NY Times on Judy Miller

NY Times on Judy Miller

The NYT Judith Miller story is out - and there isn't a whole lot new if you've been following the story. Miller recaps her decision not to testify and to go to jail:

"....other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genuine.

But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify. And she said she felt that if Mr. Libby had wanted her to testify, he would have contacted her directly.

It sounds as if Miller was being uber-protective, and I am concerned as to why she waited so long for special permission from Libby when we could see it was customary, by that time, for at least three other reporters to accept their sources' waivers. Legal pundit Jonathan Turley has said,

Other reporters got the same waiver that she got from the attorneys of Mr. Libby, and they accepted that waiver as they should. It was a valid waiver. She was the only one who refused. Most of us assumed that she was protecting somebody other than Libby. Libby's lawyers said they were floored when they found out that she claiming to protect their client. I think now the evidence indicates that she didn't have to go to jail, which has a lot of people are scratching their heads. [Huffington Post]

Miller told the Times she thought Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, was sending her a message that Libby did not want her to testify. According to Miller's and her attorney's account, Tate was seeking assurances that she would exonerate Libby. Tate called Miller's interpretation "outrageous." [Reuters]

What was this ultra-privileged relationship between Miller and the powerful war planners (including Libby) in the Bush administration? It seems to have surpassed the boundaries of ethical reason, and I'm not the only one who has noticed.

"Everyone admires our paper's willingness to stand behind us and our work, but most people I talk to have been troubled and puzzled by Judy's seeming ability to operate outside of conventional reportorial channels and managerial controls," said Todd S. Purdum, a Washington reporter for The Times."Partly because of that, many people have worried about whether this was the proper fight to fight."

I find Todd's statement to be in line with my own concern about Judith Miller's involvement in all of this - from the lead-up to the Iraq war to the present. Miller's own words tell us she was very careful to protect Dick Cheney:

"My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges," Miller wrote.....She said that in her recent testimony, Fitzgerald ``asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no." [Guardian Unlimited]

To see the Times and some others making a First Amendment heroine out of Miller is what I consider to be a inter-professional knee-jerk reaction. I suspect she was harboring potential criminals, albeit powerful potential criminals, to ensure the status of her future access to the most powerful in government. It's no great 1st Amendment defense of a "whistleblower"...it's a revolting thought..and it's certainly not a clear or glorious 1st Amendment defense example.

"If you want to know one big reason why the mainstream media reported so long and so erroneously about Iraq's weapons capabilities, look to Chalabi, who was the main source for New York Times reporter Judy Miller's horribly inaccurate reporting on the matter. Where the Times goes, the others will follow."

- a quote from William Rivers Pitt

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm....":

The notebook used by New York Times reporter Judith Miller for an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff contained a name virtually identical to covert operative Valerie Plame's, the Times reported on Saturday. [Reuters]

....when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today. [NYT]

Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson, asked what she regretted about the Times' handling of the Miller case, replied simply: "The entire thing." [NYT]

"On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in "A Pretext for War," writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate "exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage.."
..What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

- Frank Rich, NYT - Truthout

Miller's own statement My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room can be read HERE.

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the CIA.

Miller indicates that Libby shifted leak-blame to the CIA:

I recall that Mr. Libby was displeased with what he described as "selective leaking" by the CIA. He told me that the agency was engaged in a "hedging strategy" to protect itself in case no weapons were found in Iraq. "If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged," is how he described the strategy, my notes show.

Curiously, that's the theme of a Bill Kristol Weekly Standard article today. Make the CIA look like the liberal (chortle) bad guys. Kristol seems to have taken it straight out of the Judith Miller playbook. As an American who values truth very highly, I don't want Judith Miller reporting news to me any longer. She coddles neoconservatives, if she is not one herself. They do not deserve the power they've held with the Bush administration.


Powerline Blog clings to a Stephen Hayes tale from the Weekly Standard about the 2004 Senate Intelligence report on WMD, headed up by super-partisan Sen Pat Roberts and released in 2004. Democrats never should have signed on to this report in 2004. See my post "Democrats far too passive on Senate Intelligence investigation."

Once again (as in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion), our Democratic representatives in the Senate are wimping out on us. They're allowing Senator Pat Roberts and his GOP partners on the Intelligence Committee to blame it all on bad intelligence and delay the next phase ("Phase Two"), which will be examining the administration's decision to invade Iraq (using/abusing the bad intelligence). The Senate Democrats "laid the groundwork for their own political defeat" last February when they agreed to delay the second phase of the investigation until after this November's election.

See my post from July 11, 2004: "I still believe Joseph C. Wilson IV:"

It's clear to me that the report will be
[ab]used by the Bush administration to attempt to legally snake out of its culpability in the treasonous outing of Mr. Wilson's wife.....

.....Would the fact that the Bush administration considered Plame's outing a necessity and an "unintentional" and legal consequence fly in the face of common sense? If it does fly, then I assure you..common sense is dead.. and the rule of law is a passe concept...and I am living in some alternative universe....

....The report throws up a smokescreen to make us wonder about Joseph Wilson's honesty in his prior statements about the Niger case, but in the end, the report is not conclusive and we are left to either believe Joseph Wilson's word or not. I tend to believe him over the others who consciously chose to leak his wife's classified identity and for whose motive I believe could have been nothing other than revenge (regardless of Wilson's role)....

.....Just as I believed there was no imminent threat to America all along based on the information I'd personally collected before the Iraq war, I continue to believe Joseph C. Wilson IV. He has my benefit of doubt.. and I hope he'll have yours, dear readers.

Consider the liars and the powers he's up against.

I went through Stephen Hayes' rehashing of events again and could find no mention of Michael Ledeen. From my own posting from this past summer:

Juan Cole has brought up the topic of Michael Ledeen as recently as yesterday. Mr. Cole tells us to check out Katherine Yurica's posting about Michael Ledeen and understand that Scooter Libby was the liaison to the CIA for the network that ran the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon - and this is highly significant to this entire story.

Libby's network was in competition with the CIA and many members wanted to permanently weaken the agency in favor of the Pentagon, since they had much more influence there.

The neocons of the Bush administration included members of our own Vice President's offices (if not the Vice President himself). The facts surrounding the creation of (false) justifications for the Iraq invasion has threatened to literally pour out of multiple leak sources, like a decayed old hose that's ready to burst. Judith Miller is an inextricable cog in the wheel of the tangled web of lies. How could she possibly separate herself when her involvement was incestuous?

Democrats - Keep Poverty Out in Front

Democrats - Keep Poverty Out in Front

I hope that Democrats will not take E.J. Dionne's post-Katrina words lightly:

"....the conservatives have moved the conversation to ideas that go back to Calvin Coolidge's low-tax economics from the 1920s. And they say liberals are the folks with the "old" ideas?If it didn't matter, I'd be inclined to salute the agenda-setting genius of the right wing. But since we need a national conversation on poverty, it's worth considering that conservatives were successful in pushing it back in part because of weaknesses on the liberal side.

Right out of the box, conservatives started blaming the persistent poverty unearthed by Katrina on the failure of "liberal programs." If there was a liberal retort, it didn't get much coverage in the supposedly liberal media. (My emphasis)

It's conservatives, after all, who spent almost a decade touting the genius of the 1996 welfare reform and claiming that because so many people had been driven off the welfare rolls, poverty was no longer a problem.

