... you check the weather site in the morning and the predicted low temperature for the day is 19 degrees F and the current temperature is 17 and you think it's no big deal.
Then you notice the - sign before the 17.
And you still think it's no big deal.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Why the national Dems are useless
The Democratic Party could've spent the four years after the 2000 election looking in the mirror.
They could've spent it trying to figure out how a race involving a sitting vice-president and a candidate as bad as George W. Bush could possibly have come down to a few hundred votes when it should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to matter.
Or they could've figured out how a state that sent Al Gore to Washington many times, the people that knew him best, voted for his opponent for president.
They could've looked at Ralph Nader's three million vote total and said, "Hey, maybe we ought to be a little less corporate and a little more progressive so we can get those votes back."
The fact that they refused to do so only illustrated the points Nader was trying to make during his 2000 run.
Any entity becomes out of control and corrupt when there's no corrective process. Parties, governments, corporations, people. The Bush administration is a textbook example of this. Only outside forces (smaller parties, independent candidates, checks and balances) can can sufficiently act as that corrective agent.
The fact that the Democrats drifted even further rightward by 2004 by aiding and abetting Bush's war on civil liberties, aggression against Iraq and total surrender to corporate governance, proved not only Nader's points but the relevance of his candidacies.
They still haven't figured out that if they put forward a candidate who will fight corporate control of government, then Nader won't run because his beliefs will be addressed.
Eight years later, too many Democrats are still fixated on smearing Nader for past 'sins' (specifically, giving progressives someone to vote for) instead of trying to advance an agenda that would make his campaign redundant.
If that doesn't illustrate their uselessness, I don't know what does.
They could've spent it trying to figure out how a race involving a sitting vice-president and a candidate as bad as George W. Bush could possibly have come down to a few hundred votes when it should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to matter.
Or they could've figured out how a state that sent Al Gore to Washington many times, the people that knew him best, voted for his opponent for president.
They could've looked at Ralph Nader's three million vote total and said, "Hey, maybe we ought to be a little less corporate and a little more progressive so we can get those votes back."
The fact that they refused to do so only illustrated the points Nader was trying to make during his 2000 run.
Any entity becomes out of control and corrupt when there's no corrective process. Parties, governments, corporations, people. The Bush administration is a textbook example of this. Only outside forces (smaller parties, independent candidates, checks and balances) can can sufficiently act as that corrective agent.
The fact that the Democrats drifted even further rightward by 2004 by aiding and abetting Bush's war on civil liberties, aggression against Iraq and total surrender to corporate governance, proved not only Nader's points but the relevance of his candidacies.
They still haven't figured out that if they put forward a candidate who will fight corporate control of government, then Nader won't run because his beliefs will be addressed.
Eight years later, too many Democrats are still fixated on smearing Nader for past 'sins' (specifically, giving progressives someone to vote for) instead of trying to advance an agenda that would make his campaign redundant.
If that doesn't illustrate their uselessness, I don't know what does.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Manufacturing's race to the bottom
While not a universally negative phenomenon by any stretch, globalization has clearly created a race to the bottom in the manufacturing industry. This isn't exactly old news, this NPR story has a twist, new yet old at the same time.
The signature of the NAFTA "free trade" agreement opened the door for countless American factories to flee to Mexico, where industry wasn't burdened by government regulations demanding terrible things like clean air and fair treatment of workers. Workers in Mexico then got uppity so many factories then fled to other places, including China. But now even the costs of Chinese sweatshops are 'too high' for the sharks so many factories are being moved from China to Vietnam.
I wonder where the factories in Vietnam will move to when workers there start demanding more than two cents a day and the ability to go to the bathroom during work hours.
Note: PBS' NOW program a good dossier about how a provision in NAFTA is being used by corporations to undermine democracy.
The signature of the NAFTA "free trade" agreement opened the door for countless American factories to flee to Mexico, where industry wasn't burdened by government regulations demanding terrible things like clean air and fair treatment of workers. Workers in Mexico then got uppity so many factories then fled to other places, including China. But now even the costs of Chinese sweatshops are 'too high' for the sharks so many factories are being moved from China to Vietnam.
I wonder where the factories in Vietnam will move to when workers there start demanding more than two cents a day and the ability to go to the bathroom during work hours.
Note: PBS' NOW program a good dossier about how a provision in NAFTA is being used by corporations to undermine democracy.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Anti-choice 'Democrats'
I see Ralph Nader is running for president this year.
