Cabal

My Left Wing

Well, I have always admitted to hidden lives around the internet, jokingly and seriously both, insofar as it's true, but we all do. That is the nature of the net, you couldn't share your traffic with me, really, unless I let it become my traffic, that is, I follow links you provide me. And that process can never be total, we fill up on a mix from other people.

I have always written with the very selfish position of myself as my audience. I want to like what I wrote myself. If others do it of interest to me, but what I'm willing to do about their opinion is really very limited, though I realize now that I am willing to make one big concession gladly, that is, I will search the best metaphors I can find to communicate the flux of history as I see it. Of course communication involves listening, and that is why it is so worthwhile to make such a healthy concession to one's own listeners, when one will also be a listener.

I'll have to defend myself immediately against charges of self promotion and navel gazing but won't be able to sufficiently since I'm willing to admit it is what some call navel gazing and that although it's not intended as promotion, it is about myself and it does in the end promote the subject, which is MyLeftWing.

MyLeftWing is a name like "MyYahoo" or "MyComputer"... we get to say what it means for us to be "left". If you know me you know I don't believe the left v. right spectrum really has much validity except in casual language, so it suits me to define for myself.  MyLeftWing is our left wing, and also, the non-politically correct "left wing" as Maryscott O'Connor sees it.

But it's not just about me, for Averroes has precipitated this essay, not directly requesting it, but by having come upon MyLeftWing. I recognized him immediately by style, though his handle is different. You are distinctive Averroes, I shouldn't admit it, but that's one of my main ways of judging people, I tend to value distinctive people.

I don't object a bit, of course, but the notion that Av had showed up convinced me that all of you might as well know about this place of value to me.  It's a progressive community and the proprietess, Maryscott O'Connor is known for earnestness and profanity. The mix seems ironic to some, she's somewhat controversial on the left, sparking objectsion from Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, for example, when she has aggreed to be on Fox Radio and Fox TV.

I got to know her years ago as I know you here, by conversation in comments, but at dailykos.

The profanity distracts a lot of people, and it acts as a sort of shield I think. The people that tend to gather at MLW read the profane as words and are not distracted, and see the ideas. She's not unlike Hubris in that... an ability to post profane text and topics hides what is below one of the most reasonable and fair people you are likely to find. Those of us at MLW tend to see this in Maryscott while others do not and fully expected her to be cussing left and right on national radio and ripping John Gibson new orafices. Instead, she's charismatic and on the best of terms with him, while still not watering herself down.  "I saw you said you were going to appear on the right wing nut fest that is the John Gibson radio program on your blog... " John said to her on her first appearance.  She handled it in stride, Gibson loves her which is cool and disgusting both if you ask me.  How did I get on that tangent?  What was I?

It's a pretty progressive community, but not politically correct, swearing is not shocking for one thing,  but also many members of the community have non-politically correct opinions, such as myself, or even, in one member's case... liking fois gras and other animal-unfriendly foods... if you don't know why that's politically incorrect, I'll have to tell you later. Many smoke, etc., it's ordinary people that are liberal and progressive mostly but not exclusively.

Maryscott has been going on John Gibson's radio program, and now once on his Fox Television show, and she is very disarming and poised. Kos, that is, Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos fame as just mentioned objects to any liberal going on Fox, and many vehemently expressed worry that she would seem unhinged, blinded as I said they are by her written profanity. 

However, her appearances have generated less criticism and more praise after the fact though the unofficial but intentional policy of Kos and the other Dem Bloggers has not changed. I am one of the admins at MLW, as we call it. I can write FP (front page) posts though generally I just write "diaries", essays that go on the open diaries page and on your own "dairy" page, and promote the diaries of others to the FP. Front Page vs. Diary Page is a distinction of the community blogs, generally scoop or scoop-like software.

Side Note: The "fame" of DailyKos; not that people know what DailyKos is, people I run into are always "wha? huh?", but they may well learn soon. Sen Kerry, Ried, Fiengold, Obama, Boxer, Rep Slaughter, Conyers, and others all have posted blogs there, "diaries" they are called in the lingo of scoop, the software running dkos and several other weblog communities.

I think you all could be welcomed there, though it is unabashedly liberal and dedicated to preserving that, the people there pride themselves on listening if you are civil.  Again, "civil" is counterintuitive to combine with a tolerance of profanity, but profanity is not uncivil by these standards, it's what you say with (or without profanity) that matters.

However, if you are not progressive, being the minority might get hard, and feel unbalanced, as it's no doubt true you will notice more tolerance of liberal positions than conservative positions, the main offense being that while many will treat you civilly IF someone gets upset with a conservative view they are likely be tolerated and in this way, a community remains ideological for good or bad. I post all over, including conservative homes like redstate, this sort of status doesn't bother me at all, but there is pressure and I wouldn't deny it.

To balance this I'll tell you of a second blog and stop there lest I reveal more than a few percent of my secret lairs and paths.  This is a new blog that combines a conservative and liberal in debate, ostensibly, though both will post individually as will I. Unlike an average new blog, this one already has traffic as the liberal, Armando, is very well known at DailyKos (dkos has over 600,000 visits a day, astounding) and the conservative, Joshua Treviño, aka "tacitus" is founder of tacitus.org and redstate.org, and well known also in political blogging, from the right.

So an instant audience of left and right is met at this blog which started just last monday.

But note, these people come to swords crossed mostly from blogs that are not ideologically mixed, it's new to them, UNLIKE CABAL users. We're old hands at it. Tacitus was Josh's blog, but he always welcomed progressives to post in comments and eventually to the main page, and it has now been set free and the FP stories come from diaries which have been voted to the front page. Treviño has excellent credentials in terms of wanting things to be represented in a balanced way, I respect his integrity though I marvel sometimes that such a respectable person could have positions that, in this day and age, I find impossible to themselves respect. Support for the war, anti-choice, etc, but an honest man not afraid nor resentful of criticism or contradiction. Also, Treviño is credible as a "compassionate conservative", which I respect. Like many Americans in 1999, I have much hope that compassionate conservativism COULD have meant something good, and again, though to me some of his positions ironically seem discompassionate to me... at least I know it is a matter of differing  judgment, that he believes his policies are best, not just for him, but for the nation.

Armando, otoh, is an asshole. Mind you, I'm excellent friends with Armando, it's his actual personal position that he's an "asshole". He's not actually an asshole, but he can be rhetorically intimidating to people. One part of the swords dynamic happens to be that Treviño is able to demand Armando's civil best, and sets policies against profanity and too much bluster, two vices of Armando's. Armando is a Clarke Democrat, and his actual ideas are not molested at all by profane or blustering thoughts, just web log comments at time.  You know how it is. Profanity is not tolerated at Swords.

This site I'm speaking of is to be found at SwordsCrossed.com, it opened Monday. I'm helping these guys with some stuff that is to Armando very technical, to Joshua somewhat technical and something he could use help on. They insisted that it was only right to let me post with them though the site is set up ostensibly as a debate between those two, to be continued or rebutted in comments by all. My reputation in that whole space is as someone that is generally incomprehensible, totally impossible to understand. But they insisted so I'll use the forum.

Cabal is also a blog in this genre, hubris another compassionate conservative (independent?), who put together something that ended up, if anything, slanted against him.  I can't tell you how much I respect intellectual bravery like that... but VERY MUCH.  More than anything else, I suspect, that defines a man or woman's politics. Hubris is one of the most honorable men in debate I've ever met, and my standards are high. I'd like to see you post here at Cabal more, Hubris, and I'd like to promote it in the right and left blogosphere.

Indeed, I would like to see Hubris Blogging at MLW, and all of you, and still, of course, Cabal, which I hope can continue.

Cheers.

 

The President Lacks Support

by pyrrho

Bush is, as you most likely realize, polling very poorly in terms of the standard approval rating polls. The point of this post is not to mull over these low numbers (around 35%?!), but to ask for a reality check. There are many ways to interpret such numbers, but the most common way (on the left, right now, at least) is to see this as a "weakened" presidency.

I won't deny he's "weakened" in some sense, but it's a sense far less potent than supposed. For example, I've heard people say, "don't worry, we won't attack Iran, not with approval numbers like this".  As far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution about approval polls. The American people seem to think the public gets what it wants if only it's together enough to say what it thinks.  How naive that seems to me.

For example, in the case of Iran, the president can bomb the hell out of it, he can, frankly, send in ground troops too, covert ops may already be there according to many reports the last few years. He needs congress to declare war, but he can do all that without declaring war. We forget, for a politician to yeild to particular interpretations of poll numbers is a voluntary thing.  And it's also a matter of interpretation. To Rove a low approval might just as likely itself be a reason to go to war as to not go, that depends on the interpretation of approval... is it something you need in order to act, or something you act in order to get?  I do know the actual powers of the president has nothing to do with approval, they are outlined in the Constitution and other federal law.

Do you see what I'm saying?  Does anyone agree that low approval ratings are political theater, one element, to be sure, but not nearly as important, NOR as POWERFUL, as people seem to automatically suppose?

Nor as powerful, especially that.

One In A Million Votes

by pyrrho

My standard is that no more than one in a million votes should be miscounted in any country and that we should do something about it in America.  This is not a partisan issue, I bear none of the typical grudges, e.g. about 2000, which I think showed that the system worked even though I disagreed with the Supreme Court of the US. The purpose of clean elections with rational processes for adjudication is to prevent civil war, so the system worked.

There should be a national mission to achieve that sort of nationwide accuracy, no more than one miscounted vote per million.

Censure of the President

by pyrrho

Frankly, what has interested me more than the issue of should the president receive censure, is how the Democrats reacted to the call. It's important to remember that Feinstein proposed censure of Clinton, and this was after the Impeachment failed... but now they are hesitant.  Well, they should be hesitant, although symbolic, to censure a President is serious and should be taken seriously. Saying he did wrong or even violated the law is not enough. It has to be, in my view, based on the idea that the President is going to continue to do that, or he has a false view of impunity, or his interpretation of the law sits so badly that the Senate must declare their opposition to it on the grounds that the President is not above the law.

Insofar as it calls for reviewing these issues, I think Democrats should be for that review, if not for the censure. That is, it will be their discretion and responsibility how they vote, but I believe they should support addressing the question.

I have a problem that this is such a surprise to the Senate Democrats. Rumor is that Feingold did not tell the other Senators his plans, so that much was a surprise, but the issues, and the last 5 years, these should not be news to Democratic Senators, or even Republican Senators. There are many views, I'll even add, many valid views, but to appear to not have a perspective on the situation behind this censure is a bit much, and I think that's the reaction we have seen so far from most Senate Democrats.

Still, that's a side issue, the real question should be... Should the Senate Censure the President?

Port Security

by pyrrho

This port issue is one I find very interesting in the same sense by which cabal is a spin off of spinsanity. That is, it's an interesting issue, but buried already in a sludge of spin.

Firstly, it's remarkable that some liberals jump to the "but they're Arabs!" angle so easily when it suits them. With confidence I'll point out it's the "centrist" democrats, not the more liberal, that do this, but still, it is remarkable.

Personally, I believe the question is of great use to the republic and damaging to the Republican myth of nationalistic patriotism. Republicans, like us all in the modern world, practically, are internationalists after all. And to my way of thinking, even if the answer is, "well, it's fine for Dubai to own American ports", the question itself is important to sort through, not so much for we that already pay attention, but for the public. The public may be fine with it or not, either way it is suitable for there to be public knowledge about the policy, because port security is an issue somewhat crucial to the current public understanding of our national security in general.

I tend to think of things in terms of system design, and in matters of national security, if possible, and it is possible, I believe American firms should do the work. In truly sensitive cases the government itself should do it, so yes, that includes a preference for excluding British firms as well as Dubai ones, but especially in the case of state owned firms.

OTOH, I'm not apoplectic about it. Indeed, quite the opposite, I think the issue is full of valuable points and questions, deserving of public debate whichever way they are decided in the end. Too bad the public is so bad at debate (their leaders make it hard on them, but then, they don't have to follow) and that the debate degrades so quickly, practically before it's even begun.