Risking criticism from those who lean liberal, former Sen. John Edwards came out after Katrina and spoke about one particular connection between poverty and children from fatherless homes - just one of the many social and cultural issues surrounding Poverty. Other Democrats might take Sen Edward's lead and seize the day on the issue of Poverty, speaking frankly, with undiluted conviction, about its social/cultural causes.

***********

Related Note: At Daily Kos, diarist "jasonwhat" is 'digging on' John Edwards' poverty center and 'digging on" Democrats who aren't afraid to stick to their convictions while seeing the big picture...not attacking every Republican move for the sake of the attack. He calls it "the middle ground between the Cindy Sheehans of the world and the Barak Obamas."

On Iraq's Election

Holding a successful election in Iraq today does not equate to "success," other than the success of having no bloodbath incidents. (Hey. Wow.) We can expect isolation of many who speak against the new government (likely seeing them executed.) Measure that against those who view this as just another step toward the "puppet-ization" of Iraq via the U.S. (ie: the many restless Sunnis who voted against the Constitution, knowing it will be passed without their minor representational desire.) In other words, it will not bring the insurgency to an end, and unless we get a hell of a lot more Iraqi troops trained, our troops will continue to be stuck smack dab in the middle of Iraq's civil battles. (Where they've never belonged - and why has it taken over two years to have produced so few trained Iraqi troops?) The Bush adminstration's course has been wrong and when you look at the future of our involvement, it's confusing - nearly meaningless. We're doing much more harm than good by staying after this Constitution is accepted by the people's vote. If we stay on and establish our military bases in Iraq (as we all know is happening), how can we convince the Iraqis interested in their own brand of democracy that they are not our newest playland for our war games in Iraq and Syria? (Here's a clue - we'll never convince them; backlash violence will continue for many, many years; and without the international community behind us and an America whose majority does not support this course, we may well lose the support of surrounding Middle Eastern nations).

Changing domestic policy and changing the course in foreign policy may have to mean changing parties in power. On Iraq, we may have to learn to separate the wheat (a convincing, worthy and attainable goal meant to truly foster democracy and cultural support in Iraq) from the chaff (ie: the many mistakes made by an extremely inept Commander-in-Chief in an unnecessary war of option which has caused thousands of unnecessary deaths).

Bush - Popular with 2%

Bush - Popular with 2%

A whopping 2% of African Americans appreciate the job President Bush is doing in office. At Anonymoses, Rob Urban comments:

1) 45% of white people think he's doing a GOOD job. That's really quite close to a majority. What would it take to constitute a BAD performance? It's just strange.

2) Black voters in America are a distinct group that can often be identified by zip code or neighborhood, and therefore can be disenfranchised in significant enough numbers to swing an election (as seems to have happened in Florida in 2000).

Rob's comments cause me to reflect upon the fact that, by policy, the Bush administration is failing to culturally integrate the poor who are returning to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and it may be a design for the political/electoral security of Republicans. Rather than providing housing vouchers to allow them to move into established neighborhoods with thriving public schools, poor blacks will be set up in trailer parks - isolated from the white community as before. Think about it. Keeping them in one zip code is the perfect opportunity to disenfranchise them when Novembers come.

RNC chair Ken Mehlman recently told the NAACP:

It's so fascinating to me that the leaders of the American civil rights movement drew so much strength and courage from the Old Testament....The prophets of the civil rights movement had much in common with the prophets of the Old Testament. They worried about the country they loved...they sought freedom and justice...and they spoke truth to power.

He's fascinated...mystified...bewitched...spellbound. Why? Is it because the far-right GOP leadership uses the Old Testament only for their gay-bashing and anti-women's rights references? It's obvious, by looking at their domestic policy, that social justice has not crossed their minds in any serious way.

It won't be possible for them to win fair and square next time. Too much damage. They'll have to cheat.

Last year, there was another 2% pointing to a major Bush failure.

Iraq Failures Built-in By War Planners

Iraq Failures Built-in By War Planners
What do we do now?
2006: Time to kick Republicans Who Support and Accept the Current Course in Iraq Out of Office

I have a healthy amount of respect for Andrew Sullivan, but I think that he may be putting too much stock in an alleged letter from al Qaeda that could very well be a fake, using it to reconfirm his opinion about our need to be at war in Iraq.


Iraq was the wrong war, the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. Billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, Bush's carefully choreographed "stick-to-it-ism" on well-rehearsed display yesterday was just another scene from his fairy-play about how he (with God in his ear) The Old Soft Shoehas been destined to reform the world in the great Far Right Christian capitalist's image while unilaterally tilting at the Holy-War-windmills of an evil would-be Caliphate.

Bush may never get this one right. He has not attempted to change his actions to get it right, and he may wind up taking us all down with his stubborn course in the Middle East. About that potentially fake letter from al Qaeda, some see it as just another possible tool for the stagehands of the Bush administration's propaganda-drama (ie: Pull it out when you need a boost):

BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs says, whether this is all genuine, whether Zarqawi ever received the letter, and what impact it might have are not clear. What is clear is that the level of insurgent violence is putting enormous political pressure on the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition at the moment. So the fact that this is brought to light now may not be coincidental, our correspondent says.
-BBC News

Meanwhile, we have President Bush putting our military on a deadly, inept course - practicing suicidal statecraft (in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who avers it's not too late:)

A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation.

Andrew Sullivan says you go to war with the President you have. I have to agree to disagree with Andrew on this one. This President has a vote of total non-confidence from my camp. His propensity for lying, sensationalizing, fear mongering, and exaggerating in order to achieve his administration's political goals has been sadly proven. He flatly refuses to admit glaring errors or to change the course that has needlessly taken almost 2000 American lives and countless Iraqi civilian lives - and promises many more years of laying more lives to waste. If any success is achieved, it will come in spite of the decisions of the civilian leaders who planned so inadequately for our military and caused a "meltdown" of National Guard troops nearing the end of their required service because their loyalty was so badly abused.

This weekend, we will be asked to believe there has been a new victory of independence achieved in Iraq, while in reality we are more than likely sealing the deal to give the "puppet-ization" of the new Iraq a "democratic" face.

- The constitutional process culminating in Saturday's referendum is not a sign of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy taking hold, but rather a consolidation of U.S. influence and control. Whether Iraq's draft constitution is approved or rejected, the decision is likely to make the current situation worse.
-[Phyllis Bennis, Democracy Rising]

- The approval of the current Iraqi constitution could thwart both the intentions of the American occupation and the actions of Islamic holy war. When the constitution is approved and the elections take place according to the deadlines established or after, Iraq will be for all intents and purposes a democracy. This will provide legitimacy for the leaders to exercise full sovereignty over the territory of Iraq, which implies the decision to have no foreign military bases and to nationalize all natural resources. Granted, of course, that the leaders are not elected as puppets to the United States. If they become marionettes, then Iraq will persist is being a disastrous precedent to the "Greater Middle East" project propounded by the Bush administration.
-[Stuart Reigeluth, reviewing a book by Stanford University professor and democracy expert Larry Diamond]

When American citizens cry out "Get it right or get out of Iraq," they are telling you that they no longer hold out any hope that the Bush administration will shift the brutally failing strategy in Iraq and the greater Middle East. Who wants to see thousands more dead, a smattering of public support for such a disaster, no material cultural intervention to support Arab liberals who share the administration's view of radical Islamists, and no promise for meaningful international engagement in the cause?

Bush continues to lead his own narrow version of "America" - which includes only those who agree with him - and that number grows smaller by the day.

