Wednesday, August 1, 2012

How to do the Texas two-step on Mar 4

It's easy.

First step: Vote in the Democratic primary.

Second step: Go to your precinct polling place at 7:15pm Tuesday Mar 4. This is your precinct convention. If you voted early and you're not sure where your polling place is, go here to find out.

Sign in and list your preference for the presidential nominee (for Obama, of course!).

After the meeting is called to order, you can leave if you want to. By signing in, you're "counted" in the math that decides how many of your precincts' delegates for each candidate will go to your county convention.

If you decide to stay, you can vote for the delegates or you can be a delegate yourself. The people who stay at the precinct conventions will elect the actual delegates to the county conventions. Some precincts will have lots of delegates to select - and an equal number of alternates. My precinct gets 41 delegates! So we'll be needing 82 people willing to be delegates.

If you're really dedicated, also take a list of people who would be willing to serve as delegates even if they are not going to be at the precinct convention. Delegates do not need to be at the precinct convention - but they must be elected at it.



To see this bigger (so you can read the fine print) click here.










[Why do we have a "two-step" in Texas? Well, historically, delegates to the national convention from Texas were selected only by caucus at the Texas convention. To make it more democratic - to let more Texans have a say about who the nominee should be - the system was changed to make it so that 2/3 of the delegates would be apportioned based on the regular primary vote.

Those who are involved enough in Democratic party politics to go to their conventions get to vote again at their precinct for how the other 1/3 are apportioned. It's also a very democratic process - anyone who votes in the Democratic primary is welcome at their precinct convention, to "vote twice" for a candidate they feel strongly about. It's complicated, but I think it's overall a good system.

I think those who feel very strongly about a candidate, and those who are willing to work more actively in Democratic party politics, should have a louder voice in who is selected as the Democratic party's nominee.]

[posted on 3/1/08]

¿Como se Dice, como se LLama?



[posted on 2/29/08]

Tough enough?

I wasn't an early supporter of Obama (Dodd, then Edwards), mainly because I wasn't sure he'd be tough enough against the inevitable Republican "do not let a Democrat win anything - even if it's a good thing."

See, for example, the S-CHIP battle. As far as the R's are concerned, the name of the game is . . . it's a game, and winning isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing. The concept that we elect people to office to get things done, useful things that affect our lives, seems beyond their conception. War? It has the same reality as a football game. Yay! We're winning! Boo. You're not cheering loud enough. (Traitors.)

Would Obama be tough enough? Would he fight them hard enough? Would he be able to kick their asses into total irrelevance?

But I've come around for a variety of reasons, and now that I'm looking at him more closely, I think I might be seeing something that will actually work. Maybe. Maybe not. But attempting to "pacify" the Right-Wing is clearly futile and self-destructive. Attacking them seems to not work either - they just double and redouble their counter attacks, which even when totally dishonest and irrational, finally wears everyone down.

I liked the way Obama countered Hillary's inane "plagiarism" attack during the Austin debates by pointing out that that whole line of discussion was purely silly and immediately changing the subject to "we have real problems in this country that need solutions."

And XStryker had a comment that showed something else I hadn't seen before:

Obama's [strategy] is hugely effective. Instead of using the Clinton strategy of offering red meat to Republicans (like Hillary's anti-flag-burning bill or her Iraq War vote), Obama remains progressive and then finds Republicans who agree with him. For example, he takes a conservative guy, Dick Lugar, with a sensible stance on foreign policy and he passes legislation to secure loose nukes, a bill previously rejected by the Republican congress during the Clinton administration. Even president Bush, who nominally opposed it, concedes and signs it. That's how things get done. He finds a conservative who is willing to speak out against his party's earmarking, Tom Coburn, and passes the Coburn-Obama bill to force congress to disclose their spending and earmarks on the internet.

Instead of moving to the center, he approaches people issue-by-issue. The Republican party includes social progressives, economic populists, and foreign policy realists. Obama's strategy is to appeal to everyone's most liberal tendency individually. Clinton, however, has a tendency to unite people against her, and her only strategy in response is to triangulate to the right. The truth is that her campaign is not very effective and lousy on strategy, which is how she managed to go from front-runner to down nearly 100 delegates.

And if she's run a mistake-ridden losing campaign for the Democratic nomination, how can she possibly beat the Republican machine in any state less Democratic than New York? Obama leads McCain in the polls because his strategy works. He appeals to both progressives and independents. All this nonsense of Obama as "center right" is willfully ignorant spin . . .

(I would add further, if she can't manage a campaign effectively, how can she manage a country? There's a reason the President is called the "Chief Executive." Because the main part of the job is to be a manager of the biggest damn bureaucracy in the world.)

. . . and . . .
The Obama campaign made a brilliant move by making Obama's website the top search response for "Obama + Muslim". They've effectively marginalized, isolated, and forced retractions out of Fox News. They had Jesse Jackson on Olbermann yesterday keeping the heat on Bill O'Reilly. Unfortunately, when you're being attacked by the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign at the same time, you can't always draw attention to every GOP criticism by addressing directly. Once Clinton is done attacking Obama, Obama will be ready to silence McCain's attacks as effectively as he's answered Hillary's.

Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by XStryker

Maybe we need someone who can fight smarter, instead of harder. Maybe that's the right kind of "tough."

[posted on 2/24/08]

How it works



Hmmmm. This explains a lot about, well, a lot of things.

From xkcd comics.

[posted on 2/24/08]

Si, se puede!



[posted on 2/22/08]

Obama addresses automakers in Detroit

"I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”



Obama on the Issues: Energy

[posted on 2/16/08]

Obama Super Tuesday ad



[posted on 2/7/08]

Yes We Can



[posted on 2/4/08]

Sen. Ted Kennedy



[posted on 12/17/07]

Why It matters

From the Church Committee Report:



(Click on images to view larger.}



Historian Henry Steele Commager assessed the Committee’s legacy. Referring to executive branch officials who seemed to consider themselves above the law, he said, “It is this indifference to constitutional restraints that is perhaps the most threatening of all the evidence that emerges from the findings of the Church Committee.”


Our Presidents should not be able to conduct secret operations which violate our principles, jeopardize our rights, and have not been subject to the checks and balances which normally keep policies in line. - Morton Halperin, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Affairs


In its consideration of covert action, the Committee was struck by the basic tension--if not incompatibility--of covert operations and the demands of a constitutional system. Secrecy is essential to covert operations; secrecy can, however, become a source of power, a barrier to serious policy debate within the government, and a means of circumventing the established checks and procedures of government. The Committee found that secrecy and compartmentation contributed to a temptation on the part of the Executive to resort to covert operations in order to avoid bureaucratic, congressional, and public debate. - The Church Committee


And remember that once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws. - Al Gore, address for Martin Luther King Day, January 16, 2006


[posted on 12/17/07]

Sen. Chris Dodd


[posted on 12/17/07]

How to create "truth" (that's actually a lie)

We continue to hear calls from reasonable people of all political persuasions - Democrats, Independents, those who are uninvolved in politics but who are disgusted and despairing of the direction that our country has taken, even "traditional Republicans" who embrace fiscal sanity and competent governance - that the Democratic Party MUST start getting the message out about what is really going on. That they must counter the spin, the lies with the truth and the facts.

When they do that - most people believe - the American people will reject the disasterous neo-con experiment and throw the bums out at the polls. Then the long and difficult healing can begin.

Democrats simply must start speaking up and speaking out.

However, these demands presume that there is some way to communicate truth and facts. For the vast majority of Americans, information about what is going on in the world around them comes from traditional media - primarily television, and to a lesser extent, newspapers and newsmagazines.

If you are not given access to talk shows, newscasts, are not interviewed for articles - how do you speak out? If you are constantly shouted down, how do you speak up? If little snippets of access you are given to the megaphone that most Americans are tuned to are "balanced" by a constant barrage of lies and spin, how can you be believed?

Anonymous Liberal has been homing in like a laser on this fundamental problem, posting at Glenn Greenwald's excellent Unclaimed Territory

A Game Without Referees:

How did things come to be like this? Well, over the last two decades, the Republican political machine has engaged in a relentless and systematic assault on all of the institutions in our society that have traditionally served as checks on excessive partisanship. They have attacked the press, the judiciary, academia, even the very concepts of science and empiricism. Their goal has been to discredit and disable the referees, to politicize, marginalize, and co-opt any and all non-political institutions, and thereby eliminate any meaningful policing of political debate.

And they have been remarkably successful. In a relatively short period of time, conservatives have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the media, the judiciary, and even science itself cannot be trusted . . . . Beyond damaging the credibility of these institutions in the eyes of many Americans, this withering assault has actually transformed the institutions themselves.


Anonymous Liberal explains how it works:

The term "reasonable" has no objective meaning, at least in the realm of politics. Whether an idea is deemed "reasonable" has little to do with the merits of the idea and everything to do with the prevailing political climate as interpreted by our national media. GOP strategists like Karl Rove long ago realized that the national media will treat any talking point that is repeated by enough people as ipso facto "reasonable," and conversely, will treat any idea that is not repeated by a sufficient number of people as "unreasonable" or "extreme," no matter what its objective merits.


As he said last July in The Death of Political Discourse:

[Rove] realized that journalists are often lazy fact-checkers and have a tendency to repeat conventional wisdom, i.e., things they assume are true because they've heard them so many times before. This is particularly true in cases where a "fact" fits nicely within a pre-established media narrative. For example, the idea that Dan Quale was "dumb" became an established narrative soon after his arrival on the national stage. Thereafter, any story that involved Dan Quale doing or saying anything remotely "dumb," even if totally inaccurate, was quickly picked up and repeated by the mainstream media to the point where the original truth or falsity of the story was irrelevant.


Peter Daou at The Daou Report has been writing about this for some time. His point is that too many of us continue to believe that all we need to do is "tell the truth" when in fact, there is simply no way to tell it if we don't have access to the means to communicate. And that means more that simply some air time. We're up against a powerful machine that has honed its ability to shape the public discourse using the tools that have been being refined for decades by marketing experts. Marketing works by tapping into deep-seated psychological truths - the way our minds and emotions work - and ever since Freud, they have been getting better and better at manipulating us. First to sell us products - now to sell us an ideology.