One more comment before I leave it for now: I was surprised Bush was willing to threaten veto, even veto, in defense of the deal, I thought he'd back off quicker than a Nader voter at an Al Gore fan club meeting.

Woo Hoo, is this thing still here

by impossible to tell

sorry-=-- got to be quick, blog may shu--- what's that noise!  --- anyway, blog may shut down suddenly, gotta be quick... FILIBUSTER!  Just to be entertaining, no other reason, it's boring letting it all just go to hell with no late night C-SPAN.

and besides, they can what you call it... bring up the NSA wire tapping and going around FISA... "resolve these problems Mr. President..." before you address the highest court in the land we must ensure we obey the law. Surely someone remembered to make sure there is a controlling authority this time, didn't they?

... I'd ask what the real idea was, you know, why not use FISA, why not get warrants after the fact, it's a way of saying someone took responsibility to check the forms and the data therein, to prove someone said, "this is legit in my judgment", because then there is a trail, not only a paper trail but a trail of responsibility where you can go to find out what's going really going on, if you need to later, and find the real reasoning... but I can't ask that! I don't have time  for more now!.. blog's running out must get.  to. the -- bbzbzzbzzztzttttt- =-!@#$!$$@>G hj$$ %??...

Bloggers Owe Us Nothing: Gratitude, and That's Right

When bloggers quit it sends shivers through the network of tiny habits people have formed which relied on that virtual spot however slightly, or alternately, however intensely, and yet when the bastards quit we have to remember, we have to remember well, they owe us nothing.

In the immortal words of the Beastie Boys:

Good times gone but you feed it
Hate’s grown strong you feel you need it
Just one thing do you know
What you think that the world owes you
What’s gonna set you free
Look inside and you’ll see
When you’ve got so much to say
It’s called gratitude, and that’s right

So as our spiritual leaders have told us, that feeling of hate one feels toward the quitter is really "gratitude" and we're just whiny bastards that think the hubris... um "the world", owes us. Indeed, they havn't "quit", the show's just over, they're all out of beer, there is nothing to pour, Mike D is sick, the tour is off.

But remember... the blogger owes you nothing, least of all what you already got from him.

Fuck.

Petition The Lord With Prayer

by pyrrho

It has long been my belief that you could not convince anyone online of anything. That's extreme, the sort of rule that admits a lot of little trivial exceptions, but in general it holds. The rise of the popular use of online communication and of the political blogosphere pretends to threaten my theory, and frankly, I don't know its real status but from what I see things are unchanged and I suspect they will remain so, for it is not a feature of just the net.

A great philosopher once made the point that he could not, in fact, really enlighten his readers, for the readers would not understand anything he said except that which they had already more or less formed in themselves. If he spoke an idea that made a reader think, "aha! yes!", that was a matter of him having expressed something such that the reader recognized his own belief.

But this is not to say that people don't change as a result of their reading and conversation, not at all, it's to put the emphasis on how and why they change and who does the changing, people change themselves.

"People never change" is a popular cliche, and yet, people do nothing but change, the actual truism is "people never stay the same", and what is really meant by "people never change" is, "I couldn't change her" and similar.

If we are open to changing ourselves then the information we get from others, their facts and opinions, their arguments and refusals all inform that process of change. You may owe someone thanks, but not for changing you, rather for helping you change yourself. If it seems a subtle difference, think again, there is a world of difference between doing something for someone and helping them do it for themselves.

I believe if we all knew it was really the latter that we were doing online, it would change our approach because building a house and expecting someone to move into it is different from helping them build their own house.

MR. SCHUMER. MR. SCHUMER, AYE.

by Averroes

And that is what you heard when the important vote was taken to authorize the president to take military action against Iraq.

Why did Schumer vote this way?

Chris Wallace played a clip of Schumer justifying his vote in October, 2002.

[C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.

I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same
conclusion the president did.

SCHUMER: Yes. The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong.]

