by idiosynchronic | 6/18/2008 11:21:00 PM
First, the loathing: Wikileaks has a shocking little governmental document - the US Special Forces Counter-Insurgency Manual. (via Jonathan Schwarz) It's chock full of the worst we've learned in Central America and other nations about suppressing the citizenry in favor of the 'Democratically Elected Governments' we support. Many of the lessons seem to have influenced our strategies and actions domestically post-911 and in occupied Iraq.

Iran-Contra: the mistake that keeps on giving, and in harmony with every wrong thing learned from Vietnam. It's just one more reason for me to despise Ed Muskie.



And now the fear - Politico has an article up that aims to scare the crap out of Democrats and the record numbers of independents supporting Obama. (via Pandagon) "Obama could pull a Gore 2000!" Nevermind that it's bloody unlikely right now.

Even though it's unlikely presntly, in a way, I'd like to see Politico's prediction have some real result in November. Because maybe it’d finally kill the goddamn Electoral College and drive states to reform Constitution in significant ways to reflect that we’re in the 21st Century. And with an EC reform or outright removal, the primary system is likely to get some much-needed reform as well.

2000 had batches of pundits and talking heads talking up the Electoral College and how it makes it possible to have a popular vote winner and EC vote winner, before that fateful Tuesday in November. The polling informed the Media and campaigns of how tight it could be in the days prior. And shenanigans and voter confusion simply made it even more uncertain.

But we’re months out now. Split electoral decisions right now are nothing but fear-mongering and the Media’s desire to create a perception of a tight race for news headlines.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 6/09/2008 10:50:00 AM


1993 was 15 years ago. We have been living in its shadow all spring. Three times, the Skunk River has risen into flood stage this spring and early summer. This last time it inundated the football field, golf course, and city park in my little town. But so far it's been a mild annoyance for most - those whom aren't bailing out their house.

In 2 days, we shall see if the planning and money spent in the intervening years since '93 is enough to stem the hell that Iowa was sacked with in that horrid Summer. The rivers in Central Iowa will crest Tuesday morning. 1993's greatest component was the freak rain 6" surge that occurred at the same time as the flood waters arrived in Des Moines, Iowa City, and the rest of central and southern Iowa.

The current weather forecast is bipolar - the National Weather Service is predicting rains in central Iowa starting Tuesday night while Weather.com predicts 'an afternoon shower' Wednesday. The other meteorologists all fall in between.

If Iowa escapes, which seems likely at this time, those communities downstream of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers will be in flooding danger over the next few days and weeks.

The Iowa damage has already occurred however - As you read this, 30,000 people are cut off and without water and electrical power in Mason City. As this dailyKos diary notes, "Bush is about to lose another city." Our National Guard is depleted in manpower and equipment. FEMA isn't even being talked about.

Most of the damage has already been done - the corn & soybean crops are ruined. The current prediction is somewhere between 30-50% has been lost because of flooding. Most of the fields in my rural area have some amount of standing water in them, water that has already killed the seedlings and now just waits for a week of sunny days and winds to make them finally go away. Meanwhile, they become breeding pools for mosquitoes.

Food prices worldwide have already been rocketing upwards. But the screw just got tightened another full turn.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 6/05/2008 11:17:00 PM
Go read. I wish I could get my hands on Nixonland sooner. 'Nuff said.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 5/24/2008 10:42:00 AM
On Thursday, Sen Clinton's campaign was spreading a false-leak driven story to put Clinton in the number two spot. How Obama felt about that was unimportant. The exit was nigh, but the Senator from New York wanted to stay in somehow, someway. The campaign lashed themselves to the wheel and set the throttles for full, crying, "I intend to get a lot closer – I'm going to ram her right down that thing's throat!"

It's another way of joining 'em if you can't beat 'em, I guess.

It's always tempting to overlay your current reading material on current events. As distorted as the current campaign is, reading Hunter Thompson is like squirting gasoline on the fire. But here I am, and what's come to me.