From Peter Daou:

There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left. . . .

A single storyline is more effective than a thousand stories. And a single storyline delivered by a “neutral” reporter is a hundred times more dangerous than a storyline delivered by an avowed partisan. Rightwingers can attack the media for criticizing Bush, can slam the New York Times for being liberal, but when the Times and the Post and CNN and MSNBC echo the ‘Bush stands firm’ mantra, it adds one more brick to a powerful pro-Bush edifice.

These narratives are woven so deeply into the fabric of news coverage that they have become second nature and have permeated the public psyche and are regurgitated in polls. (The polls are then used to strengthen the narratives.) They are delivered as affirmative statements, interrogatives, hypotheticals; they are discussed as fact and accepted as conventional wisdom; they are twisted, turned, shaped, reshaped, and fed to the American public in millions of little soundbites, captions, articles, editorials, news stories, and opinion pieces. They are inserted into the national dialogue as contagious memes that imprint the idea of Bush=strong/Dems=weak. And they are false.

What’s so dumbfounding . . . is that Democratic politicians, strategists, and surrogates have internalized these narratives and play into them, publicly wringing their hands over how to fix their "muddled" message, how to deal with Bush’s "strength" on national security, how to talk about "values." It’s become a self-fulfilling cycle, with Democrats reinforcing anti-Dem myths because they can’t imagine any other explanation for the apparent lack of resonance of their message. Out of desperation, they resort to hackneyed, focus-grouped slogans in a vain attempt to break through the filter.

It’s simple: if your core values and beliefs and positions, no matter how reasonable, how mainstream, how correct, how ethical, are filtered to the public through the lens of a media that has inoculated the public against your message, and if the media is the public’s primary source of information, then NOTHING you say is going to break through and change that dynamic. Which explains, in large measure, the Dems’ sorry electoral failures.


[posted on 3/15/06]

Stop Alito!

Samual Alito on the Supreme Court is a prospect far beyond disturbing - it's frightening.

My letter to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Senator,

I am very disturbed by Judge Samuel Alito’s views on many issues, but perhaps most important is his apparent belief that the President should have the power to overturn or disregard the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in Congress.

This destroys the balance of powers, opens the door to a president that can act as king or dictator, and violates everything the framers intended when they wrote the Constitution that has served our country well for over 200 years.

His view that the notion of “one person one vote” is wrong is appalling. His desire to have the government take away the freedom to make personal medical decisions like abortion is only slightly less so.

I do not live in your state, but in your role as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel that you represent all Americans in this matter that is so vital to the future of our country. Please vote against confirming Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely,


Here's everything you need to send your own:

The Honorable Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-4254
Fax (202) 228-1229
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home


The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5251
Fax (202) 224-6331
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact


The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5972
Fax (202) 224-6020
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm


The Honorable Jon Kyl
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-4521
Fax (202) 224-2207
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm


The Honorable Mike DeWine
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-2315
Fax (202) 224-6519
http://dewine.senate.gov


The Honorable Jeff Sessions
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-4124
Fax (202) 224-3149
http://sessions.senate.gov/email/contact.cfm


The Honorable Lindsey Graham
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5972
Fax (202) 224-3808
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact


The Honorable John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-2934
Fax (202) 228-2856
http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html


The Honorable Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-6521
Fax (202) 228-1265
http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm


The Honorable Tom Coburn
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
http://coburn.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home


The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-4242
Fax (202) 224-3479
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov


The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-4543
Fax (202) 224-2417
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html


The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5042
Fax (202) 224-0139
senator@biden.senate.gov


The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-3841
Fax (202) 228-3954
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html


The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5323
Fax (202) 224-2725
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov


The Honorable Herbert Kohl
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-5653
Fax (202) 224-9787
http://kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html


The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-6542
Fax (202) 228-3027
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm


The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Ph. (202) 224-2152
Fax (202) 228-0400
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
[posted on 1/6/06]

New Orleans is being abandoned. Please help.

Originally posted at BooMan Tribune by kansas.

[kansas] I received this today from Julie Smith, a well-known mystery writer from New Orleans and a long-time friend of mine. She has given me permission to share it with you. I'll let Julie talk now.

Dear Friends:

We're in a panic down here, the second in three months. (You know what the first one was.) Somehow or other--I really can't think how--aid to Louisiana, rebuilding our levees, treating us like any Americans in trouble has become a political issue. It shouldn't be. Some of us are Democrats and some are Republicans, and we're all in it together.

I've just learned the right-wing political pundits have begun taking us on--Rush Limbaugh in particular--with a ton of misinformation and vitriol. On the other side, there was 60 Minutes, with its shocking one-source documentary.Where all that's coming from I really have no idea.

I honestly can't believe anyone could question of whether to appropriate money to rebuild our levees (and the rest of the city).

We're an American city. We deserve to be treated as such. What makes us different from any other one?

Crooked politicians? We've had them in the past, but we don't particularly now. So has your city, whatever it is. If this is what it's about, it's a smokescreen. Oversight can be built in to any spending plan, and it should be. What responsible legislative body wouldn't include it?

Or is it about the concern that we just shouldn't have built a city here? Tulsa was flooded and it recovered. Anchorage had an earthquake and it was rebuilt. If The Big One hit San Francisco, there's no doubt in my mind anyone would debate rebuilding.