What can we learn from this? One thing is that Schumer spoke in terms that were quite forceful.  He spoke as if he was quite sure of what he said.  He offered no caveats.  He agrees that he saw the same intelligence the president did, and came to the same conclusion.

But he says that, despite his forceful statement, he wasn't as sure as the president. What does this mean?

Certainly, as some have argued, if the president is guilty of stating things he was unsure about as if he were sure (although not one person has ever offered any evidence to back this up), then Schumer here admits the same crime.

Can we safely say that Schumer misled us into war?

I wouldn't argue that he did.  But some who have damned the president for speaking in terms of certainty are here bound by logic and morality to hold Schumer even more guilty.  By his own words.

Let the squirming begin.

Secondly, i would like to offer this post and response, not for the truth of either, but for another purpose.  This comes from a board concerned mostly with first amendment issues, where the conversation often turns to when a cat o' nine tails is prefered over a riding crop.  The board host has run for local office as a Libertarian, also the affiliation of some of the members of the board.  Most of the members are militantly antiBush.  There is even one of those "you don't have to pay taxes if you read the law" nuts.  All these peoople get along when the subject is, say, leather, or the last rotten law to regulate pornography.  But spewing hatred for Bush has become an ever larger part of the daily fair here.

The rabid antiBusites are much like those on Spinsanity and here, except, as you will see (for the responder is typical), they are more honest.  They make no pretenses to objectivity.  In a way, it is refreshing.  They remind me of the kind of place that Winston likes to link to, sites which consider facts inconvenient.

The first post is in reponse to someone who stated that if Bush hadn't stolen the election from Gore, we never would have invaded iraq.  Enjoy.......

------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter A:  I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq without Chirac's
permission, but I got this recently (and I wish it had direct citations to back up the quotes) and here is what prominent Dems had to say BEFORE the war...

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerryin a letter to Bill Clinton:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001,
his administration was handed eight years worth of
intelligence analysis and policy positions from the
Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take
out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of
the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to
disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security. ... Without question
we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery
capability, his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including
al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase
his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam
Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and
the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies,
secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to
be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has
had for a number of years a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."

-------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter B:

I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq without Chirac's
permission, but I got this recently (and I wish it had direct citations to back up the quotes) and here is what prominent Dems had to say BEFORE the war...

[snip]

And all of those statements were based on the lies fed to them by this
administration.

Sure Sadam was evil.  He was also not a threat to the US.  We had defanged him a long time ago.  Any time he got uppity we bombed him and killed a few hundred more innocent people.

But those who have an emotional stake in this administration will say anything to cover up for their lies.

That means you.

By supporting this administration you are directly supporting torture and murder.  Making excuses of how the Democrats did this or that does notexcuse that fact NOW because now we know better.  We know that thisadministration is setting up secret prisons around the world.  We know that they are using chemical weapons.[!]  We know they are using torture as aroutine method of extracting confessions.

These people are evil and you are evil for supporting them.

I don't like torture

by pyrrho

President Jimmy Carter on Larry King live made an argument about torture. Jimmy pointed out America never believed in torture... and King said something like, "well, they didn't have 9/11" and Jimmy said, but we had WWII and it was much worse. He relayed the story of a WWII POW that had been severely tortured and abused, he talked about the Geneva Conventions being necessary to protect our own boys, that you can create standards against torture, and you do this by living by those standards.

I am so sad for my nation that this is a debate.

This is obvious stuff.

I don't want to have to discuss "but what if you could torture someone to find out about a nuclear bomb that is in a New York subway!" Such hypotheticals are not illustrative... such an example would have to be factual... and I know of no such situations that have been solved by torture, and given that, I DO know that torture makes other problems even worse.

If your brother is building IUDs against people that won't torture you... you might advise him to stop, you might even tell the occupying force, having some confidence they will not torture your brother. But if you think they WOULD torture your brother, then you are sympathetic to his rage, you understand, he is fighting something really bad, something very cruel and mean.

Is this something that should be worth blogging about?  Torture is wrong? Proper treatment of criminals is right? This is in dispute?

These are dark days for the American Tradition, and the American Conscience...