Sipping from the firehose

CNN.com - Daily blog roundup - Jul 27, 2004

Apparently there's just too much news out there for the big media giants to assign to their cadres of reporters. The answer? Why, exploit the little people! A few, select bloggers (read: not yours truly) have been granted access to the Dems' convention. At first derided as "not real journalists"--and, yes, I believe the spokesmodels reading the "news" from their teleprompters kept a straight face as they read that--bloggers are now fuel for the firehouse of information saturation.

Could it be that we're on the verge of a whole new way of information gathering? A sort of viral spread of vital news previously left only to the powers-that-be. Individually, each blogger is but a speck on the radar scope of information, but collectively their decentralized structure will soon become the tail wagging the dog of society. We can all be Edison Carter twenty minutes into the future.

Mark my words: we are witnessing another societal paradigm shift, greater than the implications of cell phones though somewhat less than that of the Internet. Talk to me a 2-5 years and just try to tell me I was wrong.

Can't leave well enough alone

I just sent this e-mail to my congressman and thought I'd share it with y'all...

---

re: sacbee.com -- Nation -- A push to get Reagan on Rushmore

Dear Congressman Ose,

George Washington, the "Father of Our Country" who turned down being crowned as monarch in deference to what he fought for: democracy...Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of independence and an integral part of the formation of the Constitution...Abraham Lincoln, nobly presided over the bloodiest portion of our nation's history and eliminated slavery in the US...Theodore Roosevelt, the "trust buster" and creator of our National Parks system. These titans of American presidency are enshrined upon Mount Rushmore, one of the modern marvels of the world, and with good cause. But now a you would put environment destroying, union busting, astrology consulting Ronald Reagan, a president with the most convicted cabinet members since Grant, along side these demi-gods of statesmanship?! You've got to be kidding!

What's next, Congressman Ose?

Let's put Jefferson in the boat with Washington as he crosses the Delaware. How about a dog at the feet of Whistler's Mother? Let's change the ending of Death of a Salesman so it's not such a downer. Or maybe we should paint the Washington Monument red, white, and blue? That'd really show how patriotic we are, huh?

What do you say, Congressman? Any other great American works of art you want to "amend"?

Thank goodness you are retiring at the end of this year. Maybe someone who truly understands and appreciates our American heritage will fill your misplaced shoes. But what to do about swarming pork-slingers slavishly lining up to co-sponsor this affront on history and art?

Speak Your Mind, Lose Your Job

Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino

So, ex-Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's ex-squeeze gets the ol' heave ho for stating her support of Michael Moore. Reports say about a quarter of the audience showed their displeasure and turned soccer hooligan ugly. Some demanded their money back. Now, it should be noted that the song that Ronstadt dedicated to Moore was an encore song. In other words, the show was over and she was opting to give the audience a freebie. Okay, granted many encores are planned ahead of time but it can never be assumed that a performer will be called upon to perform one. And, the ticket price is the same with or without encore.

But what is the deal with those mutants on the right? I always hear them complaining about the "left-wing thought police" and how they dare not say anything that is not politically correct for fear of being chided. And yet it is the right wingers who are the first ones to clamp down on anyone who doesn't toe their line. Of course, this is not the only example. Lest we forget:

• in response to Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines telling an audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," several radio stations boycott the Dixie Chicks music.
  
• Whoopi Goldberg's reportedly off-color comments and calling the President* a "cheap thug" and a "liar" at a private fund-raiser for Kerry have lost her a gig with Slim-Fast. Do you think it matters that executives for Unilever, the parent company of Slim-Fast, have donated twice as much money to the Bush campaign as to the Kerry campaign?
  
• the various uproars against Barbra Striesand, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Ted Turner, and on and on and on...
  

And yet, maybe I didn't get the memo but where is the call for a boycott against the works of Ted Nugent, Charleton Heston, Lee Greenwood, Bruce Willis, James Woods, Tom Cruise, Toby Keith, or Dennis Miller? My goodness we even elected Ahnold "Yeah, I said 'girlie man'" Schwarzenegger as governor. (Who, BTW, has proven to be an even greater money-whore than the feckless Gray Davis but the so-called "liberal meda" hasn't really made much hay with that, have they?)

