Angry Letter-Writing Liberal

Hi Mr. Troll!

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:41:00 +0000

You may have noticed that I've engaged the "moderate comments" option. Which means that you aren't going to come in here like a deranged monkey and spray invective all over the place like so much doo-doo all over the walls of your pen. Bye now!

Carrying on the Prop. 8 battle

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:36:00 +0000

Here's a letter I wrote to the L.A. Times, which apparently published it this Sunday, although I still can't find a link for it on the site. The articles referenced are found here.

Editor -

The Times provides a perfect portrait of everything that's wrong with Prop. 8 and its supporters ("Carrying on the Prop. 8 battle," Dec. 21). Already condemned to a life of suffering and familial rejection, Cody Horton and Christopher Lewis want nothing more than to be able to declare their love for each other and create a life together.

Secure in a life of wealth and privilege, untroubled by their own hypocrisy when it comes to the "sanctity" of marriage, the Ferreira family pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply to them, feeling free to cast judgment on homosexuals, unmoved by the knowledge that they are helping to destroy loving families. They unquestioningly repeat the lies told by their pastor, claiming that Prop. 8's failure would have meant that homosexuality would have to be taught in schools.

People like the Ferreiras are about as far from Christ's example of universal love as possible. The sooner Californians of all religious stripes and sexual preferences reject their politics of intolerance, the better.

With friends like these ...

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:10:00 +0000

Let's take a moment to absolutely smack the ever-lovin' shit out of both the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Blue America PAC - both ostensibly Democratic-leaning organizations - for these disgusting attack ads, used against Republican candidates:

Shame on them both. Howie Klein, who runs the Blue America PAC, is himself gay.

... yeah, what an unbelievable asshat.

Let me be clear: If you think tactics like this are ever acceptable, you are not on my side. You are the enemy. Go sign up for the Mormon church and be done with it, hatemonger.

Up is down, black is white

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:59:00 +0000

I guess we can nip that whole "America is a center-right nation" bullshit in the bud right now:

And I'm struggling to remember all the conservative pundits - you know, the ones saying now that Obama MUST govern to the right - saying in 2000 or 2004 that Bush had to reach out to liberals. In fact, I seem to remember that Bush's 2004 victory - by a smaller popular AND electoral margin than Obama's - was a "mandate" to govern right. Look at the map again, guys. Check the totals. America has chosen progressive policies and representatives. So shut up.

Hey Sarah Palin!

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:40:00 +0000

Remember when you were all, "What's the difference between a small-town mayor and a community organizer?"

That's the difference.

Pride.

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:12:00 +0000

I feel it.

Is Barack Obama having a homosexual affair with ... SATAN?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:04:00 +0000

So my roommate got two emails from a friend - the first, asserting that ... well, take a look:

Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.

The other asserted that the UK was no longer teaching the Holocaust in school because they were afraid to offend Muslims. So here was my response:

I was going to spend a lot of time attacking the mindset of the person who would write this garbage or forward it, but I'll try to stay on point:

Whoever wrote this email about the Holocaust in the UK is a big, fat liar. You should not believe what they say. And if you do believe it, you need to ask youself why you did, because it took me about 15 seconds of Googling to find the truth. It's an e-mail. It offers not one bit of demonstrable proof of its assertions - and oh, would you look at this!

The Historical Association is disturbed to learn that false and misleading claims about the teaching of the Holocaust are being made on the internet to the effect that English schools are being discouraged from teaching about the Holocaust in case it might offend Muslim pupils or their parents. These claims appear to have their origin in a serious misreading of the Association's 2007 report on the teaching of emotive and controversial issues in history (TEACH).

These claims are not true.

The T.E.A.C.H. Report

Golly, you mean the email was WRONG? Could it be that it was written by someone with an agenda, who doesn't really care about the truth? Perish the thought!

But we all know what this is about, right? I mean, there's only one "Muslim" candidate, right? And this bullshit email arrived right after that email comparing Barack Obama to Adolf HItler (oh, but we're not trying to create a negative association or anything). So let's get down to brass tacks.

Many right-wing tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. But, of course, this lie is told not to make you think Obama's religious beliefs are somewhat different than many of your own - it's to remind you that MOOSLIMS ARE TEH TERORISTS OMG!!1!!!11!

Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh. And Eric Rudolph. And Ted Kaczynski. And James Kopp. (Google them if you're not sure who they are.)

But here are my questions for the "Obama-is-a-Muslim-I'm-so-scared" crowd.

1) Assume for a moment that Obama, is, in fact, a Muslim, even though the entire national media, outlets both left- and right-wing, have spent months digging into this story and still couldn't prove it. Do you believe that he is secretly plotting to ... well, what? Hand over the nuclear launch codes to Ahmadinejad? Declare Christianity illegal? Force you to wear a daishiki?

2) Really?

3) I mean, REALLY?

OK. If you actually believe that, there's probably not much I can do to convince you. There's probably not much I can do to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around, either, but, you know, enjoy the new "Left Behind" novel.

But for the rest of you - the ones who perhaps don't subscribe to the John Birch Society newsletter, and who might consider themselves moderate to conservative even though you might also think that people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the people who write these crazy emails are, well, dicks:

I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you to vote for Obama. If you want to vote for McCain because you think Obama is inexperienced, or you support McCain's health plan, or Republicans make you feel safer on national security, then do that. Seriously. I mean, hey, if you're open to a legitimate debate or an attempt at persuasion, email me and I'll try to convince you otherwise, using rational arguments and actual evidence to support my claims. But otherwise, like the man said, ain't that America.

