<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>bringiton's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/blog/bringiton"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.correntewire.com/blog/389/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.correntewire.com/blog/389/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-06-03T22:23:43-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Keep those cards and letters coming on the Trillion-dollar Giveaway</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/keep_those_cards_and_letters_coming_on_the_trillion_dollar_giveaway" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/keep_those_cards_and_letters_coming_on_the_trillion_dollar_giveaway</id>
    <published>2008-10-01T01:52:28-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-10-01T18:49:03-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Bank Failures" />
    <category term="Bush giveaway" />
    <category term="Diane Feinstein" />
    <category term="mortgage crisis" />
    <category term="voter activism" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>because voter opinion is actually having an effect.</p>
<p>Members of congress are reporting a deluge of calls, emails and faxes condemning the Trillion Dollar Giveaway (I refuse to call it a “bailout” because it isn’t; it’s a giveaway). The result was defeat in the House on Monday, and the direct effect of those voter contacts can be traced to a specific cohort of House members.</p>
<p>Nate Silver at <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html"><i>fivethirtyeight.com</i></a> helpfully pulled together the names of representatives who are in close races, people who are most acutely tuned to the will of the people. Relying on “lean” or “tossup” risk status assessments from <a href="http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1942"><i>Swing State Project</i></a>, he cites a total of 38 vulnerable reps; 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of those 38, 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted “Nay” while only 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted “Aye.” This 30 to 8 rejection compares to a near-even split, 197 Aye and 198 Nay, among members whose seats are considered “safe.”</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>because voter opinion is actually having an effect.</p>
<p>Members of congress are reporting a deluge of calls, emails and faxes condemning the Trillion Dollar Giveaway (I refuse to call it a “bailout” because it isn’t; it’s a giveaway). The result was defeat in the House on Monday, and the direct effect of those voter contacts can be traced to a specific cohort of House members.</p>
<p>Nate Silver at <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html"><i>fivethirtyeight.com</i></a> helpfully pulled together the names of representatives who are in close races, people who are most acutely tuned to the will of the people. Relying on “lean” or “tossup” risk status assessments from <a href="http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1942"><i>Swing State Project</i></a>, he cites a total of 38 vulnerable reps; 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of those 38, 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted “Nay” while only 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted “Aye.” This 30 to 8 rejection compares to a near-even split, 197 Aye and 198 Nay, among members whose seats are considered “safe.”</p>
<p>As several have commented, this seems like a clear difference. But “seems like” can get you in trouble; let’s put it to a statistical test and see what we really have. The data here are binary, either/or; Voted “Aye” or “Nay”, the seat is at risk or it is not. The simplest way to analyze binary data of this sort is through the use of what is called a Contingency Table and probability analysis using a very simple but very powerful analytical tool called Chi-Square. </p>
<p>Essentially, the method compares the distribution of this data to an idealized &#8220;normal&#8221; distribution and calculates the odds that the distribution of interest could have occurred at random. That probability is expressed as a “<i>p</i>” value, and the smaller it is the less likely that things happened by chance. Most people, for most examinations, consider <i>p</i> less than 0.05 to be “significant”, that is, the chance of the event happening randomly is so small that it is considered all but impossible.</p>
<p>Here’s how the Contingency Table looks, and <a href="http://statpages.org" />the analytical result</a>:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=TrillionDollarGiveaway2X2Contingenc.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/TrillionDollarGiveaway2X2Contingenc.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>This low <i>p</i> value means we can conclude, with a very high degree of confidence, that the chances of the distribution happening by random chance are one in a thousand. Putting pressure on politicians works, at least with those who are at risk of losing their office.</p>
<p>An even more definitive comparison can be made with a group of representatives who have little or nothing to fear from voters; those who are retiring from the House and not running for any other office.  In this vote there were 26 who fit that description, most of them Republicans. In sharp contrast to those who needed the good will of voters, 23 of the retirees voted “Yea” while only 2 voted “Nay” and 1 abstained.  </p>
<p>In comparison with the at-risk group the <i>p</i> value is less than 0.0001, or less than one in ten thousand chance of random occurrence.  Those who were most likely to need immediate voter approval opposed a Trillion Dollar Giveaway; those who didn’t need to care what voters think decided to take taxpayer money and use it to make sure that very rich people stay very rich.</p>
<p>While some members of congress may be more susceptible to voter opinion than others, we can’t know exactly where those limits are. It is critically important to keep the pressure up on all of them. Contact your senators, your representative and those who represent districts near you, and the leadership of both parties; every voice counts, please add yours to the tally. You never know who will take the time to listen.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, my Senator Diane Feinstein; Please. She and I don’t agree on a great many things, but in this case she is spot on. (Full disclosure: I quite like DiFi as a person; she’s very kind, very caring and completely genuine. While we disagree on several political matters, I don’t dislike her.) Feinstein has been associated with pro-business positions, and yes FISA FISA FISA. I would have expected her to follow the Village line on this Giveaway and am pleasantly surprised to find that, at least for the moment, she is a great deal more, ah, <i>fiery</i> about it than any Progressive would dare to be.</p>
<p>Yesterday evening I got a very nicely phrased staff-generated email from Feinstein’s office, subject specific to the Giveaway, as a reply to my several emails and phone calls. The memo directed attention to speech Feinstein gave on the topic – empty floor, to be sure, but on the record – with some pretty tasty commentary:</p>
<blockquote><p> Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX:</p>
<p>Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Congress&#8217; consideration of a plan to meet our Nation&#8217;s credit crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. This is a difficult situation for which there are no perfect solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts and concerns about this issue with you.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Since this announcement, my offices have received thousands of comments from Californians like you concerned about how this action will affect them. Yet, I believe prudent action must be taken. The bill should include the following principles: a phase-in of funding; oversight, accountability and transparency; a mechanism allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to modify mortgages to prevent additional foreclosures; and a precise cap on executive compensation. </p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Attached please find <a href="http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PhotoGallery&amp;ImageGallery_id=4e470d3f-d2cf-286a-03a9-174a15fc552d">a statement I recently made on the floor of the Senate</a> expressing my feelings on this issue. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this situation unfolds.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>So let’s do that; here are excerpts from that speech:</p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. President, to date I have received from Californians more than 50,000 calls and letters, the great bulk of them in opposition to any form of meeting this crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. I wanted to come to the floor to very simply state how I see this and some of the principles that I hope will be forthcoming in this draft.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Congress is faced with a situation where we have to act and we have to do two things. We have to provide some reform in the system of regulation and oversight that is supposed to protect our economy. We also have to find a permanent and effective solution to keep liquidity and credit functioning so that markets can recover and make profit. The situation, I believe, is grave, and timely, prudent action is needed.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Nobody likes the idea of spending massive sums of Government money to rescue major corporations from their bad financial decisions. But no one also should be fooled into thinking this problem only belongs to the banks and that it is a good idea to let them fail.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>The turbulence in our financial sector has already resulted in thousands of layoffs in the banking and finance sectors, and that number will skyrocket if there is a full collapse. The shock waves of failure will extend far beyond the banking and finance sectors. A shrinking pool of credit would affect the home loans, credit card limits, auto loans, and insurance policies of average Americans.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Our Nation is facing the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, at 6.1 percent. Over 605,000 jobs have been lost nationwide this year. My own State of California, a state of 38 million people, has the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7.7 percent. That is 1.4 million people out of work today. One and a half million people &#8212; that is bigger than some States. We have 1.5 million people out of work, and one-half million have had their unemployment insurance expire and have nothing today. </p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>I would like to outline quickly those principles that I think are important. First is a phase-in. No one wants to put $700 billion immediately at the discretion of one person…funding should come in phases and Congress should have the opportunity to make its voice heard if the program isn&#8217;t working or needs to be adjusted. </p>
<p>The second point: Oversight, accountability, and governance. The Treasury Secretary should not and must not have unbridled authority to determine winners and losers, essentially choosing which struggling financial institution will survive and which will not…We must assure that controls are in place to watch taxpayer dollars and make sure they are well-spent fixing the problem…and that they give the best opportunity for the American people to recover their investment and, yes, even eventually make a profit from that investment. That can be done and it has been done in the past. </p>
<p>I believe that frequent reporting to Congress is critical. Transparency, sunlight on this, is critical. So Congress should receive regular, timely briefings, perhaps weekly for the first quarter, on a program of this magnitude.</p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Taxpayer money must be shielded at all costs from risk to the greatest extent possible….So a model…must be developed to ensure the taxpayers are not only the first paid back but have an opportunity to share in future profits through warrants and/or stocks. </p>
<p>As to executive compensation limits, simply put, Californians are frosted by the absence of controls on executive compensation. <u>Virtually all of the 50,000 phone calls and letters mentioned this one way or another.</u> There must be limits. I am told that the reason the Treasury Secretary does not want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then will not bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Here is my response to that: <b>We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean, and set it on fire.</b></p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>Finally, as to tangible benefits for Main Street in the form of mortgage relief, there have been more than 500,000 foreclosures in my home State of California so far this year. In the second quarter of this year, foreclosures were up 300 percent over the second quarter of 2007. More than 800,000 are predicted before this year is over. </p>
<p>I have a city in California where one out of every 25 homes is in foreclosure. This is new housing in subdivisions. As you look at it, you will see garage doors kicked in. You will see houses vandalized. You will see the grass and grounds dry. You will see the street sprinkled with &#8220;For Sale&#8221; signs, and nobody buys because the market has become so depressed. </p>
<p>This crisis has roots in the subprime housing boom that went bust, and it would be unconscionable for us to simply bailout Wall Street while leaving these homeowners to fend for themselves. </p>
<p>Everything I have been told, and I have talked to people in this business, here is what they tell me: It is more cost-effective to renegotiate a subprime loan and keep a family in a house than it is to foreclose and run the risks of what happens to that home on a depressed market as credit is drying up, as vandals loot it, as landscaping dries up, as more homes in the area become foreclosed upon; the way to go is to renegotiate these mortgages with the exiting homeowner wherever possible…That is better than foreclosing and running the uncertainty of the sale of the asset in a very depressed housing market.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Tighter regulatory oversight, equity participation for taxpayer benefit, at-risk mortgage adjustment, and <strike>putting to the torch</strike> punishing uncooperative financial executives; not a bad plan, and from one of the Senate’s staunchest centrists.</p>
<p>A word of caution; Diane Feinstein is a bit of a flirt and she has led many of us down the garden path, more than once before. I am, however, hopeful that she will stand firm on these principles and that she can persuade others to stand with her. I have written to ask her to stay strong and to especially try to recruit her close friend and ally, Hillary Clinton, to join her. Please contact your representatives too.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Loud black woman speaks for me, and a lot of other voters, on McCain and Palin</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/loud_black_woman_speaks_for_me_and_a_lot_of_other_voters_on_mccain_and_palin" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/loud_black_woman_speaks_for_me_and_a_lot_of_other_voters_on_mccain_and_palin</id>
