News aggregator

New Jersey residents may soon vote on investing heavily in Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Predictably the ignorance and pandering lobby is out in force with the same old tired song and dance:

"It will allow research that kills human beings," New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy told Baptist Press. "It also will allow human cloning, despite claims that it will not. It's highly deceptive."

It's well past the time to deny clowns like Director Tasy even the thinnest veneer of credibility. Material for Embryonic Stem Cell Lines comes from discarded blastocysts produced in fertility clinics by the thousands. Of those slated for destruction, a handful could be saved and used for research, otherwise they go straight into the trash can along with the rest. And honestly, this simple reality has been explained so many damn times, in such patient, exhaustive, documented detail to the loud-mouth opponents of ESCR, that it would be absurd to keep pretending they don’t understand it. They are lying, they know they are lying, and it's crystal clear by now they don't give a shit and they're going to keep lying. With that, check out a few science articles that aren't intended to mislead the reader.

• Carl Zimmer has an interesting evolutionary take on why the leaves of some trees change color in the fall.
• Mark H featured a really cool and kind of neat looking critter this week in his delightful Marine Life Series.
• Voting for the Best Science Blog of 2007 began Nov. 1 and the winner will be announced next week. Vote for your fave here!
• Congratulations to the men and women of the Chinese Space Program: On Oct 24 a Long March rocket blasted off from Xichang Space Center carrying China’s first lunar probe.

Look, I'm carrying no water for Hillary. While I don't think her nomination would be the end of civilization, she's also only fourth or fifth on my wish list (we've got a strong field, really).

But the reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance.

And while we'll see much more polling in the aftermath of that debate, I'm sure, the first numbers bear zero relationship to the emerging media CW.

Tuesday night’s debate was not Hillary Clinton’s finest moment of the campaign season, but there has been little or no immediate damage to her standing in the national polls. In fact, if anything, support for Clinton has ticked up a bit since she stumbled on an answer to questions about drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

John Edwards was at 10% on the first two nights and 12% on Wednesday and Thursday. Bill Richardson went from 5% to 7% during the same time frames.

This is from a tracking poll, with small daily sample sizes (the aggregate over several days for a more accurate snapshot). So the potential for error is much greater. But bottom line is that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support.

It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment. And no, the debate was not as bad as CW would suggest.

However, the debate seems to have emboldened Obama and Edwards, and the newfound media interest in a real horserace could very well give us that in the coming months.

So while the debate itself may not have been a disaster for Hillary, she's still got to survive a more hostile media and energized opponents before the voters get their final say.

(Tonight's selections are brought to you courtesy of the Rescue Rangers. SusanG)

This evening's Rescue Rangers are pico, hhex65, twilight falling, shayera, Cordelia Lear, joyful and srkp23, with watercarrier4diogenes with his Gryffindor 1st Year robes on at the wheel of editmobile.

Tonight's diaries cover a variety of interesting issues rarely (if ever) covered by the MSM, definitely not with the perspective and analysis offered here:

• Lib Dem FoP describes the mechanics and effects of currency carry trade transactions in The US Dollar - From Reserve Currency to Carry Currency. (hhex65)
• An informed voter is a smart voter: DemocraticLuntz helps by laying out positions and voting records in Where they Stand: Voting Rights. (pico)
• Mark H brings us a interesting worm that wouldn't make it past the FCC decency law: Marine Life Series: Mighty Aphrodite. (pico)
• The Epic Love, Suffering, and Death of Ricardo Gomez Garcia is a touching story of how immigration and deportation affect the young and innocent by kyledeb. (Cordelia Lear)
• In Too Few Good Men CommanderJeff Huber laments the retirement of Judge Advocate General officer Colby Vokey. (Cordelia Lear)
• First-time diarist dantyrant updates us on the possibility of US Military Bases Proposed in Lebanon. (joyful)
• be inspired had a scary Halloween attending the last public FCC meeting on media consolidation, and urges us to Stand Up for Better Media! (srkp23)
• McCamy Taylor looks at the force of religion for progressive change: Who's Afraid of the Virgin Mary? Reclaiming Our Slice of the American Spiritual Pie. (srkp23)
• Veteran TKK tells us‚Äîfrom personal experience‚Äîwhat our military personnel who suffer traumatic brain injuries face in The silent epidemic & "signature" injury of the Iraq war. (twilight falling)
• juliewolf reminds us how many Americans are one problem away from financial disaster and starts looking at solutions in Poverty: What Now? (twilight falling)

asimbagirl has Top Comments: Technically Challenged Friday.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

If the Big Lie has a cojoined twin - a brother without which it cannot survive - it is the Big Deny. It seems like a broad spectrum of establishment folks are so innately used to things working in a particular way that they just can't accomodate themselves to the fact that Bush & Cheney operate in a completely different universe.

In DC, from time immemorial, folks have always known that the other side will play tough, perhaps even a little rough. But hey, at the end of the day, almost everyone is an honest broker, and if you compromise a bit, they'll compromise a bit and we'll get something done. After all, "we all want the same things," the received wisdom intones, "we just disagree on how to get there." Since we can't be too intransigent or too extremist because we'll pay for it at the polls, those disagreements have a way of being smoothed out.

