Monday, March 31, 2008

"The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan"


Regardless of whether I was supporting Hillary in the primaries or not (in case you didn't know, I am), I still would have seen the way in which voters in MI and FL have been treated as utterly deplorable. Unfortunately, most people don't realize (1) how badly the DNC has handled the situation and (2) the extent to which Barack Obama's Campaign has tried to avoid resolving the problem. Don't get me wrong here -- I think Hillary would have done the exact same thing if she were in his position. But as things stand, she wasn't and Barack was, and I sincerely believe his action in this regard is more despicable than anything Hillary has done in her campaign.

Let's talk about the DNC for a moment though. Wayne Barrett has an interesting article over at Huffington Post on how we owe it to the Republican leaders in those MI and FL for starting this whole primary date fiasco. Of course, it's not technically an "untold" story as the title suggests, for much of the information has been out there for months. However, it is "untold" in the sense that most people don't care about voter disenfranchisement, and therefore don't care to hear about what's really happening in these two states. (So much for democracy, I suppose.)

Here are some of Barrett's opening remarks on the situation:
Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean came out of hiding last week to announce that there is no reason to rush to resolve the fate of Florida and Michigan. He said he was confident that these delegations, disqualified in 2007 by Dean's own Rules Committee, would be seated at the August convention -- but, apparently, only after a nominee is chosen, which he predicted would occur by July 1. This modern-day Metternich, whose two-fisted handling of this two-state controversy has already had more impact on the 2008 race than his candidacy did on the race in 2004, is promising to mediate the dispute once it's already settled.

The Dean plan is that these two swing states -- big enough to decide the nomination or general election -- will eventually be granted "virtual" seats at the convention because, as Dean imaginatively put it in an AP interview, "the campaigns believe that kind of deal is premature right now." Since one campaign (Hillary Clinton's) was amenable to redoes, even financing Michigan's, and the other campaign (Barack Obama's) opposed every feasible proposition, it is, in a strange way, true that the two sides weren't collectively ready for a deal.
And some more...
If that sounds like a curious way to end a nominating contest that 30 million to 33 million voters will participate in before it's done, even stranger is that the DNC is following only some of its rules -- and that the real culprits who caused this debacle are Republicans, who are now relishing the catfight they provoked...

The Republican role is not some irrelevant anecdote. The DNC is charged, under its rules, to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a "good faith" effort to abide by the party's electoral calendar, and to impose the full weight of its available penalties, namely a 100 percent takedown of a state's delegation, only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved. So the fact that it was Republicans who fomented the move-up of primaries in both these states to dates out-of-line with the DNC calendar is at the heart of the matter.

The rules also demand that the DNC's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct "an investigation, including hearings if necessary" into these matters. The purpose of such a probe is to figure out if Democratic leaders in a state that did move up "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith" to either "achieve legislative changes" to bring a state into compliance or to "prevent legislative changes" that took a state out of compliance. A DNC spokesman could not point to any real "investigation" the party conducted of the actions of "relevant Democratic party leaders or elected officials," as the rules put it. All that happened with Florida, for example, was that two representatives of the state party made a pitch for leniency immediately before the Rules Committee voted for sanctions.

What a probe might have discovered was a rationale for doing, at worst, what the RNC did to its own overeager primary schedulers in the same two states -- cutting the delegations by half. That's precisely the penalty specified in DNC rules, but the committee, exercising powers it certainly had the legal discretion to exercise, upped the ante as far as it could. In a bizarre reversal of public policy, the RNC, surely aware that the principal miscreants in both states were Republicans, applied a sane yet severe sanction. The Democrats opted for decapitation.

The presumption of much of the national coverage about Michigan, to start with, has been that the Dems did this one to themselves -- a presumption based, in large part, on Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's endorsement of a January 15 vote, a date far ahead of the anticipated February 9 primary. All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was sign a bill. The bill originated in a Republican-controlled Senate and passed by a 21-to-17 straight party-line vote -- with every Democrat casting a no vote.

Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is, like Granholm, seen as a prime player behind the state's acceleration of the primary calendar. But Crist isn't half the Florida story; Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush protégé who runs the nearly 2-to-1 Republican Florida House, drove that bill through the legislature like it was a tax cut limited by law to top GOP donors.

