Why is no one talking about this?

There's a lot of talk about Bushco launching a "pre-emptive" strike against Iran to try and save the Republican majority in Congress. If Bushco is shortsighted and narcissistic enough to launch an attack on Iran, no doubt that would be a major disaster for the entire world. But frankly it doesn’t seem entirely likely, unless they stage some Gulf of Tonkin-type event to claim that Iran started it.

I for one am far more concerned about Bush and Rove’s inexplicable optimism about the November elections and the prospect that they are optimistic because they are planning on stealing several elections to retain control of Congress. Unfortunately, it seems it will be all-too-easy for them to do. .


I've seen no mention of the possibility that Bush and Rove are planning on rigging elections, and yet it seems so obvious that they would stoop to that level. Oh wait.

Clintons on point

Whenever I debate with a Republican or conservative friend or family member about politics, I never have a problem pointing out just how awful GOP leadership has been in the Bush era. But where I always get stymied is when my sparring partner finally pulls out their trump card: "Well, all the Dems and progressives ever do is point out what everyone else is doing wrong. What's their plan?"

I’m typically forced to admit that Dems and progressives have not really offered any plan, that they've simply offered opposition as opposed to alternatives. This, to me, has been the most frustrating point in what’s passed for the national debate for the past 5 years, as well as the biggest obstacle to ousting the GOP. Everyone was pointing fingers, but no one was offering alternatives.

No matter how much Dems and progressives rightly point out the many faults of the current administration and the sycophantic disgrace of a yes-man GOP congress currently occupying Capitol Hill, unless Dems and progressives are offering some kind of viable alternative plans or strategies there's no reason why anyone should vote for them instead of the GOP. Sure, dissatisfaction with the incompetent and avaricious bunglers who have hijacked our federal government may be enough to defeat the incumbents, but do we really want to rely on that? More importantly, can we afford to?

Given the fact that Dems are all-too-often thoroughly tepid in their criticism—especially in the sense that they continually debate the GOPers on the terms set by the neo-conservatives and the Christian Right, whose agenda has permeated and poisoned our national debate for the past half decade, rather than reframing the debate in a way that demonstrates how horribly skewed and dangerous the neo-con/Christian Right/GOP agenda truly is—there's no reason to expect dissatisfaction will lead to the ousting of the incumbent congress and/or administration.

That's why I'm so thoroughly heartened (and, honestly, so pleasantly surprised) by the actions of the Clintons in the past week. I'm not saying Bill and Hillary are immune from criticism--obviously they've got their share of flaws. All Dems have really failed to capitalize on the weakness of the GOP heading in to this election cycle, but if they follow the leads of Bill and Hillary they could mop the floor with these Republican thugs. First you've got Bill tearing Chris Wallace of Fox News a new one. Clinton defends his actions against the criticisms that he didn't do enough to capture bin Laden, saying "at least I tried" and pointing out that the Bush administration had 8 months before 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil and did nothing. By not sitting back and admitting defeat but actually taking the fight to the propaganda machine, Bill sparked off a debate that has been long in coming and has been covered extensively in the national press. What I find particularly inspiring—but under-reported—is that Bill puts Wallace in his place for parroting GOP talking points in asking why, as president, he didn’t do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda “out of business.” Clinton tells Wallace: "you didn't formulate [the question] in an honest way" and argues that the question in and of itself is a perfect example of Fox News' partisan bias. "You people ask me questions you don't ask the other side," Bill tells Wallace. He also asserts that the "right-wingers" who now criticize him for not doing enough criticized him during his presidency for the measures he did take to pursue bin Laden, claiming he was “wagging the dog” over a non-issue. It's about time someone as visible as Clinton voices frustration—on a national news service—with the fact that the Current GOP administration has gotten a pass from the media. Bill even goes a step further and calls Wallace out for not doing his job as a member of the mainstream media and thus, in theory, a watchdog of the public interest. It's also nice to have the hypocrisy of the current administration and congress being pointed out: They’re not nearly as interested in fighting terror as they are in doing whatever is politically expedient at the time.

Which brings us to the statement Hillary read at a press conference on Tuesday (9/26). Hillary says what is apparent to everyone whose interests are more vested in the well-being of the world than the fortunes of the GOP: the Bush administration and the incumbent GOP congress "may not have a plan to complete, successfully, the mission in Iraq, but they do have a plan to win elections here at home." She goes on to point out that "the Bush-Cheney administration has stretched our military to the brink, stretched the facts to fit their ideology and stretched the patience of the American people with rhetoric instead of results," and that "the Republican-led Congress has failed to engage in meaningful oversight of the Bush administration's Iraq policy." Her statement was occasioned by the meeting of the Democratic Policy Committee that sought to craft a new strategy for conducting the Iraq quagmire. It's about time a highly-visible Dem—as well as presidential contender—comes out against the diversionary tactics of the Bush administration and holds the do-nothing-but-rubber-stamp GOP congress responsible for enabling the most disastrous foreign policy ever implemented. It's scary how short-sighted and self-serving the Republican party has become. "The stakes are too high to let them take such a low road," Hillary says, referring to the incumbent administration's attempts to wag their show-dogs through the November elections while failing to come up with any substantive or effective policy in the current legislative term. The failed policies of the Bush administration have jeopardized the safety of the entire world, not just our country, and not just the political fortunes of incumbent legislators. We need to elect real leadership in November of 2006 and November of 2008, and until now there has been no one even having a real debate in which that leadership could emerge.