    <published>2008-09-25T00:32:14-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-09-25T02:36:05-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Politics of Choice" />
    <category term="2008 election" />
    <category term="Barack Obama" />
    <category term="Joe Biden" />
    <category term="John McCain" />
    <category term="polls" />
    <category term="Sarah Palin" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Ladies and Gentleman, please give a warm welcome to</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Ladies and Gentleman, please give a warm welcome to</p>
<p>Wanda Sykes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Where&#8217;s that Democratic base among women? <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/110638/Did-Palin-Help-McCain-Among-White-Women.aspx">Gallup says</a> it is right where it has been for quite a while.</p>
<p>Poll results from the first of August until last week encompassing an aggregate of more than 23,000 respondents, Obama&#8217;s strength among Hispanic, black and Asian women is overwhelming. These are core Democrats, those who did not wander off after Republican pipe dreams and fall for their lies, and they are sticking with the Democrats again in this election.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=obamamccainwomenaugsept08gallup.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/obamamccainwomenaugsept08gallup.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>But what about the claimed Hockey Mom Bubble, the supposed rush of PUMAs and <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/hubris_nemesis">women in general</a> to embrace the newly woman-friendly Republican ticket lead by the long-time dedicated feminist John McCain and his exciting inspiring sidekick, the staunch advocate of women&#8217;s pay equality and reproductive freedom, Sarah Palin? Does that explain the lead McCain has among white women?</p>
<p>Well no, actually; in this table covering four surveys capturing the opinions of more than 47,000 voters from the middle of August through last week, it is clear that little has been altered. McCain&#8217;s support among white women is unchanged over that period and while Obama&#8217;s has fluctuated he is now six points higher among all white women than he was five weeks ago.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=obamamccainwhitewomenaugsept08gallu.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/obamamccainwhitewomenaugsept08gallu.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>The deficit Obama had among non-Hispanic white women has been there for many weeks, and while his numbers flattened for a while he is now in a statistical tie for this demographic. McCain, on the other hand, has stayed constant among all white women combined; there was no bounce with women from Palin, and what ever PUMA voters have shifted to McCain they are in such small numbers they do not appear to have had a measurable effect.</p>
<p>From a temporal association standpoint, Palin may have actually benefited Obama. Certainly the trend post-convention, after voters had a chance to take a good look at both tickets in their entirety, is <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/110647/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-3Point-Edge.aspx">away from McCain and toward Obama</a>.</p>
<p>Xenophon&#8217;s <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/how_pissed_are_white_women">fondness for xeno-demographic agitation</a> not withstanding, Obama&#8217;s problem is not with white women but with white men where he trails McCain 56% to 35%. This is the grouping Obama needs to crack, and it is the reason Joe Biden is his running mate. Somehow, Obama needs to find validation with white male voters and sexism being as pervasive in this society as it is, for many of these men (not all, but many) only another white male will be able to persuade them that Obama is acceptable.</p>
<p>Over all, these numbers are very close to the final tallies for Gore v. Bush and Kerry v. Bush; As a whole, dedicated Democratic and Republican voters have settled in along partisan<a href="/glossary/term/3881" title=" Adj. Speaking without deference to a Republican person or of a Republican idea."><img src="modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> lines and Independents are starting to break as they have in the past several elections. If Obama can expand his appeal to generally conservative<a href="/glossary/term/3876" title=" N. Authoritarian greedhead on the winger billionaire tit."><img src="modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a>, conventionally religious Independent white males, 16% of whom say they are still persuadable, he will be able to extend his current overall lead and achieve a comfortable victory. If not, then this election will be another real nail-biter.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Presidential Campaign Decisions and Political Ideology</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/presidential_campaign_decisions_and_political_ideology" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/presidential_campaign_decisions_and_political_ideology</id>
    <published>2008-08-30T02:02:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-08-30T02:02:00-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Department of Analytical Tools" />
    <category term="2008 election" />
    <category term="mccain" />
    <category term="obama" />
    <category term="political ideology" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Both the Obama and McCain campaigns are acutely aware of where this election will be decided, and it is not amongst Liberal<a href="/glossary/term/83" title="Liberal: Noun. 1. Reality-based. 2. In Republican usage, a hate trigger. Usage example: A liberal isn&#039;t afraid to experiment, and change their thinking if the experiment doesn&#039;t pan out. Usage example: Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/83" title=" Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> voters.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Both the Obama and McCain campaigns are acutely aware of where this election will be decided, and it is not amongst Liberal<a href="/glossary/term/83" title="Liberal: Noun. 1. Reality-based. 2. In Republican usage, a hate trigger. Usage example: A liberal isn&#039;t afraid to experiment, and change their thinking if the experiment doesn&#039;t pan out. Usage example: Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/83" title=" Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> voters. </p>
<p>[This post is a fragment of a larger essay on American voter ideological affiliation that is part of an ongoing discussion with the highly esteemed <i>VastLeft</i>, one I’ll roll out after the Convention dust has settled. I’m putting this subsection up now for consideration as we try and digest the VP and Convention decisions of both campaigns in real time.]</p>
<p>There are a lot of different ways to come at this issue, but I am going to restrict myself here to an analysis based on <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx">polling data from Gallup</a>. Data from other sources varies somewhat from these, but taken in the aggregate Gallup numbers are pretty much in the middle of the pack and while others, notably Zogby and Rassmussen, have bounced all over the place Gallup’s have been reasonably stable and thus have the appearance, if not the actuality, of being plausibly credible. If nothing else, their stability allows at least a semi-rational discussion.</p>
<p>Historical data going back to early June can be seen at the Gallup link above, but here I will discuss only that from the week of August 18-24.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideA.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideA.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>The most strongly ideological elements of both parties are already fairly settled in their opinions. Both Obama and McCain have 90%+ of their respective Liberal or Conservative<a href="/glossary/term/3876" title="Conservative: N. Authoritarian greedhead on the winger billionaire tit."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/3876" title=" N. Authoritarian greedhead on the winger billionaire tit."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> voters committed while a small fragment have made contrarian choices and an even smaller subset remain undecided. </p>
<p>For Obama, only 3% of self-identified Liberals (Progressive is not a Gallup identity choice, but I assume that in this constrained selection Progressives would choose Liberal over the others available) are uncommitted, and at no more than 20% of the electorate this Undecided fragment represents 0.6% or less of registered voters. From a strategic standpoint, trying to appeal to such a small number is all but wasted effort and the stands that would need to be taken would risk alienating other, much larger, constituencies. If as a Liberal or Progressive you are anxious because you do not hear Obama speaking directly and unequivocally to you please relax; he isn’t going to do that, not now and likely not ever.</p>
<p>Where Obama can make some headway is with Moderate<a href="/glossary/term/917" title="Moderate: N. 1. Sucker. 2. Bush enabler. Usage example: &quot;Al From is a moderate.&quot;"><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/917" title=" &quot;Al From is a moderate.&quot;"><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> and Conservative Democrats and Independents. </p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideB.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideB.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>These are the groups his campaign has looked towards since early June, and their focus group and internal polling results are what produced Joe Biden and the text of Obama’s acceptance speech. (Surely they drove the texts of <i>all</i> of the major convention speakers as well as the choices of the speakers themselves – Wesley Clark probably polled with high negatives. The speech “editing” – none of it demanded but rather suggested – was often discussed here and in the MSM as a sign of authoritarianism but in the eyes of others including myself was seen rather as a sign of competence and coherence, a  beneficial change of pace for what has hitherto been an entirely too disorganized Party process.) </p>
<p>With Liberals as committed as they are going to be, Democrats must focus on and convince groups closer to the Middle to select for Democratic policies and promises, and by extension for the promise and persona of Obama himself.</p>
<p>McCain’s campaign sees their opportunity in almost a mirror image:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideC.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideC.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>albeit one with slightly less room for growth than what confronts the Democrats. Self-identified Liberal or Moderate Republicans are few and far between (“Liberal” Republicans are so small and odd a group that pollsters lump them together with “Moderate” Republicans to avoid analysis of the ridiculous.) </p>
<p>Conservative Democrats are from a Republican viewpoint a substantial segment of low-hanging fruit, perhaps 12% of the voting electorate, and inroads have already been made. The Republican Party has, one assumes, been busy with their own focus groups and internal polls along with the strategizing of Karl Rove and the moves by McCain towards increasing military bellicosity, the increased geopolitical tension in Georgia, and selection of A Woman for VP should be considered to be the result of their assessments for a winning combination.</p>
<p>The over-lap between opportunities for both campaigns is with Conservative Democrats and Independents.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideD.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideD.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Adding what Gallup’s graph does not display, the number of Undecided in each category, makes the point of focus even more evident:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideE.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideE.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>While Undecided Conservative Democrats account for 1% to 1.5% of voters (Undecided @ 11% <i>x</i> 12% approximately of the electorate), the largest group of remaining open-minded voters are the Undecided Independents.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=SlideF.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/SlideF.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>With Independents comprising at least a third of all voters and 40% still Undecided, this group holds a pool representing 13% of all voters and is the key to this election. Their votes are likely to control the outcomes in Swing States, and thus determine the Electoral College totals. So far, the Independent vote has broken equally for McCain and Obama at about 30% each, offering no guidance as to how the remainder may decide.</p>
<p>Everything the campaigns do between now and November 4th will primarily be focused on courting that large block of Undecided Independents and to a somewhat lesser degree the Conservative Democrats, and every move will be most profitably analyzed within that context.  </p>
<blockquote><p>• Does the selection of Joe Biden as VP help or hurt Obama with Independents? (I think it helps; Biden fairly screams “safe” and “experienced”.) </p>
<p>• Did Obama’s speech, which lays out the Democratic Party themes for the remainder of the election more reliably than those of the Party Platform, help or hinder his persuasion of Independents? (I think the economy will be by far the dominant issue and his emphasis on jobs and economic security is what the Malleable Middle wants to hear; he couched everything else, avoiding enmity on any hot-button issues.) </p>
<p>• Does the choice of Governor Palin, a complete unknown, benefit McCain? (I think not; the electorate’s insecurity around his advanced age – shown by multiple polls to be substantial – will not be alleviated by having an untried unknown as a backup, plus her anti-environmentalism, anti-choice, anti-progressive taxation and anti-gun control positions will not IMHO be strong attractants for Undecided Independents. Unless, of course, Independent White Women again decide to vote against their expressed interests, as they did when a majority of them supported George Bush in 2004, even though we can all see now how well that worked out.) </p>
<p>• We will have to wait to see what McCain and the Republicans lay out for their Party pitch, but weakness in addressing the economy plus More and Bigger Wars is not – I think – a winning combination.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>So there it is; my analysis of why the Democrats have done what they’ve done. It is very much not the same approach as they have tried before, but these are not the same times and in any event shrill partisanship was not reliably working for them. As <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/denver_open_thread_1#comment-109526">Mandos has tried to describe</a>, the way that voters reach electoral decisions has shifted from what once was a newspaper-driven analytical approach to a more modern touchy-feely soft-focus “sense” of “trust” and “affinity”. </p>
