World Affairs: January 2003 Archives

"What happens when the voice of the people gets as fake as a television laugh track?

That's what's happening to the "letters to the editor" column in scores of newspapers today, thanks to a tactic known as "AstroTurf." Borrowing a trick from lobbyists, interest groups are using phony grass roots letter writing campaigns to puff up their support."

The Christian Science Monitor on Astroturfing and the harm it can cause.

"This may seem like good political strategy, but it's bad for democracy.

One of the reasons Americans are turned off by politics is because of the inherent cynicism they see in the political debate. Every position seems like a commodity, espoused not out of belief but for tactical advantage. It's bad enough when politicians do it.

We shouldn't let our views, and the places we express them, be so cravenly manipulated. Keep off the AstroTurf, and let the sun shine in!"

And as a timely reminder that bad strategies exist and propogate on and from all sides of the political specturm I received a Astroturfing solicitation from MoveOn today and they're not even offering a free totebag.  Granted, they do say that your own words are best, but it still smells funny

"Though you will find suggested letters below, they are really only a quarry for you to use in writing your own letter.  The best letter to the editor is your personal and heartfelt response to something you read.  Find something in a news article or (even better) an op-ed or editorial that stirs you -- often because it's unbearably silly or dangerously misguided.  "How can s/he write that?"  Then, as you frame your response, feel free to draw on whatever part of one of the letters below that you find useful.  Your own words are always best.  The letter doesn't have to be -- probably shouldn't be -- as formal or technical as the sample.  We were simply trying to give you the resources to make your own statement for peace. "

"The Bush administration is preparing to release supersensitive electronic intercepts obtained by the National Security Agency that officials say prove that Iraq has repeatedly lied to United Nations inspectors, plotted among themselves about how to conceal weapons material and even appeared to boast afterward at their success in doing so, NEWSWEEK has learned."

Sounds like it could be a smoking gun.  If the intercepts are as compelling as this article implies, I can't see any reasonable argument left for UN members.  While France and Germany,  for their own domestic political purposes, will probably make noise over the existing resolution not providing for war, neither will probably put up a fight if the US decided to ask for a second resolution.  I guess we'll see soon enough. 

"MOSCOW - Russia on Wednesday deported an American woman suspected of having contacts with Islamic extremists, the Federal Security Service said. A duty officer at the service identified the woman as Megan McRee and said she was placed on a flight to Los Angeles. The Russian airline Aeroflot confirmed that a passenger by that name was en route to Los Angeles. Officials at the U.S. Embassy could not immediately be reached for comment. According to the security service, the woman had lived in a neighborhood of Moscow for a long period without registering her visa as required by law. The FSB also said she had made contact via the internet with a number of Islamic extremist organizations and proposed various "scenarios" for terrorist actions in the United States. The duty officer, who declined to give his name, said he had no further details. But the state-run TV Rossiya channel later broadcast a report saying that the woman had attempted to contact al-Qaida and the Islamic Brotherhood. The report did not specify what sort of responses she may have received. The Rossiya report also said the woman had told authorities she had left the United States several years ago because she was being persecuted by the CIA (news - web sites) and that she had lived in Romania before coming to Russia."

So, I saw this article on DrudgeReport and for whatever reason, mostly because I love crazy folks with CIA paranoid delusions, decided to do a search for "Megan McRee" on google. First off, here's her CIA story. I also noticed several postings by her (presumably, the address was a Megan McRee at mail.ru) talking about security vulnerabilities in some Verisign credit card processing software that she used in her web design business. A few more search's and I find she's authored a online personals software package that she sell's, as well as managing herself at "IslamicPersonals.com." which appears to be an Islamic matchmaking service.

Megan McRee, Oolitsa Yelninskaya 
   Dom.19, Kv.44
   Moscow,  112252
   RU

   Domain Name: ISLAMICPERSONALS.COM

   Administrative Contact - 
        Megan McRee -  admin@codegirlclassifieds.com
        Oolitsa Yelninskaya
        Dom.19, Kv.44
        Moscow,  112252
        RU
        Phone -  +7-095-141-12-52 
        Fax -  

Nothing really exciting, but I found it interesting so I thought I'd share

I also found his views on health-care intriguing.  A lot of it was tied to tort-reform, which I'm a little suspicious of, but anything that removes the accountants from health-care decisions can't be bad.

Well, it sounds to me like we're going to war.  I just hope Powell is able to convince the UN to come along with us, otherwise we are going it alone and if we don't have the world with us, and things go badly, we're in for a terrible mess.