Pg 260-1, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72:
But first, a few realities: (1) George McGovern is so close to a first-ballot nomination in Miami that everybody except Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy, Shirley Chisholm, and Ed Muskie seems ready to accept it as a foregone conclusion . . . (2) The national Democratic Party is no longer controlled by the Old Guard, Boss-style hacks like George Meany and Mayor Daley —or even by the Old Guard liberal-manque types like Larry O'Brien, who thought they had things firmly under control as recently as six months ago ... (3) McGovern has made it pain­fully clear that he wants more than just the nomination; he has every intention of tearing the
Democratic Party completely apart and re-building it according to his own blueprint ... (4) If McGovern beats Nixon in November he will be in a position to do anything he wants either to or with the party structure . . . (5) But if McGovern loses in November, control of the Demo­cratic Party will instantly revert to the Ole Boys, and McGovern himself will be labeled "another Goldwater" and stripped of any power in the party.

The pattern is already there, from 1964, when the Nixon/ Mitchell brain-trust—already laying plans for 1968—sat back and let the GOP machinery fall into the hands of the Birchers and the right-wing crazies for a few months . . . and when Gold-water got stomped, the Nixon/Mitchell crowd moved in and took over the party with no argument from anybody . . . and four years later Nixon moved into the White House.

There have already been a few rumblings and muted threats along these lines from the Daley/Meany faction. Daley has privately threatened to dump Illinois to Nixon in November if McGovern persists in challenging Daley's eighty-five-man slave delegation to the convention in Miami . . . and Meany is prone to muttering out loud from time to time that maybe Organized Labor would be better off in the long run by enduring another four yea under Nixon, rather than running the risk of whatever radical madness he fears McGovern might bring down on him.

The only other person who has said anything about taking a dive for Nixon in November is Hubert Humphrey, who has al­ready threatened in public—at the party's Credentials Committee hearings in Washington last week—to let his friend Joe Alioto, the Mayor of San Francisco, throw the whole state of California to Nixon unless the party gives Hubert 151 California delegates— on the basis of his losing show of strength in that state's winner-take-all primary.

Hubert understood all along that California was all or nothing. He continually referred to it as "The Big One," and "The Super Bowl of the Primaries" ... but he changed his mind when he lost. One of the finest flashes of TV journalism in many months appeared on the CBS evening news the same day Humphrey formally filed his claim to almost half the California delegation. It was a Walter Cronkite interview with Hubert in California, a week or so prior to election day. Cronkite asked him if he had any ob­jections to the winner-take-all aspect of the California primary, and Humphrey replied that he thought it was absolutely wonderful.

"So even if you lose out here—if you lose all 271 delegates— you wouldn't challenge the winner-take-all rule?" Cronkite asked.
"Oh, my goodness, no," Hubert said. "That would make me sort of a spoilsport, wouldn't it?"


History doesn't repeat itself per se, but the ways our systems & principalities of power react to subversion or replacement have a somewhat familiar ring.

Friday, Clinton keeps up the pressure and uses historical comparison to rationalize her continued campaign, citing Bill Clinton's run in 1992 and then the horrific campaign in '68. That summer when it all went to hell and back.

1968 is a big deal to Americans Of A Certain Age. For damn good reason. Playing with its' memory is like blithely cutting the green wire because that's what they do in all the movies.

It's clear that the Senator intended to mean that the convention is 3 months away, and a lot could happen in 3 months in politics. In three months something could happen to make Sen. Clinton the better or the only candidate.

Hell, the man could get shot or something.

Oops.

In January, I and a few others watched Obama's victory speech in Des Moines after the Caucuses with trepidation. We knew history was being made, irregardless of Obama's victory in November. Such things attract the worst in some people. Some people want to vote with their guns. In the middle of that convention hall, with what appeared to be little security, the man looked like he was 40 feet tall and vulnerable as hell even while that crowd made him the strongest man on earth.

We all court danger with this man making these comparisons to a Kennedy or even to King or Malcolm. For one thing, reality rarely lives up to our dreamy expectations.

But our dreams also contain our nightmares.

Pg 46:
I have never read anything that comes anywhere close to explaining the shock and and intensity I felt at that convention . . . and although I was right in the middle of it the whole time, I have never been able to write about it myself. For two weeks afterwards, back in Colorado, I couldn't even talk about it without starting to cry -- for reasons I think I finally understand now, but I still can't explain.

Because of this: because I went there as a journalist, with no real emotional attachment to any of the candidates, and only the barest illusions about the outcome . . . I was not personally involved in the thing, so there is no point in presuming to understand what kind of hellish effect Chicago must have had on Gene McCarthy.

