Ayn Rand institute says US aid to disaster victims is wrong...
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 26, 2004 - January 01, 2005 Archives
Friday, December 31, 2004
Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition (washingtonpost.com)
Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition (washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition
Earlier Policy Drew Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01
The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush's first term.
In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declares that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms" and goes on to reject a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.
That earlier definition of torture figured prominently in complaints by Democrats and human rights groups about White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who oversaw its creation and is Bush's nominee to become attorney general for the second term. The new memo's public release came one week before the start of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Gonzales's nomination.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.
This second effort by the Bush administration to parse the legal meaning of the word "torture" was provoked by the damaging political fallout from the disclosure this summer of the first memo, drafted in August 2002 and criticized by human rights lawyers and experts around the globe.
Many of the critics charged that the first memo -- which they said laid out a very narrow view of what behavior might constitute torture and was crafted to help interrogators at the CIA evade prosecution -- created the context for a record of persistent ill treatment by that agency and the U.S. military of detainees at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba's Guantanamo Bay and undisclosed locations.
"Clearly the release of this now is backfilling for Gonzales's confirmation hearing," said I. Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "These memos have been a tremendous source of embarrassment to both Gonzales and the administration."
Greenberger said that recent accounts of widespread abuse at U.S. detention facilities -- including disclosures that military interrogation practices were sharply criticized over the past two years by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel in the field -- have given ammunition to those within the administration who favor adherence to international norms against torture.
"It could be that this is not just a cynical ploy but a real sign of change," Greenberger said.
One of the most controversial provisions of the earlier memorandum, signed by Levin's predecessor, Jay S. Bybee, was an assertion that the president's executive powers were sufficient to permit tolerance of torturous acts in extraordinary circumstances. The International Committee of the Red Cross had declared in response that the prohibition on torture, embodied in a global convention signed by the United States, has no exceptions.
But advocates of strict adherence to the convention previously lost interagency battles to hard-liners in the Defense Department, the Justice Department and the White House, who maintained that the president has expansive powers during the war on terrorism. The new memo pointedly sidesteps this issue, stating that the "consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture."
The memo, which states that it "supersedes the August 2002 memorandum in its entirety," also drops an attempt in the earlier version to rule that harmful acts not specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering might be legal, and to define "specific intent." Instead, it deliberately left the notion of "specific intent" undefined to avoid, Levin wrote, any notion that conduct amounting to torture might under some circumstances be considered legal.
The memo also explicitly states that "a defendant's motive (to protect national security, for example) is not relevant to the question" of his or her intent under the law.
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which has been critical of the Bush administration's legal opinions regarding the treatment of detainees, gave the memo a generally positive review and said its "definition of torture is not as tortured as it was."
But John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who helped draft the first memo while working in the legal counsel's office, said the new version "makes it harder to figure out how the torture statute applies to specific interrogation methods. It muddies the water. Our effort . . . was to interpret the statute clearly."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com
Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition
Earlier Policy Drew Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01
The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush's first term.
In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declares that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms" and goes on to reject a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.
That earlier definition of torture figured prominently in complaints by Democrats and human rights groups about White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who oversaw its creation and is Bush's nominee to become attorney general for the second term. The new memo's public release came one week before the start of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Gonzales's nomination.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.
This second effort by the Bush administration to parse the legal meaning of the word "torture" was provoked by the damaging political fallout from the disclosure this summer of the first memo, drafted in August 2002 and criticized by human rights lawyers and experts around the globe.
Many of the critics charged that the first memo -- which they said laid out a very narrow view of what behavior might constitute torture and was crafted to help interrogators at the CIA evade prosecution -- created the context for a record of persistent ill treatment by that agency and the U.S. military of detainees at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba's Guantanamo Bay and undisclosed locations.
"Clearly the release of this now is backfilling for Gonzales's confirmation hearing," said I. Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "These memos have been a tremendous source of embarrassment to both Gonzales and the administration."
Greenberger said that recent accounts of widespread abuse at U.S. detention facilities -- including disclosures that military interrogation practices were sharply criticized over the past two years by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency personnel in the field -- have given ammunition to those within the administration who favor adherence to international norms against torture.
"It could be that this is not just a cynical ploy but a real sign of change," Greenberger said.
One of the most controversial provisions of the earlier memorandum, signed by Levin's predecessor, Jay S. Bybee, was an assertion that the president's executive powers were sufficient to permit tolerance of torturous acts in extraordinary circumstances. The International Committee of the Red Cross had declared in response that the prohibition on torture, embodied in a global convention signed by the United States, has no exceptions.
But advocates of strict adherence to the convention previously lost interagency battles to hard-liners in the Defense Department, the Justice Department and the White House, who maintained that the president has expansive powers during the war on terrorism. The new memo pointedly sidesteps this issue, stating that the "consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture."
The memo, which states that it "supersedes the August 2002 memorandum in its entirety," also drops an attempt in the earlier version to rule that harmful acts not specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering might be legal, and to define "specific intent." Instead, it deliberately left the notion of "specific intent" undefined to avoid, Levin wrote, any notion that conduct amounting to torture might under some circumstances be considered legal.
The memo also explicitly states that "a defendant's motive (to protect national security, for example) is not relevant to the question" of his or her intent under the law.
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which has been critical of the Bush administration's legal opinions regarding the treatment of detainees, gave the memo a generally positive review and said its "definition of torture is not as tortured as it was."
But John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who helped draft the first memo while working in the legal counsel's office, said the new version "makes it harder to figure out how the torture statute applies to specific interrogation methods. It muddies the water. Our effort . . . was to interpret the statute clearly."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Aljazeera.Net - Mosul election staff quit en masse
Aljazeera.Net - Mosul election staff quit en masse
Democracy is on the March!
Democracy is on the March!
The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial Observer: Legal Breach: The Government's Attorneys and Abu Ghraib
The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial Observer: Legal Breach: The Government's Attorneys and Abu Ghraib
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 30, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
Legal Breach: The Government's Attorneys and Abu Ghraib
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
he most obvious victims of the brutal treatment of prisoners at American military jails are the men, women and children who have been humiliated, sexually assaulted, beaten, tortured and even killed. But, as in all wars, the Bush administration's assault on the Geneva Conventions has caused collateral damage - in this case, to the legal offices of the executive branch and the military.
To get around the inconvenience of the Geneva Conventions, the administration twisted the roles of the legal counsels of the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department beyond recognition. Once charged with giving unvarnished advice about whether political policies remained within the law, the Bush administration's legal counsels have been turned into the sort of cynical corporate lawyers who figure out how to make something illegal seem kosher - or at least how to minimize the danger of being held to account.
This upheaval has been particularly vivid at the Pentagon, where the usual balance between civilian and military authority has been stood on its head. The American system of civilian control of the military recognizes that soldiers' attention must be fixed on winning battles and staying alive, and that the fog of war can sometimes obscure the rule of law. The civilian bosses are supposed to provide coolheaded restraint.
Now America has to count on the military to step up when the civilians get out of control.
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the initial list of interrogation methods for Guantánamo Bay in late 2002 - methods that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions and anti-torture statutes - there were no protests from the legal counsels for the secretary of defense, the attorney general, the president, the Central Intelligence Agency or any of the civilian secretaries of the armed services. That's not surprising, because some of those very officials were instrumental in devising the Strangelovian logic that lay behind Mr. Rumsfeld's order. Their legal briefs dutifully argued that the president could suspend the Geneva Conventions when he chose, that he could even sanction torture and that torture could be redefined so narrowly that it could seem legal.
It took an internal protest by uniformed lawyers from the Navy to force the Pentagon to review the Guantánamo rules and restrict them a bit. But the military lawyers' concerns were largely shoved aside by a team of civilian lawyers, led by Mary Walker, the Air Force general counsel. The group reaffirmed the notion that Mr. Bush could choose when to apply the Geneva Conventions.
That principle was originally aimed at the supposed members of Al Qaeda held at Guantánamo Bay, but it was quickly exported to Iraq and led, inexorably, to the horrors at Abu Ghraib and other recently disclosed crimes by American soldiers against Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.
If it had not been for a group of uniformed lawyers, the nation might never have learned of the torture and detention memos. In May 2003, soon after Ms. Walker's group produced its rationalization for prisoner abuse, a half-dozen military lawyers went to Scott Horton, who was chairman of the human rights committee of the City Bar Association in New York.
That led to a bar report on the administration's policies, a report that was published around the same time the Abu Ghraib atrocities came into public view. Those lawyers had to do their duty anonymously to avoid having their careers savaged. Meanwhile, the Justice Department official who signed the memo on torturing prisoners, Jay Bybee, was elevated by Mr. Bush to the federal bench.
