October 2004 Archives

Yes, I was heavy into Dean. Even after Billmon abandoned Dean when he backed off his Israeli-Palestinian position, I was still going to hang with Howard. Lets give props to Dean for being out there and giving a backbone to our side to speak the truth about the Bush administration. Also Dean had fully embraced the internets and allowed people like me to know him better than the other candidates.

Since John Kerry won the Democratic nomination I've had the chance to learn a lot more about him. With every negative attack leveled by the Bush campaign I would go a look into that attack and generally find Kerry to be an amazing guy. You can call him ugly, rich, elitist or whatever you want, but it will not change who John Kerry is and what he can do for this country. Then I saw Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry and was even more impressed with him and what he could accomplish for a movement.

Do I think that once he is in office the White House press briefings will suddenly be filled with clear and simple answers to the reporters questions? No. Do I think that everything he wants to accomplish will get through Congress? No. Do I think that the media machine that was created to grind up Bill Clinton will be mothballed and no trained on Kerry? No.

John Kerry and John Edwards have a daunting 4 years ahead of them. But I believe John Kerry is going to make a great president and Edwards will bring a welcome lack of corporate corruption to the office of Vice President.

So once again an iTunes update has sent Cory into a tizzy. It's understandable though. I worked at EFF during the rollout of the iTMS, so I know all the arguments. Cory even went so far as to pre-rebut the two most common replies he gets to these stories.

• Apple didn't have any choice. If they don't play nice with the suicidally stupid record industry, the industry will stop supplying music for the iPod.
• Just don't run the update.

But as I started thinking, I came up with some other questions for Cory, which may or may not be valid.

• If you currently own an iPod, should you stop using it in protest? Granted, this is more a personal question than a technical one. But still...
• Does this update break one third party app or all of them? I've used iPodRip for shuffling around my tunes between computers.
• At what point do you stop buying any and all Apple products because of this behavior? Would this teach the industry a lesson? Would it teach Apple a lesson?
• If you own Apple stock at what point do you sell in protest?
• What products do you support in Apple's place? If none, what actions do you support (besides the obvious of joining EFF)?

Again, I agree with Cory on general principle and these questions are not meant to attack his position on this subject. DRM is bad for customers and generally a waste of money for companies. As an AAPL shareholder, I don't want Apple pissing off customers or wasting money. But as an AAPL shareholder I don't want Apple playing with one arm tied behind it's back either.

Now that the iPod has shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is not a flash in the pan, can Apple play hardball with the industry? Does the industry still maintain the upper hand or only the illusion of the upper hand? It seems to me that the business solutions to our objections to DRM are all non-trivial due to many factors, even if we consider most of them to be bogus.

Why did the 9-11 attacks happen?

Why after we knew it was bin Laden did we fail to capture him? And I don't mean fail as in we did everything we could and it just didn't work out...I mean fail as in seemingly doing everything possible to ensure that failure was the only option.

Why is this asshole still on my TV making an joke out of the guy who failed to catch him?

Why do people feel that Bush is strong on terror when he is really strong for terror?

If you believe that the best defense is a good offense would you think that what the US has done so far in Iraq is "good offense" seeing as how it has created more terrorists than it has killed?

Why do people worry that John Kerry would "allow" the French to decide how we defend ourselves? The world has already proven on September 12, 2001 that when the US needs to do something, nobody will stand in our way and if they have the means that they will gladly help.

I think a serious person asking any of these questions will come to the conclusion that George Bush has not made us safe and has not done the right things to ensure our safety in the future.

Results do matter.

Well, you know the rest. But let us look at it from Ann's viewpoint for a moment. Two dumb-asses ran at her, while she was on stage speaking, with aluminum pans filled with an unidentified, white creamy substance. She had only seconds to react. Did she stand there and take it like that pansy Bill Gates? No way. Not Ann Coulter. She got on her high heels and dodged those pies! To which we say bravo Ann! Bravo!