The Times-Picayune wrote "they act as if we wore our skirts too short and invited trouble." That about sums it up. What's happening here? I've never been so bewildered.

The point of this letter is that we need you to write to your Congressmen (and women) to get us help.

I'd also like to clear up a little misinformation I understand is circulating. Here are things I keep hearing:

1. New Orleans is a toxic waste dump. It isn't. Some chemicals have been found in some of the soil, but there are no alarming reports.

2. There are plenty of jobs, but no one wants to do them. This one is particularly galling--there's no place for anyone to live! Workers are camping in the parks and living in RV's. Not everyone can do that, and anyway, it's illegal. This is a huge problem, and it's not going to get solved without a lot of help from all branches of government.

3. The state misspent money that was supposed to go to levee repair. But the Corps of Engineers is a federal agency! One variation has it that the money was spent on casinos. The only reason we have casinos is to bring in tax revenue. We don't spend money on casinos--we depend on them for money.

4. Our public officials are so stupid we deserve to be deserted. You know, they're really not--and we don't. They're not Rudy Giuliani, (and don't we wish we had him!)--they're just ordinary people of slightly -above average intelligence from a backwater state, who never in a million years thought they'd be called upon to do this kind of a job. They're overwhelmed. It's too big for them. Would yours be any better? Would Giuliani? Consider this--9/11 knocked out 16 acres. Katrina and Rita together devastated 23,000 square miles. 9/11 was over--even the searching--in the amount of time the government took to even get some rescue units in here. Three months later, we're still a shell of a city. New York didn't lose 80 per cent of its land mass and 85 per cent of its population. Giuliani never had to evacuate an entire city. Who knows if even he would look good in our circumstances. And if you don't personally like our mayor and governor, since when do we punish citizens for making poor choices, anyhow? (Besides, you should have seen the other guys.)

5. Things are not getting back to normal here. Actually, the situation is quite dire. Things aren't bad for us personally, but we still don't have mail service or a landline phone. Try living that way. We don't mind because it's little enough, considering. Most-- not a little, but MOST of the city still has no electricity and no gas. Families are split, there's no place to live, schools haven't reopened. Hardly; anyone's come home because they can't--they have no homes, not even FEMA trailers. and no faith that the levees will be rebuilt.

Please, please take a minute to write your Congressmen and senators. If you can, even send the letter below out to your mailing lists, and ask other people to do it. Your help would be so much appreciated. What follows is a "friends and family letter" (as you can see, I wrote my own.), a letter for lawmakers, and a list of addresses. Many thanks for any help you can offer.

Julie Smith


Click here for Julie's sample letters and for addresses (links) for your letters to your representatives. Thanks for helping.
[posted on 12/7/05]

Republicans vote to cut food stamps

So with fuel prices set to skyrocket this winter, meaning lots of people will be having trouble keeping themselves warm, Republicans want to make sure they're hungry too. Straight party-line vote (of course). Oh, and how long can we fund the war on Iraq with the money saved by tossing 300,000 people off the food stamp rolls? 68.5 hours.

From Reuters:

House panel votes $844 million cut in food stamps
Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:17 PM ET
By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On a party-line vote, a Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.

About 300,000 Americans would lose benefits due to tighter eligibility rules for food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, under the House plan. The cuts would be part of $3.7 billion pared from Agriculture Department programs over five years as part of government-wide spending reductions. . . .

Antihunger activists said hunger rates were up for the fifth year in a row, so the cuts were a mistake.

"It is hard to imagine any congressional action that is more detached from reality," said James Weill of the Food Research and Action Center.

"Cutting food stamps now is a scandal," said David Beckman of Bread for the World, pointing to losses from hurricanes. [ed. note. No shit.]

The House plan would also cut U.S. crop supports by $1 billion, land stewardship by $760 million, research by $620 million and rural development by $446 million. . . .

North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy complained that 40,000 children would lose free meals at school because of that provision.

"You have not even come clean that kids are going to lose school breakfast and school lunch under this," he said. . . .

A new Agriculture Department report found 38.2 million Americans "were food insecure" in 2004, an increase of nearly 2 million from the previous year. Tufts University food economist Parke Wilde food insecurity "now equals the worst levels" since recordkeeping began a decade ago.

USDA said 11.9 percent of households, "at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources."

And did you catch the part about the $760 million dollar cut in conservation programs and another $446 million for rural development? Rural areas are some of the poorest in America. They could use some more help. But no, a few rich people might have to do without their tax cuts if we help out hungry people, conserve the land, and help people in rural areas get themselves out of poverty. Can't have that now, can we? [posted on 10/28/05]

Shut down Gitmo!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

The Center for Constitutional Rights is mounting a campaign to shut down the Guantanamo prison camp.

It’s time to shut down the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay once and for all. Guantánamo has become a symbol world-wide of the Bush Administration’s arrogant disregard for the most basic of human rights.

In a hard-hitting editorial on Sunday, June 5, The New York Times wrote: “The best thing Washington can now do about this national shame is to shut it down. It is a propaganda gift to America's enemies; an embarrassment to our allies; a damaging repudiation of the American justice system; and a highly effective recruiting tool for Islamic radicals, including future terrorists.”