This month, several former high-ranking military lawyers came out publicly against the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to be attorney general. They noted that it was Mr. Gonzales who had supervised the legal assault on the Geneva Conventions.
Jeh Johnson, a New York lawyer who was general counsel for the secretary of the Air Force under President Clinton, calls this shift "a revolution."
"One view of the law and government," Mr. Johnson said, "is that good things can actually come out of the legal system and that there is broad benefit in the rule of law. The other is a more cynical approach that says that lawyers are simply an instrument of policy - get me a legal opinion that permits me to do X. Sometimes a lawyer has to say, 'You just can't do this.' "
Normally, the civilian policy makers would have asked the military lawyers to draft the rules for a military prison in wartime. The lawyers for the service secretaries are supposed to focus on issues like contracts, environmental impact statements and base closings. They're not supposed to meddle in rules of engagement or military justice.
But the civilian policy makers knew that the military lawyers would never sanction tossing the Geneva Conventions aside in the war against terrorists. Military lawyers, Mr. Johnson said, "tend to see things through the prism of how it will affect their people if one gets captured or prosecuted."
Some Senate Democrats have said they plan to question Mr. Gonzales about this mess during his Senate confirmation hearings. But given the feckless state of Congressional oversight on this issue, there's not a lot of hope in that news.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the civilian and the military lawyers has gotten so bad that Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, pushed through legislation that elevated the military services' top lawyers to a three-star general's rank. That at least put them on a more equal footing with the civilian lawyers.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 30, 2004
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
Legal Breach: The Government's Attorneys and Abu Ghraib
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
he most obvious victims of the brutal treatment of prisoners at American military jails are the men, women and children who have been humiliated, sexually assaulted, beaten, tortured and even killed. But, as in all wars, the Bush administration's assault on the Geneva Conventions has caused collateral damage - in this case, to the legal offices of the executive branch and the military.
To get around the inconvenience of the Geneva Conventions, the administration twisted the roles of the legal counsels of the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department beyond recognition. Once charged with giving unvarnished advice about whether political policies remained within the law, the Bush administration's legal counsels have been turned into the sort of cynical corporate lawyers who figure out how to make something illegal seem kosher - or at least how to minimize the danger of being held to account.
This upheaval has been particularly vivid at the Pentagon, where the usual balance between civilian and military authority has been stood on its head. The American system of civilian control of the military recognizes that soldiers' attention must be fixed on winning battles and staying alive, and that the fog of war can sometimes obscure the rule of law. The civilian bosses are supposed to provide coolheaded restraint.
Now America has to count on the military to step up when the civilians get out of control.
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the initial list of interrogation methods for Guantánamo Bay in late 2002 - methods that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions and anti-torture statutes - there were no protests from the legal counsels for the secretary of defense, the attorney general, the president, the Central Intelligence Agency or any of the civilian secretaries of the armed services. That's not surprising, because some of those very officials were instrumental in devising the Strangelovian logic that lay behind Mr. Rumsfeld's order. Their legal briefs dutifully argued that the president could suspend the Geneva Conventions when he chose, that he could even sanction torture and that torture could be redefined so narrowly that it could seem legal.
It took an internal protest by uniformed lawyers from the Navy to force the Pentagon to review the Guantánamo rules and restrict them a bit. But the military lawyers' concerns were largely shoved aside by a team of civilian lawyers, led by Mary Walker, the Air Force general counsel. The group reaffirmed the notion that Mr. Bush could choose when to apply the Geneva Conventions.
That principle was originally aimed at the supposed members of Al Qaeda held at Guantánamo Bay, but it was quickly exported to Iraq and led, inexorably, to the horrors at Abu Ghraib and other recently disclosed crimes by American soldiers against Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.
If it had not been for a group of uniformed lawyers, the nation might never have learned of the torture and detention memos. In May 2003, soon after Ms. Walker's group produced its rationalization for prisoner abuse, a half-dozen military lawyers went to Scott Horton, who was chairman of the human rights committee of the City Bar Association in New York.
That led to a bar report on the administration's policies, a report that was published around the same time the Abu Ghraib atrocities came into public view. Those lawyers had to do their duty anonymously to avoid having their careers savaged. Meanwhile, the Justice Department official who signed the memo on torturing prisoners, Jay Bybee, was elevated by Mr. Bush to the federal bench.
This month, several former high-ranking military lawyers came out publicly against the nomination of the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, to be attorney general. They noted that it was Mr. Gonzales who had supervised the legal assault on the Geneva Conventions.
Jeh Johnson, a New York lawyer who was general counsel for the secretary of the Air Force under President Clinton, calls this shift "a revolution."
"One view of the law and government," Mr. Johnson said, "is that good things can actually come out of the legal system and that there is broad benefit in the rule of law. The other is a more cynical approach that says that lawyers are simply an instrument of policy - get me a legal opinion that permits me to do X. Sometimes a lawyer has to say, 'You just can't do this.' "
Normally, the civilian policy makers would have asked the military lawyers to draft the rules for a military prison in wartime. The lawyers for the service secretaries are supposed to focus on issues like contracts, environmental impact statements and base closings. They're not supposed to meddle in rules of engagement or military justice.
But the civilian policy makers knew that the military lawyers would never sanction tossing the Geneva Conventions aside in the war against terrorists. Military lawyers, Mr. Johnson said, "tend to see things through the prism of how it will affect their people if one gets captured or prosecuted."
Some Senate Democrats have said they plan to question Mr. Gonzales about this mess during his Senate confirmation hearings. But given the feckless state of Congressional oversight on this issue, there's not a lot of hope in that news.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the civilian and the military lawyers has gotten so bad that Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, pushed through legislation that elevated the military services' top lawyers to a three-star general's rank. That at least put them on a more equal footing with the civilian lawyers.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
GOP's Soft Sell Swayed the Amish (washingtonpost.com)
GOP's Soft Sell Swayed the Amish (washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
GOP's Soft Sell Swayed the Amish
Unlikely Voters Cast Lot With Bush
By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page A03
BIRD-IN-HAND, Pa.
Early on a pale blue morning, a horse-drawn buggy clop-clopped along a farmland stretch of Route 340. A lone little Chevy compact came toward it at a Sunday pace.
From an intersection, a black SUV the size of an Indian elephant barreled up to the buggy's back, passing with a quick jerk that nearly clipped the oncoming car -- and the horse's nose.
That's Pennsylvania's Amish country, where the 19th and 21st centuries coexist, commingle and collide on a regular basis. The Amish may hold fast to their plain ways, rejecting cars, indoor electricity, home phones and televisions. But contact with the outside world is unavoidable. Malls stand on land where corn used to grow, tourists run around the village streets, and even the old unspoken rule -- leave the Amish alone -- is gone, left in the dust of the presidential campaign, when the Republicans came calling for votes.
Yes, the Republicans, true to their vow to leave no vote unwooed, came to Lancaster County hoping to win over the famously reclusive Old Order Amish -- who shun most modern ways -- along with their slightly less-strict brethren, the Mennonites. Democrats laughed at the very idea. The Amish had no use for politics. Were the Republicans that desperate? But the GOP effort, underscored by President Bush's meeting with some Amish families in early July, did the trick.
"Yup, we voted this time," said an elder Old Order Amish man approached at his home-based quilt shop on Route 340. He had a beard that straggled down to his chest and bright blue eyes. His first name, he said, is Amos, but in keeping with the Amish edict against calling attention to oneself, he would not give his last name.
"I didn't vote for the last 30 years," he said, puffing on a pipe. "But Bush seemed to have our Christian principles."
Outside looking in, it makes sense that the Amish would pay little attention to national politics. They have their own schools (formal education for eight years), their own churches (or religious gatherings, at one another's homes) and their own rules. This has worked for them. The population of Amish and Mennonites, at more than 20,000 in Lancaster County, keeps growing.
But it seems the outside world, the "English" world, as the Amish call it, has been creeping in too closely for the plain people not to worry. In recent months, reports of child abuse in Amish country have made local papers and national news. The reality show "Amish in the City" has brought a slew of curiosity seekers asking all kinds of questions. (Do you take showers? Read newspapers? Ride buses? Yes, yes and yes.) And the plain people have daily worries as well. "We've been worrying about liquor and beer being sold in the grocery stores," said Sam, a gazebo maker and writer who said he would "get into trouble" if his last name was printed.
"We were down," Sam said, "and when the president visited, it cheered us right up. We got a firsthand look at him, and it really warmed our hearts."
In short, as Sam and half a dozen other Amish men explained (women were hard to find, and harder to talk to), Bush won votes with a time-honored campaign convention: He showed up. On July 9 his campaign bus rolled down Route 340, hoping to fire up the base in Republican Lancaster County. The Amish, watching the spectacle from the road, became part of it.
