June 2003 Archives

Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11.

This CFR warning is becoming a yearly event. The Administration and their supporters have buried their collective head in the sands of Iraq. Will it take another 9/11 to get some money for the front-liners in the real War on Terror?

"The key point is not just whether people hate us," says Robert Wright, the author of "Nonzero," a highly original book on the integrated world. "The key point is that it matters more now whether people hate us, and will keep mattering more, for technological reasons. I don't mean just homemade W.M.D.'s. I am talking about the way information technology — everyone using e-mail, Wi-Fi and Google — will make it much easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds and mobilize lethal force. And wait until the whole world goes broadband. Broadband — a much richer Internet service that brings video on demand to your PC — will revolutionize recruiting, because video is such an emotionally powerful medium. Ever seen one of Osama bin Laden's recruiting videos? They're very effective, and they'll reach their targeted audience much more efficiently via broadband."

None of this means we, America, just have to do what the world wants, but we do have to take it seriously, and we do have to be good listeners. We, America, "have to work even harder to build bridges," argues Mr. Wright, because info-tech, left to its own devices, will make it so much easier for small groups to build their own little island kingdoms. And their island kingdoms, which may not seem important or potent now, will be able to touch us more, not less.

Friedman once again grasps what most don't. The "super empowered angry men" gathers more followers each day, and they all have different ideas about what is right and wrong.

When presidents pick someone to fill a job in the government, it's typically a very public affair. The White House circulates press releases and background materials. Congress holds a hearing, where some members will pepper the nominee with questions and others will shower him or her with praise. If the person in question is controversial or up for an important position, they'll rate a profile or two in the papers. But there's one confirmation hearing you won't hear much about. It's convened every Tuesday morning by Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, in the privacy of a Capitol Hill conference room, for a handpicked group of two dozen or so Republican lobbyists. Occasionally, one or two other senators or a representative from the White House will attend. Democrats are not invited, and neither is the press.

Lobbyists getting in the way? Annex them.

[via Metafilter]

I just put 2 and 2 together. I have July 3rd off from work. And Jacob Fred plays Dulcinea's on the 2nd! Yay! Between this and a fine evening at the new Brendan's last night (which rules, minus the lack of piss stink in the bathroom) it's turning out to be a good week. Oh yeah, and my offer was accepted and if all goes well I'll soon be a new homeowner.

Dominik Hasek might not have stopped his last puck after all. The former star goaltender is considering a return to the NHL.

So Hasek wants back in. Could he fit with the newly Roy-less Avs? While I won't be making this my annual "summertime-hockey-prediction-under-penalty-of-Nugget-fandom" (it's a bit early for that - last years was that Anaheim would make the playoffs) I think its reasonable to see Lacroix swoop in and scoop up Hasek. Detroit certainly can't afford him with Joseph hanging around their neck. Of course, the alternate is Detroit convinces Joesph to waive his no-trade clause and maybe we end up with him. That would be icky.

Did the president lie? Was the war unjustified? These two questions are both in play right now, but many conservatives are ignoring the first question and many liberals are ignoring the second, leaving the public with a confusing set of mismatched arguments to decipher.

The always excellent Spinsanity with a sensible breakdown of the logic and reason problems on both sides of the WMD debate.

"Cities need a people climate more than they need a business climate," Florida says. They need technology, but they also need talent and tolerance. In his book, he describes three kinds of high-tech communities: the "nerdistans" of the Silicon Valley; "latte towns" like Boulder, "with plentiful outdoor amenities"; and older urban areas whose rebirth is "fueled by a combination of creativity and lifestyle amenities." Leading creative centers have all three types. Leading creative centers like Boston, San Francisco, Austin and, yes, Denver: "The Denver region combines the university and lifestyle assets of Boulder with abundant skiing and the urban character of its LoDo district."

An interesting article about the philosophies shared by The Hick (hizoner John Hickenlooper) and Richard Florida, author of "The Rise of the Creative Class" The future is bright for Denver.

[via Coyote Gulch]

Best Out-Of-Context Quote About a Disqualified Goal In Game 5 Of The Stanley Cup Final That Could Double As A Motto For The Current State Of NHL Hockey: "Clearly, despite all best efforts of all involved, a goal was scored. The NHL regrets the error." Colin Campbell, NHL Director of Hockey Operations, June 5.

More here.

Nader says that if the Greens reject him, he might choose to run as an independent, or possibly even as a Republican, which would pit him against George W. Bush in the primary.

