1.31.2004
Liberal Media? "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"-AJ Liebling
Remember Clear Channel? The radio conglomerate that owns 1200 radio stations across the US and was organizer and sponsor to pro-war, pro-Bush rallies? A business entity that gained it's clout through Republican led "media deregulation". They are the folks that control what new music you hear by playing favored artists and not giving others airtime. They are the reason your concert ticket prices have skyrocketed.
Just so you know," Texas native Maines said on stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines added she felt George W. Bush's foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world.
As the furor over the Dixie Chicks when Natalie Maines expressed their personal opinion illustrates, and Clear Channel's policy shows, through the mega-entities organization of CD burnings and pulling this top rated band from their station's playlists; politics and business are more important than serving the public.
Tom Hicks, Clear Channel's vice-chairman, is a past donor to Bush's political campaigning. The two were at the centre of a scandal when Mr Bush was governor and when Mr Hicks chaired a University of Texas investment board that awarded large investment-management contracts to several companies close to the Bush family - including the Carlyle Group, on whose payroll Mr Bush had been until weeks previously, and which still retains.
Mr Bush might have never made much money in the oil game, his investors losing millions but he sure did well his Texas Rangers investment.
When the group sold the team last year for $250 million, Bush's share was $14.9 million after an initial investment of a relatively modest half-million dollars. His handsome profit raised questions about whether his name had landed him a sweetheart deal.
Tom Hicks bought the Texas Rangers.
Well, Clear Channel doesn't support Conservatives across the board. Lifelong Conservative Charles Goyette, a fellow voted Republican "Man of the Year" in his county, a guy supported Golwater as a kid and spoke publicly for a speakers bureau promoting Reagans "Star Wars" defense initiative spoke aloud about the specious evidence used in this NeoCon rush to attack Iraq, on his "drivetime" talk radio show.
I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution?s division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer.
Mr Goyette was consigned to the 7-10 pm slot, losing the vast audience he had earlier commanded due to his principled stance against the policies of the present administration. He says that early on in the war he had letters coming to him (RealAudio Link) 4 to one against his views. Now they are 4 to one in favor. Much like the Dixie Chicks despite the early unpopularity of the truth he addressed the war issue with he was named Best Talk Show Host of 2003? by the Phoenix New Times.
Another Clear Channel radio personality, Roxanne Cordonier, who went by the name Roxanne Walker while working, was allegedly fired for her views on the Iraq War and is sueing her South Carolina Clear Channel employer . South Carolina has a state law against forbids employers from firing or penalizing employees who espouse un-popular political views in the work place. She states that her cohosts egged her on to participate in their pro-war on air discussions and belittled her both on and off air. She also alleges her employers forced her to attend Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies.
Cordonier, who was named the 2002 Radio Personality of the Year by the South Carolina Broadcasters Association, said she believes it's an employer's right to broadcast what it wants, but that it shouldn't stifle opposing views. "Either don't talk about it at all or make it fair," she said.
Something to think about as you hear the term "Liberal Media" bandied about, as these two radio personalities on two different ends of America suffered for their beliefs it leads one to wonder how many folded to the pressure of a pro-war employer and an audience, a citizenry led not to question the present administration's policies.
If you see the Bush administrations anti-drug ad hold in mind Mr Bush let America (and America's children) know he thinksthat drug addict Rush Limbaugh is a "Great American" . Let it remind you to turn to CNN and see the MoveOn ad that CBS wishes to hide "Child's Play".
edited for sccuracy. Thank you to Ms Walker
1/31/2004
|
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."-- President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
What is your worldview and vision for America comprised of? Do you see a nation that respects elders, children and workers, supplies jobs, sees adequate healthcare and a livable environment as important, as well as an affordable education that supplies the tools that make for good employees and citizens- an atmosphere of life based on fairplay and justice for all Americans? Or are you one of the few that supports a ruling class that utilizes lies and fear and divisiveness to their own ends as our nation and world suffers under the yoke of unthinking corporate greed, a police state administered by the few "for our own good" and their benefit.
