate anyone who opposes you with history's worst political leaders. If someone says something openly right-wing, dismiss it immediately as partisan rubbish, which supposedly drains any statement of its validity. Interrupt the person if you can. Then say things like, "you would've loved living in Germany in the 30's, huh?"

After all, like the Daily Howler will tell you, the press corps is asleep. They won't or don't check facts, they just report what each candidate says--like a stenographer (I can't remember where I read this comparison, but I like it). That leaves any candidate--theirs or ours--to pretty much say what he wants without much hassle.

And so...

And it seems that the public as well as the media expect dishonesty and dissembling. Everyone decries it, but believe me, people want blood. If every candidate for office really went out of his or her way to be civil and rational, you'd start seeing snarky articles complaining about how much of a goody-goody everyone's being.

I mean, the press wants sensational claims--sensationalism gets viewers, or readers, or listeners. The press sells audiences to advertisers, that's their main function. We've all been led to believe that fearless journalists hound those in power for the truth. But alas, the reality is not so noble (there are exceptions, of course).

Vigorous, exhaustive documentation of the veracity of a candidate's claims can get tedious and wordy, and that turns off the casual audience member (which is most of the audience). If audience members get turned off, ad sales decline and media organizations lose money, which is of course unacceptable. So such pieces are not run, or not run very often, or not given much prominence. And then the smear campaign can very smoothly.

So let's get it on...

Oh, and one last interesting article about the history of Republicans and smear campaigns (the relevant section is "The GOP of 1936 and Today's Dirty Politics")...

Books And Music

I'm quite enjoying Carville's "Had Enough?"...

The Rolling Blackouts rock...really smart, inventive, garage rock...maybe Stooges crossed with Led Zep...

The Red Krayola's "Singles 1968-2002" has some really good stuff...if you like experimental, decade-and-genre-spanning music that has a logic unto itself...and/or if you're a fan of Beefheart or Hampton Grease Band...

KERRY KERRY QUITE CONTRARY ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

So Kerry takes the bait and says he wouldn't change his vote on this illegal war in Iraq even knowing that Iraq had no WMD...

Alas...he won't denounce the Swift Boat Motherfuckers For Evil (or hasn't yet), but he takes this challenge from Bush. What is he thinking? Is he actively trying to turn off his antiwar supporters? Is he actively trying to give Bushies more proof that he's a "flip-flopper?"

Maybe he thinks he's actually combatting the flip-flopping charge by reaffirming his Iraq war vote because he's being consistent now about his vote then. But now the Republican Noise Machine has moved on past "flip-flop" as the attack du jour and has moved on to accusing him of being too "nuanced." As in, "While Kerry is poring over every nuance of every decision, Bush is striding forward decisively." The grim Reaper-publicans are trying to paint nuance-divination as the polar opposite of gung-ho, ideological decisiveness.

How Elections Are Won

And unfortunately, that's how elections are won. That's how products are sold. Not by any carefully reasoned argument that is scrupulously sourced and expertly argued. Elections are won by meaningless sloganeering and simplifying. Coca-Cola is "the real thing" (as if other soft drinks are fake?) as much as George W. Bush is "a compassionate conservative," and so on.

That's what Democrats didn't have the hang of in 2000 and don't have the hang of now. Michael Moore has the hang of it--he said Bush was a deserter. Why should our side have to prove whether that's actually true or not? Just send surrogates on every cable program and have them say it over and over again, in response to questions related to the topic or not. Let Bush have to prove that he wasn't a deserter. The job of a campaign is to make the other guy have to defend the things he can't or would really rather not have to defend.

No, it isn't moral to do that. It's disgusting. But until further notice, that's how the game is played. You have to pick out 3 or 4 uncomfortable points about the opposing candidate and repeat them endlessly in every possible venue. It helps immensely if you can distill it into one folksy phrase--"flip-flopper," most liberal Senator," "war criminal," etc.

Now these charges may or may not be true in Kerry's case, but the truth of the charges has no bearing on the election. A campaign just has to make the public think such things are true until victory is certain, and then the truth will be quietly examined and published in the ensuing years.

I thought Kerry was going to "bring it on" and not let the Republiquors get away with any of this crap. It's probably a little late to begin a smear campaign against Bush, but better late than never. We're trying to win here, not get a "satisfactory" in deportment on our campaign report card.

Some Smear Suggestions

1. Bush was arrested for drunk-driving and was an alcoholic for many years by his own admission. Note: it always helps when a candidate has admitted to something, as Kerry did with "committing atrocities." Even if Bush has been sober for decades, the point is to hammer home that Bush was a lush, and that's addictive behavior. How may such proclivities manifest themselves in the future? Just put it out there--if Kerry committed atrocities, Bush was an alkie. Just say it over and over.

2. Bush was investigated by the SEC for his Harken stock sale. Therefore, he's an inside trader. Say it over and over. Remember, it's up to Bush to disprove it. The public has a right to know that he's an inside trader.

