November 2006 Archives
If you undertand the arrogance and/or excesses of either Microsoft or professional sports teams, you'll enjoy this article from The Register. MS is rolling out Vista in Europe at Arsenal's new stadium, and The Reg couldn't resist having a bit of fun with that:
Microsoft chose the Arsenal FC football stadium in North London for the UK business launch of Vista, Office 2007 and the new Exchange. Tick the boxes - much anticipated, looks great, so many more features including state of the art security, but takes up so much more real estate than the original and has been dogged by political interference from the start. Could be any stadium anywhere in the world.And yes, that pretty much sums up things for Microsoft’s new big box of software.
It's a hoot, go read the rest...
Debra J. Dickerson asks an interesting question in her recent Salon article, "Souls on ice":
Is it just me, or did we learn an awful lot of things we'd all much rather we not have about the black view of religion and its role in society in the last election cycle?
I don't know if it's just you, Ms. Dickerson, but the two aspects of Black religion in the US that concern you, homophobia and sleazy preachers, have both been around for a long time.
Homophobia first. Use of the term "down low" or "on the down low" to refer to secret homosexual behavior has a long history in the African-American community, so it's not like the concept of gay black men is any surprise. Southern Baptists of all colors tend to hold similar beliefs on the subject of homosexuality: teh Godless Homos are going to burn in the lake of fire.
Dickerson is incredibly condescending to black voters in her metaphor of the 1944 film "Lifeboat":
There could hardly be a better metaphor than "Lifeboat" for blacks' role in politics as it existed until recently. But with the GOP's newly launched effort to win the black vote, the pastoral view of both the piety and humanity of blacks (more Protestant than the Puritans and ennobled by oppression) may well, if the religious left keeps twiddling its thumbs, dissolve before America's eyes and take the electorate in directions no one ever contemplated. At a minimum, the understanding of blacks as victims either exalted or emasculated by their suffering will be ... let's just say, modified.
Dickerson argues that Democrats who disrespect the black community may become vulnerable to the latent, overwhelming homophobia of that community, as Southern Baptist blacks rise up against teh Godless Homos. But she shoots her own argument down because she acknowledges that black voters have more sense than that:
...Indeed, it turns out that rank-and-file blacks may exhibit a political complexity and potential for growth that their leaders don't: While two-thirds of blacks oppose, and voted against, same-sex unions, they also believe that the Democrats will handle the issue better than the GOP. And they voted accordingly: The black percentage of the Democratic vote remains virtually unchanged. Fifty-six percent of conservative Virginia's blacks voted to ban same-sex marriage, but only 15 percent went on to vote for Republican George Allen.
Black voters have more common sense, indeed. The component of the black community that unfortunately doesn't share that common sense is the preachers. They fan the flames of black homophobia because they can be easily bought.
Back in the 1970s, when my momma was a school principal in suburban New Orleans, she would be regularly be visited by black ministers who were "looking out" for their flock as the children were bused into all-white neighborhoods and schools under court order. When one of these guys would overstep his authority, all it took was a phone call to someone with the ear of a white politician who regularly donated money to the black community through that preacher, and he'd back off. The white politicians would literally buy the endorsements of black clergy. The strategy became known as "buying revs." There's nothing new about this at all. At a time when one white politician wasn't all that much different from another, this system was very lucrative for the preachers. The current-day GOP has institutionalized this strategy through BushCo's "faith-based initiative." It's just "buying revs" on a grand scale--pump the cash to the preachers and they sing your tune. Because they're some of the most vocal spokespersons in the black community, many truly believe that they speak for their congregations.
Dickerson sees this as an overall threat to the notion that bloc-voting blacks are part of the Democratic base. She thinks this is about the Democrats screwing up, but I don't buy that. The 2006 mid-terms weren't about national issues relating specifically to blacks. There's not much a Dem-controlled congress can do about lax civil rights enforcement in the current administration; that will have to wait for 2008. Clarence "Slappy" Thomas appears to be in good health, so there will be no debate over blacks on the Supreme Court in the next two years. It could be argued that the Iraq war is a more important issue to minorities, given their over-representation in the US military, but that's nit-picking--they're part of the 63% or so of voters who want to get out.
Let the GOP buy the revs. Some of the money does indeed go beyond the preacher's Benz or his wife's jewelry. Dem congresscritters should recognize this strategy for what it is and deal with it accordingly, by voting properly on issues that really matter to blacks, not issues that play to their prejudices.
Debra J. Dickerson asks an interesting question in her recent Salon article, "Souls on ice":
Is it just me, or did we learn an awful lot of things we'd all much rather we not have about the black view of religion and its role in society in the last election cycle?