Congressman Bernie Saunders talks about our national core values in an article entitled "We are the Majority". Give it a read. Our founding fathers had a vision well removed from the oligarchy of their day. The Revolution here was to divorce us from the values of a ruling elite passing power and wealth down family lines to the detriment of the people. This vision is one we share communally, not of an American playground for the ultra rich aristocracy, for a ruling class supported blindly by the powerless citizenry, but for a country based on decency, truth and progress. A vision for our nation in line with innate natural law based on human reason and what would now be called "Christian values" but are larger cross cultural mores millenium old based on respect for life, honesty and what could be called "common sense" or "civilization". A sense of right and wrong common among "We The People" but obviously lacking in our governmental representives, twisted by privilege and the influence of the monied few. Mr Saunders article is loaded with facts and figures as well as subtext pointing to the basic truth our Founding Fathers, our Grandparents, our parents taught us about. Never tell a lie. Market values are wrong, are limited, are without human ethics. Truth, courage and loyalty cannot be bought and sold, a commodity for the highest bidder. Life is sacred and worthy of respect. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
It's pretty simple really. TV can't get it across without being schmaltzy, it isn't sensational enough to be the news and it can't be packaged and sold; we are talking about everyday life.
Keep heart. We are the majority.
edited
1/31/2004
|
1.30.2004
There Will Be No Criticism of the Emperor During the Circus
"Given the Congressional Budget Office's acknowledgement of a $500 billion deficit from the Bush Administration for this year alone, it's more important than ever to have this issue in front of the public,?
Take a look at the ad CBS won't air. That's right, you'll see an ad from the White House, yet nothing from MoveOn.
Apparently, the network is more comfortable with dirty old men than innocent kids. The ads scheduled to run during the Super Bowl this Sunday will feature an abundance of senior pitchmen for Viagra, Levitra and Cialis, the Big Three of erectile dysfunction. Unwelcome on the same airwaves is a commercial called "Child's Pay."
Call CBS and let them know just what you think of their denial of Democratic ideals.
CBS Comment Line (212) 975-4321
Let MoveOn know that you called
CBS will advocate beer, junkfood and drugs to help erections along- but telling the truth about our shared fiscal future is taboo. Logically I guess one can say they are advocating Mr Bush and his administrations tax breaks for the richest Americans, their over-the-top deficit spending during a time of war, by their gagging of the ad. What are the folks at CBS afraid we'll learn?
The government's budget outlook deteriorated further on Monday as the Congressional Budget Office projected nearly $2.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, providing new fuel for an election-year battle over soaring federal shortfalls.
Oh, that's right, citizens supplied with factual information can draw intelligent conclusions. Armed with the truth all the rightwing OOHRAH looks like just what it is. A steaming pile of crap. Oh, right, there are toilet paper ads scheduled too.
Yesterday, Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders and 26 Washington lawmakers fired off a letter to CBS president Les Moonves, objecting to this slippery policy. The lawmakers said CBS seemed to be climbing into bed with the White House, just as all the TV networks are pleading for a major overhaul in federal broadcasting regulations.
From MoveOn:
This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of people who participate -- you can sign up here.
See you at CNN at halftime. They'll be showing the ad.
The Patriots should be comfortably ahead by then. : )
post reworked and titled
1/30/2004
|
A non-profit legal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is calling on the Bush White House
to have the White House Counsel investigate Mr Cheney's "confirmation" of leaked intelligence that purports a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Department of Defense has already stated that this information is inaccurate. Confirming leaked information is against the law.
Why would Vice President Cheney refer to innacurate, leaked information? Accurate information is what allows a Democracy to exist. Seems that question is our ongoing theme lately.
"Mr. Cheney's reference to classified information and the ensuing silence from the White House shows a distinct pattern: leaking classified information that the administration deems beneficial is Standard Operating Procedure," Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW said today.
"The deliberate delay in investigating the outing of Valerie Plame and the immediate investigation into an alleged leak by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill the morning after Mr. O'Neill's interview with 60 Minutes shows the contrast between investigations into leaks that help with President Bush's agenda and those that damage the administration's efforts."
