Sorry. I couldn't stay away. So much for hiatus. I'll make it quick.

First, my report card from last quarter. Phew!



Second, I want to say a quick thing about the US Mad Cow case. The reason this happened is because industrial farms feed cows other cows. It's for this same reason that many bovine illnesses, not just Mad Cow, spread. I'm not an advocate for vegetarianism -- if Mother Nature didn't want us to eat animals, why did she make them so tasty? -- but the practice of feeding cows cow and chickens chicken needs to stop. After all, if you're building a better human, are you going to feed him another human?

Fortunately, our current administration, normally that of No Corporation Left Behind, is waking up. There's still a lot more that needs to be done.

By the way, Soylent Green is made of people.

2003. What a strange, historical year.

This year ends with our population more polarized than ever. Not since the late 1960s has political dissent been so prominent in our society. Unlike the 1960s, however, dissent is more organized -- more Internet, fewer drugs. Furthermore, much of the dissent in the 1960s was fueled by the draft. The fact that there is still a huge undercurrent of revolt in the United States without the extreme visceral experience of seeing your son taken by the government and sent off to a war proves that change in this country, and in this world, is on its way.

Of course, 2003 was all about the war in Iraq. Much good comes out of Iraq every day that liberals like me often forget -- rebuilding schools, fixing infrastructure, killing/capturing the Husseins. We can never forget, however, that the war was fought under false pretenses, forged intelligence, and cronyism. And though the president finally signed a pay raise for the soldiers, veterans still get a raw deal, national guardsmen have been kept from their families far longer than promised, and soldiers are being fed rancid food by Halliburton.

What's happening at home is just as disturbing. The return to Reganomics is posting good numbers but shrinking the middle class and making life worse for the poor. Huge corporations continue to keep their central offices in off-shore tax shelters. Tax cuts for the wealthy leave less money for states and regions, forcing them to raise property taxes and administrative fees and in essence raising taxes for the poor and the middle class. Unfunded domestic mandates also hurt states financially, like No Child Left Behind, which makes demands of states to up standards but provides no resources to help them do it.

Speaking of unfunded mandates, let's not forget the bait-and-switch and doublespeak policies of the Bush administration. Clean air bills that let factories release more pollutants, forestry bills that allow for even more logging, and a promise to help AIDS in Africa that doesn't spend the money promised and only promotes abstinence instead of distributing condoms.

Our civil liberties are under attack, not only by John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, but by the RIAA. Since when do private corporate entities have judicial authority? Oh, right. Bush is president.

So who can defeat all of this? The Democratic National Committee should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of putting up the unified fight that organizations like MoveOn.org have been able to achieve, they've fought each other like the Three Stooges fighting over a donut.

The biggest news story of 2003 -- other than Iraq -- is Howard Dean. His campaign has organized grassroots support in unprecedented ways. His message is more populist than the rest of the Democrats (except for maybe Kucinich, but at this point, Kucinich doesn't count). Howard Dean has spoken more clearly to the Bush regime opposition than anyone else, and he's not about to stop. Love him or hate him, you cannot deny the impact that he's made in the political arena. The most shameful thing is that the Democratic Party itself has done more to damage Howard Dean than the GOP, and the conservative onslaught will already be difficult.

If you know me (and if you read this, you probably do), you know that I was behind Howard Dean before it was cool to be behind Howard Dean. If fact, when I endorsed him on this blog (yes, I know how pretentious it is to call it an "endorsement"), his poll numbers were worse than Al Sharpton's. Now he's been endorsed by Al Gore, many strong unions, and lots of elected officials. He's raised more money than Bill Clinton in his election bids, and he's done it with small donations around $100. At least some people know that eventually we have to rally behind the front runner. Unlike Democratic primaries of the past, we all knew Dean was front runner around a month ago.

Like I say, you may not support Dean. You may think the Iraq war was justified but believe the president lied to us, so you like John Kerry. You may think that universal health care can only be achieved with a new program instead of expanding current programs, so you like Dick Gephardt. You may be a Republican but they won't let you join the country club because you're Jewish, so you like Joe Lieberman. No matter who you like now, come November, you will have two choices -- Dean or Bush. Choose wisely, and choose wisely now, because we have a lot of people to convince in the next 10 months.