"Wouldn't that be interesting? A Republican run?" he muses.

When asked why a campaigner so closely identified with progressive causes would contemplate running for the White House as a candidate from a party on the other end of the political spectrum, Nader answers without missing a beat.

"To give the American people a choice as to the political institutions they desire and the clean elections they deserve," he said. "Isn't that what politics should be all about?"

Uhm... I'm not even sure what to say about this. I think I like it. I wonder how the mechanics of this would work. Are there enough open primaries in Red states that this could cause problems for Bush requiring him to waste some time and money on dealing with Nader?

[via Political Wire]

To have your music added to the iTunes Music Store, contact Apple via email at: indies@applemusic.com

Neat!

In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."

The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."

Rand Beers, National Security Council member for the last 4 Presidents and model bi-partisan team player has resigned and signed on to John Kerry's campaign staff as a national security advisor.

He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies.

He has some eye-opening things to say (or not-so-eye-opening, since skeptics outside the White House intelligence apparatus were saying similar things) on the the REAL war on terror from his position as one of its primary combatants. Give it a read.

[via The Note]

"The way he raises money shows what kind of trouble democracy is in in this country," said Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and a Democratic presidential candidate. "My guess is that he'll raise as much as all the Democrats put together, and he'll be able to do that because he's the president and he is able to sell access."

If history is any guide, it is doubtful that these kinds of criticism will have much influence on voters. "It's an issue that's very intense for a very small number of voters," Dr. Dean said.

And the Democrats, as several Republicans noted, are doing precisely what Mr. Bush is doing, albeit not as effectively, making it that much harder for them to complain.

"The Democrats have no choice but to try to make money Bush's liability," said one Republican fund-raiser. "They have to try to tie the money to special interests, tie the special interests to unpopular issues and then tie it all around Bush's neck. The problem is that Democrats are taking special interest money, too."

The New York Times on Bush's fund-raising plans and the potential bear trap awaiting Democrats.

[via The Note]

Thanks to the MMW mailing list:

From: John Cassibry <*@*>
To: MMW@LISTS.NETSPACE.ORG
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:43:59 -0500
Subject: MMW + Logic - Red Rocks 9/5

Did anybody else see this on pollstar? It's not listed on mmw.net as
of this morning. Have they ever headlined there before? Hoping this
is an indication of an early fall tour......?

And sure enough, the show is still listed on Pollstar but no sign of it on MMW.net or RedRocksOnline

MMW has played Red Rocks once before that I could find, as a part of a KBCO festival back in 1996, but I'm fairly certain they've never headlined.

They're officially big time now ;)

As an aside, while crawling MMW set lists looking for Red Rocks shows I found it interesting that the first show listed at mmwsetlists.com was at Simon's Rock back in 1992. Galen is missed.

[update]
Rumor has it now that this will be an opening set for String Cheese Incident. Poo.

When the weapons of mass destruction turned up missing, you knew it had to happen: Someone would ask the Watergate Question. Not surprisingly, it was feisty Howard Dean, who attacked President George W. Bush in Iowa the other day by demanding, “What did he know and when did he know it?” The implication: that Bush lied so he could drag us into a distracting, counterproductive war in Iraq.

I’M SURE DEAN felt good taking the jab, and his audience loved it. But if the Democrats want to beat Bush next year, they aren’t going to do it by turning him into Nixon of Arabia. If the president is vulnerable on terrorism — and he may be — the real question will be, “Are we safer than we were on 9/11?” If Bush can’t answer “yes,” then he’ll be in jeopardy and Iraq will look like a misadventure — no matter what the president knew when.

Howard Fineman makes an interesting point on why "Where's the WMD's" is the wrong question.

Jacob Fred will be at Dulcinea's in Denver on July 2nd at 9pm (a Wednesday unfortunately). The only other Colorado appearance that has been announced is August 27th (another Wednesday) in Steamboat Springs.

Rumor has floated around that the Fred is avoiding Colorado because of the small crowds they get at the show, so if you can possibly make it (even if you have to leave early) you should - in the hope that they will be inspired to add a few more dates to their busy schedule. Tell your friends!

Everyone wants taxes to be cut, but no one wants services to be cut, which is why Democrats have to reframe the debate — and show President Bush for what he really is: a man who is not putting money into your pocket, but who is removing government services and safety nets from your life.