I don't know if it's just you, Ms. Dickerson, but the two aspects of Black religion in the US that concern you, homophobia and sleazy preachers, have both been around for a long time.
Homophobia first. Use of the term "down low" or "on the down low" to refer to secret homosexual behavior has a long history in the African-American community, so it's not like the concept of gay black men is any surprise. Southern Baptists of all colors tend to hold similar beliefs on the subject of homosexuality: teh Godless Homos are going to burn in the lake of fire.
Dickerson is incredibly condescending to black voters in her metaphor of the 1944 film "Lifeboat":
There could hardly be a better metaphor than "Lifeboat" for blacks' role in politics as it existed until recently. But with the GOP's newly launched effort to win the black vote, the pastoral view of both the piety and humanity of blacks (more Protestant than the Puritans and ennobled by oppression) may well, if the religious left keeps twiddling its thumbs, dissolve before America's eyes and take the electorate in directions no one ever contemplated. At a minimum, the understanding of blacks as victims either exalted or emasculated by their suffering will be ... let's just say, modified.
Dickerson argues that Democrats who disrespect the black community may become vulnerable to the latent, overwhelming homophobia of that community, as Southern Baptist blacks rise up against teh Godless Homos. But she shoots her own argument down because she acknowledges that black voters have more sense than that:
...Indeed, it turns out that rank-and-file blacks may exhibit a political complexity and potential for growth that their leaders don't: While two-thirds of blacks oppose, and voted against, same-sex unions, they also believe that the Democrats will handle the issue better than the GOP. And they voted accordingly: The black percentage of the Democratic vote remains virtually unchanged. Fifty-six percent of conservative Virginia's blacks voted to ban same-sex marriage, but only 15 percent went on to vote for Republican George Allen.
Black voters have more common sense, indeed. The component of the black community that unfortunately doesn't share that common sense is the preachers. They fan the flames of black homophobia because they can be easily bought.
Back in the 1970s, when my momma was a school principal in suburban New Orleans, she would be regularly be visited by black ministers who were "looking out" for their flock as the children were bused into all-white neighborhoods and schools under court order. When one of these guys would overstep his authority, all it took was a phone call to someone with the ear of a white politician who regularly donated money to the black community through that preacher, and he'd back off. The white politicians would literally buy the endorsements of black clergy. The strategy became known as "buying revs." There's nothing new about this at all. At a time when one white politician wasn't all that much different from another, this system was very lucrative for the preachers. The current-day GOP has institutionalized this strategy through BushCo's "faith-based initiative." It's just "buying revs" on a grand scale--pump the cash to the preachers and they sing your tune. Because they're some of the most vocal spokespersons in the black community, many truly believe that they speak for their congregations.
Dickerson sees this as an overall threat to the notion that bloc-voting blacks are part of the Democratic base. She thinks this is about the Democrats screwing up, but I don't buy that. The 2006 mid-terms weren't about national issues relating specifically to blacks. There's not much a Dem-controlled congress can do about lax civil rights enforcement in the current administration; that will have to wait for 2008. Clarence "Slappy" Thomas appears to be in good health, so there will be no debate over blacks on the Supreme Court in the next two years. It could be argued that the Iraq war is a more important issue to minorities, given their over-representation in the US military, but that's nit-picking--they're part of the 63% or so of voters who want to get out.
Let the GOP buy the revs. Some of the money does indeed go beyond the preacher's Benz or his wife's jewelry. Dem congresscritters should recognize this strategy for what it is and deal with it accordingly, by voting properly on issues that really matter to blacks, not issues that play to their prejudices.
Debra J. Dickerson asks an interesting question in her recent Salon article, "Souls on ice":
Is it just me, or did we learn an awful lot of things we'd all much rather we not have about the black view of religion and its role in society in the last election cycle?
I don't know if it's just you, Ms. Dickerson, but the two aspects of Black religion in the US that concern you, homophobia and sleazy preachers, have both been around for a long time.
Homophobia first. Use of the term "down low" or "on the down low" to refer to secret homosexual behavior has a long history in the African-American community, so it's not like the concept of gay black men is any surprise. Southern Baptists of all colors tend to hold similar beliefs on the subject of homosexuality: teh Godless Homos are going to burn in the lake of fire.
Dickerson is incredibly condescending to black voters in her metaphor of the 1944 film "Lifeboat":
There could hardly be a better metaphor than "Lifeboat" for blacks' role in politics as it existed until recently. But with the GOP's newly launched effort to win the black vote, the pastoral view of both the piety and humanity of blacks (more Protestant than the Puritans and ennobled by oppression) may well, if the religious left keeps twiddling its thumbs, dissolve before America's eyes and take the electorate in directions no one ever contemplated. At a minimum, the understanding of blacks as victims either exalted or emasculated by their suffering will be ... let's just say, modified.
