Odds and ends

[pecunium]

Silly quiz, because I like the answer (though I personally tend to identify more with Loki, but perhaps that totemic... Foxes and I)



<td bgcolor="#000000">I Am Coyote</td>

Coyote is a fun-loving goofball and that fits you to a T. Playfully silly, you appear somewhat bumbling at times, and your goofy exterior sometimes makes people forget what a quick mind and razor wit hides behind that amiable grin. In the mythos of the Plains tribes, Coyote is also a Creator, and stole fire as a gift for mankind. Your gift to the world is the creative fire of your quick, capable mind.

Which Trickster Are You?
Take the Trickster Test at www.isleofdreams.net.


On other fronts: Does anyone else see a bit of scattered thinking on the part of the Administration?

We keep hearing that a terrorist event will help Bush get re-elected, but we also hear people saying that it might lead to the voters letting the terrorists win (implication: A vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden... which doesn't follow, if you ask me, but they aren't, which is probably best for all, as they aren't likely to take my advice and resign... which seems nicer than leaving a pistol on the desk and expecting them to do the honorable thing).

Which is why the whole, "Suspend the election," thing amuses me. It seems they don't think they can win (this I was flipped off by George Bush certainly says (if true) that he's feeling the heat.

Mind you, I don't think suspending the election is amusing... The thought make my blood run cold... I don't know what I think about it (no, I do know what I think, I just don't know what to do). Rebellion requires others, and success requires some sort of plan. The best thing would be, IMO, a lot of vocal protest.

But the spectre of Martial Law lurks there, and I am one of those who might be asked to provide the martial aspects.

Horns of a dilemma, no?

In support of the theme here (that the Administration is at a loss) go read Phil Carter at Intel Dump and look at what he has to say about Early Bird (the DoD/Gov't news feed) which has taken to running corrections, and letters to the editor; above the fold.

For those who don't know, Early Bird is a wire service. It started life as a collation of a lot of news, printed up and delivered, early in the morning, to offices at the Pentagon.

It is now one of the most popular news feeds going, among those who set policy. I get to read it because I have access to DoD accounts, and it is great stuff (when we got the secure net in Iraq I could get it, which was how I stayed in touch with what was going on in the world, and how I knew we were screwing up in Iraq... stupid shit we denied, when the Iraqis knew we were wrong. It wasn't mendacious, just knee-jerk, but symptomatic).

And in the limited squib (about half a dozen stories) which gets pasted onto the splashpage when I log into my Army account (to collect my mail) the letters and corrections are getting top billing.

Yep, some flack, writing that some editorial/op-ed piece was wrong, or that some reporter didn't spin it the way the administration wanted it, who got into a paper somehwere, gets top billing, more important than any other news in the world.

Here, for example, is todays list, in my sidebar

US Doesn't Practice Torture -- (Letter)
Corrections [a note from the NYT about the destruction of Bush's pay records]
Report Says CIA Distorted Iraq Data
Wars Causing Shortage Of Officers
Army Unit Leaves Behind A Crushed Foe, Calmer City
Nations Slow To Deliver Iraq Aid
Strikes On Iraqi Oil, Electricity Seen As Inside Job
Afghan President Describes Militias As The Top Threat


The annoying thing is that, apart from this, Early Bird is amazing. The breadth of scope, the range of its tapping the sentiment of the nation,and the world (it is a a cross section of the news, it keeps one very well informed) is magnificent.

And someone is trying to spin me, and the others who read it.

People who don't really need to be propagandized. They know what's going on, and they have pretty much made up their minds already.

Back to the kitchen for me.

TK

Comments

[ketzl.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking, what sort of terrorist event would justify suspending elections indefinitely? I mean, something like 9/11 wouldn't do it; two week delay tops. W says I'm naive, that they're planning on turning any terrorist event into "the terrorists made people vote Democrat" and run with it, and if I would just fucking wake up and read between the lines I'd see that. But ok I'm naive. Really, could there be a real event that legitimately justifies not holding elections right away? Something like a distributed smallpox attack, perhaps?

[ainabarad.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why the gov is saying it's anti-patriotic to vote for anyone other than Bush. At least, that's what I've been hearing. I just don't get it. I always thought voting was patriotic no matter who you vote for and, personally, I do not like Bush or Kerry, so I'm not sure who's best to vote for. So far, I'm thinking to vote for Nader. What do you think? *hugs* :)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

No, I can't think of anything. First, we are talking a national election... One might argue that an attack like that (something vague, but smallpox isn't all that risky... if one is exposed, a vaccination within a few days does the trick... but a dusting of powdered uranium hexaflouride could make large areas uninhabitable, and require clean-up, if not evacuation, containment and lots of treatments...) and two, unless it was that sort of attack, and done before the election, the effect wouldn't be felt until afterwards.

If all that's done is to proactively (i.e. in advance) delay them, all that happens is the target moves.

So, if a massive attack, which rendered a large area unlivable, and required massive aid to repair were to happen... I might (just might) accept that a delay was needed, and I might want that delay to be longer than a couple of weeks, because I'd not want the after-effects of the attack to be as large in the voting public's mind.

But short of that, I can't see any justification.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I think that, unless your state is solidly for one candidate or the other, it's a bad idea.

If it is absolutely going for someone (like California for Kerry) then you can vote your consience, but even at that I am (esp. in this election) reluctant, because if enough people do it, the state can tip to the other major candidate.

It is a given not enough people will vote for a third party, for a presidential candidate, to win so much as a single state.

You have to pick your battles.

If a third party wants to become a player, they need to work from the bottom up.

Take the Libertarians. They've been running a national campaign (for president) since at leat 1980, because I recall reading the profiles.

That's a long time, 24 years, six elections. They have yet to get the five percent they need to get federal funding.