Ditto on foreign policy. As we and our government continue to spend and invest more than we save, we will become even more dependent on the outside world to finance the gap. Foreigners will have to buy even more of our T-bills and other assets. And do you know on whom we'll be most dependent for that? China and Japan. Yes, that China — the one the Bush team says is our biggest geopolitical rival.

"In the 1990's, Japan's and China's excess savings were financing our private sector investment, because the government was in surplus," says Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. "Now, with these looming deficits, China and Japan are being asked to finance our government's actual operations." That makes us very dependent on their willingness to continue sending us hundreds of billions of dollars of their savings. Should China and Japan not want to play along, your services will very likely be cut even sooner (unless you believe in "voodoo economics"). Which is why Democrats should rename this tax bill the China-Japan Economic Dependency Act.

An interesting (Krugmanesque in The Note's assessment) point of view from Tom. Considering our dependence on foreign investment, we might want to consider playing nicer with others.

[via The Note]

Daily Kos has worked with the Democratic Party to help narrow the GOP's massive cash advantage. Our nominee will emerge from the primaries bloodied and broke, only to run smack head into $200 million in GOP attack ads. The DNC recognizes the increasing power of the blogosphere, and was receptive when I approached them with a request -- give us the tools to help the party and our nominee defeat Bush. The end result? ePatriots. So donate now and help us retake our nation from Bush and his cabal. Your donations will be crucial to this effort.

The DNC is planning on making it easy for the blogosphere to put its money where its collective mouth is. Kos is testing it out and raised $4000+ in a few hours yesterday. The small individual donor is the big difference between the Democratic and Republican parties - the Republicans have them, the Democrats want them. This could be big.

Rep. Ike Skelton, "an influential Democrat on military matters, warned Monday that American policy makers may be forgetting history's lessons as clashes escalate between Iraqis and American troops," the Kansas City Star reports. "As a remedy for that ignorance, the 14-term Missouri congressman is recommending a reading list of 50 books to U.S. military officers, members of Congress and anyone else who cares about national security."

1. U.S. Constitution.
2. "Sun Tzu: The Art of War." Samuel B. Griffith, translator.
3. "On War." Carl von Clausewitz. Peter Paret and Michael Howard.
4. "Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought." Michael I. Handel.
5. "The Book of War." John Keegan, editor.
6. "Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo." Edward Sheperd Creasy.
7. "Alexander the Great." Peter Bamm.
8. "Hannibal." Sir Gavin De Beer.
9. "The Face of Battle." John Keegan.
10. "Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754 - 1766." Fred Anderson.
11. "Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer." John Mack Faragher.
12. "Washington." Richard Barksdale Harwell and Douglas Southall Freeman.
13. "Tecumseh: A Life." John Sugden.
14. "Undaunted Courage." Stephen Ambrose.
15. "Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography." Vincent Cronin.
16. "The Military Maxims of Napoleon: The Principles of Warfare by Napoleon." Napoleon Bonaparte, translation by George C. D'Aguilar.
17. "Nelson: A Personal History." Christopher Hibbert.
18. "The Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare." John Keegan.
19. "The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation Under Shaka and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879." Donald R. Morris.
20. "Lee." Douglas Southall Freeman.
21. "Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant." Ulysses S. Grant.
22. "Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy: Guerrilla Warfare in the West, 1861-1865." Richard S. Brownlee.
23. "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era." James M. McPherson.
24. "Son of the Morning Star." Evan S. Connell.
25. "A Message to Garcia." Elbert Hubbard.
26. "Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I." John Eisenhower, 2002.
27. "Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing." Frank Everson Vandiver, Two Volumes.
28. "Churchill: A Biography." Roy Jenkins.
29. "A War to be Won." Allan R. Miller and Williamson Murray.
30. "Reminiscences." Douglas MacArthur.
31. "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." William L. Shirer.
32. "Combined Fleet Decoded: The Secret History of American Intelligence and the Japanese Navy in World War II." John Prados.
33. "Ghost Soldiers: The Forgotten Epic Story of World War II's Most Dramatic Mission." Hampton Sides.
34. "Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle." Richard Frank.
35. "The Victors: Eisenhower and his boys and men of World War II." Stephen Ambrose.
36. "Black Knights: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen." Lynn M. Homan and Thomas Reilly.
37. "Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny." Frank Freidel.
38. "Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revolution." Maj. Gen. Jeanne Hold, USAF, Retired.
39. "Defeat Into Victory." William Slim.
40. "Truman." David McCullough.
41. "This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History." T.R. Fehrenbach.
42. "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Robert Coram.
43. "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway.
44. "Gulf War: The Complete History." Thomas G. Houlahan
45. "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos." Robert D. Kaplan.
46. "Yellow Smoke: The Future of Land Warfare for America's Military (Role of American Military Power)." MG Robert H. Scales Jr.
47. "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime." Eliot Cohen.
48. "From Vietnam to 9/11: On the Front Lines of National Security." John P. Murtha with John Plashal.
49. "Making the Corps." Thomas E. Ricks.
50. "The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy." Russel Frank Weigley.

