Kerry the Pragmatist

Pragmatism in foreign policy? From a Democrat? Strange but true: Kerry Says Global Democracy Is Not His Top Issue. Instead, he wants to accomplish things that would actually enhance the US's national security. Imagine that.

Ralph Nader As Mad Bomber

Doug at the Alders pointed me to this one: Ralph Nader As Mad Bomber, written by Harry G. Levine, Department of Sociology, Queens College, City University of New York. Nothing terribly new here to anyone who read Salon at the end of 2000 (although it's interesting that Levine never quotes from any of those articles), but it's a nice summary otherwise.

In the 2000 campaign, Nader well understood the substantial (or enormous) differences between Bush and Gore. He understood that Bush and Cheney were hard right-wing Republicans. But like many politicians, he could not reveal what he really thought and wanted. So he needed another explanation for staying in all the way in all the states. Nader's claim that Bush and Gore were basically the same was not the motivation for campaigning hard in the swing states, it was the justification for doing that. Ralph Nader exaggerated, distorted, misled, and hid what he really knew and wanted. He dissembled. He lied.

There's lots more research and his notes at Levine's own site.

27 Rationales, But No Reasons

I'm late to the party on this one, but it's worth pointing at anyway: Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says. The study also "...finds that the Bush administration switched its focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein early on – only five months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States." Note how the author points out that the media begins promoting the idea of Iraq as Evil right around the time that the Bushies did. And they say they're not spoonfed by the GOP?

We get letters...

Promoted from the comments, here is my response to "Richard," a Bush supporter whom I laud for being here in Bush-hating land. His comments are in italics. I've edied my responses a bit from the original post, because I'm a writer that just can't stop fiddling with my prose.

Tell me what you think Kerry is going to do to change things? Or is Kerry immediately off the hook, because he has too many Bush problems to fix?

Let me take a stab at this one. It's clearly true that Bush has screwed things up pretty darned badly in many different ways. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet the Bush administration and Bush himself to this day continue to lie and mislead that there was a connection. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have created trillions of dollars of structural deficits in the economy, which will take years to fix. The shameful Bush record on the environment (lax regulation leads directly to more pollution) speaks for itself. Bush clearly doesn't care (other than giving it lip service) about the ever-increasing number of Americans (44 million and rising) without health insurance.

So what can Kerry do? Well, what he says that he'll do. The Bush "plan" for health care (tax credits) would only help less than 2.5 million people; Kerry's would help 27 million (and if you read the article, at less cost per person than Bush's over 10 years). Kerry wants to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts (exempting the small part that benefits the middle class) and put the money into health care.

Bush has gotten us into a mess in Iraq. He's alienated many of the US's most reliable allies, and treated the rest of the world with naked contempt. Kerry's statements and past deeds show that to him, diplomacy is more than just a word. He can attempt to show other nations that the US can be trusted to work with them again. Bush has squndered much of America's reputation, and it will take a new leader to rebuild that.

I believe that a Kerry administration will reverse the destructive Bush record on the environment. Even if all he does is return us to the Clinton policies, it will be a big improvement.

Look how Clinton/Gore handled the Bin Laden attacks during their administration. They did nothing to retaliate.

Bzzzt. Wrong; please do some research before parroting talk radio. The US political consensus would not have supported actually going to war against Bin Laden before 9/11. Indeed, Congressional Republicans did nothing but attack and criticize Clinton whenever he did take any sort of military action (remember the howls of "Wag the Dog"?). Given that, he took a number of extraordinary steps that went far beyond what past presidents had done, and certainly more than Bush did prior to 9/11 (the Clarke book and many others clearly show that Bush blew it big time on terrorism pre-9/11, and since). See this article for details on what Clinton did. Now, the rap on Clinton is that he didn't succeed in killing Al Qaeda and preventing 9/11. But he had far less of a free hand than Bush did after the attacks. And Bush didn't change things until after the attacks:

The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996.

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries.

Kerry doesn't impress me as a potential leader when it comes to wartime and security.

It may be that you are unwilling to be impressed. I believe that Kerry's combat experience in Vietnam has given him a proper understanding and respect for the sacrifices that must be made by soldiers in wartime. Bush mouths the words, but has not made the sale, for me and many others. His actions belie him. He took the country into a war of choice that has not made America safer from the real threat of terrorism. Iraq was containable; it was not an imminent threat to the security of the US. Bush used trumped-up "proof" to deceive the American people into war. Clinton was impeached for far less. Saddam had little or no contact with Al Qaeda; years of attempts by Bush apologists have failed to come up with credible proof of a link. As commander-in-chief, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of more than 800 Americans in Iraq. More than 4,600 have been wounded. Somewhere upwards of 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. As President, he is accountable; that blood is on his hands.