I can't help but wonder - how many people out there are sorry that they voted for Bush last November? How can the public put pressure on the Bush administration to change course in its neurotic and doomed-to-fail Middle East policy? Polls don't seem to faze them. Heavy Republican losses in the 2006 elections may be the only way to have any effect. If they can look their constituents in the eye and say they still support the Bush administration's course in Iraq, they deserve to be removed from office.

WaPo's Cohen Trivializes Plamegate

WaPo's Cohen Trivializes Plamegate

Richard Cohen is placing the Washington Post's egregious mistakes in failing to place serious questions about the pre-Iraq War debate on their front pages on some kind of moral and ethical plane with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame. Cohen is presenting a journalistic case meant to demean and dismiss the special investigation of the lead-up to the outing of the CIA agent.

On Plamegate, Cohen is virtually telling the tight-lipped Fitzgerald to "call the whole thing off..." before Cohen (or anyone) has a full understanding of the status of the legal case.

He's telling us we should fugghedabouddit before we know what we're supposed to be fuggheddin'!

I can hardly believe my eyes.

I have no idea what Fitzgerald will do. My own diligent efforts to find out anything have come to naught. Fitzgerald's non-speaking spokesman would not even tell me if his boss is authorized to issue a report, as several members of Congress are now demanding -- although Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, tells me that only a possibly unprecedented court order would permit it. Whatever the case, I pray Fitzgerald is not going to reach for an indictment......If anything good comes out of the Iraq war, it has to be a realization that bad things can happen to good people when the administration -- any administration -- is in sole control of knowledge and those who know the truth are afraid to speak up.

Cohen is trivializing the Plame leak - while accusing Fitzgerald (blindly - as he is not privy to inside information) of bringing trivial charges. It makes no sense. After the Iraq War lies, this Cohen example is the kind of "journalism" I thought we were moving away from. Scooter Libby's lies are intertwined with lies by the Bush administration to the American people about the Iraq War. Richard Cohen may not want to know - or perhaps he's got his panties in a wad because he can't get close enough to the inside on this story - but most Americans would like to know - and have every right to know who's been lying and conspiring against good Americans like Joseph Wilson who called a corrupt administration on one of their lies, only to have them out his wife, a CIA agent. I'd love to see some real, material, meaty indictments come down and end this "business-as-usual" attitude in Washington, D.C. - the attitude that everybody plays dirty, and so jaded are some of these "cocktail-party" journalists that, when a CIA agent's identity is deliberately played with as loose and fast as you can play, it's supposed to make no difference. That's disgusting.

Richard Cohen would rather champion the cause of fellow cocktail-party journalist Judy Miller (who fed us total crap disguised as truthful/credible journalism herself in the lead-up to the Iraq War) than to champion the rule of law. Blechhh! Get me my barf bucket.

Wall Street's Latest Recruit: John Edwards

Wall Street's Latest Recruit: John Edwards

Business Week is reporting that 2004 Democratic candidate for Vice-President John Edwards has joined Fortress Investment Group, where he will serve as a part-time global dealmaker. He will do part-time work as a senior advisor. Business Week reports that, as such, he will be "providing support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global economic issues," [qoted statement from Edwards spokesperson Kim Rubey.]

More from the Triangle Business Journal.

_________

In political news, Sen Edwards went out to show support for the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign hopeful Senator Jon S. Corzine in Newark yesterday.

Mr. Corzine's event, a luncheon at the Theater Square Grill at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, included similar oratory in a more upscale setting. About 150 people paid $1,500 a plate for the luncheon, which was organized by the state's Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee. Senator Corzine did not attend - he had previous engagements farther south, according to his campaign - but several speakers lauded the candidate's efforts. Mr. Edwards said New Jersey would not be able to find a better governor. "I have seen up close, when no one else was looking," he said, "the kind of strength, character and leadership that Jon Corzine possesses."

Sen Edwards has also shown support for NYC mayoral hopeful and fellow Democrat Fernando (Freddy) Ferrer this week in New York.

[Michael Bloomberg's] opponent in the mayoral race, Fernando Ferrer, made campaign appearances over the last two days accompanied by former Senator John Edwards, part of an effort to give his campaign national support, in the face of polls suggesting increasing difficulties for Mr. Ferrer......

.........Mr. Edwards, who became the Democratic vice presidential nominee, delivered a rousing speech on Tuesday before delegates of 1199 S.E.I.U., the powerful health care workers' union, that cast the campaign as part of a national movement aimed at expanding economic opportunities for the poor and the working class.

"It makes our country better and stronger when we lift up and empower those who are struggling every single day," Mr. Edwards said, tying his remarks to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and calling the organized labor movement one of the most powerful antipoverty programs in history. "Nobody understands that better than Freddy Ferrer, right? He has lived it his entire life."

John Edwards is by far the best candidate the Democrats could field in 2008

The Poverty Trap

The Poverty Trap

Detroit editor Keith A Owens describes how poverty becomes a trap. He says:

Like a whole lot of people I’ve had more than a few run-ins with being broke and wondering how I was going to pay the rent, how I was going to keep the lights on, the water on, etc. Even though that’s no fun, I can always fall back on the advantages I had growing up — such as a good education. I also have friends and family who have access to resources. I know a lot of people who know a lot of other people who can tell me where to go or who to see to straighten a particular situation out. Many of these people I’ve met as a direct result of my education and my upbringing....As tough as things have sometimes gotten, I’ve usually — though not always — been able to concoct some sort of patchwork backup plan that could keep me and mine from falling off the edge and into the abyss. I’ve sometimes had to remind myself — and Katrina forced me to — that I still have access to resources that so many of the evacuees never, ever had.

AP writer Anthony Alfieri writes about Our silence in the face of squalor:

More than a century ago, in Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman condemned this peculiar brand of American silence. He wrote: ``I sit and look out upon all the sorrows of the world, and upon all oppression and shame; . . . I observe the slights and degradations cast by arrogant persons upon laborers, the poor, and upon negroes, and the like; . . . All these -- All the meanness and agony without end, I sitting, look out upon, See, hear, and am silent.''

A hundred years of silence is enough.

About This War in Iraq

About This War in Iraq

News

Holy War?
Are we fighting a politically unspoken Holy war in Iraq? The headlines are filled with controversy and speculation.

BBC News - Bush's God controversy stirs press fury

Boston Globe - Seized letter outlines Al Qaeda's long-term goals

al-Qaeda deputy wants a caliphate in Iraq Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman Zawahiri, in a detail letter to Iraq's insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has called upon for creating a caliphate in Iraq and expanding Jihad to neighbouring countries to prevent "secularists and traitors govern us".


Full Transcript Here


Informed Comment -

Khalilzad is trying desperately and hectically now to negotiate some kind of last-minute compromise, while there are more and more US statements (C. Rice recently) taking their distances from the draft constitution. “Divide and rule” is an astute imperial recipe when it serves as a way to keep control over a territory. But when it messes up and leads to the most important part of this territory threatening to acquire autonomy, free itself from the tutelage of the Empire and ally with the latter’s bitterest regional enemy, the result has only one name: it is a disaster.

Opinion

In The New Republic, Joseph Braude speaks about Bush's most recent speech on Iraq, calling for a cultural intervention to support Arab liberals who share the administration's view of radical Islamists. Without it, Bush's logic is hollow and ineffective in the Arab world. Mr. Braude says:

Without this longterm commitment, Bush's speech was merely an ornament to the status quo in the Middle East--easily flipped by entrenched cultural forces that can peddle their take on current events without significant opposition. So easily, in fact, that the most anti-American of the Arab media can do no worse than broadcast such speeches themselves.