John Dean says that the Valerie Plame leak was more vicious than anything his former boss, Richard Nixon did. Why is it that the Plame leak hasn't been found, but Paul O'Neill was jumped on right away? Go figure... Dean thinks a civil lawsuit would find the source of the leak, getting the investigation out of the hands of the Justice Department and the FBI- and getting it more free from Administration influence.
Speaking of the Plame leak, Symbolman of Take Back The Media was in the right place at the right time- a guy who called Robert Novak on his giving away the fact that Ms Plame was an undercover CIA Operative ( he called Novak "Traitor") slid across the ice outside the Merrimac Restaurant in Manchester NH where Novak assaulted him, right into our favorite flash animation creator.
Right place at the right time because the fellow could have cracked his head open on the ice without Symbolman's presence.
Over at Blah3 we get more details, including that Brad Carr, the person Novak attacked has filed a criminal assault complaint.
A Grand Jury is probing the Plame leak.
1/30/2004
|
Do you have the courage to stand by your core values? Or will you fold to the media generated hype.
I hear nothing about the candidates stands on the issues, but a lot about their campaign appearance, their style, listen, tell me if you hear about the substance of their campaign, even from their own mouths. Rhetoric yes, facts and figures, no.
Enter Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis Kucinich vows to keep running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. I found that although people like Mr Kucinich and find his vision for America consistent with their views his lack of media attention found them voting strategically.
Use the sidebar links to find out more about his plans to make America a revitalized place for all Americans.
Robert Kuttner touches on the fact that a populist candidate makes the monied interests in our country uncomfortable in this Boston Globe op/ed piece.
Finally, it's no surprise that elite media and other business-affiliated institutions make clucking sounds whenever Democratic candidates champion ordinary people and call for regulation and taxation of society's most powerful. But it is distressing to hear other Democrats, or well-intentioned media commentators, accepting that bogus framing of the real issue. "Populist" is sly epithet because it evokes an ugly history. In the American past, the term has been variously used to describe racists, antiforeigners, and know-nothings. But economic populism, in modern usage, means a politics of advancing the well-being of working- and middle-class Americans using the leverage of government policies. If the rhetoric occasionally gets hot, Bush and his corporate allies have richly earned it.
There's nothing "antigrowth" about insisting on a progressive tax system or a public policy that balances drug company profits against the public's health. In the glory years of the post-World War II boom, well-to-do Americans lived nicely with higher tax rates, and corporations did just fine despite tougher regulation. That regulation saved capitalism from its own excesses. And Wall Street might have been spared the carnage of 2000-2001 if tougher financial, accounting, and securities regulations hadn't been gutted in the 1990s (with Lieberman cheering on the repeal).
Nor is there anything radical about wanting the public sector to fund public education, universal health coverage, and decent child care.
Just in- Scott Ritter endorses Dennis Kucinich.
Also found at Mousemusings, this insightful article Dennis Kucinich and the Question By William Rivers Pitt
"He is the only candidate in this race hitting hard against NAFTA and the WTO. He is the only candidate promising, with details attached, to establish universal single-payer health care for everyone in America. He is the only candidate attacking the deranged nature of the bloated Pentagon budget, and has sworn an oath to clean that house to pay for his social programs. Drawing on the lessons of Vietnam, a conflict which dragged on because we were too proud to leave when we should have, he has crafted a detailed plan to get our troops home within 90 days. This, like the other policies, sets him apart. Through it all is a cry for the worker, the forgotten American worker, and the family, and the soul of the nation entire.
The ghost of FDR..." .
1/30/2004
|
1.29.2004
Domestic Dis-Information: Our Most Serious Threat
Short on time? Read the last quote offered in this piece. You'll see there is crucial information offered here.
As I offered in the post below, the mainstream media does not tend to give us all the information we need to adequately analyze the happenings of the day to make well reasoned assessments, information that is crucial to the exercise of Democracy. This lack of real information coupled with the lack of context we are offered with the facts we do get make accurately understanding our world a difficult endeavor, one that takes will and work.