<p>The Republicans are approaching this election as they have the last ten, in many ways “fighting the last war” all over again using these same tools of affinity and emotionality but based as before on fear and military bellicosity rather than what the Democrats are banking on, the more positive <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/denver_open_thread_1#comment-109528">“Goo-Goo” concepts</a> of “hope” and “change”.</p>
<p>What we will want to watch from an analytical standpoint over the next two months is how each of the campaigns adjusts to shifting poll numbers in their target audiences and to each other’s maneuvering around the Malleable Middle. For a weather-vane indicator, track the Undecided Independents as they move into one camp or another. Who ever wins that latter group will, I believe, win the election.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>So long, Jerry, and thanks for all the music</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/so_long_jerry_and_thanks_for_all_the_music" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/so_long_jerry_and_thanks_for_all_the_music</id>
    <published>2008-08-16T07:09:29-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-08-16T07:09:29-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Heroines and Heroes" />
    <category term="music" />
    <category term="Transcendence" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/DDNT12BVRQ.DTL">Jerry Wexler, dead at 91.</a></p>
<p>Genius comes in many guises; Jerry danced like a white man, like a marionette with a broomstick up his ass, but he had a sense of rhythm and an ear for the poetry behind the pain of roots music, blues and jazz and soul, that reached beyond race and gender and age into the center of all that is human.</p>
<p>There is a lot of talk these days, about post-this and post-that. Jerry Wexler was post-everything petty and mean and low; he was crazy and wild and had no regard for limits and never backed down from a fist fight, but first and foremost he was a decent human being who saw all others as human too, no more and no less.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/DDNT12BVRQ.DTL">Jerry Wexler, dead at 91.</a></p>
<p>Genius comes in many guises; Jerry danced like a white man, like a marionette with a broomstick up his ass, but he had a sense of rhythm and an ear for the poetry behind the pain of roots music, blues and jazz and soul, that reached beyond race and gender and age into the center of all that is human.</p>
<p>There is a lot of talk these days, about post-this and post-that. Jerry Wexler was post-everything petty and mean and low; he was crazy and wild and had no regard for limits and never backed down from a fist fight, but first and foremost he was a decent human being who saw all others as human too, no more and no less.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>This is Wilson Pickett&#8217;s song but Wexler worked out the rhythm, moved the emphasis to the second beat; not bad, for a white Jew.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>In a 2000 documentary about his career, &#8220;Immaculate Funk,&#8221; Mr. Wexler was asked what he wanted written on his tombstone. &#8220;Two words,&#8221; said the famously atheistic Mr. Wexler, </p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;More Bass.&#8221;</p></blockquote></blockquote>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Help move HR676 forward</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/help_move_hr676_forward" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/help_move_hr676_forward</id>
    <published>2008-08-15T18:24:44-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-08-15T18:24:44-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="In Sickness and In Health" />
    <category term="HR676" />
    <category term="universal health care" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>And use <i>me</i> as your surrogate! What could be better?</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>And use <i>me</i> as your surrogate! What could be better?</p>
<p>Tomorrow I’ll be talking in person with my US House Representative and one of the topics I will raise is Universal Health Care. For several reasons, none immediately relevant, I intend to skewer him on HR676. He’s a good guy (IMNSHO), decent and kind and smart, but he hasn’t signed on as a co-sponsor and I want to know why.</p>
<p>So here’s your chance to make me your tool, to send me off to do your bidding. Tell me why my guy should back HR676, in 50 words or less (has to be brief, I have additional items to raise and there will be others with their own questions). I’ll synthesize all your suggestions and put it to him, then come back here with his response.</p>
<p>Could I possibly be more fair and open-minded? (That was rhetorical; no need for commentary.)</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Time to Move On</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/time_to_move_on" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/time_to_move_on</id>
    <published>2008-08-06T02:57:42-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-08-06T02:57:42-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Department of Now It All Makes Sense" />
    <category term="changing plans" />
    <category term="making do with what you have" />
    <category term="Recipes" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Have you ever started out with what seemed like a good plan, what might even be thought of as a delicious plan, and then had it linger on a little too long without completion? So long, in fact, that you are forced to consider that maybe the plan wasn’t quite thought through properly in the first place, that maybe you hadn’t considered all the consequences? So very long past any hope of actually achieving what you set out to do that it starts to smell a little odd, to appear discolored, to get all soft and mushy but still, against all reason, you just can&#8217;t bring yourself to let go?</p>
<p>Of course you have. It isn’t a secret; everyone knows, and you don’t have to be ashamed.</p>
<p>You aren’t alone, we’ve all had it happen at least once in our lives, and there is hope. You don’t have to cling, bitter and weeping, while little flies start to gather and circle the slowly corrupting remnants of your decomposing dream; come with me, let me show you how to get past the grief.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Have you ever started out with what seemed like a good plan, what might even be thought of as a delicious plan, and then had it linger on a little too long without completion? So long, in fact, that you are forced to consider that maybe the plan wasn’t quite thought through properly in the first place, that maybe you hadn’t considered all the consequences? So very long past any hope of actually achieving what you set out to do that it starts to smell a little odd, to appear discolored, to get all soft and mushy but still, against all reason, you just can&#8217;t bring yourself to let go?</p>
<p>Of course you have. It isn’t a secret; everyone knows, and you don’t have to be ashamed.</p>
<p>You aren’t alone, we’ve all had it happen at least once in our lives, and there is hope. You don’t have to cling, bitter and weeping, while little flies start to gather and circle the slowly corrupting remnants of your decomposing dream; come with me, let me show you how to get past the grief.</p>
<p>When Bananas Go Bad,</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=badbananaweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/badbananaweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>make banana bread!</p>
<p>Ingredients</p>
<blockquote><p>½ cup butter<br />
¾ cup brown sugar<br />
2 – 2 ½ cups ripe bananas<br />
2 medium to large eggs<br />
1 tsp baking powder<br />
1 tsp baking soda<br />
½ tsp salt<br />
1 tsp cinnamon<br />
¼ tsp nutmeg<br />
¼ tsp ginger<br />
2 tsp vanilla extract<br />
1 tsp almond extract<br />
½ cup sour cream<br />
1 ½ cups all-purpose flour<br />
½ cup whole wheat flour</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Preparation</p>
<blockquote><p>Warm butter to soften. Place butter and sugar in a large bowl and blend until smooth. </p>
<p>Break bananas into pieces into the bowl. Crush the bananas and combine with the sugar-butter until uniform in color. </p>
<p>In a separate bowl, beat eggs until uniform in color; add to mixture. </p>
<p>Add baking soda, baking powder, salt and spices to the mixture; blend all until uniform in color. </p>
<p>Add extracts and sour cream to the mixture and blend just until reaching a uniform color; the mixture will foam, that’s a good thing. </p>
<p>In a separate clean bowl or a plastic bag, mix the two flours until uniform in color. Add flour mixture to wet ingredients. Slowly fold the flour into the mix just until uniformly moist. A little unblended flour is fine. </p>
<p>Do Not Overdo The Mixing; if the batter is beaten, or mixed too long, the bread will turn out too dense.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=mixweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/mixweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>To intensify the flavor, let the batter stand for 20- 30 minutes. </p>
<p>Preheat oven to 350F. Position rack just below the middle of the oven.</p>
<p>Butter a 5x9 loaf pan, add batter. Spread batter to a uniform depth, working it into the corners and up against the walls.</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=5x9panwithbatter.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/5x9panwithbatter.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Bake for 60-65 minutes. </p>
<p>Test for doneness with a toothpick, trying at least two places until it comes out clean. </p>
<p>Remove from oven and let rest for 10 minutes on a rack. </p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=panwithbreadweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/panwithbreadweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Remove from pan and allow to cool for at least 30 minutes or until comfortable to the touch. </p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=bananabreadloafweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/bananabreadloafweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>The fractured top is a feature, not a bug. </p>
<p>There is hope, for those who are audacious enough to embrace a change in plans.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Of Symbolism and the Public Discourse; Events to Remember</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/of_symbolism_and_the_public_discourse_events_to_remember" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/of_symbolism_and_the_public_discourse_events_to_remember</id>
    <published>2008-07-07T18:33:44-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-07-08T17:23:09-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Dems Who Don&#039;t Suck" />
    <category term="Department of Eerie Historical Parallels" />
    <category term="2008 Democratic Convention" />
    <category term="Barack Obama" />
    <category term="JFK" />
    <category term="political symbols" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>This move of the 2008 Democratic Convention to an outdoor venue for the Nominee’s acceptance speech isn’t the first time it has occurred.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>This move of the 2008 Democratic Convention to an outdoor venue for the Nominee’s acceptance speech isn’t the first time it has occurred. </p>
<p>I know; listening to old people ramble on about the olden times isn&#8217;t nearly as kewl as making snide remarks about how shady all the politicians are, but there was a time once when hope wasn&#8217;t such a joke and being audacious was viewed as a positive. As it happens, I remember it well.</p>
<p><a href="http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/the/196-.htm" title="Bible Browser Parallel Versions (KJV)">The 196</a>0 Democratic convention was in Los Angeles, and at the time it was the biggest deal you could imagine. Change was the thing, a pushing aside of the older generation in favor of younger people with high ideals and bold intentions. The country was under threat not from people with Kalashnikovs living in caves but from nuclear annihilation, the very real all-pervasive fear that at any moment death could rain down from the skies and we would all be turned to cinders. Easy now to look back and see that fear as exaggerated, but at the time it could not have been more real.</p>
<p>The country was coming apart internally as well, with civil unrest from black men who had served in World War II and Korea and put their lives on the line for this country and for freedom, who thanks to the insistence of the Delegates to the 1948 Democratic Convention and under the sometimes uncertain but eventually determined leadership of another Southern Democrat had gotten for the first time <a href="http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology"><u>a real taste of freedom and equality</u></a> and were damn sure not willing to go back to the old days of Jim Crow and segregation, men who were angry and knew all about how to organize and how to shoot and kill. </p>
<p>From women too, who had stepped up and done as well as any human being could in the factories and mills of America during the war years were now being told by those in power that they didn’t have what it takes to move into the offices and boardrooms, that they should go back to their little houses and cook and clean and birth babies and be grateful they had a big strong man to take care of them; they weren’t having any of that either.</p>
<p>The country had a choice to make, to stay with the old ways and foot-drag along, clinging bitterly to the way things had been for as long as anyone alive could remember, or to step into the future and embrace the changes that many of us saw as inevitable, changes that would be devastating if they were not managed but uplifting and ennobling if they were seized and directed. </p>
<p>Richard Nixon was the known quantity, stay-the-course-all-will-be-well, status quo, the “safe” alternative. The other fellow, a little-known, inexperienced Catholic (and you know how “they” are), was the risky choice, and with his talk about hope on the one hand and duty and responsibility and sacrifice on the other seemed to be asking Americans to give more than they might immediately get, to invest in a new way of thinking, a new way of communicating, and to set aside established practice and a backwards focus to share the risks of an uncertain future.</p>
<p>I listened to the roll call of the states the night Kennedy was nominated, on a homebuilt transistor radio while sitting in the Vistadome of an east-bound passenger train. When it was over and I came back downstairs to tell my parents, all of the adults in the car gathered round and listened to every word I had to say, asking questions about how it sounded and how loud the applause was. </p>
<p>By the next day I was at an Uncle’s house in Wisconsin, doing chores and, as they said, “being useful.” But work was suspended when it came time for Kennedy’s acceptance speech, and to suspend work on a dairy farm is a very big deal indeed.</p>
<p>We all gathered in the living room, my uncles and grandfather in chairs with their big calloused and cracked hands held together as if in prayer, the women together in the kitchen and in the doorway, the static reception turned up loudly enough for all to hear and the children seated on the floor and no-questions-about-it firmly shushed. </p>