All of that, and Bush has been fighting the wrong war. The war on terror is not the war in Iraq. The Afghanistan conflict was entirely appropriate, because it helped root out Al Qaeda and its protectors, the Taliban. It's unfortunate that according to reports, Bush won the war in Afghanistan, but has failed to win the peace.

Since 9/11, Bush has failed to increase security of our ports and borders. He has failed to properly fund first responders for future terror attacks. He has curtailed programs that were working to stop nuclear proliferation. He has attacked basic American values and civil liberties with the Patriot Act. Under that shameful law, the US government can now imprison American citizens with no charges, no right to see a lawyer, no right to notify their family, no right to know of what they are accused, and no right to gain access to any court to present an appeal. His administration has rejected the Geneva Conventions (his White House Counsel said they were obsolete, though they have since backtracked on that), which will surely place future American POWs in more danger. He has dangerously overstretched the American military in an Iraq war that need not, and should not, have been fought.

The Iraq war has tragically wasted American lives and treasure. Bush and his henchmen can't even identify and grapple with the true enemy. They went after the wrong guy in Iraq! So Bush truly must be replaced.

I've read a lot of what Kerry has to say. I don't agree with all of it. But I'm convinced that he would be a thoughtful, intelligent leader for this country, and will take wise steps to make us safer from the real dangers we face. Bush has already failed the test of leadership. Keeping him in office is an unacceptable risk.

Angel on eBay

I noticed a year ago that Buffy items were on eBay, so it's no surprise that there's now Angel items up for auction. Once again, things are going at a premium; the only surprise is that there's nothing posted (yet?) as being from Spike.

Sigh... Fred's lab coat...

Richard Biggs, RIP

I heard a couple of days ago that Richard Biggs had passed away. Dan Wood of Karelia Software pointed to this excellent QuickTime compilation of Babylon 5 clips showing why many of us still remember him fondly.

The good and the bad

It's a good news/bad news kinda day for Tom: Allison Janney Engaged vs. Krispy Kreme to Make Low-Carb Doughnuts.

Mac OS X v10.3.4 Update

Apple's released a Mac OS X v10.3.4 Update, which includes the recent security fix. If you haven't grabbed that, grab this and install it now. If you have, check out the list of fixes; it appears they've solved a good-sized bunch of bugs.

Later note: whoops, I'm now told that it doesn't include the most recent security fix. If you've haven't installed that yet, get it here and install it, already.

Gore's speech

Al Gore (you remember him, he was the guy who was actually elected President of the United States), gave a major speech today in New York. It is absolutely worth reading. Here's the text of the speech.

NaderWatch #5

NaderWatch #5, in a continuing series, this time from a joint Washington Post/ABC news poll:

Despite Bush's declining approval ratings, he runs even when pitted against Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), his Democratic challenger. Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 46 percent of registered voters said Bush, 46 percent said Kerry and 4 percent said independent Ralph Nader. Without Nader factored into the competition, Kerry led Bush 49 percent to 47 percent. A month ago, Bush led Kerry 48 to 43 percent with Nader at 6 percent.

Or, to put it in my standard format:

Kerry 46%
Bush 46%
Nader 4%

Kerry 49%
Bush 47%

Full numbers can be found here, and it's worth noting that the above numbers are registered voters. If you take into account all the poll respondents, Nader's got 6%, almost all of whom appear to break for Kerry if Nader's not on the ballot.

The good news is that it's getting harder to find polls to list under NaderWatch, because Bush is tanking badly enough that he's losing by more than Nader's pulling away from Kerry. But there's a long time between now and the election.

The Mac is a Harsh Mistress

The Mac is a Harsh Mistress: so true, so true.

gmail, anyone?

Quoted from Electrolite:

Ahem. Apropos of nothing, wouldn't a married pair of busy book editors and bloggers who practically live in their email seem like excellent candidates for beta GMail accounts? You would think. I'm just sayin'.

Substitute "writers" for "editors"... I'm just sayin' (and yes, I have seen gmail swap, and no, having had a blogger account since 1999 didn't get me any invites).