And I swear to God, if any of you vote for Nader, I'm smacking your stupid ass.

What else happened in 2003? There was a blackout in New York that was entertaining, the government passed a partial birth abortion ban -- a term that exists in not one medical publication, and the Space Shuttle exploded. All very important events, all of which we will see in the coming year what effect those events will have.

Then there's the media.

Much of the undercurrent of dissent in this country is now fueled by resistance to corporate oppression (started by the Enron scandal) and the media. I believe that more people are wising up to the fact that the media is also owned by these same corporations, and that we are all being fed crap. Maybe that's more hope than truth. Fox News and its ilk continue to distort the truth, and not liberally as many of them would lead us to believe. I think the resounding thud of Rush Limbaugh this year and the firing of Michael Savage from MSNBC are the first sounds of the conservative media wall crashing down.

And speaking of conservative media, how about the weirdest moment of 2003: CBN praying for the death of Supreme Court justices. If the Christians are correct, Pat Robertson is going to Hell. I hope some day he realizes that.

Another media trend this year -- the increase in reporting any celebrity that even makes a casual glance at an underage child sexually. It started the year before, but now it's on the rise. R. Kelly, Garry Glitter, Paul Rubens, Jeffery Jones, Pete Townsend. All of those stories pretty much died, but the media had a taste of that sweet, sweet pedophile meat. And Michael Jackson, who we all knew was a freak. I'm not saying the media creates these monsters, but the media would rather report on them than, say, how bad repealing steel tariffs will be or how asinine the new Medicare bill is.

So what's going to happen in 2004? Here are my predictions, which may be wrong.

Howard Dean is not the next George McGovern, he's not the next Walter Mondale, and he's definitely not the next Michael Dukakis. If there is any historical precedent for Howard Dean, it's the defeat of Herbert Hoover by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Herbert Hoover had to fix the depression, and he tried to do it with tax cuts. Hoover was the only other president to end his term with more jobs lost than created -- the other is Dubya. I also think Dean will pick up Wesley Clark as his running mate, making the team a formidable adversary to the Bush camp. Unless the Bush administration catches bin Laden, Dean wins in a very close race.

The only terrorist attacks the US sees will be overseas. Nothing will happen on our soil. (Knock on wood.)

The media will continue to point to positive economic indicators, but unemployment will begin to rise again in March after the seasonal uptick. The deficit will increase, states will raise their taxes, and the economy will start to tank again.

And The Simpsons will air an episode where Ranier Wolfcastle runs against Mayor Quimby.

But enough about the world. What about me?

This was my toughest year in school yet, and it'll just get harder. By "harder," I mean more satisfying. My father had heart surgery, which made me feel scared, old, and thrilled that he's still alive. My first nephew was born, though not born to my family but adopted by my brother and sister-in-law -- their own natural-born son is due in April. I had an incident with the cops which was printed in an independent publication on the west coast. I premiered my first scenic design, which I guarantee will be my last. I fell in love with my girlfriend of nearly four years all over again. In 2004, I will turn 30, and despite the weight I've gained and the hair I've lost, I feel more alive today than I ever have.

As for this here blog, it is, as far as I'm concerned, successful. After all, I do it for me. It makes me look deeper at the world around me, examine it, and make my own decisions. I'm thrilled that you're reading it. I even get e-mails when people disagree. Future plans include moving it to a new server where I can set up discussions. I also hope to invite more people to contribute to it. This lowly blog may never have the prominence of Atrios or Daily Kos, but it does for me and hopefully for a few of you.

Finally, my favorite album of the year.

It's been a great year for music, so the decision this year was extremely difficult. With amazing releases by Radiohead, The Postal Service, Out Hud, The White Stripes, Cat Power, Basement Jaxx, and Prefuse 73 (my runners-up), not to mention the re-release of Glenn Branca's The Ascension, my gut was telling me nothing. What stuck in my head the most? What sounded fresher than anything else I've heard this year and still spoke to my innate tastes?