Indeed, the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no-man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats...
Read the rest (i.e. the "details") for yourself.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Concerning the title...


In case anyone is curious as to the inspiration behind the title of my blog, the sources are plentiful, so let me just name a few. To begin, there are those famous ancient statements of which many will recall:

"Know thyself" ~Delphic Oracle

"The unexamined life is not worth living" ~Socrates (The Apology)

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" ~Socrates (The Apology)

"I do not understand my own actions." ~Paul of Tarsus (Letter to the Romans)

"I have been made a question unto myself." ~Augustine of Hippo (Confessions)

But perhaps most significant are the more recent reflections of the postmodernists with their valuable explorations of the limits of reason and knowledge, both in regards to our own "selves" and in relation to what many in the 20th century have described as the mysterious "other", i.e., everything from other humans, the world around us, all that is not our momentary conscious thoughts, and even the divine. In this regard, though some of them have expressed dislike for the label "postmodern" (or never lived long enough to even hear of it), the following thinkers have all deeply influenced my thought: Ernst Cassirer, Carl Jung, Eric Voegelin, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Paul Ricoeur, and John D. Caputo.

And so, here I am, continuing to strive for understanding and the betterment of both myself and those around me, yet through it all life never ceases to be a mystery and (surprise, surprise) I too remain a mystery unto* myself.

*I would have gone with "to" but that domain name was taken, so I had to use the more archaic (and perhaps more pretentious sounding) "unto".

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most dirty and negative of them all?


Big Tent Democrat, a longtime supporter of Barack Obama who isn't afraid to also criticize his candidate of choice, has an excellent assessment of the negative politics in this election season over at Talk Left, titled "Why The Obama/Clinton Rules Led Us To This Rough Campaign":
When the Media and the Left blogs deplore the negativity of the Democratic presidential campaign, especially from the Clinton campaign, they ignore that they are a major reason why it has happened. Why? Because they attack the Clinton campaign no matter what it does while ignoring or defending every negative attack and questionable tactic of the Obama campaign.

The examples are legion. There is not an ounce of doubt that it was the campaigns challenging Hillary Clinton last fall that first engaged in negative attacks. The Media and some of the Left blogs were imploring the Barack Obama campaign to do that and certainly not a single word of reproach was written about it.

Led by Tim Russert and Brian Williams in the October 2007 debate, and followed eagerly by the entire NBC network and many Left blogs, the attacks on Hillary Clinton, especially on her character, were applauded on a daily basis. More.

I criticized the character attacks and dirty politics. I was quite alone in this at the time. (I dropped my endorsement of Chris Dodd as a result.) And Clinton suffered because of these personal attacks against her. To wit, Barack Obama was rewarded for his dirty politics last Fall.

The Obama/Clinton rules were in full flower in the run up to New Hampshire. The Media and some Left blogs led the charge - cheering negative attacks on Clinton, attacking and distorting the Clinton campaign's responses and attacking her for trumped charges of negative campaigning. They were ready to dance on Hillary Clinton's political grave.

Since then the rules have been locked in. No matter what happens or is said - to NBC and to some Left blogs, Hillary is evil and Obama is without sin. The coverage of the Nevada at large district issue led to the most ludicrous charges of "disenfranchisement" from the Media and some Left bloggers.

Then, expecting Clinton to be knocked out in Texas, NBC and some Left blogs were bitterly disappointed and argued Clinton should drop out even though she won both Ohio and Texas (some even float the idea that the Texas caucus results were the true contest in Texas, rather than what they were - proof positive that caucuses disenfranchise voters.)

Indeed, disenfranchisement now becomes the key guiding principle of some Obama supporters - they support it at every turn. My own personal anger is tied up in the attitudes about the Michigan and Florida revotes. Everyone knows that Barack Obama blocked revotes in Florida and Michigan. No one outside of Michigan and Florida seems to care.

Let me put it bluntly, the dirtiest politics practiced in this campaign was Barack Obama's blocking of the Michigan and Florida revotes. There is nothing uglier in politics, nothing dirtier, than blocking voters' chances to vote. The stain on Barack Obama for this will not wash away with me. (BTW, I am not saying Clinton would not have done the same thing, I THINK she would have. But she did not.) Especially since I believe it would have helped Obama in the general election.