IHT - Among jihadis, a rift over suicide attacks (NYT)

University of Wisconsin Student Newspaper - Skeptical of president's logic

Betting on Bloomberg News for Plamegate Scoop

Betting on Bloomberg News for Plamegate Scoop

According to Duncan, Patrick Fitzgerald may be progressing up the chain of indictable legal events - all the way to Dick Cheney? (Rumors are surfacing at Huffington Post and come from Bloomberg News and the WSJ). We'll have to watch Bloomberg's Richard Keil, Catherine Dodge, Jim O'Connell, and Holly Rosenkrantz carefully these next few days. They've done a great job with this story to date.

This is from Raw Story:

There are signs that prosecutors now are looking into contacts between administration officials and journalists that took place much earlier than previously thought, the Wall Street Journal will report Wednesday, RAW STORY can reveal.

Excerpts from the coming story can be seen at the Raw Story link.

Beating Poverty? Conservatives Change the Subject

Beating Poverty? Conservatives Change the Subject

There has been a systematic conservative backlash against social democracy for decades, and Grover Norquist's dream of drowning the remaining memory of Roosevelt's New Deal was chugging along successfully - until Hurricane Katrina threatened to expose the conservative backlash for what it has been. Now the conservatives are saying that Johnson's War on Poverty never worked - without them finishing their own sentence - that they made damned sure that the War on Poverty would not work... from Reagan all the way to Bush 43. And they are still trying.

"We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks [since Hurricane Katrina]," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. "We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening." [San Francisco Chronicle - Conservatives trying to shift debate on Katrina and poverty]

Conservatives have to change the subject - or lose significant ground on their dismantling of the social safety net in America. For example, while most Democrats support the measure to expand Medicaid to cover all the poor who survived Hurricane Katrina, including many adults who did not previously qualify, the Bush administration is strongly opposed, arguing that evacuees would be served faster through more modest changes in existing state programs (that were obviously not adequate and/or not working). See Miserable by Design by Paul Krugman [NYT Select]

Paul Krugman, New York Times: "I'm not sure why the news media haven't made more of the White House role in stalling a bipartisan bill that would have extended Medicaid coverage to all low-income hurricane victims -- some of whom, according to surveys, can't afford much-needed medicine," Times columnist Krugman writes. He adds, "Since the administration is already nickel-and-diming Katrina's victims, it's a good bet that it will do the same with reconstruction -- that is, if reconstruction ever gets started" (Krugman, New York Times Select, 10/10).

See Tax Cuts Are Not the Priority [NYT OpEd]

Bono/U2 raising funds for Santorum!?

Bono/U2 raising funds for Santorum!?

Faith is about a whole lot more than being anti-gay and anti-women's rights. It's easy to find a common bond through faith, but it's dead wrong when you politically support a candidate who uses faith to suppress human freedom and socially ostracize people through political means. If this is true and Bono and U2 are stumping for Rick Santorum, I swear that I will stomp on every U2 CD I've ever owned. They'll lose a lot of influence and respect if they do this. What's next on their schedule? A live appearance on Rush Limbaugh?

UPDATE:
Where the source has no name: CNN failed to report origin of false claim of U2 fund-raiser for Santorum [Media Matters]

On the October 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN correspondent Ali Velshi reported as fact an Internet rumor that the rock band U2 was "set to perform in Philadelphia on Sunday at a $1,000-a-seat fund-raiser for Sen. Rick Santorum's [R-PA] re-election campaign." Velshi's report -- which contained wording similar to that in a false October 10 article on the conservative website NewsMax -- cited a claim by the "organizer of the fund-raiser" that both Santorum and U2 lead singer Bono "have strong religious convictions and are passionate in their beliefs" as an explanation for Bono's "new and perhaps surprising cause." Additionally, in a teaser for the report, anchor Kyra Phillips appeared to parrot NewsMax when she asked, "Why is U2's Bono teaming up with a conservative Republican senator?" Though Velshi later acknowledged that he had been "hoaxed," his retraction did not reference NewsMax, the event's "organizer," or any other possible source for his false report.

Sharing my Daily Om

Sharing my Daily Om
I wanted to share this with you...


credit: syzenart.com

This is the text version of DailyOM
To see it with graphics, click:
http://www.dailyom.com/articles/2005/640.html

October 10, 2005

Overcoming Obstacles
Nothing Is Insurmountable

When our next best course of action seems unclear, any dilemmas we face can appear insurmountable. Yet there is nothing we cannot overcome with time, persistence, focused thought, help, and faith. Whatever the situation or problem, there is always a solution. And if you remember to look within, even as you search around you for the "right" course of action, you will be able to center yourself, clear your mind, and see that nothing has to be impossible.

The first step in overcoming any obstacle is to believe that it can be overcome. Doing so will give you the strength and courage to move through any crisis. The second step is to make a resolution that you can prevail over any chaos. Enlist your support network of family and friends if necessary. The more minds there are to consider a problem, the more solutions can be found. Don't discount ideas just because they seem impractical or "unrealistic," and don't keep searching for the "best" alternative. Often there is no "best" choice, there is only a choice to make so we can begin moving beyond whatever is obstructing our path. At the very least, making a choice, even if isn't the ideal one, can give you a sense of peace before you have to figure out what your next course of action will be.

If you feel overwhelmed by the scope of your troubles, you may want to think of other people who have turned adversity into triumph. We often gain a fresh perspective when we remember others who have overcome larger obstacles. It can be inspiring to hear of their victories, helping us remember that there is always light at the end of every tunnel. It is during our darkest hours that we sometimes need to remind ourselves that we don't have to feel helpless. You have within and around you the resources to find a solution to any problem. And remember that if a solution or choice you make doesn't work, you are always free to try another. Believe that you can get through anything, and you will always prevail.

The Lulu Blooker Prize

The Lulu Blooker Prize

Have you heard about the Lulu Blooker Prize?
What is a "blook," you ask?
A "blook" is defined as a bound and printed book based on either a blog or website — that has been published to date. It's a new stage in the life-cycle of content, if not a new category of content and a new dawn for the book itself.

Here are the rules.
The judges are three wondrous bloggers - (The Real) Paul Jones, Cory Doctorow, and Robin Miller.

The global prize marks the 450th anniversary of Gutenberg's invention of moveable type.

Examples Of Blooks

Like the Internet itself, blooks cover an unlimited subject-range: from 'Salam Pax: The Clandestine Diary of an Ordinary Iraqi' (Grove Press), the eye-witness accounts of the Iraq war by the blogger known as Salam
Pax, and 'Small Pieces Loosely Joined' (Perseus Books), David Weinberger's spiritual interpretation of the Internet, to actor Wil Wheaton's
memoir 'Just a Geek' (O'Reilly), and Jessica Cutler's 'The Washingtonienne' (Hyperion), a novel based on her scandalous blog of the same name. More scandalous still is 'Belle de Jour: The Intimate Adventures Of A London Call Girl, by Anon' (Phoenix), which started life as an infamous blog, describing the life of a north London prostitute, and read by 15,000 a day.

How Blooks Differ From Books

"Blooks differ from books in several ways", says Doctorow.

