April 15
There's a sort of lie which I call, for lack of a more elegant term, the fake false statement. For example, if Deb says Joe claims the sky is green, you of course know the sky isn't green, and you also know Joe knows better, so you're supposed to conclude Joe lied --- unless you thought to ask whether Joe actually said that. Since in this hypothetical example Joe didn't say that, Deb lied.
In real life the "Deb" is Debra Saunders, conservative columnist who wrote about "Joe", who is Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Wilson (Plame), the CIA agent the Bush administration exposed as political payback (and to discourage more whistleblowing, I suspect). Saunders worked two fake false statements into one sentence: "The Bushies weren't looking to hurt the little woman, but were waging an honest challenge to the truth-impaired Wilson and his false denial that his wife had anything to do with the CIA sending him to Niger, as well as reports that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger."
Both statements are indeed false, but Wilson never said either one, and after Wilson's many statements on those subjects, Saunders must know it. I was about to hunt for links to where Wilson explained his wife's role in sending him to Niger, and where he said he thought Cheney's office had asked the CIA to look into the documents that Wilson was sent to investigate, but one link won't prove he said it many times. Instead, I ask Bush apologists to show even one instance where Wilson denied his wife had a role, and where he said Cheney sent him. You can't. And please don't try to pawn us off with some conservative pundit or blogger paraphrasing what he thinks Wilson said, like Saunders did if she isn't out and out lying. Find a real quote.
I found new winners for both the Take the Red Pill Award and the Dead Polar Bear Award. The Take the Red Pill Award goes to Trinity Lutheran Church in St. Francis, MN. They run a day care program for vulnerable adults, exactly the sort of thing Jesus would want a church to do. They earned the award when they decided to reject a transgendered person because her sex change is "contrary to God's revealed will." Was it in Mark or Matthew that Jesus talked about sex changes? Actually, I don't think Jesus ever mentioned it. He did however say that bit about not casting the first stone, but this church missed it, judging by the minister's statement, "We want to minister to everyone. But this person's outward behavior contradicts the church's teaching." You can understand the Rev. John Maxfield's dilemma, because I'm sure no other else with outward behavior contradicting church teaching --- drug or alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, greed, lust, swearing, gambling --- has ever set foot in his church. This is a church for crying out loud. It can't be bothered with redeeming sinners. It's not like Jesus ever wasted time on shunned people. Oh wait, he did. Unlike the people running this church though, he never got a Take the Red Pill Award.
The Dead Polar Bear Award has multiple winners. Accepting the award on behalf of all the winners is Sarah Janacek, a Twin Cities talk radio host and pundit. During her show last week, she mentioned that global warming on Mars disproves global warming theory on Earth, and she said it could be googled. I thought from her tone she might not be serious, but then she said in all seriousness that the conservative blogs are more reliable than actual journalism in the mainstream media (what we on the left often call the "corporate media"). Whilst I was listening I did a search (not Google, but I somehow suspect that doesn't matter) and I found the real science articles on Mars' polar caps appearing to shrink, and multiple conservative blogs using this as proof global warming is not human caused. Funny how the science articles never mentioned this disproving that humans are causing warming on Earth. Every few months another blogger picks it up, thinking this is a new shocking revelation, not years-old news. Some say they think liberals will blame pollution on Earth for warming Mars. Others said, I'm not kidding, that since Mars and Earth have the same sun, that proves the sun is the cause of global warming. And here I would have thought Martian climate change was like a whole different planet. Oh right, it is. For all of you unable to grasp this simple concept, enjoy this Dead Polar Bear Award. You can't get one on Mars, even with the same sun.
April 12
CNN, oft derided by conservatives as the liberal version of Fox (there's no objective information remember, just opinion) has a story about allegations Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, misused his staff for personal use, like babysitting and requiring them to work on other politicians' campaigns. Maybe they just want more insulation from the "liberal" charge. The sad thing though is that at first look, the story looks credible. I'm holding back because I haven't heard Conyers' side, and he needs to publicly answer the story. CNN did some ambush journalism, claiming they had been rebuffed for two weeks in attempting to get an interview. Conyers is making a mistake in not responding promptly to the charges.