In the split second before she hightailed it off stage she must have been overcome with fright. Her liberaldar (which is like gaydar, only it detects liberals instead of gay people) must have been telling her something was amiss. No doubt a feeling of terror had filled her gut. This sense of terror is obviously what she is referring to in her statement on Hannity and Colmes when she said, "an act of terrorism was committed against me."

I'm sure in no way she was comparing having two pies thrown at her to the east coast sniper attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing or either of the WTC attacks. Because really, that would just be stupid. Who would be so delusional and self-absorbed to compare themselves to victims of real terrorism for having pies thrown at them.

The following was sent to a private mailing list. I’m providing it with permission for California voters. There was a little markup added and I sorted the items into Federal, State and Local lists.

I’ve finished poring over all the items on my ballot, and decided how I am going to vote. It took hours — hours of reading the voter guide, supplementary material, flyers from the campaigns and special interests including my cell phone company, newspaper articles, and searching on the web.

Some of the offices and initiatives were a little obscure or hard to decide until I dug into them (and some still were afterward anyway), so I wanted to share what I decided, and briefly why, as input to your vote casting process in the hope that you find it useful. Feel free to email a disagreement if you think I’m way off base or have missed something.

So you know where I am coming from, I am registered as a Green, and my key issues are the environment, civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility. I vote by issue rather than by party. There, now you know.

I’m located in Nevada City, California so my ballot may look slightly different than yours. Maybe you’ll find my reasoning amusing anyway. This is a small town and a rural county and the politics and offices are often frequented by unusual characters. Including myself…

I’ll go through the items in the order they appear on my ballot.

Federal

• President: Kerry/Edwards.
  Reason: Environment, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties.

• US Senator: Barbara Boxer
  Reason: Environment.

• US Rep District 4: David Winters (Democrat)
  Reason: Opponent thinks Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together (form letter sent to me in response to USA PATRIOT act concerns). I disagree with Doolittle on, as far as I can tell, everything. I have no idea at all who David Winters is but the only way he could be a poorer match for my interests than the current guy is if he was two of the current guy.

State

• State Assembly District 3: Robert Woods (Democrat)
  Reason: Same as above, basically.

• Prop 1A: NO
  Reason: Heavy dependence on local funding provides strong incentive for megabusinesses and sprawl to increase tax base. We don’t have a Walmart here and I don’t want one here EVER. I like our local businesses, small town charm and mostly independent downtowns. NO!

• Prop 59: Public records: YES
  Reason: Allows greater citizen oversight of governmental decisionmaking. After the closed-door federal energy policy development procedure we’ve had to put up with this is near the top of my list of yeses for state propositions.

• Prop 60: Election right of political parties: NO
  Reason: This is already law; someone just wants to stick it in the state Constitution for reasons that aren’t clear to me. I always vote NO on constitutional amendments that aren’t obviously great ideas because changing the constitution unnecessarily is a really bad idea. So, no, no, no, no, no.

• Prop 60A: Surplus property disposition: NO
  Reason: This prop. says the proceeds from any property the state happens to sell goes to pay off specified bonds. This is a constitutional amendment, for no apparent reason. Someone must have their eye on some particular piece of state property — I smell a rat. NO.

• Prop 61: Children’s hospitals: NO
  Reason: Why the hell is this on here? We need less expensive health care, not hospitals people can’t afford to go into, purchased with additional debt. I have two kids and I’m not convinced.

• Prop 62: Election primary: NO
  Reason: Given California politics, this ballot measure is extremely likely to frequently result in either ONLY two Republicans or only two Democrats on the general election ballot for all offices except President. Is this going to make ANYONE happy? I can’t imagine it would. In addition, it is a constitutional amendment. Not just no, but NO WAY.

