The Kudzu Files

Enough is enough

My home-built AMD Duron/900 crashed again this week, self-immolating Tuesday night for reasons known only to Win98SE. I've struggled for 3 days now trying to get it to acknowledge that yes, there indeed is a network card plugged in to the motherboard; yes, PaintShop Pro is indeed installed; yes, the scanner is still there, it hasn't gone out into the backyard. Enough, already.

I just ordered a Dell Dimension 4600 P4, 80GB hard drive, CD/CD-RW, XP Pro, 128MB GeForce video. As many bells and whistles as I thought I might want. I could have ordered a DVD, but the main thing I wanted was dual drives installed, because for some reason I've never been able to get the old system to run with more than one CD drive. I can replace the 48X CD with a DVD next time Best Buy has a big Sunday rebate.

I can't wait to get home and show the email receipt to the old computer.

Third/Fourth/Fifth Party Thoughts

Third-party/independent candidates seem to have been as ever-present as they've been unsuccessful in US politics. Martin Van Buren, in 1848, was possibly the first "serious" third-party candidate (Free Soil Party). Maybe the most successful was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, with the Bull Moose Party, garnering 27% of the vote and outpolling the Republican candidate. Eugene McCarthy, George Wallace, John Anderson, and Ross Perot made notable runs which all ended with less than 10% of the vote.

But even if one of these had somehow been elected, how would they have governed? They would have been confronted by a Senate and House Of Representatives controlled by either Democrats or Republicans, neither of whom would have had much interest in seeing the Administration thrive. And the President would have had to assemble a cabinet composed of people who had opposed his election. It would be nice to dream of a world in which this situation would have brought about real teamwork, bridges being built across party lines, and meaningful change. But far more likely would have been a gridlock of immense porportions.

Why aren't third-party supporters instead concentrating on getting candidates elected to the House or Senate? Build your party from the ground up, rather than blue-sky down? It wouldn't have the immediate impact as would the (never-to-be-achieved) election of a President, but if, say, the Libertarians were to elect 10-15 House members in 2006, they might soon enough be in a position to effect some measure of change. Maybe in 20-30 years, we'd be looking at the real possibility of a President who wasn't Republican or Democrat.

Presidential Politics, Division 1AA, Division II, Division III

So, you're not fond of George W. Bush, but John Kerry doesn't exactly make you want to stand up and cheer either. And you don't object to the possibility that you might throw your vote away. To paraphrase Norman Thomas, you would rather vote for something you want and lose, than vote for something you don't want and win. So, here's some other choices, in no particular order:

American Party - Diane Templin - attorney from California. "Templin -- in all of her recent races -- touts herself as "100% Pro-Life." She also is a strident opponent of gay rights and illegal immigration, and a vocal supporter of school vouchers and gun rights. She also likes to pepper her campaign remarks with frequent Biblical references. In fact, Templin explained it was a Biblical verse that inspired her to make runs for political office. "I thought of a verse in Isaiah, the Old Testament, and it said: 'Who will I send and who will go for me?' -- and I said, here am I, Lord, send me," explained Templin. Further, Templin said that she would only belong to a political party that "acknowledges God as creator and the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior." She describes her campaign platform as: "I support Biblical and Constitutional Principles of Life, Liberty and Property." "

Consitution Party - Mike Peroutka, attorney from Maryland. (Provisional candidate, in case Roy Moore accepts an offer to be their candidate). "The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations" (Mission Statement of the Constitution Party)

Libertarian Party - so many candidates, you'd think they were Democrats: Michael Badnarik (Texas), Jeffrey Diket,(Louisiana), David Hollist (California), Gary Nolan (Virginia), Ruben Perez (Texas), Mike Ross (Arizona), Aaron Russo (California). Badnarik is a gun-rights advocate; Diket is pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights. Hollist bases his candidacy on something called contract insurance, that would somehow replace taxes. Nolan, a former radio host, seems to have the most classic LP platform. Perez opposes foreign workers and the Patriot Act. Ross is running to protest the Libertarian Party itself, apparently. Russo is a Hollywood producer who wants to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and restore the freedoms we've lost since 9/11.