I remember seeing him cross Michigan Avenue on Thursday night -- several hours after Humphrey had made his acceptance speech out at the stockyards -- and then wandering into the crowd in Grant Park like a defeated general trying to mingle with his troops just after the Surrender. But McCarthy couldn't mingle. He could barely talk. He acted like a man in deep shock. There was not much to say. the campaign was over.

McCarthy's gig was finished. He had knocked off the President and then strung himself out on a fantastic six-month campaign that had seen the murder of Martin Luther King, the murder of Bobby Kennedy, and finally a bloody assault on his own campaign workers by Mayor Daley's police, who burst into McCarthy's private convention headquarters at the Chicago Hilton and began breaking heads. At dawn on Friday morning, his campaign manager, a seasoned old pro named Blair Clark, was still pacing up and down Michigan Avenue in front of the Hilton in a state so close to hysteria that his friends were afraid to talk to him because every time he tried to say something his eyes would fill with tears and he would have to start pacing again.


I think - solely on my own I might add - that the Convention that year not only culminated a number of things political, but also emotional. It wasn't just the convention that was a boot to the gut, but that the hits just kept coming. Over and over again, leaders killed, movements arrested, power stolen. Some of us can take a beating, but very few of us can keep getting beat without it just finally coming to the breaking point.

To evoke Bobby Kennedy's death pulls every single other bloody trauma out of the sack. Martin's bloody shirt waves in the breeze.

Boom.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 4/23/2008 11:31:00 PM
I recently had the pleasure of writing a term paper - while actually not writing a term paper based in any form of true scholarship. I wrote 5 2-4 page summaries of journal articles. 18 pages of work for little actual gain beyond a grade counting 10% of the semester. Phhppt. Like I could ever use this in a sample submission.

I think - and my wife gave me this idea - the point was to make the class read academic research journals, have us write something, but then sidestep plagiarism issues. What does this academic readership think?

Bib below the fold in case anyone's interested. The summaries are . . summaries, and even if I was a truly gifted writer, I wouldn't dare bore any of you.



““So That We as a Race Might Have Something Authentic to Travel By”:
African American Automobility and Cold-War Liberalism”
Cotton Seiler, American Quarterly, 2006, Vol. 58, iss. 4, pp. 1091-1117

The primary sources were a series of traveler's guides for African-Americans from 1936-196X. These guides would be fascinating to page through.

“Precision Targets: GPS and the Militarization of the U.S. Consumer Identity”
Caren Kaplan, American Quarterly, 2006, Vol 58, Iss 3, pp. 693-713

How are GPS and zip-code consumer marketing related?

“The Constitution, the Supreme Court and the New Deal”
Laura Kalman, American History Review, October 2005, pp1052-1080

I was completely unaware of the whole 1937 Constitutional Revolution undergoing a revision between traditional externalists and lawyerly internalist arguing that the Court changed its New Deal opinions because of changing legal philosophies.

“The Carswell Affair: The Politics of a Supreme Court Nomination in the Nixon Administration”
Bruce H. Kalk, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 261-287

This was fun, even though that wasn't the author's point. It was nice to see another White House flounder just as badly as what we've gotten used to. In the shower this morning, it struck me that the Carswell nomination would make a damn fine comedic farce or . . shudder . . musical. :)

“The Omniscient Narrator and the Unreliable Narrator: The Case of Atomic Café”
Jon Wiener, Film & History, Jan 2007, Vol. 37, Iss. 1

I've never seen Atomic Café, but I went out and found a copy to watch in the next few days. It looks fascinating, especially since the filmmakers didn't do anything but splice together other film materials. No narration or other new materials were created to help the film narrative.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 2/29/2008 12:49:00 AM
Just because it's late and I'm twiddling while praying that SP1 doesn't blow up my laptop.

It's been a while since I've seen someone, anyone, roll out the 'Transformative' label on something related to the race. But now that I write that, it's probably only been a few days since transformative was last used; the last 2 months since Iowa's caucuses have felt like The Endless Winter Of Our Discontent & Record Snow. I feel like years have passed.

Just by using transformative 3 times in the last few sentences, I've probably added to 2 more weeks to our perceived time in this decisionless icy hell. I'm truly sorry for that.

Anyway - my point. The link is to a Digby essay at the Campaign for America's Future. Non-historical, but I think the T-word has been taken away from the historians for the remainder of the campaign.