Please contact your representatives in Congress and tell them the time has come to shut down the Guantánamo prison camp once and for all and to end the Administration’s policy of indefinite detention in any facility without due process of law.

Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pennsylvania) will be holding hearings in June on the treatment of the detainees, and Senator Joseph Biden, (D-Delaware) has proposed an independent commission to investigate the situation.

CCR has long called for an independent special prosecutor with the power to prosecute the human rights abuses being committed in our name as Americans. And now we’re calling for the immediate closing of the Guantánamo prison camp.

Find your Senator at this web site and follow the links to their email contact forms and ask them to support shutting down Gitmo. Here's the link to find your Representative in the U.S. House. Or use this email form at the CCR web site to send your letters.

Center for Constitutional Rights also has pdf files of the flag above for printing out to use for stickers or flyers (they even tell you what you need to buy to make stickers on your printer!) [posted on 7/1/05]

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. at DemFest

It was an incredible weekend at DemFest here in Austin. This morning was Grassroots Training 101 - brilliant, common sense "how-to's" from two campaign managers and a candidate. Our blogger's caucus Friday afternoon was packed and the speakers, especially TX State Rep. Mark Strama, lined up by othniel were great. Being able to hang out with folks like Jeffrey Feldman (sole proprietor of the Frameshop), Barbara Radnovsky (our next Senator from Texas - woo hoo! - go Barbara!), listen to Molly Ivins and Glen Maxey tell hilarious stories about life as a liberal in Texas . . . . wow.

But I can't put it all in one diary, and others of our group (the Austin Kossacks - here's roses diary which includes links to more) will surely be posting some too, so I'd just like to say a few words about Jesse Jackson, Jr tonight.

to read about what he had to say click here. [posted on 6/23/05]

Taking action: Daring to venture into the real world

Over at Booman Tribune diane101 expressed her concern
. . . that we are wasting away the time when perhaps we could be actually doing something, become a force of change.

Nanette added
Sometimes people need to just take small steps at first, or settle into a zone that suits them and then they are able to utilize the skills that they have to make a difference.

Which got me to thinking - maybe one thing a blog can do is to help each other take those first small steps out into the world of political action. This is never going to be for everyone - there is lots to do and "getting out there" is only part of it. But I think a lot of people who spend time with the blogs can do this - but they don't know how. Or they're shy. Or they think they don't have anything to contribute. Except for the terminally gregarious, it can be hard. Perhaps by sharing our stories of how we got started, and by keeping each other posted on our progress, more of us will find a way to dare to venture "into the real world."

So I'll start. To read the rest, click here. [posted on 4/8/05]

Austin's Peace March

My best friend fought cancer for eleven years. The last time we had a quiet “best friends” conversation – I’d gone over to her house because I was worrying more about her. So thin. Weaker. Harder to keep the pain under control. As I sat on her bed, my boyfriend called – “It’s started. The war.” We turned on the TV. She said, “That fucker. I can’t believe he really did it.”

She died two weeks later. Two years without my best friend and two years of a pointless, horrible war. Her death couldn’t be helped. She fought. Medicine did all it could. But how many have died for this mistake – this lie, this war?

The email I sent to my friends about the march on Saturday said, “Well, I guess we never learn. Isn't it deja vu all over again? I've always said that I wasn't really an activist against the Vietnam war, but that I'd show up if there was a protest. Well, there'll be one next Saturday (different war, same insanity), so . . .”

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

[All of the really good photos - like this one - were taken by my friend Rick. McMurtry one after the jump is spectacular, isn't it?]

to jump, click here. [posted on 3/19/05]

Why I do this

There are so many terrible things happening in our country now, it's hard to know where to start. But if there is one thing that won't let me stop talking politics, obsessing politics, emailing, reading, commenting, and now this blog . . .

. . . it's this. [posted on 2/13/05]

Thursday, December 30, 2010

New news


I posted a while ago about Fallow’s Why Americans Hate the Media. I was reading along in the comments that follow this story by Ta-Nehisi Coates – which I’d been doing off and on all day – when it occurred to me that that post and its comments, and another story I’d read earlier today, plus something that happened months ago pretty much summed up exactly why so many people like me have abandoned newspapers, TV news, and newsmagazines.

This is about the story I read earlier today, and this is about the thing that happened months ago.

This is TNC's original post:

'My Whole Desire Was to Choose Him for My Companion'


In 1867, Carrie Hall, a white woman, married Sandy Alexander Hall, a black man. They were, like many interracial couples, tormented by whites in fear of the fall of white supremacy. Here is Carrie Hall's appeal to the local Freedman's Bureau
.

Dear Sir,

As you are the Bureau agent of this county, I have some advice to ask of you, if you please, concerning myself and my husband. I am a White woman and my husband is a Colored gentleman. Some two or three years ago, I became very much attached to this colored gentleman for whom my desire grew stronger and stronger every day of my life, and my whole desire was to choose him for my Companion and my Husband through life,and he was the only one on this earth that I desired for a husband and I never would have been happy without him.