I originally had a different essay written about this but I changed it. Nevertheless, it feels like the movie Groundhog Day. Nader runs for president again. And the same tired, baseless attacks on him surface again.
He is vain. He is an egomaniac. His ego is out of control because he thinks he's the only one who has solutions for this country.
Hillary isn't power hungry. Obama isn't vain. McCain isn't arrogant. But a man who's devoted his entire life (and nearly all of his earnings) to public service is the devil incarnate.
I'm sorry but in my opinion, the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
Let me say that again: the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
His most unhinged critics are not Republicans, but people who pat themselves on the back for being liberal minded.
Nader is a spoiler. He stole votes from Dems in '00 and '04. He elected George W. Bush.
Most people realize that these are just empty lies. Lies designed to deflect the fact that the Democrats are so pathetic that they lost two elections to a candidate as terrible as George W. Bush.
(And let's be honest: the '00 race should never have been so close as for the Supreme Court to matter.)
There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Nader.
Legitimate criticism includes disagreement with his policies and priorities. Legitimate criticism includes saying he has the same platform as another candidate. Legitimate criticism includes questions about his ability to implement his ideas. I may not agree with such criticisms but I can accept them as fair topics of discussion within a democratic framework.
Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying he shouldn't run. Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying that he's a vote stealer or is hired by Republicans. Basically, attacking his integrity for no other reason than he's running for president.
Votes are never stolen (except perhaps from Diebold machines). They are earned. Anyone who says that Nader or Mike Huckabee or anyone else steals votes from an opponent is telling a bald faced lie. A lie that demeans the very essence of whatever's left of American democracy.
Democracy is too important to trivialize it by turning it into just another sporting event with a point spread. Heck, even sports are not decided on paper. So I don't care one iota if the pundits think he's going to win. It's not up to them to decide. It's up to all of us to decide.
Is he going to affect the election? I certainly hope so. I hope he's going to affect the election by putting a further spotlight on the problem of corporate control of our politicians. I hope he gets enough votes that the Democrats will finally get the message that they need for their own sake to tell their corporate owners to go packing.
I realize this is a long shot. If the Dems refused to get this message after 2000, I'm not sure it'll happen this year. But what other progressive candidate even has this on the agenda?
And if the Democratic Party apparatus doesn't get the message, I hope its members will finally acknowledge the sad reality and leave the party.
Ralph Nader represents a point of view that neither Sens. McCain nor Obama is advocating. He represents a philosophy that's diametrically opposed to Sen. Clinton's. I still might vote for Obama. I'd never pull the lever for McCain or Clinton. But Nader is filling a void and no honest citizen ought to begrudge him that.
If he gets a lot of votes, it's because his ideas are popular. If his ideas don't resonate (or aren't given a chance to), he won't get many votes. So where exactly is this crisis that anti-Nader liberals are bleating on endlessly about?
Some people say Nader is an egomaniac because he's offering people the chance to actually vote for a good candidate. How dare they! I can not express how much I resent it when people attack him (or any other candidate for that matter) for giving people another choice. It offends the core of my very beliefs as an American. How can anyone call themselves a democrat, lowercase d, when they do that? Who the heck do these people think they are to unilaterally decide who should run?
If you don't like him, don't vote for him. If you think someone else is better, then make the case for them. It really is that simple.
I know many good and decent people who won't vote for Nader. If you vote for whomever you honestly think is the best candidate of them ALL, I have no problem with that. I will never reproach anyone for voting their conscience. Just treat me with the same respect.
The problem is that many liberals refuse to do that.
In one of the forums I frequent, I read many obnoxious anti-Nader comments but this one particularly stood out:
Its because of Nader that we have had 8 years of George Bush. I do think the republicans hire him to run each time they see the elections getting close. The democrats should just have him knocked off.I don't blame them for trying to stop him. He knows he can get no where but he will take democrat votes as there are a few loonies out there who will vote for him.
I found this woman's comments incredibly offensive. I've read many anti-Nader comments, some fair if misguided, some irrational and unhinched. But this was one of the most insulting things I've read.
Look at what she said in one short paragraph. Because of the simple fact that he ran for president like thousands of Americans before him and because millions of Americans chose of their own free will to vote for him, she made the following claims:
-Nader is responsible for 8 years of George W. Bush
-Nader is a Republican employee
-Nader should be assassinated and if he were, she would excuse the murderer
-Nader steals votes from Democrats
-Anyone who votes for Nader is a loonie.
