Democratic debate tomorrow night

New Mexico is going to host a “conversation” style debate among the nine contenders for the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, at the University of New Mexico, Albequerqe. Unfortunately, due to both my work schedule and my not having cable TV, I won’t be able to watch it, which is something of a bummer. Still, it should be interesting to see what comes of it. MSNBC political columnist Howard Fineman gives his ‘Debate Prescription for Dr. Dean:

CAMPAIGN 2004 already has been an amazing show, and it hasn’t even started. With shrewd management, high-tech savvy and an angry anti-Bush message, Dean—the one-time internist and former governor of Vermont—has surged to the lead in the race for the Democratic nomination. An obscurity a few months ago, he is the frontrunner now, and everyone knows it.

As a result, the dynamic in New Mexico (with its heavy Hispanic vote and pivotal early primary) will be Dean and anti-Dean. The storyline of the night—foreshadowing, perhaps, the fall season in its entirety—will focus on the question of how he responds to the inevitable attacks I expect to begin Thursday night. The sound bite that makes the TV news, and the lead that makes the New York Times, will be the one that features the sharpest, nastiest exchange between the good doctor and … whoever.

I’ll certainly be looking forward to reading the reports of this once it’s done.

Diplomacy based on petulance

The Bush Administration continues to amaze me — they have an amazing ability to firmly put both feet in their mouth with their head up their ass.

From a press conference with Richard Boucher (I have no clue who he is, though):

QUESTION: Mr. Boucher, do you have anything on the proposal for the creation of a European Union military headquarters in Brussels independent of NATO — something that have angered the United States, according to reports?

>

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not quite sure what proposal that is. You mean the one from the four countries that got together and had a little, bitty summit?

>

QUESTION: That’s exactly it — and Belgium insisting to this —

>

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, the chocolate makers.

>

(Laughter.)

What a wonderful little piece of diplomacy that is — deriding Belgium, France, Germany, and Luxembourg as “chocolate makers” and mocking their “little, bitty summit.”

Gov. Dean has issued a statement condemning the administration’s “foreign policy based on petulance“, a wonderful choice of words.

esoterically.net: Psych Eval

The Guardian has a fascinating and disturbing article posted where psychologist Oliver James analyzes George W. Bush.

The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest possible discipline on themselves and others – the sort of regime found in today’s White House, where prayers precede daily business, appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women’s skirts must be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a 21-minute, three-mile jog before lunch.

Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to “legitimate” targets, often ones nominated by their parents’ prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.

(via Len)

Korea ready to go nuclear?

How long until Bush’s utterly ludicrous “cowboy diplomacy” results in some real casualties? Bad enough that we’re still averaging one or two soldiers a day being killed in Iraq, but now it looks like North Korea is about ready to start testing nuclear weapons.

…officials in Washington told CNN that North Korea was preparing to publicly declare itself a nuclear power and had threatened to prove its capabilities by conducting a nuclear test.

What would it take to stop this? According to North Korea, not much at all.

The package of solutions includes the U.S. signing of a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK (North Korea), the establishment of diplomatic relations with the DPRK, the guarantee of DPRK-Japan and inter-Korean economic cooperation, the completion of light-water reactors,\” Xinhua said in a dispatch from Pyongyang.

“In return, the DPRK will not manufacture nuclear weapons and allow in inspection, realise the ultimate dismantlement of nuclear facilities and stop the export and experiment of missiles,” it said.

The US, however, continues to treat North Korea as if it were a snotty nosed kid on the playground making empty threats.

…the White House tried to play down the North’s warnings saying it was getting “excellent” cooperation from its partners in the talks and that North Korea has a “history of making inflammatory comments that serve to isolate it from the world.”

The question from the U.S. administration standpoint, the official said, is “whether this is a serious and irreversible statement or part of their past pattern of starting every conversation by being threatening to see if it wins them something.”

At this rate, we’ll be seeing mushroom clouds again before we know it. If we’re lucky, they’ll be confined to test sites — if we’re unlucky Bush’s steadfast and stubborn intransigence just may score a body count the US hasn’t been party to in decades.

(via Daily Kos)

Military accounting

We keep hearing more and more about how much the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq is going to cost (on top of the billions already spent so far for the invasion and occupation). Wouldn’t it be nice if we could cut those costs a bit? Oh, but to do that, we’d have to be fiscally responsible, which wouldn’t allow us to pass out fat government contracts to US companies

One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen.

As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- \$300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.

Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost \$1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.

A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- \$50,000,000 !!

Given all the mid-80’s ruckus about thousand dollar hammers, screws, and toilet seats, I probably shouldn’t be surprised at things like this, should I?

(via Atrios)

Howard Dean, rock star

The last time I got to see Henry Rollins do a spoken word performance, I picked up his most recent spoken word album, Talk is Cheap (Vol. 1, Vol. 2). About halfway through the track titled “Getting Snippy With It”, there is a section that I keep thinking about whenever I see people getting really excited about Howard Dean, or when I see articles such as the Stranger article I linked to earlier describe him as a “rock star”.

