Liberal and Loving It

Funny - Can't Breathe Funny!

This is Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correxpondents' Association Dinner. The funniest thing I have seen in years.

• Google video

And try to keep breathing... (note - the linked site allows uploads of any video so there's a lot of interesting stuff there. But it was the only place I could find this.)

ps - I would like to see one of the rounds of the next presidential debates moderated by Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart. It would never happen because they would extract a lot more information from each candidate.

Compilation of reviews here. And as PSoTD said "Oh, he bombed? Right. That's why everyone's talking about it today. That's why he's being championed at half the blogosphere and belittled in the other half - because he bombed. No, Colbert's comments have a life that will extend the remainder of Bush's life."

And my opinion on why the MSM was not happy with his speech - because he tore into them almost as much as he tore into Bush. And when he was tearing into Bush, in front of Bush, he was doing so more directly than most of them would from the safety of their keyboards. No reporter wants to admit a comedian is better at their job than they are.

Trackback: Mudville Gazette, ColoradoPols

Fran O'Brien's Causing Indigestion for Liberals

For those that haven't heard this story, here is a summation in my management blog - The World's Dumbest P.R. Department

Here's the problem. Across the left in blog after blog, people are totally upset with the Hilton for doing this. But then they find that the right-wing blogs are also upset. And many people on the left find themselves almost ill that they are agreeing with the right on some issue.

Who knows, the Hilton in their actions may have finally found the common ground for the left and right to start reaching concensus on some issues. If so, this country owes them a giant thank you for making themselves the common object of contempt.

Trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, Daily KOS

Democrat '06 Victory part III - fix healthcare today

Part III of What the Democrats need to win in 2006

Ok, the Democratic party is looking for something they can do to show the country that they have ideas, can act, can implement, and are not just the party of Anyone but Bush.

But the Republican's control all three branches of government in Washington. So what can the Democratic party do? They are blocked from passing any initiatives. And this makes them look weak (they are) and bereft of ideas (they are not).

I think solving the health care crisis can be done now by the Democrats. And in doing so they would show themselves as the party that is solving one of the biggest problems facing people in this country. Here is how I think this can be done today.

There are numerous proposals on how to fix health care. And the bottom line is no one knows which will work well (forget best - just well is a question). At the same time, if we change the system for the country, we get at best one chance to do so and we will have to wait until 2008 at the earliest to start as it will require a collective effort of the President and Congress.

What if instead each state fixes health care for their state? Hawaii has a good statewide system (has had it for years). Massachusetts is about to start one. So the Democratic party makes it a top priority to come up with a solution in the remaining 48 states.

This has a number of advantages over fixing health care at the federal level:

• We have 50 different experiments as to what approach works best. As we learn from these individual approaches, we can determine which system works best and either make that a single federal system, or work with the states to make all state systems more effective.
• The Democrats control many state governments. This can be implemented now. And by making it part of a national program, as states improve health care in their state, it does not reflect just on the politicians in that state, but on Democrats across the country.
• The states controlled by Republicans will then have a choice, join the Democratic program or tell their citizens that they don't get improved health care. Either way the Republican party loses.

I think to do this effectively the Democratic party should keep it simple.

• Each state is different, both in terms of it's needs and what it's citizens will find acceptable. Support each state's politicians but do not try to jam a centrally designed system down their throats. Help them as they decide what works best.
• Make a commitment to introduce a plan in every state legislature by a specific date. Even states that are fully controlled by the Republican party, a plan will be introduced.
• Have a national list of requirements. Keep it short and simple, a sentence would be best. Something like catastrophic coverage for everyone.
• Start the discussions in each state now. So as we hit the November elections, voters will see that the Democratic politicians across the country have done the hard work to have a plan to introduce in each legislature in early 2007. In other words, a vote for a Democrat will be a vote for a health care fix that they know will be ready to introduce in the next session. A vote for a Republican means health care may not be fixed.