That being said, I though it was a great speech.  I found a lot I agreed with, and a lot I disagreed with

In agreement:

1. The $1.2 billion for hydrogen vehicles, and $15 billion for worldwide AIDS relief are bold moves.  I hope they come into being as presented, and if they do I will bow down.   Energy independence is the key to extricating ourselves from the mess we're in now, and relieving the suffering of the third world can only help our public image.
2. The only mention of a war on drug was oriented towards dealing with treatment, $600 million worth.  Granted some of it was "faith-based" which bugs me, but the fact that the sole mention was in regards to treatment indicates a shift away from the dark side.  
3. Project Bioshield ($6 billion worth) is a good sized part of the kind of homeland security initiviatives that have been missing.  This, combined with the joint department intelligence center between the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and Pentagon is a good move forward.  It's not the kind of ideas that Gary Hart will be presenting, but its a definate move forward.

Now, for the stuff I disagreed with

1. Abortion - when will the right get that pro-choice means pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
2. Cloning - this is so short sighted I can't even express it.  If we don't take the lead, technically and morally, someone else will.
3. Faith-based initiatives - I appreciate what he's trying for, public service in all shapes and forms, but there's a reason for the seperation of church and state, and giving money to groups that WILL push their beliefs is totally contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
4. Economy and tax cuts - No further comment.  Suffice it to say the Democrats aren't the only ones for economic redistribution, but at least they're redistributing to the little guy.
5. Ballistic missles != terrorism and anyone who thinks that is a mouth-breathing retard.  The attempt to link missle-defense and terrorism needs to end, because it just makes everyone involved look idiotic.  If you want to make a case for missle-defense, cite North Korea.

Finally...Iraq:

The evidence presented:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. "

If all of this is true, and the intelligence behind it is sufficient, the UN should be convinced of the case behind war.  If they are not, and the solid evidence behind these assertions is presented to the UN, I'm for war.  But that evidence better be ROCK FUCKIN' SOLID and the only objection in the UN would have to be crazed socialist rantings with no basis in reality.

This all being said this is my initial reaction, 30 minutes after the fact.  I've attempted to get my thoughts down here before the TV punditocracy influenced my thought patterns.   I'm sure my thoughts will be distilled both by the professional punditocracy, and the less-professional, but equally-insightful blogitocracy, over the next day or two, and I will present them as they do.  But what fun is a blog if you can't see someone's mind at work ;)

Just in time! 

"Nothing is more beautiful, more elevating, more important in a speech than fact and logic. People think passionate and moving oratory is the big thing, but it isn't. The hard true presentation of facts followed by a declaration of how we must deal with those facts is the key. Without a recitation of hard data, high rhetoric seems insubstantial, vaguely disingenuous, merely dramatic. Without a logical case to support rhetoric has nothing to do. It's like icing without cake.

Once the facts and the declaration are put forward it's fine to use eloquence if you can muster it, and ringing oratory too if it will help people to see things as you do, and help them lean toward taking the course of action you recommend.

So to sum up: Moving oratory is what you use to underscore a point. It is not in itself the point.

George W. Bush is being told by some pundits and others that ringing oratory is what he most needs in his State of the Union address tomorrow night. That is exactly wrong. "

Once again I find myself surprisingly in agreement with Peggy Noonan.  She and I both agree that tomorrow's State of the Union address is the last chance Bush has to credibly put forward his facts.  Time to show your hand or the world will continue to call your bluff.  Show us all to be completely wrong with some substantial, credible, hard evidence and I think you'd be surprised how the tide could turn.

"Powell has long been a reluctant warrior. The former four-star general and decorated Vietnam veteran once questioned the need to go to war to liberate Kuwait. Later he counseled against military interventions in the Balkans. Now he is telling America's war-wary allies that there is no peaceful way to disarm Saddam Hussein. While the French argued that U.N. inspectors had "frozen" Iraq's weapons programs, Powell was blunt and dismissive. "Inspections," he told reporters categorically last week, "will not work." One senior State Department official explains Powell's change of heart as a gradual awakening: "People ask why Powell is becoming increasingly hard-line. It's because every day, when we wake up in the morning, the facts are clear that Iraq has gone back to its old ways and is refusing to disarm, and trying to prevent the inspectors from disarming them. It's a big decision, especially for a former general who knows what this is all about.""

A Newsweek article touching on Powell's change of heart, the concerns of our allies and the odds on the rush to war being a bluff attempting to bring about cooperation from Iraq.

