Investigate the Vote: Kerry on the Case

What happens to conspiracy theory when there may be an actual conspiracy? You have to start taking each theory separately and seriously. Here's a very interesting theory as to why the assault on Fallujah began just after the election. Not to keep casualities off the news on election day (keeping casualities off the news has never been a problem for the Bushies) but to forestall questioning of election results as unpatriotic when Americans were going into battle. Well, maybe. But apart from the theory there is the welcome evidence that the Kerry people are aggressively investigating the vote steal in Ohio.

Inside The Election Fraud Battle - Think Kerry Is Not Involved In This Fight?

Rumors are also floating that a number of lawsuits will be filed in Ohio on Monday, and claims are being made of dramatic news to come from them. The mainstream press does seem to be paying a tiny bit more attention to the story. Clearly the effort must achieve results and a high profile before early January when Congress makes the election results official.

Right now it seems certain that when the time comes, black members of the House will object to Bush's legitimacy, as they did in 2000 (actually 2001.) But then they lacked even a single Senator to also object, which they needed to be effective (as we all saw---most of us for the first time---in Michael Moore's F 9/11.) There has to be enough evidence and enough outrage to inspire a Senator to take the political risk. Of course the highest possible drama would be if that were to be Senator John Kerry. But if this all gets that far that fast, there will be more than one Senator speaking out.

Investigate the Vote Update

The "forum" held by Rep. John Conyers on voting fraud in Ohio got very little coverage, either in the press or the political blogs. Yet there is nothing more important happening in America than exposing the fraud that gave George Bush the presidency, again.

But it's not over. Conyers is holding hearings in Ohio, and there are demonstrations scheduled in the state. The heat on the Ohio official in charge of the election (and shades of Katherine Harris, co-chair of the Bush campaign) is becoming intense, and there are reports that a former member of Congress, Dan Greenberg, and his wife were arrested for tresspassing while attempting to present a letter to this official.

Two organizations, People for the American Way and Common Cause, have jumped into the voting issue, and they present their own research and point of view on their web sites.

This link is to an AP report, the clearest we've seen so far on the outlines of what's going on. A couple of other links follow in separate posts.

Northwest Indiana News: nwitimes.com

This is a link to a blog covering the Conyers hearings. Much of it is uninformative but there are at least three very interesting bits here: an interview with the lawyer who maintains there are enough votes in question to change Ohio's outcome, a list of "coincidences", some of which reads like conspiracy theory but much of which makes a great deal of sense as the personnel for stealing the election, and the assertion that this isssue, and these hearings, are forging a new coalition of black activists and progressives (mostly white), not seen since Civil Rights days.

truthout, Conyers Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud Coverage

A Guardian story on the Conyers stolen election hearings, focusing on Jesse Jackson.
Jackson considers this a civil rights issue, as important to deal with as Selma and voting rights for blacks in the 60s. In this he is not alone. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus were virtually alone in protesting the Florida swindle in 2000 on the floor of Congress. Minority precincts were targeted for abuses in Ohio, and so this is becoming the central political issue for African Americans, while the press and everyone else dozes.


Guardian Unlimited US elections 2004 Jesse Jackson: In Cleveland as in Kiev

Rum Deal

Hey, I wouldn't have signed on for another term if I thought I was going to be held accountable.

Donald Rumsfeld didn't exactly say that, but it might have crossed his mind as his feel-good "town meeting" with soldiers in Iraq turned into actual questions about their equipment, their pay and the stop-loss policy that's keeping some of them there beyond their tour or even enlistment.

It's not Rummie's fault, of course. Those damn nuisance insurgents, and Iraqi citizens who love freedom but would like to have the electricity and water they used to get. Besides, even though the Colonel there supported his soldiers and said that 95% of their vehicles don't have the proper armor, Rummie's generals protested they knew nothing about it.

Maybe they should limit the town meetings to Republican soldiers who sign a loyalty oath to George Bush, Dick Cheney and Rummie. You know, like during the free election campaign over here.

Here's the New YorkTimes/Washington Post story linked from the SF Chronicle:

Troops confront Rumsfeld, ask for better battle gear / Challenges from National Guardsmen bound for combat unnerve Pentagon chief

Other stories are even grimmer. Like veterans of Iraq already showing up at homeless shelters. More complaints about inadequate medical care for the injured when they return. And some soldiers ordered to Iraqnam with what John Kerry called the backdoor draft are suing the government. Army recruitment is at about half its targeted level, and nobody is real eager to join the National Guard anymore. There's some suggestion that medical personnel are already in short supply.