But don't do it because you believed some crazy claim you saw in an email. It's a big Internet out there. There is more information at your fingertips than was contained in all the libraries of the world a century ago. When you get that email telling you that Obama is some kind of Manchurian Candidate, and it seems crazy, well, that's probably because it is. Resources like snopes.com are just a click away. Use them. Use reputable news sources (which, for you conservatives and Republicans, can include outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily if you are inclined to believe much of the media is biased leftward). But don't let your vote be motivated by ignorance and fear. None of us really wants to live in America governed by those emotions, do they? That's kind of why so many people are fed up with the Bush administration right now, isn't it?

This election will be over in 9 days. But there'll be another one in two years. And another in four. And on and on. And there are lot of important policy decisions that need to be made by responsible grownups - meaning you and I, as the voters, and the people we elect. There is too much at stake for you to be basing your decision on the Internet equivalent of a racial slur drawn on a bathroom wall. You deserve better. I deserve better. America deserves better.

Quoted text follows:

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it¢ offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests.

Who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beat, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people! Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ,

'NEVER HAPPENED'

"The killing of a journalist"

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:03:00 +0000

I've been telling my roommate, neighbors, friends, etc., to check this story out today, so it makes sense to post it here. If you know the story of Chauncey Bailey and Your Black Muslim Bakery already, go ahead and head straight to the latest story right now. If you're not familiar:

Chauncey Bailey was the newly-promoted publisher and editor of the Oakland Post, a 50,000-circulation community newspaper, when he was shot and killed on the morning of August 2, 2007. The gruesome shotgun slaying, performed in the light of early morning on a downtown street corner, was called an "assassination" by some, and rumors appeared immediately suggesting that Bailey had been targeted for investigating Your Black Muslim Bakery, a longtime Oakland institution known for promoting African-American economic independence - and less known for a history of shadowy links to criminal behavior both economic and violent. The bakery's founder, Yusuf Bey, died of cancer in 2003 while awaiting trial on 27 charges of the rape of four girls under the age of 14.

24 hours after the murder, police raided the bakery's headquarters, arresting Yusuf Bey IV, the 21-year-old bakery CEO and son of Yusuf Bey, along with 6 other bakery employees, on various felony probably cause warrants. Bey IV's rap sheet:

Bey IV has been in jail since his Aug. 3, 2007, arrest on charges of kidnapping and torturing two women in Oakland in May 2007. His half-brothers Yusuf Bey V and Joshua Bey were also charged. In a surprise move, Joshua Bey agreed to a plea bargain deal in exchange for his testimony against his half-brothers.
Bey IV is also charged in a videotaped rampage of two Oakland liquor stores in November 25, 2005.
Between 2005 and 2007, Bey amassed nearly a dozen criminal charges in four San Francisco Bay Area counties. The offenses range from speeding and shoplifting to such felonies as forgery, fraud, grand theft, assault with a deadly weapon and extortion.

The raid confirmed that police were focusing on the theory that Bailey was killed for investigating the bakery - specifically its finances, in anticipation of an expected bankruptcy filing. By the evening of August 3, Oakland police had announced a confession from Devaughndre Broussard, the then-19-year-old handyman at the bakery, saying that he and he alone had killed Bailey, because Broussard wanted Bailey to stop investigating the bakery. It was later revealed that the confession had come after police took the near-unheard-of step of putting Broussard alone in an interrogation room with Bey IV - his boss, himself a suspect in a felony kidnapping case, and certainly a person of interest - at the least - in the Bailey case.

The story today - one of many in an ongoing project - details how the lead investigator in the Bailey case, Sgt. Derwin Longmire, seems to have ignored a pile of evidence suggesting that Bey IV was a co-conspirator in the killing. We learn that Longmire and Bey IV have been friends for several years, but despite basic ethical guidelines suggesting that such a relationship disqualifies Longmire from working on any case Bey IV is linked to, he has not recused himself.

Police have not investigated cell phone records - obtained by the media project - that show Bey IV calling an acquaintance of Bailey's at the same time that a police-installed GPS device showed Bey IV's car was parked outside Bailey's home seven hours before the murder. Police said both Bey IV and Broussard admitted that they were in the car at the time.

It seems that all the questions being asked about the investigation have led to not one, but two investigations of the investigation - by the PD's internal affairs department, and by the district attorney's office. But as today's article points out, if Longmire is found to have violated ethical guidelines or even to have openly tampered with the case, it makes it easier for a smart defense attorney to pick apart any case the DA might try to mount against Broussard, Bey IV or anyone else.

I know some of the people at my workplace who knew Bailey - or at least, know his history as a former Oakland Tribune editor better than I do - are troubled by the project's pseudo-lionization of Bailey as, perhaps, more of a crusader for truth and justice that he really was. And I get that.

But no matter what you think of Bailey, killing journalists for doing their jobs is something that needs investigating. The very disturbing way in which police seem to be handling the case needs investigating. The apparent complicity of prominent politicians in the rise of what looks like a violent criminal enterprise under the auspices of a community organization - and in some cases, even the exercise of political cronyism to AID that criminal enterprise - certainly needs investigating.

