Lacking intimacy?

Back in ‘merica now.  It’s weird how d.c. is (becoming) “home.”  I wonder how long it will last.  Perhaps the real thing is that I’m becoming more aware that if anything is home, it’s that.  

 

Lots of stuff going on at home that I didn’t even have a moment to comment on, but the good old boys in the house of commons are at it again: “quebequois is a nation” might be something worthy of support; but there is no doubt that by so saying, the question of substance and meaning is begged.  So, referendum in 2010, anyone? (laser – 15 yr rule applies)

 

I just heard that the government has also decided to “re-debate” same sex marriage in the house.  I am confident it will succeed (given the NDP and Bloc supporting it, as well as many Liberals).  That being said, similarly with the nation thing, don’t these deserve some substantive discussion and consultation?  Replacing our democracy with intra-party or shotgun resolutions/legislation is the exact nonsense that those in the government have long whined about.  

 

Anyway, and this…From FAIR:

Post Columnist Repeats Chavez Smear
Krauthammer recycling discredited anti-Semitism charges

11/29/06

Are the Washington Post's editorial pages entitled to not just their own opinions, but also their own facts? This seems to be the case with the paper's commentary on Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, where editors and columnists have shown a disturbing pattern of inaccuracy and unaccountability.

In a November 24 column, Charles Krauthammer used a deceptively edited phrase in order to portray a Chavez speech as anti-Semitic. After chiding actor Sacha Baron Cohen for using his film "Borat" to go after small-time anti-Semitism in the United States, Krauthammer listed what he saw as more menacing instances of anti-Semitism, including:

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez says that the "descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ" have "taken possession of all the wealth in the world."

The idea that Chavez was making an anti-Semitic slur was debunked when these quotes first circulated. (See FAIR Action Alert, "Editing Chavez to Manufacture a Slur," 1/23/06.) As FAIR pointed out, Chavez's speech referred collectively to "the descendents of those who crucified Christ, the descendents of those who expelled Bolivar from here" as one and the same, saying they represented the "less than 10 percent of the world population [who] own more than half of the riches of the world." Chavez was clearly referring generically to the wealthy and powerful; by Krauthammer's reading one would have to conclude that Chavez thinks Jews persecuted Simon Bolivar and account for more than 600 million of the world's population.

As American Rabbi Arthur Waskow told the Associated Press (1/5/06), "I know of no one who accuses the Jews of fighting against Bolivar." FAIR's alert noted that Jewish groups in Venezuela rejected the anti-Semitic reading of Chavez's speech. A letter sent by the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (AP, 1/14/06), a U.S. group promoting the deceptively edited quote, stated: "We believe the president was not talking about Jews," adding, "you have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don't know or understand." The American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress agreed with the Venezuelan group's view that Chavez was not referring to Jews in his speech (Inter Press Service, 1/13/06).

But is Krauthammer's smear part of a larger pattern at the Post? In April, Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl wrote (4/10/06) that Chavez "has never enjoyed overwhelming support in Venezuela," adding, "his ratings have mostly fluctuated a few points above and below 50 percent."

As FAIR explained in a letter to Diehl asking for his documentation ("Ignoring Inaccuracy at the Washington Post," 5/2/06), Chavez has won three elections with totals ranging from 56 to 60 percent of the popular vote, and opinion polls registered support for Chavez from 68 to 71 percent—as reported in Diehl's own paper (12/5/05).

peter mansbridge and the CBCs - you MUST BUY THIS CD.  it's ah-mazing.

does the prime minister have any real evidence to back up this move? and have these kids ever signed a contract before? shabbat shalom

OK - there's a lot more to this conversation that i didn't save. but it was annoying. so i thought i'd share it... names have been changed.

TONY: okay u and 13th is not adams morgan, it is u street area

TONY: but i am saying that where i live at r and 17th is viewed by some as the border between adams morgan and dupont

TONY: there is a diagnol street there, that goes right to u and cuts through

TONY: this is ridiculous

TONY: yes, sean you are so bad ass that you live ina dams morgan

SEAN: i don't live there

SEAN: ha

SEAN: i live in Colum. Heights

TONY: where do you live

TONY: wow, even more hard core aren't we

SEAN: you characterize it as hardcore... i think it's nothing more than my apt.

TONY: what is your overall point and where is the "boundries" for colombia heights?