That's what infuriates me. The way many liberals attack Nader is in reality an attack against those who support Nader. It's not the fact that they criticize him but the way they criticize him.
What they attack is not his ideas. They don't even talk about his ideas because they agree with most of them and they know in their brains that his beliefs are closer to theirs than any top-level Democrat. What they object to most is the mere fact of his candidacy. His candidacy brings to light the discomfort many of them feel in an increasingly unprogressive, corporate owned Democratic Party. Nader's candidacy forces them to face this unpleasant reality. They can't attack his ideas so they attack the character of a man whose integrity is unimpeachable.
They know he's more right on the ideas than any of the major Democrats so, like some talk radio yapping head, they say his mama wears combat boots.
I should be used to this empty nonsense by now but it still annoys me. The reason why is not so much what they're saying about Nader; it's what they're saying about me. It's what they're trying to do to me. These people are calling me an idiot and a loonie. But more importantly, they're trying to disenfranchise me and every other American citizen who might want to vote for him.
These people are just as anti-choice as the anti-abortionists so many of them condemn.
I'm sorry some liberals have such a visceral objection real democracy but they're just going to have to get over themselves.
I originally had a different essay written about this but I changed it. Nevertheless, it feels like the movie Groundhog Day. Nader runs for president again. And the same tired, baseless attacks on him surface again.
He is vain. He is an egomaniac. His ego is out of control because he thinks he's the only one who has solutions for this country.
Hillary isn't power hungry. Obama isn't vain. McCain isn't arrogant. But a man who's devoted his entire life (and nearly all of his earnings) to public service is the devil incarnate.
I'm sorry but in my opinion, the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
Let me say that again: the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
His most unhinged critics are not Republicans, but people who pat themselves on the back for being liberal minded.
Nader is a spoiler. He stole votes from Dems in '00 and '04. He elected George W. Bush.
Most people realize that these are just empty lies. Lies designed to deflect the fact that the Democrats are so pathetic that they lost two elections to a candidate as terrible as George W. Bush.
(And let's be honest: the '00 race should never have been so close as for the Supreme Court to matter.)
There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Nader.
Legitimate criticism includes disagreement with his policies and priorities. Legitimate criticism includes saying he has the same platform as another candidate. Legitimate criticism includes questions about his ability to implement his ideas. I may not agree with such criticisms but I can accept them as fair topics of discussion within a democratic framework.
Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying he shouldn't run. Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying that he's a vote stealer or is hired by Republicans. Basically, attacking his integrity for no other reason than he's running for president.
Votes are never stolen (except perhaps from Diebold machines). They are earned. Anyone who says that Nader or Mike Huckabee or anyone else steals votes from an opponent is telling a bald faced lie. A lie that demeans the very essence of whatever's left of American democracy.
Democracy is too important to trivialize it by turning it into just another sporting event with a point spread. Heck, even sports are not decided on paper. So I don't care one iota if the pundits think he's going to win. It's not up to them to decide. It's up to all of us to decide.
Is he going to affect the election? I certainly hope so. I hope he's going to affect the election by putting a further spotlight on the problem of corporate control of our politicians. I hope he gets enough votes that the Democrats will finally get the message that they need for their own sake to tell their corporate owners to go packing.
I realize this is a long shot. If the Dems refused to get this message after 2000, I'm not sure it'll happen this year. But what other progressive candidate even has this on the agenda?
And if the Democratic Party apparatus doesn't get the message, I hope its members will finally acknowledge the sad reality and leave the party.
Ralph Nader represents a point of view that neither Sens. McCain nor Obama is advocating. He represents a philosophy that's diametrically opposed to Sen. Clinton's. I still might vote for Obama. I'd never pull the lever for McCain or Clinton. But Nader is filling a void and no honest citizen ought to begrudge him that.
If he gets a lot of votes, it's because his ideas are popular. If his ideas don't resonate (or aren't given a chance to), he won't get many votes. So where exactly is this crisis that anti-Nader liberals are bleating on endlessly about?
Some people say Nader is an egomaniac because he's offering people the chance to actually vote for a good candidate. How dare they! I can not express how much I resent it when people attack him (or any other candidate for that matter) for giving people another choice. It offends the core of my very beliefs as an American. How can anyone call themselves a democrat, lowercase d, when they do that? Who the heck do these people think they are to unilaterally decide who should run?
If you don't like him, don't vote for him. If you think someone else is better, then make the case for them. It really is that simple.