In that same time, if they'd targeted a district in play (there was a good one in San Diego, Calif., the city elected a Libertarian mayor, he didn't last but it shows the sentiments of the area) and worked it they could get someone into the House.

If he makes his constituents happy, he gets returned, and they use that to target another district. This is a two-year cycle, so in a dozen years, twenty if it takes a while, they might have 10-15 people in the house (and perhaps a Senate seat, from a state with more senators than Representatives).

At which point they are players in the national scene. 10-15 votes will swing a lot of issues.

Then they can run for president.

The Greens could do the same thing, just have to pick a likely district, Berkeley (after Pelosi leaves) or someplace in Minnesota.

But none of them seems to want to play the game (politics) rather they want to feel good about trying to overthrow the system, and being rejected (which gets them martyr points) every four years.

TK

[ainabarad.livejournal.com]

The reason I've been thinking of voting for Nader is because The Green Party got 7% at the last election and a lot of people are thinking they might get their much needed 10% in the next election. Otherwise, I don't know who to vote for. Seriously. I do not know what would be considered a smart vote with Bush vs. Kerry. I wish we had more than two real choices. *hugs*

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well, if you don't see any real difference between Kerry and Bush, a vote for Nader doesn't matter.

If, however you do, the only reason to vote Nader, is to support Bush.

The Greens, or anyone else, won't become players in the national political game by playing presidential politics, because it will take decades (see the libertarians) to see any real chance of success.

Even if they win the White House, they will have two parties in the House, and Senate, against them.

And, unless you think the present crop of Republicans are good for the country (and the way they play the game is sickening, at least to me) working for a Green counterparty is a recipe for decades of Republican control of the White House, and with it the Dept., and the Judiciary.

Further, this time around Nader can't get the mystical 10 percent, because he won't be on enough ballots.

TK

[editrx.livejournal.com]

If, however you do, the only reason to vote Nader, is to support Bush.

And, apparently (I can dig up links to the news items citing hard evidence) the GOP has been making significant contributions to Nader and encouraging people who feel disenfranchised from Bush to instead vote for Nader, because that would "be as good as voting for Bush."

Not just Kerry spin here, but public donations the GOPs been making. Not surprising, but sheesh.

[editrx.livejournal.com]

I know the Early Bird well (see my email to you earlier today). The clippings from it have, until now at least, been impeccable -- I remember it from the 60s-80s.

That frightens me more than seeing what amounts to propaganda in the mainstream media: spinning the DoD and the government to spin themselves ... I wonder if others are noticing it? Your background does tend to give you an insight and and eye others don't necessarily have; do you think they know they're being spun?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

In Michigan, they have actually been trying to get Nader on the ballot.

My disgust is running out of bounds.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I loved Early Bird when I was in the desert. It was, after we left Kuwait, the only news I could get (in Kuwait the only news I got was Intel Summaries, and Faux News).

It was a great source, deep and broad, and gave me something to do in the eight hours of every shift when I had nothing else to do (we only had the Secret Internet, so e-mail and nielsenhayden.com were not an option, which they had been in Kuwait... win some and lose some).

This isn't the first thing they've been doing to spin the troops, the splash page for AKO (the Army internet portal) has had a bunch of propagandizing cutlines on the photos.

You can see the splash page at http://www.us.army.mil

TK

[ainabarad.livejournal.com]

You have a good point... I take it you're going to vote for Kerry? In all honesty, I hate Bush and I doubt Kerry would be nearly as bad as Bush. At least Kerry won't wave a bible in the air and say it's the law (AT LEAST I SERIOUSLY HOPE NOT!!!). The last election, I was stupid and didn't research like people should before voting... I voted for Bush... *huge embarassed blush* And right afterwards, in the car on the way home, we heard a thing for Bush on the radio talking about keeping morals in the White House and I was soooo incredibly pissed that I voted for him! I wished so much you could change a vote! LOL :) *hugs*

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Since I think I'd vote for rancid yak butter before Bush, yes.

Confession, of a dark and miserable sort... because I live in California, and have a contrarian streak... I cast a useless vote for Bush last time around.

I was decieved... not that I thought Gore was all that bad, but I didn't know what an evil (and I do mean evil... loathsome, disgusting and vile... part of the "Devil and all his works" I promised to renounce when I was confirmed in my faith at the age of 13) Bush would turn out to be, and I thought a mandate of any great proportion was a thing I didn't want to give.

More fool I.

Take that sense of pissed and cradle it. Love it as the Russian loves his miseries, and then remember it. Think what your vote will do. Then ponder the maxim, "An it hurt none, do thou as thou wilt."

If a vote for a non-Kerry won't lead to a benefit for Bush, go ahead.

But if there is the slightest of chances he will reap some gain from a non-Kerry vote... ponder that you will have made it happen.

TK

[sethg]

Judging from the current Federal election-related laws, if Bush uses a terrorist attack as an excuse to "postpone" the elections, the courts will tell him to stuff it. If Bush tries to defy the courts and uses martial law to do it, how many uniformed officers will follow his orders? You tell me.

(dept. of shameless link-whoring: I have a longer response to the whole postponing-the-elections issue on my blog, here)

[ainabarad.livejournal.com]

I've pondered everything you've said here and... as stubborn as I am, you've convinced me to vote for Kerry. Yeah, Bush is bad karma. I hate that evil little man. *hugs*

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Nice summation of the laws.

As for the issue of who would stand the barricades of martial law... I don't know.

I know what my oath of enlistement says... "defend the Contitution of the United States, and the State of California [I am a member of the Nat Guard, we get extra duties] against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and, "obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me."

I can see some moral wiggle room there. I can even see standing someplace, armed and ready, in opposition to martial law.

But it's an ugly picture.

TK