The Clinton campaign realizes that no matter what they do, they will be declared evil. They realize that no matter what Obama does, he will be declared a saint. In such an environment, both the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign will feel no restraint to their behavior.

The Media and some of the Left blogs have created this climate. Pols are pols and do what they do. I expect nothing else from them. I once expected honest assessments from some in the Media and from most in the Left blogs. I no longer do. Clearly neither do the campaigns.

If the headlines and coverage do not change no matter what is done by the campaigns, then you can not expect the headlines and coverage to matter to the campaigns in terms of tactics. For all those in the Media and in the Left blogs deploring the negativity of the campaign, I suggest they look in the mirror for the main culprits.
Personally, I think he's spot on concerning two of the main points: (1) the major role of the media and many Left bloggers in tolerating and even encouraging and helping in the negative politics from other candidates long before Hillary started using her own so-called "kitchen sink" tactics, and (2) how "the dirtiest politics practiced in this campaign was Barack Obama's blocking of the Michigan and Florida revotes".

And I should note that in saying this, by no means do I mean to suggest that I approve of Clinton's negative attacks.

Agree? Disagree?

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Corporate welfare is one of our biggest problems...


Here's a clip from an excellent interview of David Cay Johnston by Bill Moyer on the current state of "corporate welfare" in the United States:



Johnston is a reporter for the New York Times (though he won't be there much longer) and Pullitzer Prize winner "for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms."

In the interview above, you get a glimpse at how professional sports as a whole make their profits entirely off of government subsidies, how George W. Bush (a man who gloats about his tax cuts) actually made his money off of the people by raising taxes, how corporations like Wal-Mart and Cabellas get major tax breaks and subsidies from the government, and finally, how in the midst of all of this, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Plus, this isn't just a problem with Republicans either -- sadly, most Democrats have gone corporate as well.

See the full interview and transcript here.

Many of Johnston's points are more fully documented in his two popular books, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else (2003) and Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With The Bill (2007).

Much of the information is available online as well, if you know where to look, and I'll do my best to post on some of the resources backing up Johnston's claims in the weeks to come. For now though, if you remain unconvinced, feel free to just express your outrage at the possibility that what he says is indeed true.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Guillermo and Matt Damon


So, I just realized that there were a couple additional confrontations between Jimmy Kimmel and Matt Damon, both involving Jimmy's parking lot security guard turned talk show personality Guillermo Díaz -- really funny stuff folks!

I've added them to my original post below in case you want to see them.

Enjoy!

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Nader

Ralph Nader on the Daily Show:



Friday, March 7, 2008

Jimmy Kimmel, Matt Damon, and more...


Let my just say that I've never been a fan of Jimmy Kimmel, nor do I ever watch his show. That being said, this ongoing bit between him and Matt Damon, along with his girlfriend Sarah Silverman, Ben Affleck and countless other celebrities, is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

It all started back on 2006 when Jimmy Kimmel kept jokingly bumping Matt Damon on his show, only to finally really do it with Matt Damon in person:



Then not much happened until the following summer when Kimmel had his former parking lot security guard turned talk show personality Guillermo Díaz offer to interview Matt Damon at a red carpet event for the premiere of Ocean's Thirteen:



Later on in the summer Kimmel would strike again via Guillermo just before the release of Damon's new movie, The Bourne Ultimatum:



Things cooled off for a while until January 31, 2008, when Matt Damon got payback with Jimmy's girlfriend Sarah Silverman:



Jimmy got his own revenge on Matt several weeks later with his lifelong friend Ben Affleck and an all-star cast of celebrities (my favorite appearances are Brad Pitt, Robin Williams, Josh Groban, and Harrison Ford):



I thought the Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart fiasco over who really made Huckabee was good, but this series is great!

Saturday, March 1, 2008

War on Greed


Robert Greenwald is at it again with a great new documentary project called "War on Greed" that takes a look at the private equity buyout industry, how it works and how it finds loopholes in the tax system (loopholes that need badly fixed!) so as to make out like bandits. The following video is actually a playlist of five, all of which are good, but I especially recommend the third one, titled "Henry Kravis makes $51,369 PER HOUR":



Learn more about Henry Kravis and other borrow-and-buyout corporations here.