Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Under the cover of darkness, the American military entered the town of Baiji last night. Residents tried to get away from the assault, and then were gunned down by American helicopters as they fled.

Eight civilians were killed. Among the dead were two boys, one eleven years old and one eight years old.

The town’s police chief called the American attack “a criminal act”.

It’s not the first time this has happened. The United Nations has called for tough investigations of American attacks from the air against civilians in Iraq. Those investigations have not come.

They call this a “war”. What kind of war is it in which the strongest military in the world attacks children after their bedtimes?

On CNN, March 1, 2008, Hillary Clinton warned against making Barack Obama the Democratic presidential nominee, saying, “…everyone knows that John McCain will make this election about national security, that is a given. And it will be imperative that we have a nominee who is able to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, and I believe I am the person best able to do that.”

That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. In a year when the Republicans are weak, she plans on allowing the Republican nominee to determine what the election is about. In the meantime, she will just stand on the stage, content to be there.

Barack Obama understands that the strongest Democratic presidential nominee will be the one who doesn’t wait around for the Republican to set the terms of the election. Barack Obama has the key concepts to set the terms of the election according to strong progressive Democratic values, not according to mere response to Republican tactics.

Democrats deserve a nominee who doesn’t begin the race by surrendering the terms of the contest.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton are getting very upset that their candidate, who they thought a few months ago was “inevitable”, is now losing to Barack Obama. They’re using arguments against Barack Obama that just don’t make any sense.

One of my favorite arguments they use is that Barack Obama will never be able to withstand attacks from the Republican Party because the only Republican he’s ever had to run against is Alan Keyes. What these Hillary Clinton supporters don’t seem to understand is that such an argument only works in Hillary Clinton’s favor if Barack Obama is not winning in the electoral competition against Hillary Clinton.

Think about it for just a little bit. If Barack Obama really is such a sissy wimp who will be ripped apart by the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is such a tough campaigner who can take on anybody, then how come Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama?

Another argument that Hillary Clinton supporters have begun to use that I really don’t like is that Barack Obama will be defeated by the Republicans because he isn’t Republican enough. This argument suggests that the Democrats ought to nominate a Democrat who supports Republican policies, in order to get the Republican vote. It’s the best justification that they can come up with for Hillary Clinton’s vote to help George W. Bush go to war in Iraq.

That argument was used by Thomas Buffenbarger, a Clinton supporter in Youngstown, Ohio who took to the stage at a Clinton rally yesterday to warm up the crowd before Hillary Clinton herself arrived. He didn’t speak much in praise of Hillary Clinton. Instead, he attacked Barack Obama. Here’s a sample Buffenbarger had to say:

“The Barack show is playing to rave reviews sold out at college campuses after college campus. Standing room only crowds to hear his silver-tounged orations. Hope, change, yes we can? Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

This latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing slur ought to sound familiar. It’s the same attack that the Republican Club For Growth used against Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Why are surrogates for Hillary Clinton using Republican attakcs against Barack Obama?

I would like for the Hillary Clinton campaign to come out and explain what it has against lattes, and why Birkenstocks are to be hated. I would really love for Hillary Clinton to explain why she is arranging for people to speak on behalf of her campaign who hate hybrid cars.

I’ve got news for the Thomas Buffenbargers of the Democratic Party: If you think that you can arrange for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination by attacking environmentalists, attacking young people, attacking institutions of education, and for goodness sakes attacking people who like coffee, you’ve got another thing coming.

Barack Obama has got the endorsement of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The hometown newspaper explains,

Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?

Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at “making positive changes in other people’s lives.” Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.

America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.

Ohio Treasurer Richard Cordray has also endorsed Barack Obama, and was out in Youngstown campaigning for him yesterday.

Obama has the endorsement of Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman too.

Of course, the endorsement that matters is the endorsement of Ohio’s voters, and that won’t be given for another two weeks.

Let’s set this issue straight with some direct documentary facts proving that Barack Obama was against the Iraq war from the start - before the war began, and has stood by that position. These videos have historical footage of Barack Obama speaking out against the Iraq War before it was begun, and since then.

Barack Obama’s rivals cannot produce such video documentation of their early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War. There’s a simple reason why. They were in favor of starting the Iraq War from the start.

John McCain was an eager booster of invading and occupying Iraq. McCain even said that the whole operation would be quick and easy.