Blooks, are, for example:

• More Collaborative
Some blooks are written as the product of multiple voices and perspectives, filtered through discussions and feedback from online communities. Chris Anderson (longtail.typepad.com), editor of Wired magazine, is working on a much discussed book called 'The Long Tail' (Hyperion 2006), which he is developing through a series of blog postings, feedback and online discussions.

• Faster
Some books are written and published at great speed. An example is "Katrina and the Lost City of New Orleans" (www.lulu.com/content/167324), a blook just published with the help of Lulu itself. Written in less than ten days by Rod Amis, a journalist and (now former) New Orleans resident, it is the first blook to give an insider account of the New Orleans disaster. It draws heavily on a daily blog written by Amis as the disaster unfolded.

• More Likely To Take A Serial Form
Some blooks, especially those based on online journals or diaries, take a serial form, which harks back to the Victorian heyday of the novel when Dickens and others first published their novels as serials. 'Belle de Jour' is a goodexample.

*After blooks will come flooks - films based on blooks!

The winners will be announced on Monday, April 3, 2006.

The "anawin" and America

The "anawin" and America
by Marvin Read

Anawim is the plural form of an Old Testament Hebrew word which is variously translated as "poor", "afflicted", "humble", or "meek". It is the anawim, "the lost and the forgotten ones", to whom Jesus referred in the beatitudes on The Sermon on the Mount. In both The Great Commandment, and throughout Matthew 25, we are commanded by Jesus to aid our neighbors - to constantly strive to redress the grievances of those who are abandoned or alone, alienated and marginalized, to protect the dignity of the poor and to stand with the oppressed as they attempt to become free of that which oppresses them.

Marvin Read of the Pueblo Chieftain believes that, in a so-called Christian nation, we have shown that our values are "shallow at best; fraudulent at worst" :

We are happy to give tax breaks to those who don't need them and withhold whatever we can from the needy, who, we often assert, "largely have brought this condition on themselves" or "who are too lazy to make it like I did."....

.....It was the anawim who, uncovered by flood waters, were revealed as the forgotten and ignored of New Orleans and the hamlets and towns of the Gulf Coast....

....It's time to ask: "What can I do for those whom Christians ignore, for whom there is so little hope?”

We can start small and effectively.

When we worry about the world's hungry, feed one.

When the homeless poor on our streets discomfort and shame us, shelter one.

When we are aware of people wracked by pain, sorrow and despair, comfort one.

When we are depressed by the lonely, the abused and the imprisoned, love one.

Loving the anawim was the message of one man, 2,000 years ago; it ought be carried forward by an entire "Christian" nation that hopes eventually to have its head and soul screwed on correctly.

These are excerpts - you can read the full text here.

Under Mars

Under Mars

Raw Story is talking about Under Mars, a controversial website which is described as "a really fascinating mix of war gore photos and really beautiful shots." It contains raw images of Iraq, taken by American soldiers.

Take a look at this artistic photo.

Howdy, boys!

No doubt, there's some excellent photography here.

Warning - this one is graphic.

I believe that too much of this commodity has been spilled.

Plamegate: Who lied?

Plamegate: Who lied?

Newsweek says:

"...lawyers close to the case, who asked not to be identified because it's ongoing, say Fitzgerald appears to be focusing in part on discrepancies in testimony between Rove and Time reporter Matt Cooper about their conversation of July 11, 2003."

Somebody lied. Hmmm - would you suspect it would be - - -
Matt Cooper or Karl Rove!?



see: Karl Rove And The Case Of The Missing Email

Joseph Cannon and the Left Coaster resurrect the gay-male-escort ghost of Jeff Gannon, whom I have suspected of blatant unethical behavior all along. (See my post about Gannon and WHIG from last February).

See SusanG's piece at Daily Kos - Gannon To Be Charged Under Espionage Act? with an important correction made by Ron Brynaert about Jeff Gannon's Internal Memo Lie.

Raw Story has a piece on Gannon, too.

See "Rove's Nightmare" by Joe Conason (Salon)

Meet Fred

Meet Fred

Meet Fred Bieling, my new contributor to Syracuse Progressive. A new blogger on the horizon, he says he's not liberal, he's "just paying attention." He's been making conservatives cringe since 1977. Here's an introduction to Fred.

David Brooks on Capitalism, Government, and Poverty

David Brooks on Capitalism, Government, and Poverty

David Brooks is all for the dynamism of capitalism, but not for the type of capitalist leader who'd believe in filtering money to the affluent while ignoring the poverty of many American children. Although I do not think single-parent families are destined to poverty, which is too much of a generalization in light of the the rate of divorce and the diversity in what we call an "average American family" today, I'd find agreement with him when he says:

Like Alexander Hamilton, I love the dynamism of capitalism. And like Alexander Hamilton, that doesn't mean I hate government. I love government when it lifts people up to compete. I hate government only when it stifles competition and coddles. I hated the old welfare system, which pushed its victims away from work. I love welfare reform, which encourages work. I hate government that directs ever more money to the affluent elderly, but I would love a government that gave poor children savings accounts at birth, which would encourage them to think about the future and understand that their destiny is in their own hands.....

When David says...

"....the effort to promote democracy in the Arab world is one of the most difficult and noble endeavors any great power has undertaken."

.........my reply is that noble thoughts and ideas are soon forgotten when our leaders start unnecessary wars, screw up on the planning of those wars, and deliberately mislead their citizens into those wars. The ante was high. The President gambled with his credibility on Iraq and he has lost - miserably. If there is any insurrection to be had, it should be primarily because of what this President has done to the citizens and the military of the nation he's supposed to be leading. I'm with David, though, in the long run. I feel invigorated about the political change that is coming, too.

Bush's 9/11 Spin - NY Times nails it

Bush's 9/11 Spin - NY Times editorial nails it

The president's inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating. For most of us, the memories are fresh and painful. We mourn the people who died on Sept. 11, as we mourn Daniel Pearl and other Americans, not to mention innocents from other countries, who were murdered by terrorists. The administration's penchant for using them as political cover is offensive. It threatens to turn our wounds, and our current fears, into cynical and desperate spin.

President Bush's Major Speech:
Doing the 9/11 Time Warp Again

Democrats: "Third Way" discussions

Democrats: "Third Way" discussions

It seems that all Democrats who subscribe to a Washington D.C.-manufactured "Third Way" agenda should be cautious. If it doesn't come from directly from the grassroots-up, it probably won't be trusted. Political credibility may be very shaky when it comes to the common citizen. Listen to the voices of Democrats out in the media and blogosphere:

David Sirota - The Nation: Debunking Centrism

The Washington Post reports that a group calling itself the "Third Way" (read: "Wrong Way") is forming to tout "centrist" policies for Democrats. Instead of leaving the Beltway and holding a town meeting to gauge the pulse of red America's working-class core, the group held its initial meeting "over dinner at a Georgetown mansion." Instead of engaging in grassroots funding efforts, it is openly relying on corporate contributions.

"The answer to the ideological extremes of the right has to be more than rigid dogma from the left," said Senator Bayh, a leader of the new group and one of Washington's most highly trumpeted "centrists." But really, who is pushing a rigid dogma: these bankrolled politicians who have hijacked "centrism" to sell out America's middle class, or the progressive populists who most often have the backing of the American people?