3. Bush flip-flopped on abortion. He used to be pro-choice. How can a true conservative Republican have ever been pro-choice? Was he telling the truth about his views then or now? Hard to say. Even if he protests that he's now pro-life, well gee, it's hard to trust the word of a flip-flopping, alcoholic, inside trader, isn't it. Because that's what he is. Take a lesson from Goebbels--God knows the Republicans have. And the lesson is: a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth in the minds of the public.

4. Bush is a deserter. He didn't finish out his National Guard service. He was grounded from flying because he didn't show up for a physical. His document dump on the subject was designed to make him look like he's transparent and has nothing to hide. It actually does nothing of the sort. The Dems tried to take up this cause for a while but got cowed too easily. Bring it back up and repeat it all the time.

5. Smear Republican funder Richard Mellon Scaife like O'Reilly does Soros. Over and over.

6. Bush is rich and powerful. He's out of touch with the American public.

And so forth...

There are others, send in suggestions. I gotta wrap up for now...if I have some time this evening, I'll try to think of some more.

KERRY NOT FIT? I CALL BULLSHIT a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

From New York Times today:

Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, who is retired and who says in the advertisement, "John
Kerry has not been honest," acknowledged that the men in the advertisement did
not serve on Mr. Kerry's boat, but he said their time in parallel boats on
coordinated missions, or as Mr. Kerry's superiors, made them valid commentators
on his record. The group provided station managers with a 13-page memorandum,
backed up by more than 60 pages of sworn statements, book excerpts and military
records.

"We were on the same operations, we were operating within 25-50
yards of him all the time, and for them to suggest we don't know John Kerry is
pure old bull," Mr. Hoffman said. "He has made this the centerpiece of this
campaign, and we just don't think he's qualified to be the commander in chief of
the armed forces. We have every right to be heard."

Ye gods, man! Is your bullshit detector going apeshit?

Why does voluntary service in Vietnam disqualify Kerry from being commander in chief while never serving under fire and being a deserter make Bush God's Own Warrior? The hypocrisy of these people is beyond the pale.

And Kerry Will Have Him For Dessert...

Notice I called Bush a deserter. That's right--your'e not supposed to say that or you're an "extremist." As long as Republicraps keep saying Kerry and Edwards are the first and fourth most liberal senators, Bush will be known as a deserter.

I don't give a flying FUCK about whether calling a sitting president a deserter is appropriate or not. He didn't finish out his service, so he's a dirty motherfucking deserter. If that's the way these Swift Boat Veterans For Being Lying Sacks Of Shit want to play the game, OK. We'll play that shit. And bring it on...if you want blood, you got it!!

So under the rules they want to play by, Bush can fairly be called a war criminal for ordering an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. And he can be deemed a threat to the peace of the world and yes, he can fairly said to be using tactics perfected by the Nazis to turn our democratic country into a fascist hell-hole.

That's the Hannity/Limbaugh game. They win every time because it seems no pundit on the left will take them on toe to toe except Michael Moore. And Michael Moore doesn't have a radio show 5 days a week and/or a radio and a TV show 5 days a week. That's how the righties win--it's all you ever hear or see or read.

Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine, Please...

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was on "Washington Journal" this morning and he gave a rousing defense of the protection of the "people's airwaves" vs. the "free market." He pointed out that broadcasters since the inception of broadcasting have been tasked with public service as well as making a profit on their efforts.

Part of that public service was always seen as providing equal time to differing political points of view. Not time dictated by the vagaries of the market, mind you, but equal time given in the public interest. That was always a part of the requirement in having an FCC license.

However, the Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987. And it gave rise to Rush Limbaugh, who said just today on the radio that his program is entering its 17th year as of last week or so. And Rush begat all the other conservative talkers which of course were popular, as they quickly became more or less the only kind of talkers on the air. And since there was no more Fairness Doctrine to require opposing points of view to be given equal time, the rightwing echo chamber got a lot bigger and a lot louder. That is perhaps the ultimate gift of the Reagan years to the ultra-conservative faction of the Republican party--the gift that keeps on giving.

And the conventional wisdom became that liberal points of view are out of step with most Americans. After all, just sample the programs on the radio--there's no liberal talk show (or very few), one might have argued as that conventional wisdom was being consolidated.

However, that argument is like saying that because people love vapid teen pop, that's all that radio stations will play. The irony of that argument is that if the current radio wasteland situation were reversed and most radio stations played nothing but bebop jazz and those artists were featured in prime time TV shows and written about in glossy magazines available at every checkout stand in America, and only low-power public radio stations played Britney Spears and JoJo, the argument would more than likely would be that radio doesn't play teen pop because people love bebop. So it's all a matter of what people become used to, what their environment looks and sounds like.

FALSE SCARCITY

And what people have become used to is the idea that conservative ideas are mainstream and shared by all real Americans while liberal ideas are all way at the margins and only shared by Commies and child molesters. But the situation that this article on the Fairness Doctrine describes no longer exists:

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated
the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the
abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with
many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer
compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of
deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules,
seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC,
Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness
doctrine.

In the 80s, when cable was a relatively new thing, it may have seemed like there would be as many political opinions as there were cable channels available to the public. We now know that this has not turned out to be the case, as there are now only three major channels devoted to news--Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. And as has been shown in study after study, the overwhelming number of opinion pieces/guests that appear fall under the rubric of conservatism or stand in general agreement with conservative rhetoric (here is a study on the run-up to the Iraq war, and here is an assessment of Election 2000 coverage.)

