Dan Rather speaks out

Fellow blogger Richard posted some recent comments from Dan Rather on the state of "journalism" today. A sample:

Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, [Rather] said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."

He said this pressure -- along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics -- has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said.

More on Rick's blog...

What the fuck is the deal with conservatives, anyway?

What exactly are these people on? Whatever it is, I want some:

The Right Vote

IT SHOULDN'T BE necessary to write in praise of the three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who this week voted in committee to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States. Supporting overwhelmingly qualified members of the opposite party for the Supreme Court used to be the norm, not an act of courage. Yet, set against the general opposition from Democrats to the nomination, and truly intense pressure from interest groups, the votes cast by ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Wisconsin's Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold took guts. Their votes ensure that Judge Roberts will not take the helm of the judiciary perceived as the representative of only one party, and they guarantee that at least some Democrats -- albeit sadly few -- will have the moral authority to demand Republican support for qualified liberal nominees in the future.

The larger Democratic opposition to Judge Roberts represents a disturbing departure from longtime Senate practice. [emphasis added]

Bwaahahahahahaha! Oh, that's a good one. But they carry the humor too far:

Of the current members of the court, only Justice Clarence Thomas had substantial opposition.

Do I smell a bit of weaseling here? They cleverly sweep the GOP stonewalling of Clinton's lower court nominees under the rug by selectively limiting their example to the Supreme Court. They also seem to have forgotten the name "Bork" for some reason. The point being, there is nothing new about voting against a court nominee. This game has been going on for something like two decades now, so calling it a "departure from longtime Senate practice" is ridiculous.

But wait--there's more:

In refusing to support an indisputably qualified conservative, Democrats send a message that there is a strongly partisan component of the task of judging -- something those who believe in independent, apolitical courts must reject.

Right. They openly refer to Roberts as a "conservative" nominee, and then accuse the Democrats of partisanship simply for opposing him?

What the hell is the deal with conservatives, anyway? Why do they, time and time again, project their own evils onto the opposition? Do they even realize they are doing it? Or is it all part of their secret Dalek Masterplan?

Unintelligent design

Friend and fellow blogger Adam speaks out on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate.

I found this particularly startling (originally quoted from here):

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution. A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

We are fucked. Just plain fucked.

Can I move to Canada please?

Dear Red States

The following is apparently making the rounds via e-mail. Author unknown. I found it posted by Glenn H on the Drive We Said beta site, and found it too choice to not post here:

Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes: Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nueva California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Peace out,Blue States

My only quarrel with this is the idea of calling it "New California." Perhaps they would consider "New Wisconsin?" Heh. ;)

Also, I hasten to add that Jim Sensenbrenner's congressional district can feel free to stay behind with the red states. We don't need a nutjob like him in our lovely new country. ;)

From Me to the New York Times: Kiss My Ass.

Starting in two days, on September 19, access to "influential columnists" at the New York Times online edition will be limited to people dumb enough to pay $50 a year for a "Times Select" subscription. Oh, yes, there's a $10/year discount for early subscribers. Big deal. Whoop dee doo.

People can argue that the New York Times is a for-profit endeavor and that they therefore have every right to charge money for their content.

But that is not the point. The point is that they are now charging money for something that, up until now, has been free, even though they have no financial need to do so. This is known as "greed." I quote the definition of greed:

"An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

An alternate definition is,

"excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)."

This makes it pretty clear, doesn't it? Greed has long been recognized as a social ill. Yet, in modern American society, this fundamental moral fact has been deliberately pushed under the rug, in the name of "growth" and the free market--indeed, even in the name of "freedom" itself, as if having a small number of people hoarding ridiculous amounts of wealth for their own personal use somehow miraculously enhances "freedom" for everyone. Charging every penny the market will bear is not just perfectly acceptable behavior in modern capitalist America--it's the basis for our entire corporate economic system.

It's no wonder this world is so completely fucked up.