After much consideration, my favorite album of the year must be The Rapture's Echoes. Ridiculously retro without wearing its influences on its sleeves like The Strokes. Danceable and punky, accessible and indie. Echoes has the effect that Beck often misses -- as fun and often brilliant as eclecticism can be, genius only comes when it sounds cohesive and new. If you haven't purchased Echoes yet, do it, because you'll need it for your New Year's party. (I wrote much of this entry yesterday and chose my favorite album last night. Today, Pitchfork Media published Echoes as the best album of 2003. How about that.)

Thank you for enjoying ...like you really care... this year. I'll be back January 5. Have a happy holiday, and may 2004 bring peace to our nation and our world.

Reaganomics all over again.

A one-two punch from that evil, evil liberal media. Damn that evil liberal media for reporting and telling the truth.

This U.S. News and World Report article discusses how the Bush administration goes out of its way to keep important records secret. If you read only one article about politics this month, make it this one.

And speaking of keeping records secret, here's a quickie about the Kean Commission: 9/11 was preventable.

UPDATE: Make that a one-two-three punch: White House Web Scrubbing.

The war between PC and Mac follows many of the same rules as the war between conservative and liberal media. Compare this nanny-nanny-boo-boo from a Windows apologist to this educated rebuttal. One side lies, the other side proves it's a lie. Fascinating.

This week, blogging will be light. Last week of the school quarter, busy at work. Sorry, especially because there's so much to talk about. A Bush president's army capturing a criminal dictator who used to receive money and support from the US, and I'm not talking about Noriega. A vicious TV ad equating Howard Dean and Osama bin Laden paid for by other Democrats. We live in interesting times. But I can't go on because I have to get back to work. I will, however, have my year-end wrap-up done by Friday before I go on a two-week break from blogging. I know you're on the edge of your seat, waiting for my summary of the year and my favorite album of the year (I did okay last year). The album choice is proving difficult. Stay tuned.

Okay, so that internet radio station of anti-Bush music isn't so great after all. It started out good -- tracks by some punk bands and a recent Public Enemy song (prized lyric: "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Shit!"). Unfortunately, though, most of the music was made by nobodies in their bedrooms. Sometimes such output can be pretty good, but usually it's crap. No one wants your agitprop message if the vehicle for its delievery is faulty. The parent website of the station has some neat stuff, though, so check it out.

If you want a good Internet radio station, and I mean you really want it, I got what you need, baby. Aw yeah.

What I'm currently listening to...

I said yesterday I'd finish reading the debate transcript. Can I just say that the debate this week sucked ass? Ted Koppel wanted to talk about nothing but candidate in-fighting. He even admitted as much at the end:

And to all of you, if I may make the observation, what you need every once in a while is someone up here who ticks you off a little bit. You're much better when you're angry.

To assist Al Franken in his quest to spread a new euphemism, you know Koppel was "kidding on the square."

So, yeah, the debate blew. But they're over for now. On to Primary seaon. Things can really change in 2004 for the better. And I hope we're all ready to work for it. We have huge conglomerate conservative media outlets we're fighting against. What can you do? Other than donating money, volunteering, etc., there are other ways you can help defeat George Bush, and it can get pretty subliminal:

You can start a blog. One of the ways Google ranks search results is by the number of web sites that link to a particular hit. By starting a blog (it's pretty easy) and linking to articles that tell the truth about George Bush, you help get that information at the top of the Google pile.

Leave flyers in public places. No one takes things from you if you're trying to hand stuff out, but if you leave a flyer in a seat on the train or bus, in a bathroom, on a table in a coffee shop, you're putting it in a place where someone must touch it to move it. No, flyers aren't exactly the most environmental way of doing it, but they require more energy to dispose them than an e-mail. In this age of PDFs, it's easy to print your own flyers surreptitiously at work and leave them in public places. Plus, the corporation you work for probably supported George Bush, stick it to them by stealing paper and toner.

Many Democratic candidates have downloadable PDFs -- Braun, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry, and Kucinich. No matter who you support, however, we should let the chips fall where they may in the primaries and start getting into people's heads that George Bush is wrong. So try these:

Misleader.org
Neighbors for Peace and Justice

Wear buttons and t-shirts. Advertising is most effective when it focuses on repetition -- the more exposures, the better it sticks in your mind. People on the street will see your button, and the more they see it, the better the chance of it sticking in their mind.