Consolidation

Why Clinton didn't reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is beyond me, given all the trouble he endured from the deregulated media. In fact, he deregulated it a little more with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the law that has helped Clear Channel (headquartered in Texas physically and ideologically) get its stranglehold on the radio industry.

Bush has deregulated further with current FCC chairman Michael Powell ramming through new rules about media ownership. Even though the rules were rescinded this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, the conservative free-marketeers would still like to see consolidation be allowed.

Whether the kind of consolidation allowed by those overturned rules ever comes to pass, the media are becoming more consolidated through corporate mergers. And that's why I would argue that the "scarcity" problem that supposedly has ceased to exist in the 80s has come back in a different form and that's why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be made law, and the sooner the better.

Meant to write more but again it's late and this computer is acting up...

DEBUNKING THE BUNK ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Bunk #1: John Kerry is a "flip-flopper." Supposed evidence: Voted for $87 billion but then voted against it.

Debunk #1: Read under "Spinning That Vote." Bush threatened to veto the funding for the troops himself if the bill wasn't to his liking. Well, the bill wasn't to Kerry's liking (not because it was funding the troops, but because of the way he would've preferred the funding to happen), so he voted against it.

Bunk #2: John Kerry is a "war criminal." Supposed evidence: Statement on "Meet The Press" in early 70's.

Debunk #2: I've covered this topic twice now, here and here. As usual, his remarks are taken out of context--he never said he or any of his fellow soldiers were war criminals. He pointed the finger at the men at the top, i.e., Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, etc.

Bunk #3: John Kerry is the most liberal Senator. Supposed evidence: The annual report in the National Journal.

Debunk #3: The National Journal actually said that Kerry is pretty moderate, and his "#1 liberal" ranking comes from only one year (2003) of his long Senate career, in which he missed many votes while out campaigning. If he'd made more votes, his votes would have averaged out in such a way that he would not be ranked the top liberal. Same is true of Edwards.

I meant to go further with this, but I need to sleep...

BEYOND PETROLEUM? ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

What is the deal with these constant commercials for BP and ExxonMobil (the one with the teapot)? Is it a response to the super-high gas prices? Is it a pre-emptive strike against proposals to move our energy economy away from oil?

These questions aren't just rhetorical--I really would like to know the answers. They're clearly image-building or image-mending devices. They aren't being used to sell anything but the supposedly environmentally-friendly practices each company has adopted.

The BP spots are particularly fishy. They show what the viewer is meant to assume are just average people on the street giving off-the-cuff, non-scripted answers to questions in the commercials. It's funny though, how each of these average people defend the "oil companies."

And the commercials run multiple times during pundit shows like Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, Lou Dobbs, etc...

I wonder what is going on...companies don't normally spend millions of dollars in ads just to point out how environmentally responsible they are...unless there's a damn good reason...also, let us always remember that the more a claim is repeated, the less likely it is to be true (i.e., "You're watching Fox News--fair and balanced" going into and coming out of what seems like every other commerical break).

RANDOM MUSINGS ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

The Daily Howler is developing important notes of warning to the Democratic party in their series "How To Lose An Election." Today's post was quite good...

Alterman and others pointed out what seems to be a devastating critique of the Bush administration's dishonest rush to war...here's a link to Alterman's summary...I couldn't get the site that has the whole article to come up earlier today...but wait--lo, it hath now come forth...

I was reading in Arianna Huffington's new book "Fanatics And Fools" about a Rumsfeld response to question about why the Iraq war was necessary and his response was something along the lines of "because 3,000 people died." It struck me that maybe that's why the "insurgents" in Iraq are continuing to fight, because by all accounts, so far at least three times as many Iraqis have been killed.

Savage Weiner

And Michael Savage was bloviating on Monday about how Americans shouldn't be upset because not quite 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq. He pointed out that the Russians lost 400,000 men trying to take Berlin after bombing raids had already reduced the city to rubble. He went on to say that we should be instilling "murder" in our fighting men.

I don't see how such cretinous statements don't make his listeners sick to their stomachs. I'm all for his right to say such things, but I can't believe he still has an audience after constantly spewing such poison. I call his remarks poison because first of all, they are devoid of any sympathy for the families of the soldiers. Second of all, his argument is just outrageous--he's implying that we shouldn't try to stop the fighting because not enough people have yet been killed for it to be truly horrible.

But I guess he fails to understand the lesson of Berlin and Verdun and on and on. And that lesson is that the killing shouldn't even begin, much less be allowed to go on until almost a half million (or more) people have to die.

He and his ilk are the true anti-Americans, because they want more of us to die...

RUSH LIMBAUGH'S FAT HEAD MAY EXPLODE... a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

...if he were to read and grasp this piece by Michael Kinsley. And I wish he would do just that.