However, let's get to the main point: the charges should be investigated, and if true, Conyers should get the proper punishment. It pains me to say that because I admire Conyers. He's been one of the few Democrats willing to try to investigate the many scandals around Bush, specifically the charges of election fraud in Ohio and the Downing Street Memo. I suspect, but I stress I don't know, that the Republicans put CNN onto the story, and chose them instead of Fox because Fox would have no credibility. I suspect this was political payback for Conyers' investigations and a warning to Democrats in general to stop using the "culture of corruption" label. Even if the label itself hasn't done harm, it's been one GOP scandal after another for long time. They need something to use against Democrats, and Cynthia McKinney's incident with capitol security doesn't cut it compared to DeLay, Abramoff, Iraqi trailers, or Bush authorizing leaks of classified information. I say end the truce Melanie Sloan mentioned in the CNN story and dare the GOP to start an ethics war. If Democrats have ethical lapses too, let's get them cleared out. We shouldn't defend dishonesty among our own but allow it to be exposed. If we don't, then we're no better than Republicans. If Conyers did as accused, the ethics committee should get back into business and reprimand him. Revelations of the last few years indicate the Republican scandals will prove both much bigger and more numerous than Democratic scandals. I'll put using staff for personal business up against bribery, election fraud, lobbying scandals, and lying about a war any day. If I'm wrong about the difference between the two parties, I'll admit it and go back to being Green.
So I ask Rep. Conyers to come clean. If he did it, he should apologize and get it over with. If he feels innocent, he should demand immediate investigation. My suspicions that Republicans are behind it don't excuse the charges if true. Those suspicions are reason only to remember all the accusations against Clinton that didn't pan out, and why "swift boat" became a verb, so I hold out hope this will be shown to be false or misrepresented once investigated. And true or false, let us never hear CNN described as "liberal" again.
April 10
When you hear Bush's defenses for authorizing leaking by Libby, which remarkably do not include a denial Libby told the truth to the grand jury, remember that he didn't say anything until the court papers were filed revealing the charge he knew about and authorized the leaks. Take today's defense, that he wanted the public to know the truth about his statements made while selling the war. So why did he wait this long to reveal that he leaked it? He could have just said it at the time, not not turned Scooter into an anonymous source. That's the tactic of someone with something to hide. What Bush had to hide here was that multi-layered: first that he misinformed the public and Congress, then that he authorized leaking of classified information, and then he participated in a coverup of the leak by claiming he wanted to know who the leaker was when he already knew.
Also watch for a repeat of this one, that Bush's authorization to leak effectively declassifies the selected material. If so, why didn't he just declare it declassified instead of waiting for the court paper to be files last week? Likewise the other excuse the right is putting around: that the material was already declassified. It was declassified 10 days after Libby talked to reporters. And again, that being the case, why wait until now to say something?
It's not shown yet he authorized the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity, but authorizing the leaking of selected portions of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) is as illegal. Since Libby was told to include those classified items in his conversations with reporters, it stretches credulity that knowledge of the smear campaign against Joseph Wilson stopped at Cheney. Don't expect the excuses to stop though. They want to hang on to some shred of credibility, or at least stay out of jail (yes, this does feel a lot like Watergate --- "Well, when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." --- Richard Nixon). As for Bush's apologists, they'd defend his actions if he kicked a puppy while burning a flag.
One funny thing I found as I trying to find the exact quote when Bush said we'd probably never know who leaked Valerie Wilson's identity. On the White House web site is a transcript of Q&A Bush had with some reporters in the cabinet room. He'd answer a question, and say the name of the next reporter he was calling on. You may recall his propensity for nicknames. He said this in answer to a question about the leak investigation, before choosing a bad name to call when being less than completely truthful:
And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration.Or maybe instead of calling on someone nicknamed "Stretch", he meant to say "Psyche!" That would have been appropriate too.Stretch.
April 9
I've been meaning to do this a long time. Now I've done it. I've created the Dead Polar Bear Award. This is for those who canceled their National Geographic memberships or feel free to disbelieve scientific fact because it's "just a theory" and contradicts their faith or the opinion of those who sign their paychecks. The Dead Polar Bear Award is something similar to the Take the Red Pill Award I give out for extreme examples of religious fundamentalism. This award is also for refusal to see basic reality and live in delusion, but this is for those who just won't see the threat of global warming no matter how much evidence supports. If this sounds like evolution, that's because you'll find the people who won't believe evolution because it contradicts their religious faith won't believe global warming either because it's opposed by people they've chosen to have faith in. This is faith that's goes beyond believing without evidence to believing despite evidence. It doesn't always strike me as being literally religious, but sometimes because it contradicts a belief that business is always right, and anything that suggests a justification for government action, like the planet dying, must be wrong. So, I've invented this award for those who strive to be so utterly deluded as a way to thank them for helping change our client in all sorts of destructive ways.