Thank you, the Clintons, for finally starting a real debate, the first one we’ve had in more than 5 years. And thank you Democratic Policy Committee for finally making moves to craft substantial alternatives, rather than just shooting the fish in the leaky barrel that is the Bush administration and the congress that has become little better than a propaganda apparatus for that administration. I'm no Democrat, but it is very encouraging to see any Dem finally fighting back, not just with talk but with plans and strategies, too. But speaking of talk, let's hope Bill's fiery refusal to let Wallace's conservative talking points frame their discussion gives the rest of the Democratic party a kick in the ass, because there's still a lot they need to do and not a whole lot of time left to do it in. Let's hope Bill's tough talk and the DPC's hearing on Iraq leads to actual, substantive policy positions and a progressive agenda for the Democratic Party.

Resist not the new

Mark my words: Pandora is the way of the future. I’m not making a prediction on the prospects of that company, mind you. I’m simply claiming that soon, all media will be web-based.

Resist not the new, as Emerson advised. If you open your mind, it will refine and raise your outlook on life on this planet. But there is a lot of resistance, and I personally get frustrated with those who retard the pace of the transition to digital culture. There is so much potential we have not unlocked.

Record companies know it, and they’re fighting it tooth and nail – but to no avail. Soon enough, someone, some band, somewhere, will come up with the “business model” that will take advantage of the web in ways the brick-and-mortar establishment has never dreamed of, and the traditional record company will be a thing of the past. It’s happening already. We all know it, we've all seen it, and I don't feel like I even need to document that fact.

TV networks know it, too, and have embraced the Internet to a degree, at least to the point that they host exclusive content on their websites in conjunction with news reports and other programming. Of course, millions of bloggers, as well as sites like Alternet.org and the Indy Media network, have already changed the way we receive our news. But I think that, some time soon, the TV as we know it will be obsolete. Your computer’s monitor and your TV will be one and the same. You will tune in to websites, not TV stations; and when that becomes a widely accessible and accessed medium, there will be a drastic increase in the number of people making their own home-made programming and hosting it on their own television sites. Naturally, you’ll still get the corporate-made schlock; the corporate TV entities will, above all, find a way to continue making money. But imagine the possibilities of unlimited websites offering programming that is truly inspired, not market-tested into sterility. Personally, I don’t watch TV because there is very little on TV that I want to see. Star Trek fans have the same problem these days, and they’re using the Internet to remedy that situation.

The publishing industry is starting to feel the digital heat, too, and there is quite the debate going on about the future of books. On one side of the debate, you have those who are excited about the prospect of digitalizing all knowledge, likening a project to assemble an online “universal library” that is already underway to the great library at Alexandria. Others, like John Updike, see this as the lamentable death-knell for the world of books they cherish so deeply. But even if every book ever written is digitized and available for download or digital search, that doesn’t mean anyone has to stop buying and reading hardcopies. I have a hard time understanding Mr. Updike’s concern. Sure, the bookselling industry will have to readjust, and, regrettably, it will probably be the smaller, independent stores that bear the brunt of the readjustment. But I, for one, certainly won’t stop buying hardcopies – I love books and I love reading and collecting them. On the other hand, as a literary scholar, I look forward to the day that I can perform digital searches of any text I am interested in studying. The implications for the types of research that will be made possible are truly wondrous. It’s only a matter of time before new word-based art forms arise that make use of the Internet to create texts impossible with print and paper. So far, though, the best example of the formats the Internet makes possible is non-artistic: Wikipedia.com, perhaps the best, most thorough – and thoroughly fascinating – encyclopedia man has ever made (and people who claim the information on Wikipedia is not reliable are wrong).

The video gaming industry is the perfect example of why people are wrong to oppose web-based technologies rather than embracing them. Rather than fight or resist the Internet, video game companies rushed to embrace it – Origin put out the wildly successful title Ultima Online, an online addition to a long-running, single-player PC franchise, as early as 1997. Today, massively multiplayer online role-playing games, or MMORPGs as they’re now more commonly called, are the juggernaut of the video gaming industry. World of Warcraft has millions of subscribers. Single-player console games still do a respectable business, but the opportunity to play in an open-ended, persistent-state gameworld with any number of other people is an Internet promise fulfilled, and it has certainly paid off for Blizzard.

There’s no reason why the music, publishing, and TV programming industries can’t invent ways to capitalize on the technologies the web makes possible. Ironically, many of the companies who are putting up the fiercest fight against those new technologies are the ones with the most resources at their disposal with which they could be developing the newest blockbuster technology. Perhaps they are hoping that they can continue to squeeze every last drop out of their current business models while someone else develops the new technologies, which they will then swoop in and purchase. The music industry has certainly been doing just that – witness the fate of Napster, and the latest developments in the lawsuit against Kazaa. The recording industry has co-opted these sites rather than develop their own vehicle for online sales and marketing. Let’s hope this trend is soon reversed. We need more creativity and fresh ideas and less rear-guard maneuvering when it comes to embracing the future.