<p>These hard-working, sweat-of-their-brow, no-nonsense hard-headed Scandinavians hung on every word, an occasional grunt, a nod of the head, a leaning forward when he spoke of what he was asking of us all, and as soon as it was over there was a shuffling and a rising and with little fanfare we all went back outside to pick up the evening chores. </p>
<p>Other than work, nothing was spoken of that night and the next day but discussion of what Kennedy had said and what it might all mean. There was a sense of hope, recognition that there would be a lot of work involved to make things right, and not one complaint about the needfulness of either of those. But then, being farmers, they knew all about the necessity of hope and hard work.</p>
<p>Kennedy was nominated in the LA Convention Center, a closed arena. But he saw as his challenge the rousing of an entire nation and chose to move the acceptance speech outdoors to the Los Angeles Coliseum.  Seating then just over 100,000, the delegates adjourned from the hall and moved outside to sit with 75,000 everyday citizens who for the first time ever could see and be physically present for an event that would change the destiny of the country and the world, in ways that as it turned out were both good and bad. </p>
<p>He was criticized for that decision, some called it grandstanding, some imperial, and some raise the Nuremberg images but most were entranced at the idea that someone on the verge of personal greatness cared enough about the “symbolism” of the moment to open it up and embrace the citizenry. It was, I suppose, because we had hope, and because we admired his audaciousness.</p>
<p>Kennedy gave a hell of a good speech that day. His inaugural gets high praise, and deservedly so, but this short exposition is one that should be widely listened to as well. He hits every note pitch-perfect, his cadences those of a preacher more than a politician. Take a moment if you will and listen; anyone who aspires public speaking or indeed any form of communication can learn something from Jack Kennedy. </p>
<p>The audio quality is poor, so read the text first and you won’t miss anything. Then listen to the rhythm, the nuance, the strength and the focus that he brings. The message that he delivers was not a welcome one, no one wants to be told they will have to work harder and sacrifice, but phrased the way he does it, with an appeal to – rather a sure confidence of – our better selves and our nobler intentions, not even the most cynical among you can fail to be uplifted.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfk1960dnc.htm">Here.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=Kennedynominationacceptancespeech.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/Kennedynominationacceptancespeech.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>[Before anyone pops off with “But Obama is no Jack Kennedy” that line has already been used in a much more devastating setting; you can’t use it again here and even come close so don’t try. </p>
<p>This is now, not then, and Obama is who he is and not someone else, for certain, but Jack Kennedy too was primarily a centrist with conservative leanings and a liberal mind and also a flawed human being. Overall his administration got off to a shaky start and he made nearly as many mistakes as good judgments, but he got the big issues mostly correct and tried to do right for the American people. </p>
<p>Symbolism is not always bad, nor is every public display of commitment on the national stage a precursor to totalitarianism. Who ever the nominee may be, I hope the Convention goes off smoothly and the acceptance ceremony is spectacular and then the Democrats kick the Republicans the hell out of office everywhere. Damn every “R” there is to hell and gone.]</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Growth Has Its Seasons</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/growth_has_its_seasons" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/growth_has_its_seasons</id>
    <published>2008-07-02T04:46:33-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-07-02T04:46:33-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Department of Il faut cultiver notre jardin" />
    <category term="container planting" />
    <category term="Jerzy Kozinsky" />
    <category term="tomatoes" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Containers, tomatoes and great huge pink balls.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Containers, tomatoes and great huge pink balls.</p>
<blockquote><p>In the garden, growth has its seasons.<br />
First comes spring and summer,<br />
but then we have fall and winter.<br />
And then we get spring and summer again.</p>
<blockquote><p>Chance the gardener - <i>Being There</i></p>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Not every garden needs to be big, or cost a lot of money to make. A few containers with drain holes, any sort really, some inexpensive plants or a few seeds, a bit of dirt, water and time can make small miracles; very little care and effort required for what you get in return.</p>
<p>Pink calla lily, from a package of small bulbs bought at end-of-season clearance five years ago:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=pinkcallalilyweb2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/pinkcallalilyweb2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>A dahlia, scavanged as a broken tuber a couple of years back from the next-door neighbor who was thinning hers out:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=dahliaweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/dahliaweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Begonia, grown as a cutting that was offered after I admired the mother plant at a party, rooted in this same pot six years ago:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=begoniaweb.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/begoniaweb.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>If you have a little room, so much the better. This hydrangea was a gift, maybe a foot tall and with one modest bloom. Four years in the ground, and it had been struggling a bit. Last fall I dug in a couple of bushels of leaves around the drip line and pruned it back hard; very happy now:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=IMG_3099web.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/IMG_3099web.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Tomatoes. This year is a try at communal gardening with the neighbors, I&#8217;m skeptical but nothing ventured&#8230;. I have cucumbers, English burpless putting out one or two each day, and tomatoes. Three vines planted, <i>Granny Smith</i>, <i>Beefsteak</i> and <i>Early Girl</i>, nearing six feet tall and maybe 60-70 fruit now on each. Summer nights are cool here in the south SF Bay, I count it as a good year if I can pick a tomato by the 4th of July. This season the first ripe <i>Early Girl</i> appeared three days ahead of schedule:</p>
<p><a href="http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/?action=view&amp;current=firsttomatoEarlyGirl1july2008web.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/firsttomatoEarlyGirl1july2008web.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a></p>
<p>Ate the little beauty right there on the spot, warm from the sun with a sprinkle of salt, and then licked all the juice from my fingers until the taste was gone. Several more have pinked up; maybe I&#8217;ll share some of them with the neighbors like I&#8217;m supposed to - maybe not.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Global cataclysm, mass extinctions and ecosystem collapse</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/global_cataclysm_mass_extinctions_and_ecosystem_collapse" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/global_cataclysm_mass_extinctions_and_ecosystem_collapse</id>
    <published>2008-06-24T18:14:44-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-06-26T10:58:59-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Anthropogenic Warming" />
    <category term="Department Of Stop it! You&#039;re killing Everything!" />
    <category term="Apocalypse" />
    <category term="Climate Crisis" />
    <category term="Coal" />
    <category term="James Hansen" />
    <category term="Plutocracy" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>All coming soon, to a planet near you.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, June of 1988, Jim Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute presented the first sound data showing human involvement in changing the Earth’s climate. Since then all of his predictions, from temperature rise to melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers, have come true. With new data, a more comprehensive understanding of the feedback mechanisms and better modeling, he sees much worse to come: sea level rises that will displace hundreds of millions of people, floods and drought on a scope and scale far beyond anything known in human history, extinction of half or more of the species on the planet and collapse of entire ecosystems.</p>
<p>Not to worry, though; we still have twenty years before it all spirals hopelessly out of control.</p>
<p>Maybe.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>All coming soon, to a planet near you.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, June of 1988, Jim Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute presented the first sound data showing human involvement in changing the Earth’s climate. Since then all of his predictions, from temperature rise to melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers, have come true. With new data, a more comprehensive understanding of the feedback mechanisms and better modeling, he sees much worse to come: sea level rises that will displace hundreds of millions of people, floods and drought on a scope and scale far beyond anything known in human history, extinction of half or more of the species on the planet and collapse of entire ecosystems.</p>
<p>Not to worry, though; we still have twenty years before it all spirals hopelessly out of control.</p>
<p>Maybe.</p>
<p>Hansen spoke at the National Press Club yesterday, and the only term that can be used for his outlook is grim. The most current data show that we have been underestimating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. A counterbalancing effect called <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/">“global dimming”</a> has been masking the full impact of gaseous insulation. Global dimming results from atmospherically suspended particulates – soot and other aerosols – which reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy absorbed by the planet. This effect has acted as a counterbalance to the raising of surface temperatures from gasses, leading earlier models to over estimate the gasses effect. </p>
<p>With real increases being at the low end or below what the models predicted, skeptics (and liars) have claimed that the models are inaccurate and there is nothing to worry about. We now know that as the gaseous insulation effects begin to outstrip the reflective effects of soot there will be a sharp increase in global warming. If atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> levels are not reduced to 350 ppm or less, the warming process will engage more and more feedback loops that will accelerate the process beyond any hope of human influence. As a species, we will survive; as a civilized, decent society, however, we will be doomed.</p>
<p>From Hansen’s speech, emphasis added:</p>
<blockquote><p> What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already “in-the-pipeline”, delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled.</p>
<p>Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.</p>
<p>More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. </p>
<p>Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.</p>
<p>Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.</p>
<p>The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. </p>
<p><b>Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is <u>a recipe for global disaster</u>, not salvation.</b></p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>And what is the probability of this disaster unfolding as predicted? Hansen again:</p>
<blockquote><p> …I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>That will be <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01 for the statisticians among you. What it means in plain English is that there is no doubt; we are on the verge of <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/beachfront_property_may_not_be_the_investment_you_thought_it_was">drowning our seacoasts</a>, destroying the food chain and killing off most of the species on the planet. The few <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/gingrich_solves_the_energy_crisis">remaining naysayers and skeptics</a> may be ignorant, ill-informed, delusional or lying, but they are certainly wrong. </p>
<p>Hansen has some ideas about how to deal with the worst of them:</p>
<blockquote><p> Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.</p>
<p>CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>He has a list of other necessary objectives, including an immediate halt to the use of coal, the conversion of vehicles to non-fossil fuel and the construction of a national interstate electrical grid based on buried high-voltage DC transmission. Like it or not, we will have to go now to non-fossil fuels including nuclear or we will – literally – drown in our own wastes. To keep ourselves, and our children, from disaster we will have to begin seizing control of the process now. There is no more time left to wait. If ever there was a call to arms for the whole of humankind, this is it.</p>
<p>Citizens in the UK have begun protests, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/7037061.stm">including incitement of arrest</a>, to stop the building of new coal-fired plants without CO<sub>2</sub> mitigation. More, larger <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/7447371.stm">protests are planned</a> beginning in August. The goal is to stop construction of any more new unmitigated coal-fired power plants. Meanwhile here in the US, as well as in the rest of the world, plans to build new coal-fired power plants by the hundreds continue, accelerating the speed of global warming and hastening doom. </p>
<p>The Republican intransigence on environmental destruction is the major roadblock to change, and they have been relentless in their lies and deceits. Five years ago, billing himself falsely again as environmentally concerned, Bush touted a new initiative to design and build “clean” coal-fired power plants. Last February, with little fanfare, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/weekinreview/03revk.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">the entire program was scrapped as unworkable</a> and no functional alternative approach has been implemented.</p>