I chose polar bears to illustrate the problem because they are among the first to be affected. They need ice to hunt, and the loss of ice is decreasing the time they have to hunt, increasing he time they have to fast, and increasing the distances they must swim. It's a bad combination, and there's a movement now to get polar bears listed as an endangered species, as there is concern they may become extinct in just a few decades.
The first recipient is the sometimes sensible -- but not in this case -- conservative columnist, John Tierney. In a recent column, he gave readers the impression that anyone who embraces an environmentalist position is a religious nut. Never mind those who listened to, or are, the climate scientists. He does concede that point slightly near the end, when he says, "Scientists agree that the planet seems to be warming, but their models are still so crude that they're unsure about how much it will heat up or how much damage will be done." I wonder if he declines to take out his household garbage because he doesn't know how long it will take to make him sick. The next sentence was what gets him the award: "There's a chance the warming could be mild enough to produce net benefits." According to who? Maybe there's a net benefit to him not taking out his garbage, like he'll figure out something brilliant in the time he would have spent going to and from the garbage. Want to bet the household's health on that? Here's something he can do with his extra time: look admiringly at his Dead Polar Bear Award.
While we're on a science subject, I can't resist mentioning this one. Yes I know, Charles Darwin's theory was accepted by scientists all the way back in the 19th century. His prediction of "transitional forms", derided by creationists as "missing links", was confirmed by the discovery of archaeopteryx in 1867, just eight years after "On the Origin of Species". Nonetheless, this is big, something thought to convince a few people on the wrong side of this 3G issue. Paleontologists excavating at Ellesmere Island found the "Darwin fish", the fish with legs, long theorized but not found. The tiktaalik is the half-tetrapod half-fish long predicted. Maybe it bears repeating that evolution is science and creationism isn't is that one makes predictions that can be proven or disproven, and one doesn't. Science predicted the existence of a species like the tiktaalik. Religion just throws in God anywhere an explanation is lacking. One big missing link is no longer missing. Video here. Interview with one of the researchers.
April 6
My letter to Chris Matthews after hearing his off-air conversation with Tom DeLay:
Hi Chris,You can send him such a request too. A supposedly impartial journalist shouldn't mind sending this information to Democrats as well as Republicans. Just my take on it, since everyone else is focusing on DeLay's remark about "nothing worse than a know-it-all woman."
That focus group stuff on Democratic presidential candidates sounds fascinating. Can I have a copy, or do you only send it to Republicans?
Finally, Bush getting caught knowing more than he admitted to is making national headlines. Libby told the Plame grand jury that Cheney told him to leak classified information, and when Libby was hesitant to do so, Cheney told him Bush approved. This is in regard to selected bits of the National Intelligence Estimate, which bolstered Bush's case for war provided only the right selections were shown. I picked the link I did because the writer, Murray Waas, has broken a couple other stories on Bush's lies about the war that got little or no mainstream media attention. There was last week's story that Bush was told there was serious doubt about Saddam's aluminum tubes being for nuclear weapons while Bush was saying publicly we knew for certain that's what they were for. Last November Waas revealed Bush was told in a Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after 911 that Saddam was not involved, yet of course he kept saying he was.
Want an example of how the culture of corruption did not stop with DeLay? This example not only shows that, but shows that election fraud is part of the culture. In fact, I consider election fraud to be a piece of the culture of corruption, and really the most serious part since it prevents voters from voting the crooks out of office. Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who appears to have been important in stealing Ohio for Bush in 2004, and who is now running for governor, owned stock in guess what? Diebold. Yes, that Diebold. He revealed the ownership himself, which is good. However, how do you own $9,553 of stock and not know it? Who lets someone else spend almost $10,000 of their money and not say anything. Given Blackwell's history, I don't buy it. The explanation that is. Though I have no plans to buy the stock either.
April 4
How can we not take a moment to be happy on the day DeLay gives up the election? So OK, here it comes ..... yee-hah! Well, that was nice. Should we take DeLay at his word that it was the even odds of winning a supposedly safe GOP district that made him quit? Nah. Should we believe those evil liberal Democrats drove him out with the prospect of a vicious campaign? Could be. Or another thought: he said he decided to drop out last week. What else happened last week? Oh, right, his former aide Tony Rudy pled guilty and promised to cooperate with prosecutors. In a way it's hard to believe such a good Christian man as DeLay could be crooked. The charges against him come out of the blue -- other than everybody around him isn't pleading guilty. Please, I know he's gotten rich on lobbyist money and abused his power to gerrymander House districts, but he's a Christian! Well, maybe he missed the "thou shalt not steal" part of the bible, and the "meek shall inherit the Earth" part, and the "camel through the eye of a needle" part. I guess he was too busy bamboozling bible thumpers to take time to read it.
