Correction: it appeared for a time that Unity08 had shut down its trailblazer website. It has since reappeared.

Just how tight is the economy? And who is that going to bite in the 2008 elections?

Just this afternoon, a representative of the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee) gave me a call and asked if I’d be willing to contribute $75 to help elect more Republican politicians to House and Senate in 2008. I said that I wasn’t in a position to make such a contribution today, but that I certainly would appreciate another call a few weeks from now to check on back with me on that. I didn’t say that I wanted a callback so I could waste more of the representative’s time, and thereby more of the NRCC’s money, but that’s not the information she asked for.

Before the NRCC representative hung up, I chatted with her a bit and asked her how it had been going for her in the last week or two. Were there a lot of people who weren’t in a position to give money? She said, well, yes, a lot of people had said money was pretty tight right now, and so there hadn’t been a lot of contributions, even from people who had given money to the Republicans before. “Some other things have made contributions a bit slow right now too,” she said obliquely before we politely said good bye and hung up the phone.

Yes, budgets are getting tight all over, even for the NRCC and its political clientele of the well-to-do.

Just as the Bush White House was set to begin its effort to convince the American people that the security situation in Iraq is all under control, thanks to the long-term military escalation that Republicans call the “surge”, Republican Senator Richard Shelby reports that his plane was “shot at by a rocket” as he was touring Iraq on a fact-finding mission.

Count this as a fact found: In a truly secure country, airplanes don’t have rockets fired at them on a routine basis.

The latest rosy scenario about Iraq from the Republicans is no more truthful than the previous rosy scenarios about Iraq from the Republicans have been. It’s time for the American people to stop getting false rosy scenarios, and to start getting the truth about Iraq. That truth will only come from a progressive President.

(Source: Tuscaloosa News, August 31, 2007)

The campaign of a Republican Party insider for President in 2008 is the campaign of a hypocrite. “Elect me,” the Republican insider says, “and I’ll fix everything that’s wrong with the government… even though I’ve been working for years to make it just the way it is.” All right, I admit that I’m exaggerating. No Republican presidential candidate would actually say that. They’ll just leave off the last part, and hope that no one else brings it up.

In a statement identifying September 6 as the date that he will officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States, Fred Thompson calls “a government that can’t seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens” one of the great challenges of our times. That’s a very odd comment for Fred Thompson to say, given that he has been one of the people centrally involved in establishing the current government.

In the year 2000, Fred Thompson helped George W. Bush get elected as President, and also helped maintain the Republican majority in Congress that in turn gave the right wing control over the Judicial Branch of the government. As a United States Senator, Thompson helped the Republicans maintain that irresponsible and corrupt government. Even after he retired from the United States Senate, Fred Thompson remained a Washington D.C. insider, operating behind the scenes to help the Republicans maintain their dirty hold on the American government.

It was Fred Thompson, for example, who was behind the effort to get John Roberts appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As we have all seen since, John Roberts has been a part of the right wing movement to help the President of the United States avoid his sworn governmental responsibility to protect the rights of the people.

When it comes to irresponsible government, Fred Thompson has been a large part of the problem in Washington D.C. Yet, now that he’s campaigning to become President, Mr. Thompson expects us all just to forget about that, and to accept his line that he’s going to make government responsible.

As an actor, Fred Thompson always plays the same character - and it’s always an act. Don’t let Fred Thompson pull the same old act on you in 2008.

Outside of a television studio, saying you did one thing after you just did the opposite isn’t called acting. It’s called hypocrisy.

(Source: Associated Press, August 30, 2006)

The perfect antidote to fear is laughter, and the Department of Homeland Panic delivers a healthy dose. A sample:

For years now the following text, written by a Republican Party operative, continues to appear as a letter to the editor in multiple papers with false claims of authorship by people with local names and addresses:

President Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq that begins with training Iraqi forces so they can defend their country and fight the terrorists. We are making tremendous progress towards this objective. Withdrawing from Iraq, as Democrats in Washington propose, would send a dangerous signal to our enemies that we cut and run when the going gets tough. President Bush is offering a clear strategy to win, not a political quick fix.

The latest example of this comes with the signature of William York of Princeton, who falsely signs his name as author to this Republican National Committee letter in a letter published in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph of August 29, 2007.

The progressive social networking site Care2 used to focus on concrete opportunities for activism, but lately has descended into a mush of everyday tasks and pampering, with an occasional return to the political sphere. As time creeps on, the instances of activism become less and less socially relevant, and more like reading an issue of Better Homes and Gardens.

Among today’s action alerts:

“Self Love as a Spiritual Practice and more…”
“Make Fresh Corn Spoonbread, Peach and Berry Crisp…”

Change the world! Love yourself, and eat another peach and berry crisp!

Is this some kind of Republican set-up, to get progressive activists too busy with exfoliating their skin and eating blueberry muffins to put up any real political resistance?

Fresh corn spoonbread is the opiate of the masses.