<p>This failure was no surprise to anyone willing to give a cursory look. The plan, the only plan, was to build new coal-burning power plants with the capacity to move the CO<sub>2</sub> into geological formations where the gas would be absorbed. Never mind the Pollyanna hopefulness in that regard, since even the absorption part of the process is unproven; the plain fact is that capturing and storing only 10% of the harmful gaseous emissions generated from just today’s existing power plant capacity would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide larger than the total annual world-wide flow of oil. That none of the steps in the approach has ever been proven is not the problem – if everything worked as planned on a technical basis, the scale alone makes it impossible to execute. That this plan could ever work was, from the beginning, a bald-faced lie.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, through obfuscation and deceit and misdirection and outright lies, the real objectives of the Plutocracy have been achieved; rising gasoline and heating fuel prices, extending dependence on dwindling and uncertain oil supplies, increasing drought, food shortages, environmental degradation, and continual war are <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/reading_shock_doctrine_1">all part of the plan</a>. In the panic to come, attempts to sustain the unsustainable by drill, drill, drill here at home and the conquest of new oil lands abroad will create increasing levels of fear and deprivation, leading citizens to yield more and more civil rights. If you think the current attempts at undermining the Constitution are threatening, wait until you see what people are willing to give up when they are dying in the dark of thirst and starvation.</p>
<p>Those at the top of the economic ladder envision a future where 1% of the human race controls 90% of the capital and all the means of production. The rest of humanity, those who survive, will be kept in an economic, social and political subjugation teetering at all times at the margin of physical survival. The systematic destruction of our education system, growing lack of healthcare, obstruction of environmental concerns in the face of rising pollution levels, blocking of any attempts at conservation of resources, increasing militancy and systematically institutionalized under-and-un-employment are not random products of general incompetence or misguided philosophical differences. They are all <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/global_studies_association_conference_notes_part_3_transnationalism">part of a sophisticated plan of destruction</a> that if it works will <a href="http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&amp;context=gis">leave only the wealthy elite in comfort</a> while the rest of the world’s population sinks into a medieval netherworld of hand-to-mouth survival distracted by the hijinks of Paris and Britney and lulled by reassurances that all is well from Plutocrat-owned politicians and MSM talking heads. </p>
<p>This is not a secret conspiracy; it is being done right out in the open, and with the willing complicity of near to 20% of the American populace (more than 33% now of registered Republicans) who believe that the end of the world is nigh and their God will arrive just in time to save them. (<a href="http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/1659/3403_COA30106.pdf">Fully a third of America&#8217;s young believe</a> the world will end with a Christian Armageddon.) They also believe that the rest of humankind, those who are not saved, is doomed to suffer the torments of hell here on earth – and they rejoice in that prospect. The merger of doomsday religion and government is exactly what they desire, and global destruction is what they relish. Continued penetration of religious fanatics into governance, lately the norm here in America under Republican administrations, cannot be further tolerated by the majority who recognize this suicidal nonsense for what it is. </p>
<p>The Republican-Plutocrat criminal conspiracy studied <i>1984</i> just like the rest of us, but for them it is not a caution – it is a plan. Unless they are stopped, unless the citizens of today are willing to put their freedom and if necessary their lives on the line to put an end to this madness now, there will be no future worth preserving.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf"> Hansen’s latest speech is here</a> [pdf]. Read it and weep.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller scheme to betray the American people</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/steny_hoyer_and_jay_rockefeller_scheme_to_betray_the_american_people" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/steny_hoyer_and_jay_rockefeller_scheme_to_betray_the_american_people</id>
    <published>2008-06-14T22:55:29-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-06-16T19:31:08-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Homeland Insecurity" />
    <category term="constitutional law" />
    <category term="FISA" />
    <category term="scotus" />
    <category term="Steny Hoyer" />
    <category term="telecom immunity" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Yet another attempt is being made to pass a FISA revision bill that will provide immunity for the telecoms against lawsuits for their part in illegal spying on American citizens. The cabal planning this maneuver expects to take their plot to both the House and Senate next week, where coalitions of Republicans and BlueDog Democrats could provide enough votes for passage.</p>
<p>********</p>
<p>Update 3: <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/steny_hoyer_and_jay_rockefeller_scheme_to_betray_the_american_people#comment-96134">NYT article and a blogger talks to Hoyer’s office</a></p>
<p>Update: More on the new FISA deal from <i>The Hill</i> and <i>Glenn Greenwald</i>. Text is down at the bottom.</p>
<p>Update 2: Congressional contact information list</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>Yet another attempt is being made to pass a FISA revision bill that will provide immunity for the telecoms against lawsuits for their part in illegal spying on American citizens. The cabal planning this maneuver expects to take their plot to both the House and Senate next week, where coalitions of Republicans and BlueDog Democrats could provide enough votes for passage.</p>
<p>********</p>
<p>Update 3: <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/steny_hoyer_and_jay_rockefeller_scheme_to_betray_the_american_people#comment-96134">NYT article and a blogger talks to Hoyer’s office</a></p>
<p>Update: More on the new FISA deal from <i>The Hill</i> and <i>Glenn Greenwald</i>. Text is down at the bottom.</p>
<p>Update 2: Congressional contact information list</p>
<p><a href="http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/">House and Senate contact information</a></p>
<p><a href="http://speaker.house.gov/contact/">Representative Nancy Pelosi</a>, Speaker’s Office Email</p>
<p><a href="http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm">Senator Harry Reid</a> Email</p>
<p><a href="http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm">Senator Patrick Leahy</a>, Chair Senate Judiciary Committee Email</p>
<p>Representative John Conyers, Chair House Judiciary Committee (accepts email only from constituents)</p>
<blockquote><p>2426 Rayburn Building<br />
Washington, DC 20515<br />
(202) 225-5126<br />
(202) 225-0072 Fax</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://obama.senate.gov/contact/">Senator Barack Obama</a> Email</p>
<p><a href="http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/contact/webform.cfm">Senator Hillary Clinton</a> Email</p>
<p>*********</p>
<p>Tim Starks <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&amp;docID=news-000002897247">reports in <i>Congressional Quarterly</i></a> that Steny Hoyer D-Md, Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo and Jay Rockefeller D-W.Va., after <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/steny_hoyer_and_jay_rockefeller_conspire_for_retroactive_telecom_immunity">several months of backdoor negotiations</a>, have joined forces with the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans to assemble the bill, reported to contain a provision that will leave up to a Federal district court the question of whether or not telecom companies can be sued for FISA violations. The bill will stipulate the terms by which the court can make its ruling, and those provisions will ensure that the immunity is granted.</p>
<p>According to <i>CQ</i> the cabal of conspirators consists of:</p>
<blockquote><p>The deal was hammered out Thursday night at a meeting that included Hoyer, Bond, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV , D-W.Va., House Minority Whip Roy Blunt , R-Mo., and representatives from the Bush administration.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p><b>The Deal</b></p>
<p>Details are leaking out, and without a formal announcement rumors are flying. While the new deal evolved from an earlier Bond/Hoyer proposal, according to <i>CQ</i> a House Democratic aide familiar with negotiations said there had been major changes. The Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, said that sources have told the ACLU the deal would include a sunset after six years. The House Democratic aide disagreed, saying the sunset timetable was not six years but declined to state the length of time the law would remain in effect.</p>
<p><a href="http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/13/fisa-whats-in-it-for-steny/">Christy Hardin Smith at <i>FDL</i> reports</a> that Hoyer has put out the word that this is a “done deal” but there are other reports that as the cabal pulled their deal together they failed to run it past either John Conyers or Patrick Leahy, chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees respectively. That turf intrusion alone may doom any chance of even getting to the floor, much less passage.</p>
<p>Christy has also heard that Hoyer’s aggressive pushing on this deal has offended many House Democrats, and it is uncertain if he can get enough votes for passage over Pelosi’s objections. Christ asks, What’s in this for Steny? A good question, and I’ll come back to that below.</p>
<p>From the ACLU, via Christy:</p>
<blockquote><p> This FISA deal looks like the unconstitutional Senate bill in sheep’s clothing. Whatever silk purse Hoyer tries to make of Bond&#8217;s sow&#8217;s ear and no matter how they try to sell it, the end result of all this negotiating will be exactly what the administration has wanted from the beginning - FISA rewritten to delete court oversight of surveillance and immunity for its pals at the telephone companies.</p>
<p>From the language we’ve seen, we’re back at square one, looking at a bill just like the old Senate bill that lacks meaningful judicial involvement.  The Fourth Amendment requires prior and individual court review before the government digs into our private conversations.  It is clear the next vote will be on a bill that fails this test – by permitting the government to conduct mass untargeted surveillance, sometimes without prior court review, and sometimes with prior court review – and then only when the government unilaterally decides that it is willing and able to answer to the judicial branch.</p>
<p>It is also clear that the deal is intentionally designed to grant immunity to companies that facilitated illegal wiretapping.  If the only role for the court – be it District or a FISA court – is to determine whether the companies received a request from the Administration, and not to determine whether those requests were legal, it’s a sham review.  The president has publicly acknowledged that the companies were repeatedly sent authorizations to turn over Americans phone calls and emails.  It is absolutely guaranteed that current and future cases will never determine whether this administration and its friends in the telecom industry broke the law. </p>
<p>The ACLU urges Senators to vote against this deal if it is brought to a vote next week.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/13/161713/855/425/535544">KagroX also has thoughts on the subject</a>, mostly concluding that Hoyer has lost his influence with the Democratic caucus; I am not at all convinced that is so.</p>
<p><b>What’s in it for Steny?</b></p>
<p>Steny Hoyer wants to be Speaker of the House. He’s been scheming to get the job for years, and would like nothing more than to squeeze Pelosi aside. (Their rivalry goes back 40 years, to when he and Pelosi both clerked for Senator Daniel Brewster of Maryland. He ran against Pelosi for Party whip in 2002 and lost; her victory in that election propelled her to the Speaker’s job – the job Steny thinks should be his.)  Hoyer is a favorite of the House BlueDogs, who sided with him against Pelosi’s wishes and elected him Majority Leader over John Murtha, her preferred candidate.</p>
<p>Among Hoyer’s many machinations is spreading the false notion that Democrats must steer far right on all matters of “national security” or risk being defeated at the polls by Republicans, and then sponsoring neocon-friendly legislation to meet that conjured need. His efforts to cobble together a new FISA bill – including <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/blue_dog_traitors_0">completely inappropriate but BlueDog supported</a> telecom immunity – are designed to provide that entirely unnecessary political cover. If the bill succeeds in passing, he will claim credit for securing the Democratic majorities and especially for giving cover to the BlueDogs; if it fails, they will still have been able to cast votes in favor to cover their right flank and he will still claim credit for doing his best to protect them. </p>
<p>Democrats are expected to pick up between 20 and 30 new House members this fall, most of them elected in “conservative” districts and expected to align with, if not formally join, the BlueDog Coalition. With these newfound allies, Hoyer may be powerful enough to oust Pelosi. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President, there will be a substantial reassessment of the entire Democratic leadership and Hoyer’s chances will be further increased. Steny Hoyer wants to be Speaker; if he has to sell the constitutional rights of American citizens down the river to get what he wants, so be it.</p>
<p><b>FISA and <i>Boumedienne v. Bush</i></b></p>
<p>The recent SCOTUS decision on habeas corpus, <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf">authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority</a>, is one of the finest pieces of writing to come from the Supreme Court in many years. It is also the most significant single decision on the separation of powers to be rendered since at least <i>Nixon</i>, and the more I read it the more impressed I am at both its assertive definitiveness and its breathtaking scope. Judgements of such power and impact on constitutional structure do not happen often; this one should be widely read and, <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/eureka_habeas_lives_if_only_on_life_support">as Leah aptly notes, celebrated</a>. In this ruling, <a href="http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html"><i>Marbury v. Madison</i></a> is affirmed with a vengeance.</p>
<p>Here’s Chief Justice John Marshal in 1803:</p>
<blockquote><p> It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>And here is Justice Kennedy, 205 years on:</p>
<blockquote><p> Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this [by claiming the US has no sovereignty over Guantanamo because it is Cuban territory only occupied by lease]. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). </p>
<p>-snip-</p>