Evidence Ignored (Oct. 26 story)

The Chauncey Bailey Project

Your liberal media at work

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:25:00 +0000

"Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

I'd say that response was juuuuust right, Joe.

Right on, Soul Brother #1!

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:26:00 +0000

Let me tell you - if there's ONE person in this great big country who really understands what it means to be black, it's George Will.

I like how he basically says, "There's absolutely no way to prove or disprove this crazy bullshit coming out of my mouth, but I'm going to say it anyways."

And what exactly do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have to do with Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama? Colin Powell, who has never been accused of being some kind of black power radical, is only endorsing Obama because he's black? Tens of millions of people are voting for him simply out of white guilt? Uh, then why weren't Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson elected, George? It has nothing to do with the Republican Party fielding one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, and then following him with a presidential candidate who wants to continue Bush's disastrous policies, with the added bonus of being a belligerent hothead?

Gosh, if I didn't know better, I might suggest that George Will doesn't know FUCK-ALL about black people, and is, in fact, just an Ivy League cracker, talking out of his ass on a national platform that he doesn't deserve.

What Republicans think about black people

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:03:00 +0000

Ha ha ha! It's just FOOD!

"I didn't see it the way that it's being taken. I never connected," she said. "It was just food to me. It didn't mean anything else."

Never forget. The GOP has revealed its true colors more explicitly than in any election in my lifetime. George Wallace would be proud.

What John McCain thinks about women's health

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:02:00 +0000

Ha ha ha! "Women's health!" What a side-splitter!

The donation dance

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:05:00 +0000

Editor -

Jason Scalese ("Prescriptions for America", Oct. 1) cites his parents' own experience in dealing with his ear condition as a child in supporting John McCain and his health care policy.
But buried at the bottom of Scalese's story is a key point - that $10,000 in out-of-pocket costs were covered by donations from his New England community. That's $28,000 in 2008 dollars.
Scalese was extraordinarily fortunate to receive this kind of community support, but is he suggesting that similar support is available to the millions of families struggling with rising private health insurance costs?
If not, how does he propose they pay those costs? Under McCain's plan, more families would be pushed into the individual insurance market, put at the mercy of underwriters looking to exclude 'costly' patients - in other words, families dealing with challenges exactly like Scalese's - to maintain the bottom line.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, will ensure that working families get meaningful coverage from their employers, or have access to a public insurance pool that will keep their costs down.
Scalese's story is heartwarming, but that $10,000 should loom large in the minds of any undecided readers. Under the McCain plan, Americans had better get ready to host a lot of neighborhood fundraisers.

Daniel Jimenez
Berkeley, CA

"Fundamentally, I'm a deregulator"

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:53:00 +0000

John McCain had so much fun with the bank collapse, he wants to try it with health insurance, too!

Via Paul Krugman, here's McCain in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Wow. It'll be interesting to see how the campaign responds in the coming days, as this line gets more attention from the media. Because if you think the lesson American investment banks have taught us over the last 10 years is that deregulation is a good thing, well, you're a Republican.

Which means you're not fit to get within 100 miles of the governance of this nation's financial markets. Like John McCain.

What would Jesus do, indeed

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:27:00 +0000

Time Magazine's Joe Klein, who has magically transformed from a cynical, GOP-talking-points-spewing shill into something much more thoughtful, echoes many others today in expressing surprise that Palin and the Republicans would devote so much energy to disparaging, well, the Lord's work:

So here is what Giuliani and Palin didn't know: Obama was working for a group of churches that were concerned about their parishioners, many of whom had been laid off when the steel mills closed on the south side of Chicago. They hired Obama to help those stunned people recover and get the services they needed--job training, help with housing and so forth--from the local government. It was, dare I say it, the Lord's work--the sort of mission Jesus preached (as opposed to the war in Iraq, which Palin described as a "task from God.")
This is what Palin and Giuliani were mocking. They were making fun of a young man's decision "to serve a cause greater than himself," in the words of John McCain. They were, therefore, mocking one of their candidate's favorite messages. Obama served the poor for three years, then went to law school. To describe this service--the first thing he did out of college, the sort of service every college-educated American should perform, in some form or other--as anything other than noble is cheap and tawdry and cynical in the extreme.
Perhaps La Pasionaria of the Northern Slope didn't know this when she read the words they gave her. But Giuliani--a profoundly lapsed Catholic, who must have met more than a few religious folk toiling in the inner cities--should have known. ("I don't even know what that is," he sneered.") What a shameful performance.

I know that helping the poor and unemployed get ahead in life isn't as much of an adrenaline rush as, say, shooting wild wolves from an airplane, but I'm nonetheless surprised by McCain and Palin's decision to bash people who actually, you know, work to make America a better place. I guess you can only put "Country First" if you're a Republican.

Random thoughts on Palin & the campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:17:00 +0000

Here's my comment from a thread on Feministing, which was actually about discussing Sarah Palin's (and John McCain's) positions on supporting working mothers, an issue thrust into the spotlight with the various revelations about Palin's family. It's fairly off-topic, but I guess I was just looking for an outlet to lay forth my thoughts on the pick:

Fair points all, but to be fair to "the media" (of which I am an extremely low-ranking member), Palin has next to no record on most major national issues, and very few interviews where she discusses those issues. And, of course, the McCain campaign STILL has not let her do a single interview since the announcement, which is very telling to me.