"We came out," Amos said. "We were about 70 people. One of his security said he wanted to meet us and invited us to meet with him across the road at Lapp's Electric."
"They knew we didn't like publicity," said Amos, smiling at the recollection. "So the president met with us all in an office at Lapp's. He shook everyone's hand -- even the littlest ones in their mother's arms -- and he told us all he hoped we would exercise our right and vote."
Did Bush ask them to vote for him?
"Nope," Amos said. "That's another thing we liked about him."
Not to mention, the 4,000 Republican volunteers who blanketed Lancaster County for months and visited the fairs and farm auctions in Amish country talking up the president's Christian values. That helped them think abortion might be outlawed, Sam said. Thinking of Bush's Christian values even helped with their questions about the carnage in Iraq.
And so, while Bush lost Pennsylvania by more than 120,000 votes, he nearly halved his losing margin from 2000. In large part, that was because of the GOP's push among rural voters. Here in Lancaster County, where the party set a goal of besting the Democrat by 70,000 votes (or about 10,000 more than in 2000), Bush ended up winning by 70,896. Several hundred of those votes came from men in suspenders and black suits and women in bonnets and wide-skirt black dresses. Republicans registered more than 300 new voters in each of three mostly Amish districts. In Leacock Township, the GOP nearly doubled its voter rolls, from 1,000 to 1,800, with all but a handful of the new voters being Amish or Mennonite.
Just as everyone predicted the plain folks would not vote, the postmortems all suggested the Amish vote was a fluke. Amos -- another Amos, who sells wooden toys and other Amish crafts at a roadside stand -- said that bothers him. He could see more plain people voting next time, he said, "for another candidate with good morals."
Sam, the carpenter-journalist, had read reports suggesting that the GOP manipulated the Amish. That did not sit well at all. "They didn't come here just recruiting the Amish," he said. "They were trying to get anybody to vote."
The Amish, in turn, voted with pure hearts, he said, asking for nothing in return.
Or almost nothing.
"We're trying to get tickets for the inauguration," he said. "Do you know how to go about getting those?"
-- Evelyn Nieves
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com
GOP's Soft Sell Swayed the Amish
Unlikely Voters Cast Lot With Bush
By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page A03
BIRD-IN-HAND, Pa.
Early on a pale blue morning, a horse-drawn buggy clop-clopped along a farmland stretch of Route 340. A lone little Chevy compact came toward it at a Sunday pace.
From an intersection, a black SUV the size of an Indian elephant barreled up to the buggy's back, passing with a quick jerk that nearly clipped the oncoming car -- and the horse's nose.
That's Pennsylvania's Amish country, where the 19th and 21st centuries coexist, commingle and collide on a regular basis. The Amish may hold fast to their plain ways, rejecting cars, indoor electricity, home phones and televisions. But contact with the outside world is unavoidable. Malls stand on land where corn used to grow, tourists run around the village streets, and even the old unspoken rule -- leave the Amish alone -- is gone, left in the dust of the presidential campaign, when the Republicans came calling for votes.
Yes, the Republicans, true to their vow to leave no vote unwooed, came to Lancaster County hoping to win over the famously reclusive Old Order Amish -- who shun most modern ways -- along with their slightly less-strict brethren, the Mennonites. Democrats laughed at the very idea. The Amish had no use for politics. Were the Republicans that desperate? But the GOP effort, underscored by President Bush's meeting with some Amish families in early July, did the trick.
"Yup, we voted this time," said an elder Old Order Amish man approached at his home-based quilt shop on Route 340. He had a beard that straggled down to his chest and bright blue eyes. His first name, he said, is Amos, but in keeping with the Amish edict against calling attention to oneself, he would not give his last name.
"I didn't vote for the last 30 years," he said, puffing on a pipe. "But Bush seemed to have our Christian principles."
Outside looking in, it makes sense that the Amish would pay little attention to national politics. They have their own schools (formal education for eight years), their own churches (or religious gatherings, at one another's homes) and their own rules. This has worked for them. The population of Amish and Mennonites, at more than 20,000 in Lancaster County, keeps growing.
But it seems the outside world, the "English" world, as the Amish call it, has been creeping in too closely for the plain people not to worry. In recent months, reports of child abuse in Amish country have made local papers and national news. The reality show "Amish in the City" has brought a slew of curiosity seekers asking all kinds of questions. (Do you take showers? Read newspapers? Ride buses? Yes, yes and yes.) And the plain people have daily worries as well. "We've been worrying about liquor and beer being sold in the grocery stores," said Sam, a gazebo maker and writer who said he would "get into trouble" if his last name was printed.
"We were down," Sam said, "and when the president visited, it cheered us right up. We got a firsthand look at him, and it really warmed our hearts."
In short, as Sam and half a dozen other Amish men explained (women were hard to find, and harder to talk to), Bush won votes with a time-honored campaign convention: He showed up. On July 9 his campaign bus rolled down Route 340, hoping to fire up the base in Republican Lancaster County. The Amish, watching the spectacle from the road, became part of it.
"We came out," Amos said. "We were about 70 people. One of his security said he wanted to meet us and invited us to meet with him across the road at Lapp's Electric."
"They knew we didn't like publicity," said Amos, smiling at the recollection. "So the president met with us all in an office at Lapp's. He shook everyone's hand -- even the littlest ones in their mother's arms -- and he told us all he hoped we would exercise our right and vote."
Did Bush ask them to vote for him?
"Nope," Amos said. "That's another thing we liked about him."
Not to mention, the 4,000 Republican volunteers who blanketed Lancaster County for months and visited the fairs and farm auctions in Amish country talking up the president's Christian values. That helped them think abortion might be outlawed, Sam said. Thinking of Bush's Christian values even helped with their questions about the carnage in Iraq.
And so, while Bush lost Pennsylvania by more than 120,000 votes, he nearly halved his losing margin from 2000. In large part, that was because of the GOP's push among rural voters. Here in Lancaster County, where the party set a goal of besting the Democrat by 70,000 votes (or about 10,000 more than in 2000), Bush ended up winning by 70,896. Several hundred of those votes came from men in suspenders and black suits and women in bonnets and wide-skirt black dresses. Republicans registered more than 300 new voters in each of three mostly Amish districts. In Leacock Township, the GOP nearly doubled its voter rolls, from 1,000 to 1,800, with all but a handful of the new voters being Amish or Mennonite.
Just as everyone predicted the plain folks would not vote, the postmortems all suggested the Amish vote was a fluke. Amos -- another Amos, who sells wooden toys and other Amish crafts at a roadside stand -- said that bothers him. He could see more plain people voting next time, he said, "for another candidate with good morals."
Sam, the carpenter-journalist, had read reports suggesting that the GOP manipulated the Amish. That did not sit well at all. "They didn't come here just recruiting the Amish," he said. "They were trying to get anybody to vote."
The Amish, in turn, voted with pure hearts, he said, asking for nothing in return.
Or almost nothing.
"We're trying to get tickets for the inauguration," he said. "Do you know how to go about getting those?"
-- Evelyn Nieves
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 26, 2004 - January 01, 2005 Archives
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 26, 2004 - January 01, 2005 Archives
washingtonpost.com
On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows
By Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page A01
In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion.
But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush. That is the conclusion of an extensive examination of campaign fundraising and spending data provided by the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and interviews with officials of the two campaigns and the independent groups allied with them.
In a $2.2 billion election, two relatively small expenditures by Bush and his allies stand out for their impact: the $546,000 ad buy by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush campaign's $3.25 million contract with the firm TargetPoint Consulting. The first portrayed Kerry in unrelentingly negative terms, permanently damaging him, while the second produced dramatic innovations in direct mail and voter technology, enabling Bush to identify and target potential voters with pinpoint precision.
Those tactical successes were part of the overall advantage the Bush campaign maintained over Kerry in terms of planning, decision making and strategy. The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit.
"They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."
The ultimate test of the two campaigns is in the success of their efforts to increase turnout from 2000. Kerry and his allies increased the Democrat's vote by about 6.8 million votes; Bush increased his by nearly 10.5 million. In the key battleground of Ohio, Bush countered Kerry's gains in the metropolitan precincts by boosting his margin in exurban and rural counties from 57 to 60 percent, eking out a 118,457-vote victory.
A supposed strategic advantage for the Democrats -- massive support from well-endowed independent groups -- turned out to have an inherent flaw: The groups' legally required independence left them with a message out of harmony with the Kerry campaign.
A large part of Bush's advantage derived from being an incumbent who did not face a challenger from his party. He also benefited from the experience and continuity of a campaign hierarchy, based on a corporate model, that had essentially stayed intact since Bush's 1998 reelection race for Texas governor.