"Egged on by prizes ranging from a GOP bumper sticker (75 points) to a leather portfolio (525 points), eager partisans used the site's automated e-mailer this month to spam just about every newspaper in the country with a letter to the editor that begins: "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership …" (Try it yourself by signing on as member "slategop2003@hotmail.com," password "slate.") To the thinly masked glee or disdain of bloggers everywhere, nearly 50 papers—including the Boston Globe and the Financial Times—actually ran the thing, each one under the name of a different, and presumably genuine, local author. "

Slate reveals the source of the recent astroturfing I mentioned here earlier this week and offers a devious plan of their own.

"Instead of getting mad, though, why not get even? An option on the site allows letter-writers to compose and send their own messages in lieu of the canned statements, meaning the technology used to push Bush's agenda can be used to bash it as well. For an ironic Gen X-er, what better reward for e-mailing 100 anti-war letters to the editor than a GOP Team Leader fleece pullover?"

"In an interview in his State Department offices two weeks ago, Powell suggested that the inspections regime was in its infancy. "The inspectors are really now starting to gain momentum," in part because the United States had just begun providing intelligence, he said. He noted that a report from U.N. weapons inspectors due next Monday was not a final document, but only "the first formal, official report."

But this week, Powell flatly said: "The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspections to work. Inspections will not work."

In the interview two weeks ago, Powell proudly noted the "defining conversation" he had with Bush on Aug. 5, when he urged the president to make an effort to win U.N. support for a confrontation with Iraq. "He always had in his mind that it was preferable to multilateralize this," Powell said.

Yesterday, with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at his side, Powell said it was "an open question right now" whether the United States would even seek a U.N. resolution authorizing military force. He said the administration believes it has sufficient authority under earlier resolutions, adding that even without U.N. backing, "I'm quite confident if it comes to that we'll be joined by many nations.""

Colin Powell has changed his mind on Iraq, at least publically.  There is now effectively no opposition within the Bush administration to war with Iraq.  Whether this is a further scare tactic to try and bring about "full cooperation and transparency" (as defined by Condi in a NY Times op-ed and Wolfowitz speaking at the CFR this week) or an honest change of heart we'll probably never know, but war is that much closer now.

""Every community in this country is vulnerable," Mr. Hart said in a speech at Iowa State University, which attracted a crowd of nearly 200 on a night with a wind chill of minus 25 degrees. "Not one American soldier should cross the Iraqi border until this country is prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks."

Mr. Hart, who was considered a centrist Democrat in the 1980's, now seems firmly in the liberal wing as he opposes the Iraqi war and criticizes the 2001 tax cuts. But the candidate known for "new ideas" in 1984 is making a pitch this time for "a primary of ideas," of which he again has no shortage. Drawing on a book he wrote recently while earning a doctorate in philosophy at Oxford, he calls for America to take on the civic virtues of a republic, as exemplified by ancient Rome and extolled by Thomas Jefferson. "

The NY Times weighs in on Hart's speech in Iowa, his role in creating the "Iowa Caucus" as political institution and his chances for the Democractic nomination.  His position on war with Iraq is one of the most sensible responses to Bush's claims of Iraqi-al-Qaeda terrorism I've heard yet.  If the axis of Iraq and al-Qaeda is so dangerous, and Iraq is inevitably going to gives its weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda to use against us, why is it that we are increasing the risk of it happenning before we're ready to handle the consequences?

I've also been reading his latest book, Restoration of the Republic and so far I'm intrigued by his ideas on restoring the people's faith in their government through public service, and the resulting marginalization of monied interests in the corridors of power.

[via Political Wire]

The Des Moines Register covers Gary Hart's appearence yesterday at the University of Iowa.

"Gary Hart expects to be the butt of Leno and Letterman monologues if he decides to seek his party's presidential nomination, some 15 years after his last bid ended with an infamous picture on a boat called "Monkey Business."

But Hart said a likely war in Iraq will bring an end to any laughter.

"Go ahead, bang away, show the picture, have your fun. I'm prepared for that," the Democrat said Wednesday in Des Moines. "Then let's move on, because when our sons and daughters are dying overseas, really how many times can you laugh?""

An early taste of what I'm sure will be many more questions to come and his early strategy for dealing with them.

"The survival of his marriage to wife Lee and President Clinton's subsequent public infidelity have made his indiscretion "ancient history," he said.

"I took full responsibility. I apologized to all concerned on national television," Hart said, calling Clinton's indiscretions "quite a different circumstance.""

Hart's best bet to deal with this silliness is to point out that he didn't pull any of the Clinton "oh I didn't realize that was sex" crap and came right out, apologized, and withdrew from public life until recently.

As indicated in the Orlando Register, he has to be careful though to not make too light of what happenned:

"Hart still is working on the proper word for what he did.