I know many good and decent people who won't vote for Nader. If you vote for whomever you honestly think is the best candidate of them ALL, I have no problem with that. I will never reproach anyone for voting their conscience. Just treat me with the same respect.
The problem is that many liberals refuse to do that.
In one of the forums I frequent, I read many obnoxious anti-Nader comments but this one particularly stood out:
Its because of Nader that we have had 8 years of George Bush. I do think the republicans hire him to run each time they see the elections getting close. The democrats should just have him knocked off.I don't blame them for trying to stop him. He knows he can get no where but he will take democrat votes as there are a few loonies out there who will vote for him.
I found this woman's comments incredibly offensive. I've read many anti-Nader comments, some fair if misguided, some irrational and unhinched. But this was one of the most insulting things I've read.
Look at what she said in one short paragraph. Because of the simple fact that he ran for president like thousands of Americans before him and because millions of Americans chose of their own free will to vote for him, she made the following claims:
-Nader is responsible for 8 years of George W. Bush
-Nader is a Republican employee
-Nader should be assassinated and if he were, she would excuse the murderer
-Nader steals votes from Democrats
-Anyone who votes for Nader is a loonie.
That's what infuriates me. The way many liberals attack Nader is in reality an attack against those who support Nader. It's not the fact that they criticize him but the way they criticize him.
What they attack is not his ideas. They don't even talk about his ideas because they agree with most of them and they know in their brains that his beliefs are closer to theirs than any top-level Democrat. What they object to most is the mere fact of his candidacy. His candidacy brings to light the discomfort many of them feel in an increasingly unprogressive, corporate owned Democratic Party. Nader's candidacy forces them to face this unpleasant reality. They can't attack his ideas so they attack the character of a man whose integrity is unimpeachable.
They know he's more right on the ideas than any of the major Democrats so, like some talk radio yapping head, they say his mama wears combat boots.
I should be used to this empty nonsense by now but it still annoys me. The reason why is not so much what they're saying about Nader; it's what they're saying about me. It's what they're trying to do to me. These people are calling me an idiot and a loonie. But more importantly, they're trying to disenfranchise me and every other American citizen who might want to vote for him.
These people are just as anti-choice as the anti-abortionists so many of them condemn.
I'm sorry some liberals have such a visceral objection real democracy but they're just going to have to get over themselves.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Most underreported humanitarian stories of 2007
An annual story that I forgot to blog about when it came out...
Around the New Year, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) issued its annual report of the top ten most underreported humanitarian stories. Of course, most humanitarian stories are underreported but this is a list of some of the most important ones.
The ten were...
-Displaced fleeing war in Somalia face humanitarian crisis
-Political and economic turmoil sparks health-care crisis in Zimbabwe
-Drug-resistant tuberculosis spreads as new drugs go untested
-Expanded use of nutrient dense ready-to-use foods crucial for reducing childhood malnutrition
-Civilians increasingly under fire in Sri Lankan conflict
-Conditions worsen in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
-Living precariously in Colombia's conflict zones
-Humanitarian aid restricted in Myanmar (Burma)
-Civilians caught between armed groups in Central African Republic
-As Chechen conflict ebbs, critical humanitarian needs still remain
Note: You can support MSF's excellent work by clicking here.
Around the New Year, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) issued its annual report of the top ten most underreported humanitarian stories. Of course, most humanitarian stories are underreported but this is a list of some of the most important ones.
The ten were...
-Displaced fleeing war in Somalia face humanitarian crisis
-Political and economic turmoil sparks health-care crisis in Zimbabwe
-Drug-resistant tuberculosis spreads as new drugs go untested
-Expanded use of nutrient dense ready-to-use foods crucial for reducing childhood malnutrition
-Civilians increasingly under fire in Sri Lankan conflict
-Conditions worsen in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
-Living precariously in Colombia's conflict zones
-Humanitarian aid restricted in Myanmar (Burma)
-Civilians caught between armed groups in Central African Republic
-As Chechen conflict ebbs, critical humanitarian needs still remain
Note: You can support MSF's excellent work by clicking here.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Serbs gone wild!
Serbian mobs in the capital Belgrade attacked embassies of the United States, Croatia and other countries that recognized the independence of the new Republic of Kosovo.
Now, Serbs are implementing a plan to sabotage Kosovo into submission.
This is the same Serbia that executed a mini-genocide in Kosovo in the late 1990s.
It's a mystery why Kosovars wouldn't want to remain part of such a beacon of civilization.