But of course we had to keep all of this a secret to ourselves, fearing that the white people would trouble him about me and I would not have him hurt on my account no way in this world, for my respect and love towards him was too great for anything of that kind to trouble his mind, and I would stand up in any crowd to save him from any trouble if I had it to do, or if I have it to, for it is me that is the cause of this being carried on as far as it is so, for me charging him to marry me.

We came to the conclusion some two or three months ago that we would get married and see what would be the trouble with us anyway. So he got his licenses and paid for them and we were married by an ordained minister of the Gospel, though our marriage was somewhat secret we are lawfully and honestly husband and wife before God and Man and would be one of the happiest couples in the world if it were not for this: Some of the white people have learned some or the other that we are married, or at least that I have married a colored gentleman and I hear they are making great talk of what they are going to do and my mind is in great trouble fearing they may try to carry out some of their plans.

I have no relations near me to interfere with us and besides I am an orphan and have been working for my self ever since I was eleven years of age and now I am twenty-six years of age no one has any right to interfere with me or my husband or at least I don't think they have under the circumstances as he was my choice.

And now my dear sir the advice I ask of you is this: If you please to let me know if anyone has any rights or law or Authority to interfere with us and if not will you be kind enough to give each of us, from your hand a writing that will save us from any trouble--that is, if it is in your power to do so. If it is not and you can not attend to to it for us, will you please inform me who to apply to. If you can, please give us two notes--one for me and one for my husband. My husband is living in Ala. and I am living in Ga. The reason we are not living together is he is in a contract on a plantation and can not leave until the end of the year. I left the neighborhood knowing that the white people would be against me for marrying this colored gentleman.

I am living with my husband's Uncle in Georgetown, Ga. If you can understand my trouble by this letter and can help me out, please do so as soon as you can and I never can thank you for as long as I live. I will now give you my husband's name--Sandy Alexander Hall lives near Eufala Barbour Co., Ala. My name is Carrie Hall living in Georgetown, Ga. I write you confidentially. Please answer this as soon as you can and excuse my bad writing and spelling and also the letter. I wrote it in the best of my knowledge, and hope you might understand it.,

Yours,
Very Respectfully,
Carrie Hall


The letter itself is moving, and infinitely more interesting than anything one might find on the TV. But it's the comments to this story. . . . TNC's place is famous for the quality of its commenters, but there's more to it than that this time. No spoiler here, Just go read.

There are a lot of comments. The part I'm so amazed by is near the end of them, but . . . Worth It. Definitely.

Also typical


Months ago was I found myself trapped in the waiting room at the car dealer’s place while the car was getting its checkup, etc. The TV was tuned to some cable news channel – I don’t remember which one – and the “story” was about the level of transparency of Venus Williams’ underwear. Evidently it was not opaque enough to suit someone or other, and the pretty, young, blond anchorperson was going on hysterically – and endlessly – about it. Sometimes consulting her sidekick about whether or not he agreed (which he emphatically did, of course).

Now not only was I completely uninterested in Venus Williams underwear and pretty appalled that a discussion of same was considered “news,” she really only had three things to say about it: You could practically see through it! Isn’t that Awful! And doesn’t it set a Terrible Example for The Children! So she just kept repeating those three points over and over making the whole thing excruciatingly boring on top of everything else.

I tried unsuccessfully to tune it out for about 30 minutes until I finally fled to stand out in the parking lot even though it was cold and rainy that day. Someone who worked there asked why I was standing out in the cold and rain and when I told him, showed me a blessedly TV-free waiting room that I hadn’t known about before. It was lovely.

So this is the other reason I don't watch TV news. If it's a marginally important or relevant story, they get it appallingly wrong. The rest of the time they're going on about something totally ridiculous. I don't know if they were wrong about Venus Williams' underwear.

I.Don't.Care. about it.

[posted on 12/30/10]

Typical


This is a blog post about a story that was widely reported on the TV news. Note that a local TV news channel is the source of the blog post, but if I didn't read blogs, there's no way I'd see a story done by a San Diego TV station.

Still Making An Innocent Man Look Bad
by Conor Friedersdorf

There’s a guy named Juan Carlos Vera. He worked at an ACORN office in San Diego, California. One day, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles walked in with a hidden video camera, and pretended to be a pimp and prostitute. They asked for help smuggling underage girls across the Mexican border so that they could work in a brothel. Confronted with what appeared to be a sex trafficking plot, you’d hope that someone would play along, get as much information as possible, and call the police. And guess what? That’s exactly what Mr. Vera did! Unbeknownst to O’Keefe or Giles, he called his cousin, a police officer, shortly after they left his office.

Perhaps you know what happened next. Having cut his teeth editing The Drudge Report and its notoriously misleading headlines, Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart published the ACORN videos, which fooled me at the time – I praised them, and even encouraged Breitbart to pressure attorneys general into investigating the organization. I’ve never felt like such a fool. Some of the ACORN tapes reflect very badly on that organization, but taken as a whole, they are misleading in a lot of ways.

The San Diego ACORN video was particularly misleading.