TPM Cafe:

"The Third Way shows why Democrats need to move to the center on social and national security issues, but it will done with the progressive social activists yelling, kicking and screaming...It just doesn't make any sense for Democrats to just scream louder....Given the current Republican dominance in Washington, it is easy to look at the "New Democrat" era of the Clinton Administration with nostaglia. A more careful and objective look at that time will show it was filled with not only accomplishment but also missed opportunities and failure. We need a Democratic nominee in 2008 that can appeal to the center, but a somewhat different approach than Bill Clinton took while campaigning and in office...."

TPM Cafe:

"...we need to stop fighting each other and start fighting those damn Republicans. Then and only then will we as a united Democratic party will be able to recruit new and old voters, and start winning elections instead of losing them."

The Third Way To Win A Democratic Majority- TPM Cafe

"..I support a consensus nominee in the party who is liked from the liberal, moderate, and even conservative wing in our party. Who could this candidate be?"

John Edwards - Podcast #6

John Edwards - Podcast #6
Listen here

Elizabeth Edwards kicked off the sixth podcast by discussing her hot summer in North Carolina with her children Emma Claire and Jack. They had fun times at the beach, and now the children are back in school.
Daughter Cate is in New York working with Vanity Fair. Elizabeth says that her health is better. She feels as if she has "slain the big dragon" of cancer. The "gargoyles" remain - meaning the side effects of the treatment that "nip at your ankles." She's feeling pretty good, though - and Sen Edwards assures us there's no doubt that she's looking good. ;) You could hear dishwashers and washing machines starting and stopping in the background at the Edwards house in Raleigh during this podcast, but as Elizabeth said, "life has to go on."

"Elizabeth says that her health is better. She feels as if she has "slain the big dragon" of cancer."

Sen Edwards discussed his own ideas in the aftermath of the Gulf coast hurricanes. The first was his idea about a new WPA. Instead of government handing out contracts to companies like Halliburton, he'd like to see the rebuilding of NOLA in a different way, such as citizens rebuilding their own city. People should be enabled to take advantage of opportunity - such as housing vouchers to promote cultural integration (cultural integration is provided where you don't lump poor people together and isolate them from greater society).

"We now have a window of opportunty to do something about poverty in the entire nation, and we shouldn't squander it."

He thinks it's a good idea to help to set up bank accounts for poor people so they can get used to dealing with financial institutions and to have a place to keep their money. Another idea is work bonds to get matching amounts from government to promote savings for poorer Americans. We now have a window of opportunty to do something about poverty in the entire nation, and we shouldn't squander it.

Less than a week ago Edwards was in Moscow on a trip, co-chairing a task force on US/Russia relations for the Council on Foreign Relations. It was a productive trip. He met with Russian leaders, including the recently announced presidential candidate for the 2008 Russian election - former PM Mikhail Kasyanov.
He got a lot of good information about what's happening in Russia, such as anti-democratic maneuvers put in place by Putin - such as government taking over the mass media, the stopping of direct elections of governors, and centralization of the government in the Kremlin which effectively eliminates all political opposition. The potential still exists for democracy in Russia and positive US/Russian relations. The U.S. and Russia still have many common interests such as security, economics, and China - but a significant obstacle is the anti-democratic actions which have been taken by president Putin.

"Crossing Red Square in Moscow, Sen Edwards was impressed and heartened to have Russian citizens stop him in the street to ask how Elizbeth was doing."

Unfortunately, the current trend-line on democracy in Russia is not a positive one.

Crossing Red Square in Moscow, Sen Edwards was impressed and heartened to have Russian citizens stop him in the street to ask how Elizbeth was doing. It made Elizabeth feel great to know that people from a land so far away were so caring.

Fred Hiatt has an October 2nd column in the Washington Post on Russia which Elizabeth recommends. (See "Silent on Putin's Slide - Bush Ignores Russia's Fading Freedom") A quote from the Hiatt column:

"What's striking is that for the first time in decades Russia is becoming less, not more, free, and Bush can't even bring himself to acknowledge what is happening."

Elizabeth thanked everyone who has nominated their favorite book for the One America book club, and a vote will soon be held to choose the overall favorite.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and the Edwards support all activities which will assist fundraising for cancer research.

Questions for the Edwards
(Keep sending in your questions and see the Videoblog at the One America Committee site.)

On the Aftermath of Katrina: Many families have nothing to fall back on and if something goes wrong (such as a family illness or job lay-off), lives of the working poor are severely impacted. With no assets, no safety net or "cushion," many working Americans are one illness or one lay-off away from inescapable poverty. Journalist William Raspberry recently said on CSPAN that the people who've lived in poverty feel they can never escape the cycle which keeps them poor. The word "lucky" doesn't seem to apply to them. Segments of our population live with despair and hopelessness. Too many children live in poverty, and Elizabeth Edwards says that it should be easy to get people interested, motivated, and excited about ideas to bring about changes that could be made to give those children an opportunity to thrive and succeed.

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines: Debbie from Columbus, Ohio asked this question. In November, 2004, she spent two and a half hours in line in order to vote. The news media didn't seem to care about what happened...not even local media. There were three machines, and one was broken.

"Our country allegedly promotes democracy around the world, and that is all the more reason, for the future credibility of the U.S. election system, to avoid the "black-box voting" situation that we had in 2004."

They used to have four. Her friends in Republican Ohio districts had no idea this had happened, because it was never reported in the news. Debbie doesn't trust that her vote was counted. Elizabeth Edwards said that we watched the elections in Iraq with plastic tubs and paper ballots and we understand that no matter how primitive it seemed, there was still a verifiable system of counting the votes. We have a situation here in the States where the citizens do not trust the American voting system because there is no transparency as to how their individual vote is tallied, how it's counted..or whether it's counted at all. That is unacceptable. Our country allegedly promotes democracy around the world, and that is all the more reason, for the future credibility of the U.S. election system, to avoid the "black-box voting" situation that we had in 2004.

On the new Chief Justice of SCOTUS (John Roberts) and the choice of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: This question was from Allison from Granger, Indiana. Sen Edwards knew little about Miers at the time of the podcast. Elizabeth said that Harriet Miers has given money to Democrats in the past, including Al Gore and Lloyd Benson (1988). More recently, she contributed to Republican Phil Gramm (1995-96). She ran for and won a Dallas city council seat. She was paid $19,000 for investigating George W. Bush's National Guard service in preparation for his campaign (2nd gubernatorial run.) There are some interesting posts, including one at Blog Attitude, about Miers' time served as Lottery Commissioner of Texas. All of this may bubble up in time. She's argued that the ABA should not take a position with respect to abortion rights and the federal funding of abortion as a procedural position. She knew there was no chance of the ABA taking a position that opposed federal funding for abortion and/or abortion rights, but by her saying that it was what the ABA shouldn't be doing, we can glean her probable opinion on abortion rights. It's not good news if you support a woman's right to choose, since Sandra Day O'Connor represented the swing vote on Roe v. Wade. John Edwards said we can see a pattern here in the choices made - nominating people who have no record or paper trail and having them give only general replies to pointed questions so we cannot know what they stand for or what they'll do once confirmed. He expects that members of the Judiciary Committe will be tough on making Ms. Miers answer questions because she has even less of a paper trail and/or experience than Roberts. At least Roberts had been a judge for a few years. In the case of Miers, we're unlikely to get 20-year old memos as we were able to get on Roberts. She worked for private interests (Disney, Microsoft, etc). Roberts had academic credentials and excellence, and we cannot expect the same from Harriet Miers. She may be smart, but all the President can say is that her mother is proud of her - and that isn't exactly what you'd call an academic promotion.