Put the rest of your post here, and delete this text.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 12/31/2007 08:04:00 PM
"Why do we have to cowtow to Iowans every f*cking 2 years? Pathetic." - John

"I find it difficult to understand why a candidate with less than one third of the votes in a single state which is hardly representative of the American society will be "anointed" by the MSM and bloggers alike." - jackalope


Nothing I, and probably most of us, haven't heard before. Some of us have even been saying it ourselves.

The netroots or blogistan's antipathy to the Iowa caucuses (and the overall primary schedule) has been well-known and widely written about. Markos has made it one of his signature issues. Atrios has railed about it on & off and on. Writing about what is on most liberal blogs usually will net one or two comments like the quotes posted above.

And here we are, 8 years after Gore, Bradley, & the anointment of Bush, still annoyed at the primary system. Here we are 4 years after Kerry, still grousing about how the system doesn't allow a people more representative to make the nomination. This week, Iowa will begin the 2008 nomination cycle all over again. A week or so later New Hampshire will follow.

And the only people we have to blame is ourselves. Every single one of us whom wants change in the primary schedule.


At its heart, the nomination schedule for both parties is a process borne of two things - circumstance and control.

A long time ago, Iowa farmers turned out in the middle of winter to work out political matters prior to the spring when their workload dramatically increased. Starting in 1952 when Eisenhower won the first run of the New Hampshire "beauty contest", the presidential nominating process was slowly dragged away from the cliche'd smoke-filled backroom. The real moment that enabled change was 1968 and the Chicago Chaos when parties and states demanded more citizen voice in the presidential selection process. The Iowa caucuses, never before a big deal, suddenly became important and and news people suddenly found the need for a story hook: winners and losers. In this, citing the quaint complexity of the caucus, Iowa Democrats, and later Republicans, began to move the date forward in order to have "the paperwork done on time." (Seriously, the Iowa Democratic Chair from '73-76 just claimed that this evening on an Iowa PBS special. With a smiling face.) With New Hampshire leading, the race to have greater influence on the US Presidential primaries was on.

But the party powers and management have retained control of the process, only submitting to change when it benefitted Party leadership to do so, or at least threatened their positions to not do so. The primary process may seem more accountable to the voters in comparison to the machine nomination politics of FDR or Hoover, but the current process substitutes small groups of men of power with small states with historically privileged populations (and still led by powerful party politicos) playing gatekeepers. As media has become more pervasive in our lives, the gatekeeper class has spread to the journalists and pundits whom produce the infotainment.

We also don't talk about campaign finance reform in conjunction with reforming the primary schedule. Viability = money in large part. Unless you have access to large sums of cash or wealthy donors whom can aggregate their contributions, you have no business trying to run for president. Without large sums of cash to buy advertising and 'purchase local & state voter lists', you're not a serious contender.

Worse yet, the worst opponent to change in the most people is uncertainty. No one really has a good grasp of a replacement system nor all the vulnerabilities it may have. Without the promise of a better idea, who's going to plunge headlong into change?

Both the states and the talking heads now have too much invested in maintaining their positions of power to ever change the current status quo. And It will take another massive outcry of pressure on the behalf of the rank-and-file citizens to change the primary system again. Last time it took 30 years and a national scandal to effect changes!

I may get run out of town Thursday night, but I'll be proposing a resolution for a national primary system for president that's nationally fair. What are you going to do?

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 12/30/2007 10:03:00 AM
Friday, I talked about the second choice and realignment - if you ask caucus-goers who they'd choose if they're forced to realign with a larger preference group. In short - Clinton picks up a lion's share of the 2nd prefernces - Clinton will flow to Obama, Obama and Edwards flow into one another, and the rest of the field flows to Clinton.

Combining the results of polls and realignment as a mental exercise, you see some interesting things take place.


I expected a poll this morning (Sunday) before the Thursday caucus night, but the local Register didn't come out with one - which is surprising since hyping the race is the local McPaper's thing. Zogby however has begun relasing daily tracking polls today. Zogby from 12/26-29:

Clinton 31%
Obama 27%
Edwards 24%
Richardson 5%
Biden 5%
Kucinich <1%
Dodd 2%
Gravel NA
Don't know 6%

Covert those to a pretend caucus numbering 100 people:
Clinton 27% +2%(Biden) +3%(Richardson) +3%(Undecided) = 30%
Obama 27%
Edwards 21% +1% (Kucinich, based on past history and his campaign) = 22%
And the uncommitted vote could be as high as 18%, if the remaining people join uncommitted. If they refuse to realign, and they go below 15%, they'll go uncounted as un-viable.