Put another way, Andrew Breitbart published videos that made an innocent man look as if he was complicit in a plot to traffic underage girls across the border. Granted, he didn’t do this on purpose. Still, it happened. And it cost the guy his job:

A man fired from ACORN’s San Diego-area office for discussing human smuggling with a fake pimp and prostitute;reported the incident to police two days after it happened, according to information released by the police. Juan Carlos Vera was fired by ACORN after a videotape was aired on Fox News showing him discussing with a couple posed as a pimp and a prostitute the best ways to smuggle underage prostitutes into the U.S. from El Salvador.


It’s better if it’s in Tijuana, Vera is heard saying in the video. Because I have a lot of contacts in Tijuana.

But police said in a press release that Vera reported the incident to his cousin, a detective with the National City Police Department. Vera worked in ACORN’s National City office. The detective contacted a federal task force that deals with human smuggling, and an officer from the task force asked for more details.

After publishing videos of Vera that made him look like a sex trafficker and costing the man his job, did Breitbart explain how the mistake happened, apologize and correct the record? Did he alert his readers to the truth? Having expressed outrage at the media on countless occasions for trafficking in serious accusations that weren’t grounded in facts, did he behave better after realizing that he’d done exactly the same thing?

Nope. As far as I know, neither an apology nor a correction has ever appeared. The vast majority of his readership remains misinformed. The San Diego videos remain posted at Big Government, misleading as ever. I’ve attempted to get Breitbart and O’Keefe to address this. No luck. But Breitbart has a habit of having long, often profane arguments with his detractors on Twitter. A guy named Frank Vayan Walton raised the subject of Vera. And here is how Breitbart responded on December 27, 2010 (brackets are my added context):

Juan Vera called [his police officer] cousin LONG after videos were filmed - when James [O’Keefe] refused to hook up w him to help girls over border. Try again!

After examining phone records and conducting interviews with two police officers, the California Attorney General’s Office reported [PDF] this about O’Keefe and Giles’ visit with Vera: "Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at the National City Police Department.

The report goes on:

He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information. Vera did not explain the substance of the conversation and did not make reference to prostitution or human smuggling on the message. He asked his cousin to call him back. Later that day, Vera also reported the incident to fellow ACORN employee Cruz Acosta. Acosta had been away from the office while the couple was present. Vera explained to him what happened. Vera also reported the incident, either the same day or shortly thereafter, to Mar Murrillon, an ACORN board member. Vera told Murrillon that he had reported the incident to the police. (Vera Interview.) Vera eventually spoke with Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009.

So Breitbart is factually wrong. He is also still insinuating than an innocent man was willing to be complicit in the transnational smuggling of underage prostitutes. All this seems like a story to me! Something that would be of interest to folks on the press beat like Howard Kurtz or Jack Shafer or others. And shouldn’t all the press outlets that wrote about the ACORN tapes from San Diego note this development? . . .


Well, yes. They should. But they won’t. Which is why I no longer read, watch, or listen to any of them. Note that although I already knew this part of the story (from an online source)

Let's review their story:

O'Keefe, dressed as a pimp, and Giles, disguised as a prostitute, visited ACORN offices where they asked for assistance purchasing a home. They claimed to have difficulty documenting income derived from the streets. But they had so much money! In fact, it wasn't just the two of them -- they had a whole crew of underage girls from El Salvador turning tricks for them. Hell, they had so much money, they needed help laundering it for the pimp's run for Congress.

Now let's tell the truth.

The truth is that O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit into an ACORN office. Instead, he posed as a candidate for Congress that wanted to help a young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution. Supposedly, he wanted to help her, and her fellow prostitutes, escape the clutches of a brutal pimp by finding a place for them to live.


I didn’t know the part about the San Diego ACORN worker reporting the incident to the police. Immediately.

And even Conor, above, omits this part:

For instance, a much-publicized recording of a visit to the San Diego office, in which an employee is purportedly seeking information to help smuggle underage girls from Mexico into the United States to work as prostitutes, did not mention that the employee's 'contact' in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee collected as much specific information as possible, then contacted Mexican police, warning them of the plot.

Anyway, all that seems pretty typical of how the traditional media works. Get all hysterical about something scandalous (transparent underwear! pimps and postitutes!) and then never bother to do any actual research or follow up. And even when there’s plenty of correct information out there – gathered by others, of course, because they can’t be bothered . . . OMG there’s another scandalous thing to share with our viewers! – they never make a correction. They just let people go on believing the wrong thing that they reported in the first place.

As I said this is why I no longer read, watch, or listen to any of them.

[posted on 12/30/10]

Friday, November 26, 2010

They think you're stupid


People who take politics seriously, who have strong opinions about political issues, more or less universally think anyone who has a differing opinion is stupid.

We tend to believe that we arrive at our political views by examining the facts and drawing logical conclusions from those facts. We think that people who don’t know the facts we are working with are ignorant, and people who know these facts (perhaps because we have just pointed them out) who persist in having a different opinion – well, the only explanation must be that they can’t think logically. In other words, they are stupid.

A lot of people have analyzed political opinions and how people come to have the opinions that they do and have determined that facts and logic have precious little to do with it. But even those who agree with these analyses – and I do – can’t really help themselves when confronted with someone who stubbornly persists in disagreeing with us.

We feel compelled to share our facts with them. And we can’t help ourselves from thinking that the person we’re arging with is stupid when they don’t immediately agree with us. Even when we know that this person is not actually stupid. (Well, some people are stupid, often by choice or laziness, but the majority of human beings are not, in fact, stupid. In my opinion.)