"I already got criticized for using the word 'folly,' " Hart said in a calm discussion Wednesday with reporters. "If somebody can think of a better word for the incident in my life that I'm thinking about, then I'll be happy to think about it."

Asked whether the 1987 episode would disqualify him if it happened today, Hart said he didn't know. "I'm not the best person to make that judgment." Some see an arrogance in his soft-pedaling of the affair. "Earth to Gary: You had a scandal," said Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia, skeptical that Hart's party will accept him again.

"There is tremendous resistance within the Democratic Party to him re-entering," Sabato said. "They don't want reminders of Hart. They don't want reminders of Clinton. Democrats don't want to go through this again. I think all of us wonder why this man can't live in peace. You lost, Gary. Go home.""

Hopefully his ideas will be interesting enough to people to make it irrelevent.

[via Political Wire]

"President Bush is set to endorse using nuclear power to explore Mars and open up the outer Solar System. "

I like the idea, but how do we pay for it, we've got countries to invade and tax-welfare to dole out.

Gary Stock (the man behind googlewhacking) noticed my recent post and Demonstrating Genuine Leadership, pointed me towards his work scouring the Internet looking for more GOP astroturfing, and it appears he's turned up quite a goldmine.

Hart should be touching on just about every major issue over the next week or so in his series of speeches:

• "Political Corruption and Campaign Financing" at Iowa State
• "The United States and The World" at Unitarian Church of All Souls, NYC
• "Homeland Security After 9/11" at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NYC
• "National Security in the 21st Century" at Tufts University, Boston
• Friends of Libraries Authors Breakfast, Philadelphia
• "US Security in the 21st Century" at New Mexico First 2003

In the first of his upcoming series of speeches meant to gauge the chances for a presidential campaign, Gary Hart demonstrates the remarkable insight into the world we live in today that I believe is going to make him a dangerous contender to the Republicans in 2004.

"Neither strategy nor security can be understood outside our current context. Too few of our policy-makers seem fully to appreciate the revolutionary whirlwinds that now shape our destiny. Indeed, we are swept up in at least four historic revolutions. They are: first, globalization, or the internationalization of commerce, finance, and markets; second, the information revolution, now creating a "digital divide" between computer literates and computer illiterates; third, the erosion of the sovereignty or authority of the nation-state; and fourth, a fundamental change in the nature of conflict. Without understanding the impact of these four simultaneous revolutions, a search for national security is futile. To respond to the first two revolutions requires foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East and elsewhere as bold as the Marshall Plan and as encompassing as energy security. To create a national security strategy requires an understanding of the changing nature of conflict in particular, and that requires an understanding of the erosion of the sovereignty of nation-states. "

Here is a man that obviously grasps the problems of foreign affairs in the 21st century in a way that Bush can only hope to stumble through while leaning on his father's generation of advisors.  

Our entire system of foreign policy is based on countering the Communist threat, <sarcasm for Guanubian's benefit>something which the right-leaning punditry is still attempting to combat through their opposition to the recent peace protests, which were obviously a tool of the red menace</sarcasm>. 

Soon-to-be-Candidate Hart (this particular web site and garyhart2004.org have just sprung up in the last week or so, leading me and others to believe the decision has already been made) is proposing to us that we need to stop worrying about such "red"-herrings, and instead focus on the actual dangers to our way of life: poverty, irresponsible energy policies and cultural arrogance,

"This new century requires a much clearer understanding of new threats and the causes of those threats than our leaders seem interested in pursuing. Who exactly is our enemy and why does he hate us? Unlike the clear-cut 20th century ideological struggle between democracy and communism, the role of poverty, disease, and despair becomes much more central. The role of cultural difference becomes much more crucial—"Take your filthy movies and go home," cry those who resent us and our popular culture. And the role of resentment—of our wealth, of our power, of our willful consumption of resources, of our arrogance—becomes a much greater factor.

It does not go without notice in the world, especially the impoverished world, that the United States consumes a quarter of the world's energy and produces a quarter of the world's pollution and trash. And to say that this will all be overlooked because multitudes of people would like to live in the United States is to miss the point; we are seen by many not only to be rich but also to be arrogant, arbitrary, and wholly self-interested."

...

"This new age requires, at the very least, a new definition of security and, to achieve it, a tool-box filled with more than weapons. National security in the 21st century will require economic and political tools, not simply military ones. Trade and aid programs must become more grassroots and human scale than top-down and bureaucratic. For example, micro-loan programs directed at home, land, and small business ownership have proved enormously promising in several countries in Asia and Latin America. And in the political arena, our diplomacy must once again be based on the principles underlying our Constitution and nation—principles of honor, of humanity, of respect for difference—and our diplomacy must be aimed at people not just governments. We can explain our principles and ideals much better than we have been; but we must then also be prepared to live up to them. The ideals of democracy are not marketed: they are lived.