Take Office, Plan Campaign
When Bush moved into the Oval Office in 2001, planning for his presidential reelection campaign began almost immediately. Under the direction of Karl Rove, Bush's top White House adviser who served as a kind of chairman of the board, White House political director Kenneth B. Mehlman, the chief executive officer, pollster Matthew Dowd, chief operating officer, and Mark McKinnon, the principal media consultant, the Bush political team developed a strategy for 2004, began investing in innovative techniques to target voters and prepared an early and cost-effective advertising plan. During this period, the Republican National Committee, where much of the planning was based, outspent its Democratic counterpart by $122 million.
In 2001, Dowd said that "we made some of the basic strategic assumptions about what we thought the election would look like."
One fundamental calculation was that 93 percent of the voting-age public was already committed or predisposed toward the Democratic or Republican candidate, leaving 7 percent undecided.
Another calculation was that throughout the Bush presidency, "most voters looked at Bush in very black-and-white terms. They either loved and respected him, or they didn't like him," Dowd said. Those voters were unlikely to change their views before Election Day 2004.
That prompted Republicans to jettison their practice of investing 75 to 90 percent of campaign money on undecided voters. Instead, half the money went into motivating and mobilizing people already inclined to vote for Bush, but who were either unregistered or who often failed to vote -- "soft" Republicans.
"We systematically allocated all the main resources of the campaign to the twin goals of motivation and persuasion. The media, the voter targeting, the mail -- all were based off that strategic decision," Dowd said.
Republican officials said they put $50 million into "ground war" drives to register and turn out millions of new voters in 2001 and 2002, and an additional $125 million after that.
Meanwhile, Kerry, faced with a difficult primary campaign and infighting and turnover among his consultants, did not begin seriously to address the general election until after his Super Tuesday primary election victory in March, eight months before the November vote. By that time, the campaign was hamstrung by legal restrictions on any cooperation between the campaign and the independent 527 organizations running ads and mobilizing voters on Kerry's behalf.
527s' Ineffective Messages
The 527 groups, named after a section of the tax code and allowed by law to accept unlimited contributions, provided invaluable help in registering and turning out voters. America Coming Together put about $135 million into what became the largest get-out-the-vote program in the nation's history. But the 527s, fueled with money from billionaires such as George Soros, proved ineffective in helping Kerry deliver a consistent and timely message in his advertising.
Of all the money spent on television advertising for the Democratic nominee, Kerry's campaign controlled 62 percent, according to spending totals analyzed by The Washington Post. The rest was spent on ads whose content or placement could not be coordinated with the campaign. The Bush campaign controlled 83 percent of the money spent on its behalf, giving it far more control over when and how it advertised.
At two junctures, when Kerry was either out of funds or under pressure to conserve resources for the close of the campaign, the absence of an overall strategy had damaging consequences: in March 2004, just when the Bush campaign began its first anti-Kerry offensive; and in August 2004, when the Swift Boat Veterans commercials raised questions about Kerry's service in the Vietnam War.
The Democratic media 527s "didn't do what we wanted done," Kerry media adviser Tad Devine said. "We would have run ads about Kerry, we would have had answers to the attacks in kind, saying they were false, disproved by newspapers."
Harold Ickes, who ran the Media Fund, a 527 organization that raised about $59 million in support of Kerry, said the federal election law prohibiting communication with the Kerry campaign created insurmountable obstacles in crafting effective, accurate responses to anti-Kerry ads. Ickes said he regretted not responding to the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks, but at the time he thought they seemed "a matter so personal to Senator Kerry, so much within his knowledge. Who knew what the facts were?"
Early Research Is Like Yeast
The 2002 elections, along with the Kentucky and Mississippi gubernatorial contests the following year, became testing grounds for the Republican effort to mobilize supporters. Designed to get base voters to the polls, it became known as the "72 Hour Project," whose cost Republican officials refused to disclose but is estimated by sources to have been in the $200 million range.
Under Dowd's direction, the RNC began investing in extensive voter research. One of the most striking findings, according to Republican consultants, was the ineffectiveness of traditional phone banks and direct mail that targeted voters in overwhelmingly Republican precincts. The problem: Only 15 percent of all GOP voters lived in precincts that voted Republican by 65 percent or more. Worse, an even smaller percentage of "soft" Republicans, the 2004 target constituency, lived in such precincts.
The RNC decided to cast a wider net for voters. But to work, Dowd's motivation and mobilization strategy needed expensive, high-tech micro targeting to cherry-pick prospective Republicans who lived in majority Democratic neighborhoods.
Republican firms, including TargetPoint Consultants and National Media Inc., delved into commercial databases that pinpointed consumer buying patterns and television-watching habits to unearth such information as Coors beer and bourbon drinkers skewing Republican, brandy and cognac drinkers tilting Democratic; college football TV viewers were more Republican than those who watch professional football; viewers of Fox News were overwhelmingly committed to vote for Bush; homes with telephone caller ID tended to be Republican; people interested in gambling, fashion and theater tended to be Democratic.
Surveys of people on these consumer data lists were then used to determine "anger points" (late-term abortion, trial lawyer fees, estate taxes) that coincided with the Bush agenda for as many as 32 categories of voters, each identifiable by income, magazine subscriptions, favorite television shows and other "flags." Merging this data, in turn, enabled those running direct mail, precinct walking and phone bank programs to target each voter with a tailored message.
"You used to get a tape-recorded voice of Ronald Reagan telling you how important it was to vote. That was our get-out-the-vote effort," said Alex Gage, of TargetPoint. Now, he said, calls can be targeted to specific constituencies so that, for example, a "right to life voter" could get a call warning that "if you don't come out and vote, the number of abortions next year is going to go up. "
Dowd estimated that, in part through the work of TargetPoint and other research, the Bush campaign and the RNC were able to "quadruple the number" of Republican voters who could be targeted through direct mail, phone banks and knocking on doors.
Democrats had access to similar data files. But the Bush campaign and the RNC were able to make far better use of the data because they had the time and money to conduct repeated field tests in the 2002 and 2003 elections, to finance advanced research on meshing databases with polling information, and to clean up and revise databases that almost invariably contained errors and omissions.
"Very few people understand how much work it takes to get this technology to actually produce political results. We are one election cycle behind them in this area," said a Democrat who helped coordinate voter contact in the 2004 campaign.
The Bush campaign's early fundraising success made much of this possible. By March 2004, Bush had $110 million in the bank and virtually no debt. During this period, Kerry was forced to spend all his time and money in the Democratic primaries, a fight that cost him $36 million and that left him $5 million in debt.
"Nobody was giving a thought at all to the general election," said Kerry pollster Mark S. Mellman. Until that March, "it was: How do we survive this week?"
Bush Ads Undermine Kerry
Two days after Super Tuesday, the Bush campaign, anticipating Kerry would have no money to respond, began a $40 million, six-week televised assault designed to crush the Democratic nominee before he could get off the ground. "We had a financial advantage over them for four to six weeks. That's why we did what we did," Dowd said.
With a $177 million ad budget, the Bush campaign and its allies ran more than 101,000 anti-Kerry "attack" or negative ads, more than the combined total of "positive" and "contrast" ads, according to the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, based on data from Nielsen Monitor-Plus ratings of media buying effectiveness.
Less than 5 percent of Kerry's ads were "attack" or negative, according to the Wisconsin advertising project, and the remaining 95 percent were positive or contrast ads.
During March and April, before the candidate had replenished his war chest to finance TV ads, Kerry strategists were convinced that Kerry needed a barrage of positive biographical ads describing him in a sympathetic light to counter the negative picture drawn by the Bush ads. But when the Democratic 527s began their ad campaign, they aired negative ads reflecting their intensely anti-Bush donor base.
By the time Kerry had raised enough money to begin his positive ad campaign two months later, the Bush "attack" ads had helped convert the ratio of Kerry's positive to negative ratings in battleground states. Kerry's positive ratings fell from 40 percent to 35 percent, and his negative ratings rose from 24 percent to 36 percent at the start of May, according to the National Annenberg Election Surveys.
The negative Bush barrage was followed in August by the Swift Boat Veterans ads, the first one airing on just four cable channels at a cost of $546,000. The Swift Boat Veterans eventually would raise and spend $28 million, but the first ad was exceptionally cost-effective: most voters learned about it through free coverage in mainstream media and talk radio.
An additional Republican television commercial that significantly affected the race, according to surveys, was a positive spot financed by a second GOP 527 group, Progress for America. It invested $17 million in "Ashley's Story," which featured Ashley Faulkner, 11, whose mother had been killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, describing her meeting with Bush.