With this sort of transition to self-centered pampering as a new form of activism, I shouldn’t be surprised that Care2 has entered into a partnership with Deepak Chopra, the New Age Guru who encourages mystical approaches to identifying problem such as astrology, while disdainfully attacking evolutionary biologists for failing to explain why the world has been created in order to be beautiful to human beings. Chopra advocates for the inclusion of intelligent design nonsense in public schools - just so long as intelligent design coursework promotes a variety of religious pseudoscientific nonsense, New Age as well as fundamentalist Christian.

In the past, Deepak Chopra has offered such advice as this: “If you realize right now that there’s no such thing as a person, you’ll be all set.” This is hardly the kind of perspective that provides a solid foundation for responsible progressive activism. Sadly, Care2 seems less and less interested in that, and more and more interested in feel good FrootLoopism of the sort promoted by the Raw Spirit Festival and its Breatharian teacher, Jasmuheen.

Besides, if you really need a FrootLooparian perspective, you need go no further than our own guru, Rampo Stele Skyan, or our frequent guest guru, the Peruvian Purple Dingo.

I am excited to read that Susanna Clarke is writing a new novel, on the heels of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I am disappointed to realize that she’s just started. Oh, I can wait.

On July 30, 2007, terrorism “expert” Juval Aviv made headlines predicting a major terrorist attack on American soil in “Ninety days at the most.” “What they’re going to do,” Aviv declared definitively, “is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public.”

Aviv made the exact same prediction in 2005. Nothing happened. But still, you should be really scared, at least according to over a thousand websites like LibertyPost that have reprinted Juval Aviv’s prediction without any critical comment. A thousand websites can’t be wrong, right? So go ahead, get scared. The only question is how. You could run. You could scream. Personally, I think it’s a good idea to do both at the same time: run screaming. You get synergy that way, see. More efficient, so you can run farther and scream longer before you fall down and hit your head on the curb of a street corner, becoming the first casualty of terrorism on American soil of the day.

There’s something fishy about Unity08…

… ok, I know. There are a lot of fishy things about Unity08. This is the corporation with the aim of nominating its own presidential and vice presidential candidates because either too few Americans get to participate in the early primaries or too many Americans get to participate in the early primaries, depending on which day it is. Unity08 opposes lobbyists but is run by lobbyists. It decries the influence of big money in politics but the majority of its contributions in 2007 so far have come through loans from three mega-rich donors. It says it is a “grassroots” “people’s movement”, but over time it has increasingly shoved citizen discussion on its website into a corner, when it hasn’t been deleting critical comments outright.

So let me start over, a bit more clearly: there’s something else about Unity08, something new that strikes me as fishy, too. Unity08 brags that it is going to be have the democratiest presidential selection procedure ever, in which “our online supporters will select the crucial issues facing our nation.” Yet oddly enough, elsewhere Unity08 says it has already identified these crucial issues itself:

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues — on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues — which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

How can the American people get to pick the “crucial issues” for Unity08 when Unity08 has already picked them?

Ah, grasshopper. How indeed? “How” implies a method. And if Unity08 were to pick a method for getting the American people to pick the very same “crucial issues” that Unity08 had already identified, it couldn’t do any better than the following question from what Unity08 terms its “first vote” in the presidential selection process. First, Unity08 asks the “voter” (really, a survey respondent) to name an ideal presidential candidate. Then it asks the “voter” to explain why that person was named:

16. Which of these are the key reasons you selected [Selected Candidate]? Please check up to five main reasons for your choices.
	Character Willing to work on a bi-partisan basis Leadership abilities Willing to work with others to get things done Charisma, Personality Position on Healthcare Personal integrity Position on Terrorism No nonsense, straight talk and action Position on Education General approach to problem solving Position on Global Climate Change Experience Position on Energy Independence A sense of good judgment Position on some other critical issue Open to new ideas Positions on issues overall

The list here is hardly exhaustive and highly leading. “Willing to work on a bi-partisan basis” is present as an option to pick, but “loyal to his/her political party” isn’t. “Willing to work with others to get things done” is present, but “willing to stand up to the opposition” isn’t. “Open to new ideas” is present, but “commitment to his/her ideals” isn’t. Gee, do you think this survey, er, I mean “first vote,” is going to find that “voters” are seeking someone who is willing to work on a bipartisan basis, who is willing to work with others to get things done, and open to new ideas? Hey, isn’t that what Unity08 is already selling?

Take that lesson and apply it to the set of options having to do with a preferred candidate’s position. Each of the explicitly named position options — “Position on Healthcare,” “Position on Terrorism,” “Position on Education,” “Position on Global Climate Change,” and “Position on Energy Independence” — is a position that Unity08 has already declared to be crucial.

Unity’s version of “democracy” here is kind of Soviet in its approach — offering up a limited list of previously approved position choices for voter approval. The result of the “first vote” will undoubtedly, unavoidably be that “voters” have chosen their preferred candidates because of their “Position on Healthcare,” “Position on Terrorism,” “Position on Education,” “Position on Global Climate Change,” or their “Position on Energy Independence.” My goodness gracious, the press release will state, Unity08 was right all along! — which will be true, in an inevitable Kremlin Politburo sort of way.