The Green Party - another large group of candidates: Peter Camejo (California), David Cobb (Texas), Paul Glover (New York), Kent Mesplay (California), Carol Miller (New Mexico), Christina Rosetti (New York), Lorna Salzman (New York). Camejo was the Socialist Worker's Party candidate in 1976, who has morphed into a European-style democratic socialist. But he's really running as a surrogate for Ralph Nader. Cobb has been a public interest lawyer and legal counsel for the Green Party. He advocates only running Green candidates in states where they wouldn't threaten the Democrat's candidate. Glover is a massage therapist who really wants to run as VP on a Nader ticket. Mesplay wants to combine new technologies with ancient wisdom of indigenous cultures to provide for a sustainable future for all life on Earth. Miller is a former Public Health Service officer who is focused on health care reform. Rosetti is a New Age spiritualist who wants to reform the Green Party because it "is starting to look more and more to some people as the party of bigotry, hypocrisy and hatred and not the party of progressive reform". Salzman is a long-time environmental activist who seems to be really running for the VP slot.

The Reform Party has a few candidates, none of whom are named Perot: John Buchanan (Florida), Jason Pacifico (New York), Ted Weill (Mississippi). Buchanan has a serious dislike of George Bush. Pacifico is running on a plan to create a "Mortgage Achromatic Plan". Weill wants to end foreign aid and lower gas prices.

The Natural Law Party seems to be endorsing Dennis Kucinich.

Peace & Freedom Party - Leonard Peltier. Peltier, a prominent Native American activist, has been serving a life sentence in federal prison for the murder of two FBI agents at the 72-day standoff at Wounded Knee, South Dakota in 1975. If he wins, the Secret Service will have to protect him from the FBI.

For those of you even further left than me, the Socialist Party is running Walt Brown. The Socialist Equality Party is running Bill Van Auken. And the Socialist Worker's Party is running Martin Koppel. But Koppel wasn't born in the US, so we can safely discount his chances.

And then there's Ralph Nader. But since I'm still peeved at Ralph about 2000, I won't provide a link to his site.

John Kerry's VP choice

Just a random thought that flashed through my brain, but just in case it were to happen, I want to claim credit for writing it first:

John Kerry should pick as his vice-presidential candidate:

Colin Powell

It's no secret that Powell is no longer a favorite on the Bush team (translation: GWB no longer feels he needs Powell's credibility). Powell's views on Iraq are closer to Kerry's than those of Bush. And it would be on helluva political statement, for both Kerry and Powell.

Book meme

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 23.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.

Mine:

"If multiple name servers are used, the address information for all the name servers can be placed in the client profile." (Oracle 8i DBA: Network Administration)

The President's Press Conference

Two things stand out, not just from the press conference but from every public utterance that comes from the Bush Administration, and Bush himself:

1) they have a standard set of answers, and they throw these out even when the answer doesn't fit the question

2) everything that happens is someone else's fault. These guys don't accept responsibility for anything, but they want credit for everything.

And one suggestion, Mr. President - drop the weapons of mass destruction thing. Nobody more than 50 feet from the Oval Office believes you any more.

IRS automation

Heard on NPR this morning:

....in 1961, President Kennedy called for new computers to automate the IRS... if he were alive today, he would be able to got to the IRS and see some of those computers still in use.

archive.org

If you haven't been checking out archive.org, you're missing a ton of stuff. In addition to the Wayback Machine, which lets you see early version of millions of web pages, there's thousands of audio and video archives. For instance, those of you who have, like me, been hanging around geekland for longer than you care to think will remember The Computer Chronicles, which ran on PBS from 1984 until 2002. Well, archive.org has every episode of The Computer Chronicles archives in QT and mpeg. You can see a commercial for the new 1960 Fords, or take a ride in your merry 1927 Oldsmobile. Or watch the US blow up Bikini atoll. And don't miss this little gem.

Delusion or deception?

President George W. Bush, 02/29/2003: "In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it..."

From Meet the Press, March 16 2003

Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003, Meet The Press: "Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.... Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we're back in a situation where he does constitute a threat. "

Mr. Russert: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

As of April 12, 2004:

Weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq: 0
Close ties between Iraqi government and terrorist organizations: 0
Iraqis viewing US troops as liberators: Let's just say it's fewer than Cheney implied
US military killed: 677
US military wounded: 3466

And now for something completely different....

For those of you in the far northern latitudes, here's a dose of springtime, Southern style:

Harry's Azalea Page

I took these late last week

And now, some questions about the PDB

OK, now that it's been released, what does it say?
Basically, there's this guy named Osama bin Laden, and he doesn't like us. He has a bunch of followers that don't like us. He's attacked US interests a few times over the past few years, he's very patient, and he wants to attack us again. He wants to attack the US within the continental US.

Was there lots of secret information in the briefing?
Well, it appears that the FBI and CIA were very suspicious that "hijackings or other types of attacks" were being planned. And there was a phone call to the US embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May 2001. I think the other information was pretty well known or suspected by any American who had been paying attention at all.