Seriously though, the GOP may be hoping this puts an end to the charges of a "culture of corruption". Should you hear such nonsense, keep some things in mind. First, if DeLay avoids jail, he is still a big fundraiser, and I'll warrant the move to Virginia is to the DC suburbs, where he's less interested in disqualifying himself for election and more interested in lobbying. He has to wait a year after leaving office under House rules, but he's never observed he rules before so why start now. Second, don't forget that the remaining Republican representatives, even if not implicated themselves as most aren't, are the same ones who put this crook in power and kept him there when they learned what he was. Third, other congressmen are still possibly in trouble. Bob Ney has been tied to Jack Abramoff too, Bill Frist is still being investigated for insider trading, and the congressional scandals don't even include Bush's problems or the corporate CEOs who are simultaneously funding Republicans and telling a judge how they plead. To boil it down to bullets when refuting the argument that it's over:
- DeLay will still have ample informal authority until he goes to jail.
- The other Republicans made him so powerful and kept him there when they discovered he was crooked.
- There are plenty of scandals left.
Though it's late at night and the above entry was plenty long, this is just too rich to resist. Today the Minnesota state senate held a hearing on a gay marriage ban constitutional amendment. Testifying in favor of course was Sen. Michelle Bachmann, R-Stillwater. Her step-sister came too. Her step-sister decided to address the issue by, I'm not kidding, coming out. She had her partner with her. Bachmann did the usual love the sinner hate the sin routine, yet her professed love for her step-sister and the step-sister's partner fall short of granting equality under the law. Or perhaps Bachmann just lives out this (paraphrased) biblical injunction: no greater love hath a conservative politician than this -- that she should run on the 3G (God, Gays, Guns) issue that will get her elected.
April 2
Yesterday I was a delegate at the state senate district DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor party, the state Democrats) convention, something that strikes me is that probably the majority of Americans know more, or at last think they know more, about the inside stuff at the top of the political power structure than what their politically active neighbors do. It's more of a mystery and more of a committment than just looking at brochures dropped at the front door and showing up for the primary election. It's probably mysterious particularly to people in states that don't use a caucus system, though even most Minnesotans don't participate, and that unfortunate in a way, because one of the mysteries I'm revealing to you now is just who these people are who are showing up. This is Joe Blow getting to decide who the candidates will be and what the party will stand for. There's an inclination to be more politically active and aware than average, but these are not power brokers, wealthy elite, or politically connected people. I suspect these caucuses are a reason Minnesota's Democratic party was in better shape than most states. I doesn't provide an advantage over the Republicans because they have essentially the same system, but I suggest that's why even with demographic changes, changes in national politics, and the occasional election disaster, both parties remain strong enough to sustain themselves and recover from setbacks. I also suggest the higher level of grassroots involvement helps explain why we're consistently at the top for voter turnout.
Yesterday provided a wonderful example of grassroots politics. We have an open state senate seat and eight candidates sought the party endorsement, which was the main piece of business yesterday. Normally we have some distance from elected officials, even at the local level. However, casting my votes yesterday, I was conscious of two things: one, I know some of these people and two, I'm going to have to see some of them again after maybe helping defeat them, at least to the extent of supporting someone else. That's tough when you personally know more than one. However, no matter how bitter it was to have our candidate lose, as it was for me and supporters of all but one candidate, you have to feel connected. It leads me to believe there just isn't a replacement for retail level politics to pick through candidates.
The criticism made of the caucus system is that the activists aren't typical of the whole electorate, and both major parties pick candidates who don't fit well with the whole state, but rather fit the extremes of their parties. My reply to that is ask who shows up? Who gives a couple hours for a caucus, serves as local officers, serves on the committees to write the local party constitution and make the conventions go, who sets up the chairs and the sound systems? It seems to me the people who do this have the right to decide the party's direction. These same people are the ones who stuff envelopes, man phone banks, put up signs, and make the small donations that give candidates some independence from big money. What's wrong with letting them decide who those candidates will be? That seems to me much more fair than letting the nomination be decided by someone who just votes in the primary and that's the end of their involvement.
Before I got more involved at the local level, I didn't really get the importance of the party endorsement or care who got it. Now that I've seen the work that goes into the local level, I know why for many party activists the most important position a candidate needs to have is that they'll abide by the endorsement. In this safe DFL district, we pretty much decided who will be the next state senator, and that's not only empowering, but remarkable in that anyone could have done it.