The internet is a great tool for seeking understanding as well as for getting pertinent information out quickly. My best guess though, to effect the larger body of citizenry we need to also be active in the real world, in day-to-day life to make this tool really effective.
My thought is, that since you have stopped by, you must be looking into "the news" already; odds are you already see the Emperor has no clothes. Getting the truth out to our fellow Americans is crucial right now. A good place to start is to nip the thought that Mr Bush and his administration were merely the victims of "bad intelligence" in the bud.
My reading shows that this is not true. But you will not hear the truth on the evening news. This is where we come in.
I'd like to ask you to read up on the falsehood being reported that the intelligence community is to blame for the rush to
attack Iraq. The Center for American Progress is a great resource, I'd urge you to give it a look about this "intelligence matter". We were told that Iraq under Hussein was an imminent threat:This is about imminent threat." -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."-- President Bush, 7/2/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."-- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."-- President Bush, 10/2/02
No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
On January 26, 2003, CNN television asked White House communications director Dan Bartlett "is he (Saddam) an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"
"Well, of course he is," Bartlett replied.
On May 7, 2003, a reporter asked then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer: "We went to war, didn't we, to find these ? because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"
"Absolutely.
Here is a Whitehouse press briefing transcript from spokesman Scott McCllen ( who himself used the phrase "imminent threat")
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it's too late.
I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." Those were not words --
Q The President himself never used that word?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used. We used "grave and gathering threat." We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat, that it's important to confront gathering threats in this post-September 11th world, because of the new dangers and new threats that we face.
You'll note that the quote cited above where Mr McCllellan himself uses the phrase "imminent threat"is from a White House news release.
As the Center for American Progress points out, the words "immediate" and "grave" are both direct synonymns for the word imminent.
So the blame will be placed on the intelligence community to get the heat off the Bush administration.
Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. --Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, 9.16.01
As I have pointed out earlier there is a great deal of evidence that Dick Cheney did all he could to set up a backchannel
intelligence conduit that would help circumvent the use of conventional US intelligence sources such as the CIA and DIA.
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
further into the article
Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.
That telling excerpt from former CIA analyst Ray McGovern's article "Cheney, Forgery and the CIA: Not Business as Usual gives us a sense of how intelligence can be "cooked" to please an administration with a particular aim.
Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article about pre-war intelligence "The Stovepipe" reinforces this fact. There seems to have been a willing effort
by members of this administration yo get unvetted, that is, unverified intelligence into the White House. Unverified intelligence that you and I would hear in speeches and repeatedly on the news. Unverified intelligence that would cause the American public to support the Bush rush to war.
How did the American intelligence community get it so wrong?
Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government?s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.
Further on in the article
Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book ?The Threatening Storm? generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was ?dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
"They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information," Pollack continued. "They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn?t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information."
Take the time to read the article. You'll note that the names you read, Cheney, Bolton, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz are all involved with the PNAC, Neocons in the Bush administration with an agenda for dominance of both the world and space that began nearly a decade before the 911 tragedy.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, "In essence it's a call for an American empire, for what they call Pax Americana ... it's basically saying that the United States has to take responsibility and to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests."
The founding members included Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department; Richard Perle, head of the defence advisory board; Louis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control; and Elliot Cohen of the defence policy board.
This is what you need to know, straight from the PNAC itself, a paper dated September 2000 (pg 63): A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Where we come in is to get this information public. Letters to the editor, talk to your friends, mail out links. The computer is a tool. A tool is only as useful as it is employed. Do you hear/see this sort of substantive information in the mainstream media?
Be the media. Truth will enliven our Democracy and get our nation a new and elected President
1/29/2004
|
1.28.2004
WMD's and PNAC's
The "Mainstream" Media- a Weapon of Mass Deception?
Editor and Publisher points out that 13 large metropolitan dailies have featured editorials concerning statements made by David Kay about the lack of weapons of mass destruction. The majority of these blame failures in the systems of Intelligence.
I offer you the Boston Globe editorial "David Kay's Concession" and The Detriot Free Press editorial "Iraq Weapons". The Atlanta Journal Constitution asks for a nonpartisan commission to look into the actions of the Bush Administration and the intelligence community concerning the rush to pre-emptive war.
