Onward, Caffeine Soldiers!

Open letter to Jesse "Doc" Wendel

I have withdrawn the original post here, which consisted of an exchange with Jesse "Doc" Wendel of the GroupNewsBlog. Jesse has now come forward with the news that he's a chronic pain patient and that this might have affected his work recently. These aren't good news, and I'm honestly sad to hear that. If you read this, Doc, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family! I wish you the very best for 2008 and I hope this year will bring you a cure or at least a better treatment for your condition. And I have to say, in this light the development and improvements of the GroupNewsBlog are looking even more outstanding.
To Doc Wendel and all brave GNBers: Keep up the great work! And fuck the fucking Yankees!

P.S.: Doc, I guess you were right after all. Too much complaining here in the past, and this is leaving a negative (though distorted) impression on an occasional reader who might stunble upon this site. I should do more positive, original stories. But, damn, the high standard you and other liberal bloggers are upholding makes it rather difficult for this humble commenter to come up with anything competitive! ;-)

Don't fall for spin - Iraq IS more dangerous than DC!

This bullshit is circulating since at least June 2005 in the internets, and, sadly, most readers don't recognize it's a fraud:

You consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation’s Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.

Now, what's wrong with that comparison? Why, the math is wrong!
Well, this has already been totally debunked in the blogosphere. The critics focus on two major points:

Firstly, the anonymous author compares the monthly rate of casualties in Iraq per 100000 with an alleged number of 80.6 for DC for "the same period", and that's 22 months! Regardless that nobody else managed to find this number (80.6), it is obvious that this calculation will understate the risk in Iraq by the factor of 22. Correcting the calculation, using the spinmaster's own mysterious numbers, we see that the 'right' comparison is 1320/80.6=16.37 (1320=(2112/160000)*100000).
So, Iraq is 1537% more dangerous than DC!°
US soldiers aren't on a holiday trip, they are facing clear and present danger.

Secondly, as stated above, The cited numbers are totally questionable. 2112 casualties in June 2005? 80.6 homicides in Washington DC in 22 months? Nobody knows where those numbers come from, it's quite possible they are simply made up.

Also, pls note, even if the numbers would be right, 60/100,000 isn't the "firearm death rate". Sadly, this number includes those who were killed by IEDs, and that's the majority!

Now,let's try a better, honest comparision, using publicly available numbers. To get a picture about the situation right now, let's look at the most recent statistics:
Washington metropolitan police says the monthly number of homicides in June 2007 is 23.
And the US census bureau gives an estimation of 581,530 citizen living in Washington DC.
So, the monthly homicide rate was 3.955 /100000 in June 07.

At the same time, 06/2007, the US forces in Iraq suffered from 98 casualties.
It's more difficult to determine the US troop numbers in Iraq for June 2006. This article from early July by an AP military expert gives a number of 158000. This computes to 62.025/100000 for that month.
Comparing those numbers, we find that in June 2007, serving in Iraq has been more than 1400%, or 14 times, more dangerous than living in Washington DC. Because of the possible errors in the population numbers, and in the troop levels, it's impossible to say that with more accuracy, but this gives a clear picture.

Conclusion: The US should immediately pull out of Iraq. At least, if they care for the lifes and wellbeing of their soldiers.

Ok, don't get confused by this comparison. Actually, all those soldiers doing administrative jobs in the relatively safe green zone or in the big bases distort the numbers. It goes without saying that US soldiers on patrol in Bagdad neighborhoods face an even graver risk. Nobody should diminish their sacrifice by pretending it isn't so bad in comparison. Anybody who spreads such madness should enlist and volunteer for Iraq ASAP!

° This may be confusing: 200% in a comparison means, it's 100% more of something, ok? So 1637% means its 1537% more. My math is a bit rusty, and I was confused about this at first, too.

[This story is derived from comments I posted at No Quarter, the blog of Larry Johnson, who simply doesn't get it. Looks like those CIA guys don't do math. |-( ]

News I'd like to read

Somehow the great news about Rove resigning made me think about the next big news I'd like to read:

Tapes Reveal Bush, Cheney, Rove Criminal Conspiracy
Nixon's Oval Office taping operation never suspended. Evidence for election fraud, Iraq war lies, and corruption.