Of the three resources required by terrorists—money, weapons, and people—the resource most vital is people. Our "war on terrorism" should aim to dry up the swamp of despair found in refugee camps, favelas, and impoverished villages throughout the world. As the writer Robert Kaplan has pointed out, for millions of young people from this swamp, barracks life and terrorist training camps are a step up. Though the first suicidal attackers did not come from refugee camps, it is a safe bet that the next wave will. "

Now, those on the right are going to read this and come to the conclusion that Gary Hart is another lefty, anti-american, PC wimp leading us to our destruction at the hands of our enemies, but they would be wrong.  He simply recognizes that the military might of the last century does us no good in a world that has almost completely changed.

"The military component, however, necessarily remains at the center of national security. But the military of the 21st century must look and perform much differently from that of the 20th. Paradoxically enough, it will be more technological but it will also be more human. Technologically, our military will expand into space. But that component must be defensive not offensive. The 21st century military will also involve more precision-guided munitions. In the Persian Gulf war 10% of munitions were precision-guided and even those were not as consistently accurate as we were led to believe. In the Afghan war, 90% of our munitions were precision-guided. But that dramatic increase did not prevent us from bombing the wrong targets. Once again, precision is an asset only if the human factor, accurate intelligence, controls.

We are indeed in a "revolution of military affairs" largely driven by technology but dependent on intelligence collected and analyzed by humans. Our fighting forces are increasingly directed by and through a complex web of command, control, and communications networks all interwoven and interrelated. The first Persian Gulf war was directed from a makeshift headquarters in Saudi Arabia. A decade later the Afghan war was directed from Central Command in Florida. We are relying on UAVs, unmanned air vehicles, and UCAVs, unmanned combat air vehicles, as fast as we can produce them. The commander-in-chief can monitor real-time pictures from these vehicles in the White House.

But high technology can be both extremely vulnerable to and dependent on the human actor. Exotic Pentagon communications networks are vulnerable to "21 year old hackers." And the precision-guided munitions onboard planes flying from Diego Garcia or aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean were guided by Delta Force personnel wearing civilian clothes and riding mules across the hills of Afghanistan. And wedding parties are wiped out because of the failure of human intelligence.

And even in the age of terrorism and "crime/war", we will need expeditionary forces. But they must be lighter and swifter. Getting there fast is now more important than getting there big. And ultra-sophisticated, post-Cold War conventional weapons systems—ships, planes, and tanks—will have to be different. Despite our enormous wealth, we can no longer afford to integrate technology so closely to platforms that the platform must be replaced when technology changes—as it does with lightening speed. We cannot afford ships, planes, and tanks that are outdated the year they come into service. Platforms—once again, ships, planes, and tanks—must be built for durability and long-life. The weapons and sensors we place on them must be "plugged in"—that is, readily removable when new ones become available.

The two illustrations are, of course, the venerable B-52 bomber and the aircraft carrier. The B-52, now in its sixth decade of life, is still performing—even though it's older than the fathers of the pilots who fly it. And we keep aircraft carriers in service for over half a century. The platform doesn't change. But the technological sensors and weapons change almost overnight these days. Even then, human ingenuity trumps everything. Delta Force, as I mentioned, used a 3000-year-old transportation system, the mule, to direct 21st century technology.

The roots of Secretary Rumsfeld's current uneven attempts to transition from 20th century weapons and warfare to preparation for what some have called the "fourth generation of warfare" of the 21st century trace to the military reform movement of the late 1970s. Even then, we reformers were advocating unit cohesion and officer initiative, maneuver strategy and tactics, and lighter, faster, more replicable weapons. Without attention to new people policies and innovative strategy, tactics, and doctrine, cancellation of weapons such as the Crusader artillery piece will by themselves not transform the military sufficiently for a new kind of conflict.

Paradoxically, once again, the most technologically superior superpower in human history is now dependent on human ingenuity more than ever. If intelligence fails, as it did one year ago, all the technology in the world cannot save us. To know when, where, and how terrorists intend to strike, and what they intend to use to do so, is almost entirely dependent upon human intelligence collection. Electronic surveillance, intercepts and wiretaps, bugging and pursuing cannot altogether replace the human agent."

This man gets it.

It's a little early to say definitively, but if the rest of his speeches meet my expectations as this one has, Gary Hart must be our next president.