So who can Rummie go to? The reality-based problems are coming home to roost, and the faith-and-PR-based Bushies have got nothing. Except faith in their immoral war---immoral for the destruction of Iraq, the killing, maiming and stunting of Iraqi men, women and children; immoral for sending young people into crazy violence without the proper equipment and apparently with inadequate training and leadership (it's hard to read the new revelations about the horrific fate of Pat Tillman any other way), and with heartless treatment for them and their families when they're back.

Rule by Fear: Social Security is the New Terrorism

Over the next several months we're going to be hearing a lot about the Crisis of Social Security, as the Bushies push their latest privatization scheme for soaking the anxious middle class to benefit the rich and incompetent. We'll hear scary numbers and complex sounding analyses. But just about all we need to know about all of it is contained in a handy few hundred words of Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times linked below.

It turns out to be quite simple. There's a problem but...

"But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year."

The Social Security scare has much less to do with economics and more to do with the Rabid Right agenda. Nor is there really an issue of fairness here: the media drones feed the perception that younger people are going to get hit up for the retirement of self-indulgent baby boomers. The truth is that middle class baby boomers have been paying higher payroll taxes for twenty years, so their retirement funds are paid for, despite the fact that the wealthy got their first round of tax cuts at about the same time---you know, in the 80s, the first time that Supply Side Economics failed horribly.

Why is sowing fear and making Social Security the domestic equivalent of Osama bin Laden so important to the Bushheads? Here's Krugman's conclusion:

"For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."

Link to this column, copy it, and refer to it many times over the next year. It'll keep you sane. (The NY Times requires registration, but it's free and doesn't take long, and it's worth it just for Krugman's columns.)

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Inventing a Crisis

Abu Ghraib Continued

Documents reveal that the abuses continued at Abu Ghraib after the photographs of tortures stunned the country, scandalized U.S. allies and confirmed what U.S. adversaries said about American morality. In the throes of Hypocracy in America, we're about to see one of the architects of the torture policy be nominated for Attorney General.

Senator Patrick Leahy says he will make this an issue during the confirmation hearings of Albert Gonzales:

''The Bush administration circled the wagons long ago and has continually maintained that the abuses were the work of 'a few bad apples,' " Leahy said. ''But we know that the photos from Abu Ghraib do not depict an isolated incident. Abuses have occurred in many locations, including Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and in a number of other facilities within Iraq. I have long said that somewhere in the upper reaches of the executive branch a process was set in motion that rolled forward until it produced this scandal."

This story in the Boston Globe details the revelations, which come principally from the FBI:

Boston.com / News / Nation / Interrogators objected to tactics

Investigate the Vote

There are some major charges zipping around the Internet, of major GOPer malfeasance in multiple kinds of vote fraud and voter suppression, in charges made by an unidentified and unconfirmed RNC employee, and an indentified man in Florida with specific charges of soliciting ways to con the computerized voting system in Florida, made, he said, by a FLA Member of Congress of GOPer persuasion.

But all that is in the realm of let's see how it plays out. What's happening now is that the Ohio vote is now official, and Bush still leads but by approximately 20,000 fewer votes. (It's now about 119,000.) So now the official recount can begin, and it's going to.

Meanwhile there are stirrings in Washington: Congressman John Conyers is holding what would be congressional hearings to investigate the vote, if the Democrats had a majority, which they don't. And current DNC chair Terry Mc is committing the Democratic party to support investigating the 2004 election, with all necessary funding. The details are here in the Keith Olbermann blog, which is essentially his script on the subject for last night's show.

MSNBC -

In this connection, I'll impart a thought that I awoke with today. It's not exactly the strangest dream, but it did come out of that land of sleep thought. I woke up thinking of Nixon.

I woke up thinking of 1973, less than a year after Nixon's re-election. The first stories on Watergate had been published before the November election, but Americans choose to ignore them, and really did give Tricky a mandate---to the tune of 49 out of 50 states. (Hence the bumper sticker I pasted onto my guitar case which read: "Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts.") But after his re-inaugural, and in all his imperial presidential glory, the whole sorry mess started unraveling and by 1974, he and his entire administration were gone in disgrace.

So I wonder what we will be waking up to in 2005 and 2006.