I agree that the rumors about the last baby AND the current pregnancy of her daughter are both off limits. I agree that since Bristol has already been forced into the spotlight, we should be discussing these issues as they relate to millions of American teens and their families, but giving that girl all the space and privacy she needs.

BUT it seems very clear to me that the McCain campaign WANTS us all to spend time talking about the pregnancy (Bristol's specificially, not the larger national issue). THEY are the ones claiming that the rumors about Trig are being made the main issue by the media - which is clearly a lie. This is as cynical a strategy as I've ever seen, but damned if it isn't working. The narrative about Palin, which was all about her lack of experience and simmering corruption/cronyism scandals on the first day after her announcement, is shifting toward being all about her daughter. On that count, the Dems can't win, ever. And the GOP can't lose.

What we on the left need to stay focused on is that this woman is the poster child for the right-wing fringe - anti-choice, anti-sex, pro-intelligent design in public schools, pro-gun, etc. etc. On top of that, her experience is laughable. Obama's State Senate district was one-third the size of the whole state of Alaska. On top of THAT, rather than being the reformer she and McCain portray her to be, evidence is mounting that she was just the latest generation to join the Alaska corruption brigade.

I'm a straight male feminist who hopes that we can have our first, second, etc. female president soon. I celebrate Hillary Clinton's courage and tenacity, even though I passively supported Obama in the primaries. But this selection by McCain is far worse than if he had just picked Romney, Pawlenty, et al. He has picked someone who is obviously unqualified, steeped in scandal, and most importantly, has neither the experience nor the policy positions that allow her name to be mentioned in the same sentence as Hillary's. It's a disgusting, pandering pick, and it deserves to be roundly rejected by the American people, not because Palin is a woman, not because she has a pregnant daughter, but because SHE is the wrong choice, and that wrong choice demonstrates that MCCAIN does not have the judgment to be a competent, let alone GOOD, president.

I pray that the Obama campaign is only waiting for the RNC to be over before it starts widely running an ad suggested by Josh Marshall of TPM:

A one-minute spot featuring Hillary Clinton herself, talking to the camera and laying into Palin on the issues, her complete lack of qualifications, and the temerity of the McCain campaign to think they could get away with this. Then she urges anyone watching who might have supported her to get out there and support Barack Obama.
Then it closes simply with Obama walking on to the set to shake Hillary's hand: "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message."

There was also this little bit of commentary I from an email exchange with my sister the day of the Palin pick. It's important to remember that come October, we're not going to be talking about vice presidents NEARLY this much:

What worries me is that if McCain is essentially ceding the argument about experience by choosing Palin, it is likely because he has something even nastier in mind for the fall campaign. (Ed. 9/03 - A few days later, this may not be the case. But that's only because the McCain campaign's initial response to questions about experience was to make the bizarre assertion that Palin's experience was not equal but SUPERIOR to Obama's, that being governor of Alaska counted as foreign policy experience because of the state's proximity to Russia, among other ridiculous claims)

But what I saw of Obama last night was so impressive and so unambiguously patriotic (sigh) and principled, he might be unstoppable. I feel like the debates loom large here - if McCain commits a serious flub or gets too testy, and Obama can exploit it without looking mean, that could be the ballgame. Of course, expectations for McCain will be pushed low ("Look, everybody knows Senator Obama's a great public speaker"), so if he emerges without an OMG moment, or even manages to effectively put Obama on the spot, he could squeak by.

I think Biden only needs to be reminded to make it about the Bush/McCain legacy and not be a bully toward Palin in their debate. Other than that, he is almost certainly going to slice and dice her. Sorry, Sarah.

After a summer of relentlessly negative, relentlessly empty attacks by McCain, his campaign is finally willing to acknowledge the truth:

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

There is your bottom line, folks. Ask yourself this question: Do you honestly believe that, regardless of your personal stance on any given issue, both Barack Obama and John McCain would govern as president in a way that they thought was best for the nation? I think another way to phrase the question is this: Do you believe that either candidate is actually some kind of fiendish supervillain, seeking the most powerful office in the world in order to wreak havoc and chaos across the globe? In order to destroy America and empower her rivals?

...

I didn't think so.

So issues - a window into the candidate's thinking - are all that should matter. But McCain, knowing that the American people strongly disagree with him on most of the issues, will try to make it about "character." Which means more POW hagiography and more negative, content-free attacks on Obama.

A lot of people I know are starting to get overconfident, starting to say that McCain's desperation is so obvious, Obama has to win. That is very, very dangerous thinking. A desperate campaign will stoop to any level. Do you think if Obama leads in most polls by double digits in October, McCain is simply going to roll over and go away? No. He's already hired two members of the Bush team that so savagely destroyed his reputation - and his candidacy - in the 2000 South Carolina primary, men that he all but swore a blood oath against. We may have only begun to see the depths of McCain's desperation.

UPDATE - 3:49 p.m.: Palin isn't the next Geraldine Ferraro; she's the next Dick Cheney.

Obama hits one out of the park

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:00:00 +0000

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

No frackin' kidding, Barack.

I am dumbfounded that McCain and the GOP can go so far out of their way to act so stupid. Obama points out that keeping your tires properly inflated can help increase your mileage - a fact supported by auto and tire manufacturers as well as oil producers - and the Republican Party responds by intentionally acting like morons.