Well, well...you know how the Republi-fascist pundits are always screaming about how some stupid detail of some insignificant story "isn't reported in the media" even as they, members of the media, are reporting it? That's what this Kinsley piece is, except that it is being reported in the media, namely the Washington Post. But it hasn't so far been played as far and wide as say, the totally unexpected news that that Hacking guy lived up to his name with his wife (allegedly).

Because the money quote in this story completely turns the Republican claims of the last 20 (more or less) years on their ear: "...higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans."

The question is, which would most people prefer if these findings were widely publicized? Logic would dictate the Democrat, but since most Americans are not logical (particularly the superstitious religious ones), they'll vote for Bush against their own self-interest. Because he thinks God speaks to him. And I guess they just want lower taxes for their own sake. I mean, as long as taxes are low, I guess they couldn't give a good goddamn about higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation, or any of that crap--high taxes are unamerican. And by gum, if George W. Bush, The Chosen One, says something, like say, tax cuts create jobs, then it becomes true, even if it wasn't true before he said. You see, not only is he Our Exalted War President, he is also Commander In Chief Of Magic.


And one more thing...

And the Conceptual Guerilla has been pointing all this out for quite some time, I must say...it is nice for someone with Kinsley's name recognition to point it out, though...

And this blog entry was written under the influence of "Agharta"...some of the Miles fusion stuff leaves me cold, but if you just let it wash over you, it's very nice...

LET'S PLAY SPOT THAT TALKING POINT ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

And the Republican't post-convention talking point is: Kerry doesn't want to talk about the last 20 years he spent in the Senate!!!!

People I heard say it with my own ears: Gingrich, Savage, Limbaugh, Zell "Treason" Miller, Matt Dowd (on the same program as Gingrich), and a couple other Bush operatives whose names escape me...

At least Kerry was in the Senate and not out failing in business and executing mentally retarded people...OUCH!!!And his resume as president is nothing to be proud of...POW!!!

A Man After My Own Heart

Old news but new news to me...Chris Wallace on Fox News brought up Edwards' addiction to diet soda...hey, I have that too!! He really is a man of the people...and used the best information available to himself and the world at the time, even though it may now be considered by some to be "junk science"...

LEFTOVER CRACK ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

Now here is some provocative, political punk rock.  I found myself agreeing with a lot of the things they had to say, which you can get an idea of from the song titles, like "Clear Channel (Fuck Off)," "Life Is Pain," and even the album's title "Fuck World Trade." But the song "One Dead Cop" is where I have to take exception--it exhorts listeners to "Kill Cops..."

Granted, you can barely understand it as it's being sung, but it's right there in the lyric sheet. I do agree with them that the police are "protecting the money and out serving the state/crushing the people with the laws they create" (from the song "Gang Control"). But I can't agree with killing anyone, cops or criminals. Unless maybe the cops are the criminals and they won't be deterred any other way.

I don't know--I really found myself questioning my beliefs as I listened to the album. Leftover Crack really has some extreme left-wing politics, which I like, but I guess what makes me uncomfortable are the methods of bringing their politics to fruition that they advocate.

For example, I can relate to the sentiment of "Burn Them Prisons." It is very much of a piece with that favorite Eugene Debs quote of Kurt Vonnegut's:

"While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

 

But the lyrics of the song are "We'll bomb the police state/assassinate the magistrate/we'll go to every town and burn them fuckin' prisons down." Again with the killing.

And of course, the closest analogue to Leftover Crack that I'm familiar with is the Dead Kennedys (I understand they're very much like Crass also, but I'm not very well-versed in their stuff at all). The thing is, the DKs seemed to use much more hyperbole and satire ("Kill The Poor", etc.). Their lyrics were over the top politically, so you got their point, but they seemed less radical (by which I mean they didn't advocate killing people--I mean, they didn't like the cops, but they never said that cops should be killed--to my knowledge) than Leftover Crack.

That's why I'm kind of thrown off a little bit by Leftover Crack. There's not really any humor to speak of--maybe in "Rock The 40 oz." But if that's humor, it's slight and nonexistent for all practical purposes. Really, there's nothing reassuring about Leftover Crack, like I always kind of felt there was with Dead Kennedys, Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Minutemen, etc.

Life is all blackness and hopelessness and the only way out of it is to kill cops, they seem to be saying. I generally would agree with the first part, but I have to take exception to the second part. That's one of the main problems with society, is that everyone is always trying to solve problems with violence.

Obligatory Michael Moore Section

It reminds me of one of the best Michael Moore ideas--I believe it's from "Downsize This." I can't remember exactly how he set it up, but it was something like an open letter to Arafat, in which Moore basically sympathizes with the Palestinian people. But he points out that the Palestinians cede the moral high ground with their suicide bombings.

So Moore asks Arafat in the letter if he's not familiar with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. He points out that they got what they wanted through nonviolence. He even goes on to say that war can and often has fallen short of helping nations achieve what they want, but he points out that nonviolent protest has never failed.

Back To Crack

So anyway, in any event, I wouldn't sit around and listen to Leftover Crack for pleasure. But I do think that they have an important, and desirable, anti-corporate message. I just wish they wouldn't talk about killing cops. I might just be missing the wink (hey, could someone start using that for someone who doesn't get something that's tongue-in-cheek)--you know, like maybe they're going "wink, wink, we don't actually mean for anyone to actually kill cops, we're just expressing the outrage of the oppressed in extreme terms." And that very well may be the case.