Now, Serbs are implementing a plan to sabotage Kosovo into submission.
This is the same Serbia that executed a mini-genocide in Kosovo in the late 1990s.
It's a mystery why Kosovars wouldn't want to remain part of such a beacon of civilization.
A tortured sex scandal
Alternet had an extremely unsurprising piece about the twisted priorities of the corporate news media.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain made comments endorsing the use of torture.
But of course, the corporate media felt the public would be best served by the titilating details of an alleged sex scandal involving the Arizona senator several years ago rather than the anti-civilization comments of a man who has a decent chance of becoming our next president.
To the corporate media, I say thanks (yet again) for nothing.
But the reaction to the sex scandal was equally predictable. Republicans hysterically attacked The New York Times for its alleged hit job on McCain. (The right didn't seem to mind when the sex scandals were about Bill Clinton)
Huckabee supporters complained that the article came too late to influence the GOP nominating race. But had The Times released it earlier, it would've been attacked for... influencing the GOP nominating race.
The paper, for its part, claimed that it held on to the story because it wasn't ready until recently. Alternet opined that the daily held the story because it was afraid of conservatives.
Sure the right-wing noise machine is attacking The Times, because that's their raison d'etre. Never mind that the paper endorsed one John McCain for the GOP nomination. But the noise would've been ten times worse had the story been released earlier and somehow energized the impotent Giuliani campaign.
Others believe that the McCain campaign leaked the final details of the story so it would run now.
Some speculate that they wanted this sex story to drown out his pro-torture comments, but I find that highly doubtful. If anything, the pro-torture comments would have solidified his standing among the far right of his party, which has a problem with civilized behavior.
More likely, the rationale for such a leak, if it occurred, was to whip up the conservative persecution complex to gain sympathy (and money) for McCain. Because for as much as the far right may mistrust McCain, there is little that rallies conservatives more than an imagined slight by the 'liberal media.'
Running as a saint martyred by the evil media is a risky strategy, but not unprecedented. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have a campaign without it.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain made comments endorsing the use of torture.
But of course, the corporate media felt the public would be best served by the titilating details of an alleged sex scandal involving the Arizona senator several years ago rather than the anti-civilization comments of a man who has a decent chance of becoming our next president.
To the corporate media, I say thanks (yet again) for nothing.
But the reaction to the sex scandal was equally predictable. Republicans hysterically attacked The New York Times for its alleged hit job on McCain. (The right didn't seem to mind when the sex scandals were about Bill Clinton)
Huckabee supporters complained that the article came too late to influence the GOP nominating race. But had The Times released it earlier, it would've been attacked for... influencing the GOP nominating race.
The paper, for its part, claimed that it held on to the story because it wasn't ready until recently. Alternet opined that the daily held the story because it was afraid of conservatives.
Sure the right-wing noise machine is attacking The Times, because that's their raison d'etre. Never mind that the paper endorsed one John McCain for the GOP nomination. But the noise would've been ten times worse had the story been released earlier and somehow energized the impotent Giuliani campaign.
Others believe that the McCain campaign leaked the final details of the story so it would run now.
Some speculate that they wanted this sex story to drown out his pro-torture comments, but I find that highly doubtful. If anything, the pro-torture comments would have solidified his standing among the far right of his party, which has a problem with civilized behavior.
More likely, the rationale for such a leak, if it occurred, was to whip up the conservative persecution complex to gain sympathy (and money) for McCain. Because for as much as the far right may mistrust McCain, there is little that rallies conservatives more than an imagined slight by the 'liberal media.'
Running as a saint martyred by the evil media is a risky strategy, but not unprecedented. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have a campaign without it.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Crooked Democrats
I wrote earlier about the Democratic [sic] Party's equivalent of the electoral college and the rigged presidential nomination process which may well lead to Sen. Hillary Clinton's undemocratic ascension to the party's top slot.
A few people pooh-poohed me as being paranoid. Republicans play dirty, not the saintly Democrats.
Matt's Totally Biased Commentary has a salient reminder of just how crooked the Democrats can be. Rather than fight a battle of ideas with Ralph Nader, Greens and other alternative forces, the Democrats try to bankrupt them.
A few people pooh-poohed me as being paranoid. Republicans play dirty, not the saintly Democrats.
Matt's Totally Biased Commentary has a salient reminder of just how crooked the Democrats can be. Rather than fight a battle of ideas with Ralph Nader, Greens and other alternative forces, the Democrats try to bankrupt them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)