My reading gives me a sense that the intelligence resources of the White House are going to be the fall guy for this administration's falsehood based rush to war, in attempt to clear Mr Bush and Mr Cheney of their responsibility. Take a moment to read "The Lie Factory" to see how Mr Cheney circumvented the usual channels of intelligence ( I subscribe, the access code is mj1204) and brought unvetted "raw" intelligence into the Oval office. "The Intelligence Chain" give a graphic representation of how this all worked, keeping all the names and positions straight is easier with it's aid..
The New York Times weighs in with an editorial that to me points out Mr Cheney's unfitness for office- we find him yet again lying about a supposed mobile biological weapons lab found in Iraq, that as has been reported before was a hydrogen or rocket fuel manufacture lab. Mr Cheney asserts these lies, people hear them and some believe. Psy-Ops, the shaping of our citizen opinions opinions. Here is a quote that shows either the NY Times is a bit uninformed or just plain dishonest:
The vice president's myopia suggests a breathtaking unwillingness to accept a reality that conflicts with the administration's preconceived notions. This kind of rigid thinking helped propel us into an invasion without broad international support and, if Mr. Cheney is as influential as many say, could propel us into further misadventures down the road.
The Italics are mine. Mr Cheney wrote his Defense Planning Guidance Draft of late 1992 that clearly states the US should act unilaterally to preserve its' hegemony over the world and it's resources. Plain and simple. David Armstrong's "Dick Cheney's Song of America" gives the history of this ideas evolution, and points out the fact that Rumsfeld Wolfowitz and Powell also have had a hand in it. This administrations "preconcieved notions" are in accord with Mr Cheney alright, he helped to formulate them. Jeb Bush has a finger in the pie.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
A plan for an American attack on Iraq called for by the appointed "president to be's" future vice president and cabinet to be. And brother.
The New York Times has fact checkers and research departments with generous budgets, and you and I can be better informed with subscriptions to Harpers ( source of the "... Cheney Song of America")and Mother Jones magazines and an internet connection to access a search engine...
Go figure.
I wrote on the Cheney Iraq Intelligence connection earlier in the month, offering some pretty good links.
I have relied heavily on The Information Clearing House today, a one stop resource that posts these documents from their site. You should give the site a look over in your striving to stay wqell informed.Here is a Google search of all the PNAC info available there
We need to share what we learn widely. As The Times quote illustrates, either the mainstream media doesn't know the truth or they are lying. Think about who the advertisers in the Times want in office. Bet it is Bush and Cheney. Information is powerful. Let's get the truth mainstream.
1/28/2004
|
1.27.2004
I did my best...
My exit polling experience was good and affirming- despite the cold and people just rushing by. I met many dedicated folks from all camps and connected well with some special people. The actual collection of exit poll data by ballot was less successful. My method was to make eye contact, smile and then ask folks if they would like to participate. A large number of folks told me they had already completed CNN and/or Los Angeles Times polls CNN being two pages, while continuing on. A great many people had cell phones clamped to their heads as they headed for their cars.
4 Republican folks spoke with me, 3 Bush, one Clark/McCain write in.
Here is the text of my sign, (posted here yesterday) for clarity:
I am a freelance writer who publishes a weblog on the Internet.
I am conducting an informal exit poll and survey. In this age of media blitz and daily polls, "electability" and "anybody but Bush", the question I am exploring is whether people are voting for the candidate they are most aligned with, or choosing to cast their vote more strategically.
The survey is anonymous and takes less than 30 seconds to complete. Thank you to all who choose to participate. Stop by and see the results.
That final sentence followed by the web address.
The following was on the poll "ballot".
Which candidate is most closely aligned with your values and vision for our country?
Clark
Dean
Edwards
Kerry
Kucinich
Lieberman
And a parallel column asking: For which candidate did you cast your vote?
Followed again by the alphabetical list.