• Prop 63: Mental Health Services: Yes
  Reason: Four years ago, I had to come home from work in San Jose because a nut with a gun was on a rampage in my town and shot a bunch of people dead, including some at a building on my street, about a mile from my house, then went AWOL for about eight tense hours. I was sitting at home with a borrowed shotgun hoping he wasn’t nearby and desperate. If he had received timely mental health care from the people at the building he went on a rampage in it might not have happened. These services are WAY overdue, there is a funding source in the bill… sign me up. If I ever happen to earn a million bucks a year I’ll happy pay the extra 1% in taxes this bill requires.

• Prop 64: Limits on class action lawsuits: NO
  Reason: The Sierra club has used the law this bill would restrict to successfully bring environmental lawsuits against a variety of miscreants. Class action lawsuits are an awesome tool for environmental and social justice. My conservative pro-business friends may cringe, but this is the kind of law that in my opinion results in kids rasping with asthma. No thank you ma’am, I like my lungs.

• Prop 65: Local government revenues: NO
  Reason: This is the previous incarnation of Prop 1A. Everyone says no to it, including the people who got it on the ballot. A no brainer… NO.

• Prop 66: Three strikes amendment: YES
  Reason: Do I want to pay for some jerk who shoplifted three times to spend the rest of his life in prison? No, not really. Three strikes should mean “three strikes”, not include two balls and a pop foul. Really, have a sense of perspective.

• Prop 67: Emergency medical services: NO
  Reason: This was kind of a toughie. A closer look reveals a very small portion of the proceeds would go to 911 services, community clincs and so on. Almost all of the money would go to HMOs, PPOs, and so on for services they are already providing. This is a bandaid, and a very expensive one, for treating the symptom, not curing the illness. Californians need wider, cheaper, better health care coverage so they can have access to preventative medicine and don’t end up in the emergency room in the first place. This looks like a massive waste of money to me.

• Prop 68: Gambling: NO
  Reason: Aside from the tax snafu and loss of state revenues, would effectively authorize casinos throughout the state. Yuck. Also another constitutional amendment. No thanks.

• Prop 69: DNA database: NO
  Reason: Massive civil liberties concerns; existing DNA database sufficient. This is the dark, evil part of GATTACA, if you saw that movie. Please, NO!

• Prop 70: Tribal gaming compacts: NO
  Reason: Another consitutional amendment, this one with a 99 year window. Blech. Also it looks like Arnold Schwartzenegger’s analysis is right on on this one. I know you got one of those “How your government wants you to vote” pamphlets from him in the mail so see it if you are curious. If you are suffering from ballot fatigue at this point, just vote no.

• Prop 71: Stem cell research: YES
  Reason: This is financially awesome. The state will generate lots of revenues from patents and licenses, and will save a ton of money by being able to cure numerous chronic health problems. Michelle and I paid to have our children’s umbilical cord blood stem cells cryopreserved when our kids were born; that’s how confident I am that stem cell research is going to pay off in a huge way. I forsee a big positive return on investment for this one, long term. I would fund this initiative using bond debt just as quickly as I would borrow money to send my child to college, and for the same reasons. YES.

• Prop 72: Health Care Coverage: YES
  Reason: This isn’t really what I am looking for — I want something more like Vermont’s plan — but I will tepidly endorse this as a compromise for now.

Local

• Nevada County Board of Education Trustee Area 2: John Smoak
  Reason: Smoak’s opponent is a nut… and not my kind of nut.

• Sierra Joint Community College District: Tomasini and Parker.
  Reason: Opponents are young kids (20s) that are well-connected Republicans, endorsed by Anestaad, Doolittle, Keene, and various state and local Republican party organizations. Looks like a stepping stone with no real interest in Sierra College. Lots of attack rhetoric including going on about the cafeteria food with no plans for improvement.

• County, 1st district: Olivia Diaz.
  Reason: Environment, ability to build consensus, experience. Special note: I endorse Bruce Conklin for District 3.
  Reason: Environment, smart growth.