The direction in which our country is headed: Elizabeth started by saying that her husband John didn't take PAC money or lobbyist funding when he ran for President. He was not indebted to the special interests in any way. Guys like Jack Abramoff have had the kind of power (tentacles) that they do because they have controlled money filtered through them from corporations - in exchange for favors from Congress. People are sick of politicians who wave with the wind and who willingly deal with "pay to play," as Abramoff and other lobbyists have represented. They want leaders they can trust and who will stand up for what they believe in. Washington D.C. "players" have nothing to do with real Americans' lives (other than keeping good things from happening). Government has to be able to do better. Now that Republicans have been in power for a few years, we see the results of their activities. It's been eye-opening. In 2006, the country will surely vote for change. Lobbyists have been spending as much on the Executive branch (wining and dining the decision-makers there) as they have spent on the legislators of Congress. This is the reason we have no-bid contracts with companies like Halliburton. They have their inroads/tentacles in Homeland Security or other federal agencies, while the local businessmen who could do work for less money are shut out of contract opportunity.

Tune in next month for the next Podcast.

President Edwards

President Edwards

President Edwards

Yep. You read that correctly.



I said President Edwards.


Sen Edwards will participate, along with former President Bill Clinton, in the Abu Dhabi World Leadership Summit on November 15, 2005, which is being promoted as an ultimate gathering of the world's most influential political and business leaders.

Natalie Gott, AP- Potential candidate Edwards remains focused on poverty "...some wonder if the former senator needs to move outside his comfort zone and start talking about other issues -- such as the war in Iraq and rising gas prices -- if he's serious about another bid for the White House."

Caryn Rousseau, AP - Edwards outlines duty to help poor

"..."Americans know that Katrina's victims shouldn't be out there on their own, that no one should be out there on their own," Edwards said Thursday in a speech on poverty at the [University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock]."

Sojourners - Time to End Poverty
You can tell a lot about people by how they treat their neighbors in need by Sen. John Edwards

We know that the Bible tells us the poor will always be with us. Some people hear that as an excuse for inaction. I believe it is a call for us to act and a call for us to serve. My family and my faith didn’t teach me to turn my back on a friend or neighbor in need. They taught me to open the door, let them in, and help them get back on their feet. And millions are calling for help right now. They don’t want a free ride. They just want a chance: a chance to work, buy a home, take care of their family, and live the American dream.

President Edwards

A Tribute to Autumn

A Tribute to Autumn

"October is the month of painted leaves. Their rich glow now flashes round the world. As fruits and leaves and the day itself acquire a bright tint just before they fall, so the year near its setting. October is its sunset sky; November the later twilight."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Anonymoses on the trail
photo by Iddybud

"You like it under the trees in autumn,
Because everything is half dead.
The wind moves like a cripple among the leaves
And repeats words without meaning."

- Wallace Stevens, The Motive for Metaphor

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~


Iddybud.....Anonymoses
*check out our eyeballs!

Come said the wind to
the leaves one day,
Come o'er the meadows
and we will play.
Put on your dresses
scarlet and gold,
For summer is gone
and the days grow cold.