They're actually handing out tire gauges stamped with the word "Obama's Energy Plan." They're claiming that Obama said the U.S. could simply solve the problem of oil prices if Americans kept their tires properly inflated.

As I said in the last post, though, this is really the only choice they have when running a bellicose, out-of-touch candidate, completely lacking in any sort of principle despite his "Straight Talk" misnomer, who can only be counted on to support the failed policies of George W. Bush.

It's pretty sad, though. I don't have many Republican readers, I imagine, but if I do, let me ask you this - has the McCain campaign thus far ever made you actually feel good about voting for him? Do you feel good about supporting the Republican Party? Have they really done a good job thus far of convincing you that they actually have ideas and policies to help Americans deal with the economy? To actually curtail our dependence on oil? You do know we're going to run out of oil eventually, right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

"Where's the white women at?"

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:11:00 +0000

These two comments pretty much sum up my feelings on John McCain's Britney/Paris/Obama ad. The post they're attached to was really more of a cravenly innocent, "gosh, there might be racism in this campaign, but let's not get too riled up about it, m'kay?" plea than actual derision of the idea that the ad in question - and this Republican campaign, like almost every Republican campaign of the last 40 or so years - might be steeped in racist code words, but I spent the better part of the day getting more and more pissed off about this - and McCain's unbelievable claim that Obama was playing the race card (dear lord, how I hate that phrase).

"If we crudely make (race) a regular part of the daily political maelstrom, no one is well served."
OK, Michael. In that case, I await your strong condemnation of McCain's Britney-Paris ad. Anyone who doesn't think that ad was made to be a racist dogwhistle is either willfully or woefully ignorant of the process of making political campaign ads (or ads of any kind, really).
Obama is not playing the race card, he's responding to it. The die was cast for racist Republican attacks the moment Obama took the nomination. What we're seeing now was inevitable. Running an out-of-touch, bellicose candidate who can only be believed when he promises to continue the failed policies of the last 8 years, what other choice did the GOP have?
I don't really care if people vote for Obama or not - but don't for a second believe those who assert that this ad is not racist, or not part of a racist strategy. They are lying to you, and themselves, to deny reality and quiet their own guilty consciences.

Michael -
You act as though using racist tactics and expressing outrage at the use of racist tactics are moral equivalents. Is that what you really believe?
Let's deal quickly with the ridiculous question of "presumptuousness." Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for president. He essentially has a one in two chance of being elected. For years now, we have documented that appearing "presidential" is, like it or not, a requirement for a candidate to be elected. So the idea that him acting like he might soon be president is somehow unbecoming is incredibly, obnoxiously, willfully stupid. The end.
But I'm still focused elsewhere, Michael: The Britney/Paris ad was obviously designed to be a racist dogwhistle. Agree or disagree?
Because here's the thing: Saying that a prominent politician is a celebrity, is, well, a pretty stupid line of attack. McCain was the first sitting U.S. Senator to host SNL. Guiliani did, too. And Al Gore. Chris Dodd in 3-D glasses watching "Laser Cats" with Lorne Michaels, anyone? They all appear on late-night talk shows, Oprah, and the pages of People Magazine. Pat Leahy had a cameo in "The Dark Knight," fer cryin' out loud.
But if you're going to make the argument that Obama is an empty-headed liberal celebrity, couldn't you do better? What about Alec Baldwin or Tim Robbins? That would at least be an attack based on some sort of similar ideology.
No, this ad only has traction with the Britney/Paris images, which are, of course, what gets everyone talking. As others have pointed out, they're actually a dogwhistle double-whammy:
1) You get the "Black Snake Moan, oversexed white women threatened/stolen by scary black man" effect; and
2) you get the "Obama is an effete, fragile wimp" effect. +3 to this one when combined with Tucker Bounds' "fussiness and hysteria" comment today.
The Southern Strategy is real. There is no denying it, Michael. It is a huge part of modern Republicans' electoral legacy. And we're supposed to believe that it's not being used now that a black man is the Democratic nominee for president? Or that we should somehow be ashamed for confronting it head-on and fighting back? You have got to be kidding.
So long as this racist garbage is being put out there, we should be responding with full-throated outrage and publicly shaming those responsible. Nothing less will ever get them to stop.

There goes that job at the Times

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:26:00 +0000

Editor--

Nancy Soderberg ("A good-enough spy law," July 5) uses so many demonstrable lies in service of defending the FISA compromise, it's hard to know where to begin.

She writes that some Democrats find it "objectionable" that the bill would give telecom companies "the right to have their cases reviewed in district court," adding later that the bill "allows the courts to determine the legality of these actions." This is an out-and-out lie. The telecom companies currently have the "right" to defend their illegal conduct in open court, and the courts have the right to determine whether the law was broken. Under the bill, any pending civil claim against the telecom companies would have to be dismissed if the companies produced a letter from the president asking them to violate the law. The bill would effectively end all court review of the illegal warantless wiretapping program, and has the net effect of codifying Nixon's odious "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal" claim.

Soderberg cites the president's "order" as evidence that the telecom companies were obligated to violate their customers' privacy. But since when does the president have the power to arbitrarily "order" a private citizen or company to do anything? So soon after the Fourth of July, I would think Soderberg might understand that what she's describing is, well, exactly the kind of leader that had the colonists all riled up 242 years ago. Even members of the military, who actually serve under the president's command, are bound not to follow an illegal order.