Most importantly, encourage people to vote. There is no better way to defeat the incumbent than by bringing in new voters. There are too many apathetic people, and in many cases, they're the ones that would benefit the most from a regime change in America. You have an 18-year-old sibling or cousin? Make sure he or she votes. I, for one, know all sorts of young kids at school and will encourage as many of them as I can to vote.

If we all work towards one goal -- defeating George Bush (perhaps the Democratic party can get that through their heads) -- we can change our future for the better.

I got an e-mail, copied verbatim:

Don't forget how many products have come out of the space program (corningware and non-stick frying pans for one). Keep the space program going I say. Our survival depends on it (cuz if we dont start getting off world these assholes are going to kill us all).

By the by: how do you feel about looser Gore endorsing that guy from New Hampshire...what's his name? :)

I'm not sure how good at loosening things Al Gore is, but if his marriage is anything like my relationship, Tipper surely does pass the new jar of olives over to Al to open.

Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean, by the way, not John Kerry.

But seriously. Private industry has managed to pick up the bulk of product innovation. We don't need NASA for that anymore. Until Ron Popeil can figure out a way to send men and women into space safely and efficiently, and if he'll deduct one payment if we call within the following ten minutes, there's simply no need for manned space flight.

Same as last time, I missed the debate, but I'm reading the transcript and will post my belated play-by-play as I read it. However, I'm really pressed for time right now with school and work, so this will be my only post of the day. Tune in tomorrow for more.

Since you know I'm a Dean supporter, I'm sure you've surmised that I'm as pleased as a pig in poop that Al Gore has endorsed Dean. Is Al making a play for 2008? I doubt it -- why would he get in Hillary Clinton's way? What the endorement does say is that Al Gore knows he screwed up -- he screwed up with his platform, he screwed up by distancing himself from Clinton, he screwed up by picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Even if he did get 500,000 more votes than George Bush*, we have the electoral college for a reason. Gore could have -- and should have -- won handily by a good margin.

With this endoresement, it's now like a high school love triangle. Picture a young, small, awkward Joe Lieberman leaning against his locker, loosely clutching is backpack and sobbing because smart, popular Al Gore dumped him for a more popular, better looking bad boy who lets Al call him "Howie." (Joe will still probably get all of his homework done.)

It's all so trite, so for Heaven's sake (and for our country's sake), can't the Democrats leave it in the locker room? Debates are about political issues and giving Americans an opportunity to compare candidates. Ted Koppel baits everybody and starts the debate with discussion about the endorsement. No one raised their hand saying that Howard Dean could beat Bush, which was the wrong thing to do. Every one of them should have raised their hands, and the first person whose mouth opened should have said, "Anyone on this stage can beat George Bush because George Bush is an asshole." It's not true, but it would have helped show America that the Democrats are still united in unseating the misleader of the free world.

Most people used the opportunity to go into a stump speech, Al Sharpton said something about bossism that made no sense, and Carol Moseley Braun avoided the whole issue by eulogizing the late, great Paul Simon.

Only Dennis Kucinich had the balls to really stick it to Ted Koppel:

To begin this kind of a forum with a question about an endorsement, no matter by who, I think actually trivializes the issues that are before us.

(APPLAUSE)

For example, at this moment there are 130,000 troops in Iraq. I mean, I would like to hear you ask during this event what's the plan for getting out. This war is not over. I have a plan, which is on my Web site at kucinich.us, to get the United States out of Iraq.

I want to talk about that tonight, and I hope we have a substantive discussion tonight and that we're not going to spend the night talking about endorsements.

Kucinich may be a small guy, but he's got a huge pair. Of course, Ted Koppel ignored Kucinich's plea, turned to Dean, and continued to discuss the endorsement. (In fact, as Atrios points out, it took 19 questions before they ever discussed issues.)

Dean wrapped a logically sound low blow in an I'm-taking-the-high-road veneer:

First of all, I think John Edwards is right, the people will decide, not Al Gore or anybody else.

Sorry to interject, but Dean does that a lot in the debates -- agreeing with someone else on the stage. It's a good play because (1) it's true that he does agree with the statement, and (2) it makes the other guys look petty. Then he went into his stump speech -- you know he had one prepared for this very issue, and it's a doozy:

Secondly, I'm going to give an invitation which I have not yet given, but I am going to do it now. If you guys are upset that Al Gore is endorsing me, attack me, don't attack Al Gore.

Al Gore worked too hard in 2000 to lose that election, when he really didn't lose the election. He got 500,000 votes more than George Bush. And I don't think he deserves to be attacked by anybody up here. He doesn't -- he's not a boss.

(APPLAUSE)

He's a fundamentally decent human being. We share a lot of values. We both believe that this earth is in environmental crisis because of what George Bush is doing.

We both believe that middle-class people in America ought to be able to send their kids to college and get some help.

We both believe that 3 millions jobs lost is 3 million too many. And under the Clinton-Gore record, we had a whole lot better economy than we do right now.

We both believe that the Bush tax cuts are grossly irresponsible and they ought to be reversed.

We both believe the war in Iraq was put forward on the American people unjustly because we were not told the truth about why we're there.

And I think Al Gore deserves credit for being the kind of moral leader in this country that we have lost since the last election.

Touché. See what Dean did there? Mathematically, he deflected everything:

G = Former Vice President Al Gore
D = Former Vermont Governor and Presidential Candidate Howard Dean
A = The rate at which a political figure should receive attacks

Given: GA = 0
Assertion: G = D
Conclusion: GD = 0

He may not have all of the sappy charisma that Clinton has, but Howard Dean and his team are deft logicians.

*As for the Florida issue, which Dean did mention, too, the Democrats need to drop it. Stop talking about Florida. Yes, it sucked ass, and much of what happened in Florida was absolutely wrong. The issue of Florida should be legitimately discussed, and when Dean is president (yeah, I said it) it should be investigated by an independent council. Until then, however, any discussion will be easily spun by Republicans as whining. Please, Democrats, for the time being, drop it.

Twenty Most Annoying Conservatives of 2003

A surprisingly balanced article in National Review concerning Dubya's expected announcement of another trip to the moon. It was something Dubya's Dad wanted to do, but didn't finish the job. Sound familiar?

The exploration of space is a waste of resources when we can do more than enough research here on Earth. I'd like to know the origins of the moon, but do I need to know? Is there anything that we can't research with unmanned landers. And as for extraterrestrial, shouldn't we just leave the SETI@home geeks to their own devices? And shouldn't we be spending our money on solving problems on Earth? (On the other hand, incontrovertible evidence of extraterrestrial life could lead to a positive cultural shift with the notion of different races, classes, and nationalities giving way to the distinction of "Earthling." But that's pretty silly, like, I don't know, praying.) With the International Space Station becoming an orbiting money pit, does manned extra-atmospheric research make any sense?

So why would we want to go to the moon now if it's not for research? There are plenty of reasons for saying this now:

To stimulate the economy in Bush terms. I don't mean mining the moon, necessarily, since that is logistically and economically impossible. I mean employ a lot of engineers, creating jobs. Of course, those jobs would be to fulfill a lot of government contracts for Bush allies like Lockheed/Martin.

To win votes. "Hey, we're going back to the moon! USA! USA! USA!" Makes sense in an election year. Plus, just because he says it doesn't mean he has to do it. Bush is really good at the bait-and-switch, like with his promise to fight AIDS.

Arrogance. Because we can, and we're still the best! Taikonauts are pussies!

But here comes the one that makes the most sense to me. As I always say on this web site, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but in my mind, this is entirely plausible.

After this year's Space Shuttle disaster, I wrote about NASA, and I still come to the same conclusion as I did in February: NASA is a military organization, plain and simple. And Bush still wants a missile defense system., like his daddy did and like his daddy's boss did.