I would sit around and listen to Chumbawamba's new album "Un" for pleasure, though. They're basically just as lefty as Leftover Crack, but they're even more subversive because their songs are so pleasant and catchy, yet so crafty and just-subtle-enough that the message seeps into the brain of the unsuspecting listener bopping to the beat. And Chumbawamba's got a sense of humor about it.

And that's not to say that the literal plundering of the world and the literal sacrifice of the good of the world's people for higher profits by corporations is in any way funny. But what a coup (pun intended) to turn public opinion against such things with the cold, hard truth and a belly laugh now and again. Because we're all going to die, so why not have a chuckle once in a while?

CONTEXT COUNTS, PART THE SECOND ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...
 
Just played a gig in Memphis at the Blue Monkey with Tucson Simpson (who were super nice and a great band), so spent Monday driving back and didn't read Raimondo's Monday column, "Do We Want A War Criminal As President?" until today.  I guess my "Context Counts" entry didn't change the national debate on Kerry's status as a war criminal.

Well, anyhoo, I had to respond, so here's my letter to antiwar.com's Backtalk section.

Dear Antiwar.com,

I look forward to reading Justin Raimondo's column every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.  I find antiwar.com to be an invaluable resource for countering the pro-war misinformation that taints other outlets.  I truly appreciate the fact that Raimondo's columns always challenge conventional wisdom, are exquisitely sourced, and display a level of acrid wit  and non-conformist intellectual honesty unmatched by few pundits.

Having said that, I don't always agree with Raimondo and sometimes take great exception to what he has to say.  His column of July 26 ("Do We Want A War Criminal As President?") is one of those.  In particular, he links to an mp3 of John Kerry supposedly admitting to "war crimes" in Vietnam.  The problem is that Raimondo, like the most of the rest of the media, quotes Kerry incompletely, missing the point of his remarks entirely.

The mp3 quotes Kerry thusly:

"I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.   All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions..."

But the key second part of that last sentence is cut off--here's the full sentence (these quotes can be found here): " All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." 

 

And then the rest that always gets left out in discussion of these particular remarks of Kerry's: "And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Raimondo's column mischaracterizes what Kerry said about himself when Raimondo says "listen here as he [Kerry] confesses to what he himself describes as 'war crimes'."  Did Raimondo even listen to the clip?  Kerry never once utters the phrase "war crimes" or "war criminal" in reference to himself or anyone else--in that particular clip.  As you can see, he does eventually get around to accusing people like Johnson, Nixon, and McNamara of being war criminals--but not by name.

Now Kerry did refer to committing "atrocities," but that is not what Raimondo says he said.  Are "atrocities" the same thing as "war crimes"?  Maybe so or maybe not,  but either way, that's not what Kerry said in the mp3 Raimondo linked to.  And it's not in the mp3 because it's not what Kerry said back in 1971.

The point is that Kerry was explaining out how the Vietnam War itself was a crime which forced all who took part in it to be criminals because of the rules of engagement put in place by our government.  And he had the intellectual and moral honesty to acknowledge his own role in those events.  And then he had the intellectual and moral courage to try to atone for that role by helping (and I might add, succeeding) to bring an end to that tragic conflict.   Long story short, the fair way to interpret Kerry's remarks is that he was saying that anyone who fought in Vietnam committed atrocities--be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, or what have you.

I would think that John Kerry, of all people, might be treated to a tough yet fair-minded critique by Justin Raimondo, seeing as how he actually fought in a war and then worked to stop that same war.  That people now selectively use Kerry's words and treat them as though they mean the opposite of what they actually say is something that I would think Raimondo would be vigorously against.  He's howled in more than one column about how he's been misquoted and misinterpreted.

Kerry has not taken an antiwar position, and I wish he would, but I am afraid that if he does, he will lose.  And if Kerry loses, Bush wins and the country loses.  Like it or not, there are only two real choices in this election--Bush or Kerry.  I wish that were not so and I would work to see more parties built up and injected into the national debate--that's the main reason I voted for Nader in 2000 (Gore had no chance in my home state of Mississippi).

I hope Raimondo will keep up the good work.  Our country needs him, but it needs him to be accurate.  And to answer his question--no, we don't want a war criminal as president--we're in the process of trying to throw one out of the White House.

 

 

A THEOLOGY LESSON ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

If Bush wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage," he should be proposing a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce. After all, here's what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had to say about divorce:

"Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery." Mark 10

Sounds to me like Rush Limbaugh is an adulterer a few times over. So is Newt Gingrich. So is John Kerry, for that matter. And adultery is a sin--it's in the mothergrabbin' Ten Commandments, for the love of Pete.

How many times did Jesus mention homosexuality? NONE!!!

Case closed--this amendment will never pass, it's vile and purely political gamesmanship. Bush is a terrible president, the radical right is un-American, hateful, and both are about to get a major smackdown come November.

Being gay does not destroy society; gay marriage does not destroy society. There is absolutely no proof of that. But many studies have shown that the outrageous divorce rate in America is having an enormously negative effect on our society.