[via Political Wire]

"But while Democrats clearly have a problem when it comes to religious voters, it's not at all clear they have to abandon their core values to win these voters over. To the contrary, the teachings of most religious faiths nicely complement Democratic principles. Take the recent anti-SUV campaign by the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), which made headlines in November with commercials asking What Would Jesus Drive?. According to EEN, whose membership includes many of the country's major evangelical organizations, the purpose of the WWJ Drive campaign was "to help Christians and others understand that transportation choices are moral choices, and to reflect upon the problems associated with transportation from a biblically orthodox, Christ-centered perspective." EEN cites various reasons to carefully consider transportation decisions, including the harm that is caused to human health by vehicular pollution, its contribution to global warming, and the fact that gas-guzzling vehicles increase our dependence on oil from countries that threaten America's peace and security. The organization draws a connection between these issues and two basic Christian commandments: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There's no reason religious Democrats couldn't do the same."

Shant Mesrobian with an interesting article (and apparently his first) from TNR on one of Lieberman's strengths that other Democratic candidates should consider, his appeal to religious voters.  Abandoning the religious to the Republicans is a mistake that needs to be fixed.

Go search google for "demonstrating genuine leadership" and observe the GOP attempt to construct "grassroots" support through manufactured letters to the editor across the country (and the world).  Then read Declan's great Politech where it was discovered and confirmed.  Fantastic.

--
Composed with Newz Crawler 1.3 http://www.newzcrawler.com/

"While recent pro-democracy demonstrations on Iranian campuses have attracted widespread attention, a potentially more explosive movement has quietly been taking shape here in one of the leading religious centers of the Islamic world. The Shiite clergy who a generation ago called for the establishment of a fundamentalist, religious government are having second thoughts. Religion, many are now saying, belongs in the mosque."

A good article in the NY Times on the growing movement amongst Shiite clergy to seperate church and state in Iran.  The movement is centered in Qum, the same Iranian city Khomeini's revolution emanated from and a center for Shiite Islamic thought.

""For years, Kim Jong Il has acted in blatant disregard of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons, and last week, he rejected it outright," Bush told reporters after a National Security Council meeting on North Korea. "We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders. Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein.""

[via Stand Down]

"It is time for Mr Bush to take seriously his own statement at the UN that “our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease.” If Mr Bush would only lead his country to that end, not only would he mobilise billions of people in the fight against terrorism, but he would also fulfil his own call for the world to “show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.”"

A great article in The Economist about the usefulness of Weapons of Mass Salvation in the war against Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"Coverage like this -- call it shabby journalism or editorial self-censorship -- is exactly why a pending wave of mega-media mergers should concern all Americans. As the Federal Communications Commission now pursues and implements new policies consolidating ownership of the nation's electronic media, the public will have even fewer sources for information about what really happens in history making events.

Some of the conflicts of interest not revealed in the CNBC special include the fact that NBC actively lobbied federal regulators on the AOL-Time Warner deal, decrying the power that the merged company would have in both the cable and broadband Internet market. NBC actively sought a series of policy rules designed to protect their business interests. Bob Wright, NBC's chairman who introduced the documentary and appeared in an interview, would have approved the network’s political lobbying on the merger. "

A good article from TomPaine.com and Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy on the conflicts of interest inherent in Big Media mergers and why everyone should be letting their representatives and the FCC  know that such mergers are not in the public interest.

This is kind of funny.

[via BoingBoing]

"Arapahoe County will release today hundreds of lewd e-mails between County Clerk Tracy Baker and an employee who is his girlfriend.

Many of the e-mails obtained by the Rocky Mountain News are so sexually explicit that they cannot be printed in a newspaper in their entirety."

Yay!  Tax-payer supported porn!  This scandal broke in October, but thanks to a lack of credible challengers, Baker was re-elected to his post (Don't blame me, I voted for the Libertarian).  At the time he was asked to resign, but he said no, saying he had done nothing wrong.  However, it looks like he's changed his mind:

"Arapahoe County was notified late Thursday that the Colorado Court of Appeals has issued a stay pending the resolution of an appeal filed by Tracy K. Baker and Leesa Sale regarding the decision by District Court Judge Thomas C. Levi concerning the open records requests made by several media organizations."

Mike Littwin has an entertaining column on the subject:

"If you're not offended, though, lean back, maybe break open a bottle of wine, light a few candles, fire up some Barry White - baby, baby, baby. And then wonder how in the world if you're Tracy Baker you thought nobody would notice that you were doing the dirty deed (early-'60s talk) with your girl Friday and apparently the rest of the days of the week, too. Or, as Baker would say to Sale in what is apparently 21st century e-mail talk: "It's my turn to be on my knees thank you!""