SEAN: the boundries are set by the gov't

SEAN: it's pretty clear

TONY: i am sorry, i most eb mistaken i thought that was one point of your argument, that i needed to expand my horizons to go to places where people might get "shoot" and you said in one of the aims thta i should then go to adams morgan

SEAN: "advisory neighbourhood commissions"

TONY: and from that i took the comment to be more hard core

SEAN: no, i'm sure you go to admo enough

TONY: i did not ask for the reasons professor just the street boundries

SEAN: but that's a place where you can stumble, frequently into terrific activities

SEAN: this is admo: http://www.anc1c.org/map.html

SEAN: this is columbia heights/u st./shaw http://anc1b.org/map.html

SEAN: mt pleasant: http://anc1d.org/map.html

TONY: Thank you Mr. streets and maps, and Mr. google earth

SEAN: you asked

After having reviewed the election results, the MSM is “still waiting” on Virginia.  Perhaps that’s wise, considering how petty george allen is.  That being said, as of 4pm, here, only three precincts remain outstanding.  Webb’s lead is 7407 votes.  The precincts are in James City County and Isle of Wight County; while Allen retains an 8 point lead and 16 point lead respectively in both places.  

 

However, upon some further research, the precinct in Isle of Wight, Raynor (0505), voted 93-76 for Kilgore in 2005, and 184-84 for Bush in 2004.  These totals are actual numbers of votes.  The precincts in James City County are Central Absentee Precinct (C003) and Roberts B (0502), where the data for the 2005 and 2004 elections are not complete.  That is, no votes are on record for those elections from those precincts.  Meanwhile, Roberts B (0502) voted 1120-416 for Bush in 2000.  However, Roberts C did not exist in the 2000 election, and Roberts C voted 462-447 for Kerry in 2004 and 374-343 for Webb last night. 

 

What this all means is that is there is a total of some 2000 votes that remain to be counted.  Even if ALL the votes went to Allen, it’s still Webb’s.  Therefore, we have to wait and see if Allen does indeed want that recount.  Last year, there was a recount in the race for State Attorney General; resulting in the same winner as was counted on election day.  

 

Now the Dems control congress, and they’ll see a return of the Bush, texas Governor, who knows how to win votes across the aisle.  Is Harry Reid a better politician than George Bush??  Is Nancy Pelosi?

 