- A Children's Song of the 1880's

~~~~~~~


May you have a beautiful autumn!

Converge South

Converge South


Jay Rosen and Lex Alexander

Converge South. It's happening.
It's what's happening.


Billy the Blogging Poet/Blogsboro.com

Anonymoses links to the coverage on the conference sessions of Herb Everett, Dave Winer, Amanda Congdon and Duncan Black (Atrios) sessions.

Billy Jones has a ballad and some great updates and links.

Photos c/o the awesome Sue Polinsky ;)

Tag: Converge South

Thank You, My Friends

Thank You, My Friends

Billy and all who have expressed their caring - I can't thank you enough. This is the hardest time I've ever had to face. I hope everyone at Converge South has a productive meeting of the minds - and a great time.

John Edwards Invites Young People to Join the Fight Against Poverty

John Edwards Invites Young People to Join the Fight Against Poverty
Cross-posted at One America

"In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have a historic opportunity. The country is hungry for change and we do not have to live in an America that accepts poverty as a fact of life or chooses to ignore it. At so many critical moments in our nation's history, it has been our young people who have made a difference, and that's why I am asking them to join me and their peers in making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation."

Senator John Edwards

From October 17-28th, Senator John Edwards will launch Project Opportunity on a two-week tour to ten colleges and universities. Project Opportunity is a project of the Center for Promise and Opportunity, of which Senator Edwards is the honorary chair.

The goal of Project Opportunity is to get more young people involved in their communities and to encourage them to advocate and promote policies that expand opportunity.

The tour will be making stops at:

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill — October 17
University of Missouri - Columbia — October 18
Yale University — October 19
Harvard University — October 20
Dartmouth College — October 21
University of Texas - Austin — October 24
University of California - Berkeley — October 25
University of Wisconsin - Madison — October 26
Florida A&M University — October 27
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor — October 28

Young people who already care about the issue of poverty are concerned that too many of their peers have given up on public service. Students will be asked to take the Project Opportunity pledge and commit to 20 hours of community service per semester. Local service opportunities will be posted on the Project Opportunity website, providing web-based tools for recruiting friends and tracking service efforts, and providing a forum for students to blog about their experiences and learn from and meet each other.

In order to beat poverty, good policies are necessary. Good people are needed to get good policies put in place. As individuals, many young people understand they can accomplish much, but they realize that corporations, the government, and even the colleges and universities they attend need to do their share. At the encouragement of Senator Edwards, Project Opportunity will press for policy solutions at the local and national level, and work with their own colleges and universities to maximize their impact in the fight against poverty.

So Now We're Back to "It's a Global Campaign"

So Now We're Back to
"It's A Global Campaign"

It's back to "It's a Global Campaign," yet President Bush still hasn't learned how to lead the international community, with his attitude and actions, to understand why it's important to join forces to find a way to convince all people in the world that the murder of innocents will never be civilly acceptable.

Bush invoked 9/11 to begin his major speech on the "War on Terror." The names of myriad countries were invoked next. The ideology of the terrorists was discussed next - along with all the monikers to describe them. He tells us that we stand for democracy and peace. I am convinced of neither after seeing the way we've conducted ourselves in Iraq. Bush says terrorists had "set their sights on Iraq," but that's not tue. Bush brought them there with a rash and ineptly-planned war and a stupid dare to "bring them on." When Bush says that "evil men and ambition must be taken very seriously," I look at him and think about his own ambition and I take him very seriously. He tells us that Syria and Iran share the goal of the terrorists - and I can feel the neocons' influence and I can almost see them typing out their plans for the next unnecessary war and death for our sons and daughters.

Bush condemns Russia for not joining the folly in Iraq, and sends out an "I told ya so" to them after the Beslan tragedy. (What a way to win over the Russkies).

He claims that no act of the US inspired the terrorists' reaction. Complete victory is the only acceptable answer - that brings applause from the audience - yet no one in that audience knows what "complete victory" is supposed to look like.

Bush condemns the rich who prey upon the poor and turn them into terrorists. I look at the poor in America and wonder what will become of them under the Bush rule. (Has he been to the 'hood lately?)

I understand that terrorists murder people in schools and mosques and churches and cafes - and any fool can see that it's murder and that it's heinous. Bush accuses the enemy of using the pretense of aggrievement, when they are really desiring "imperial domination..." and I can easily see that the "enemy" feels exactly the same way about Bush. When Bush talks about the enemy "despising freedom," he loses his credibility with me. Bin Ladenists want the U.S. out of their territories, and it has everything to do with their own view of "freedom."

Bush wants and expects more sacrifice for his failing Iraq venture. He says the love of freedom is the mightiest force. He calls you a "self-defeating pessimist" if you disagree with his failing course. He asks you to blind yourself to reality and pretend we are succeeding. He doesn't talk about the fact that "spreading democracy" is not necessarily related to the fire-like spread of terror. (A terror, mind you, that he has fueled as the result of his course of action in Iraq.)


Bush says we must deny the future of terror-recruits by spreading hope across the Middle East. People, he says, must choose their own destiny. I look at what Bush did (and failed to do) in the aftermath of Katrina and I think of the faces of the poor who never have had an opportunity to choose their own destiny because they've been virtually left behind by Bush's domestic policy. How can Bush expect us to believe the grandiosity of his plot for the Middle East when he fails his own nation's poorest citizens?

Bush says he is responsible, while Commander in Chief, for disrupting three or more efforts to stop terrorist attacks in America. That's news to me. Let's hope someone will tell us more about that someday.

Bush has many right ideas about the evils of the methods employed by the Bin Ladenists - but his ideas about how to fight them (by attacking states - the old "support and harbor"/"enemy of civilization" warnings) are wrong and will continue to follow Iraq's failing course. Murder is never justified.
I was hoping to hear something different today.
Bush is only stumping for new partners to join him in his failing war, which follows a course that neocons plotted out long before 9/11/2001.
Yet, he offers nothing new to convince them.

I don't disagree that terror is murderous, but I am not persuaded, heartened, or convinced about the bleak future by the president whose neocon-soaked administration lied our nation into war in Iraq and was never held accountable - not one person - by the Commander in Chief.

Blair Relays Inconclusive Iran Connection to Iraq

Blair Relays Inconclusive Iran Connection to Iraq

Watch out, people. The key word is "inconclusive." Let us not forget the Downing Street Memos. The M.O. of the neocons in America is to take headlines like these and pull out their "Scooters" to draw up rash and inept war plans for our sons and daughters.

Blood Boilin' in New York

Blood Boilin' in New York

This opinion is unfiltered and, as such, the viewpoints and opinions expressed by the writer are not necessarily in line with my own. What bothers the author, a Democrat, is the mindset that has spread in Washington, D.C. and into our local races - the mindset that says: "follow the money, not the voters."

BLOOD BOILIN' IN NEW YORK
By ANONYMOUS

As many of you know, we Democrats are getting ready for the '06 campaigns, but we have a few '05 campaigns to think about right now. One of these campaigns is the New York City mayoral race between millionaire and FORMER DEMOCRAT (until he ran) Michael Bloomberg and Freddy Ferrer, a nice and decent man around whom the party has unified in New York.

But there's always a catch. Enter Steven Rattner and the people like him.

Rattner, like Bloomberg, is also a millionaire. He's donated a lot of money to Democrats over the years, but suddenly he's decided to support Bloomberg in the race. An article in the New York Observer seems to say this is big news. Surely, it means Freddy Ferrer is faltering, the article alludes to.

So why is my blood boiling? If I've said it once, I'll say it a million times. Elections should never be coronations. Last time I checked, it's the voters that decide these things -- not how much money you have.

Now look, I don't have a problem with millionaires or their donations so long as the cause is right. What bothers me so much is this mindset that has spread in Washington and into our local races. It's the mindset that says: follow the money, not the voters.

Here's what we desperately need in this country: candidates who are good and smart enough to remember we're the real power brokers, and when our blood boils they had better listen up!

Well, Freddy Ferrer is listening. Now he needs our help.

It's a bad thing if Bloomberg wins -- bad for New York and bad for our party. He's cut funding for critical programs in New York while spending gobs of his personal fortune to gain support from folks. Ferrer has come so close to him in the polls because he's reached out and spoken up. Party labels aside, I know who I'd support judging just by how they run their campaigns.

And when Bloomberg was challenged to come to Harlem for a debate, Bloomberg declined ---through his spokesperson, of course! This guy is out of touch, friends.

So here's what we know. Bloomberg is a bad thing for New York. Freddy Ferrer is trying hard to win -- and win the right way. And things stink to high heaven if Rattner, the millionaire back-and-forth donor, represents the front lines of our party. He's doesn't.

We do.

A spokesperson for the Ferrer campaign said this:

"The Democratic Party is more united around Freddy Ferrer than the party has been around a candidate for more than a decade ..we can't speak for the people who Steve Rattner talks to at cocktail parties, but Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Eliot Spitzer to John Kerry know that Freddy Ferrer¹s fight...is compelling to those of us who believe in equality and prosperity for all, not just for some millionaires."

But I'll leave you instead with a quote from Mr. Rattner:

"I think slavery has been abolished in this country and I'm free to make a decision [on whom to support] on a case-by-case basis."

If Rattner thinks slavery was the last and only issue good Democrats care about, then he needs to find whatever subway route that ships him back to reality.

It's time to stand up for Freddy Ferrer [http://www.ferrer2005.com].

See:
The Plutocrats
Of Democrats
Go Bloomberg

In the New York Times, Patrick Healy reveals a partisan side to the NYC Mayor who does not like to appear as a partisan:

when it comes to donating money to politicians, Mr. Bloomberg's Republican bona fides are as good as they get, judging from his campaign finance records. As mayor, he gave $250,000 to the same Republican party-building effort that Representative Tom DeLay is now charged with using to launder political money. Mr. Bloomberg has also doled out thousands of dollars to politicians who are far more conservative than he is.

For Mr. Bloomberg, whose campaign slogan casts him as "a leader, not a politician," this pattern of giving may be the most partisan-driven aspect of his life in politics. In a city where Democratic registration far outweighs Republican, the mayor's financial ties to Republicans and President Bush are a source of concern to some allies, who worry that the donations will turn off liberal voters he needs.

Daily Tar Heel on John Edwards

Daily Tar Heel on John Edwards

The Daily Tar Heel talks up John Edwards and his upcoming college/university tour. (Sounds like I'm talking about a rock star - but that's how much respect the Tar Heelers have for their native son ;)

I have written about the upcoming Project Opportunity tour and I will link to it as soon as it appears on the One America site.

Don't miss Sen Edwards on Jon Stewart's Daily Show tonight. He'll be making a "special announcement."
*Update - Sen Edwards did a great job on the Daily Show, but I must have misunderstood Jon Stewart on the Oct 4th show. I thought he'd said there'd be an announcement tonight. Sorry for the false teaser.

Iraq Vets Are Running For Office

Iraq Vets Are Running For Office
Some are critical about Bush's course in Iraq

At Veterans for Common Sense, Kimberly Hefling writes about those who did not question their government, but loyally did their duty for their country. Now, a handful of veterans who are no strangers to the horrors of war are pursuing seats in the House of Representatives. They talk critically about the Bush administration and the Iraq war, yet they don't fit the typical anti-war/peacenik image. Unlike the Viet Nam era, the veterans of today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about their soldiers.

What the Bush administration and the current RNC leadership did not anticipate was the continued support of and respect for American troops by the political left, combined with a handful of tough, honest, and vocal vets who would challenge the current GOP on their foreign policy and the failing course in Iraq.

"I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure," [Bryan Lenz] said. "We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course...."

"...They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level," [Charles Sheehan-Miles] said.