GOP Dollar Power
Overall, Kerry, the DNC and the Democratic 527s spent $344 million on ads, while Bush and the GOP counterparts spent about $289 million, much of which was disbursed in the final three months. Arguably, Republicans got more bang for their bucks.
The Bush campaign's early strategy decisions shaped GOP spending. Under the guidance of Rove, Dowd and Mehlman, the Bush campaign had financed early research into ways to communicate to center-right voters through nontraditional media.
The Bush campaign concluded that many of their voters did not trust the networks and the establishment press, and therefore did not trust messages transmitted through them.
Mehlman said that talk radio and cable television "are more credible" to potential Bush voters. Ultimately the Bush campaign invested an unprecedented $20 million in narrowly targeted advertising on cable and in radio, with a heavy emphasis on religious, talk and country and western stations, and such specialty outlets as golf and health club channels.
"They did a lot of stuff really well. They were ahead of us," said one of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote managers who did not want to be identified. "They had a strategy set by the beginning that they were going to live and die by. And we didn't."
In an election with a 2.6 percent margin of victory, the Bush campaign was run to ensure that every dollar went to fulfill core strategies, that resources were allocated to capitalize on Bush's strengths and on Kerry's vulnerabilities, and that the money necessary to finance research, technological advance, television and the ground war was available when needed.
At the July Democratic National Convention in Boston, McAuliffe commented on the disciplined Republican team: "We are up against the dirtiest, meanest, toughest group of people we have ever faced. They have money, they have power, and they ain't going to give it up easily."
Researcher Alice Crites, database editor Sarah Cohen and research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com
On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows
By Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page A01
In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion.
But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush. That is the conclusion of an extensive examination of campaign fundraising and spending data provided by the Federal Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and interviews with officials of the two campaigns and the independent groups allied with them.
In a $2.2 billion election, two relatively small expenditures by Bush and his allies stand out for their impact: the $546,000 ad buy by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush campaign's $3.25 million contract with the firm TargetPoint Consulting. The first portrayed Kerry in unrelentingly negative terms, permanently damaging him, while the second produced dramatic innovations in direct mail and voter technology, enabling Bush to identify and target potential voters with pinpoint precision.
Those tactical successes were part of the overall advantage the Bush campaign maintained over Kerry in terms of planning, decision making and strategy. The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit.
"They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."
The ultimate test of the two campaigns is in the success of their efforts to increase turnout from 2000. Kerry and his allies increased the Democrat's vote by about 6.8 million votes; Bush increased his by nearly 10.5 million. In the key battleground of Ohio, Bush countered Kerry's gains in the metropolitan precincts by boosting his margin in exurban and rural counties from 57 to 60 percent, eking out a 118,457-vote victory.
A supposed strategic advantage for the Democrats -- massive support from well-endowed independent groups -- turned out to have an inherent flaw: The groups' legally required independence left them with a message out of harmony with the Kerry campaign.
A large part of Bush's advantage derived from being an incumbent who did not face a challenger from his party. He also benefited from the experience and continuity of a campaign hierarchy, based on a corporate model, that had essentially stayed intact since Bush's 1998 reelection race for Texas governor.
Take Office, Plan Campaign
When Bush moved into the Oval Office in 2001, planning for his presidential reelection campaign began almost immediately. Under the direction of Karl Rove, Bush's top White House adviser who served as a kind of chairman of the board, White House political director Kenneth B. Mehlman, the chief executive officer, pollster Matthew Dowd, chief operating officer, and Mark McKinnon, the principal media consultant, the Bush political team developed a strategy for 2004, began investing in innovative techniques to target voters and prepared an early and cost-effective advertising plan. During this period, the Republican National Committee, where much of the planning was based, outspent its Democratic counterpart by $122 million.
In 2001, Dowd said that "we made some of the basic strategic assumptions about what we thought the election would look like."
One fundamental calculation was that 93 percent of the voting-age public was already committed or predisposed toward the Democratic or Republican candidate, leaving 7 percent undecided.
Another calculation was that throughout the Bush presidency, "most voters looked at Bush in very black-and-white terms. They either loved and respected him, or they didn't like him," Dowd said. Those voters were unlikely to change their views before Election Day 2004.
That prompted Republicans to jettison their practice of investing 75 to 90 percent of campaign money on undecided voters. Instead, half the money went into motivating and mobilizing people already inclined to vote for Bush, but who were either unregistered or who often failed to vote -- "soft" Republicans.
"We systematically allocated all the main resources of the campaign to the twin goals of motivation and persuasion. The media, the voter targeting, the mail -- all were based off that strategic decision," Dowd said.
Republican officials said they put $50 million into "ground war" drives to register and turn out millions of new voters in 2001 and 2002, and an additional $125 million after that.
Meanwhile, Kerry, faced with a difficult primary campaign and infighting and turnover among his consultants, did not begin seriously to address the general election until after his Super Tuesday primary election victory in March, eight months before the November vote. By that time, the campaign was hamstrung by legal restrictions on any cooperation between the campaign and the independent 527 organizations running ads and mobilizing voters on Kerry's behalf.
527s' Ineffective Messages
The 527 groups, named after a section of the tax code and allowed by law to accept unlimited contributions, provided invaluable help in registering and turning out voters. America Coming Together put about $135 million into what became the largest get-out-the-vote program in the nation's history. But the 527s, fueled with money from billionaires such as George Soros, proved ineffective in helping Kerry deliver a consistent and timely message in his advertising.
Of all the money spent on television advertising for the Democratic nominee, Kerry's campaign controlled 62 percent, according to spending totals analyzed by The Washington Post. The rest was spent on ads whose content or placement could not be coordinated with the campaign. The Bush campaign controlled 83 percent of the money spent on its behalf, giving it far more control over when and how it advertised.
At two junctures, when Kerry was either out of funds or under pressure to conserve resources for the close of the campaign, the absence of an overall strategy had damaging consequences: in March 2004, just when the Bush campaign began its first anti-Kerry offensive; and in August 2004, when the Swift Boat Veterans commercials raised questions about Kerry's service in the Vietnam War.
The Democratic media 527s "didn't do what we wanted done," Kerry media adviser Tad Devine said. "We would have run ads about Kerry, we would have had answers to the attacks in kind, saying they were false, disproved by newspapers."
Harold Ickes, who ran the Media Fund, a 527 organization that raised about $59 million in support of Kerry, said the federal election law prohibiting communication with the Kerry campaign created insurmountable obstacles in crafting effective, accurate responses to anti-Kerry ads. Ickes said he regretted not responding to the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks, but at the time he thought they seemed "a matter so personal to Senator Kerry, so much within his knowledge. Who knew what the facts were?"
Early Research Is Like Yeast
The 2002 elections, along with the Kentucky and Mississippi gubernatorial contests the following year, became testing grounds for the Republican effort to mobilize supporters. Designed to get base voters to the polls, it became known as the "72 Hour Project," whose cost Republican officials refused to disclose but is estimated by sources to have been in the $200 million range.
Under Dowd's direction, the RNC began investing in extensive voter research. One of the most striking findings, according to Republican consultants, was the ineffectiveness of traditional phone banks and direct mail that targeted voters in overwhelmingly Republican precincts. The problem: Only 15 percent of all GOP voters lived in precincts that voted Republican by 65 percent or more. Worse, an even smaller percentage of "soft" Republicans, the 2004 target constituency, lived in such precincts.
The RNC decided to cast a wider net for voters. But to work, Dowd's motivation and mobilization strategy needed expensive, high-tech micro targeting to cherry-pick prospective Republicans who lived in majority Democratic neighborhoods.
Republican firms, including TargetPoint Consultants and National Media Inc., delved into commercial databases that pinpointed consumer buying patterns and television-watching habits to unearth such information as Coors beer and bourbon drinkers skewing Republican, brandy and cognac drinkers tilting Democratic; college football TV viewers were more Republican than those who watch professional football; viewers of Fox News were overwhelmingly committed to vote for Bush; homes with telephone caller ID tended to be Republican; people interested in gambling, fashion and theater tended to be Democratic.
Surveys of people on these consumer data lists were then used to determine "anger points" (late-term abortion, trial lawyer fees, estate taxes) that coincided with the Bush agenda for as many as 32 categories of voters, each identifiable by income, magazine subscriptions, favorite television shows and other "flags." Merging this data, in turn, enabled those running direct mail, precinct walking and phone bank programs to target each voter with a tailored message.