To a certain type of person, this is an appealing vision, one which comes complete with its own siren song.

But from the moment Bush appeared on the scene, it was clear that, to the extent this worldview ever reflected reality, it was true no longer. Bush will lie totally and always; insist that maximalist Republican positions win out every time; disregard the law whenever desired; never compromise and never deal fairly. The new boss, in other words, is nothing, nothing like the old boss.

And yet, despite years and years and years and masses of evidence, most DC Democrats and most of the tradmed refuse to understand this. But I'll go one further - I think there are Beltway Dems who refuse to accept this. They are so accustomed to their Broderist vision of how things work that they are simply in denial that things just don't work that way any longer.

We accuse the tradmed of having a short-term memory, but it's almost deliberate with some establishment Democrats. They simply have to forget the past in order to avoid the brutal cognitive dissonance that awaits them should they ever confront the truth. Bush and his appointees have broken every single promise they've made - what normal, reasonable person would ever, ever accept a single promise from them again?

Yet here we are, with Michael Mukasey promising to enforce a hypothetical ban on waterboarding (a ban Bush wouldn't even sign into law - or maybe he would, because he probably wouldn't care either way). And Chuck Schumer wants to take this guy at his word - a guy who wrote in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages that he doesn't think we should have trials for accused terrorists. This from a former federal judge!

This is the only conclusion that makes any sense to me. How else could an otherwise smart, canny - and, let's not kid ourselves, rough-and-tumble - politician like Chuck Schumer let himself get had like this? He's getting had because he has to. Otherwise, the edifice he has spent decades living in would crumble.

Of course, there are still plenty of clear-eyed people out there. Afer all, smashing down the walls of that castle in the sky is exactly what we here in the netroots have always been about. Stay vigilant.

I have been helping my local Edwards organizers make ID calls and knock on doors in some rural Eastern Iowa precincts.  I do get the sense that, particularly outside of the urban counties, the race is increasingly becoming a contest between Clinton and Edwards.  

In making calls through a list of rural Democrats who are consistent primary voters, but who lack a history of attending a caucus, my anecdotal notes show that Clinton is significantly stronger than any other candidate.  Accordingly, it does seem that she would benefit from a larger turnout.  

Amongst rural Democrats with a record of attending their caucus, my notes show a very competitive race between Edwards and Clinton with Obama distinctly behind.  I cannot overemphasize, however, the extreme fluidity of the situation.  Quite simply, Iowa Democrats are not in a hurry to make up their minds.  Most have narrowed down their choices, like a high school football star narrowing down his list of scholarship offers, but at least are only willing to express two or three candidates that are still in the running for their support.

I am sometimes amazed that Edwards has been mentioned in the same breath with Clinton and Obama by the folks with whom I have spoken.  Until this week, people have not received any mail or seen any commercials from the Edwards campaign.  I would like to think that this means Edwards has quite a bit of room to grow his support.  I am more certain that, at the very least, his numbers will not drop any further in Iowa.

If anyone wants to try to better understand the mentality of Iowans, you really ought to read Garrison Keillor's column from Wednesday.  It ran in today's Cedar Rapids Gazette, but you can read it on Salon.com by clicking here.

We are, of course, being bombarded with phone calls from the campaigns.  I actually received an ID phone call from the Obama campaign on my cell while knocking on doors for Edwards the other night.  I politely informed him of what I was doing and he thanked me for being engaged in the process.  

I received a call from the Chris Dodd campaign a week or so ago and also informed the organizer that I was planning to caucus for Edwards.  Yesterday, I received a letter from the Dodd campaign.  I was surprised and pretty impressed to see a hand-written letter to me on campaign letterhead from the organizer I had spoken to last week.  When I looked a little closer, I noticed that while the hand writing was real, it had been photocopied.  Trying to pass off a photocopy as though somebody had taken the time to personally write me a letter was a new technique, shall we say, that I had not before seen.  The letter is designed so that the organizer can simply write in "Dear __" and sign their name, but everything else is pre-packaged.  I found it to be even more ironic considering that the second sentence says, "Even though you had mentioned that you are leaning toward another candidate..."  Apparently, the Dodd organizers have to send out so many of these letters that they just all write one, and make a bunch of copies.

Lastly, my wife is pregnant and so we are exploring the world of baby naming books and websites.  Many sites, like www.thinkbabynames.com, show graphically how the popularity of a given name has increased or decreased over the years.  So, I looked up Hillary; you have to see this.  Apparently, Hillary used to be a pretty popular name.  It was one of the 200 most popular names for a baby girl until 1992.  Since 1992, the popularity of Hillary has sunk like a rock.  In the past 15 years, literally millions soon-to-be parents have apparently considered naming their daughter Hillary, and overwhelmingly rejected it... for whatever reason.

Consider this an open thread... What's on your mind?

Congressman Tom Allen (ME-01,) who's running for senate against Susan Collins next year, will be addressing the Maine College Democrats Convention tomorrow and this video they made I think perfectly captures what's at stake in 2008.