A disclaimer. The associate that generated the list and produced the 600 copies on card stock left out Reverend Al Sharpton from the list. I did not notice and was informed at mid-day by my associate of the blunder. I waited to get called on it; I admit it does make me look stupid, or worse. I apologize and take full responsibility for the oversight. No exit poll balloter complained. A press guy who was looking at my project did snap one ballot up; I asked why and he said he just wanted to have one. This is before I was made aware of the oversight.
Results
From just before 8 am until 6 pm saw me receive only 92 exit poll ballots.
Where the Candidate most closely aligned with ones vision was the one voted for:
Kerry 27
Dean 22
Edwards 10
Clark 7
Lieberman 6
Kucinich 0
Where the Candidate voted for was a strategic departure from the "closely aligned with your values and visions" candidate we see:
Clark gave no strategic votes away
Dean gives Kerry 3
Dean gives Clark 1
Edwards gives Clark 1
Edwards gives Dean 3
Edwards gives Kerry 2
Kerry gives 1 Lieberman
Kucinich gives Dean 3
Kucinich gives Edwards 2
Lieberman gives Edwards 1
Lieberman gives Kerry 3
One ballot had multiple candidates checked, "Heart with Kucinich" voted Kerry 1
Totals:
Kerry 36
Dean 28
Edwards 13
Clark 9
Lieberman 7
Kucinich
Asides:
Kerry folks wrote the most comments, mentioning his strength on women's issues, his presidential "resume'" , his perceived ability to "Beat Bush", the latter common themes.
Dean was next , "Faith in his vision", and "his vision" being the comments
Anyone but Bush was said to me a great many times.
1/27/2004
|
Met great people, really dedicated and mutually supportive. Got a sense that there would be 1400+ votes in my chosen precinct, an area that has a spread of rentals and middle class homes, some really nice ones too, ideally a good cross-section of the town.
Spoke with dedicated independent documentarians who are filming the NH primary. A good day.
It is good to see Democracy alive, speak with dyed in the wool Republicans- who are voting Democratic due to the state of our nation. To speak with folks worried about their childrens futures. To hear young kids say they are first time voters because they care about America, and are afraid for our collective future- not just the US, but of the world. People far flung and diverse complaining about the mainstream media and the lack of real information to base choices on.
I saw a caring conscious America today. Shook hands with them and shared hope. The present Administration seems to be catalyzing both the youth and the older voters, there are bunches of informed citizens unhappy with our present course of state. People who are taking the effort to look into the issues, the candidates. Many who are concerned about electronic "black box voting".
Many people have faith in their candidate, that our ( Bush opponents) numbers will see us through.
The people they know are unhappy with the present Administration, they feel we are a huge majority.
Let us keep getting the facts and truth into light. The monied interests and the collaboritive press are going to do their best to bamboozle us.
1/27/2004
|
1.26.2004
New Hampshire Primary
Tomorrow I will be doing an exit survey in my New Hampshire town. I'll ask the question "Which candidate is most closely aligned with your views?" And then ask which candidate did they actually vote for. I'd like to find out about the prevalence of strategic voting rather than voting from the heart.
Read the text of my sign:
I am a freelance writer who publishes a weblog on the Internet.
I am conducting an informal exit poll and survey. In this age of media blitz and daily polls, "electability" and "anybody but Bush", the question I am exploring is whether people are voting for the candidate they are most aligned with, or choosing to cast their vote more strategically.
The survey is anonymous and takes less than 30 seconds to complete. Thank you to all who choose to participate. Stop by and see the results.
It then gives the web address.
The "ballot" is composed of two alphabetical lists. There is room for commenting.
Should have my tabulation done and posted by 7pm.
1/26/2004
|
1.25.2004
Bush Administration Called To Task?
Good to see that the Democrats are calling the Bush Administration to claim responsibility for their war on Iraq based on their various claims that Iraq was an imminent threat due to it's supposedly active nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program.
Kerry was joined in his call for an investigation by other Democrats on the campaign trail who are vying for the chance to beat President Bush in November.
The Neocon influence on intelligence to make it "fit" their aims is something we have spoken about here many times, and the truth is getting mainstream.