And at the federal level? The Democratic senators should put together a bill to encourage and support the states in their effort. This can include things such as allowing medicare & medicaid to be included in the new state system as long as the coverage remains as good or better for those affected.

There if the Republicans at the federal level oppose it (as the ones in the House will almost certainly do), then again in the 2006 elections a vote for the Democrats is a vote for fixing health care and a vote for the Republicans is a vote for the status quo.

But the key part of this is the politicians in each state have to start doing the hard work of crafting a plan for their state. It's easy to promise "a fix." But if voters see the work being done, the arguments and trade-offs that show a workable bill is being created, then they will believe and then it can have a significant impact on their vote.

Trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

Why is everyone white?

Microsoft has a new major add campaign titled "Are your people ready?" You can see on in the April 17 Newsweek page E13 (Enterprise center section).

In this ad it pictures 18 people representing the employees of your company. The people for these ads are very carefully selected - they don't say send over the first 18 people that showed up today at central casting. For a campaign like this Microsoft certainly reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of head shots to select the 18 that would represent the generic company ready to maximize their high tech investment.

And what is the racial and gender makeup of this group? 4 women, 2 Asian, 2 Hispanic, and 0 African-American. So apparently Microsoft figures the average company is 78% male and 78% white while being 0% African-American. Oh, and the old people are all stuck in the back of the group.

So what is going on here? Why is Microsoft presenting the employees of "your company" as a white male group? Do they figure that those making the purchasing decision view their companies this way? About the only place in corporate America that is still this segregated is the boardrooms of the Fortune 500 and even that bastion of white male-ness has African-American members.

What message is Microsoft trying to send in these ads? I'm not saying it's racism - but it is weird...

Update:

Anyone who sees one of these ads (printed today or earlier) please scan and email to me. I will then post all of them here so people can draw their own conclusions about the racial & gender spread across all of the ads.

• Newsweek 4/17 (above comments)
• Fortune 5/1 pg 26 - (80% white, 74% male)

Update 2:

I have never had to do this before but I deleted several posts that were both racist & mean. You are welcome to disagree but if you want the comment on my blog, do it professionally and do not use derogatory terms. It is amazing how a discussion of race brings out the worst in some people. (Discussions of Microsoft too - so combining the topics really brings out the loonies.)

Also, my point is not that the ad shows Microsoft to be racist or that all ads should show a correct cross section of our society. My point was that with so many people in the ad it was unusual that it was so predominately white & male. And that clearly Microsoft made a decision to have it be unusually (by the standards of ads of that type by major corporations) white & male.

Trackbacks: ColoradoPols, DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

Generals involved in politics - old news in the U.S.

Yes we have a history of civilian control of the military. And in practice as well as law that primacy of civilian control has held. But that does not mean that the military has not involved itself in the politics of this country.

• In the revolutionary war Washington (and others in the army) were constantly lobbying congress for money, for troops, etc. And the actions of the army were basically left totally to the military.
• In the Civil War you had congressmen who became generals. And you had a general (McClellan) who became the democratic presidential candidate against Lincoln in his re-election.
• In WWII you had MacArthur who made encouraged an exploratory group to propose him as the republican candidate against FDR while he commanded the allies in the South-West pacific.
• In Vietnam you had tons of officers both for (Westmoreland) and against (Hackworth) constantly involving themselves in the political discussion over Vietnam.

At the same time, while the military does not wield a veto over the political branch, they can exert political pressure.

• Kennedy felt that if he did not convince the joint chiefs of the validity of his actions in the bay of pigs, they would order an attack on Cuba forcing the issue. This restricted his options.
• Clinton had to compromise on "don't ask, don't tell" because of push back from the military. And that initial fight left him having to negotiate with the military on issues like Bosnia.

The primacy of the civilian government over the military is critical for our democracy. And we should always be careful when the generals start entering the political sphere. But what is presently happening is not unprecedented. And we are nowhere close to the effect the military has had on the government at other times.