Washington, DC -- "Nobody ever told me to stop it" said John Doeberger, a technician working in the White House since 1969, during an ACLU press conference when asked why he still conducts the Nixon-era taping operation. "I am responsible for all telephone and audio equipment in the White House. I had different bosses over the years, but they never showed any interest in the details of my job." In a surprise move, Doeberger decided to go public today after learning from the tapes that the Bush administration not only lied to the American people about the reasons to start the Iraq war, but also is responsible for multiple serious crimes.

"I was never interested in what's on the tapes before, but when my son was killed in Iraq, I wanted to know what he died for. So I checked into some old tapes from 2003, and what I learned was so shocking that I simply had to inform the public" said John Doeberger, 63, whose son James Doeberger, 28, died while serving in a National Guard unit that is part of the US surge in Bagdad. "Bush, Cheney and Rove stole both elections, they directed the efforts to manipulate the voting machines. They were still laughing about it in 2003, and were making plans for 2004."

"They also deliberately gave away federal contracts to businesses who supported GOP campaigns. I heard Cheney telling Bush: "The oil meeting went really well. Those guys will give millions to assure our support". And everything they told us about Iraq was a lie. They started the war because their buddies in the energy industry wanted it. They never believed in the WMDs. And they didn't care that thousands would have to die for those oil contracts." While giving copies of the tapes to members of the press, he concluded, fighting his tears: "They killed my son for oil, I want to see those [expleted] in jail!"

Well, that's what I would call good news!
:D

(Originally posted as a comment at Americablog)

Victory is not an option anymore, let's speak about the best possible outcome.

In my ongoing, yet irregular, effort to feed the blogspot beast by cannibalizing comments I posted elsewhere, I want to put some light on the remaining alternatives for the US in Iraq today. Two recent opinion pieces, written by knowledgeable US officers, provide food for thought:

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can’t Be Accomplished — It’s Time for a New Strategy

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush’s illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.
...
First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly “constitutional” — meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.
...
Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis’ rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

Read it all, the author, William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and sure knows what he’s talking about. Imho Odom's main topic here, the question if the common idea of a US victory is even viable anymore, doesn't get the attention of the MSM and pundits that it requires. Obviously, it's about time to abandon this goal and formulate a new best possible outcome for the US.

The insights from his strategical view are supplemented by a report by Gian P. Gentile, a lieutenant colonel in the 4th Infantry Division, about his experiences as a tactical battalion commander in Baghdad’s Amiriyah district and the conclusions he draws from them. It says a lot about the chances of the surge to succeed:

In Amiriyah we were neither winning nor losing; we were in stasis. Between August and November last year, I substantially increased the number of combined American and Iraqi army patrols there and the capacity of the American adviser team that worked with a local Iraqi army battalion. Still, the deadlock did not break.
...
As violence mounted significantly in Baghdad over the summer, we confronted this hybrid enemy head-on for a week in early August with an almost fourfold increase of American and Iraqi troops. We also shut down all vehicular traffic in the district, among other things.

The stated purpose for our efforts was to provide breathing room for the government, to allow a break in the violence so it could demonstrate that it was a government of unity. In this sense we “cleared” Amiriyah, and there were no violent acts during that week. Yet the increase in troops was not sustainable.

In the weeks and months after our weeklong operation, American forces did not leave or abandon Amiriyah. We held it with nearly double the number of American and Iraqi troops that had long operated there.
...
But the violence continued. Sunnis killed and continue to kill Shiites and government forces because of sectarian hatred, to retaliate for what they view as unfair acts by the Shiite government and because they fear that any Shiites remaining in their district would provoke more oppressive government actions against them.

Could more American troops have eliminated the Sunni insurgency in Amiriyah? Probably not, because the people were not willing to separate themselves from the insurgents. Residents saw the Sunni insurgents as their final hope for protection from an illegitimate government out to crush them.

So, a regional surge "with an almost fourfold increase of American and Iraqi troops" "was not sustainable", because the troops were needed in other areas were violence erupted. And even securing the region "with nearly double the number of American and Iraqi troops that had long operated there" couldn't prevent that "violence continued". Well, the US can't double the numbers in Iraq, the US army hasn't that much troops. And even if it could, it wouldn't help, as shown by an officer who fought there. So, it's safe to assume that the mini surge announced by Bush will have no serious impact.