Zogby, in the same analysis, quoted results of, "Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%." But he's being exceptionally optimistic in assuming that all realigning caucus goers will join a preference group - I've seen participants refuse to be counted and even stomp out of the room rather than be pressured into a group.

Another poll sample - this time from RealClearPolitics' poll averaging system from this morning:
Clinton 28.4% + 4% (Biden) +3% (Richardson) = 35.4%
Edwards 25.8% + 1% (Kucinich) = 26.8%
Obama 26.4%
4.2 % to realign + 7% undecided. - all will have to realign or be uncounted.

And then we get into how many each winning candidate gets in terms of delegates! For this, I refer all of you to Drew Miller's spreadsheet that bases delegate allocation according to the 2004 rules. Using the last example in the sheet, Clinton gets 3 delegates, Obama 2, and Edwards 2. In the Zogby example, the top 3 would each get 2 delegates (virtual dead heat), and undecided would get 1.

If you get into this, I'd suggest to the readers that you check around the tubes Friday and see if you can find how many delegates have been committed to each candidate.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 12/28/2007 09:00:00 AM
retro-posted because Winter Rabbit has got a great headliner -id.

Did anyone else visit Zogby like I did, on a daily basis in 2004? In this cycle, I had completely forgotten about Zogby until just recently.

Turkana at The Left Coaster said something Wednesday, " . . my hunch has been that people who support dodd, biden, richardson, etc., are probably most unhappy with the ostensible leaders, which makes me think edwards will get a good chunk of their votes. hillary and obama are the big money, establishment candidates, and edwards has been running as a populist, so it makes sense that the disaffected would go to him."

Yes, no, or maybe so?


Zog actually says that, "Clinton was able to solidify her standing among some likely caucus–goers [in November] by increasing the number of people who said she would be their second choice. . . Last month [October], Obama and Edwards were much more preferred as a second choice among those candidates who appear to be unviable under Democratic caucus rules. Clinton appears to be gaining ground among those who might consider experience to be an important factor in choosing a nominee – she wins the lion's share of support among those who make Biden their first choice, and she does well among those who would first choose New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

"Among those who make Obama their first choice, Edwards is their second choice, and vice versa. Among those who make Clinton their first choice, Obama is the favorite second choice."

Which makes sense, if you think about surface perception. Based on perception - and let's step away from eriposte's analysis of who is actually representing progressive values and running typical Democratic campaigns - Edwards is running as a progressive reformer (if not revolutionary), Obama as a moderating change agent, Sen. Clinton as a trailblazing experienced politician from a better time in America, Richardson as an honest, stable and experienced bureaucrat, Dodd as a Senator who's seen the light, and Biden as Senator Biden.

Clinton's appeal as the second choice shouldn't be discounted - tomorrow, I'll run some practice numbers based on recent polling results and show how things could break down in next Thursday's results. And I'll be taking both comments and questions for future posts as idiosynchronic at gmail.

Labels:

 
by idiosynchronic | 12/27/2007 09:34:00 PM
Now that man has been reminded of the necessity of peace and love, it's back to our already scheduled broadcast of lies, deceptions, push-polling and skin-deep candidate profiling. In the interest of keeping it more substantive, I'll be posting short details on the Iowa Caucuses and answering anyone's questions through January 5th. Email questions to idiosynchronic at gmail.

The Des Moines Register published a rather good online animation sequence of the caucus process for the GOP and Democrats. It gives the reader a really good example of what both parties' caucuses look like, as well as how they're supposed to be run - YMMV according to the local party member. The Democratic caucus is usually chaos incarnate, usually in a gym or auditorium, run by party volunteers whom may or may not have a good handle on procedure; the GOP caucus is very sober, orderly, and definitely run from a group of people perched on a high platform or stage. The irony is that the results from the GOP are more democratic - if it's done by secret ballot. The caucus chairman of your precinct may decide that a roll-call or voice vote will do just as well as a ballot.

The Democratic caucus is specifically designed to uniformly weed out weaker candidates by procedure so even weak chairs can do, whereas the GOP trusts the local chairs to be competent enough to squelch small minorities by rules of order. Ron Paul supporters, look out.

Labels: