Aussies "Back" Bush

Dateline Australia (excerpts; emphasis added):

US President George Bush has declared that he doesn't mind if Australian MPs turn their backs on him during his official visit to Canberra next week. "It means that democracy's alive and well - if somebody feels like they want to express discontent, that's OK. That's democracy," he told the Nine Network in a pre-trip interview aired last night. Mr Bush said he was anxious to visit Australia to thank the Australian people and Prime Minister John Howard for the support Australia had shown during the Iraq conflict. ... A group of Labor MPs - including Dr Lawrence, who is a candidate for Labor's federal presidency - is finalising plans to stage a silent protest during Mr Bush's address, including the wearing of white armbands for peace. Their action will defy cautions from Opposition Leader Simon Crean to be polite to the visiting leader as the party's collection of private polling data shows that Australians strongly support the US alliance. ... "Not at all," Mr Bush said when asked if he would be offended by Labor MPs turning their backs. "I don't expect everybody to agree with us, but one thing's for certain - the Prime Minister was strong, and the Australian military performed brilliantly." He added that "the main purpose (of the trip) is to thank the people of Australia, and to thank my friend John Howard for being strong in the face of terror and understanding that we have a historic opportunity to bring peace and freedom to parts of the world that need peace and freedom". ... Mr Bush rejected claims that torture is being used in the terrorist detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, where Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are in their second year of imprisonment. "No, of course not - we don't torture people in America, and people who make that claim just don't know anything about our country," he said.

Turkey Shoot

Steve Gilliard make a good point about bringing Turkish soldiers to join the coalition forces in Iraq:

The intervention of the Turks will go down as well as Chinese occupation troops in Vietnam. The Kurds are seeing visions of genocide in their heads, burned villages, raped women and looted homes. And that's the start. Other Iraqis have similar memories. In an America where history is entertainment, Turkey's history with the Arabs and Kurds is a quant tale from the past. Not in Iraq, where it's like the SS coming over the Golan Heights and down towards Tel Aviv. The Turks show up, fighting will start, even if the leaders try to prevent it and they aren't that eager. Even if there wasn't such bad blood, all the occupiers get attacked. But with the Turks, its all personal. The US may well be stuck between allies, Kurds and Turks, who want to kill each other on sight.

Dear Gay and Single Parents: You're Bad, Bad I Tell You

Guess what, it's Marriage Protection Week:

Purpose of Marriage Protection Week The sacred institution of marriage is under attack. There are those who want to redefine marriage to include two men, or two women, or a group of any size or mix of sexes: One man and four women, one woman and two men, etc. If they fail to secure legal protection classifying these arrangements as 'marriage,' they want to include all these mixtures under the definition of 'civil union,' giving them identical standing with the marriage of one man and one woman. They have gained the support of the national media and many politicians. Their efforts are intended to force, by law, 97% of Americans to bow down to the desires of the approximately 3% who are homosexuals. To call attention to this most critical issue, Oct. 12-18 has been declared MARRIAGE PROTECTION WEEK. You, your church or group is encouraged to help protect the sacred institution of marriage.

In case you thought this was bogus, President Bush has thrown in his support:

Marriage Protection Week, 2003 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents. To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home. ... During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth. GEORGE W. BUSH

The American Humanist Association has a response to this proclamation:

The latest volley in the debate over gay marriage is the declaration that October 12-18 is "Marriage Protection Week." After heavy lobbying from the staunchest religious right organizations, President Bush just signed a proclamation giving his endorsement. This is our chance to raise our voices and reveal the inappropriate religious fervor behind what is now a government-endorsed effort. Marriage Protection Week is a national campaign to gain "awareness" for the evils that expanding the legal definition of marriage can bring. Tony Hileman, executive director for the American Humanist Association points out, "The American Humanist Association affirms the validity and supports the legalization of same-sex marriages in all states of the United States. Marriage is about commitment, not about reproduction, and the state’s interest should be secular rather than sacramental. Religious faith and opinion should be personal and not manipulated to direct national policy." With the president's endorsement, we can expect to see plenty of propaganda for this homophobic campaign, which is why we must counteract it! Now is the time to compose letters to your newspapers, and promptly respond to whatever publicity this exclusionary effort receives.

Mark Morford has a slightly different perspective on this issue (snippet):

They cite studies, many from antichoice, homophobic neoconservative groups from Colorado Springs. They try to show that children of happy well-adjusted well-narcotized Bible-riffic man/woman parents fare better in the world than children of "other family structures," like those horrible and clearly irresponsible single parents who should be shunned by society and sent off to savage islands somewhere in Indonesia. They try to prove that gays are gathering in fur-lined basements and bright airy well-designed lofts right this minute, strategizing how to best rip apart the sturdy corduroy fabric of society and replace it with a nice light wool/spandex blend, all while introducing more young boys to Satanism and cool designer shoes. Therefore, if we all work to "protect" marriage -- which apparently means lots of counseling and guilt-thick church meetings and bad sex and rampant loathing of gay people, coupled with your tacit agreement to bury your sense of self and endure yet another decade of unhappy marriage with someone you might not love anymore and who might be abusive or unhealthy or just plain depressing as hell -- society will be saved.

Ahhhh, homophobia. One of many tangents to the advancement of civilization, leading us all to hell in a very nicely decorated handbasket. Now, come on, where would we be today without interior decorators, female clothing designers, Hollywood producers and directors, and the tens of millions of successful and innovative LGBT individuals (in or out of the closet) in all walks of life just in the U.S.? We'd already be in hell, living in very ugly handbaskets. If it's true that 10% of the population is gay, then there are 600 million living and breathing on Earth right now. They're not going away, Bush. You can't legislate them off the planet. Left is Right knows that someday homosexuality will be seen as just another standard biological variation of the entity of man, but apparently not in our brief lifetimes. Oh well...

The Business of Rebuilding

This interesting piece from today's "From the Bunker" sheds a unique light on a couple of urgent concerns about Iraq: the current state of securing contracts by domestic (Iraqi) companies, and the level of security in Baghdad.

Left is Right strongly recommends From the Bunker as a daily read for anyone seeking up-to-date news about Iraq.

Recalling the Voters

There's a good summary by NDOL of the Texas redistricting debacle. Snippet:

DLC | New Dem Daily | October 15, 2003 Reverse Recall in Texas California Republicans recently bankrolled an effort that succeeded in convincing voters to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. But Texas Republicans did something very different over the weekend: In an effort to remove up to eight Democratic members of Congress, they recalled voters. They supplied fresh evidence that the modern science of gerrymandering has made Congressional and state legislative redistricting an exercise in politicians choosing voters, rather than the other way around. Not content with the outcome of the redistricting that sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress in the 2002 elections, the Republicans led by U.S. House GOP Leader Tom DeLay took advantage of the majority they gained in the state legislature in 2002 to launch a second redistricting. This second redistricting -- a re-redistricting -- is raw power politics at its worst. The new districts brand and corral voters in crazy-quilt districts with big GOP majorities and de facto racial and ethnic segregation. These chastised Texas voters are now expected to produce an overwhelmingly Republican congressional Delegation.

Sure wish we could go to this...

October 22, 2003 The Onion Speaks | The editors of the wickedly funny and wildly popular satirical newspaper The Onion, including Carol Kolb, editor in chief, will join Eric Alterman, Nation columnist and author of What Liberal Media? for a lively discussion about covering politics today. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. Seating cannot be guaranteed after 6:50 p.m. Tickets are $15; $5 for students. The event will take place at the New School's Tishman Auditorium 66 West 12th Street, NYC. For tickets, call (212) 229-5488.

Huh. You can find good editorials even in the Niagra Falls Reporter.

This picture's been popping up all over the blogiverse. It's both creepy and fascinating. Sorta like the mother of all contradictions.

Google Trick

Here's something that might interest you if you have a web site or blog. Using Google, you can find other pages that link to yours by typing in "link:" and then your URL. For example, to see many of the sites linked to "Left is Right", I would type link:www.mstabile.blogspot.com in the Google search bar and, voila, Left is Right is no internet wallflower.

Hard-drinking Teens

Brain damage linked to teenage binge drinkers. Gosh, who woulda thought...