She argues that the bill would put domestic surveillance cases under the FISA court - which they already are. She argues that the bill would allow federal officials to spy first and seek warrants later in an emergency - which they can already do.

Soderberg says that Congress must protect private companies from liability so they can cooperate with the government when necessary to combat terror threats. But there has never been any threat to companies that comply with legal orders. The threat to certain telecom companies at this moment exists because they knowingly broke the law. The FISA court was put in place to ensure that there was a legal framework spelling out telecom companies' legal obligations to protect their customers' privacy - and a clear process that would grant the companies permission and legal protection to violate that privacy in narrowly-defined cases when the government could demonstrate a national security threat.

In this case, the Bush Administration decided the current framework was inconvenient, so they simply violated it, and certain companies went along. Soderberg complains that without legal protection, companies would exercise "lawyer-like caution" in dealing with such requests. Yes, Nancy, this is what the rest of us call "obeying the law" - so why are you against it?

One major company - Qwest Communications - recognized the illegal nature of the president's "order" and refused to comply. As a result, they faced exactly zero legal sanctions - but did, mysteriously, lose their lucrative government contracts, a fate that did not befall any of the companies that cooperated in this illegal venture.

If Americans are at all confused about whom to support in this blatant end-run around the Constitution, they should ask themselves why so many who support the bill cannot make a truthful, honest argument in its favor. Shame on Soderberg for twisting the facts so egregiously in service of enhancing the power of governments and corporations to violate the rights of ordinary citizens, and shame on the Times for giving her a platform to do so unchallenged.

Daniel Jimenez

-----

Editor -

I'm not sure what the Spanish equivalent of chutzpah is, but it would surely describe the arrogance needed for a man like Alberto Gonzales to complain about the "crucial elements of racial inequality" ("What Latinos want from their president", Opinion, July 4).

Under Gonzales' leadership, the talented career lawyers who served at the Justice Department's civil rights division were fired and replaced with a nearly all-white staff. More importantly, these new employees seemed to think "civil rights" meant "protecting white Republicans," as much of the CRD's attention shifted from actual civil rights work to defending voter ID laws that, well, just happen to exclude lots of non-white, Democratic voters. How does disenfranchising thousands of minority voters count as fighting racial inequality, Mr. Gonzales?

The department's inspector general just released a blistering report condemning hiring practices for the department's honors program under Gonzales and John Ashcroft, showing that even the most elite candidates, if perceived as "liberal," were passed over in favor of conservative applicants. Not surprisingly, those hired tended to view racial discrimination as a thing of the past, an attitude reflected in their work. How does throwing out the only people capable of recognizing actual discrimination count as fighting racial inequality, Mr. Gonzales?

In any case, welcome to the cause of racial equality, Mr. Gonzales. Maybe your first task should be working to undo the damage you did to our nation during your tenure as Attorney General.

Daniel Jimenez

Moooooonsanto sucks

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:47:00 +0000

A new advocacy group closely tied to Monsanto has started a counteroffensive to stop the proliferation of milk that comes from cows that aren’t treated with synthetic bovine growth hormone.

The group, called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, or AFACT, says it is a grass-roots organization that came together to defend members’ right to use recombinant bovine somatotropin, also known as rBST or rBGH, an artificial hormone that stimulates milk production. It is sold by Monsanto under the brand name Posilac.

...

AFACT has come together as a growing number of consumers are choosing milk that comes from cows that are not treated with the artificial growth hormone. Even though the Food and Drug Administration has declared the synthetic hormone safe, many other countries have refused to approve it, and there is lingering concern among many consumers about its impact on health and the welfare of cows.

The marketplace has responded, and now everyone from Whole Foods Market to Wal-Mart Stores sells milk that is labeled as coming from cows not treated with the hormone. Some dairy industry veterans say it’s only a matter of time before nearly all of the milk supply comes from cows that weren’t treated with Posilac. According to Monsanto, about a third of the dairy cows in the United States are in herds where Posilac is used.

...

So Afact has embarked on a counteroffensive that includes meeting with retailers and pushing efforts by state legislators and state agriculture commissioners to pass laws to ban or restrict labels that indicate milk comes from untreated cows.

Last fall in Pennsylvania, Dennis Wolff, the agriculture secretary, tried to ban milk that was labeled as free of the synthetic hormone because, he said, consumers were confused. Mr. Wolff’s office acknowledged that it had no consumer research to back up his claim, and he eventually had to scale back his plans when consumer groups and Gov. Edward G. Rendell balked.

...

A Consumer Reports survey last summer found that 88 percent of consumers believed that milk from cows not treated with synthetic hormones should be allowed to be labeled as such.

I don't feel the need to write a long-winded diatribe on this topic, but I'll agree strongly with the masses here and add an overarching product-labeling philosophy: If information on a product label is accurate, the government should have no interest in censoring it - and this holds especially true in a case where a) the ban would be on behalf of monied interests seeking to enhance their bottom line; and b) the American people, typically fractious and disagreeable, have spoken overwhelmingly on their preference - a preference for unrestricted information about a product they put in their bodies.

Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label (New York Times)

Berkeley loses its mind

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:56:00 +0000

This happens from time to time.

BERKELEY — Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3, with Gordon Wozniak, Betty Olds and Kriss Worthington dissenting, to tell the Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
It also voted 7-2, with Wozniak and Olds dissenting, to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines and to encourage the women's peace group Code Pink to protest in front of the station.