And wouldn’t it be great, every country has the same problem, wouldn’t it be really bitchin’ if you had a political leader who was running for the big office, if he or she — I don’t care, whoever has the best idea, I don’t care about the sex — where you could like them as much as you like your favorite musician? So instead of like, “Okay, time to vote,” you could be like, “Fuckin’ A, this guy fuckin’ rocks! This guy’s awesome!” It would be like if you were voting for Ozzy, or Bob Dylan, or someone really bitchin’, “This fuckin’ guy is so cool, I can’t wait for this, it’s gonna be bitchin’!” I’d love to be stripped of my political cynicism for just one time, it would be so refreshing to be so into somebody and to trust them and know that they want to do the right thing.

This is exactly what’s going on, and this is exactly why people are gathering around Dean in such staggering numbers. I think that the wish that Henry expresses here is a wish that many of us have had for a long, long time, and Dean’s straightforwardness, charisma, energy, and fire have tapped into that.

Bitchin’ indeed.

Flying High

From this week’s The Stranger: Flying High, Howard Dean has gone from nobody to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now he’s a political rock star, and he just went on a coast-to-coast tour to prove it. The Stranger tagged along for the ride.

Toward the end of the tour when one of the other reporters aboard the Grassroots Express asked Dean to describe the most important personal moment, Dean brought up the Seattle rally–I didn’t ask him the question and I wasn’t standing by taking notes; I got this quote from the reporter later, so Dean wasn’t pandering to his Seattle supporters when he said this about last Sunday’s rally in Westlake Center:

“Seeing all those people out there [in Seattle],” Dean said. “The enormity of it all really struck me. For the first time I realized what it really means to be President of the United States–seeing all those people out there, counting on you.”

Reading this article reminded me of one of the primary reasons I’m supporting Dean: for the first time I can remember, I’m seeing a politician who actually strikes me as being honest. When he gives his speeches, I believe him — and coming from someone who’s quite cynical about all this political mumbo-jumbo, that’s saying a lot.

Blatant propaganda

The Village Voice takes a look at the upcoming “docudrama” DC 9/11:

The upcoming Showtime feature DC 9/11: Time of Crisis is a signal advance in the instant, ongoing fictionalization of American history, complete with the president fulminating most presidentially against “tinhorn terrorists,” decisively employing the word problematic in a complete sentence, selling a rationale for preemptive war, and presciently laying out American foreign policy for the next 18 months. “We start with bin Laden,” Bush (played by Timothy Bottoms) tells his cabinet. “That’s what the American people expect. . . . So let’s build a coalition for that job. Later, we can shape different coalitions for different tasks.”

[…]

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” swells as Bush flies into ground zero, where he astonishes even Rove (Allan Royal) by spontaneously vaulting a police barricade to hop on the rubble and grab the microphone. A nearby fireman, compelled to tell the president that he didn’t vote for him, swears allegiance, mandating Bush to “find the son of a bitch who did this.” Once Bush realizes that “today, the president has to be the country,” Rove considers the image problem solved. Bush, he explains, has become commander in chief and taken back “control of his destiny.” The climax is Bush’s televised, prime-time September 20 speech—a montage of highly charged 9-11 footage that ends with the real-life, now fully authenticated Bush accepting the adulation of Congress as he fingers the talismanic shield worn by a fallen New York police officer.

What’s really scary is that people will eat this up, and accept it as the truth — and it’s a far, far cry from what really happened.

(via Len)

Outsourcing fund raising?

You’d think that if Bush was really concerned about keeping jobs in America, and getting Americans back to work, his campaign wouldn’t be outsourcing fund raising phone calls to India.

The US Republican Party now has a band of young and enthusiastic fund-raisers in Noida and Gurgaon.

HCL eServe, the business process outsourcing arm of the Shiv Nadar-promoted HCL Technologies, has bagged a project to undertake a fund-raising campaign for the US Republican Party over the telephone.

This is the first time such a project has been handed out to a company outside the US. The market research and public relations companies engaged by the party usually undertake such projects.

HCL eServe has put in place a team of 75 people to work on the project out of its call centres in Noida and Gurgaon. According to industry sources, the number of seats could be ramped up depending on the success of the campaign. These operators are required to call up people in the US seeking their support for President George W Bush and a donation for the Republican cause.

(via Tom Tomorrow)

Marriage 'by The Book'

The Public Nuisance has a wonderful idea: as long as the religious right is proposing a Constitutional Amendment that bases our national definition of marriage on Biblical standards, let’s go ahead and do just that. For example…

  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29, 17 – 28; II Sam. 3, 2 – 5)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
  • A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22, 13 – 21)
  • Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 – 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38 6 – 10; Deut 25 5 – 10)

He then goes on to follow up on some concerns brought up by his post, with some more good points:

Although it would be easy to get that impression, I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that the laws of the OT are absurd or barbaric. Whether you are a Jew, Christian, or secularist, it is important to remember that the laws were incredibly successful in their time and place. Like all laws, they were designed to ensure the community’s survival.

[…]

Those who wish to condemn gay marriage are free to do so. I myself have no problems with calling it a union or using some other term, so long as the legal rights of gay people are respected. But I do dislike it when those who advocate denying equal protection to gay people hide behind a few sentences in the Bible and say that they are merely expressing God’s immutable will.

(via Ex-Gay Watch via Anil)