Did the PDB contain anything that would have specifically helped prevent the 9/11 attacks?
Not in any language I know about.

So why did Condoleezza Rice get in such a jam over this document?
That's the surprising thing to me. This appears to be a very bland, generic briefing, at least the written part. As a set of talking points, it could allude to very significant information, but only those who write these PDBs and attend the White House meetings would know if these are talking points of a memo that is complete as presented.

So why did Condi Rice bring it up anyway?
Well, she didn't. Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 commission, brought it up in his questioning of Rice.

BEN-VENISTE. Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.

BEN-VENISTE. I asked you what the title was.

So who is Richard Ben Veniste?
A Washington lawyer, who worked with the Watergate Special Prosecutor from 1973 to 1975, and has ties to Democratic politicians.

So, maybe he's a little biased against Rice and George Bush?
Ya think?

OK, so what should we make of this PDB thing?
That maybe GWB and Condoleezza Rice knew a little more than they've wanted us to believe, but probably not much more.

Much ado about nothing, or at least not much?
Seems about right to me.

What does PDB mean, anyway?
Presidential Daily Briefing.

The bin Laden PDB

Osama bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Declassified and Approved for Relase, 10 April 2004

A little time to kick back

Spent a couple of days in the country, no phone, no internet, no cable or satellite TV. Grilled some great pork chops, slept on a screened porch. Rediscovered fly fishing. Now, I'm not good at fly fishing, and it's been 7-8 years since the last time I did it. But there's something almost zen-like watching the line play out across the surface of the water. Maybe one in ten of my casts will do that nice roll that ends with the fly landing perfectly in the midst of a small ripple. But that one cast is worth the nine that fail. Many years ago, I spent hours and hours fishing for large-mouth bass. I did the whole Bass Angler's thing - I would fish with five or six rods ready, one with a worm, maybe another with a different colored worm, one with a spinner bait, a crank bait in case we found a deep honey hole, a buzz bait in case the lily pads looked good. I had three tackle boxes, and was convinced that I needed all three. I still have the rods and reels, and the tackle boxes. Most haven't been used in 20 years or more. This weekend, I had one fly rod, and a few flies, and that seemed more than enough. I caught about a dozen blue gills and redears, and had a fine time, amidst a lot less clutter.

Givebacks and giveaways

Dave has been speculating on the course of our fiscal strategy lately. And I agree, to an extent, that the charge that Republicans (back to 1980) have been trying to bankrupt government doesn't fly. However, I do believe that the massive debt that's been run up under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were tolerable to otherwise "fiscally responsible" Republicans because they knew that the deficits would cripple the ability of government to fund programs unpopular with many on the right side of the political debate - welfare, the environment, public health, and others. (Although to use the term "fiscally responsible" and Republican in the same sentence is becoming ludicrous).

But this has happened because "we" (the voting public) have seen tax cuts as givebacks and government programs as giveaways. And that's a false perspective. A tax cut that isn't coupled with a real, verifiable, equal reduction in government spending is just another giveaway, a government social program targetted at a specific class. In this case, the people providing the funding for the program are future taxpayers. But when you step back, it's all the same. And so John Kerry's pledge to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers isn't a tax increase, it's a cut in a goverment program. And much more fiscally responsible. (Equally responsible fiscally would be keeping the tax cuts and reducing government spending by that amount.)

Bob Kerrey

If Bob Kerrey had shown the kind of passion running for President that he has shown at the 9/11 hearings, he might well have been elected. I never understood how someone with his combination of qualifications made such a small splash in the primaries in 1992. But I do remember a strangely passive candidate.

Chernobyl remembered

Not the way the news services would cover it, though. This website is, in it's way, more compelling than anything you might see on the news, because it's so much more personal. It's the site of a Russian lady named Elena, who rides her motorcycle through the dead zone. This is an incredibly fascinating site.

It's dry here

21 days in a row now with no rain. And this is normally the wettest time of the year in Mississippi.

RLP and the Raccoon

Do yourself a favor, go to Real Live Preacher and read the series of posts about the raccoon. It's hilarious.