From FAIR – Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Morning-After Pundits Take Winners to Task Victorious Dems lectured by media establishment 11/9/06 On the day after Election Day 2006, pundits from major U.S. news outlets had, as one would expect, substantial amounts of political criticism for the party that faced major losses. What is more remarkable is the amount of criticism and caution directed at the party that won major gains. Virtually unanimously, the political commentators providing the initial analyses of the election for the nation's most influential news outlets downplayed the progressive aspects of the victory, characterizing the large new crop of Democrats as overwhelmingly centrist or even conservative. "These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats," declared CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer (Early Show, 11/8/06). CNN's Andrea Koppel (American Morning, 11/8/06) referred to the "new batch of moderate and conservative Democrats just elected who will force their party to shift towards the center." "This is not a majority made from cookie-cutter liberals," wrote Eleanor Clift for Newsweek online (11/8/06). "Some are pro-life, some pro-gun, some sound so Republican they might be in the other party if it weren't for President Bush and the Iraq War." This echoed the thoughts of Fox News' Carl Cameron, who found among victorious Democrats "many pro lifers, a lot of second amendment supporters, those who oppose gay marriage and support bans on flag burning. Things of this nature." Not that many were "pro-life," actually; NARAL (11/8/06) counted 20 pro-choice votes among the 28 announced House newcomers. Does anyone think that incoming class is going to make a Democratic-controlled house less likely to block new abortion restrictions? And gun control (for better or worse) hasn't been a serious Democratic priority for more than a decade. One ideological stance that was actually widespread among the incoming Democrats, and one that is actually likely to alter Democratic Party priorities, is an opposition to NAFTA-style trade agreements and an embrace of "fair trade" principles (Public Citizen, 11/8/06)--but this key trend was little noted by the morning-after pundits, presumably because such views are considered akin to a belief in leprechauns by the media establishment (Extra!, 7-8/01). One exception was the Los Angeles Times editorial page, which did take notice--and alarm: "Democrats who wooed anxious voters with sermons about the evils of outsourcing will be reluctant to support freer trade," the paper editorialized (11/8/06), deeming this development "bad for the country." In the Washington Post (11/8/06), Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei stressed that "party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of 'Blue Dog' Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center." It's not surprising that Emanuel would see the world that way, since he's a centrist himself who has long been trying to push the Democrats to the right. But the "Blue Dogs" are far from a majority in the new crop of Representatives (nine, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/9/06), or in the Democrat's total ranks (44), so their influence on the party as a whole will be far from overpowering. What's more, even those "Blue Dogs" are not likely to vote with Republicans on top Democratic Party issues: A Media Matters survey found (11/8/06) that all 27 new Democrats whose races had been called support raising the minimum wage and changing course in Iraq, and they oppose privatizing Social Security. Media Matters found only five openly described themselves as "pro-life." It’s not just centrist Democrats like Emanuel who are pushing journalists to take this line: CNN anchor Rick Sanchez posed a question (11/8/06) to National Journal writer John Mercurio: "I heard this at least five or six times tonight from Republicans. They say sure, these Democrats that you've elected tonight are running as moderates. Some even sound like conservatives. They have crew cuts, social conservatives, talk about moral issues. When they get to Washington, they're going to find their leadership is filled with liberals. Is there really a dysfunction there?" Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks put forth a similar take (11/9/06): "On Tuesday the muscular middle took control of America. Voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the left." Brooks wrote that Democrats "will have to show they have not been taken over by their bloggers or their economic nationalists, who will alienate them from the suburban office park moms." This supposed conflict between what Clift called "the demands of the antiwar left" and "the more moderate voices that helped [House Democrats] win control of the chamber" was a prominent theme. Baker and VandeHei allowed how "the passion of the antiwar movement helped propel party ctivists in this election year," but said that "the Democrats' victory was built on the back of more centrist candidates seizing Republican-leaning districts." This assumption that war critics and centrists are two opposing camps is peculiar, given that 56 percent of exit-polled voters said they opposed the war; surely they represent the center of opinion, rather than the 42 percent who expressed support. In any case, opposition to the war was a widespread theme among the "more centrist candidates" who captured Republican-held seats (TomPaine.co, 11/8/06). The pundits' prescription for the Democrats hardly varies (Extra!, 7-8/06), so it was unsurprising to see them urging "bipartisanship" and a move to the right. "In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year," Baker and Jim VandeHei reported, citing the centrist Democrats whose analysis of the election results was nearly identical with that of media insiders. (Rick Perlstine made a strong case on the New Republic's website--11/8/06--that Emanuel had less to do with the Democratic victory than did the netroots that he despises.) "The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two parties cooperate," wrote Newsweek's Clift. Oddly, though, those voters had recently told Newsweek (Newsweek.co, 10/21/06) that 51 percent of them wanted impeachment to be a priority (either high or low) of a new Democratic majority. It's likely that these people, who wouldn't mind seeing Bush tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, aren't particularly eager to see the representatives they sent to Washington working with him to advance his agenda. One thing that the new Democratic legislature must surely avoid doing, according to the media analysts, is investigate the old Republican executive: "The danger is that the campaign of '06 will simply continue under the name of 'government,'" wrote Dick Mayer for CBSNews.com (11/8/06). "Many Democrats, for example, are dead set on a new round of aggressive hearings about everything from pre-war intelligence to homeland security to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The theater of Grand Congressional inquisitions is generally an enemy of statesmanship." It's troubling, to say the least, when people in the journalism profession see "investigation" and "inquisition" as synonymous. The New York Times' Robin Toner (11/8/06), who was exceptional in not seeing her morning-after analysis as an opportunity to scold the Democratic winners, also stood out in seeing the exercise of Congress' investigatory powers as normal and perhaps even beneficial; of the Democratic House leaders, she wrote that "in many ways, their greatest power will be their ability to investigate, hold hearings and provide the oversight that they asserted was so lacking in recent years." Other journalists couldn't resist using their analysis of the Republicans' political failings as a chance to get in generic smears of the Democrats. "The outcome brought an end to the Republican Revolution that began in 1994 but lost its way," wrote Michael Duffy and Karen Tumulty for Time.com (11/8/06), "as the party that came to Washington to cut government spending and clean up a corrupt institution ran into scandals of its own and found itself spending like drunken Democrats." Presumably a knowledge of political history is a job requirement for being a political correspondent at Time; when Duffy and Tumulty look back on the past 50 years of U.S. administrations, do they really see it divided into spendthrift Democrats and frugal Republicans? Suffice it to say that when Newt Gingrich and company swept into power in 1994, no one in the mainstream media was explaining Democratic losses by saying that the politicians who came to Washington in 1974 in response to Nixon's corruption ended up "stealing like Republican crooks." Tom Brokaw offered a similarly foggy history lesson on election night. "If the Democrats do very well, will it be a huge philosophical shift? Maybe not, because a lot of these Democrats ran to the center. They didn't run like they were running in 1972 again. They ran as more pragmatic public servants this time." For the record, the party breakdown of the 93rd Congress (1973-75): 242 Democrats, 192 Republicans.

in the final weekend of the yank's 2006 election cycle, looking forward past tuesday is a common passtime of talking heads and pundits both in the US and globally.  

there seems to be a consensus that the democrats will regain control of the house, while most seem to think republicans will keep the senate.  have looked at the trends, i think if the republicans keep the senate it will be due to Tennessee and Missouri; while so-called toss ups Virginia and Montana will go democratic.  Even when looking at Missouri, i think republican chances there are weak.  The results would mean that taking Missouri out of the equation for a moment, Democrats have 49 seats, Republicans 49, and Lieberman 1.  If even one of the 33 senate races goes into long term ballot counting, the senate's fate could remain unknown for weeks.  