Which brings me back to Pandora. Not only are Pandora’s musical offerings far, far more diverse than any other single radio station, but they have established partnerships with the goal of integrating their Internet radio station into actual radios and other types of electronic devices. Just like your old TV, your old radio will soon be obsolete, thanks to the Internets.

Doubleplusungoodspeak

You gotta hand it to the Repugnicans: They are masters of doublespeak. The Israel-Lebanon ceasefire was not a day old and Bush was already using it to lay the groundwork for starting yet another war:

"Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks," Bush said.

As he sits there proud as a preening peacock because a cease-fire has finally been announced, Bush is welcoming the end of the hostilities out of one corner of his mouth and stoking anti-Iran sentiment with the other. I'd be impressed with his subtly nuanced speech if the implications weren't so bloodthirsty.

I agree that a "sustainable peace" should be everyone's end-goal, but to use that as a justification for prolonging the conflict, as Condi and Bush repeatedly did, is just heinously unconscionable. Couldn't we have stopped Israel from killing mothers and their babies while we work towards that sustainable peace? Hezbollah was firing missiles, of course, but the drastically disparate death toll is a good indicator of how dangerous those missile attacks really were. And what's more, is there no such thing as "being the bigger man (or woman or country or what-have-you)" any more? Of course Israel should defend itself, it's madness not to; but as everyone can see they were not merely interested in "defending" themselves. Israel wants revenge. Bloody, bloody revenge. Their tactics were more commensurate with a dictatorial regime engaging in ethnic cleansing than a super-powerful state defending itself from a far-less-capable enemy. It seems as if, when they say "sustainable peace," what Bush and Condi mean is Israel lives and everyone who opposes them dies. That's one way to achieve peace, I suppose.

The Repugnicans aren't even trying that hard to mask their doublespeak any more, either. Witness: How did they cast Lieberman's primary loss? To quote press secretary Tony Snow, the sound bite of the day seemed to be that "if you disagree with the extreme left in [the Democratic] party they're going to come after you."

I thought the official Repugnican line was that Democrats were spineless flip-floppers??? Now all of a sudden they're rabid ideologues? I'm incredulous about the fact that Repugnicans can get away with characterizing the results of the Connecticut primary as a witch hunt, when it really amounts to the Democrats doing some much-needed house-cleaning — thoroughly democratic house-cleaning, too. The people voted, and a majority voted for Lamont. Where's the witch hunt? Oh, right, the people behaved in a way that can't be described as "cowed in fear" or "supplicant to Emperor Bush." How could we have expected him or any of his cronies to recognize what actually happened? They wouldn't know democracy if it wrapped itself around their crusty members and died.

I'm actually ashamed as an American living under the Bush regime that the Repugnicans blatantly and purposefully misread the democratic process in action as anything less than the process they tout so highly and are so keen to spread across the globe. Why does anyone take them seriously? Even more importantly: How can anyone believe in the Repugnicans when they stand for absolutely nothing? Because words alone do not make a philosophy, you must follow through with actions. And at every step, the Repugnicans' actions belie their flowery, well-crafted, carefully-marketed words.

These people don't want fair access for all, they want power for themselves. Hence they'll even denigrate what they supposedly exalt higher than anything (save God, of course; they're all pious, pious men of God, naturally) if it serves their partisan purpose. Hence they brokered a peace deal only for the "political capital" they acquired — which they instantly spend trying to start another war. Hence when democracy happens in their own country, it is characterized as evil because it threatens the Bushies' power.

How many innocent people have died for the Repugnicans' great "Get Out the Democracy!" drive? I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but if we were trying to spread democracy to them, we should have at least let them vote on whether or not they wanted to be smart-bombed, or gunned down at a roadside checkpoint, or raped and murdered by our troops...

Oh yeah, and speaking of doublespeak, when Bush says he's doing everything he can to protect our nation, it's just more empty rhetoric. We are not safer.

Cavorting Wee Beasties

According to Wikipedia:

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (October 24, 1632 - August 30, 1723), "was a Dutch tradesman and scientist from Delft, Netherlands. He is commonly known as 'the Father of Microbiology.'"

Van Leeuwenhoek was the first person to ever observe microorganisms through a magnifying lens. He referred to them as "cavorting, wee beasties" and "animalcules." I find both terms to be utterly fantastic. The fact that van Leeuwenhoek came up with both of them instantly endears me to him and makes naming this blog in his honor completely worthwhile.

And then I came across this bit of his writing:

My work, which I've done for a long time, was not pursued in order to gain the praise I now enjoy, but chiefly from a craving after knowledge, which I notice resides in me more than in most other men. And therewithal, whenever I found out anything remarkable, I have thought it my duty to put down my discovery on paper, so that all ingenious people might be informed thereof. - Anton van Leeuwenhoek, from a letter dated June 12, 1716

In that spirit, I give you the Look at the wee beasties! blog. Thanks for visiting.