It is the right wingnuts that get their knickers knotted whenever a celebrity speaks out for the left. "We don't pay you to hear your opinions!" And these same people have no problem shellin' out their pennies when the opinions espoused lean to the right. What is it about being a celebrity that should limit one's right to voice an opinion? What jobs require one to submit to censorship? I'm not proposing we have our food service workers opine on the events of the day as they serve our salad. But they are allowed to voice their opinions and we are allowed to listen or ignore them. But to say, "I'll never eat at that Denny's again! Do you know who that waitress voted for?" Get over it!

Okay, so you're saying that the Ronstadt concert is different because it was in the performance of her job that she spoke out? Sorry, but I must disagree. If all you wanted was to hear Ronstadt's music, you could buy a CD. You go to a concert to experience the performer and that means more than just their music. You get to experience a bit of their personality and that can include their politics. No one says you have to like it but you can't say that it's not what you paid for.

More "dangerous" attire

This is a quickie that I started earlier and didn't get around to finishing. Still the links and the theme is there. Fill in the witty prose your own damn selves.


As previously reported on this blog, what you wear can peg you as a threat.

More dangerous than clothing is clothing and words comingled to make an unattractive political statement.

AP: "Trespass Charges Dropped Against Bush Protesters"

There's a bit of a history with dissent wear meeting with the thought police of the right

Canaries of the World - the Akha

This came to me by way of a co-worker. Although it is slightly out of the realm of the intended focus of this blog (Life in the Reign of Bush II), it speaks first hand (or at least, immediately second hand) of some of the global issues facing us as citizens of the world as well as citizens of America.

... FOR PUBLICATION - PLEASE SEND TO YOUR LOCAL PAPER ...

Canaries of the World - the Akha
July 17, 2004 ... Karen Gaia Pitts

They call me Ah-Piew. It could mean 'Hey you' or something less complimentary, but judging from the hugs and tears at the bus station as I see the grandparents off - back to their village to tend to their rice - it must mean something much nicer.

I call them - the Akha hilltribe people and the other tribal and indigenous people - 'the canaries of the world', refering to the old expression, 'canaries in a coal mine'. It is the Akha, along with many other tribal and indigineous peoples, that have a sustainable way of life. The Akha have terraced farms and have been in one location for up to 80 years. It is their simpler life that is sustainable on this planet. Ours, with our modern agriculture (i.e. oil-based fertilizer), and our extensive transportation infrastructure, was built up on a fossil fuel economy. Instead of using our wealth wisely, saving most of it for future generations, we have foolishly spent it until now we are having to wage wars resulting in the deaths of millions of people, to protect what we have become used to - the 'American Way of Life'.

And now it is the Akha and other tribals and indigineous who have become oppressed by those with the wealth and power - their traditional lands and their very culture are being threatened. They are threatened by rich Thais who want their land and their hot springs for mountain retreats; by the government who wants their land to plant pine plantations, to replace the vast teak forests that have all but disappeared from Thailand; and by the border skirmishes between Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand. In other parts of the world, tribal people are pushed off their land when dams are built, or when oil or gold is discovered on their land. The Akha, when moved to other lands, usually inferior lands, cannot feed their families. The women, with their husbands in jail, often have to resort to prostitution just to feed their families.

They are also caught up in the so-called 'war on drugs'. They are near the 'Golden Triangle', where Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand meet, and where gold and drugs have been traded since the British introduced opium to the area in the 1800s. Opium is now a traditional palative for the ailments of old age. Opium users have a place and function in Akha society, but not in Thai society. A large number of Akha men are now in prison for various drug offenses, many without a proper trial, many undergoing beatings or shock treatments as a way of 'rehabilitation'. Last year over 2,000 Akha were killed outright by the Thai police, without a trial.

And then they are also victims of well-meaning (and some not-so-well-meaning) missionaries, who put the Akha children in Christian boarding schools and tell them their language and their culture and their parents are no good. Much like what was done to Native American children during the last centrury.

So now Matthew McDaniel, the champion of the Akha people in the Chiang Rai (Thailand) area has been deported. He had no chance to get his Akha wife, 7 months pregnant, and 3 children, out of the country. That is why I am here, because I believe in what Matthew is doing. I am pushing the paperwork needed to get Ah Chooh (MeeChooh), the mother, and Ah Soh (4), Mee Daw (3), and Ah Tsah (2) on a plane to the U.S. - hopefully a month before the baby comes. There is a serious concern that if the baby is born in a Thai hospital, the mother will be sterilized against her wishes.

The family is delightful, and I am finding it very enjoyable working with them. But it is a strain on Ah Chooh, being run around, getting passports, signatures on this and that. We have been running around working on the details for 10 days now.