"In the aftermath of September 11, freedom of speech has been under attack. Political cartoonists are not immune. In some cities cartoonists have been fired or lost freelance jobs because of cartoons critical of U.S. policy or for using "wrong" metaphors. Even nationally-known artists, such as Boondocks cartoonist Arron McGruder and Ted Rall have been censored or repudiated.

In response, cartoonists Gary Huck, Mike Konopacki, Matt Wuerker and writer Alec Dubro put together a show of cartoons from 41 editorial cartoonists from the U.S. and Mexico. This unique show premiered at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. June 21, 2002.

"

[via Randomness]

"Michael Moore has a problem: Nobody wants to put him on television. "I’ve been on a total of two network shows in nine months," the lefty filmmaker and author recently told The New York Times. "What’s going on with that?"

It’s a fair question. After all, Moore’s book, Stupid White Men, has spent months on bestseller lists. His film "Bowling for Columbine," is the most explicitly political film in recent memory. Its concluding interview with Charlton Heston reduced one of America’s leading gun fanatics to a state of embarrassing, self-incriminating incoherence -- and not, as his apologists insist, because Heston has Alzheimer’s. "

It's hard for the right wing to claim a liberal media bias when Ann Coulter is all over the airwaves, and Michael Moore is not.  If you're going to have the wing-nuts on the right, why not the wing-nuts on the left?  The answer, as pointed out by TomPaine.com is that Michael Moore and his fellow left-wing-nuts have nothing nice to say about corporations.

"Driving in America has long been leaned on as a metaphor for various aspects of the national psyche. Now, thanks to SUVs and light pickups, driving is a metaphor for anxiety-inducing unpleasantness, petty aggression against neighbors, and profanity-shouting and finger-flipping during routine daily events. The SUV represents a pitiable equation of a listless activity--sitting in a chair and pressing a pedal--with virility. Why don't the automakers in Detroit realize that they are cooking their own goose with SUVs? Detroit has spent the years of SUV mania promoting vehicles that cause roads to become clogged and driving to become insufferable. Surely this cannot be in the long-term interest of car manufacturers. "

TNR's Gregg Easterbrook (a Colorado College alumni incidently) reviews "High and Mighty" and finds that

"It belongs on the same shelf as Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed and Ida Tarbell's The History of Standard Oil, chronicles of the dangerous interaction of corporate perfidy and regulatory breakdown. High and Mighty tells us more than we may care to know about how government malfunctions, and about the more disturbing aspects of the American cult of driving. "

This is the best review I've seen yet of this book.  It covers all the major points and hits the important details, including one that counter's the pro-SUV's crowds assertion that the statistics aren't bearing out the higher death rates of SUV drivers:  In a few years, all these enourmous SUV's which are by and large currently being operated by "responsible middle-aged people" are going to start hitting the used vehicle market and picked up by the more dangerous-driving young folks.  As each year passes, more and more people will be driving them, and in more dangerous ways.  Its a gigantic mess waiting to happen.

(btw, I'm evaluating a new news aggregator, which is going to print a little message saying its unregistered when I post this.  So far I like it, but I'm going to give it a few days before I shell out the cash)

"In Korea, the Bush administration now seems to be pursuing a policy of what we might call 'strategic ridiculousness': a policy involving the seemingly intentional pursuit of every amateurish and counter-productive gambit conceivable in each given situation. What shrewd purpose might stand behind this doctrine I'm not able to ascertain. But we can at least tease out its main components. "

Joshua Marshall on some of the Administration's latest silliness regarding North Korea.

"Former senator Gary Hart (Colo.), who sought the Democratic nomination in 1984 and ran briefly in 1988, said yesterday he will decide this spring, after four major policy speeches and some strategic visits to key states.

"I'm not being coy; I don't know," Hart said when asked whether he will seek the nomination again, but added that he is eager to be back in the middle of the debate over the country's direction in some capacity. "I sat on the sidelines for 12 years and was not happy there," he said.

Hart will deliver his first speech, on national security, Jan. 21 at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, followed by a trip to Iowa. He plans other speeches on foreign policy, economic policy and American values, the last to be delivered at the University of Virginia in late February. He also will huddle with House Democrats today to talk about security matters. "

Political Wire has a bunch of information on Gary Hart's near-term plans:

"Gary Hart (D) will meet with Iowa supporters "this month in Des Moines to gauge interest in a 2004 comeback," the Des Moines Register reports. The Rocky Mountain News notes Hart "said he'd make up his mind by April, perhaps the end of March."