Cheney and his most senior aide reportedly made multiple trips to the CIA before the war to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs. Cheney has denied his visits were intended to pressure analysts into making assessments fit the administration policy objective of ousting Saddam.
Mr Powell is no longer sure about the existence of the banned weapons in Iraq. While sightsseing in Rome a reporter asked Dick Cheney about Mr Powells less cocksure stance on the weapons:
The vice president stopped briefly for photographers as he was greeted at the museum entrance, but headed inside when a reporter asked if he had any reaction to Secretary of State Colin Powell's weekend statement that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had banned weapons of mass destruction before the US-led invasion.
"Nice to see you all," Cheney said as he headed into the museum, the first stop on a day of sightseeing.
Let justice be served.
Get a copy of 'Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war" by Robert Greenwald
If you haven't noticed, the Administration has changed it's phraseing about the weapons:
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities
An instructive introduction to Mr Bush's lies concerning Iraq has been compiled by Steve Perry, read "Bring 'Em On!
The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies About War and Terrorism".
1/25/2004
|
Just some scattered thoughts.
I've been trying to grasp the implications of the US trade deficit with China, coupled with the fact that China is financing the Bush driven record US budgetary deficit.
One simple basis for that Bush boom is that China is recycling its US$100 billion-plus trade surplus with the US back into dollars, and especially into US Treasury bonds. Almost half of the US Treasury bonds are now owned in Asia. So China is financing Bush's bold economic experiment: running two or more wars simultaneously with a huge budget and trade deficit, and equally huge tax handouts for the richest Americans.
This gives China leverage over US foreign policy.
One has to question the long-term economic rationale for China of putting its long-term assets into very low-interest bonds in a currency that has already dropped recently by a third - and is going to drop even more. It certainly makes strategic sense: if push came to shove over, for example, the Taiwan Strait, all Beijing has to do is to mention the possibility of a sell order going down the wires. It would devastate the US economy more than any nuclear strike the Chinese could manage at the moment.
World trade is forcasted to rise
The UN also forecast a significant increase in world trade - from 4.7 per cent in 2003 to 7.5 per cent in 2004.
The UN said "the US remained the locomotive of growth in the developed economies". They cited strong consumer spending and said improving corporate profits and higher stockmarket prices "have laid foundations for further growth of business investment and for an improvement of employment into 2004".
The profits of US based multinationals grow whether the jobs created by "free trade" are in the US or not, moreso where wages are low of course, where benefits are non-existent. The lower the wage scale, the higher the profits to be realized. More profitability brings the stock price up, of course, signaling economic recovery to the uninitiated. You tell me though, if a car made in Mexico costs the US consumer the same as one made in the US, who profits? The loss of a US wage earner's taxes paid into the economy costs us plus the multiplier effect of the workers spending in the local economy is immense.
Contracting jobs overseas is 'simply the latest manifestation of free trade', a top White House economic aide said in defence of a practice used by American companies.
'Public policy needs to help workers find new jobs, not retreat from the principles of free trade that have benefited the US and economies around the world,' Greg Mankiw, chairman of President George W Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said in a question-and-answer forum on the White House web site.
When trying to research the numbers of "Overseas relocation separations" from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics I recieved a message that the figures where currently unavailable. "Overseas relocation layoff" figures do not exist I am told.
Just what allows the US to be "the locomotive for growth in developed economies?"
As I have mentioned here before, US personal debt is at an all time high, as are personal bankruptcies.
According to the latest figures from the Federal Reserve, America's consumer debt has topped $2 trillion for the first time, continuing what debt experts view as an alarming surge in recent years.
To some, the nation's consumer debt, which dwarfs that of any other country, represents the kind of "bubble" that the stock market grew into during the 1990s.
There is some doubt about the Bush handling of the US economy:
Billionaire financier George Soros criticized U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy and said the administration's economic plan will cause a ``boom in 2004 and bust in 2005.''
Soros said the effect of policies that stimulated growth, including $1.7 trillion of tax cuts to fuel demand, won't last beyond this year's presidential election. The U.S. economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter
If any of you have some links to help me understand the China/US economic connection, please send them my way.
1/25/2004
|
|
|