In any case, getting back to the "Times Select"--their primary selling point, apparently, is the access subscribers will have to "influential columnists". I wonder if anyone at the Times stopped to consider precisely why these columnists are influential in the first place. Influence occurs when one person's opinion carries weight with a large number of people. Cut off access to those people, and the person's influence is reduced or eliminated. Their "influential columnists" will no longer be influential. How many people will be able to read Paul Krugman's column now, for example? And what effect will this have on his influence? At worst, we will no longer hear what he has to say at all. At best, we can expect to only hear him quoted by other people who do have access to his column. How am I to know that these quotes are being presented in good faith? I will no longer be able to read the entire column for myself. I will just have to trust the quoter that the essence of Krugman's words are being represented faithfully. And that is ridiculous. In neither case will Krugman be in a position to directly influence me anymore, nor anyone else who doesn't subscribe to this stupid pay service. Krugman's opinion, as well as that of all their other "influential columnists," will now be under the control of others. Perhaps that, and not greed, is the ultimate point? I doubt it--I honestly believe the primary motivation is pure greed. But I also doubt the people who made the decision are unaware of the chilling effect their decision will have in the competitive realm of ideas. I imagine they're a-okay with it, because, by taking control of the columnists' ideas, they are in turn increasing the influence of their own ideas.

"Failure"

Hee! I was planning on skipping the blogging thing today, but this is too good to pass up.

Doing a Google search on the word "failure" yields a top result of "Biography of President George W. Bush." It's even the official biography on the White House website! Hilarious!

You might also be curious as to what the 2nd place result is. It is "Welcome to MichaelMoore.com." So those on the right have been having their fun too.

Of course, those results are pretty dynamic, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them turn out differently in as little as a day or so. Especially if word gets around about this in Freeperville...

An open letter to Senate Democrats

I am not sure where the original of this is located, so I am regrettably unable to provide a link. However, this sums things up pretty well, with respect to the Democratic Party's snivelling cowardice:

Posted to Mark Crispin Miller's mailing list:

An Open Letter to Senate Democrats

September 8, 2005

The most costly natural disaster in our country's history will play out in the political arena for years to come. We've already seen how the Bush administration intends to deal with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina: blame the Democrats, blame the victims, keep the media from showing any more bodies and muddle through until the heat is off. Perhaps FEMA Director Michael Brown will get the sack, but no one else will pay a price.

This is totally unacceptable. I expect accountability and I expect you to deliver it.

I've been a Democrat for 40 years, served my country in the Navy and pay my taxes. I have watched you let my party and my country down time after time.

In 2001, not one of you stood with the delegation of Black House members pleading for justice in the rigged 2000 Presidential election in Florida. Not one.

Following the attacks of 9/11, only one of you voted against the Patriot Act, a piece of pernicious legislation with chilling, and predictably awful implications for our Constitutional freedoms.

I've watched you vote in favor of a costly and brutal war based on lies. I've watched as Bush steamrolled you with tax cuts for the rich; with prescription drug reform that benefits the pharmaceutical industry; with bankruptcy reform geared toward the wishes of the banking industry; with energy legislation that does nothing about our long-term needs.

In short, I've watch Bush and the Republicans walk all over you. I'm sick of it. In the aftermath of Katrina, you have your last chance to stand up and do the right thing - to stand up and say, "Enough. No more."

No more tax cuts, no more corporate welfare, no more no-bid deals. It's time for accountability. The Bush administration is the most corrupt, venal and immoral government we've had in my lifetime. If you do not hold them accountable at long last for their perfidy, I am through with you.

It may not seem like much of a threat; I am a contributor, though not a wealthy man. But I represent something much more important: your base. And if you allow Bush and his pals to get away with their utterly appalling neglect of our citizens and our security, I will leave the Democratic Party and I will make a point of taking everyone I can with me.

Do your damned job. Serve the American people.

Rodger French

That one Senate Democrat to vote against the Patriot Act was my own Senator, Russ Feingold, the only elected official with whom I've ever been more than 90% satisfied. His sole mistake, as far as I know, was approving the nomination of John Ashcroft. I'm sure there have been one or two other things, as well, but that's not bad at all, considering he is now in his third term.

In any case, props to Andrea L. at Drive We Said for locating the above letter and posting it there.

One interesting thing that was pointed out elsewhere on that forum is that, if this had happened in Canada, it would be fairly easy to dispose of the entire government. Whereas, in the United Fucking States, the best we could hope for would probably be to get rid of Dubya, in which case we'd be stuck with Dick Cheney as President. And if we also got rid of him, then we'd be stuck with Dennis Hastert. There is no way, under the United States Constitution, to legally deal with this level of incompetance and corruption in the government. This, my friends, is why the 2nd Amendment was drafted. Although, quite honestly, I'd like to see the system work the way it's supposed to work, so the people of America don't have to resort to more drastic measures.