[via Political Wire]

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

Former Nixon attorney John Dean on the possibilities facing President Bush.

[via DrudgeReport]

In the season of their discontent -- out of power and on the defensive -- Democrats are looking for inspiration and leadership. A bunch of them found it yesterday in the unassuming figure of Wes Boyd, the man who gave America the flying toaster.

An interesting profile in the Washington Post about Wes Boyd, founder of Berkeley Systems (the folks behind the Flying Toasters - which any old-school Mac owner should recognize) and MoveOn.org, one of the fastest growing online progressive political organizations around.

Separation of the spheres also depends on an unspoken deal, a nonaggression pact, between democracy's political majority and capitalism's affluent minority. The majority acknowledge that capitalism benefits all of us, even if some benefit a lot more than others. The majority also take comfort in the belief that everyone has at least a shot at scoring big. The affluent minority, meanwhile, acknowledge that their good fortune is at least in part the luck of the draw. They recognize that domestic tranquility, protection from foreign enemies, and other government functions are worth more to people with more at stake. And they retain a tiny yet prudent fear of what beast might be awakened if the fortunate folks get too greedy about protecting and enlarging their good fortune.

Michael Kinsley in Slate on the Bush-coordinated breakdown between the opposing (but equally necessary) spheres of Capitalism and Democracy.

In a similar vein, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics comments on this TAPPED post regarding the motivation behind Republican tax policies and how similar idiocy brought down Margaret Thatcher and made the Tories effectively un-electable to the present-day in much of the UK:

Apparently Rep. DeMint has argued that it is necessary to make the tax system more regressive. DeMint said that "unless something is done, most people will have no reason not to keep voting for more government, because they won't be paying for it." Exempting too much of the low-income groups would give them little reason to vote for a smaller government - others would be paying for it. Tapped also published a letter from Bruce Bartlett, a conservative columnist, who argued that the evidence seemed to show that narrowing the tax base tended to help the Republicans, since it increased the voting levels among the rich, rather than widening it as the Republicans have recently done.

The Tories tried to increase the regressivity of the tax code about 15 years ago in order to ensure that every one would want to vote for a smaller government. And that was at the heart of why Margaret Thatcher lost her job and why the Tories remain unelectable across much of London, Scotland, Wales, and within much of the educated middle class.

Brew pub owner John Hickenlooper cruised to victory tonight in the race to be Denver's first new mayor in more than a decade.

With about 103,000 ballots counted, Hickenlooper has nearly twice as many votes as city Auditor Don Mares.

Hickenlooper had 65 percent to Mares' 35 percent. All but one precinct has been counted.

Hickenlooper, who rebounded after losing his job as a geologist in the 1980s oil bust to launch a Lower Downtown brewpub and open a string of restaurants, was the favorite heading into today's election to succeed Wellington Webb, whose 12 years in the mayor's office end on July 21.

Beer for everybody!

You can watch the results 'live' starting when the polls close at 7pm.

But increasingly, critics are asking some pointed questions: Is broadcast television worth saving, especially when the industry arguably has abandoned the pact struck decades ago — that is, in exchange for serving the "public interest," TV stations get to use the airwaves for free? Why give broadcasters the ability to become more profitable when many of them no longer air the kind of community-oriented programming that once was their mandate?

Might it make more sense for Uncle Sam to fatten its coffers by taking back the airwaves and selling them to the highest bidder?

Some interesting thoughts on the FCC's role in the modern media landscape. Why should NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox get to make money off a medium they don't pay for, especially when their 'public service' is a joke. Take the spectrum back, auction it off to cell phone providers, wireless internet companies, etc and use the money to subsidize pay-tv for those that don't already have it. If we're not getting our end of the bargain, lets just dump the bargain. Interesting thoughts.

[via Slate]

Don't forget to vote tomorrow! I saw Don Mares running around 16th St Mall with a pack of sign-wavers this afternoon (after a fine lunch at Mt Everest) looking for people to vote for him. Make sure he doesn't find enough ;)