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq from the start too. Since then, what’s Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq? That’s really difficult to say - I’ll let Clinton boosters try to explain it. The simple fact is that Hillary Clinton gave her assistance to George W. Bush and helped him start the war. When a million Americans took to the streets to demonstrate popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton did not join them. In fact, Hillary Clinton spoke out against the agenda of the antiwar protests.

Has Barack Obama always done exactly as I would have liked him to do on the issue of Iraq? No. However, only one presidential candidate has gotten it anywhere close to correct on Iraq from the start. Thus, only one candidate deserves our support for President of the United States. That candidate is Barack Obama.

It’s honesty time. Although I’ve written some things in favor of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the truth is that there are a lot of things about Barack Obama I don’t like. Here they are:

- Playing footsie with anti-gay sentiment. It’s not just Donnie McClurkin. Look at his statements against gay marriage.
- Antiwar record gone soft. The military occupation of Iraq is a useless drain of hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives lost. Can we please just end it?
- Against impeachment, and wouldn’t even support censuring Bush.
- Promotes new coal burning technology
- Seems to think he really is as charismatic as everyone says he is
- Tries to play both sides on separation of church and state
- Isn’t talking about undoing the Bush laws that take away civil liberty

These things about Barack Obama bug me. Still, I think he’s the better choice on the Democratic side. An honest supporter can admit imperfections. Can Hillary Clinton’s supporters be as honest about her many flaws?

Given the considerable dominance of Bill and Hillary Clinton in New York State Democratic party politics, it was never a question that Hillary Clinton would get the largest share of presidential convention delegates in the 2008 primary. What is surprising, however, is that she had to work so hard in New York State to maintain her victory.

Barack Obama made a surprisingly showing in the New York State Democratic presidential primary yesterday. Hillary Clinton got 91 congressional district delegates, with Barack Obama not far behind at 60 delegates.

The solid wrap-up of New York’s large number of delegates wasn’t delivered. That will make it all-the-more challenging for Hillary Clinton to get the presidential nomination, and leads to the question of how much New York State Democrats really approve of the job Hillary Clinton is doing for them in the U.S. Senate.

The three trillion dollar budget viciously cuts programs that benefit the American people, so how come it’s still the biggest federal budget in history? Part of the answer is that the budget proposed by George W. Bush contains the biggest military budget since World War II.

Are we really supposed to believe that the “War On Terror”, a fight against Islamic terrorist riff raff, our generation’s equivalent of a war against pirates, costs more than the global struggle against the forces of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations? No, don’t believe that for a second - you’re being asked to believe something even worse.

You see, when they say that the military budget requested for 2009 is the biggest since World War II, they aren’t even including the nearly trillion dollars extra that the Bush White House is expected to request for the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where is the money going this time? It’s going to fund corruption, fraud and waste. It’s going into the pockets of some very well-connected individuals - people in what the charitable refer to as the “defense” industry who have close working relationships with the Bush White House and members of Congress.

The military-linked corruption isn’t only going to the Republican side of the aisle, either. Think about the whopper unloaded upon the good people of Missouri by Democratic Congressman Ike Skelton: The Chicago Tribune cites Representative Skelton as saying that the military budget is necessary to ensure the health of the military.

The health of the military? My foot. The budget increase for the Pentagon ensures the financial health of military contractor corporations, and their investors and executives who are linked to politicians in Washington D.C. It’s a financial scheme for which members of Congress will be rewarded generously in the form of campaign donations. It’s dirty, rotten, stinking corporate pork barrel in the form of bullets and bombs.

Robocalls are tacky even when they carry the best of messages. I hate it when I get a telephone call in the middle of dinner, and it’s just some machine playing a pre-recorded message to me from some politician who wants my vote. The message doesn’t let me talk back and give my opinion. It just gives me that robotic message and then hangs up.

How rude.

This politician thinks that I’m going to vote for someone who doesn’t even have the decency to have a human being talk to me? No. Politicians who use robocalls are indicating the disrespect they have for voters, and suggest that if they’re elected, they won’t listen.

Robocalls get even worse, though, when they’re used by a politician to attack another candidate. That’s what Hillary Clinton has been doing in South Carolina, and she’s been doing it to attack John Edwards. John Edwards, for goodness sakes!

Maybe this is why Hillary Clinton had such a miserable showing in South Carolina.

Interrupt voters’ private time to have a robot spew a negative message at them over the telephone? Only the Clintons could be so arrogant as to think that would help their campaign.