Dreaming of a Blue Christmas

Note: This list will be continually updated until Christmas at Shopopolis.

What do you get if you buy your Christmas treats and decorations at Costco, shop for gift books at Barnes & Noble, get your fashion-conscious sister her gift from Anne Klein and the kids clothes from Ralph Lauren Childrenwear, send your Christmas cards from Blue Mountain Arts, toast the season with Cuervo at the Hard Rock Café, get your tickets on Expedia to fly home for the holidays on Jet Blue, take the kids to see "Shark Tale," then chill out and watch "Enterprise" on TV while rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers to make it to the Super Bowl?

A Blue Christmas, that's what.

According to the website "Choose the Blue" at www.choosetheblue.com, these companies gave most of their reported political donations to Democrats.

Choose the Blue lists companies by categories. Their lists appear slim, but they are using information in the public domain, including figures from another website, www.opensecrets.org. Depending on your assumptions, there may be some surprises here.

Even though their nickname is Big Blue, you might not figure IBM for a Blue company, but they are---with 70% of their donations going to Democrats. And Blue Mountain Arts is 100% blue. But even though they're in a blue state and they are called the Dodger Blue, the LA Dodgers are deep in the Red, to the tune of 98% for Republicans.

The site states its premise: "If each American who voted for John Kerry spends $100 in 2005 on a Blue company instead of a Red company, we can move $5 billion away from the Republican companies and add $5 billion to the income of companies who donate to Democrats. This will be noticed!"

But why wait until 2005? Start this holiday season! But buyer beware: this is just a summary, and a company not appearing doesn't mean they aren't Blue. The following information is based also on lists provided by freenortheast.com.

Where to shop Blue: Costco (98%), Barnes & Noble (98%), Borders (100%), Trader Joe's (100) the Gap (61%) and Nordstroms are among the top choices.

Blues give raspberries to: Wal-Mart, Sam's Club (81% Red), Saks (95% Red) and Target (72% Red.)

For the handyman on your list, choose Ace Hardware (87% blue) over Home Depot (93% Red.) Black and Decker tools are a solid blue choice (100%).

Blue Fashions: Anne Klein (100%), Ralph Lauren Childrenwear (100%), J. Crew (100%),Liz Claiborne (76%),the Estee Lauder companies (Donna Karan, Kate Spade, Tommy Hilfiger---all 91%), S Schwab (100%), Capital Mercury Apparel (98%).

Not Blue in any color: Fruit of the Loom (100% Red)Pendleton (91% Red), Guess (83% Red.)

Want Blue Feet? The Footlocker (100%) and Sketchers (100%). Nike is "weak blue."

For Blue Toys, it's Mattel, and for a blue night's sleep, Serta.

Blue electronics: This is a heavily Blue sector. IBM leads the pack at 71%, followed by Sun (69%), Hewlett Packard (61%) and Intel (53%).
Software companies are led by Real Networks (100%), Adobe Systems (100) and include Microsoft (61%) and Oracle (58%).

Wireless is another story: of those listed, only T-Mobile (at 52%) is in the Blue. The Reddest is Edge (100%). Your blue long distance provider is Working Assets (100%), but MCI is sorta blue, too.

Books: You can't judge a book by its cover, but the publisher might help. Notable among the Blues are Chronicle Books (100%), Random House (86%) and Simon and Schuster (78%).

Online and Catalog Blues: L.L. Bean (100%), Overstock.com and Sharper Image (93%),

Entertainment Blues: In movies, Dreamworks SKG (makers of "Shark Tale") is 92% Blue, the Walt Disney group (Walt Disney,Miramax , Hollywood Pictures, Touchstone) is 71% Blue. On the other hand, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer and 20th Century Fox are slightly more Red (above 50%).

In television, Viacom (CBS, Showtime, MTV, BET, UPN, Spike TV, Nickelodeon,Comedy Channel, Movie Channel, Sundance Channel, etc.) is 78% Blue, Walt Disney TV (ABC, ESPN) is 71% Blue, while General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo) is 67% Red. No surprise that Fox is Red, but only at 57%, but Starz at 96% Red? And Univision (including Telefutura) is 100% Red.

TV station chains: The notorious Sinclair Group is 95% Red, and TDS Telecommunications is 62% Red. But Granite Broadcasting, with stations in Detroit, Fresno, Buffalo, San Francisco and elsewhere, is 60% Blue.