So I says to myself (and my city councilman, Darryl Moore):

Dear Sir--

If I'm reading today's Oakland Tribune correctly, you voted in support of the City Council's move to restrict military recruiting in general and against the U.S. Marines specifically, with the added bonus of enabling Code Pink extra access for protests by giving them a sound permit and a parking pass.

What were you thinking, sir?

I have strongly opposed the Iraq war from its inception. I think President Bush's decision to attack Iraq was foolish, illegal and borderline genocidal.

But the City Council's move will have *ZERO* effect on that war. You and your colleagues have achieved nothing in opposition to that war. Code Pink can't stop Marine recruiting, and neither can you.

More importantly - and I can't believe this needs to be said - the Marines are *not* the enemy. No matter what you think of U.S. foreign and military policy, the Marines don't make the choice to go somewhere and fight. They are sent there by this country's civilian leadership. If a man uses a club to start attacking people without provocation or reason, you blame the man, not the club. The men and women who volunteer to defend this country deserve our respect and support, and you have offered them the back of your hand.

As far as the decision to grant Code Pink special protest access, how can that possibly be constitutional? Is the City Council now in charge of deciding which protest groups are favored and deserve special status? What about the UC tree-sitters? Will the council begin sending them care packages of food and toiletries? What if you decide that the "Brad Pitt Lady" of Telegraph Avenue has something important to say? Will the council enact special funding to buy her new hard hats and stickers? Not likely. The decision by the council to grant special favor to Code Pink is an egregious abuse of your power in service of your personal agenda.

So if attempting to kick the Marines out is wrong, and favoring Code Pink is wrong, what have you achieved, then? You have provided grist for the right-wing mill, to once again hold Berkeley up to ridicule as anti-military, anti-American, anti-whatever.

More importantly, this city has real issues that need real solutions. Continuing to advance a green agenda, minding the planned expansion of the UC campus, managing development, finding a way to get some of our city's homeless back on their feet and off our streets - these are the things you were elected to do. This mindless escapade takes up time and energy that could have been devoted to those issues. In my mind, that's a dereliction of *your* duty. As a result, I won't be supporting you when you are next up for re-election. I hope taking a meaningless stand, offending thousands of current and former U.S. Marines, and subjecting the people of this city to nationwide humiliation was worth it.

Sincerely,

Daniel Jimenez

When crazy liberals like me think you've gone too far, you know you've gone too far.

Of course, the only thing worse than a politician who can't see the forest for the trees is one who doesn't have a backbone either. Not surprisingly, the council will be revisiting the issue at its next meeting. Coffee, orange drink and humble pie are expected to be served.

UPDATE: To which Councilman Moore kindly responded:

Dear Mr. Jimenez,
I do apologize for offending you, but unfortunately the language that was passed during the January 29th City Council meeting was not as clear as we intended it to be. The intention of the item was not to condemn our military men and women, but to reiterate out strong opposition to the war in Iraq and demonstrate that we will not be complicit in helping to recruit the youth of our community. Attached is the language that clarifies the City Council's position, an item that I co-sponsored on February 12th's City Council agenda. Thank you very much for voicing your concerns and I hope that our item addresses those concerns.

Sincerely,
Darryl Moore, Councilmember
City of Berkeley, District 2

So I says to Mabel, I says:

Dear Mr. Moore,

Thank you for your reply. However, there are several points from my original letter you have not addressed:

1) Why is it the council's business to state opposition to the war in the first place? I don't recall seeing discussion of your - or any other council candidate's - foreign policy experience or platform during the last campaign. I don't recall hearing you state an intention to try to force the Marines out of town. I'm guessing that this is because it's not your job to take that stand. Your job, as I previously stated, is to worry about potholes, crime, development and any number of other local issues. They say that politics ends at the water's edge; to borrow that phrase, your mandate to lead ends at the city limits. No matter the phrasing of the original resolution or any mistakes made in shepherding that resolution through the approval process, the council should never have taken it up in the first place. Do you think that the opinion of most Berkeleyans about the war is not already well-known? People worldwide know where Berkeley stands.

2) How, exactly, is it that you believe that giving special treatment to CodePink, in the form of free parking and noise permits, can be constitutional? Why are other protest groups not being offered the same courtesy? I believe the council has not only committed an egregious breach of its duty to be impartial, but you have violated a basic constitutional principle - that all individuals and groups should be held equal under the law. Telling CodePink "we approve of your intent, and therefore are offering you special privileges that are not available to the general public at large," is patently unfair.

I look forward to your response to these concerns.

Sincerely,

Daniel Jimenez

And finally:

Hi Mr Jimenez,
To clarify, the particular item that brought about this entire controversy did not originate with the City Council. It was the Peace and Justice Commission that brought this item before us and requested that some sort of action be taken. It was not an attempt at foreign policy as much as it was taking up an issue that one of our local commissions had brought before us. In regards to the Code Pink has not been given special privilege. Any and all groups can apply for parking and noise permits. Moving America Forward, a pro-troop organization, was granted a sound permit for their protest at our last meeting. The only difference was that Code Pink applied for a fee waiver, something that is also open for any other group to apply for, but it must come before the full City Council and approved. None to date has applied for such a waiver about this issue. I hope this clarifies the situation and I appreciate you taking the time to voice your concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Darryl Moore, Councilmember
City of Berkeley, District 2

At which point I retired the issue with a simple note of thanks to the good councilman. We'd both made our points, and most of the time, getting 2 responses from an elected official is a jackpot for a cranky letter-writer like myself.