Trackbacks: Mudville Gazette, The Command T.O.C., DailyKos, Armchair Generalist

Goodbye Rumsfeld

With the way it is playing out now, I'm guessing that Rumsfeld will be gone in 1 - 3 weeks. The combination of Bush's political weakness, the continuing disaster in Iraq, and the number of retired generals coming out against him is something that will force the hand of Bush.

And while I do think it is way past time for him to be fired for gross incompetence, he is not the only one at fault. Many of these same top generals did not push back as they should have. And many of the top generals, both retired and still serving are also at fault for doing a lousy job.

Rummy Punch -- [TNR]
Of course George W. Bush should fire Donald Rumsfeld--it's no longer an interesting debate. Even the Iraq war's most fervent supporters--people like John McCain--have denounced Rumsfeld's refusal to send enough troops to secure Baghdad in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. Rumsfeld's support is now concentrated among people less invested in the survival of Iraq than in the survival of Bush. And, even on the right, their numbers are dwindling fast....

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship - Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign -- [GregPalast]
Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation. Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and they still don't get it...

Report says Rumsfeld allowed Guantanamo abuse -- [Reuters]
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld allowed an "abusive and degrading" interrogation of an al Qaeda detainee in 2002, the online magazine Salon reported on Friday, citing an Army document...

Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says -- [CNN]
The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon...

Now The Army REALLY is Coming Apart; Generals Stand Up Against "Dummy Rummy" -- [The Command T.O.C.]
Well, it is finally blowing up in Rummy's face as the Generals are now coming out to tell the American public just how inept he is and how silly the Iraq war is...

Dereliction of Duty (Again?) -- [ROFASIX]
The recent ABC news story, "Generals clamor for Rumsfeld's ouster over Iraq war shows that the culture that HR McMaster wrote about in his book, Dereliction of Duty, remains alive and well in the military. That realization is unsettling and means integrity and ethics once again are taking a back seat to careerism at the senior levels of the military...

Know a good article on this? - email me - [email protected]

Trackbacks - DailyKos, Mudville Gazette, The Command T.O.C.

Microsoft prefers Republicans, Google Democrats

I have found incontrovertible proof that Microsoft strongly backs G.W. Bush and the Republican party while Google strongly backs the Democratic party.

Perform a search on msn for miserable failure. You will get MichaelMoore.com first and G.W. Bush is only 4th.

Now do the same search on google. You will get 2 pictures of President Bush at the top and then the bio page for G.W. Bush. And Michael Moore is 4th.

Clearly the search engine at Microsoft has been tweaked to favor Republican sources while the search engine at Google has been tweaked to favor Democrat sources. So the right now not only has Fox News, but also Microsoft search to deliver to them the information they agree with.

While the overwhelming popularity of google shows that most internet users prefer their searches leaning to the left. (Or as we liberals would say - mainstream.)

ps - While this was written tongue in cheek(liberal definition) it is true, for this case at least, that Microsoft gives more weight to conservative sites and Google to liberal ones.

Trackbacks: ColoradoPols, The Command T.O.C., DailyKos, Mudville Gazette

G.W. Bush - Our Third Worst President

Ranking presidents, especially the worst, can be done by a number of different criteria. If you look at how unqualified they are, Harding would probably top (or is it bottom) the list. But I think the need for competency is a major criteria. In other words, how bad did a president's ineptitude hurt the U.S.

For Harding and many others, they did not have the opportunity to seriously damage the country, no matter how inept they were. If not for 9/11 G.W. Bush would have probably gone down on the lower end of the list (mainly for his damage to the economy), but not near the bottom.