"You used to get a tape-recorded voice of Ronald Reagan telling you how important it was to vote. That was our get-out-the-vote effort," said Alex Gage, of TargetPoint. Now, he said, calls can be targeted to specific constituencies so that, for example, a "right to life voter" could get a call warning that "if you don't come out and vote, the number of abortions next year is going to go up. "
Dowd estimated that, in part through the work of TargetPoint and other research, the Bush campaign and the RNC were able to "quadruple the number" of Republican voters who could be targeted through direct mail, phone banks and knocking on doors.
Democrats had access to similar data files. But the Bush campaign and the RNC were able to make far better use of the data because they had the time and money to conduct repeated field tests in the 2002 and 2003 elections, to finance advanced research on meshing databases with polling information, and to clean up and revise databases that almost invariably contained errors and omissions.
"Very few people understand how much work it takes to get this technology to actually produce political results. We are one election cycle behind them in this area," said a Democrat who helped coordinate voter contact in the 2004 campaign.
The Bush campaign's early fundraising success made much of this possible. By March 2004, Bush had $110 million in the bank and virtually no debt. During this period, Kerry was forced to spend all his time and money in the Democratic primaries, a fight that cost him $36 million and that left him $5 million in debt.
"Nobody was giving a thought at all to the general election," said Kerry pollster Mark S. Mellman. Until that March, "it was: How do we survive this week?"
Bush Ads Undermine Kerry
Two days after Super Tuesday, the Bush campaign, anticipating Kerry would have no money to respond, began a $40 million, six-week televised assault designed to crush the Democratic nominee before he could get off the ground. "We had a financial advantage over them for four to six weeks. That's why we did what we did," Dowd said.
With a $177 million ad budget, the Bush campaign and its allies ran more than 101,000 anti-Kerry "attack" or negative ads, more than the combined total of "positive" and "contrast" ads, according to the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, based on data from Nielsen Monitor-Plus ratings of media buying effectiveness.
Less than 5 percent of Kerry's ads were "attack" or negative, according to the Wisconsin advertising project, and the remaining 95 percent were positive or contrast ads.
During March and April, before the candidate had replenished his war chest to finance TV ads, Kerry strategists were convinced that Kerry needed a barrage of positive biographical ads describing him in a sympathetic light to counter the negative picture drawn by the Bush ads. But when the Democratic 527s began their ad campaign, they aired negative ads reflecting their intensely anti-Bush donor base.
By the time Kerry had raised enough money to begin his positive ad campaign two months later, the Bush "attack" ads had helped convert the ratio of Kerry's positive to negative ratings in battleground states. Kerry's positive ratings fell from 40 percent to 35 percent, and his negative ratings rose from 24 percent to 36 percent at the start of May, according to the National Annenberg Election Surveys.
The negative Bush barrage was followed in August by the Swift Boat Veterans ads, the first one airing on just four cable channels at a cost of $546,000. The Swift Boat Veterans eventually would raise and spend $28 million, but the first ad was exceptionally cost-effective: most voters learned about it through free coverage in mainstream media and talk radio.
An additional Republican television commercial that significantly affected the race, according to surveys, was a positive spot financed by a second GOP 527 group, Progress for America. It invested $17 million in "Ashley's Story," which featured Ashley Faulkner, 11, whose mother had been killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, describing her meeting with Bush.
GOP Dollar Power
Overall, Kerry, the DNC and the Democratic 527s spent $344 million on ads, while Bush and the GOP counterparts spent about $289 million, much of which was disbursed in the final three months. Arguably, Republicans got more bang for their bucks.
The Bush campaign's early strategy decisions shaped GOP spending. Under the guidance of Rove, Dowd and Mehlman, the Bush campaign had financed early research into ways to communicate to center-right voters through nontraditional media.
The Bush campaign concluded that many of their voters did not trust the networks and the establishment press, and therefore did not trust messages transmitted through them.
Mehlman said that talk radio and cable television "are more credible" to potential Bush voters. Ultimately the Bush campaign invested an unprecedented $20 million in narrowly targeted advertising on cable and in radio, with a heavy emphasis on religious, talk and country and western stations, and such specialty outlets as golf and health club channels.
"They did a lot of stuff really well. They were ahead of us," said one of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote managers who did not want to be identified. "They had a strategy set by the beginning that they were going to live and die by. And we didn't."
In an election with a 2.6 percent margin of victory, the Bush campaign was run to ensure that every dollar went to fulfill core strategies, that resources were allocated to capitalize on Bush's strengths and on Kerry's vulnerabilities, and that the money necessary to finance research, technological advance, television and the ground war was available when needed.
At the July Democratic National Convention in Boston, McAuliffe commented on the disciplined Republican team: "We are up against the dirtiest, meanest, toughest group of people we have ever faced. They have money, they have power, and they ain't going to give it up easily."
Researcher Alice Crites, database editor Sarah Cohen and research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Thursday, December 30, 2004
The Blue Lemur - Progressive Politics and Media News � Another teen dies after being Tasered
Should be the after Holiday Special Gifts on the Charity Circuit: Tasers for Tots
The Blue Lemur - Progressive Politics and Media News � Another teen dies after being Tasered
The Blue Lemur - Progressive Politics and Media News � Another teen dies after being Tasered
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Left I on the News: Author didn't research issue very well
I must be in a contrarian mood this evening. This is another blog entry raising a flag for a false reason. The answer to this 4% portion of the vote question is that the Ukranian ballot allows a "none of the above" option.
News Report
Left I on the News
News Report
Left I on the News
Governments Purposely Allowed The 2004 Tsunami Disaster To Happen!!!
My two cents: Here's an example, in my mind, of half-truth. And "news" entries like these dilute the truth that this blog and others are exposing.
Governments Purposely Allowed The 2004 Tsunami Disaster To Happen!!!
Governments Purposely Allowed The 2004 Tsunami Disaster To Happen!!!
Audio Interview with David Ray Griffin on Flashpoints
Listen to KPFA Radio's Program on the 9/11 Cover Up -- PASS THIS ON WIDELY
Author, David Ray Griffin, dissembles the 9/11 Commissions report piece by
piece. OUR DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE. After listening to this, go to 911Truth.org
and get involved in the 9/11 truth movement. Forward this email to all you
know.
Yesterday's Flashpoints (Pacifica) radio show with Dennis Bernstein. The
entire show was a radio interview with David Ray Griffin discussing his newest
book on the 9/11 Commission.
Both of the below strings must be pasted into your browser address window:
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&mount=
/data/20041227-Mon1700.mp3
If for some reason the link doesn't work, you can listen to the show
(Monday's) directly from the Flashpoints website here:
http://www.flashpoints.net
Author, David Ray Griffin, dissembles the 9/11 Commissions report piece by
piece. OUR DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE. After listening to this, go to 911Truth.org
and get involved in the 9/11 truth movement. Forward this email to all you
know.
Yesterday's Flashpoints (Pacifica) radio show with Dennis Bernstein. The
entire show was a radio interview with David Ray Griffin discussing his newest
book on the 9/11 Commission.
Both of the below strings must be pasted into your browser address window:
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&mount=
/data/20041227-Mon1700.mp3
If for some reason the link doesn't work, you can listen to the show
(Monday's) directly from the Flashpoints website here:
http://www.flashpoints.net
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
Sunday, December 26, 2004
CNN.com - Transcripts "shot down the plane over Penn"
CNN.com - Transcripts: "And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania"
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Herald Sun: Mob goes after loot from heist [26dec04]
Peace Process in N. Ireland Wrecked?
Herald Sun: Mob goes after loot from heist [26dec04]
Herald Sun: Mob goes after loot from heist [26dec04]
Friday, December 24, 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Soldier sacrificed finger to preserve wedding ring
I can't believe that anyone is glorifying or praising this action. The last quote is that we need more people like this - more people who are so confused about the meaning of marriage that they believe (as does the wife being honored) that cutting off a finger to save a wedding ring (that was subsequently lost) honors his marriage and wife? I'm too young to remember Vietnam, but I'm sure that the outrage was similar - sending 19 year old kids who are thinking like this in a moment of stress (which undoubtedly a medical situation in a battle zone is) to kill people half a world away is beyond my comprehension of anything human.
Soldier sacrificed finger to preserve wedding ring
Soldier sacrificed finger to preserve wedding ring
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
LiberalOasis: Archives for the Week of December 19, 2004
Method to Bush's Madness (about SS "Reform" and yesterday's Press Conf.)
LiberalOasis: Archives for the Week of December 19, 2004
LiberalOasis: Archives for the Week of December 19, 2004
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
comparing the government's Gaza withdrawal plan to the Nazi Holocaust
Just what I was thinking!
My Way News
My Way News
Monday, December 20, 2004
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Friday, December 17, 2004
Listen to the Admiral: America's most experienced intelligence official on Porter Goss, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Casey's
Looks like wholesale disinformation to me.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
The New Republic Online: Lost Civilization
Any article that quotes from the 911 Commission Report as foundational evident is bound to be of dubious value, but maybe this article offers an interesting viewpoint.