• Local Measure G, Sierra College Campus: YES
  Reason: Probable positive return on investment long term, resulting in higher property values and a more pleasant place to live.

• District: Measure J, District formation: YES
  Reason: More parks, please. More pleasant place to live, higher property values.

• District: Measure K, Special Tax: YES
  Reason: Measure J needs measure K for funding. I can afford $25 per year, especially if it means my propery value goes up by that much annually, which I am willing to bet it will.

• District: Measure L, Appropriations District: YES
  Reason: Measures J and K go along with L. Spending limits are usually good ideas. This one sounds okay to me.

• Vote for director: These are all write-ins! I wrote in myself, as I am interested in this office. Please feel free to write me in as “Shaun Case”.

I can’t believe you read the whole thing! Congratulations.

If you live in the special Nevada County Nisenan district then don’t forget to write me in as a director, even if you vote no on all the other local measures that create it. I’m your man!!

Best regards, Shaun

Blows.

My conversation with beej:

me: sh*t man, we're having a hell of a thunderstorm up here

beej: rockin

beej: haha look at it!

beej: what did you guys do, ray?!

me: I started lighting candles, that's for damn sure

What did I do indeed?

Watch. Vote.

Let the president answer our anarchy
Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to thinkin' that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country - we're patronizing our heroes
Look in his eyes, it's all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out, and wiped
And replaced with his own face - mosh now or die
If I get snagged tonight, you'll know why - 'cause I told you to fight

Archive.org has a regular download (46.7MB QuickTime).

All Jon, all the time!

• C-SPAN American Perspective (Oct 23 show)
• 60 Minutes (warning: may cause drowsiness)

Just a quick update. Make sure you watch the C-SPAN bit until the end, where Jon takes questions from mainstream media types. The question about kids "getting their news" from The Daily Show came up and Jon gave the best answer I've heard to that. He pointed out that in writing for the show they assume so much base knowledge that it would be impossible to get the jokes unless you already knew what was going on. People aren't watching The Daily Show for news, they're watching for "the funny."

Vice President Cheney has made some ridiculous claims in the last few years. This one though, it's the best yet.

Cheney told supporters that Kerry had run for the U.S. Senate in the 1980s on a promise to do away with many of the weapons that U.S. President Ronald Reagan used to end the Cold War.

"So if John Kerry had been in charge, maybe the Soviet Union would still be in business," President Bush's running mate said on a campaign trip to the swing state of New Mexico.

Mr. Cheney, how can you expect to be taken seriously? Kerry went to Vietnam after college to fight the spread of communism (at least that's what he thought when he enlisted). Mr. Cheney got five deferments. Maybe we should say that if wars had to be fought solely by Cheney and Bush we would get our ass kick because they simply wouldn't fight at all. Is that out of line compared with what Cheney was spewing?

I guess we should also ask Cheney about his involvement in allowing Pakistan to acquire nuclear material. Since Cheney has his crystal ball out, why doesn't he look in there and see what would have happened if Rummy hadn't gone to Iraq in the 1980s and given evil, nasty Saddam his fabled WMDs to use against Iran and the Kurds (HIS OWN PEOPLE!). How about what would have happened if Halliburton hadn't done business with Libya and Iraq? Why not go all the way back to see what would have happened if the CIA hadn't laid the seeds of terror in Iran and Afghanistan?

That's in the past Pat and you're blaming America first.

Ah yes...I forgot. I must have thought it was still September 10th or something. So to summarize, every single thing Kerry has never done in the past may have lead to horrible, horrible consequences whereas everything that Bush and Cheney have done in the past is in the past and is no longer relevant to anything that may or may not happen in any version of the future.

Got it? The rules are different for them. I can't wait till they're all fired.

So the buzz over Eminem will undoubtedly crescendo this weekend (even Juan Cole is writing about it) and will hopefully continue through to the release of the track and maybe even a video. This Rolling Stone snippet is quite interesting.