<p>These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. <b>The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.</b> [emphasis added]</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>SCOTUS decisions are usually very narrowly written and carefully circumscribed. Someone as intelligent and cautious as Kennedy could not possibly have been unaware of the impact of the words he has chosen, insisting that the Court’s judicial authority must not be constrained to a simple review of whether (1) standards and procedures developed by an executive agency are lawful and (2) whether those standards were followed.  That constraint of the power of the courts under the <a href="http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=3690">Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and Military Commissions Act of 2006</a> is for Kennedy the very heart of the issue:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction not to inquire into the legality of the detention generally but only to assess whether the CSRT [<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=7530">Combatant Status Review Tribunal </a>] complied with the “standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense” and whether those standards and procedures are lawful.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Kennedy then, speaking for the Court, reasserts <i>Marbury</i> and commands full control of the judicial process including the authority to judge the evidence accumulated by the executive in support of it’s administrative decisions along with any additional exculpatory evidence the court deems proper:</p>
<blockquote><p>For the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy in this context, the court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the CSRT proceedings. This includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence against the detainee. It also must have the authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The Court thus rejects, without equivocation, any claim that either Congress or the Executive or the two of them in collusion can restrict the power of the judiciary to inquire into any and all evidence regarding a case at hand and further asserts that the courts, and the courts alone, may decide on the meaning and applicability of all laws.</p>
<p>This is potentially a critical assertion in regards to both the pending <i>Protect America Act</i> that Steny and his buddies are pushing, and more importantly the entire FISA structure itself. <i>Boumedienne</i> rejects the notion that Congress can circumscribe the role of the courts in reviewing the execution of a plan implemented by the executive branch, exactly what is being plotted by Steny and Friends. Again, per Christy Hardin Smith’s ACLU sources:</p>
<blockquote><p>Whatever silk purse Hoyer tries to make of Bond&#8217;s sow&#8217;s ear and no matter how they try to sell it, the end result of all this negotiating will be exactly what the administration has wanted from the beginning - FISA rewritten to delete court oversight of surveillance and immunity for its pals at the telephone companies.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Even the current FISA process, where the administration decides what evidence to provide and the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] has no power to ask for more or to even review the subsequently collected wiretaps and decide if the original ruling was correct, fails <i>Boumedienne</i>. Consider again this declaration from Kennedy of what is unacceptable:</p>
<blockquote><p>The <u>Court of Appeals</u> has jurisdiction not to inquire into the legality of the <u>detention</u> generally but only to assess whether the CSRT complied with the “standards and procedures specified by the <u>Secretary of Defense</u>….</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>and substitute FISA, <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/13/revenge-of-article-iii/">as Marcy at <i>empywheel</i> suggests</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The <u>FISC</u> has jurisdiction not to inquire into the legality of the <u>wiretap</u> program generally, but only to assess whether the government complied with the &#8220;standards and procedures specified by the <u>Attorney General</u>….</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>With Kennedy’s wording, the Supreme Court has put the Congress and the Executive on notice that no concern, however frighteningly phrased, is sufficient to overthrow the terms of the Constitution. What makes this turn of events even sweeter is that the Court’s position rests on a starkly conservative philosophy; no clearer interpretation of Founder’s Intent is possible. </p>
<p>That the Bush Administration’s polices towards suspension of habeas corpus are unconstitutional is no longer open to debate. The same ruling also directly challenges the constitutionality of the pending <i>Protect America Act</i> provisions for both expanded wiretapping and telecom immunity, and even puts existing secretive and judicially compromised FISA procedures in significant jeopardy.  </p>
<p>Cause for celebration, indeed.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>Update: <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fisa-negotiators-near-deal-2008-06-13.html"><i>The Hill</i> confirms</a> the report at <i>CQ</i> about Steney and Jay’s little deal with the Republicans. Their story includes this quote: </p>
<blockquote><p>Shana Marchio, spokeswoman for Bond, said that Thursday&#8217;s negotiations marked the fourth round of talks between her boss, Hoyer and Blunt. She said this meeting also included Rockefeller, staff for House committees, the White House and the intelligence community.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The mention of “staff for House committees” suggests greater involvement for Conyers than reported at <i>emptywheel</i>, although which “House committees” were involved in the negotiations is not specified.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/14/various_items/index.html">Glen Greenwald writes about the deal here </a> (Item 3), promising more tomorrow (6/15). He says:</p>
<blockquote><p>Specifically, Democratic Congressional leaders (i.e., Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Silvestre Reyes) have now reached agreement with the White House and the GOP to pass a FISA bill that would give the President, in essence, everything he wants: guaranteed dismissal of the telecom lawsuits and vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>But Greenwald’s only references are the <i>Hill</i> and <i>CQ</i> stories, which don’t make those claims. <i>The Hill</i> is more circumspect about how far along things have progressed:</p>
<blockquote><p>But aides said the deal is not final because negotiators have to vet the language within their respective caucuses. One person familiar with the talks said if there are no major objections, the deal could be announced next week.</p>
</p></blockquote>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Lies, Damnable Lies, and Political Commentary</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/lies_damnable_lies_and_political_commentary" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/lies_damnable_lies_and_political_commentary</id>
    <published>2008-06-11T00:30:19-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-06-12T12:05:00-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Disinformation" />
    <category term="Department of When Foil is not Foily" />
    <category term="Hillary Clinton Barack Obama" />
    <category term="Larry Johnson" />
    <category term="lies" />
    <category term="MSM" />
    <category term="Steve Diamond" />
    <category term="VRWC" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><i>“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”</i></p>
<blockquote><p>V.I. Lenin</p>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Are there any limits to what can be said about political opponents? Should there be any limits? Does anything go, no matter who is the target? Are we all no better now than Karl Rove?</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><i>“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”</i></p>
<blockquote><p>V.I. Lenin</p>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Are there any limits to what can be said about political opponents? Should there be any limits? Does anything go, no matter who is the target? Are we all no better now than Karl Rove?</p>
<p>The moral reason we ought not to lie is because it damages others without justification, and that is as basic a human wrong as there is. The practical reason we ought not to lie is because it damages us; when we are caught, and liars always get caught, our credibility suffers and we can no longer participate in a conversation from a position of authority or respect. Telling political lies, as well as uncritically spreading them, is anti-progressive, un-liberal, and eventually ineffective in support of any agenda intended to improve the lot of humankind. It is an indefensible practice in political dialogue, and I have no patience for it.</p>
<p>What constitutes ethical reportage and discussion in the blogosphere? Are there standards? Should there be standards? What would those standards look like? Do they apply equitably, or can we employ baseless trashing of our perceived enemies while whimpering like little babies when it happens to those we support? If we employ a double standard, demanding that those who argue against us are despicable creeps when they make stuff up but insist that we can do it ourselves against those we oppose, do we really do ourselves and our cause any favors? Or do we so undermine our own credibility that no intelligent discussion can occur? If the latter, and I cannot see any plausible argument against it, who benefits? Not the downtrodden or the oppressed, that’s for damn sure.</p>
<p>When every crass lie and foundationless rumor is repeated and discussed as though it were real, on an equal basis with rational and logical positions, then every topic becomes suspect; when all sides are spreading baseless rumor and lies, then every commentator is seen as equally unreliable. When meaningful conversation is no longer possible, organized opposition to the established order also becomes impossible. I may be seen by some as old-fashioned with my rigid bottom-line morality and insistence on the societal value of gentlemanly ways, but I am absolutely certain that there is a depth to which we must not sink or all hope of progress is lost.</p>
<p>From the Clintons and Vince Foster to John McCain and his secret illegitimate black baby to Al Gore and the internet and <i>Love Story</i> to John Kerry and the Swiftboaters to every single public word that has ever come out of the mouth of George W. Bush, the VRWC<a href="/lexicon_of_liberal_invective/vrwc" title="VRWC: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, originated by Senator and best-selling-though-not-bulk-ordered author Hillary Clinton. See Federalist Society, Bush Administration.

"><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/lexicon_of_liberal_invective/vrwc" title=" Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, originated by Senator and best-selling-though-not-bulk-ordered author Hillary Clinton. See Federalist Society, Bush Administration.</p>
<p>"></p>
<p>&#8221;><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> lies as it breathes, without heed or concern for the consequence beyond the destruction of others and their own immediate gratification. The only long term plan is more and bigger lies.</p>
<p>For the rest of us, in trying to disarm and defeat the forces of tyranny and oppression, the most powerful weapon we can wield is the truth. If you don’t subscribe to that principle, you will be my enemy – just so we’re all clear with each other. If we allow ourselves to sink to the level of those we despise, we cannot win anything; we will defeat ourselves.</p>
<p>So how is that battle with our own better selves going? Lately, not so well.</p>
<p><b>Larry Johnson, Michelle Obama, and a great big pile of nothing</b> </p>
<p>Johnson, for reasons that remain opaque but in my experience is probably due to his being a self-serving moron, chose to spread around a rumor about Michelle Obama. Why anyone would ever spread such vile rumor about any other human being is beyond me. Why someone who holds themselves out as a supporter of freedom chooses to employ the tools of tyranny cannot otherwise be explained except by the basest and most venal of self-interest and greed. There is no “good” explanation.</p>
<p>And he has gotten what he wanted. Based on nothing at all, he has become the recipient of a seemingly endless stream of attention and discussion. The number of search engine hits are extraordinary, for any topic, but one based on the rumor of a rumor? Here’s <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/anticipating_hillary#comment-94639">a recent comment here</a> at Corrente, assessing Johnson and his methods:</p>
<blockquote><p>I’m convinced that <i>Larry</i> is convinced there is such a tape. It’s entirely possible he’s the victim of a hoax, but I don’t think he’s lying.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>And that, apparently, is all it takes. For myself, I would want more evidence than that for a report of a new sale at WalMart. Third or fourth or fifth hand or whatever it is by the time it got here shouldn’t be good enough for anyone about anything. All that has happened in the Johnson affair is a pre-existing anti-Obama bias has been supported by a rumor spread by someone else whose pre-existing anti-Obama biases and selfish desires are in turn being supported by the unsubstantiated rumor mongering and/or lies of unknown others, anonymous sources whose own agendas and motives remain secret and carefully hidden away. But hey, it’s fun! Pass it on. </p>
<p>Is it lying? Oh, hell no; innocent victim, that’s our Larry; dumb as a stump he is, wholly unable to see that anyone who would claim to have a devastating tape of the wife of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee but who also is not going to release it until some later, more devastating time, is an agent of the VRWC; so is anyone who would lie about the existence of such a tape in the hopes that someone gullible and selfish and dumb as a stump would spread it around. That’s a tough one to figure out, for sure. That Larry, less sense than God gave a cabbage or he would have been able to suss that out. Or wait; maybe he isn’t so dumb; maybe he does know all of that and he’s spreading the rumor anyway. Maybe he is a liar. Or maybe he’s lying and greedy and dumb as a stump all at the same time, and only appeared to be smart and liberal because he’s been critical of Bush - in retrospect, not all that much of a challenge.</p>
<p>What is the cost for spreading VRWC propaganda? Diminishment of an innocent woman, no small thing in and of itself, not to mention untold damage to the political prospects of the only human being standing between the whole wide world and the unfathomable damage that will unfold from another four years of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush/VRWC. Surely a cheap price to pay for those website hits. Great work, <i>Larry</i>; nicely done.</p>
<p><b>In Re: Steve Diamond</b></p>
<p>I know his work, quite well. He’s very smart, well educated, and for a teacher he is soundly grounded in real-world experience. It is on balance good to have him in academia. On <a href="http://corplaw.blogspot.com/">corporate, labor and international finance law</a>, he’s very rigorous and relentlessly logical. With <a href="http://vallywood.blogspot.com/">labor practices and labor negotiations</a>, he is well-meaning and more than decent in his intention but inclined to take a harder partisan tone than is sometimes beneficial – forgivable, if occasionally irritating.</p>