And where is the U.S. Consulate or Embassy on this matter? Why aren't they helping? Why aren't the mother and children in the U.S. already? Matthew was deported April 15. Why does it have to be up to an American woman who doesn't know Thai and doesn't know Akha - who knew almost nothing about Thai or American legal procedure - to get this done? And will I get it done in time? And why was it so easy for the American man I met on a songchow (a small pickup truck that serves as a bus) to get his Thai wife into the U.S., yet so hard for Matthew to get his pregnant wife and children there?

Matthew McDaniel is not allowed to come to Thailand to help his family. But he can help the Akha. He is now on his way to Geneva to attend a UN conference on Indiginous People. For more details, see www.akha.org

P.S. We did the ultrasound today and the due date is September 1.

Karen Gaia Pitts

Outsourcing or Out of Your Mind?

sacbee.com -- Opinion -- Daniel Weintruab: Outsourcing is good for America - and California
Below is the text of an email I sent to Daniel Weintruab, columnist for the Sacramento Bee:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well, first of all, I must say that it is a rather brave and unique stance for a columnist for the Sacramento Bee, a paper so often derided for its "glaring liberal bias", to not only support but to call for more outsourcing. And while I appreciate your global view I think you are missing an important caveat that must be considered with every outsourcing proposal: accountability.

I work in the information technology field where outsourcing is a major topic of concern. Furthermore, I work for the State so your piece really piqued my interest. Still, I have to grant that there are some tasks can be successfully outsourced. I'm thinking primarily of help desk phone assistance. As long as the person on the other end of the line knows their subject and can communicate effectively, it does not matter where on the globe that person is. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that those first two hurdles are rarely cleared. But what is lost with poor help desk assistance? Time? Customer satisfaction and loyalty? And, ultimately the customer usually has other resources available online or at their local bookstore.

But what about manufacturing? We saw many mills and jobs drift over our borders due to NAFTA. Economically, I think the jury may still be out on this one, but from a jobs perspective it does not look good. But what of the products made? Has the quality been maintained? Sometimes. Perhaps even often. And when the quality has slipped, who pays the price? Who is accountable? If the company is US-based, there is usually some recourse. However, often the money saved in using third world labor far offsets the complaints of a customer base that has learned to simply shrug and accept what is put before them.

Now let's examine your proposal: outsourcing the DMV (and, I imagine, other governmental functions?). The government, by force of law, requires that we relinquish some very precious confidential information. There must be a bond of the utmost trust between us. What happens when that trust is betrayed? Who is accountable when information that opens wide the door to our entire lives becomes a commodity traded out of identity mills in Indonesia? And what good is accountability once our lives have been stolen?

No, the bond between a government and its citizens is far too intimate to relinquish our secrets to a third party.

Responding to right wing friends

This was forwarded to me by a friend and associate who is far brighter and more knowledgeable than myself. Furthermore, it may be said that he has traces that are like wit, a wit with which he ably responds to his Republican friend. Well, to be fair, the friend is merely forwarding on someone else's argument. But he must share the responsibility for those words (in brown below) as I do for David's (in blue).
(Some personal identifying notations have been removed to protect their privacy.)

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

I have an associate who has the misfortune of being a Republican, though he is a good guy anyway. Recently he sent me a missive and asked me to forward it along. It had a few factual errors and leaps of logic in it which I was kind enough to correct so as to not make my friend look foolish, and now in the spirit of friendship I will respect his request and forward his note.


----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis
To: David
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:25 PM
Subject: Worst president in history? This is real food for thought


Hey David,

I thought you might like this.

Dennis

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his mismanagement of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Worst in history... Don't know about that-but bottom 5.

Let's clear up one point:
President Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Neither did Iraq. However, in focusing on Iraq instead of Afghanistan, he allowed Bin Laden and Al Qaida to get out, reform and regroup. Furthermore, with the way he attacked a sovereign nation who had done nothing to us, he is making it easier for Al Qaida to recruit new terrorists. Because of that, Al Qaida has committed more acts of terrorism and is responsible for more deaths since 9/11 than in the three years leading up to it.
Remember, Bin Laden attacked us. And what did Bush say about him 6 months after the attack? "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. OK, let's look at the "worst" president nominees and "mismanagement"claims.

• FDR led us into World War II.
  
• Germany never attacked us, Japan did.
  