Perhaps we do need a missile defense system considering North Korea's insistence that they could strike the US. However, there are far better ways to deal with North Korea. A $10 billion price tag to protect us from something that only one (maybe two) countries are still willing to use, two countries that we could obliterate off the planet in the blink of an eye, seems ridiculous. Plus, no other country that has nuclear capability is willing to use them on the United States (not even China). The arguments against spending that kind of scratch for such a system make perfect sense to voters.

So why not get the citizens of the US to rally behind NASA establishing a permanent presence in on the moon? What better place to surveil the entire world for missile launches (and anything else they want to surveil) than from outer space? And looking for missile launches is not something we can do from the International Space Station.

Voilà -- there's your conspiracy theory -- take a plan that hands federal money to donors, sticks it to the Chinese, and affords a missile defense system with the added bonus of militaristic space. Then, conceal it in the gift wrap of popular opinion so the citizens support it and the Democrats look like shits if they oppose it. Considering how this administration has lied to us, though, this conspiracy theory of mine seems all too real.

The Bush team is full of geniuses. Unfortunately, they are evil geniuses.

The Governator in action:

Schwarzenegger is also proposing to take $282 million from programs to help the developmentally disabled -- Californians suffering from autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy and the like. In 1969 wild-eyed radical governor Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman Act, creating an entitlement for the developmentally disabled in the state. Schwarzenegger now proposes cutbacks in programs that California offers the 626,000 of its citizens with mental or physical impairments affecting their ability to learn and speak: music and art therapy, camping, horseback riding. He also proposes to suspend the Lanterman Act, in order to freeze enrollment in developmental disability programs come January. The new applicants may experience some long waits, because the disabilities of the current enrollees are not curable and their need for therapy is often lifelong.

This all may make for some interesting table talk between Arnold and his family-by-marriage. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, his mother-in-law, is, of course, the founder of the Special Olympics, a privately funded foundation that offers sports activities to the developmentally disabled. Schwarzenegger himself has been a spokesman for the Special Olympics. Just last month, he proclaimed that he "envision[ed] a world where people with intellectual disabilities are fully accepted, and where every person has the opportunity to succeed." That world, apparently, will not include California so long as Schwarzenegger calls the shots.

If Arnold truly cares about the mentally handicapped, he would call Enron's Ken Lay and ask "Kenny Boy" to pay for these social programs with the $70 billion he bilked out of the state.

Hi, I'm Dick. Vote for me!

I wanted to mention this yesterday, but the transcript wasn't available until today.

As far as cable news personalities go, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is all over the map. Sometimes I think he's a right-wing shill, giving an easy ride to Peggy Noonan while she tows the line. Of course, he has to be nice to Peggy because she works for MSNBC. But when it's a conservative hack that doesn't work for his boss, he can really give it to them, like that bitch Ann Coulter.

Monday night, Chris Matthews interviewed Howard Dean at Harvard. I think Chris Matthews really likes Dean. Matthews referred to him as "an honest man" and wished Dean the opportunity to "write a new chapter" in his book.

Matthews even blew the whistle on something taken directly from Karl Rove's playbook:

MATTHEWS: Great, lets go to the next question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor Dean, you often criticize the Bush administration for its secrecy.
How do you reconcile this with the steps you have taken to seal away documents from your time in Vermont?
DEAN: Well...
MATTHEWS: Are you working for any campaign?
Seriously.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not at this time.
MATTHEWS: Not tonight or...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would be a Bush supporter.
MATTHEWS: You’re a Bush supporter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am a bush supporter.

Let me just interrupt here. Is a "bush supporter" anything like a jock strap? Something to hold your junk up? Buuuh-dum-bum. Back to the transcript:

MATTHEWS: OK, good nice to know that.
DEAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
MATTHEW: I say that because this guy just put his t-shirt on right behind the candidate."

And sure enough, there was a guy seated in the front row directly between Dean and Matthews wearing a Bush/Cheney 2004 t-shirt.

As much as I appreciate Matthews point out this bit of deviousness, I'm not criticizing the act. In fact, that's the sort of thing Democrats need to do more if they want to win. Fight fire with fire.

Dear Ralph Nader:

Don't be a dipshit. Do America a huge favor and fuck off. I didn't like you in 2000, and I really don't like you now. It's the Presidency, not a windmill.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Blogger