<p>But like so many people, people other than me, he has a flaw; once settled on a position, he will go to any lengths to promote and defend it. This is fine, even admirable for a courtroom advocate and useful sometimes for a labor negotiator, but as a political analyst it leads to behaviors that in my mind are not defensible. That’s what has occurred here; he has crossed the line from hard criticism to baseless, unprincipled trumpery.</p>
<p>To understand what has happened and why it cannot be allowed to stand, we should take a couple of steps back up the narrative get the bigger picture. As <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/drumbeat_one_rezko_linked_to_obama_by_ap">Sarah has suitably exposed here</a>, this cycle will give us more of the same character assassination tactics from the VRWC and they will be spread by the corporatist controlled M$M as they <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060908.shtml">so recently did to Hillary Clinton</a>. The base units for these smear campaigns are again the “independent” 527s and 501(c)3s and the like, providing plausible deniability for the candidate who is in fact using the technique.</p>
<p>One of those VRWC front groups has exhumed the body and what is left of the congenitally deranged mind of an old acquaintance: Herb Romerstein. In his teens, Herb was an ardent Stalinist but he soon turned away and by the time he got back from service in the Korean War he was as fanatical an anticommunist as ever existed. He made his bones as a staffer for a New York State legislature committee investigating the Great Communist Conspiracy, eventually denouncing as Communist agents his high school teachers, summer camp councilors, family friends and assorted acquaintances; essentially everyone he had ever known who had ever uttered a kind word about any progressive policy, dozens of innocent lives ruined.</p>
<p>His zeal was great enough to catch the attention of national figures, and he moved up the Commie Hunt foodchain in the 60s to become Chief Investigator on the Republican side for the US House Committee on Internal Security – the renamed successor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). More than anything Herb wanted to be the next Joe McCarthy, and he was every bit as loathsome a character. For his final VRWC reward, he was appointed by Reagan to be Head of the deliberately misnamed Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, part of the United States Information Agency. Herb’s job there was actually to produce <i>dis</i>information, with the intent to destroy the reputations of everyone seen as an enemy of the VRWC.</p>
<p>[One often repeated trope is that the current ideological struggle we are urged to “get over” by Obama and his supporters if that of the 60s; this is incorrect. The struggle is as it ever was, between Them As Have Got and Them As Have Naught. The objective of the VRWC is to roll back all progressive policies and return America to the pre-FDR glory days of financial domination by a 1% elite. The framing of the attack today is in the same terms used by the Plutocracy to attack the progressive policies of FDR, just substituting the conjured enemy’s name over time from Commie to DFH<a href="/glossary/term/2124" title="DFH: Dirty Fucking Hippy. Hat tip, Atrios."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/2124" title=" Dirty Fucking Hippy. Hat tip, Atrios."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> to Liberal<a href="/glossary/term/83" title="Liberal: Noun. 1. Reality-based. 2. In Republican usage, a hate trigger. Usage example: A liberal isn&#039;t afraid to experiment, and change their thinking if the experiment doesn&#039;t pan out. Usage example: Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a><a href="/glossary/term/83" title=" Liberal programs like Social Security."><img src="sites/all/modules/glossary/glossary.gif" /></a> and now back again to Commie.</p>
<p>[In one of the more interesting political twists of all time, it was fear of Communism taking hold in America during the Great Depression that drove FDR and his allies to institute the New Deal programs; FDR co-opted the very social changes being advocated by the American Communist Party and used them to promote and eventually stabilize a new American Middle Class as the dominant socioeconomic structure, the first time in history that was ever achieved. One could say, without any exaggeration, that the publically-voiced political deceits of the Communist Party (in private truth they were of course terrible totalitarians) saved American democracy – but that isn’t the way history is taught, is it?</p>
<p>[More on Herb and the great struggle is <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/19991128mag-weisberg.html">here, in a 1999 analysis</a> written back when the New York Times actually employed journalists <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/who_the_hell_is_julie_bosman">instead of VRWC hacks.</a>]</p>
<p>Herb is one of those articulate, persuasive, socially functional paranoid delusionals who see Commie Sympathizers everywhere. He truly believes, and has spoken and written extensively about it, that <a href="http://www.historynet.com/harry-hopkins-president-franklin-d-roosevelts-deputy-president.htm">Harry Hopkins</a>, FDR’s closest aide and advisor, was a Soviet spy who controlled FDR as an unwitting Soviet dupe; other Soviet spies he has helped “uncover” were <a href="http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/joppenheimer.html">J. Robert Oppenheimer</a>, the brilliant scientist and compassionate human being whose career was destroyed and health ruined by the false accusations, and the great and good liberal journalist and author <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2783/">I.F. Stone</a>. Herb Romerstein is a very sick and very, very dangerous man.</p>
<p>Which makes him the perfect choice for participation in a new disinformation campaign from an outfit called <a href="http://www.usasurvival.org/"><i>America&#8217;s Survival Inc.</i></a>, originally funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation but <a href="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1378">supported exclusively from 2001 through 2006</a> by the Carthage Foundation – to the tune of $325,000. They’re big fans of Ron Paul (and David Vitter!) so plenty of badmouthing against Romney and McCain, but since April Fool’s Day they’ve swung their full attention to Obama. Every baseless screed you can think of they’ve posted on, but most of the emphasis is on Obama’s status as a tool of international Communism and the UN-mediated One World Order. For 325 large you can buy a lot of tinfoil.</p>
<p>This tiny, clearly fringe group consisting of a couple of flakes and a cadaver-in-waiting announced a press conference in DC for May 22, to be held in the basement of a DC coffee house. Not to disparage, but these kinds of little events go on all the time without notice from the press. (Go ahead; hold a basement press conference without a big name speaker on global warming or universal health care or the criminal conduct of Bush and Cheney and see what coverage you can get.) At best, some free-lance stringer might stop by to see if they can scrape together enough dregs for a spec piece to peddle to the Village Voice or McClatchy; no way would anyone of importance lower themselves to deal with this kind of trivia.  The Washington Post sent Dana Milbank.</p>
<p>Soft-voiced, gentle, affable, charming, androgynously-named Dana, with his non-threatening big doe eyes and his please-don’t-punch-me glasses and his oft-repeated (see Lenin on lies) reputation as a trustworthy “liberal” and harsh establishment critic, had absolutely nothing better to do on May 22 of 2008 than to sit in a coffee shop basement and listen to a bunch of whackjobs – and nothing better to do that night but write about them. He delivered a full column’s worth the next day, as his bosses wanted him to, because in the whole wide world nothing more important was happening. Nothing mattered as much as making sure the message of the VRWC got the widest possible coverage.</p>
<p>And boy, did Dana deliver. Not a point-by-point takedown of scurrilous VRWC lies and trash-talking, no, and not a thoughtful explique on the sad consequence of cutbacks on out-patient mental health programs, oh no, not that either. What he did is what he does best, a full regurgitation of the VRWC talking points under the guise of criticism. Witness his lede, what the casual reader skimming through will assimilate and what the VRWC will be able to cut and paste as evidence that the Washington Post and<i> even its Liberal Columnist Dana Milbank</i> are seriously discussing:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Obama as You&#8217;ve Never Known Him!</b><br />
<i>By Dana Milbank</i><br />
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A03 </p>
<p>Here are some things we can look forward to learning about Barack Obama: </p>
<p>• That he was mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party. </p>
<p>• That he launched his Illinois state Senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer.</p>
<p>• That while serving as a state senator, he was a member of a socialist front group.</p>
<p>• That his affiliations are so dodgy that he would have trouble getting a government security clearance.</p>
<p>• That there is reason to doubt his &#8220;loyalty to the United States.&#8221;</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>There follows <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203905.html">in the rest of the column</a> a pretense at dismissal of these claims, all the while carefully repeating them along with a whole host of others; Milbank made very sure to give every one of the <i>America’s Survival</i>-VRWC talking points plenty of room to breathe. (Well done, Dana! Here’s another wad of cash to tuck in your pocket, along with a coupon for free eats at the next McCain BBQ. Enjoy!)</p>
<p>Which brings us directly to Steven Diamond.</p>
<p>Diamond, for reasons he best expresses himself, wrote <a href="http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/believe-me-barack-is-no-communist.html">an essay two days later on May 25</a> entitled <i>Believe me, Barack is no Communist, But&#8230;.</i> because:</p>
<blockquote><p>Since I have been a critic here of some of the policies the Senator appears to support and people that he appears to be close to - and precisely because of their potential authoritarian implications - I thought I should address this issue.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Sure, of course. Never mind that the original source is a two-bit fringe group holding a meeting in the basement of a coffee shop, the Very Important and Well-Respected Dana Milbank is writing about it so I should write about it too because my opinions are also Very Important and Well-Respected. (Ego problems much these days, Steve?)</p>
<p>But wait; first thing, is there any substance to the claims about Obama and communism?   Diamond says not, right in the title, and then offers more detail:</p>
<blockquote><p> There are some indications that Obama brushed up against CP [Communist Party] members or fellow travelers in Hawaii (apparently Frank Marshall Davis, the black CP poet and journalist was friends with the Obama family in Hawaii) or in that Berkeley-lite, Hyde Park, over the years and these people may have influenced him to be more on the left side of the spectrum rather than the right. But that is a far cry from becoming a CP member or even a sympathizer. Believe me, the American CP had long stopped attracting young people to its cause by the time Obama was a teen-ager.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>[Editorial aside; Hyde Park is “Berkeley-lite”? I like that; very much.]</p>
<p>OK, then; Obama is not a communist or a communist dupe. There is, however, that lingering “But” to deal with. Diamond has, as he says, <a href="http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-did-barack-obama-meet-bill-ayers.html">written in the past about ties between Obama and Bill Ayers</a> and through him to some “authoritarian Left” as Diamond would have it. Is there a real danger that the “authoritarian Left” controls or dictates or guides the policies and thinking of the next President of the United States? Here’s Diamond again:</p>
<blockquote><p> But does this new &#8220;left&#8221; authoritarianism have the ability to control a presidential candidate, manchurian-style? Hardly, even if some in this movement had an interest in doing so.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, I feel better; no ability to control Obama, and no interest in trying. Even better, there apparently isn’t even an actual entity to worry about, no central organization and no discipline:</p>
<blockquote><p>This new movement is very diverse in form and structure and plays in a variety of arenas, but has no central organizational structure or discipline.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Which would be even more of a relief to me, but Diamond senses their interconnectedness in more ephemeral ways:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is, instead, a kind of shared, almost cultural or instinctual, identity with each other. This accounts, in part, for what is broadly known as &#8220;politcal [sic] correctness.&#8221;</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, damn, the PC police; probably the same sort of people who natter on about my devotion to being a gentleman. So annoying, Steve; I know just what you mean. He almost has my sympathy, but then he lets slip his true self: </p>
<blockquote><p>But the reality is that you can find these new authoritarian types all over the place: in higher education…Schools of Education…the labor movement&#8230;the Chicago anti-war movement….</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>OH NO! They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere! Grab the children, Ma, and head for the hills! In a darkened coffee shop basement somewhere, Herb Romerstein is smiling and nodding, gently nodding his approval.</p>
<p>Having dismissed claims of an Obama-communist link as well as saying that whatever sort of “authoritarian Left” there might be has no controlling effect either, Diamond still goes on to speculate. Within what looks to be some 2000 words or so, he scatters an endless stream of little rat droppings: the totalitarian regimes of Tito’s Yugoslavia  and China, Che Guevara, the murderous cowards Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and their erstwhile Weather Underground associates and convicted terrorists Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Mexican Zapatistas, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Even the benign SDS and the perfectly fine and upright Carl Davidson (called by Diamond a “Fidelista” for opposing the continued Cuban trade sanctions) and Marilyn Katz, both of whom broke early and unequivocally from Ayers and Dohrn over using violence for political action, are seen as part of some dark design.</p>
<p>It is a tangled web that Diamond weaves; reminds me very much of those generated by <a href="http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm">spiders under the influence</a> of caffeine; oddly beautiful and intriguing, but functionally useless. He’s been at this “authoritarian Left” business hot and heavy for a while now; <a href="http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm">his 2007 PhD thesis</a>, 500 pages worth about the Sandanista Movement and associated influences, is surely much on his mind and his passion for finding some more contemporary relevance is understandable.</p>