Stacking the “first vote” with only the pre-approved options, then counting only some of the votes, and then publishing vote results from only a subset of the counted votes? That sure is one way to achieve a result of “Unity.” Is that kind of “Unity” really what you want?

There’s a sports cliche that has made its way into society in general. People say that they’re going to make a 110 percent effort to succeed. The idea of giving 110 percent has been overused to the point of being tiresome, but there’s a good idea behind it. Success is the usually result of a total commitment, not a half-baked ambivalent wandering around, hoping for the best.

Unfortunately, the Bush White House and its Republican supporters don’t see things that way. For them, success is whatever they can get away with. In September, they’re hoping that they can get away with convincing the American people that 16.67 percent success in Iraq is good enough.

The Bush Administration is claiming that its surge strategy to maintain the military occupation of Iraq is working. However, the Government Accountability Office looked at the available information and came to a different conclusion. The GAO found that, out of 18 benchmarks set for the American military operations in Iraq, only 3 had been successfully met. 3 out of 18 is 16.67 percent.

The Republicans say that meeting 16.67 percent of the goals in Iraq counts as success. The rest of us, who know better, will elect an anti-war, progressive candidate for President in 2008.

(Source: The Washington Post, August 30, 2007)

Do you think Hillary Clinton is just a Bitch?

My guess is probably not. In my experience, at least a majority of people who encounter Irregular Times (be they conservatives, liberals, libertarians or anarchists) tend to ground their thinking in principles, and even if I find myself in vehement disagreement with those principles I have some basic respect for people who at least have positions with some reasoning behind them. So if you, like I, have some problems with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, I imagine that you have some sort of basis for your conclusion that involves the connection of substantive facts with an organized set of propositions. You know, rational junk like that.

But you know, not everybody comes to conclusions like that. Some people decide who and what they will support based on how their gut feels. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff used his “gut feeling” to predict a rash of terrorist attacks in the summer of 2007. They didn’t happen. George W. Bush used the following test to measure up Russian president Vladimir Putin:

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.

Putin ended up trashing Russia’s juvenile democracy, jailing his political opponents and shutting down dissenting news organizations. Bush and Chertoff aren’t alone in this: pro-Bush bloggers have long been calling Clinton a “power hungry bitch” and asking her husband to “choke her to death on his Monica stick.” More recently, conservative rocker Ted Nugent took to the stage to refer to Hillary Clinton as a “worthless bitch” (right after he threatened to kill Barack Obama with a machine gun). This sort of conservative politics based in irrational anger is also part of the motivation for more mainstream members of the conservative chattering class. Conservative TV pundit, talk radio guest and commentator Debbie Schlussel unveiled her ideal anti-Clinton bumper sticker on August 24, 2007:

In conservative circles, a “Bitch” is a woman who speaks up, who won’t back down, and doesn’t care if it makes her look bad. Conservatives admire that in a man. But when they see backbone in a woman, it makes them mad. It makes them angry. It makes them steamed. They prefer the Laura Bush model of a woman: overdone makeup, pasted-on smiles and quiet support of whichever alpha man happens to be in the room.

Is that what you want for slightly more than half of the American population? Or are you sick and tired of your mothers, your sisters, your daughters and Hillary Clinton being denigrated as a “bitch” for the audacity of strong, independent opinions? Why on earth would you make common cause with the people who are getting their jollies doing exactly that?

(Sources: White House News Release, June 18 2001; Reuters, July 11 2007; Chicago Sun-Times August 27 2007)

Mother Davis watches another For Sale sign go up in the yard next door, and comments,

If you know someone trying to sell their home, then you’ll understand the gravity of this particular reason to elect a progressive President in 2008. The glut of homes for sale hit a 16-year record high in July 2007.

People are enduring real suffering as a result. Hard working Americans who have invested massive amounts of money and work in their homes are seeing that investment erode at an alarming pace, as prices plunge down below what they had paid for the houses not too long ago.

George W. Bush and the Republicans promised us what they called an “Ownership Society”. That’s not what they delivered. What they’ve brought us is an ownership bust, in which people cannot afford to live in their own homes any more.

Go back 16 years, to the last time that the number of houses on the market was this high, and the year was 1991 - when George W. Bush’s father was President of the United States. It took a progressive President to lead America out of the last housing bust, and it’s going to take another progressive President to get us out of this new one.

Putting away her dish soap and bubble wand,
Mother Davis

(Source: CNN, August 28, 2007)

Apologies to everyone for the absence of Irregular Times over the last 24 hours. Our server went down, and refused to go back up for quite a while. We’re back online, now, as you can see, and on a faster computer too.

Give us a bit to get our horses saddled back up, and then we’ll be off to deal with those rootin’ tootin’ right wing varmints again.