What is most frightening about this scenario is the potential for democrats to control congress top to bottom.  If that were to occur, democratic sympathizers on the left will regain the hatred for Democrats that became salient in the pre-Bush/pre-9'11 era.  Why? because democrats don't stick together and will not protect or assert the values that the mainstream left considers of crucial importance.  

So, I suppose the moral is, that even if the democrats pull off a squeaker victory, which is already not the consensus, their support on the left will likely suffer over the next two years and could potentially damage hopes for 2008.  This will also depend on how astute the democratic leadership is at spinning legislative failures as the fault of the opposition party.  If the republicans hold the senate, however, democrats will be able to pass all sorts of legislation in the house, and be able to blame the republican senate for the failures of these efforts, leading to a more mobilized base in 2008.  

meanwhile, south of the border in oaxaca city, a virtual state of siege exists.  local protesters/rebels have taken control of the university and her radio station.  they have continued broadcasting and have fought back "riot police."  The governor of Oaxaca still refuses to step down.  how long this standoff will last is not clear to me.  but the potential for explosive and devastating violence is there.  and vicente fox's legacy could be sealed as a result.  a real bummer as i was hoping to vacation there this year.

and back home, this income trust thing continues to consume the political discourse and alienate the rest of people who don't care.  while it seems wise to tax corporations who are trying to evade payments by converting it doesn't seem wise to do so with regard to those businesses and institutions that have long been using income trusts for their stated purpose.  i am still holding my breath for a botched budget deal.  If the conservatives aren't defeated on this issues, they could win a majority and pursue their soco-fascist agenda.  As it is, i think they'll get this ridiculous age of consent stuff passed.  a new government is needed very soon before the infrastructure of our mutliculti post-nationalism nation is gutted, and our collective liberty is wrested by the anti-democratic features of a constitutional monarchy.  

today, the cold autumn has fully arrived in DC.  it was here before, but the leaves are finally bright and vibrant even as they descend.  And a trip to canada in the next two weeks will remind me what winter is all about.

Anti-occupation group may win CJC acceptance
Membership was rejected in August letter

IRWIN BLOCK
The Gazette

Sunday, October 29, 2006

The Canadian Jewish Congress says it will reconsider its refusal to grant membership to a group that opposes Israeli occupation of land seized in the 1967 Middle East war.

The decision follows a protest letter from Michael Mandel, a member of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians and professor of law at Osgoode Hall law school in Toronto.

Mandel challenged the CJC's right to speak for 370,000 Canadian Jews "if it excludes legitimate points of view, shared by many Jews in Canada."

Mandel welcomed the move to take a second look at the group's bid - it claims 115 members - but said what it really wants is to be accepted as a congress member.

Speaking from Toronto, Mandel said: "I love the Jewish state of Israel, I love its Jewishness and I love its Arab character, but what it is doing in the occupied territories is a violation of international law and human rights."

The group wants to to join the CJC to "make our contribution from within the organized Jewish community," he said.

Membership was refused in a letter sent in August to Abraham Weizfeld of Montreal, the group's co-founder, stating that its aims conflicted with those of the CJC.

It cited as an example the group's support of a controversial motion passed by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees in June.

That resolution, denounced by the CJC as "one-sided, biased and simplistic," committed CUPE Ontario to support "boycott, divestment and sanctions" against Israel until it recognizes Palestinian self-determination and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

CUPE Ontario also denounced such "apartheid-like practices" as Israel's separation wall.

In refusing the alliance's membership request, Josh Rotblatt, CJC's director of operations, wrote that "no member organization of CJC can support an economic boycott of the state of Israel, not to mention approving wording which describes the nature of the Israeli state as 'apartheid.' "

Rotblatt said yesterday the membership issue would be reconsidered by the CJC's national officers committee at its next meeting this year.

Stephen Scheinberg, a retired Concordia professor and co-president of Canadian Friends of Peace Now, said CJC should be an umbrella organization, but is not certain about the fit.

"In principle I would like to see them as members of CJC - if they're willing to adhere to the basic tenets of what CJC stands for, but they appear not to be," he said.