Gentile also correctly points out that Iraq is a political problem in the first place: “More American troops, more Iraqi troops and more American advisers cannot produce a legitimate government; only the Iraqis can do that.”
Indeed. The only question he doesn’t address is, will Sunni Iraqis accept a governement elected by the Shiite majority as legitimate? In the long run, maybe, but not in the heated atmosphere now, where Sunni leaders are putting oil into the flames. Iraq is still on a very long journey towards stabilization.

However, imho a prolonged US intervention in the civil war wouldn’t have either a positive nor negative impact on the growing instability of the region. An active participation of the US in the fight might not even reduce the casualties among the civil population. But it may help if the US could really close the borders, so that at least the fueling of the insurgency with arms and ammunitions would stop. Of course, this would demand the redeployment of the troops in border areas.

The WaPo articles cited above show that a US victory, defined as the stabilisation of Iraq under a pro-US government, already isn’t an option anymore. Regarding the demographics, (60% Shia, 20% Sunni) and the high animosity between the sects, it’s inevitable that eventually a purely Shiite national government will run the country. Which of the two main Shiite forces (al Hakim or al Sadr) will prevail isn’t really important, since both are essentially enemies of the US. The US can’t gain anything by playing the umpire, each time they will support one party will result in alienating more Iraqis of the other side. So, it looks like helping limit the civil war by using US troops to cut off foreign interference with the sectarian parties is the only reasonable and responsible alternative that’s left. This should happen better sooner than later.

(Compiled from my comments at TMV)

State Of The Union - Symbol Of Total Uncertainty

Bush speech wasn't very remarkable in general, except that it was evidence of the great uncertainty that shows in the course of the War on Terror and in the domestic programs of this presidency. The commander in chief's roundup of the strategic position and outlook of the US in the fight against terrorism painted a horrible picture. Nobody can close his eyes and pretend the situation doesn't look worse than just a year before. The removal of Saddam made Iraq the new hotbed for Al Quaeda, religious tensions are on the rise everywhere, the US influence on other states has further diminished (most prominent in the cases of Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan and Venezuela) and the forces are bound in a quagmire of violence in Iraq with casualties steadily rising. Domestically, almost everything the president spoke of has been discussed before, but not a single one of this bright ideas made it beyond the planning phase. Looking back at the developments of the last five years, nobody can reasonably argue that the state of the union has improved.

Personally, I think the president looked very defensive, even uncertain, this time. And the speech was carefully built to contain many undisputed passages, the bipartisan clapping and standing ovations giving the audience the fraudulent impression that the support for Bush’s ideas is much higher than it actually is. Yeah, maybe he has spoken with many of them in an attempt to raise support for his ideas, but everybody he spoke with will have noticed that the guy simply doesn’t listen. So, bipartisan backing for Bush that goes beyond that fool Lieberman is a pipedream and won’t happen. It’s much more likely the Dems will succeed in pulling more concerned republicans to their side.

However, actually, I paid much more attention to Dubya’s body language and the reaction of the audience than to the text. Hell, it doesn’t matter what Bush says, experience tells us that he won’t live up to those sunny promises. There’s a gap wider than the Grand Canyon between his rhetoric and accomplishments today. Just check the past SOTUs and you’ll be horrified at the flight from reality.

Just one point made my alarm bells ring:
“A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”

Wtf is he talking about? Civilians? He doesn’t mean the peace corps, no? The US has the national guard, the volunteer army, and contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. Everybody who meets the qualifications can serve if he/she wants to. What exactly is the idea behind this new force and why is it needed? Other listeners got the creeps and had spontaneous nightmares of ‘brown shirts’. Just overheated fantasy, I hope…

Originally posted as comment at The Moderate Voice

Person of the Year: Me. (And you, and you, and you, really all of you)

Well, WOW! I'm totally surprised at this unexpected honor. I really don't know what to say now, folks. But I'm aware that I wouldn't be standing here today without the help of many people (where's that f***ing list?): Firstly, all those bloggers, the Americablog gang, and Steve Gilliard, Kevin Drum, John Amato, Atrios, Larry Johnson. Oh, and the motley crew of The Moderate Voice and the team of MyDD. Also the countless number of other blogs who allow comments and all fellow commenters. Sadly, reciting all the names would break the timeframe now (orchestra is starting to interrupt). And last but not least (shouting against the music now), my family who has always supported me. I love you! Thanks so much, all of you (crying)! I love you!!!
exeunt
:D

Who's a real 'centrist' blogger?