Whatever little tender moment Hillary Clinton was able to create in New Hampshire has been destroyed with tactics like this. Why can’t she learn to stay positive?

The Dow Jones Industrials Average has just plummeted more than 450 points in just three minutes.

So much for putting trust in the fossil fuel economy. So much for the idea that corporations are going to provide a secure foundation for the American economy. So much for steady employment in exchange for the cubicle conformity of corporate life.

What America is learning now is that everything that they have given away to corporations - all their independence, all their privacy, all their local identity, and even their own influence over the democratic process - has been for nothing. The corporations, and the Wall Street financial institutions that back them up, are not competent to run the economy.

We’ll all pay the price for this Wall Street and corporate ineptitude. Don’t think recession. Think depression.

The corporations have taken away America’s economic safety nets, and our national treasure is being blown to bits in Iraq.

Hunker down, people, and prepare for some tough times.

I was taking a look over at the blog of Bill Mollison, leader of Permaculturalist movement, this morning, and though I appreciate a lot of the ideas of Permaculture on a horticultural level, I found Mollison’s political ideas to be a badly formed compost of discontent. Here’s the core of what he had to say:

“If we gather our friends, and students of good design, we vastly out-number the few who have joined “left right” parties. We can take control. We can legislate to restore the earth, to save and generate forests, to secure water and clean food supplies, and to live to assist all people to survive, not to war on them….

All permaculture graduates know how to design life-enhancing houses and farms. Many are involved in aid programmes, or consult with landowners and builders. We have, in effect, many thousands of people–years of experience in building sustainable systems. We have served our apprenticeship as worthy designers of living systems.

Thus, we believe it is time to take charge of legislating for sustainable living. Why should we, the majority, put up with the stupidities of the Liberal/ Labour, Republican/ Democrat, Tory /Socialist dichotomies, whose efforts are to defeat each other, not to assist all people?

No, we must now vote them all out, and start the urgent repair of society and the earth itself. Oil men, coal miners, and wood chippers can between them destroy all of us, for greed. In this, they are assisted by “our government”. To tolerate this is madness…

Most politicians arise from sportsmen, public broadcasters, film stars, lawyers, and businessmen. None of these can be trusted to evolve sensible policy; almost all of them operate on conviction based on personal beliefs. (no basis for sustainable society)

No, policy must be based on well-researched, extant, working models, and constantly refined by feedback from all levels of users or “consumers” of that policy.”

Keep in mind that Mollison is writing internationally, but from a Tasmanian perspective, so he’s not really speaking particularly for an American audience. Even given that, I just can’t make sense out of what Mollison has to say.

Strategically, Mollison is making no sense. Yes, there are thousands of graduates of Permacultural design courses around the world, but does Mollison really believe that these thousands constitute a “majority”? Does he really believe that they outnumber the members of the established political parties around the world? If so, Mollison needs a refresher course in mathematics.

I’m also bothered by Mollison’s contention that government policy must be based upon researched “models” concocted by designers instead of by “conviction based on personal beliefs”. It seems like an elitist technocratic concept of government that fails to connect theories like Permaculture with the reality of people’s lives and the ideas that shape those lives.

Perhaps that’s been the conceit that has limited Permaculture. It makes a good deal of rational sense, but is disconnected with the human desires that more strongly motivate the choices that people make. If Bill Mollison thinks that he can overtake the institutional power of political parties like the Democrats and Republicans without appealing to people on the basis of their personal wants and beliefs, using only a few thousand people scattered throughout the world, then he’s sorely out of touch with the most important foundation of good horticultural and agricultural design: The reality of the ground as it exists.

“Vote them all out” because of their “stupidities”, Mr. Mollison? Stupid is as stupid does. Consider that the established political parties have managed to gain and keep power, while Bill Mollison’s Permacultural movement has remained at the fringes despite years of campaigning. That’s not just because there’s a conspiracy to suppress alternative models of living - it’s because Mollison’s movement has failed to take its head out of its theory, and speak to where people are living right now.

Earlier today on the Irregular Times front page, Jim issued a request for any actual evidence of vote suppression against Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary election this week.

I didn’t think that I’d see any concrete evidence, so I was surprised when I came across this bit of news from the Ron Paul Forums. Someone only identified as mlingley made the following specific claim:

“My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???