The thirty-two-year-old rapper says he has registered to vote for the first time -- but stops short of endorsing a candidate. "Whatever my decision is, I would like to see Bush out of office," Eminem says. "I don't wanna see my little brother get drafted -- he just turned eighteen. People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote. Every motherfuckin' vote counts."

He registered to vote. Welcome to the club Marshall. We have jackets.

One of the tracks that plays in Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry is John Lennon's "Just Gimme Some Truth."

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

I’m sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama’s little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
It’s money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

It's something we haven't heard in quite a while...probably because right now, the truth really blows.

"Happy happy! Joy joy!" says me! "The new Fafblog endorsements are here! The new Fafblog endorsements are here!"

• Fafnir endorses a gila monster.
• Giblets endorses Giblets.
• The Medium Lobster endorses George W. Bush.

Indeed the world is shocked (SHOCKED SAYS ME!) at Gibletses last second endorsement of Giblets. This is the October Surprise nobody was expecting!

100 Facts and 1 Opinion is quite sobering. Sure I've read most of these things over the past few years. But to have them run at you in rapid succession is like being shot with a machine gun. There is a nice handout ready pdf as well. (via Kos)

Wow, Kurtz takes a legit look at Jon.

"Even I'm sick of us," says Ben Karlin, the show's executive producer. But "the media beast must be fed," he added, amused that the show is being hyped by the "pack journalism" it regularly ridicules.

It's a pretty good article, even if Jon does follow puppets that make crank calls.

Next up: 60 Minutes (via BoingBoing of course)

KERRY WINS GONZO ENDORSMENT; DR. THOMPSON JOINS DEMOCRAT IN CALLING BUSH "THE SYPHILLIS PRESIDENT"

"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado. "Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush," Dr. Thompson warned. "He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November."

Thompson, long known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas Goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."

Seems like there will be matching funds today if you support John Kerry.

Thanks to the extraordinary generosity of a special group of Democratic donors, every dollar you donate today, to the kickoff of our Countdown to Victory Matching Fund, will be matched, doubling the impact of your Countdown to Victory donation.

I'm not sure where this design look and feel started, but I will call it the Bloggerification of the web. The latest victim is Creative Commons. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just sayin'... (via BoingBoing)

So I sat down to write a thoughtful "update" of my software RAID problem and it turns out I never wrote the original piece. Oops. So, first the update. Things are fine.

Now the backstory...

A few days ago I got a rather scary e-mail from mdadm saying that a Fail event had been detected on md device /dev/md1. That is the root partition in a software RAID array on a RHEL 3.0 box. Uh-oh. It didn't sound good and yet the box was running along just fine. This was because the RAID array did it's job. Yay.

Between then and now we have correspondence with the main IT people. But we'll just skip over that part. The solution, provided by a kind friend over irc, was pretty simple. Run raidhotremove and then raidhotadd. Then the magic will start to happen. Of course you have to check /proc/mdstat to actually see the magic happening.

md1 : active raid1 sdb2[2] sda2[0]
      34435200 blocks [2/1] [U_]
      [=========>...........]  recovery = 48.2% (16607936/34435200) finish=52.0min speed=5706K/sec

Peja on his status with the Kings:

``I'm still standing behind the words I said in August, but I am professional,'' Stojakovic said. ``I have a contract with the Kings, two years, and I'm going to honor that. It just wouldn't be fair for the city, the organization and for my teammates, who I respect. I'm just going to go out there and play basketball.''

It's nice to hear somebody say something like this. It's a sad indictment of today's players that this is a rare occurrence. You don't have to be silent and not speak your mind. You just have to do what is expected of you, and that is exactly what he is doing. More like this please.

This one isn't even signed by anyone. I just don't know if I can trust this message without Ed's signature being on it...

John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards became two of only four U.S. Senators who voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq and against the $87 billion supplemental supporting our troops. 