Well, I'm ashamed when I see the date of my latest entry, so I have the urge to feed the blogger again. Imho this comment may be of common interest, a topic that hasn't been exhaustively discussed at other blogs recently.

When I revisited The Moderate Voice today, an interesting (at least for me) question came up:

"So the only centrists are liberal centrists?"

In practice, 'centrist' is used to describe a general direction, so, ok, there can be liberal and conservative centrists. And of course, the question always is, how to distinguish them from the 'pure' wingers, left and right. Imho an important characteristic of a moderate is that he listens to both sides, and uses arguments from the whole spectrum as it fits his views. TMV's own Joe Gandelman and BallonJuice's John Cole are good examples for this approach.

But someone who consistently agrees with bloggers on the right, while having only criticism for the left side (if he mentions them at all), doesn't look very 'centrist' to me. TMV's Michael van der Galien fits this description. Out of fairness, I scrolled through the last three weeks of blogging there to see if I might be mistaken. Alas, no, he still looks only at the right side for inspiration. And this quote from one of his posts is telling (it's about revitalisation of the GOP): "For the sake of the U.S.A., the Republican party and for that of my conservative brethren in America, I hope so."

Now, this is an honest statement. Sadly, he's isn't always that honest, sometimes he fools readers and tries to establish himself as a moderate, claiming he is rightwing on foreign policy, but liberal on social issues. Well, Michael, where are all those posts supporting liberal social issues? The best I could find was a compromise point of view on abortion (generally, yes, but absolutely no late term). This doesn't sound very liberal to me, many republicans support the same idea. What's his opinion on minimum wage, health care, social security? I can't find any liberal statements at all, and it looks like those topics aren't important to him. So why should anybody think MvdG is a centrist? Not to speak of Ann Althouse! That she managed to trick the panel of the Weblog Awards into letting her run as a centrist blogger, doesn't make her one.

And this leads to another question: Can't a blog be 'centrist' because a liberal and a conservative blogger balance each other? Imho, NO, because two ships following parallel courses may have an average course in the middle, but they will still arrive at very different harbors. The passengers have to decide on which cruise they will book. Just my personal opinion, your mileage may differ.

One final point: While I think MvdG is too conservative a blogger for TMV, I don't believe that his input has already stained the centrist approach of this blog beyond repair. Looking at the less-than-stellar list of nominees (where's Ballon Juice?), and out of respect for Joe Gandelman, I follow the example of Ezra Klein and endorse The Moderate Voice for Best Centrist Blog at the Weblog Awards 2006.

I'm aware that MvdG essentially surrendered to Ann Althouse, but since I haven't seen other TMV bloggers, especially Joe, support this defatist course, I think the race is still on. Stop the travestie of Ann Althouse putting a bad name on real centrist bloggers, vote The Moderate Voice!

Tonight's THE night!

I had a lot of problems recently, and still face a busy time ahead. Not much energy left for blogging. But tonight (8 pm here in Germany) I'm totally excited about the election. Sanity will prevail! The Dems are heading towards a historical turnaround. The tyrannic rule of King George will end, finally he will have to endure serious oversight. His fabrications and blunders will be brought to light. This will be good for the US and for the whole world. Go Dems!

On 'Moderation'

The following mod response, targetted at Jurassicpork, a commenter I know as an engaging and serious person and far from being a troll, is an example of awful moderation. This should be a warning sign for blog owners to check if the people they gave mod powers are suited for the task:

"Oh, Jurassic Pork,

You're HILARIOUS!!

I would almost think you were serious.

A note: In the moderation queue, no one can hear you scream.

Jane will never see your comment. She's in L.A. tonight partying with Valerie and Joe Wilson, R.E.M., and Green Day and I am going to delete it long before she ever sees it.

You are a sad, sad little man.

Hope that hiatus from blogging is working out for you. You were never meant for our line of work.

Ta taaaaaaaaaa,
TRex"
Welcome to Pottersville: He Who Sleeps With Firedogs Wakes Up With Trolls

I'm not against moderation in general. At bigger blogs, mods are essential for maintaining a repectful level of discussion that won't turn away readers who are interested in 'adding their two cent'. But it's obvious that mods have to be chosen carefully. People who use deleting and editing power to surpress comments that merely challenge their own views are totally unfit for the job.
For successful moderation, a blog should fulfill four major requirements:

* Clear guidelines for commenters and mods, placed or linked at a prominent space in the blog.