Satellite: DISH Network (Echostar) is 55% Blue, while Direct TV is a News Corp. outfit (parent of Fox) and is 57% Red.
Big Radio: Surprised that it's mostly Red? Led by Clear Channel at 70% Red. But Emmis Communications (Power 106 in LA, plus other radio and TV stations) is 92% Blue.

Ticketmaster (which owns Expedia.com) is 95% Blue. Netflix is 100% blue.

Martha Stewart Living is 100% Blue.

Shipping those Christmas gifts? No good Blue choices here at all---the major carriers are mostly Red. The U.S. Post Office is the default.

All that shopping may take some gas. You can fuel Blue at Shell Oil (57%) and that's about it, except for Costco customers where they sell gas. For car insurance, it's the aptly named Progressive (91% Blue). (But names can also be deceiving, when an outfit called Clean Energy Vehicle Natural Gas is 100% in the Red.)

For eating out at national chains, it's not easy being blue. Hard Rock Café is the top choice at 100% Blue, and sadly (or not) you want to avoid Olive Garden, Chilis and Hooters, all above 90% Red. Whatever else they may represent to you, Starbuck's is 100% Blue. So you latte liberals can stick it to the Reds.

In fast food, the top Blue is Arby's (100%), while McDonalds, KFC, Wendy's and A& W are all above 80% Red. Why not try a local restaurant?

Shopping for food is also a challenge, unless you can find a Whole Foods Market (100% blue.) But in your local and hopefully unionized grocery, you can buy Campbell soups (92%), Ben & Jerry's products (100), Green Mountain Coffee(100), and Tom's of Maine products with a Blue conscience.

Hoisting a cold one may mean a Guiness (which actually should be room temperature); Coors and Anheuser-Busch are mostly Red. You could just ask for a Blue (made by Labatt) which at least is Canadian. Or even a Red Bull, which is blue.

Your wine can be red as long as it's from Gallo (93% Blue). Diageo North America may not be a household name, but it is a Blue company (62%) that makes Cuervo, Johnnie Walker, J&B, Baileys, Smirnoff and Tanqueray brands, among others.

If you've got no other interest, the sports teams to root for are the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats (100% Blue), MLB's Arizona Cardinals (56% Blue) and the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers (58% Blue.) Prepare to boo the New Orleans Saints (100% Red), LA Dodgers (98% Red), New York Jets (92% Red) and Phoenix Suns (97% Red).

Does travel make you Blue? Not much of it does. Jet Blue is Blue (by 88%), as is Aloha and Alaska Airlines. But with most airlines and car rental companies listed, you'll be seeing red.

The Blue Hotels: Loews (99% blue), Hyatt (87% B), and Diamond Resorts (90%).
But you won't find a Blue room at the inns of Mariott or Omni, with Ramada and Super 8 chains just over the 50% Red.

Some of this information appears not to be entirely up-to-date, and certainly there are a lot of companies not named in either Blue or Red. In many categories, remember, you have locally-owned or locally made choices. But it's something to consider. Happy Blue Christmas everyone!

Choose The Blue

Reality-Based Reality

The Rabid Right has successfully created political controversy over issues that have a reality-based consensus, even among GOP supporters. Global heating is becoming such an issue (with a significant number of corporations in the energy business very aware of the science and its implications), but probably the example of the greatest consensus that's the biggest secret is health care. For example, today's New York Times story which begins:

"IN Washington, the phrase "universal coverage" is rarely mentioned as the way to provide health insurance for the 45 million uninsured Americans. It evokes memories of the Clinton administration's sobering failure to forge a national health care plan. Yet among health care experts there is a surprising consensus that the United States must inevitably adopt some kind of universal coverage."

And ends...
"IT will take political will and some hard choices about what path to take, but the United States certainly has the means to provide health insurance to everyone, health experts say. Neelam Sekhri, a health policy and finance expert at the World Health Organization, illustrates it this way: American government spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone, which covers about 40 percent of the population, if spread across the nation's entire population, would equal on a per capita basis total spending by most European countries.
From a strictly financial standpoint, Ms. Sekhri said, "Given the amount of money that the United States spends on health, there is no reason why it should not be able to provide a very good system of universal health coverage.""

Part of the problem, besides widespread denial among GOPer voters who don't believe that Bushies positions could possibly be as extreme as they in fact are, involves companies and universities dealing in big bucks who don't want to make political waves.
The New York Times > Business > Business Special > The Disparate Consensus on Health Care for All