Originally Posted by sstjean View Post
This was posted to ronpaul-801 tonight: “This town numbers are wrong wrong wrong on this map. I am from Sutton originally and my parents and one aunt all voted for Ron Paul today and Sutton says 0. So this is wrong. This is a town that had 20 people counting the ballots and I have no reason to believe that they cheated. Small town and I was born and raised there. The real numbers will come in by morning. The electronic machines in the big towns are the ones we have to worry about.”

So, here’s one specific piece of evidence: Someone in Sutton, New Hampshire alleges that their mother, father and aunt all voted for Ron Paul, but no votes for Ron Paul were shown for Sutton.

A reader of the Ron Paul Forums reacts, “This is fabulous We’re gonna have to check every county in every state”. How would this be fabulous for a Ron Paul supporter? Do they want there to be voter suppression? Of course, there is a definition of the word “fabulous” that does not mean something good.

There are a couple of obvious problems with this supposed evidence, however. First, mlingley is anonymous. Second, mlingley cannot know who his or her relatives really voted for. They could have just told mlingley that they voted for Ron Paul, and actually voted for someone else.

As it is, the Ron Paul Forums now claims, without any more citation than mlingley’s original claim, that “apperantly this issue was adressed and the vote totals where changed, someone sent me a pm saying this I didnt confirm it, so check for yourselves, lol”.

Check it for yourselves indeed. So far, the evidence for anti-Paul skullduggery isn’t even skin deep.

Rudolph Giuliani just said, in the Republican presidential debate, that “America is not moving in the wrong direction.”

So, Giuliani thinks that an increasing disparity in income between rich and poor is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that gas prices at around $3.50 per gallon, and crude oil at $100 per barrel is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that increasing temperatures and regional water wars is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that the housing crisis is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that the credit crisis is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that the exploding federal budget deficit is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that the shrinking Bill of Rights is the right direction?

Giuliani thinks that two wars going on for years and years with no plan to get out is the right direction?

What kind of idiot would say such a thing? Is Rudolph Giuliani so out of touch with the current American reality?

If Hillary Clinton loses the New Hampshire primary this coming Tuesday, it’s a sign that her campaign is serious trouble. A failure to come in first in New Hampshire could even put Clinton’s adopted home state of delegate-rich New York into play on Super Tuesday February 5th. If Hillary Clinton has to defend home turf, it will make it all the more difficult to her to win in other states.

It seems that Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of George W. Bush’s plan to start a war in Iraq is finally coming back to haunt her. The strategy of the Clinton for President campaign of trying to establish her as invincible before any primaries or caucuses, as if the actual Democratic voters didn’t matter, was apparently also not a great way to endear her to the Democratic rank and file.

On top of Hillary Clinton’s stumble in Iowa, there’s news that the mood among New Hampshire Democrats is turning decidedly against her presidential campaign. At the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 Club Dinner yesterday, Democrats booed when Hillary Clinton tried to attack Barack Obama and John Edwards. When Barack Obama took to the stage, however, the Democratic crowd erupted into enthusiastic applause, chanting his name and his trademark, Fired Up Ready To Go.

At another moment during Hillary Clinton’s speech, a Time Magazine reporter who attended writes, the Democratic audience let out “a noise that sounded like a thousand people collectively groaning”.

Things are not looking good for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. That doesn’t mean the election is over for her, but it does mean that all the hype for most of 2007 about her invincible status was nothing but the babbling of Washington D.C. insiders ignorant of the mood of actual Democratic voters across the country.

It looks like Hillary Clinton is going to come in third in the Iowa caucuses - a humiliation, given that she was, just a month or so ago, described as the “inevitable” Democratic candidate. Furthermore, she’s not even close to Barack Obama - more than eight percentage points behind.

Heads are going to roll in the Clinton for President campaign. Don’t expect Hillary Clinton to give up yet, but DO expect some of her staff to get canned.

And Bill Clinton? What is Bill Clinton going to be doing tonight?

“Honey, I’ve got to go fill up the car with gasoline, before the hundred dollar a barrel oil drives the price above four dollars per gallon. I’ll be back soon… in March or so. Save me a Snickers Bar.”

It’s becoming more clear that the real contest in the 2008 Democratic Party nomination is between Barack Obama and John Edwards. Hillary Clinton depended on the institutional support of right wing Democrats like James Carville, and a parade of corporate executives and lobbyists. She even hired the president of the PR firm that defended Blackwater mercenaries in Congress to be her campaign manager. She’s a longtime member of the right wing Democratic Leadership Council.