The New Republic Online: Lost Civilization
The New Republic Online: Lost Civilization
Monday, December 13, 2004
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Battlefield Earth - It's time to take care of ourselves!
In this speech, Bill Moyers talks about the right-wing religious agenda of triggering the end of the world (and theoretically, their entrance into heaven) by supporting all-out war in the Middle East and destruction of the environment.
My question, when confronted with this seemingly desperate ideology, is to wonder why people would ever think this could be a good thing. I have a similar question about why people would allow "leaders" to come into power and then go to sleep for 4 years as these "leaders" take us towards such horrific events.
I think these questions have the same answer. I believe that they come from our very human fear that we don't really know how to take care of ourselves, we don't know how to understand complex world issues, we don't know how to solve big issues, we don't know how to directly connect spiritually with something greater than ourselves - so we need "them" to do it for us. Of course, "they" have different faces at different times, but "they" are the ones who we expect to fix it for us, and who often claim that they know more than we do.
So, I submit that it is time for us to start taking care of ourselves, to start recognizing that we do know how to do these things for ourselves, to realize that we have it within each of us to make our lives the way that we want them to be and in the process, help transform the world so that everyone can enjoy their lives they way they want to.
Here's another important point - you create what you defend against. The solution here is not to fight "them," which only ever adds energy to whatever they are doing. I believe that the recent election is a good example of what happens when many people create a movement against something, rather than for what they really want. How many voters actually voted against Bush, rather than for Kerry? No matter what the actual mechanism was in the election, which most probably included lots of voter fraud, it was the energy going towards the Bush campaign that allowed it to happen. It's time to start going for what we really want.
Major transformation happens when we are triggered in a major way to see it is necessary. The time is now. We each have our own unique role to play in this transformation. Each of us has something that really excites us, gets our juices flowing in a good way. Think of what yours is. Is it seeing children happy and healthy? Is is an artform that celebrates some beautiful aspect of our world? Is it maintaing wilderness trails so that more people can get in touch with the environment that sustains us? Is it understanding and sharing information with others about new technologies that lead us toward a more sustainable way to live? Find yours now and become involved with sharing your enthusiasm and joy with others. That is what will transform the world. Give every ounce of your energy to moving towards the world you want to live in and at some point, the balance will tip and that world will become reality.
AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Battlefield Earth
My question, when confronted with this seemingly desperate ideology, is to wonder why people would ever think this could be a good thing. I have a similar question about why people would allow "leaders" to come into power and then go to sleep for 4 years as these "leaders" take us towards such horrific events.
I think these questions have the same answer. I believe that they come from our very human fear that we don't really know how to take care of ourselves, we don't know how to understand complex world issues, we don't know how to solve big issues, we don't know how to directly connect spiritually with something greater than ourselves - so we need "them" to do it for us. Of course, "they" have different faces at different times, but "they" are the ones who we expect to fix it for us, and who often claim that they know more than we do.
So, I submit that it is time for us to start taking care of ourselves, to start recognizing that we do know how to do these things for ourselves, to realize that we have it within each of us to make our lives the way that we want them to be and in the process, help transform the world so that everyone can enjoy their lives they way they want to.
Here's another important point - you create what you defend against. The solution here is not to fight "them," which only ever adds energy to whatever they are doing. I believe that the recent election is a good example of what happens when many people create a movement against something, rather than for what they really want. How many voters actually voted against Bush, rather than for Kerry? No matter what the actual mechanism was in the election, which most probably included lots of voter fraud, it was the energy going towards the Bush campaign that allowed it to happen. It's time to start going for what we really want.
Major transformation happens when we are triggered in a major way to see it is necessary. The time is now. We each have our own unique role to play in this transformation. Each of us has something that really excites us, gets our juices flowing in a good way. Think of what yours is. Is it seeing children happy and healthy? Is is an artform that celebrates some beautiful aspect of our world? Is it maintaing wilderness trails so that more people can get in touch with the environment that sustains us? Is it understanding and sharing information with others about new technologies that lead us toward a more sustainable way to live? Find yours now and become involved with sharing your enthusiasm and joy with others. That is what will transform the world. Give every ounce of your energy to moving towards the world you want to live in and at some point, the balance will tip and that world will become reality.
AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Battlefield Earth
Discovery Network to launch The Military Channel
The continuing, horrifying trend of glorifying and substantiating war as something that we should focus lots of energy on.
WorkingForChange-Discovery Network to launch The Military Channel
WorkingForChange-Discovery Network to launch The Military Channel
Saturday, December 11, 2004
American Born, Addicted to Happiness
This essay is the beginnings of what I believe about what's going on in the world right now. Namely, that we have to wake up to what is going on as a first step towards changing it.
I differ from the author, however, in her belief that we have to be willing to live in a place of suffering and that hope grows out of suffering. To be sure, we've been living in a fantasy world of an "American dream" built upon denial of what really allows it to happen. The happiness she speaks of is a facade, a mirage. Waking up from that fantasy certainly does have its own suffering and fear attached to it. But whatever we give our focus and energy to grows, so if our expectation is to need to suffer, we will certainly do that in increasing amounts.
I believe that our way out of this, our way to hope, is to believe and focus with everything we have that it is possible to have a world that works, where there truly is hope for everyone. We don't yet know what that looks like because we've never been there. However, the only way to move towards it is to believe that it is possible and let our wildest dreams help us imagine what it can look like. It is that belief in those wildest dreams that will take us there.
American Born, Addicted to Happiness
I differ from the author, however, in her belief that we have to be willing to live in a place of suffering and that hope grows out of suffering. To be sure, we've been living in a fantasy world of an "American dream" built upon denial of what really allows it to happen. The happiness she speaks of is a facade, a mirage. Waking up from that fantasy certainly does have its own suffering and fear attached to it. But whatever we give our focus and energy to grows, so if our expectation is to need to suffer, we will certainly do that in increasing amounts.
I believe that our way out of this, our way to hope, is to believe and focus with everything we have that it is possible to have a world that works, where there truly is hope for everyone. We don't yet know what that looks like because we've never been there. However, the only way to move towards it is to believe that it is possible and let our wildest dreams help us imagine what it can look like. It is that belief in those wildest dreams that will take us there.
American Born, Addicted to Happiness
More Evidence FDR Knew About Pearl In Advance
This supports the pattern of government behavior that may have continued with 9/11 of either allowing or facilitating an attack on US soil in order to trigger citizen support for a war.
More Evidence FDR Knew About Pearl In Advance
More Evidence FDR Knew About Pearl In Advance
Friday, December 10, 2004
Understanding the roots of the problem
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Millionaire Kerik Was Once A Deadbeat - December 7, 2004
Ok, I know that this type of hatchet job (Millionaire Kerik Was Once A Deadbeat - December 7, 2004) is smoking gun's stock-in-trade. It's just disappointing when a "news story" like this tends to obscure more than it illuminates. Unfortunately, having this article with its "facts" is like assailing Hitler because he had odd sexual proclivities (http://slate.msn.com/id/2059222/). Hitler's bedroom antics weren't really the key point of his immorality, were they?
The most logical noxious issue about Kerik is that he would seem to be one of Guiliani's (link to backgroud) lackeys: these men have been some of many criminals who were either part of the 911 plot, or they are just part of the cover up.
The most logical noxious issue about Kerik is that he would seem to be one of Guiliani's (link to backgroud) lackeys: these men have been some of many criminals who were either part of the 911 plot, or they are just part of the cover up.
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 05, 2004 - December 11, 2004 Archives
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 05, 2004 - December 11, 2004 Archives
I hate to be critical of people with might be friends, but it is the height of sheer idiocy to think that the crisis that we are facing which Mr. Beinart (author of the article linked in the Marshall Blog) is proposing an antidote to has to do with liberal / conservative values or pro national security / anti national security support. Arguments like this are a total diversion.
Although I believed Kerry would be a less heinous choice than Bush, there is nothing to indicate that Kerry, nor even Dean would address the hugh crime committed within the US on 911 or any of the related corruption.
I hate to be critical of people with might be friends, but it is the height of sheer idiocy to think that the crisis that we are facing which Mr. Beinart (author of the article linked in the Marshall Blog) is proposing an antidote to has to do with liberal / conservative values or pro national security / anti national security support. Arguments like this are a total diversion.
Although I believed Kerry would be a less heinous choice than Bush, there is nothing to indicate that Kerry, nor even Dean would address the hugh crime committed within the US on 911 or any of the related corruption.
BlondeSense...: Fuckface of Defense Meets Troops
Oh come on, little missy, don't be so angry: it's just death and destruction for the benefit of the elite.