Meanwhile, Hart is giving strategy advice. The Denver Post says Hart "told a meeting of House Democrats on Thursday that their party has ceded national security to Republicans for too long and suggested ways for the party to assert itself on homeland security." The Hartford Courant says Hart "still commands attention. A sizable number of reporters turned out as Hart returned to the Capitol, where he served as a senator from 1975 to 1987, to talk to House Democrats about national and homeland security, subjects he's been studying for years." "

Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr, MSNBC Senior Political Analyst, sometimes host of Hardball (which makes a brief cameo at the beginning of the episode) and a former writer and producer for the "West Wing" would seem to have a potential hit on his hands with his new show "Mister Sterling".  I just caught the debut episode and it looks to have the same spark that "West Wing" had at the beginning, and has slowly lost over the last season.  It tells the story of a freshman Senator (played by Josh Brolin) from California and son of a Democratic party icon and former California Governor.  It's got a great cast, great writing, and all the appeal of the first few seasons of "West Wing" but seeing the world (incidently, the same world that "West Wing" inhabits  - Jeb Bartlett is President) through the eyes of a Senator.

The first episode was great, I just hope it escapes the mid-season replacement curse.  At the very least, it provides me with a capable replacement for "Firefly" on Friday night. 

I'll be keeping an eye out for interesting reviews.

"It's official. John Edwards (D-N.C.), the telegenic senator with the tobacco-road twang, is running for president, and doctors and HMO executives and chambers of commerce across the country are undoubtedly not lining up to offer their support. (After all, Edwards made his fortune as a trial lawyer, bagging eye-popping sums in personal-injury and medical-malpractice lawsuits.) But there's another category of people who should be apprehensive about the prospect of an Edwards White House: college applicants counting on a little help getting into mom or dad's alma mater. As part of his education platform, Edwards has proposed eliminating the legacy preference from college and university admissions. It's a move designed to play to his strengths as a candidate -- and it might even recast the long-simmering debate over college admissions."

I like it.  The contrast with Bush is the kicker.

[via Plastic]

"Ever wonder why SUV drivers are such assholes? Surely it’s no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tours Washington in one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that Jesse Ventura loves the Lincoln Navigator.

The easiest place to find SUV slobs, however, is right here in Colorado. The U.S. Census Bureau reports our state as having more SUVs per capita than any other state, by far. About 14 percent of Colorado drivers–one in seven–drove an SUV when the latest census data was released in 2000. At that time, the numbers were nearly double the national average and they’ve only grown in the past two years."

A local perspective on Keith Bradhser's book "High and Mighty" which I mentioned here a few weeks ago.

"Politics is the practice of doublespeak. We've seen time and again how politicians will say one thing, yet act in the opposite manner - only to rectify their statements and actions with another statement that trumps the first absurdity.

Fortunately, through the magic of creative individuals and relatively cheap digital audio editing tools, the speech of political creatures can finally be unspun, and the truth laid bare.

This is a gallery of translations of popular politicians as made by audio collage artists from around the planet. They all are, as far as we know, works in the public domain, and may be freely shared and used as fodder for further translation projects. They are all encoded in MP3 format. If anyone would like to add, modify or delete their listing(s) in the gallery, simply e-mail us and we will do so."

These are funny.

[via Hit & Run]

"Indeed, so eager is the White House to play down the implications of a nuclear North Korea--and to keep the focus on Iraq--that Powell went on to make a still more irrational case for inaction. "Yes, [the North Koreans] have a large army, and, yes, they have had these couple of nuclear weapons for many years," he said. "And, if they have a few more, they have a few more, and they can have them for many years. But Iraq is a regime that has stood in defiance of sixteen U.N. resolutions, and we're waiting to see whether they're going to be in defiance of this new one." Who has time to worry about a rogue state illegally acquiring a nuclear arsenal when there are U.N. resolutions being broken? "

TNR wonders what the Bushies are thinking.

"After a count of provisional ballots left Republican Bob Beauprez the winner in Colorado's new 7th Congressional District by only 121 votes over Democrat Mike Feeley, some Republicans want to change the rules to give Beauprez a better chance to hold onto the seat in 2004. "

I've been enjoying the Political State Report since it launched a week or so ago.    The basic idea is to get local viewpoints of political issues around the country.  This is only the second Colorado report (the first was on Colorado asserting it's water rights over Californian use of the Colorado River) but I've been impressed with the coverage.  This entry focuses on the recent 7th congressional district contest and points out why Republicans in Colorado shouldn't get too sure of themselves.

[BAD APOSTROPHES BAD!]

"Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own political ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you."

This could be fun.

[via Metafilter]