* Moderators should be signed as such (for example, "*ilson, Moderator")

* The process of editing and deleting comments should be transparent for the readers ('Comment deleted because of inappropriate personal attacks. Pls see guidelines' or 'Comment edited because of inappropriate language.')

* The system should allow mod actions to be supervised so that the blog owner can be sure that his mods work in the best interests of the blog.

Sadly, FDL doesn't meet a single one of these requirements. As a result, the blog is one of the worst examples of arbitrary, intransparent moderation with the mods acting like small dictators, drunken with their power.

The time has come for real conservatives to join the good fight

Christopher Buckley:
"What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back? One place comes to mind: the back benches. It's time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds...."

Wow! I'm not known as someone who usually is sympathetic to right wingers, but this honest and thoughtful tirade makes me say:
Kudos, Mr. Buckley!

And that's not because he concludes that it may be time for the other team to take over. No, it's because he shows that it's never been a goal of real conservatism to cling to power without caring about the costs. And because he reminds us that there are still conservative thinkers who have ideals that won't change with a sudden turn of the winds. This icon of conservatism exposes the Bush gang as CINO's, con artists who don't care about any long term goals but only about short term benefits (that can be counted in dollars) for themselves and their cronies. They managed to hijack the GOP and corrupted it with their unprincipled Machiavellism. And while conservatism is soundly based on democratic ideals, Bush's rethuglicans don't really care for democracy nor for the republic, it's all about preserving and increasing the power. They know no limits. And they have been smart in manipulating the US, so smart that this has become a real danger for democracy.

So, now is the time for all real democrats, regardless if in the center or left or right of it, to come to the aid of their nation. It's time for this majority to stand up and shout: Enough already! And maybe then the forces of false conservatism and selfishness and cronyism may be forced to retreat and reason will rule again. Buckley standing up, driven by his patriotic instincts, willing to take a lot of flak from his own party, is an encouraging sign that this time has come.

This doesn't say that Buckley is on our side. No, he will stay on the other side, vehemently fighting many Dem goals like universal healthcare. But, unlike the Bushistas, he isn't willing to sacrifice democracy for short term political successes. And for this he deserves our respect.

(orginally posted at A-Blog)

Better fried chicken than Friedman...

"The “real reason” for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world."

Of course, this is bull. Friedman is an idiot, I don't really know why anyone reads him anymore. We have to remind us that it's not been 'America' that decided to go against Saddam, it's been a right wing clique in or connected to the White House. All evidence shows that Iraq was the very first thing that came to their minds when thinking about a response to the destruction of the towers, even before thinking about how to punish those who really were responsible. And the neocons wanted to hit Iraq even before 9/11, because of several reasons: Frustration with the outcome of the first gulf war, hate against Saddam for his numerous provocations (not the least his try to kill Bush I.), the urgent desire to secure the oil supply of the US, deep concerns about Saddam threatening Israel, an obsession with strategical power play, to name only the most obvious. These were the motives that powered the gang at the levers of power. Yes, sure there was a widespread desire among americans to hit back, no matter what the target. But this wasn't the reason behind the war, it was just used as a psychological means to sell it to a broad public.

Imho all of this is evident, and while there are still 'pundits' who try to distort the issue, we have to ask ourselves if they are really that dumb or have hidden motives to mislead their audience. Well, I think in the case of Tom Friedman, by looking at his vast output of idiocies, we can safely assume he is an honest fool.

(originally posted at the Poor Man Institute as a comment on a story about the reason behind the Iraq War.)

The MSM doesn't dig it! [Updated]

There's a disturbing trend in the MSM. More and more magazines and newspapers chose to offer 'analysis' instead of news. Here's a recent example.

Well, I guess we all know how their 'analysis' will look like. More gratuitous spin for Bush, Rove, and Co. But maybe the MSM is heading towards a nasty surprise. Hell, do they really think anyone will give them hard earned money for opinions anymore? If we want opinions, Steve, the unstoppable blog machine, and many other relentless bloggers offer it for FREE!

There has to be a reason the Times (NY of course) doesn't want to publish the 'profits' of their Times Select business. Almost nobody wants to pay for columnists anymore, not even for Krugman! Of course, the price is dependant on the relation between demand and supply. Someone once said 'Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one'. The blogosphere is evidence of this, lots of assholes and opinions there, and it boosted supply beyond all expectations. This made it difficult to make money by simply publishing columns. So, the new role for the MSM today is not to provide 'analysis', but to provide the facts. How long will they be digging their own grave before they realize that?