"I don't believe in superstitions; I think they're bad luck." --- Outfielder Rick Monday

Bill on Rush

Bill Maher's advice to Rush Limbaugh (snippet):

And that's what Rush has to say: "I am no better or stronger than a crackhead. I lived for the drug, just like he did; obsessed about getting it all the time, like he did; corrputed and lied about everything else in my life - career, health (the hearing problem is related to this, no doubt - check the amount he was taking daily - Elvis is going "whoa, dude, slow down with that shit"), relationships, like he did. And we both deserve the same treatment: compassion!" Because Rush wants, and is already getting, a lot of compassion for this. Let me add my full hearted endorsement of that, and hope for a successful rehab, and a happy life for him whatever he wants to do thereafter. Rush Limbaugh was the first one to say "Bill Maher was right" when I was in the hot seat after 911, and I will always appreciate and remember that. He also has a good sense of humor, and enjoys jokes I've done about him. I want to be able to back him. But he's gotta keep it real when he gets out. If he starts living the morally indefensible double standard he has been defending his whole career, game over. He learned nothing, or is too weak to admit it. That would be a shame, because I think he has it in him to do this, and the power and accomplishment from turning this battleship around would be, well - a rush.

What is a Progressive?

Ted D. at ddjangowire has just posted his first installment in a series of essays on the development of a Progressive philosophy. Good read for all who feel so bad, yet frustratingly helpless, about events during the past three years. Snippet:

For this nation’s soul will not shine in anger, conquest, provocation, and lies. This nation’s soul cannot sustain itself by extinguishing the fires burning in others’ souls. It may, however, be found in introspection; in construction before destruction, in attention to the needs of, rather than the threat from other peoples and nations; in realizing and acting as if we are the earth’s resource, rather than the earth being ours. This nation’s soul will be ignited only in the recognition that we have much power and will use it for growth of the whole human spirit.

Super Strike

There's a huge supermarket strike happening right now, here in So. California. Emma from Notes on the Atrocities, has some good observations on the whole shebang:

In the discussion of the economy, one element gets precious little attention: labor. Last night 70,000 grocery store workers went on strike in California. At hand is the issue of health care--neither labor nor the grocery store owners want to pay the $1 billion of increased costs (Von's, Ralph's, and Albertson's are the chains in question). An additional pressure, according to management, is non-union stores like Wal-Mart who have far lower labor costs. The stores say they aren't competitive, the unions say their workers can't afford the increase in health care costs. As always, it's become a battle of perception: which side will successfully paint the other as greedy? If the workers can do it, people will shop at other stores in the area, forcing the supermarkets to lose money and become compliant. If the chains are successful (and their resources are certainly far greater), they'll make the workers look like overpaid ingrates who are willing to endanger the business for their greedy ends. People will continue to shop, and the workers will eventually run out of money and become compliant. For some reason, Americans generally tilt toward management. Perhaps it's our innately entrepreneurial culture. Or maybe it's because so many workers don't themselves make good money or have benefits and so are resentful--a view management has always exploited. (Although in this case, full-time union workers are making relatively modest incomes--an average of $12-$14 an hour, or $25-$29k; moreover, 80% are not full time.) Arguing from the labor side, I have two thoughts. The first is that this is business, not public policy. Management tries to make its point by appealing to people's sense of fair play. But there's no fair play in business--its very nature is a transaction of self-interest. So why should labor play by a sense of fair play while management--who certainly look out for themselves before business interests--get stinkin' rich? The argument is patently disengenous. The issue here is power. Unions are hated and opposed by management because they give workers power. In the PR game, the only card management has is the phony fair-play argument. The second thought is this: if we are innately entrepreneurial, why is it that this impulse only extends to management, not labor. The thing workers sell is their sweat, so why shouldn't they be entreprenuerial in extracting the most for this commodity? It's supply and demand, right? Workers are somehow exempt from advocating for their product? The biggest problem with labor right now is that so few workers think in terms of their own value. Wal-Mart employees are certainly worth more than nine bucks an hour. But because workers have been beaten down for so long to disrespect their own value, they don't organize or advocate for their rights. If Wal-Mart went union, would the company go out of business? It's an absurd proposition. Two things would happen: prices would go up marginally, and profits would go down marginally. But the reason Wal-Mart's prices are so good in the first place is because the workers are subsidizing them out of their own pay. Wal-Mart wants to continue to make huge profits so management and share-holders continue to get stinking rich--again, a position dependent on the impoverishment of the workers. Until workers look at their union brethern as standard-bearers for the cause, workers are going to continue to have to work harder for less. The $9-an-hour Wal-Mart checkers shouldn't ask the question "Why should an Albertsons checker get paid four bucks more an hour than me?" Instead, they should ask, "Should employees of national and multi-national corporations earn a living wage?" The answer is obviously yes. The Albertson's checker should earn that living wage, and the Wal-Mart checker should, too. Don't cross the picket line. Safe to say those companies will land on their feet. The workers might not.