Dickerson argues that Democrats who disrespect the black community may become vulnerable to the latent, overwhelming homophobia of that community, as Southern Baptist blacks rise up against teh Godless Homos. But she shoots her own argument down because she acknowledges that black voters have more sense than that:
...Indeed, it turns out that rank-and-file blacks may exhibit a political complexity and potential for growth that their leaders don't: While two-thirds of blacks oppose, and voted against, same-sex unions, they also believe that the Democrats will handle the issue better than the GOP. And they voted accordingly: The black percentage of the Democratic vote remains virtually unchanged. Fifty-six percent of conservative Virginia's blacks voted to ban same-sex marriage, but only 15 percent went on to vote for Republican George Allen.
Black voters have more common sense, indeed. The component of the black community that unfortunately doesn't share that common sense is the preachers. They fan the flames of black homophobia because they can be easily bought.
Back in the 1970s, when my momma was a school principal in suburban New Orleans, she would be regularly be visited by black ministers who were "looking out" for their flock as the children were bused into all-white neighborhoods and schools under court order. When one of these guys would overstep his authority, all it took was a phone call to someone with the ear of a white politician who regularly donated money to the black community through that preacher, and he'd back off. The strategy became known as "buying revs." There's nothing new about this at all. The current-day GOP has institutionalized this strategy through BushCo's "faith-based initiative." It's just "buying revs" on a grand scale--pump the cash to the preachers and they sing your tune. Because they're some of the most vocal spokespersons in the black community, many truly believe that they speak for their congregations.
Dickerson sees this as an overall threat to the notion that bloc-voting blacks are part of the Democratic base. She thinks this is about the Democrats screwing up, but I don't buy that. The 2006 mid-terms weren't about national issues relating specifically to blacks. There's not much a Dem-controlled congress can do about lax civil rights enforcement in the current administration; that will have to wait for 2008. Clarence "Slappy" Thomas appears to be in good health, so there will be no debate over blacks on the Supreme Court in the next two years. It could be argued that the Iraq war is a more important issue to minorities, given their over-representation in the US military, but that's nit-picking--they're part of the 63% or so of voters who want to get out.
Let the GOP buy the revs. Some of the money does indeed go beyond the preacher's Benz or his wife's jewelry. Dem congresscritters should recognize this strategy for what it is and deal with it accordingly, by voting properly on issues that really matter to blacks, not issues that play to their prejudices.
I pretty much ignored Thomas Schaller's article, "Do Democrats need the South" when it came out on Salon two weeks ago, for the same reasons I've ignored his book, "Whistling Past Dixie." The premise behind both is bullshit. Schaller used the Salon piece to try to bitch-slap James Carville around. While I don't agree with Carville's assessment of this year's mid-term elections, he's right on the basic notion that Dems shouldn't ignore the south.
Even though the Democratic Leadership Conference has all but been excommunicated from the party this year, Ed Kilgore's response to Schaller today is good. When I first read saw the Schaller headline, I was non-plussed. Dismissing the south means kissing off a huge portion of the black vote in this country, a part of the Dem base that is essential. Kilgore is a lot more eloquent in making the point:
This last observation leads me to a fundamental reason Democrats would be foolish to write off the South entirely, much less spurn its voters as contemptible yahoos. The demographic composition of the South, with rapidly rising Hispanic populations in some states supplementing a sizable and loyal African-American base, means that there is a floor to Democratic losses in the region. It also explains residual Democratic strength at the state level, and creates potential opportunities for future gains. Schaller is right that racial polarization characterizes the politics of states like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina, but that has been true for decades, and it's not at all evident the phenomenon is becoming universal.
I'd go one step further along this line, though. There is still a LOT of voter disenfranchisement that goes on along racial lines in the south, like the cops hanging outside majority-black polling places on election day. Voter intimidation and deception are still very powerful tools, even in this day of debating the merits of computerized voting machines. If progressives surrender the south, we give up on trying to help black voters who are still being screwed by white folks 40 years after the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.
That's not just bad politics, it's immoral.
"Morning Edition" did a piece this morning on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and the updated, re-released soundtrack CD. Vince Guaraldi's music is very special to me, bring back lots of wonderful memories.