Put simply: Hillary Clinton is the Republican candidate of the Democratic Party, the Joseph Lieberman of 2008 presidential election.

So, it’s between Barack Obama and John Edwards to get the core of the Democratic Party vote - the support of voters who are smart enough to look for more than just nostalgia for the 1990s with the name of Clinton.

John Edwards got the support of Ralph Nader this week. Barack Obama got the support of Dennis Kucinich. That shows the world of difference between Barack Obama and John Edwards.

John Edwards spent just one term in the U.S. Senate, then quit when he couldn’t get re-elected. He’s done good work outside of the government, but he just can’t seem to manage to effectively use any government position. Isn’t Ralph Nader kind of like that?

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been successful in using the power of government to do good from the state legislature in Illinois all the way on up. Obama sticks with it. Isn’t Dennis Kucinich kind of like that?

I say that in 2008, we need a President who is good at government, not someone who is good at picking from the outside.

I’m really disturbed at the number of people who came by yesterday and gave a positive rating to Proud Partisan’s article, in which it was declared, “Whether or not we agree with all the policies and positions of a particular Democratic candidate, it is time for us to unite behind one Democratic candidate for 2008. The time for debate is over.”

The time for debate is not over. There hasn’t even been one official vote cast in even one state primary election yet!

The idea that we have the duty to unite behind a single candidate, even if we do not agree with that candidate’s policies and positions, is more than absurd. It’s profoundly anti-democratic. I mean that with a small “d” - something Proud Partisan seems unable to understand.

I find that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are more of the lock-step, fall-in-the-party-line, voters-must-obey variety. That’s one of the reasons I prefer Barack Obama.

Will the Clinton for President campaign have any staff left at the end of this week? I ask this question in light of last week’s discovery of the Clinton campaign’s shameful activities spreading malicious rumors about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has become more successful with voters than Hillary Clinton, as voters have considered Senator Clinton’s questionable connections with corporate interests, and her less-than-progressive voting record in the Senate, including Clinton’s infamous vote to help George W. Bush start the war in Iraq.

In response, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has started spreading false rumors about Barack Obama’s religion, which shouldn’t even matter, and about Barack Obama’s behavior as a teenager, which has even less relevance.

When Clinton’s campaign was caught pushing these false rumors around, it fired a couple of staffers, as scapegoats, blaming the trouble on them. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t take responsibility herself. Besides, those campaign staffers were only fired after the story went public.

You don’t see Barack Obama engaging in this sort of skullduggery. He might criticize Hillary Clinton, but it’s on the issues. That’s why I support Barack Obama for President, not Hillary Clinton.

Mitt Romney is getting all indignant about Mike Huckabee asking a simple question about the religion that Mitt Romney says makes him fit to be President of the United States. (”Freedom requires religion!”) Well, wipe the froth away from your mouth Mitt, and answer the question.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of the Devil or not?

And now you, too, Mike Huckabee. You answer for your weird theology too.

How can you say, Mr. Huckabee, that Jesus is not the brother of Satan? God made Jesus. God made Satan. How does that not make them brothers?

Be careful, Mr. Christian Candidate. You’ve opened up the crazy Pandora’s box of religious literalism in American politics. So, now, there’s an awful lot more kooky stuff than just the relationship between Jesus and the Devil that you have to answer for in the Bible, Mike Huckabee.

Right wing extremists are all busy getting in a tizzy again about fictional books daring to not be fawning tributes to the old, moldy stories of Christianity. This time, they’re complaining that Philip Pullman, the author of The Golden Compass is a “militant atheist”.

How do they know? Have the read the book? Have they spoken to the author? Have they even gone to visit the author’s web site?

No, no, no, they haven’t bothered to do any actual research on the subject. They’re just accepting the propaganda that religious leaders pass out to them. They accept that propaganda on faith, as is their habit.

If they bothered to do a little research, they’d see that Philip Pullman is not really an atheist. He’s an agnostic. That means that he says he doesn’t know if there’s a God or not.

Here are the words right out of the man’s mouth: “I don’t know whether there’s a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say. I think it’s perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don’t know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away.”

If you call Philip Pullman a militant atheist, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, if you find yourself whipped into the frothy furor of outrage against The Golden Compass and you haven’t even read the book, you are agreeing to be a tool of the Religious Right, a voluntary ignoramus.