Go, Dennis

In case you hadn't heard, Dennis Kucinich is officially running for U.S. President. (We don't really understand the deal with "formal announcements" like this, since everyone already knows, except the dude living in a cardboard box under the freeway. And, by the way, if Dennis was President, that dude would soon be well-fed and living in real housing.)

Stephen Marshall reports on the bombing at the Baghdad Hotel. Snippet:

Sitting in the restaurant of our hotel a few hours after the attack, I met up with a couple of young Iraqi women who had been introduced to us the night before. I knew that they were both pro-Saddam (one is a Sunni while the other is a Palestinian - I'll call them R. and B. respectively), so I treaded carefully with my depiction of the attack. R. could barely hold back a smug satisfaction at the news. "This is only the beginning of the resistance. Those people at the Baghdad Hotel were warned. All of these people have been warned. I have seen a copy of the letter, signed by the 29 groups who are united in the resistance, listing potential targets for attack. The Baghdad Hotel was on that list along with police stations, American troops and spies who work for the occupation." I tried to keep a passive, non-judgmental expression while she spoke. Despite the severity of the topic, I could sense a subtle sense of satisfaction in her voice; "The Ba'ath Party will begin its official resistance at the beginning of next month."

How Groperzenegger Won

An study by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), an independent policy research center based at UC Berkeley and Stanford, sheds some light on the enormous media attention given to the governor-elect during the campaign. Snippets:

Recall news focused primarily on Schwarzenegger's campaign By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 13 October 2003 BERKELEY – California's Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger benefited from lopsided media attention during the pivotal first weeks of his campaign, according to a study by a policy research center at the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University. The study examined more than 1,500 news stories written by staff writers for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News that appeared between the week of Aug. 6, when major candidates entered the race, and Oct. 6, the Monday before election day. It found that just under three-quarters of the stories focused on candidate Schwarzenegger as their subject. "Californians were bombarded with messages about Schwarzenegger's candidacy, cast in a positive or negative light, for most of the campaign," said Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley professor of education and public policy who headed the study. "Soon thereafter, his (Schwarzenegger's) support rose from 20 percent to over 40 percent of those polled." The media review analyzed total story counts, the percentage of reporting on the six major candidates, weekly trends in candidate coverage, and the coverage of policy issues such as the state budget, education and child health insurance. The New York Times reported on Schwarzenegger in 87 percent of its 164 stories appearing over the frenzied two-month campaign to unseat Democratic incumbent Gov. Gray Davis. The actor's wife, Maria Shriver, was discussed with about the same frequency as Green Party candidate Peter Camejo, Fuller said. The study also found that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, was largely eclipsed by the disproportionate coverage of the actor, as well as by reporting on Davis during the final two weeks of the race. The Los Angeles Times offered more balanced reporting on the major candidates, according to Fuller, For example, 61 percent of the paper's articles informed readers about Bustamante, compared to 44 percent of the stories appearing in The New York Times. The San Jose Mercury News covered legislative activity in Sacramento dealing with such issues as expanding child health insurance, granting new civil rights to gays, and permitting immigrants to obtain a driver's license. This yielded more coverage for Davis and relatively less for Schwarzenegger.

We're not sure exactly what the results mean, given that the California media presented campaign stories more proportional to the candidates' popularity than did the NY Times. Is the implication that Californians tend to rely more on news from New York (probably not), or that maybe the study should have also looked at other media sources such as TV and radio (most likely)?

Dangerous Jobs

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America for 2002. Per 100,000 workers, here are the ranked fatality rates:


When the stats for 2003 come out next year, I'm guessing "Soldiers Stationed in Iraq" will be at the top of the list.