• From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Germany declared war on us within 3 days of the Pearl Harbor attack, before we sent a single troop over there, and in addition they had invaded several of our allies. Not sure how anyone with an understanding of history could compare the two situations.

• Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
  
• North Korea never attacked us.
  
• From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

Korea was a mistake and a disaster to begin with. However, glad you brought it up. Around that same time we had a thing called McCarthyism. A time when the Constitution was thrown out the window and the government was spying on it's citizens and had neighbors spying on each other. It was one of the darkest, most shameful things to occur in America since the abolition of slavery and the massacre of the Indians in the 1800s. One would think we would have learned from history not to repeat it, but then along came John Ashcroft and The Patriot Act. McCarthyism with a fancy name.

• John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
  
• Vietnam never attacked us.
  
• Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
  
• From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Another disaster which will historically harm Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon to boot. And Iraq is looking like another Vietnam. The difference of course is that Vietnam was one of only several tests those three were given. Civil rights, normalizing relations with Russia and China, the Cuban Missile crisis etc. The whole of Iraq can be boiled down to one thing. Bush has only been tested once. We were attacked by Al Qaida. Bush responded by invading the wrong country.

• Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
  
• Bosnia never attacked us.

We did not go to war with Bosnia. We did not send troops over take over the country. Bad analogy.

• Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and he did nothing.

Untrue. It is one of those urban legends that Republicans like to chant (like the Clintons vandalizing the White House), but the reality is that it never happened. Read Richard Clarke's book. Clinton was after Bin Laden for a long time and would have grabbed him if given the opportunity.

• Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
  
• Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

I know, and so did Clinton. However, Republican lies are not the same thing as facts. BTW...9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clintons. No small part of that was that one of the first things Bush did was to cut the anti terrorism budget that had grown 7 fold during the Clinton administration and had Condi Rice take her focus off of Al Qaida (which is where it was under Clinton's watch) and instead focus on Iraq.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

He also responded to the greatest attack on America in the history of the country by sending 11,000 troops over to find someone in a country almost the size of Texas. In so doing, the bad guys got away and are now most likely hiding in a Muslim country with nuclear capabilities. Instead of focusing on Al Qaida, Bush instead invaded a sovereign nation who had neither threatened us, nor had the ability to do so. He gave us a black eye in the Muslim world and is making it a lot easier for Al Qaida to recruit eager people looking to get the USA. As a result, not only is Al Qaida not crippled, but stronger and more active a presence in the world than they were before.

That is what Bush has accomplished.

We have lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

And killed in excess of 10,000 citizens of a country which had not attacked us, not declared war on us, not threatened us, nor were responsible for the death of any Americans.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Your point? Care to look at the numbers? Under Clinton 36 Americans died at the hands of foreign terrorists (and 17 of them were on the Cole which happened just before Bush took over. Bush decided not to pursue the perpetrators.) Under Reagan 535 Americans died at the hands of foreign terrorists. Under Bush, it is over 3,000.
Furthermore, if you break it down further, most of the victims of terrorists in both the Clinton and Reagan administrations occurred abroad. Why are you taking the terrorist attacks that took American's lives abroad under Bush off the table?

Worst president in history?

Sure doesn't appear to be Bush!

No, probably Grant, Harding, and Buchanan. Then Bush.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

• It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
  That was a 51 day operation.

In 51 days, it was over. Over a year after Bush declared victory, American soldiers are still dying over there on pretty much a daily basis. Don't know if you realize that a war isn't over when one country is still fighting and killing occupying forces just because Bush says it is over.

• We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

And what has been found in that time? Since Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell all said that they knew where the WMDs were, why haven't they found them yet?
But if you want to play silly history games, it also took less time than it took Bush to report for his National Guard duty in Alabama. And considerably less time than it took him to come clean about his criminal record.

• It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Relevance?

• It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

In that the votes were not counted, you are correct.

Our military is GREAT!

Damn right. And they deserve better than to be sent into harm's way because Iraq has better targets than Afghanistan.

PASS IT ON.

Gladly!!!<

"Shame, shame, shame"

Watch out for whomever might be reading over your shoulder because the rules only apply to those who aren't "patriotic".