So far Kerry has explained his Oct. 17th vote nine different ways and has said everything from "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" to declaring he was "proud" he voted against it.  Most recently Kerry said it was a "mistake" how he "talked about" his vote against the $87 billion.  The real "mistake" was Kerry's decision to vote for the war and then vote against supporting our troops serving in that war. 

IT WAS NOT A VOTE FOR WAR!

Really, how many times does that need to be said. Authorization to use force as a last possible option. That doesn't sound like "Yeeeeeehaaaaaw! We're going to war!" to me. But let's say it was that, just for the sake of argument.

REALITY: White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion if Congress Made the Funds a Loan. George Bush repeatedly says on the campaign trail that “There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.” But “The White House threatened … to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. … ‘If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,’ Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.” [Bush remarks, 9/13/04; New York Times, 10/22/03]

Why would Bush threaten to veto funding his own war? Iraq is his war. He owns it. We all know it wasn't necessary and that the entire thing has been a fiasco.

What kind of message does that send to the troops? That we care about them! That they should be sent to war without having a reason. And by reason I mean a truthful reason. We're does Mr Nation Guard get off saying that a real war veteran doesn't know what troops think when they are in battle?

UPDATE: The GOP caught me before coffee and a shower. Force authorization and funding were different bills. Of course I know that.

From Ed Gillespie:

The Associated Press today reported on an official Kerry campaign/ Democratic National Committee election guide that instructs Democrats to make up charges of voter intimidation even if no signs or evidence of voter intimidation actually exist.

This document proves the Kerry Campaign and the DNC are more interested in scaring minority voters than in working to reach out to them on Election Day, even if it means completely making things up.

In typical GOP fashion, no article citation is provided. After checking Salon and The Washington Post I can't find anything about this in the AP sections. Dear Ed, wtf mate? Is it bothering you that Kerry is reminding people about the voting irregularities which did happen in 2000? Is John Kerry "scaring" voters by pointing out that the GOP is actively trying to suppress the vote. Is it odd that a GOP operative that might have criminal charges filed against him in NH has been moved to the GOP effort in Ohio?

Jeepers Ed, it seems every time you point a finger, four are pointed right back at you.

Watch Jon eviscerate them. You can read along if you want.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Lots of people are writing about this and the main point is that the hacks don't understand that The Daily Show is mocking them and not the politicians.

Another deadline, another donation.

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell:

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program. I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that," Powell told reporters after a regular FCC meeting, according to Associated Press. It "would be an absolute disservice to the 1st Amendment, and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so."

Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt:

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

I often wonder why people who are "conservative" support Bush. I always assumed that conservatism didn't have anything to do with a person's faith. Robert A. George, an editorial writer for The New York Post explains (TNR reg. req.) his position on what conservative values are.

But what are conservative values? Two of the core principles at the heart of modern conservatism are a belief in the virtue of smaller government and a conviction that government must be accountable to the public.

See, that's what I thought they were. Of course George tears into the Bush administration, only after giving his full GOP credentials as to soften to blow back he is sure to endure over challenging the president and saying that there is no way he can vote for him.

War on Terrorism or no, the debacle that is Hamdi (Supreme Court decision - 822kb PDF) should be enough to show that public accountability is the last thing this administration wants to be held to.

If they are willing to lock you up, not tell anyone where you are and not let you challenge your detention are you really willing to say that they wont "take away your guns?" If you can't put yourself in that position mentally, I humbly suggest that you trust "big government" more than I do and I'm the bleeding-heart liberal.

I will collect them all in this post so you don't have to typo as many times as I did to read them.

• 10/16/2004 A Questionable Kind Of Conservatism by George Will
• 10/15/2004 Kerry Will Restore American Dignity (2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement)
• 10/14/2004 Doug Bereuter's Letter to Constituents
• 10/13/2004 Why conservatives must not vote for Bush by Doug Bandow
• 10/12/2004 WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
• 10/11/2004 Why I will vote for John Kerry for President By John Eisenhower (Google cache)

I would link to the strips themselves, but they will link rot in about a month or so. Why bother?