When I was working at Radio Shack, the company rolled out its first CD player for Christmas, 1984. I immediately went across the mall to the record store and bought the "Charlie Brown Christmas" disc. We got great response for playing Guaraldi through December from people who came into the store to find a refuge from the rush and the "101 Strings" muzak schlock of the rest of the mall.
That's one of the reasons I still like malls--I had so much fun working in them!
The politicization of terror has blown up in Karl Rove's face. While my evidence that frequent fliers are fed up with BushCo is anecdotal, the notion that prohibiting shampoo and body lotion in carry-on luggage helps the cause seems to be supported only by talking heads and other assorted morons on the Faux News Channel.
The whole Oscar-Cookie Monster-Big Bird-Ernie-Elmo color code threat warning scheme has been widely regarded as a political tool and joke since Tom Ridge left the position of DHS Secretary and all but admitted as much. Still, a few extra National Guardsman at BOS with M16s didn't seem all that bad a thing at the time.
In spite of all this, even the most cynical of BushCo bashers would stop short of accusing the gang who can't shoot straight of truly jeopardising counter-terrorism efforts. Time to be more cynical:
An investigation by MI5 and Scotland Yard into an alleged plan to smuggle explosive devices on up to 10 passenger jets was jeopardised in August, when the US put pressure on authorities in Pakistan to arrest a suspect allegedly linked to the airliner plot.
The result? Serious danger to air travelers:
As a direct result of the surprise detention of the suspect, British police and MI5 were forced to rush forward plans to arrest an alleged UK gang accused of plotting to destroy the airliners. But a second group of suspected terrorists allegedly linked to the first evaded capture and is still at large, according to security sources.
so, it turns out that the no-liquid panic really had something behind it:
The escape of the second group is said to be the reason why the UK was kept at its highest level - "critical" - for three days before it was decided that the plotters no longer posed an imminent threat.
This moment in aviation history brought to you by Karl Rove's plans to maintain a permanent Republican majority...
The two ranking Dems on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are Jane Harman of CA and Alcee Hastings of FL. Many of Pelosi's colleagues have serious issues with giving the gavel for that committee to Harman. They believe she's cozyed up to the Republicans one too many times. I can't say I disagree with this sentiment, given how important a thorough evaluation of the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 as well as an analysis of the run-up to the Iraq war are.
Usually this isn't a huge problem; a ranking member has been passed over in the past. The problem in this instance is that the next in seniority on the HPSCI is Alcee Hastings. Giving Hastings the chair of any committee presents an ethical conundrum for the Dems. When he was a federal judge, Hastings was impeached and removed from the bench. He later ran for and was elected to the House, providing Republicans with an incredible amount of material with which to mock Democrats in general and black Democratic voters specifically.
The current Democratic caucus took a bold step when they spanked "Dollar Bill" Jefferson by pulling his plum committee assignments after $90K in cash turned up in his freezer. Like Hastings, Jefferson is running on a blame-it-on-the-man platform. The notion that a black pol was set up by the white man (personified by the FBI and a Republican Justice Department) works for even the most morally bankrupt politicians.
It's good to see Pelosi is considering rejecting both Harman and Hastings:
That leaves Pelosi looking at two compromise picks. One is Rep. Norm Dicks, a onetime strong Iraq-war backer who has since joined ranks with Murtha and now wants a phased troop withdrawal. The other is Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a quiet Texas lawmaker and former Border Patrol official who opposed the Iraq war from the outset.
I don't know much about either Dicks or Reyes, but either of them sounds like a better idea than Harman or Hastings.
Excellent observation from Digby:
For some reason, when Democrats are in power the press corps immediately goes from being merely shallow to insufferable, sophomoric assholes.
Indeed. The difference between now and the Clinton Wars is that we have a much stronger blogosphere and operations like Media Matters.
via TalkLeft comes a reference to an article by Paul Craig Roberts that is typical of Republi-Tarian thinking. For example:
The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints, because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.
OK, no argument there, this is true, BushCo are slimeballs. But, typical of a former member of the Reagan Administration (Roberts was an Asst. SecTreas), he doesn't seem to think that kids are all that important:
Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.
Yeah, "screw the kids" is such a great argument. It's OK if you're starving, so long as you're FREE while your kids' teeth rot in their mouths.
We have to face the fact that BushCo have really fucked up things on a number of fronts. It may be easier to address poverty and economic concerns before trying to roll back PATRIOT and PATRIOT II.
one of the nice things about not paying for the NYT Select is that this inside reference by Alterman really doesn't matter to me:
Who will take away his license to kill?these people are way too inside sometimes...