BlondeSense...: Fuckface of Defense Meets Troops
BlondeSense...: Fuckface of Defense Meets Troops
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Afraid to look in the moral abyss
Although there is much to laud in this editorial, it perpetuates myths such as intelligence failures rather than exposing the complete political corruption of honest intelligence gathering.
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Afraid to look in the moral abyss
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Afraid to look in the moral abyss
Can't pass up this posting to fill out the picture....
I don't see anything that is posted that shows Andrew Sullivan "ungentlemanly" and it seems to me his words in the debate are extremely powerful.
The Dawn Patrol
The Dawn Patrol
My sarcastic remark not meant to minimize pain or reality of serious emotional trauma
Any competent medical professional would prescribe an SSRI (such as Prozac) (based on iron clad peer reviewed scientific studies) too, wouldn't she?
After abortion
After abortion
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Overdoing the Christian Perspective, but with an interesting 911 Reference
At the very end of this blog entry, we get the wisdom of a cabby, which may indeed have merit:
"Especially when, blaming security checks for the tunnel traffic, he started going off on how "seven overpaid government officials who get overtime" were responsible for 9/11."
The Dawn Patrol
"Especially when, blaming security checks for the tunnel traffic, he started going off on how "seven overpaid government officials who get overtime" were responsible for 9/11."
The Dawn Patrol
Is planned parenthood guilty of egregious enticement and encouraging illegal acts?
The Dawn Patrol
Is that why people vote for Bush?
If so, what can be done?
Note: I fully support Planned Parenthood's approach.
Is that why people vote for Bush?
If so, what can be done?
Note: I fully support Planned Parenthood's approach.
The 'Joy' of Abortion
This discussion (as shown in the linked blog entry) is rhetorically dishonest (totally taking the word Joy out of context). I think that it is instructive (in how much it is a scorched earth approach) to see what coarse words are meant to be accepted as reasonable debate.
Jumping back to a bird's eye view, I'm not sure we saw a great deal of honor and rhetorical honesty in the statement Kerry made during the debates, which was along the lines that he respected the moral concerns of those who don't want the gov't funding abortion but the government had already decided that it's a issue of freedom of choice, and we shouldn't be trying to change that.
Here's the quote exactly:
(begin)
SARAH DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I‘m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can‘t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn‘t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can‘t do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.
And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don‘t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can‘t afford it otherwise.
That‘s why I think it‘s important. That‘s why I think it‘s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You‘ll help prevent AIDS.
You‘ll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You‘ll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
(end quote)
Of course, my sense of truth would have Kerry renouncing his Catholicism, and Christianity in general, so where would that leave his politcal fortunes?
Refocusing on what Kerry might have said: I would say Kerry is trying to discuss the subject at a much more detailed level than serves the purpose of winning a Pres. debate, which is just sad for a veteran office holder.
The Dawn Patrol
Jumping back to a bird's eye view, I'm not sure we saw a great deal of honor and rhetorical honesty in the statement Kerry made during the debates, which was along the lines that he respected the moral concerns of those who don't want the gov't funding abortion but the government had already decided that it's a issue of freedom of choice, and we shouldn't be trying to change that.
Here's the quote exactly:
(begin)
SARAH DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I‘m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can‘t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn‘t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can‘t do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.
And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don‘t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can‘t afford it otherwise.
That‘s why I think it‘s important. That‘s why I think it‘s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You‘ll help prevent AIDS.
You‘ll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You‘ll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
(end quote)
Of course, my sense of truth would have Kerry renouncing his Catholicism, and Christianity in general, so where would that leave his politcal fortunes?
Refocusing on what Kerry might have said: I would say Kerry is trying to discuss the subject at a much more detailed level than serves the purpose of winning a Pres. debate, which is just sad for a veteran office holder.
The Dawn Patrol
"Waxman Report Is Riddled with Errors and Inaccuracies"
In the same fashion that watching Newsmax (http://newsmax.com) provides a clear picture of the slime that Rightwingers are tossing, this posting at a blog After Abortion, whose authors seem to have an honest interest in pointing out harms and challenges for women and society relating to abortions, becomes a vehicle for crazy talk.
Waxman Report: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
After abortion
Waxman Report: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
After abortion
Yahoo! News - House Passes Sweeping Intelligence Reforms
Woo hoo!!!!
Glad we finally got the "structural weaknesses" fixed, aren't you.
Kean and Hamilton shoud be proud!
Wonder what is more scary: the idea that Kean and Hamilton believe the BS that they spew, or that they are knowing parts of the murder coverup.
Yahoo! News - House Passes Sweeping Intelligence Reforms
Readers: anybody have ideas about what actions can be taken to successfully protest against this mockery?
Glad we finally got the "structural weaknesses" fixed, aren't you.
Kean and Hamilton shoud be proud!
Wonder what is more scary: the idea that Kean and Hamilton believe the BS that they spew, or that they are knowing parts of the murder coverup.
Yahoo! News - House Passes Sweeping Intelligence Reforms
Readers: anybody have ideas about what actions can be taken to successfully protest against this mockery?
Rumsfeld; "You go to War with the Army You Have"
Billions and Billions are tapped, and this is the lame answer!
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth
What price an American Empire? Part Two Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire by Niall Ferguson, Penguin Press, 2004, ISBN 0-713-99615-3
Background Info.....
Reviewed Book captures True History of Imperialism?
Don't let the fact that it comes from the World Socialists Web Site spook you.
What price an American Empire? Part Two Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire by Niall Ferguson, Penguin Press, 2004, ISBN 0-713-99615-3
Reviewed Book captures True History of Imperialism?
Don't let the fact that it comes from the World Socialists Web Site spook you.
What price an American Empire? Part Two Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire by Niall Ferguson, Penguin Press, 2004, ISBN 0-713-99615-3
Mike Ruppert: 9-11 Saboteur
This posting links to a somewhat personal posting on the wingtv.net web site Link. My desultory remarks below:
1) Victor Thorn isn't the only Ruppert detractor within the 911 Movement.
2) This esculation to mudslinging takes away for a strong appeal to the public, but it a free country still to some extent. Victor was scorned by Ruppert, and he isn't taking it sitting down.
3) Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" is quite interesting and worth a read.
4) I don't think Ruppert represents some strong force to cover up the truth of 911. However, I don't think the peak oil argument Ruppert makes is the lynch pin to make sense of the murderous deeds of unknown agents behind 911 and other deadly crusades.
5) It does seem Ruppert is building his own empire-like organization to make a living from his background and efforts.
6) Since Thorn mentioned Catherine Austin Fitts, I'll make the comment that I'm not sure Ms. Fitts is a natural ally with Ruppert.
As with everything about the 911 story, it's hard to find answers to the many unanswered questions.
1) Victor Thorn isn't the only Ruppert detractor within the 911 Movement.
2) This esculation to mudslinging takes away for a strong appeal to the public, but it a free country still to some extent. Victor was scorned by Ruppert, and he isn't taking it sitting down.
3) Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" is quite interesting and worth a read.
4) I don't think Ruppert represents some strong force to cover up the truth of 911. However, I don't think the peak oil argument Ruppert makes is the lynch pin to make sense of the murderous deeds of unknown agents behind 911 and other deadly crusades.
5) It does seem Ruppert is building his own empire-like organization to make a living from his background and efforts.
6) Since Thorn mentioned Catherine Austin Fitts, I'll make the comment that I'm not sure Ms. Fitts is a natural ally with Ruppert.
As with everything about the 911 story, it's hard to find answers to the many unanswered questions.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Monday, December 06, 2004
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Friday, December 03, 2004
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Friday, November 26, 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties :: Disinformation :: The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness.
Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties :: Disinformation :: The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness.: "Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties"
NBC News producer Dan Abrams says Geneva convention should be discarded while killing Iraqi's.
IraqWar: All about IraqWar. News from Iraq: IraqWar and politics, economy.: "NBC News producer Dan Abrams says Geneva convention should be discarded while killing Iraqi's."
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes
Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes: "Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes"
ID card scheme unveiled by Queen
ID card scheme unveiled by Queen: "ID card scheme unveiled by Queen"
The Daily Howler: Taxes, Gonzlales
The Daily Howler: "GETTING TO YES: In Sundays Post, Alan Berlow offers a remarkable portrait of Alberto Gonzales, the president's attorney general nominee"
The Daily Howler: Taxes and Alberto Gonzales
The Daily Howler: "GETTING TO YES: In Sunday�s Post, Alan Berlow offers a remarkable portrait of Alberto Gonzales, the president's attorney general nominee"
ZNet |Iraq | Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair
ZNet |Iraq | Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair: "Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair "
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)