So I'm watching a re-run of The Daily Show and Marc Racicot, Chairman of Bush/Cheney 04, just rattled off a list of attributes the next president will need to have. Sensitivity was one of them.

Didn't he get the Cheney memo on that?

"Not a one of [America's wars] was won by being sensitive." – Vice President Cheney

Just curious...

Par for the course (1.5MB PDF).

Several themes emerge from this study. Specifically, this examination will show that the administration’s statements frequently do not match its actions. Its civil rights promises often suffer for lack of funding and ineffective implementation. To his credit, President Bush has not dismantled some good programs that previous administrations had implemented. However, he has also not comprehensively advanced them or demanded accountability for their outcomes. And finally, through the views of his executive and judicial appointments and his own professed priorities, President Bush redefines civil rights, at times by promoting unrelated initiatives under a civil rights banner.

Emphasis mine...

Sent via e-mail.

Mr. Okrent,

I will admit to seeing your latest action via Atrios, but I do read many articles in the NYT on a daily basis. I subscribe to the RSS feed for the NYT Home Page. You may feel free to use my name if you wish, although I admit, that is a bit vain of me.

I really do feel that you did the readers, which you represent, a disservice. You are the Public Editor of the New York Times, the "paper of record," not some local rag that basically re-prints AP articles along with high school football scores and police blotters. I think with your job comes a very large responsibility, which you violated by essentially outing people, again who you represent, that were writing letters which you or the reporter didn't agree with or were offended by.

I read your response and I know you feel justified in what you did. But as a reader that you represent, let me say that I don't feel that you were justified and I would appreciate you addressing the concerns of Atrios (Duncan Black) and myself (and I'm sure there are plenty of other people with our same view points writing e-mails this very moment). This isn't a matter of yelling at the ref to get a better call next time. I'm not trying to "soften" you up so that you see my point of view. This is just a plain disagreement about what your job entails and how you are doing it. I know those may sound like the same thing, but I'm confident you understand the difference.

I appreciate your time and look forward to your response,
Patrick Berry
Chico, CA

If you work in the White House, it's not a good morning to read the Washington Post.

• For Marines, a Frustrating Fight: “disillusioned by a conflict”
• Rumsfeld Arrives at Desert Marine Base in Iraq: “his (Rumsfeld's) opportunity to get his own sense of things”
• Bush Recasts Rationale For War After Report: "a serious and mounting threat to our country"

Insert joke about the president not reading newspapers here.

Sometimes the Post makes me question reality. Parity in Style?

“There were two politicians at or near the top of their game on the stage Friday night, and the effect was striking.

In the second campaign debate, President Bush sharpened his performance considerably over his first encounter with Democrat John F. Kerry, the result being rough parity between the candidates on stylistic grounds. That put their differences on substance -- dramatically different governing priorities, and starkly different responses to whether the country is on the right course at home and abroad -- on even more vivid display.”

Kerry directed his bluntness at President Bush. Bush was practically yelling at the audience and was yelling at the moderator. I know I wasn't watching the debate as a nonpartisan, but let's not put lip stick on a pig and call it a prom date.

Billmon says Bush is a walking time bomb. See for yourself. But one could argue that he's already gone off...

I heard on the local public radio news this morning that people working in education are giving over 5x more to Kerry than to Bush. Conservatives pointed to this and yelled "Liberal Bias In Higher Ed!" as loud as their little lungs could muster. No I couldn't find the numbers they were citing, but I did find numbers which show a 3-1 donation gap in favor of Democrats.

Pure speculation. I know more than one Republican on my campus who is voting for Kerry. Is it because he hates America and wants to see us attacked again? No. Is it because he wants to destroy the Nuclear Family™? No. It's because not only is George Bush not being a conservative president, his war in Iraq has been a top to bottom disaster.