"Truth is not the secret of a few..." Lawrence Ferlinghetti

3 QUICK THINGS ...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

1. Election postponement/cancellation:
Unnecessary, ill-advised, and scary as piss...it's as though Bush is begging to be impeached right away so as to keep something like this from happening before we can do anything about it. I mean, come on, if there's a terrorist attack in a major city or even several major cities, that shouldn't stop the rest of the country from voting. On 9/11, we down here in Mississippi went about our lives pretty much as usual but kept a close eye on goings-on up north.

Also, on that point, if Tom Ridge and his boys are able to detect "chatter" from terrorists, why can't they locate the terrorists? I mean, if they know their whereabouts enough to know where to listen for them, why can't they catch them? Do they not want to catch them? Are the terrorists and their vague threats useful to Ridge and Bush so that, maybe, I don't know, a terrorist attack could be faked, the election postponed, and then Bush automatically gets four more years since there's no way he'll be re-elected without such a scenario or something similar.

2. Stem-cell research:
This is a no-brainer--it should be legal. It promises to be the most significant advance in health care in a very long time if not ever. And Orrin Hatch was just on Hardball (this should be where the transcript will appear) condemning Ron Reagan Jr. and the Democrats for "politicizing" the issue. Bush politicized it almost 3 years ago when he issued an executive order against it. Does Orrin Hatch (on skis) really expect any citizen with half a brain that he is against politicizing issues?

3. Gay marriage:
I think John Kerry and John Edwards ought to run on a campaign of adding a constitutional amendment of outlawing divorce. If anything is ruining families and hurting our society, it's divorce. I mean, even Jesus said that if you divorce someone and then have sex with another person, it's adultery. Gay marriage hurts no one. Again, on Hardball, Chris Matthews was suggesting that homosexuals are more promiscuous than straight people and Orrin "Don't politicize anything" Hatch does nothing to counter that impression. Straight people are pretty damn promiscuous, too. And Hatch kept saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to "impose" their values on society, implying that it's okay with him if straights impose their values on gays. And he thinks that because a majority of Americans in a certain poll said that they disapprove of gay marriage, that's all the authority anyone needs to disallow it. But people's opinions about an issue aren't what should make our laws--what should form the basis of our laws is that which is fair and decent to all citizens.

Oh, and in a speech today, Bush said that invading Iraq was right even without the presence of WMD because he didn't want to run the risk of Saddam aiding terrorists. So, as my wife pointed out, he'd rather go after someone who might help terrorists and who was not himself a terrorist (to the U.S.anyway) rather than tracking down the known terrorists who attacked us. What a chump.

Not only that, but it looks the Filipinos are more humanitarian than we are. I guess maybe some of that "Christianizin'" we did about a hundred years ago paid off...what happened to us? We send people over to foreign countries to die for lies, then don't negotiate even though lives could be saved...

MY WHITE ASS CAN BE PRESIDENT...a vote for Bush is a vote against yourself...

G.(ee) W.(hiz) Bush, master of timing and put-downs, implied that John Edwards pales in comparison to Dick Cheney in terms of experience when Bush was asked what of thought of Kerry's VP choice. What Bush said was, "Dick Cheney can be president."

Bush's razor-sharp wit and biting, incisive commentary save the day! Except for two things: 1) Dick Cheney is the president, and 2) my white ass or anyone's white or black or brown or red ass can be president under the following circumstances:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

That is of course, from the U.S. Constitution, which I realize is a document that Bush and his pals don't take too seriously. But under those guidelines, not only could John Edwards be president, but I could be president. My wife could be president. My dog Skeeter could be president (in people years--oh wait, the language does say you have to be something called a "person").

Check This Out
Here's something interesting that I just discovered--if you go to Google and type in "bushcheney04" and then click on the first entry, it takes you to johnkerry.com!!! I looked up Bush's site so I could find out for sure what his experience was before he was installed as president by those goddamn activist judges he and his buddies hate so much. Apparently his only qualifications were two terms as governor of Texas, and he only served half of the second term even though he lost the presidential election in 2000 but again, was installed in the White House by the Supreme Court.


If I Were...
If I were a nationally known news personality, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity might be inclined to say "Look at this liberal bastard--he's helping to perpetuate the lie that Bush lost the election and only came to power through the partisan machinations of the Supreme Court." And they would be right about everything except the part about all that being a lie.

The only reason that George Bush is president right now is that even though Gore undisputedly won the majority of the popular vote, that majority did not take to the streets or storm the White House in order to morally or physically prevent him from taking the oath of office. Why? Because liberals and Democrats believe in law and order and in the orderly transfer of power, even if it doesn't seem quite right. Hey, no one can win all the time.