The Worst

1. Without question this is Buchanan. Maybe no one could stop the Civil War at that point - both sides were hardening in their positions. But his behind the scenes support for the Dred Scott decision, as well as many other actions, poured aviation fuel on the fire. And he made no effort to stop secession or actively protect federal supplies. This time, and Washington to Jefferson were the two times the country could have disintegrated. With Washington, Adams, and Jefferson we had statesmen who while not perfect, did a superb job of keeping the country together. With Buchanan we had someone who helped push the country from disagreement to war.
2. This is a closer call but I think Hoover was clearly worse than G.W. Bush. The depression could have led to almost anything. Probably not a breakup of the country, but we could have easily gone down the road of fascism, communism, or some unique form of populism. In any of these cases, it would have almost certainly meant a harder life for the people in this country and who knows what would have happened in WWII. Hoover was completely unwilling to realize that the depression was so unprecedented that it required trying new things. (In this way he is much like Bush in his unwillingness to learn.)
3. G.W. Bush is clearly third. I cannot think of another president (other than the two above) that has done anywhere near as much damage to this country. And unlike the first two, his ineptitude has damaged many other countries - although that may be more a function of the global economy. (And Smoot-Hawley under Hoover did help worsen the global depression). Taking away the political differences I have with Bush and concentrating just on his competence we have:

• He has trashed the U.S. economy. The economy has not grown because of his economic program, but in spite of it. Clinton left him the biggest surplus in history and he has turned it into a series of ever larger record deficits. He has made fixed entitlements worse with his drug plan while failing to address the biggest problems with existing entitlements (medicare & medicaid) and with social security had a proposal that would have put people more at risk while increasing cost. It's a sad day when the Democrats are the party of fiscal sanity.
• He has heavily damaged the moral standing of the U.S. with the war in Iraq. Not quite as much as Vietnam, but close. And much of this stems not from the decision to attack, but the unbelievable gross incompetence with which the wars was prosecuted. Standing by as the entire country was looted - with it all in living color on everyone's TV. Not realizing that the Abu Ghraib torture needed to be addressed quickly and with people at the very top fired was a disaster across the world.
• He has left this country defenseless. The Katrina disaster was the one we have faced so far. But the lack of security for chemical plants, ports, the food supply - in fact everything. Like everything else in his administration, politics determined funding so Wyoming got a ton of money and countries with lots of targets, which tend to be Democratic, got almost nothing. We will be attacked, there will be more natural disasters, and Bush has done nothing to stop it.
• He has violated the civil rights which is one of the core principals of what makes America Amercia. When citizens can be spied upon and imprisoned at the whim of the president, then we are no longer a democracy. We are a dictatorship. Granted we are not in a Stalinist police state. But he has gone beyond a balance of power to say he as President can do anything he wants to do and the only limit on his actions is his own self restraint.
• He has taken the political sphere and pushed it to the bottom. Granted he has had lots of help here and it started with the Republican assault on Clinton. But Bush/Cheney/Rove have done their best to make our political system as divided as possible. And those Democrats who do reach out tend to get screwed so bad, that there is no second time.
• He has shown an incredible inability to learn from his mistakes. Reagan & Clinton were masters at evolving their efforts as they learned on the job. They weren't perfect, but they improved on the job. The job of president requires that there be a constant effort to improve based on learning what works and what doesn't. Bush for whatever reason (his faith, an overprotective mother, a staff that won't tell him things aren't perfect) - seems totally incapable of learning. In his world there are no mistakes.

I could go on but I don't see any need to list out more. History will speak, first in 10 - 20 years, and then with more authority in 50 - 100 years. And when it does, G.W. Bush will go down as one of our worst presidents. The only questions is will he be 3^rd worst. I will admit I might be wrong and he will turn out to be worse than Buchanan. Only time will tell.

The Best

This is easy - Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt (FDR) in chronological order. Close seconds - Adams (1st), Jefferson, Jackson, Roosevelt (Teddy), & Truman. As to anyone post-Kennedy, it's too soon to say. And yes, Wilson is purposely left off this list.

trackbacks: DailyKos, ColoradoPols, The Command T.O.C., The Indepundit, Mudville Gazette