Things upon which I don't have time to elaborate:
2) I saw Borat finally. Some of it was so gross I had to leave the theater. Still, idiots, he's mocking American ignorance of foreign cultures, not those cultures themselves. Speaking of Maureen Dowd's boyfriends and ex-boyfriends, someone tell John Tierney to get a clue.
that I'm really enjoying the fact that the Queen of Unhinged Blogistan is down in the dumps...
Writing about Speaker Pelosi in Salon, La Paglia says:
Though I've sometimes despaired at her girly, wide-eyed Marlo Thomas mannerisms, Pelosi has proved her toughness by her staying power and her deftness in outmaneuvering her rivals.
Why does Paglia find being girly incompatible with success? A woman doesn't have to wear flannel and overalls to have feminist street cred. She looks good in front of the camera. She charms Letterman well. She's a Bay Area babe and I'm very glad she's in charge.
Atrios said:
Credit Where Credit is DueIs anyone really that surprised? These people are liars. Most of them don't seriously believe the shit they spew. The freepi might be true believers, but crap like Man-on-Dog have no beliefs or principles.
Caught a chunk of Little Ricky's concession speech. I was expecting a full meltdown, complete with "Iranians are going to put nuclear weapons in your toilet" kind of stuff. But he was very gracious and positive.
[via Eschaton]
Christy at Firedoglake has it wrong when she gets upset at Rahm Emmanuel:
Let me get this straight, we have just taken back the House and, looking more likely as of this morning, the Senate, and Rahm's first priority is to shore up his power base and his ties to KStreet. Heckuva job, Rahm.
The difference between Christy and Rahm is that Emmanuel has had his orgasm, smoked his cigarette, and is now thinking to 08, while Christy is still basking in the afterglow.
If you think getting to the point we're at now was ugly, just wait. Remember 1993, when the GOP was out of the White House for the first time in 16 years? Remember how the corporate media Kool Kidz turned on the Clintons? You've seen nothing yet. The Republican Congressional infrastructure can't be crushed. We reached the top of the hill, but there are still hordes of barbarians charging, looking to knock us back down.
When a football team in England gets promoted from the lower divisons to the Premier League (where the big-time money and players are), that team has to have a long-term plan for making money and getting top-level players. If they don't they'll be relegated back to the lower divisions after one season. Rahm's right in thinking ahead. Not only do we have to hold our positions in Congress in 2008, we need to make a full effort to regain the White House.
We're not going to accomplish these things from the left. There aren't enough George Soros types out there to finance the operation. There aren't enough outlets in the liberal media to back up a push from the left.
Ya know, they don't call it a "base" for nothing. It's a base, a foundation. You build upon it. If you stop at the foundation, you never build the structure. Rahm's building the structure, not merely basking in the afterglow.
Jindal wins big, with 88% of the vote. Jefferson in a runoff with Carter in LA-02, and Charlie Melancon returns to represent LA-03.
No surprises all around. It's good to see Jindal win so big, since he was going to win anyway. This will boost his most-likely attempt to beat Kathy Blanco next year. That'll be good news for Blanco, because North LA Republicans just aren't going to vote for a colored guy.
Carter is nine points behind Dollar Bill. She has to work hard to pick up Derrick Shepherd's 18%, and that's not going to be easy, given the Jefferson family's GOTV machine.
Melancon deserved re-election after the way he busted his ass for St. Bernard Parish after the storm. Craig Romero was just another Republican piece of crap before the election, and his NRCC-financed sleaze machine during the campaign didn't impress the folks down da bayou and in da parish. Good for them.
The assessor consolidation amendment for Orleans Parish (voted on statewide) is a good idea and was long time coming. Cleanup of corruption is a good thing.
It's easy to get excited about what happened last night. Taking back the House is significant, but it's not going to stop anything that the disrespectful piece of crap who lives in the White House will do. Republicans will be back in 08 with bigger guns, more money, and cleaned-up new faces to try to take back the House. It's going to take a lot of hard work, both inside Congress and outside the beltway, to govern well, inform the public, and raise funds for campaign warchests.
Savor the moment, but then we have to roll up sleeves and get to work.
From TBogg:
everyone knew that Santorum was going down like Ted Haggard at a rave.
And I'm OK with piling on Mr. Man-on-Dog. He deserves it, the facist piece of crap. He's going to go on to a lucrative K Street career, whipping up the Freeper Frenzy and leaning on the remaining insane people in Congress. We should keep shaming people like Man-on-Dog as long as they try to influence government. Let's make lawmakers ashamed to be seen with him, no matter how much money is in the envelope in his briefcase.
see subject.
I'd love to see Karen Carter beat Dollar Bill, but unfortunately, my vote is against Jindal, so I'm not much help.