But as Buzzflash points out in this news analysis, the Bushies don't believe that and will stop at nothing to win elections. Let's not forget the the redistricting fiascos in Texas (nice summary and then final outcome)and Colorado (nice summary and final outcome). In fact, a sentence in the Washington Post article about Colorado from last year says it very well: "According to experts in the field, there is no precedent in modern U.S. politics for what the Texas and Colorado Republicans did." That applies generally to most hardcore Republicans--they like to violate precedents and pretend that the generally perceived understandings and unlegislated traditions (i.e., redistricting only once a decade instead of every time the balance of power changes) that keep our government somewhat in check don't exist. For example, they think nothing of handing out the largest tax cuts in history to the wealthiest citizens while waging an illegal, unprovoked war after losing an election and having been installed by the unelected Supreme Court (the conservapundits always love to point out that the Supreme Court and federal judges in general are not elected).

Bush Can't Win Legitimately--He Didn't Last Time
But, not to worry, because there is no way John Kerry will lose this election--the only chance Bush has is to cheat like last time. Kerry is the most qualified, the most dignified, the richest, the most benevolent, and the most rockin' candidate. In fact, I'm glad Kerry pointed out that of the two tickets, he and Edwards have the best hair. That means Kerry learned something from the 2000 election--and that is that substance means nothing to the American media, but image means everything to them. That remark showed he has a sense of humor and also that Dick Cheney is mean, fat and bald. And that he drinks orphaned children's blood from the hollowed out skulls of "liberated" Iraqis. And using Cheney's own standards of proof (fifth paragraph), what I just said must be true, because it has never been proven...or disproven.

IF YOU WANT BLOOD (YOU GOT IT)...a vote for bush is a vote against yourself...

Now the battle is joined...Kerry and Edwards. I'm glad on just last names alone that the choice is Edwards and not Gephardt or Vilsack. Those last two names are sort of anatomical and would probably be played upon--Dick has "heart" and will give heart trouble to Dick Cheney, and Vilsack would probably become "Vilnutsack" in graffiti.

I'd pontificate more, but what can you say? A Kerry-Edwards ticket is badass. Beats Bush-Cheney any day of the week, just like Gore-Lieberman beat it last time. And I'll say it again--I believe there is no way that Bush can legitimately win this election. He may end up "winning," but it won't be because he actually got the most votes. The only way Bush can win is if he gets his daddy's powerful friends to help him like last time.

At any rate, my fantasy is that the new campaign theme song for Kerry-Edwards would be AC/DC's "If You Want Blood (You Got It)," directed of course, at the Republican attack machine. Because we want them to bleed for us...in the metaphorical sense, of course. Maybe Audioslave or some other American band with a good shrieker could do a version. But in the meantime, "I Won't Back Down" will work.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11--PROPAGANDA?

And by the way, is Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda or truth? I only ask because that is swiftly becoming the story line accepted/parroted by mainstream commercial journalists/pundits without much if any evidence to back that up. What the hell is propaganda anyway? An interesting website on the matter is here.

No one can agree on what propaganda is, but everyone seems to agree it's bad. Or maybe everyone could agree that propaganda is relative--it's whatever I think is true but you think is false and vice versa. It seems that a lot of people think of propaganda as being untrue and dishonest, but if you go by the defintion at dictionary.com, which says:

Prop·a·gan·da
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

That's a very non-judgmental definition and describes the actions of both Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. So I guess Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda, but only to the degree that the programs of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are.


Q:TRIAL LAWYERS--SPAWN OF SATAN OR DEFENDERS OF THE LITTLE GUY AGAINST THE CORPORATE GREED MONGERS?

A: Defenders of the little guy against the corporate greedmongers that have been after the working people in this country since they first came into being. So Haley Barbour and Ed Gillespie and Governor Bush (George W., not Jeb--well, Jeb too, but I'm trying to make a jab at George W.'s unelected status) need to cool it with the tort reform talk.

Better a trial lawyer in the White House than a heart-attack-prone, foul-mouthed, war pig oilman. Yes, we're talking about he whose dick is in chains...

Oh, and one last thing...why is it OK in crazy Republican philosophy to be a billionaire if you're a dirty, underhanded CEO but it's an affront to voters if you married into money? The old line on Kerry was that he was a conniving sack of shit for marrying a fantastically wealthy heiress, and the new one that Beck and Limbaugh tried out today was that "Kerry is a billionaire." No comment or anything, just saying that Kerry is a billionaire, and therefore a sack of shit. Because he wants to be president instead of a labor-exploiting, exorbitant-salary-making CEO.

OK, this is the real last, brief thing...McCain had a chance to do something extraordinary by running with Kerry and turned it down to shill for the guy who cut him off at the knees in the 2000 primary. Is this the kind of thing that vast life experience brings you to? McCain is a war hero, he survived the Hanoi Hilton, and he's served in government for years. He gets an opportunity to really make a difference and stick it to Bush, and he ends up being Bush's warm-up act?

It reminds me of my father, who has a Ph.D in thermodynamics, has visited Europe and Africa, has worked with and taught people from all over the world, and who is one hell of an intelligent guy. He was liberal through my childhood and a lot of my youth, but admitted to me in 2000 that he's become a single-issue voter and that his single issue is abortion. I'm flabbergasted that after all that experience over 60-odd years, his mind closes. It closes rather than opens. His vote hinges on one issue that doesn't even affect him directly. If McCain and my dad are examples of what happens to a person once they accumulated years of experience and knowledge, then...that sucks!