Liberals and conservatives seem to be equal opportunity offenders here. Conservative commentators call liberals “libtards” as often as possible. Liberals love this right-winger’s sign so much that “moran” is the liberal in-joke for stupid conservative.

Get a Brain Moran Pictures, Images and Photos

But what seems to be different is that conservatives seem to take this back and forth much more seriously. There’s real anger, real emotion, about being called stupid by those who think differently. While liberals are more, eh whatever, when called a libtard, for example.

Why? Liberals don’t have a constant drumbeat of “conservatives think you’re stupid” poured into their ears. If you’re a liberal who’s not passionate about politics to the point of reading conservative blogs, comments on YouTube, etc (to see what the other side is up to, ya know), you’ve probably never even heard the term libtard.

On the other hand, there seems to be no end to it in the conservative mainstream media. Fox news, talk radio. It’s constant. Liberals think they’re better than you. They think you’re ignorant, stupid, hicks.

I got to thinking what this does to a person, constantly being told that there are a lot of people who think you’re stupid. Those people, those right over there, your neighbor with the sign for the Democratic candidate in their yard, your co-worker who makes the case for conserving energy and abortion rights (clearly a liberal). They think you’re stupid. So you’re told. And told, and told, and told, and told.

Isn’t it kind of like an abusive husband, who repeatedly tells his wife something like, “Most people think you’re ugly. They make fun of how fat you are behind your back.” But then he’ll say, “But not me. I see your inner beauty. I like a woman with a little meat on her bones. No skinny chicks for me!”

It’s classic manipulativeness. Make her feel worthless and bad, and then make sure she knows the only relief from how bad she is feeling is you. If she doesn’t feel worthless and bad, if she really felt beautiful (inside or out) she might run off with someone else. It’s about power. It’s about control.

Otherwise, why tell her the bad things other people are saying? If you really love her, if you really see her inner beauty and that’s what matters to you, if you really prefer a woman to be voluptuous rather than looking like an emaciated fashion model, why not just say, “Wow honey, you are so hot!” Why preface that with the nasty things “other people” say?

So why don’t conservative anchors on Fox news and conservative talk show hosts just say, “This conservative proposal is better. Here’s why. The liberal ideas on this are wrong. Here’s why.”

Why the need to always present it as, well, of course, you know that (insert conservative proposal here) is better, but the liberals – who think you’re stupid - want to do (insert liberal proposal here).

Except to insinuate in their viewers’ and listeners’ minds that they are, in fact, stupid. Or at least to make them doubt themselves. When you’re told over and over that a lot of people think you’re stupid (or ugly) doesn’t that plant the seed somewhere in your mind that maybe they’re right? So that it feels really good when the person that just told you that other people think you’re stupid, says, “But I don’t!”

[posted on 11/26/10]

Sunday, August 1, 2010

We are not their customers


In 1996 I read James Fallows’ Why Americans Hate the Media. It was one of those experiences that alters where you stand as you look at something. Since you are standing in a different place, what you are looking at looks different. It’s what we mean, I guess, when someone has said something thoughtful and true and you say, “Well, that gives me a different perspective on the matter."

I never saw The Media quite the same way again.

It didn’t instantly transport me to the view I have of it now, but it started the process of asking questions that I hadn’t even known were questions before. And it started a fascination with the question of how do we know what we think we know? How close is what we think we know to reality?

I should add that when I read it I was teaching a class in critical thinking. And sometime not long after I reread Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders, written in 1957.

I think a lot of things about the media these days, but all of what I think about it is shaped by what I think is a fundamental fact that’s often missed - we are not their customers.

So many discussions of the media about how frustrating, infuriating, outmoded, misleading, shallow, etc it is – and why we hate it - end up with someone saying, well, if they can’t deliver what their customers want, we’ll stop buying.

Note the “we.” And that’s the problem. We are not their customers.

The customers of a business are the ones who literally buy the product, who hand over money for a good or a service. We may hand over fifty cents for a newspaper or a few dollars for a magazine, but any newspaper or magazine publisher will tell you that the income from subscriptions and newstands won’t keep the lights on. And we get radio and TV news for free. We may pay a cable bill, but Time Warner or Comcast aren’t forking over millions of dollars to keep NBC or Fox News in business.

Who are their customers, who pays them, for what service?

Advertisers. Other businesses, who enlist their help to recruit customers for their business.

So what is The Media selling?

Not the Nightly News, or Morning Joe, or American Idol. They’re selling eyeballs (print, TV) or ears (radio), which is shorthand for our attention.

They’re selling us. To their advertisers.

Consider a commercial fisherman, trawling for cod or tuna. The fish are not their customers. The wholesalers who buy their catch are their customers.

We are the fish. The newspaper and magazine stories, the TV and radio programs are the bait, not the product. Our attention is the product, what is being sold.

If mass media is in trouble now, if it’s not selling what their customers (advertisers) want to buy, it’s because more and more of us fish are not finding the bait as tasty as we used to. Do we really want to demand that they provide better bait? Or do we start to ask ourselves if we want to be sold?

[posted on 8/1/10]