I'll make it easy for you:

Part 1: In which we are introduced to the raccoon

Part 2: In which the raccoon gains the upper hand/paw

Part 3: In which RLP calls for outside assistance

Part 4: An air of resignation

Part 5: In which RLP invokes a new and hideous weapon

Part 6: In which fox urine is avoided, and RLP emerges victorious

Presidential eligibility

Dylan at Client And Server and Susan are in the final stages of awaiting the PTBNL. (Explanation of PTBNL here.) And on a bright, sunny Saturday morning, I'm wondering - if Dylan and Susan were to decide to drive up to Vancouver, and Susan suddenly went into labor so that they ended up having PTBNL in a Canadian hospital, would PTBNL be ineligible to run for President when he/she turns 35? Would that natural born thing get in the way?

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The White House

I've said more than once that in a democracy, you mostly get what you deserve. I guess the losing side would argue that isn't true. But that's missing my point. Somewhere in the last forty years, we prostituted ourselves electorally. We began lowering the cost of our votes, and stopped thinking seriously about that for or against which we were voting. We've allowed the major political parties to define campaigns in little snippets of catchphrases, thirty-second soundbites, and simplistic platitudes that perhaps stir fond memories of some half-perceived remembrance, but that, when stripped to their essence, say nothing. And the worst part of this is that we allow it to continue even when we know that's what is occurring.

And in the process, we've cheapened the democracy that was supposed to be the Shining City On The Hill, so that now presidential campaigns, congressional campaigns, gubernatorial campaigns, are not assembled as a response to the desires and needs of a democratic people yearning to make a better world, but instead are packaged in the same manner as a box of breakfast cereal. This is on my mind because I was thinking today about presidential campaigns of the past. In 1960, the Democratic primary field included John Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington, and Hubert Humphrey, all well-regarded senators, and considered among the best our country could produce. In 1976, the Democratic field included Henry Jackson, Birch Bayh, Morris Udall, Fred Harris, Jimmy Carter, and Jerry Browne. In 1980, the Republican primaries saw Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, George H. W. Bush, John Anderson, Robert Dole, John Connally, and Phil Crane. Most of these were generally considered to be leaders in at least some segment of their party. And as late as 1980, each party still had within it enough diversity to make the primary season something of value, a regional or national debate running several months, during which the ideas and proposals of each candidate were inspected, tested, and judged. Certainly there were political tricks and charades, but these were mainly tactical in nature, not something on which to base an entire campaign strategy. But then we began selling our votes to the ad man. Instead of reading the detailed campaign literature that was still being printed by the candidates, we began basing our votes on an onslaught of commercials, even allowing one candidate to completely shape our view of a competing candidate without ever questioning the message. Walter Mondale in 1984 painted Gary Hart as a man without a platform ("Where's the beef?"), even though Hart's platform was available in sometimes exhausting detail. But once the catchphrase hit the airwaves, nobody read Hart's literature.

And where has it gotten us? Would anyone, even the most elephantine Republican, really argue that George W. Bush was the best and the brightest that the Republican Party could possibly put forth? I certainly wouldn't make the case that John Kerry is the best the Democrats can do. But we've somehow produced a system that discourages the truly innovative, bold, and intellectual among us from even attempting the race. Think about it - if you had to put forth a group to be a new set of Founding Fathers, who would it be? Bush? Cheney? Kerry? Howard Dean?

I'm convinced there are people, men and women, "out there" who could return this country to a nation that dreamed about something bigger than stock markets, tax cuts, and who is offended by what religious display. But I wonder if the few of us who still vote would take the time to recognize them.

Who did what when and why?

We may not, probably won't, know what was really going on during the first months of the Bush Administration on terrorism. But I don't really think whether Bush was "on point" about bin Laden and friends early on is the issue. Maybe we could have prevented the attacks. Maybe. But we still would have had to have a lucky break, I think. As much as I dislike George W. Bush, I don't think he would have ignored the terrorist threat deliberately; it's easy for me to think that, during the first 8 months of a new administration, there were simply other priorities too.

The issue for me was, is, and will be the Iraq war. I think that's the potentially damaging thing for Bush. I felt all along that Iraq was a mistake, that we should have stayed with the Afghan campaign until we had rooted out all the terrorist cells we could find. Even if there were ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda, we were face to face with the terrorists we said they were supporting, and we blinked! Bush possibly had his opponent on the ropes, and he let up and went looking for another fight. Now, 2 years later, the Taliban is still a threat in many parts of that country - even resurgent in some areas. And Al Quaeda seems to still be alive and well. And Iraq has become a cesspool.

The real loser in this may be Condoleezza Rice. If she comes out of this looking like she wasn't concerned anough to pay attention, or appears to have been played by the administration, her credibility will plummet. And that would be quite a fall for someone who had been lately mentioned, at least semi-seriously, as a potential Republican vice-presidential candidate should Cheney need to go away.