<p>Still; when after 2000 words the conclusion is that</p>
<blockquote><p>It is hard to believe that Obama really supports the full politics of Ayers and Dohrn (does he really believe, as they do, that living in the U.S. is &#8220;living in the belly of the beast&#8221;?) or Katz and Davidson.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>what you’ve got is pretty thin gruel. It might be that Obama shares some views with Davidson and Katz, who are pretty unremarkable if solidly leftist, but I just can’t see Barry sitting around the kitchen table with Michelle and Bill and Bernie plotting to go blow up the Pentagon; he just doesn’t appear to have the temperament for explosives.</p>
<p>But hey; maybe with a little creative thinking there is a thread to pull here:</p>
<blockquote><p>Nonetheless, Obama has been unwilling to explain his relationship to them;</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>And there ya go; Obama has failed to deny unfounded accusations – Gotcha now, you slippery bastard! Nothing happened, therefore it must mean something; <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/healing_mickey_kaus_therapy_or_a_crowbar">it would be irresponsible not to speculate</a>. </p>
<p>Plus, there’s this stark evidentiary trail of philosophical collusion:</p>
<blockquote><p>…his [Obama’s]education advisor advocates one of Ayers&#8217; key policies: repaying the &#8220;education debt&#8221; - race based reparations in the form of dumping more money into a broken school system; and Obama himself has spoken sympathetically of the same idea.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Damn; really nailed Obama there. As Diamond <a href="http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/apparently-obama-does-indeed-support.html">more thoroughly documents in earlier postings </a>, Obama’s education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond co-authored <a href="http://www.forumforeducation.org/upload_files/files/FED_ReportRevised415.pdf">a report from the Forum for Education and Democracy</a> advocating an aggressive Federal push for improvement in public education with particular emphasis on the disaster that is entrapping our poorest children in a lifetime of ignorance and continued impoverishment. Obama has suggested, as have many others including myself, that the issue of slavery “reparations” can be addressed through collective investment in social benefit programs such as public education for both rural and inner-city poor, and jobs training and higher education assistance for poor adults.</p>
<p>Diamond sees this, the salvaging of public education and the providing of economic opportunity to the downtrodden, as evidence of “authoritarianism of the Left.” I say Diamond’s claim is bullshit.</p>
<p>But wait, there’s more. Let’s give Diamond his full due on this topic. He has also <a href="http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html">penned an article on April 22</a>, now with several updates, entitled <i>Who “sent” Obama?</i> which attempts to tie Obama tightly to both the Chicago political corruption machine and the violent authoritarianism of Ayers. It fails at both, but this time it takes him 4500 words – the thing about bullshit is the higher you try to pile it, the more work it takes.</p>
<p>These are Diamond’s linkage words in the critical accusation (para # 25, m/l), dissected like bones from the covering fleshy text so we can see the strength of what he has to offer as proof:</p>
<blockquote><p>I can only speculate…it is possible…That might have happened if…if…might have…My best guess….</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>That’s it. That’s all that Diamond has; speculation, ifs on top of ifs, capped by a guess. Very impressive though in its own malicious way, impressive enough to generate <a href="http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-retreat-from-bill-ayers-begins.html">radio talk show appearances for Diamond</a></p>
<blockquote><p>What is the influence of Bill Ayers on the Obama campaign? I will be discussing that question this Sunday (June 16) at approximately 11:30 PM West Coast time (8:30 East Coast) in part II of my chat with John Batchelor. Click here to listen live on the web on KFI-640 AM (LA).</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Hot damn again! A real honest-to-goodness two-part radio interview! Respect! Fame! Knowing what it feels like to be a Very Important Person, just like Dana Milbank! Mission Accomplished!</p>
<p>And like all good demagogues, Diamond has now declared victory over the horrific influence of the “authoritarian Left” that he conjured but failed to document. In a column today, June 10, titled <i>Obama&#8217;s retreat from Bill Ayers begins - is there room under that bus?</i>, Diamond writes:</p>
<blockquote><p> Finally understanding that the links between Obama and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers are toxic, the Obama campaign has begun a strategic retreat from Comrade Ayers. Now they are hiding behind the petticoat of Hizzoner Mayor Richie Daley as explained today at <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/10/a-little-housecleaning-at-obamas-fact-check-site/">Hot Air</a>.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>If you’re into Ed Morrissey - and I will unhesitatingly and proudly state that I am not - by all means go and read, but again there is no there, there. No retreat from anything, in any way at all, except in the minds of Morrissey and Diamond and those who think like them.</p>
<p><b>Recap and Conclusion</b></p>
<p>In both cases discussed above, we see the same pattern. Some VRWC operative, known in one case and unknown in another, starts an unfounded rumor designed to damage Barack Obama’s chances for the Presidency. In Larry Johnson’s case he was approached by the VRWC operatives covertly, perhaps directly but probably through trusted intermediaries, and Johnson was used to spread the deceit through the blogosphere and eventually into the M$S. In Steve Diamond’s case, the overt VWRC operatives were first facilitated by the M$M tool Milbank, whose work was picked up not only <a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_570263.html">by other M$M operatives</a> but the blogger Diamond from whence it spread again like an infection throughout the web community.</p>
<p>The time course is terrifying; from a VRWC presser on May 22 to the MSM on May 23 to a colluding attack by a blogger on May 25. It couldn’t be infecting faster if it were Ebola. Clickety-click, the lies are spread about Obama just as they were about Hillary and Kerry and Gore and Bill Clinton and Dukakis and Carter and on backwards as far as anyone cares to look. This cycle, however, was a big step upwards in complexity for the VRWC with a very great many of the supposedly progressive blogs joining the M$M to destroy Hillary Clinton, the stronger of the two dominant Democratic candidates. </p>
<p>With her apparently out of the way the M$M is now beginning to follow the lead of the VRWC and turn on Obama, again aided by foundationless attacks from supposedly progressive bloggers. I am not alone in seeing this as cause for serious concern. Anglachel, concisely and stoutly, describes the magnitude of the hazard <a href="http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/06/visceral-reactions.html">smartly here</a> and again <a href="http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/06/media-whores-online.html">more recently here</a>. I don’t always see eye-to-eye with her, but in these two posts she is spot-on. The progressive blogosphere is systematically destroying any chance of defeating John McCain and thereby enabling the continued horrific destruction of the Plutocratic Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.</p>
<p>The question, of course, is why. Is it just the seemingly endless inability of the Left to get along, the apparently inevitable in-fighting that has allowed the VRWC to control the presidency or the Congress or both for such a large percentage of the last 40 years? Or is there something more going on here?</p>
<p>Since we’re all into speculation and supposition and connecting the dots, because it is so much fun, let’s have a go at it right here. It seems to me, looking at the above, that the migration of bloggers from the Right to what was widely seen as at least semi-progressive political positions was not what it appeared to be. Instead of being rejectionists of Bush and the Republican Party, these bloggers including Huffington and Sullivan and Kos and so many others were in actuality trained and funded operatives of the VRWC. They were sent to take over the blogosphere and allowed to establish a cover by attacking Bush et al because the VRWC powers knew that it wouldn’t matter; Bush/Cheney would just keep doing whatever they wanted anyway.</p>
<p>In this most perilous time, when the VRWC is on the one hand close to a full takeover of the Federal government by co-opting the courts while on the other hand teetering on the brink of possible real investigations and even criminal convictions should a Democrat gain the White House, the agents were turned loose along with the M$M to exclude Edwards and the other white males by ignoring them (Step 1) so they could focus on attacking Hillary Clinton. The Republicans knew that she would be a real threat in the general election, so she had to be shut down in the primary. It was touch and go, but with a level of virulent sexism and misogyny exceeding any plausible bounds of justifiable political discourse, they achieved Step 2.</p>
<p>Now, with the weaker national candidate chosen for the Democrats, the job of the VRWC is to damage him so completely that even with the American public completely disenchanted with Republican policies they will still elect John McCain (Step 3). Long buried secret agents like Steve Diamond have been activated to echo the VRWC anti-Obama talking points, so that he can seen to be under attack from both the Right and the Left for being an un-American secret tool of some kind of authoritarian conspiracy to sell out American freedom. If everyone is saying it, it must be true.</p>
<blockquote><p><i>“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”</i></p>
<blockquote><p>V.I. Lenin</p>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>Now these lies and baseless character assassinations have been brought to Corrente, <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/regarding_the_authoritarian_left_steve_diamond_is_not_an_idiot#comment-95023">by anonymous posters</a> who are either paid operatives for or agents of the VRWC – or, possibly, their unwitting dupes. If this scurrilous behavior, this concerted effort to destroy any chance of a Democratic victory, this full-out effort to ensure that the Republican McCain will be victorious, this unrelenting drive to make certain that the crimes and destruction of the past 40 years by one Republican after another will stay protected, continues here at Corrente it will have me as an implacable foe.</p>
<p>One more Presidential victory is all they need; after four more years the courts will be completely overrun by VRWC agents, from Federal District Courts to the whole of the SCOTUS. The operational branches of the Executive will have been totally restructured as tools of corporatist expansion, the social safety net and public education will be destroyed beyond rescue, American Empire will squat across the Middle East at whatever cost in blood and treasure is demanded, and the broader American public will be so demoralized and subservient that extraction of capital wealth for the benefit of the upper socioeconomic 1% can continue unabated. The Plutocrats will have won.</p>
<p>If this despicable, destructive movement cannot be stopped here, then where? If it cannot be stopped now, then when? I will not tolerate the spreading of falsehoods that benefit the cause of the VRWC. I will not tolerate the spreading of lies about the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country.</p>
<p>I Will Not Tolerate It.</p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Anticipating Hillary</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.correntewire.com/anticipating_hillary" />
    <id>http://www.correntewire.com/anticipating_hillary</id>
    <published>2008-06-06T19:43:10-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-06-08T14:14:31-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>bringiton</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Dem on Dem Violence" />
    <category term="election 2008" />
    <category term="Electoral College" />
    <category term="Hillary Clinton Barack Obama" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>[<b>Hillary&#8217;s speech</b>: Since bringiton has framed the issues so nicely, let&#8217;s use this post as an open thread for Hillary&#8217;s speech, which <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/7/123553/4534">TalkLeft</a> and <a href="http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-lady-speaks-live-blog">RiverDaughter</a> are liveblogging. <a href="http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&amp;Code=CS">CSPAN here</a>.]</p>
<p>It would be a grave error for anyone to underestimate Hillary Clinton.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>[<b>Hillary&#8217;s speech</b>: Since bringiton has framed the issues so nicely, let&#8217;s use this post as an open thread for Hillary&#8217;s speech, which <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/7/123553/4534">TalkLeft</a> and <a href="http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-lady-speaks-live-blog">RiverDaughter</a> are liveblogging. <a href="http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&amp;Code=CS">CSPAN here</a>.]</p>
<p>It would be a grave error for anyone to underestimate Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>Obama, to his credit, certainly has not. He leapt at the first opportunity to talk to her, in private at AIPAC, in private by phone, and then in a private, on-on-one meeting at Feinstein’s house. Hillary Clinton has power, Barak Obama both wants and needs some of it, and he will do what he must to get it.</p>
<p>Tomorrow Hillary will formally and publicly do what she must, by acknowledging that Obama has won the right to be called the “presumptive” nominee and pledging her support to his candidacy. If one assumes, as one now must, that the decision of the Party elders to make Obama the Democratic nominee at the Convention is sustained, then the only reasonable alternative to avoid a November disaster is to do these two things.</p>
<p>That is, however, quite different from capitulation and subservience, as the media will try and portray it. Being careful to not use metaphors that can be twisted, I will say nothing about giving someone enough rope; instead let me offer that Clinton will praise the majesty of Obama’s petard, giving him the opportunity to either use it to secure his position or to hoist himself upon it. Shakespeare; should be safe enough.</p>
<p>When I listen to Clinton tomorrow, I won’t be focused so much on what she does say as I will be on what she doesn’t. I don’t expect to hear “quit” or “abandon” or “stop” or anything close to that sort of sentiment. I don’t expect to hear “defeated” or “vanquished” or “finished” either. This race is not over, she knows it and Obama knows it, but for the short term it must appear to all and sundry as though they have completely agreed that it is over.</p>
<p>Were Obama in a commanding position, he and his camp would not care what Clinton says or does. If he h