(originally posted at Steve Gilliard's site and at Buzzmachine)

Ok, half an eternity after I posted this (two days later), Ezra Klein, one of the most thoughtful bloggers of all, ran a story based on the same news. Sadly, we're not exactly on the same line of thinking regarding the validity of Time's business decision (his point of view is between 170-190 degrees different from mine). No big deal, I'm deeply suspicious of people who share my opinions. :D
Of course, I couldn't resist and added my two eurocent, raising the total of that thread to about 46 cent. Here's my comment that actually clarifies my idea about that sparse good, 'facts':

"News just doesn't keep. Good analysis, however, does."

Hmm, ok, but we're not talking about good analysis here, we're talking about the MSM. :D
Honestly, how many good examples have you seen there recently? In times when guesswork about the choice of clothing of a candidate is called campaign analysis and when most space for stories on the economy is used for pie charts, the trend seems to go in the direction of infotainment, not towards being thoughtful and well researched. And the problem is, analysis always is evaluation, so it's based on opinion. And opinions are extremely cheap nowadays, there are thousands of blogs where you get them for free, no matter what the topic might be. Economics 101: If a good is given away for free, selling it will negatively affect your business...

No, the MSM has to concentrate on goods that are sparse, creating a benefit that readers, many of which are bloggers, are willing to pay for. What good might that be? News, and especially investigated facts. Bloggers simply lack the manpower, the budget, and, sadly, in many cases the knowledge to do deep research. But it's the news, stupid, and the facts in it that fuel the blogosphere. So there's the great advantage of the MSM and they should capitalize on it. There's only one downside to it:
Facts have a well known liberal bias (here's to you, Stephen Colbert!).
The corporate media might not want that...

Listen to Bull Moose? Better Mull Booze!

"The only jihad many in the left-wing in the party are interested in is the one against the party's former vice presidential standard bearer."

With senior Democratic Leadership council spokesmen like this one, who needs enemies?
Oh my.

Stop the Bull, ban the Moose!

The Greatest American Value

"In the end the people make up their own minds and this is going to be a people’s campaign"
I think Loserman has a point here, but not in the way he might think. After the great experience of yesterday, who's gonna deny that people made up their mind and that the people's campaign was victorious? And, (sry, now I may sound to idealistic, but its the view of a foreigner) what topic has a very high value in the people's mind? Democracy! It's a value deeply embedded in US history, it's part of the american way, and it always has been one of the most distinguished aspects of US identity. And its main rules aren't really difficult to dig, one of them is you can decide to compete for a position, you campaign for your cause, and then comes the day when your fellow countrymen decide.

But that's exactly the point, it's one day of voting, it's THE day, and if you're not elected, you respect the result and wait for next turn. You don't simply do the stubborn, spoiled kid, ignore the decision and pretend that this try doesn't count and that you are entitled to restart the game. We all now this behaviour from our youth or from young sister, brothers or friends, but it's not adult behaviour, especially is it not democratic behavior . The system simply wouldn't work if everybody would feel entitled to ignore unfavorable outcomes and go on, so nobody is allowed to do so (Kant, right?). And in mayn US states, they have such 'sore loser' laws, it just a historical coincidence that CT is not among them.

Imho, what has to be done now is to generate a lot of buzz about voting and democratic rules. Many citizen simply don't think much about the philosophy of democracy, it's something that is simply there, it's taken for granted. But there always has been a lot of emphasis on what makes America great, so not much campaigning is needed to bring it back to conciousness. And especially the organisations that pretend to pursuit the poeple's interest have to be targeted. They have to answer the question if it is according to their ideals and their mission if they support undemocratic manoeuvers. And the emphasis has to be that seeking a second chance to run for an election may be technicaly not forbidden, but that it violates core US values. Imho it should be possible to spread the insight that Loserman is following a deeply unamerican idea and that no patriotic citizen or group should lend him a hand. If the NGOs can be pusged into the defensive on that issue, they will have to drop support for Lieberman, and certainly many private donators would think twice, too. If Sore Loserman insists on spurning the very principles he purports to defend, ok, but he should be aware that it might be a lonesome voyage.

(originally posted at FDL, but to be honest, I'm too tired to engage in a long discussion now. And I suspect that I'll find this posting incredible naive if I take another look at it tomorrow. Well, however.)