Maybe Republicans should stop running against "the elite" if they want the support of people with a lot of educational background, who in certain cases dabble a bit in elite-ness. Maybe this year they are not donating to Bush because they know not to throw good money after bad. Maybe the aren't donating to Bush because they see in him the lazy, rich kid that bugs the hell out of them in their class.

There are lots of possible reasons. If you want yours to be taken seriously, bring something more than talking points to the table.

Josh Marshall vs Wonkette in the battle for justifying the Iraq war.

If you live in a swing state, you are about to swept over by a wave of politics the likes of which God himself has never seen. New Donkey sees it. Atrios sees it. Fred Kaplan sees it. John Kerry sees it.

The Bush campaign may be desperate, after all who willing gives up the White House, but this is when they are their most dangerous. The things you hear in the next 26 days will astound you. You will think to yourself, "did I really just hear that...did Bush really just say what I thought he said?" It will not matter that what they say will contradict what they have said previously.

Don't stand there in stunned silence, slack-jawed, staring at the TV or radio in utter disbelief. Do something. You don't have to give money. Go to MoveOn. They have lots of ways you can help. Go to the DNC. They have ways to help. Go to John Kerry. He has ways you can help.

In the Boy Scouts our motto was "Be prepared." We should be prepared for whatever they throw at us.

The Washington Post has a story out this morning about how Dale Jr. got docked 25 points for dropping an S-bomb on live TV. It knocked him out of first place in the NASCAR standings.

Was it merely a "speech malfunction" or was it a vile display that will scar the minds of impressionable children all over the country. Will there be huge FCC fines? Will there be congressional hearings? Will there be crying and outrage? Is NASCAR trying to destroy american values? Will EA pull any NASCAR sponsorships? Will the King of Beers drop Dale Jr.?

The short answer is, of course, no. Nothing is as bad as a nipple.

Vice President Cheney won the debate last night and these quotes sum it up best:

“So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote, and they voted against the troops. Now, if they couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaeda?”

“I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”

Why in the world would the GOP say that a provable lie, one pointed out even last night, was a winning line? What proof is there you might ask?

• Tim Russert’s show
• A Prayer Breakfast
• Swearing in of Elizabeth Dole

I honestly don’t get it.

Things you never want to see first thing in the morning:

kernel: Out of Memory: Killed process 18592 (mysqld)

You also hate to see the kernel have to whack 134 processes trying to get a hold of enough memory to operate.

You know what they say about keeping your enemies closer than you keep your friends...

Make no mistake, this is the most important election of our time.  Some people say that about every election, but this time it's true.  The choice we make on November 2nd will determine how we deal with the gathering threats of terrorism and head them off before they reach our shore.

Before they reach our shore? It looks like someone has already "forgotten the lessons of 9-11." Maybe if the Bush administration had paid any attention at all to terrorism against the US when they came into power, I might not get set off by rhetoric like this. But with hindsight being 20/20, the fact that they utterly ignored it makes that idea "inoperative."

Legal wonks rejoice! SCOTUS is in the house! Will they decide who is president this year too?

Why is our National Security Advisor so clueless?

Yes, Bush can...

Whereas the US military is stretched dangerously thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is therefore unable to wage pre-emptive war against other terrorist states like Iran, Syria, etc.;

whereas our ex-allies in Europe are refusing to help us by contributing soldiers or funds; whereas record numbers of soldiers are now requesting the termination of their duty abroad;

whereas the proposed new generation of tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons could well end up increasing the military’s personnel replenishment needs;

therefore we, the undersigned, support the reinstitution of the military draft, so that President Bush can fulfill his foreign-policy goals. We also pledge, if applicable, to help our children register for the Selective Service as soon as this becomes necessary.

Why ask when Kerry puts the definition right after it.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Jesse at pandagon is right, the global test is the Powell Doctrine.