House GOPeons, using tactics once decried by none other than the Veep himself (from back when he was but a lowly Congressman from Wyoming), extended the official 15-minute voting period to more than 30 minutes, or until they had twisted enough arms to swing the vote their way and have kept the Orwellian "Patriot" Act untouched by such annoyances as civil liberties. The White House had threatened to veto any changes to the Patriot Act but Rep. Bernie Sanders, an Independent out of Vermont, thought that before the authorities start fishing around your library internet access records, law enforcement officials should have to go before a regular judge and not some secret court where who-knows-what happens. But during this delay, the Repubilcan whips circulated documents from Ashcroft's Justice Department asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers. That was enough to convince even one of the bill's co-sponsors Zach Wamp, R-Tenn, to change his vote, no matter that moving the proceedings from a secret court to an open one would not delay nor infringe in any way the authorities efforts. If the vote was taken when it should've been the revision would have passed 213-206, but with Wamp's and other GOP members flipping their vote during the extra 23 minutes, the measure was defeated 210-210 (amendments die on a tie vote). In response, the House Democrats started chanting, "Shame, shame, shame".

I agree with Sanders who noted, "I find it ironic that, on an amendment designed to protect American democracy and our constitutional rights, the Republican Leadership in the House had to rig the vote and subvert the democratic process in order to prevail. This was a very sad day for democracy in America.”

ABCNEWS.com : Bush Wins; House Leaves Patriot Act As Is

Coincidence?

Hmm...Presumptive Democratic nominee for president John Kerry names the charismatic John Edwards as his running mate amid the cheers and lauding of Dems from all over. The Repugnicans take a few shots ("He's inexperienced", "He's a trial lawyer") which land nowhere. And what happens next? Why naturally the Administration announces yet another extremely vague yet somehow "credible" terrorist threat perhaps/maybe/probably/your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine aimed at disrupting the upcoming elections. Coincidence?

Okay, so here is your homework assignment: first, divide yourselves up into pairs. The first person is to collect whatever polling data they can tracking Bush the Younger's popularity since 9-11, keeping their sources consistent (compare Zogby to Zogby, ABCnews to ABCnews, or even Fox to Fox) and noting the dates of each significant dip; the second person will chronologically sort all "terrorist threat" announcements from both the Justice Department and the Office of Homeland Security. What do you expect we'll find? I may be wrong but I've got a strong suspicion already.

Moore or Less

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Eh, sometimes. But sometimes you end up aligning yourself with someone you have to continually justify and "explain" your relationship. Such is the case, I believe, with the ubiquitous Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong, he is a wonderful gadfly but let us not be overly eager to embark on every flight of fancy he books for us. To be fair, I've not yet seen F-911 as I am trying to temper my expected glee--at seeing Bush II shown for the feckless facade that he is--with the oft-valid critiques of the film. Here, for example is a credible rundown from Knigh-Ridder which seems balanced in that it props up some of Moore's claims and whittles away at others. Salon.com had a good pair of pro & con pieces as well, but you have to subscribe to view them (although I was able to read them with a temporary "trial" pass).

Given the tenor and mein of the current Bush Regime, we need only lay bare the facts to show them for what they are. When we march to Moore's drum we can get ourselves tripped up in some inconsequential inconsistancies, specious interpretations, and even minor factual errors. These, you can be sure, will be jumped upon by the Republican Noise Machine and they will drown out the truths that must be heard. We must be better than them by taking the moral high ground: honesty. Admit the "errors" in F-911 but stay on message about those truths revealed in the film. Also, we must allow our leaders to respectfully distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore. His cause may be our cause but his presence distracts from our message.

Things that "Reign" True

"My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!"

I would wager that over 90% of people in America over the age of ten are more than passingly familiar with that song. Certainly they would know the first three lines at least, which set up the rhyme at the end. The final and pertinent line of that stanza was made ever more prominent by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s impassioned "I Have a Dream" speech:

And so let freedom ring -- from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring -- from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring -- from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring -- from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring -- from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that.
Let freedom ring -- from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring -- from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring -- from every hill and molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!

But our illustrious president, the most successful C-student in the country, not only flubs his line but does so with indelible ink! You've heard the story, now see the evidence. Okay, so misquoting/misspelling is hardly an impeachable offense but it does speak to just how disconnected and dim this man is. And then all those high-priced flaks in the White House not only miss the error, they unwittingly flaunt it by pushing the image out into the mainstream! Surely not all Republicans are that stupid, are they? I mean, is this really the best they can offer?

No. It's not. But Rove/Bush's scorched earth campaign against McCain in the GOP primaries of '00 crushed that decent man's chances of higher office. And now, mark my words, W will go the way of his daddy: once around the block and then home.