Many have complained that the DNC has not run enough advertisement nationalizing this election, and that we're not pushing the brand "Democrats" hard enough (ex - most of the ads on the front page don't mention party affiliation).
Well, check out below the fold. Couldn't find a link on democrats.org, but it does say "paid for by the Democratic National Committee."
There have been a lot of Nazi metaphors thrown around lately. Rumsfeld says that those who don't support the President's foreign policy are morally and intellectually confused, and that the threat from al Qaeda is a "similar challenge" to that of Nazi Germany. Bush says that al Qaeda is the "successor" to Nazism. Keith Olbermann says that Rumsfeld is similar to Neville Chamberlain in his "certainty - and his own confusion." Recently, the Bush administration has also been insisting that Ahmadinejad/Iran are like Hitler/Germany. So confusing - how can there be so many Hitlers at once!? Iran, of course, called Bush Hitler right back. But as power-hungry, cynical, divisive and short-sighted as the Bush administration is, at least they aren't ACTUALLY Nazis, and at least American's don't elect real Nazis into Government. Germany, on the other hand...
Last year in the fall, one of my classes had as part of its midterm the following question:
Suggest a working definition of terrorism consisting of three key components that could meet with widespread international acceptance. Explain the significance of each key component that you have identified in your supporting text.
I thought it'd be interesting to see how DKos users define terrorism, especially in light of the Israel vs Hezbollah/Lebanon/Gaza conflict.
Today is my first day of classes at school, but I don't have class til 3pm, so I was reading the globe when I came across Jeff Jacoby's opinion piece. Jacoby is the resident Republican on the Globe's opinion page. I like reading Jeff Jacoby, especially in the morning. Usually its like he slaps me in the face with his total lack of logical reasoning, and wakes me up quicker than Dunkin Donuts. Today, Jeff Jacoby tells us all that he thinks the U.S. should be prepared to invade Iran, in a piece called Don't go wobbly on Iran.
According to an article in the International Herald Tribune today, six guys who were imprisoned without charges in New York City and eventually deported are returning to the States to sue the guards who beat them up when they were in prison, and also "top government officials". More on the flip.
Derrick Jackson wrote a great column in the Globe today, titled No Remorse. He hilights the fact that we still haven't yet actually said "Sorry, our bad" about the botched airstrike in Pakistan. The basic gist is that, through fighting Al Qaeda, we are becoming more like them.
It's a Helen Keller joke! Except in this one, Ms. Keller gets the last laugh, as Alabama puts a socialist on its state quarter. Alabama's state quarter has a picture of Helen Keller, titled "Spirit of Courage".
Hello. I am a senior in college and an infrequent diarist here due mainly to my classes/other time committments. As a senior in college I need something to do next year. I am considering applying to th Teach for America program. I would like your advice if you have any experience with this program or with teaching, or even if you don't.
Not that a poster as distinguished as Soj needs defending, but...
I feel like many posters on Soj's entry Srebrenica: 10 Years Later were either ill-informed or unfair in their comments. Ill-informed both about the definition of genocide as well as the context of the dissolution of the Yugoslav state.
Poster "another American" charged that Soj's diary amounted to "holocaust denial". MT Spaces says Soj's entry is crap and that it makes DailyKos look like an inter-ethnic hate site. Steve M said that having such a diary on the recommended list was "dangerous" (I suppose he was right). Et cetera et cetera. All of these posters are, sadly, wrong. I think alot of these wrong comments stem from a lack of understanding of "genocide" - both the definition and the concept. It is clear from reading Soj's diary that Soj is not, as firenze alleges, trying to "explain away or deny a horrible atrocity".
Here is a very well-written essay by Edgar Lawrence Doctorow on why Bush doesn't give a damn about people dying. Here is an excerpt:
"...this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn."
I agree with Michelle Malkin about something. I think I might be going to hell.
This diary will also ask you to compare breastfeeding with feminism. I will never breastfeed anything (I don't have boobs), and I don't consider myself a feminist, so I am curious as to what Kossacks think about this, as I am sure there are plenty of people here who satisfy one or both of those categories.
RE: Brook's column "Loudly, With a Big Stick" on John Bolton and the U.N. I searched dailykos and didn't see an entry on it so I decided to write one myself. Unfortunately I can't really devote enough time on it to thoroughly rip him to shreds because I have too much class. (Edit: as in too much class work. Not that I am too classy. That is certainly not the case.) But I figure I'd start it and you all can join in and finish the job.
If I ever turn into a vegetable with no chance of recovery, I should be killed and all of my money should be devoted to getting Tom Delay out of office or any governmental position whatsoever. I'm (dead) serious.
The End.
Ann Coulter is getting attacked for refusing to denounce Republicans for comparing Dean to terrorists. At the end of the segment she throws up her hands and tries to impersonate the guy attacking her, and makes a fool of herself. Except, instead of making a fool of herself in print form, this time she did it on live TV. I wonder what her fans thought.
I think C-SPAN should have a Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh vs Molly Ivins and Al Franken - tag team debate. C-SPAN would finally get some ratings. Let's say the winning team gets to question the political figure of their choice right after the debate.
I disagree with alot of people (example, Palladiate's entry) who say "conservatives dislike federal government." Federal government obviously is a means to an end - whether that end is social change, regulation, equality, etc etc. Liberatarians dislike federal government. Conservatives want to retard social change, and as the Bush administration has shown (I'm too young to remember any other Republican/Conservative administration) the Conservative movement will not hesitate to use the means of the federal government to achieve their goals, just as Democrats have done when they have controlled the federal government.
Of course there are Liberatarians in the Republican Party. But Liberatarianism and Conservativism are different facets of one's political identity - you can be one without the other.
I'm sure many of you who are better educated in American history can show examples throughout the history of our country in which conservative elements have used the federal government to achieve their goals.