My wife gave me a quote today from Tolstoy that kind of summarizes this situation:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

BECOME THE MEDIA...a vote for bush is a vote against yourself...

Today Rush Limbaugh poo-pooed the idea of "the public airwaves." He said that the idea of public ownership of the airwaves is "poppycock." Then he went on to defend the FCC's fines of Howard Stern because of Stern's supposed violation of "decency statutes."

It's so typical of the dittohead mindset that Rush could simultaneously pronounce the public ownership of the airwaves to be null and void while at the same time upholding the right of the trustees of those airwaves to selectively enforce decency standards. What Rush is basically saying is that the airwaves are subject to market forces like any other commodity and that he and his blathering brethren have sewn up the market and the FCC should exist to intimidate and fine their competitors off the dial.

The idea that the airwaves should be subject to market forces culminated in the 1987 repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" by Reagan FCC appointees. Of course, this paved the way for the rise of right-wing radio, discussed here with some good links.

It seems to me that Rush and his hateful, anti-American breed are guilty of the ultimate act of indecency themselves--promoting the pursuit of profit at any cost over the security and well-being of the majority of the American public. They're in favor of "free trade," "tort reform," "family values," etc.--anything that has a pleasant-sounding name but actually serves to diminish the rights and well-being of individuals while strengthening the military-industrial stranglehold on our culture. Oh yeah, and "deregulation" above all else. You know what a good synonym for their definition of "deregulation" is? Feudalism.

These guys try to serve up a big, steaming plate of horseshit to their mostly white, working-class, religious listeners while telling them it's filet mignon. If only these listeners would say "there is some shit I will not eat..."


I thought this story on self-made millionaires dovetailed nicely with this discussion...

LETTERS

By the by, my letter to the editor regarding "Fahrenheit 9/11" was printed in the Hattiesburg American along with another letter in favor of the movie. We both got taken to task by another letter writer. I present all the letters for your amusement below...

We're victims of mind control




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS
Greetings from the mind-controlled state of Mississippi. Michael Moore's politically incorrect movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," opened on 1,000 screens nationwide to rave reviews - only one of which was in Mississippi (the Malco Cinema 10 in Tupelo). If people in South Mississippi want to see the film, they can go to Mobile or New Orleans.

It's interesting to note that the equally controversial "The Passion of the Christ" was shown everywhere in Mississippi; it was thought by many to be anti-Semitic.

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself," said Potter Stewart, former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert R. Regl,

Hattiesburg


Originally published Tuesday, June 29, 2004

OK, then my letter again...

No need to fear 'Fahrenheit 9/11'




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS
Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" should be seen by every voter before the election in November, as it is a brilliant synopsis of what should have been in the major news media since 2000.

Unfortunately, Tupelo is currently the only city in Mississippi where the movie is playing, so I went to see it in New Orleans with my wife and some friends. Why any theater owner or distributor in this area would not want to make some money from this movie is beyond me - the showings in New Orleans were sold out Friday and Saturday (the night we went), and reports are much the same across the country.

The movie is as "fair and balanced" as any Rush Limbaugh broadcast, and it shows the ill effects the Iraq war has had on the Iraqi people as well as the toll it has taken on our country and our brave soldiers.

There is no need to fear "Fahrenheit 9/11" - unless your name is George W. Bush.

Clinton Kirby,

Hattiesburg


Originally published Tuesday, June 29, 2004

And then the brilliant response to both of these letters...

'Fahrenheit' twists truth




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS
It astounds me to think that anyone ("We're victims of mind control," June 29) would find it hard to believe that people are as interested in a far left movie created by Michael Moore as they would be about Jesus Christ and his sacrifice.

Please understand that many people are aware of Michael Moore's poor credibility based on his past. He stated that his` movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," is based on facts, while time after time over the last several days, both liberal and conservative broadcasts have shown how statements and news were taken out of text to present a one-sided documentary.

For example, in the movie, Mr. Moore only inserted a portion of the president's response to a question about terrorism in Israel. Mr. Moore made it appear that the president was talking about Iraq instead of Israel, which completely changed the reasoning of his response.

The only reason Mr. Moore does this is to mislead those who are not educated on current affairs in hopes they will believe this garbage. He hopes to persuade people and turn votes towards the more liberal ticket.

In respect to Mr. Kirby's statement ("No need to fear 'Fahrenheit 9/11'" June 29) about how the movie shows the ill effects the war has taken on Iraq, I just saw the latest poll taken in Iraq that shows 95 percent of the people support the overthrow of the horrible regime.

Mr. Kirby also said the movie was fair and balanced. This movie has already been proven to be so unbalanced that it wobbles.

Please keep in mind that Mr. Moore makes a living by focusing on people who either don't know the facts or would rather ignore them. Don't fall into his trap and let Mr. Moore laugh all the way to the bank with your money.

God bless America and our leaders.

Gary Jackson, Poplarville


Originally published Friday, July 2, 2004

Oh, and one last thing...this blog is now located by Google...if you type in "lefthandedleftist" rather than "left-handed leftist"...

And a fellow blogger has taken notice of the Left-Handed Leftist...