Police fire upon fleeing hurricane victims

The linked article is fairly long, but I recommend reading it all. Just a sample:

Hurricane Katrina - Our Experiences

As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.

We questioned why we couldn't cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little traffic on the 6-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City. These were code words for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans.

Our small group retreated back down Highway 90 to seek shelter from the rain under an overpass. We debated our options and in the end decided to build an encampment in the middle of the Ponchartrain Expressway on the center divide, between the O'Keefe and Tchoupitoulas exits. We reasoned we would be visible to everyone, we would have some security being on an elevated freeway and we could wait and watch for the arrival of the yet to be seen buses.

And this:

Our little encampment began to blossom. Someone stole a water delivery truck and brought it up to us. Let's hear it for looting! A mile or so down the freeway, an army truck lost a couple of pallets of C-rations on a tight turn. We ferried the food back to our camp in shopping carts. Now secure with the two necessities, food and water; cooperation, community, and creativity flowered. We organized a clean up and hung garbage bags from the rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We designated a storm drain as the bathroom and the kids built an elaborate enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken umbrellas, and other scraps. We even organized a food recycling system where individuals could swap out parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!).

This was a process we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina. When individuals had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself only. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids or food for your parents. When these basic needs were met, people began to look out for each other, working together and constructing a community.

If the relief organizations had saturated the City with food and water in the first 2 or 3 days, the desperation, the frustration and the ugliness would not have set in.

Flush with the necessities, we offered food and water to passing families and individuals. Many decided to stay and join us. Our encampment grew to 80 or 90 people.

From a woman with a battery powered radio we learned that the media was talking about us. Up in full view on the freeway, every relief and news organizations saw us on their way into the City. Officials were being asked what they were going to do about all those families living up on the freeway? The officials responded they were going to take care of us. Some of us got a sinking feeling. "Taking care of us" had an ominous tone to it.

Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, "Get off the fucking freeway". A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his truck with our food and water.

Once again, at gunpoint, we were forced off the freeway. All the law enforcement agencies appeared threatened when we congregated or congealed into groups of 20 or more. In every congregation of "victims" they saw "mob" or "riot". We felt safety in numbers. Our "we must stay together" was impossible because the agencies would force us into small atomized groups.

In the pandemonium of having our camp raided and destroyed, we scattered once again. Reduced to a small group of 8 people, in the dark, we sought refuge in an abandoned school bus, under the freeway on Cilo Street. We were hiding from possible criminal elements but equally and definitely, we were hiding from the police and sheriffs with their martial law, curfew and shoot-to-kill policies.

Tell me again why I'm supposed to love America?

I've been seeing a lot of really remarkable accounts from survivors of this disaster. These accounts really, really need to be compiled and saved somewhere. Of course, this sort of compilation would probably violate the DMCA (how convenient for Big Media that the DMCA makes it easier for them and only them to write the history of our times). But, frankly, I am beyond giving a fuck about that. There are more important things than looking out for the property rights of crybaby media corporations who can easily find other ways to make their precious billions.

Hurricanes

In my last post, I had wanted to include some information about how busy this hurricane season has been, compared to previous years, but I ended up removing that part due to lack of hard data. This morning, I just happened to find an article that has precisely the sort of statistics I was looking for:

Season could break records

Just a week into September -- typically the most active month for tropical activity -- the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has already seen 15 named storms, six of which reached hurricane strength with winds of at least 74 mph. Four of those became major hurricanes, with sustained winds of at least 111 mph.

According to the National Hurricane Center, the averages for a hurricane season are 10 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes. Those numbers have already been met or exceeded this season, which doesn't end until November 30.

The largest number of named storms ever recorded was 21 in 1933, a record that will be broken if just seven more storms develop in the next 12 weeks. And if that happens, the hurricane center will run out of names for the first time since it adopted the system of assigning names to storms in 1953.

The letters Q, U, X, Y and Z aren't used, because few names begin with those letters, so the 21st and last name on this year's hurricane list is Wilma. After that, Greek letters will be used to designate storms, beginning with Alpha.

According to the hurricane center, the largest number of hurricanes ever recorded in the Atlantic was 12 back in 1969. The largest number of major hurricanes was eight in 1950.

Global warming models predict a larger number of stronger storms each year (on average) as ocean waters get warmer, with the total number of storms staying roughly the same (due to some non-heat-related limitations on storm formation). The data above gives no indication of whether this is actually happening, but it is interesting, nonetheless.