Priorities

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:29:00 +0000

I hate to say "I told you so"

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:42:00 +0000

Well, that's not true. I love to say it. But still, the point is that what is news to the New York Times is not news to me:

When Emily McLain decided to enroll at the University of Oregon, a significant part of the appeal was low tuition. She had not counted on all the fees that unexpectedly appeared on her bill.

“I had my dad calling me asking, ‘What’s this for?’ ” said Ms. McLain, 22, a political science and international studies major now entering her last year at the university.

This year, for instance, the university is charging a $51 “energy surcharge” for rising electricity costs. A $270 “technology fee” for computer service. There is the $371.25 fee for the campus health center, a $135 fee to maintain buildings and grounds and a $624 “incidental fee,” for student activities. And more.

All told, fees add up to $1,542, or nearly an additional 40 percent on top of tuition of $3,984. That does not even count additional fees charged for taking certain courses.

College administrators say public universities are increasingly tacking on fees for the same reasons that some are experimenting with differential tuition for different majors: state support for higher education has languished, and legislatures shy away from approving tuition increases. Fees can often be set by individual campuses.

As Support Lags, Colleges Tack on Student Fees (NY Times)

But, Gentle Reader, you ask, who could have been so prescient as to see this trend some two years ago?

Who, indeed.

But inflated "fees" like this are a patchwork cure for a serious illness: California's refusal to acknowledge that fully funded higher education benefits the entire state.

As CSU officials confront annually shrinking budgets and increasing enrollment, they are making increasingly unpopular choices.

...

Take a look at your tuition bill, or the schedule of fees on the SF State Web site. In addition to basic tuition, students pay fees for athletics, student health services, the student center, a general "instruction-related activities" fee, and more.

How many fees will there be in 10 years? A fee to support the political science department? Theater? Psychology?

...

The idea behind public education is simple: taxpayers benefit directly if they attend a public university, and they indirectly reap the benefits of living in an educated society. Public university students are subsidized, the theory goes, so that they can become successful, taxpaying adults, who will generate great returns on that education investment.

Economists of every stripe, who rarely agree on anything, will tell you that education is the spark that
lights the twin engines of growth and development. This state's staggering economic explosion of the last century was nurtured by one of the finest public education systems in the world.

But we cannot continue to build the California we envision in our dreams without strengthening our state's educational foundation with our tax dollars today.

But since the days of Proposition 13, the people of this state have apparently decided that they can pay for education on the cheap and still maintain their high standard of living.

Prodded by the anti-tax movement, legislators have handed ever-slimming budgets to public higher education systems at every level in recent years. Schools have responded by slashing programs and raising tuitions.

Make no mistake; the proposed cuts to athletics are a beginning, not an end. People don't just suddenly decide that they want to pay more taxes, and the university's troublesome budget problems won't just go away.

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about streamlining state government, pandering to anti-tax crusaders and offering cosmetic fixes to California's serious revenue problems, help is not just around the corner.

Without a doubt, there will come a point when the people of California realize their mistake; the question is how long students will have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden for them.
Students are rarely handed the chance to determine their own college costs. Use this chance to send the message that education is a price to be paid by all the people of this state.

Students Shouldn't Pay Taxpayer's Tab (Golden Gate Xpress)

Creepy sexual harassment in the workplace ... and YOU ARE THERE!

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:18:00 +0000

I had been waiting for someone to YouTube this. From a Chris Matthews interview with CNBC correspondent Erin Burnett:

Um, Chris? You're a douche, and you owe Erin both a personal and an on-air apology (and judging by this incident, I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've objectified a colleague, so you probably owe a lot more to other women in your workplace).

Interestingly, this interview also made a bit of news in the blogosphere for what Burnett said right before Matthews turned into a leering jackal:

The "scaremongering" she refers to involves complaints about the apparent lack of safety regulations in China, which has made news in recent weeks with reports of poisonous toothpaste, fish and other foods loaded with chemicals and toxins, defective tires and toys and charms made with lead. So, she seems to be arguing, we should just learn to accept dangerous/poisonous products because at least they're cheap at Wal-Mart.

Sorry, Erin. I'm going to wager that a vast majority of Americans would be willing to pay a little bit more for food and products that won't, you know, kill them.

Enabler for the Dissembler

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Jimenez) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:27:00 +0000

Editor, SF Chronicle -

A mere one day after Karl Rove announces his resignation, the revising of history begins. Debra Saunders offers her column as a platform for Rove to perform the ultimate spin, portraying himself and President Bush as humble public servants, valiantly reaching across the aisle to embrace the Democrats, who snubbed them in a fit of irrational partisan rage.

That Rove would have the chutzpah to claim this after 6 years of relentless "you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric, painting Democrats as cowards and traitors for not blindly supporting everything Bush and Rove demanded, is, well, not surprising.

That Saunders would allow Rove's outrageous and demonstrably false assertions to go unchallenged shows that to her, allegiance to the conservative cause is more important than truth or responsible governance. Having read her column for years, that's not surprising to me, either.

Daniel Jimenez
Berkeley, CA