Stop the Bull, ban the Moose!

K, Ned has won, Hooray!, and I made a lengthy post at MyDD about a guy who is a total spoilsport. Sadly, so far I have no responses on it, but that's the problem with MyDD, it's not a good blog for comments (I doubt they ever reached 300). K, since this site needs some content now and then, I'll repost it here. Rant on:

Marshall Whitman, a.k.a. the Bull Moose, is a sore loser!
Pls check his latest post at his blog:

A few years back the Moose [sic! Pluralis majestatis! Gray] broke with the Republican Party on a range of issues dealing with economic justice. His reasons for leaving the GOP are explained here.

As the Moose indicated, just because he became a heretic on the right, he certainly did not join the left. At another time he would be in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Alas, that Scoop Jackson wing today is miniscule.
...
So where does this situation leave the Moose? He is an economic progressive, cultural tradionalist and a hawk - a mammal without a party who continues to graze in the political center.
http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/

Ok, surely some will say that's just the usual, whiny bull from the moose, but I think this statement is very significant and should have consequences. He clearly states he is not in the mainstream of the Democratic party, and in the end even openly says that in reality, he is without a party. You can't say it any clearer than that.

Now, his political identification is his personal business, except for the fact that he is still senior spokesman for the DLC. Shouldn't someone who is speaking for a mayor Democratic organisation be a convincing and supporting member of that party? After this statement by Whitman, is there any logical explanation why he should stay in the DLC any longer? When will this insider club finally make a decision on this matter?

I want to add a concrete example why Whitman shouldn't be allowed to speak for the DLC anymore:

Marshall Wittman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who supports Lieberman, said Lamont has allowed himself to be defined by his left-wing supporters.

"Had it not been for the involvement of the Democratic left, the party would be fairly united going into midterm elections," he said. "The Lamont campaign can be potentially devastating to the party, not in 2006, but in 2008. At a time of horrific news for the Republican Party, this is the only silver lining they have right now."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-lieberman9aug09,0,4115180.story?page= 2&coll=la-home-headlines

Yes, that's in the LA Times right now!
Is that the official position of the DLC? That the result of this primary "can be potentially devastating to the party"? Even if some might think so, is it acceptable or even reasonable for the DLC to say so in public? And is it the mission of the DLC to give the republican party hope for a "silver lining"? It is my understanding that tomorrow at 11 will be the important unification meeting of the Dems. Doesn't this irresponsible statement from Whitman make this mission more difficult?

Imho the last thing the Dems need right now is a senior speaker who only cares for his personal ideas of the right direction and who shows a blatant disregard for party interests. Someone has to pull the plug from this egocentric running amok. Now.

(originally posted here: http://mydd.com/story/2006/8/9/0569/07635 )
((But it's really a lame discussion at MyDD))
(((Even though I like the site, especially Matt's postings)))

A hard day's night

It's been an interesting discussion at FDL - http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/18/every-bomb-makes-hezbollah-stronger/#comments

Starting with a great post by Steve Giliard, imho one of the best informed and most thoughtful liberal bloggers. And, sadly, one of the much-too-few afro american ones. He's running a great site, especially if you're interested in history. Check it out!
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

One note to Jane and Christy at FDL: Closing a thread when it is still hosting a civil discussion is a total no-no imho. This smells like censorship and control freaks. Pls think twice about this policy!

Ok, back to the discussion - the forces of good won! By saying this, I don't want to deminish the few right wing guys who had enough guts to take part in a discussion at a liberal site. They are much better than those simple minded followers who are only capable of blogobating at 'save' right wing sites like Powerline, Protein Wisdom, the Freep and others. But, truth is, it is almost impossible to defend Israel's current actions. So, they were fighting for a lost cause. However, the discussion clarified many points that may have been unclear for some, so let's hope that some lurkers did learn something.

OK, a general point now. I don't know yet if my moods will make it possible, but my idea is to establish this site as a meeting point for liberal commenters. A site to exchange experiences, to release the steam because some blogger simply didn't get it, and to direct others to interesting discussions or a thread that desperately needs more liberal firepower. Just because I'm sometimes annoyed at arrogant bloggers who think they are selfmade men and who disregard the armies fighting for them.

Hooray for the commenters! Here's to us!

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his thoughts with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This blog shall gentle his condition.