Nice work. Who says the youth aren't mobilized?

Speaking of which, I'm excited to be attending the  American Democracy Institute's Empower Change conference at UCLA tomorrow. Bill Clinton will be the featured speaker at the event, which will focus on, as ADI's mission statement puts it:

engaging, educating and empowering a new generation of Americans that will expand the circle of opportunity, equality and justice.

I'm not sure yet if I'll have wireless in the hall but look for my coverage of the Big Dog and the rest of the conference at some point over the weekend.

There are a lot of great posts today over at PartyBuilder. Read them all, then chat away...

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Late Night Snark Builds A Strong Brain in the Head

"You know about this latest FEMA controversy? This is just unbelievable. In response to the fires out here in California, FEMA had a phony press conference and they had FEMA members posing as reporters asking them easy questions. They had no reporters there, just FEMA members. As opposed to a disaster where it's all reporters and no FEMA members."
---Jay Leno
-

"Why??!! Why don't you want me in your race??!! Fine---it's your loss Democrats. I had a lot of great ideas. You see this? It's my exit strategy for Iraq---foolproof. Burn it! Hey, America, you want your dollar stronger? Too bad! Blame it on the South Carolina Democrats! And I had a kick-ass impeachment speech for when I wildly overreached my constitutional authority. Nobody gets to hear it now!"
–--Stephen Colbert, on being rejected from the Democratic presidential primary ballot in South Carolina
-

"Yesterday on '60 Minutes,' French President Nicolas Sarkozy got up and left in the middle of an interview. He just got up and stormed out. The citizens of France say their president acted rudely, and they've never been prouder."
---Conan O'Brien
-

"It's a little too early for Karen Hughes to be given the Medal of Freedom. But she has fucked up enough to earn the coveted 'Condi Rice Dollop of Vague Praise':

Rice: Karen has been a contributor to the war on terror. You have more than exceeded what I could've hoped for in taking over public diplomacy. She will obviously leave a very big hole.

"That's a helluva job evaluation. Karen, your absence will leave a physical vacuum."
---Jon Stewart
-

"You're not exactly the world's easiest passenger. 'Turn here!' 'Slow down!' 'Not this way!' Now I know what it would sound like if my GPS was having its period."
---Montana to carpooling buddy Kelly on Back to You
-

Gather ye canned goods and ammo while ye may. Daylight saving time ends Sunday morning and the zombie feast begins Sunday evening. Mmmm...fresh brains in the gloaming.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

The blog fundraiser for Donna Edwards, who is mounting a primary challenge against centrist Democrat Al Wynn in the deep blue fourth district of Maryland, continues into its third day with Edwards speaking out strongly on the issue of immunity for telecommunications conglomerates that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans without warrants.

As I noted on Wednesday, a number of progressive bloggers inside and outside of Maryland have put together this fundraiser ahead of a fundraising event Nancy Pelosi is holding tomorrow for Wynn. The goal of this fundraiser is not only to get more Democrats but to get better Democrats as well, particularly in districts that are very Democratic but have Democratic members who do not always do the best job of representing their constituents. Maryland's fourth CD is one such district, with Wynn's votes simply not reflecting the views of the voters of his district. One clear example of this, but not the only one by any means, was Wynn's vote in favor of the bankruptcy "reform" bill that enriched large corporations at a great cost to hardworking Americans.

So if you'd like to make sure that we can get more and better Democrats this cycle, head over to ActBlue and make a contribution to Edwards' campaign today.

Sigh.  After reading through the election threads, two things seem obvious.

1. Yes. America is definitely devolving into a contested monarchy.

2. We like it that way.

I'm frustrated enough at this point that I'd seriously consider entering the presidential race myself, but anyone who opposes Hillary Clinton is secretly a Republican, and like Colbert, I just don't have the kind of money it'd take to run as a Republican.

Look, if we have Clinton as our nominee I'll certainly work to get her elected. But Clinton is an establishment Democrat in every possible sense of the word. Somewhere along the line, "establishment" Democrats abandoned populism, instead being convinced by an army of some of the worst political consultants to ever grace the halls of power that in order to win you had to court the mythical middle, and that the mythical middle was, bafflingly, corporate-leaning moderate conservatives, in spite of the fact that polls at every step of the way showed more support for progressive positions than conservative ones.

The result was a minor collapse of the party. While Bill Clinton prospered because of his charisma and skill and, yes, populist speech, Democrats in the House and Senate got clobbered. The whole party turned wishy-washy. The Democrats became just as beholden to lobbyists and corporate-written legislation as the Republicans, but they didn't get any more votes from it: the moderate conservatives the strategists kept insisting the party appeal to weren't about to go for fake conservatism when they could have the real thing, and independents and true progressives became bitter and disillusioned and, finally, apathetic.

Right now, the "establishment" Democrats are in a pickle, again, and seem damn determined to take the opportunity given them by rampant disgust at Republican/conservative politics and flush it down the consultant toilet, once again. Nobody wants to speak out too strongly against corporate interests, even though it's transparently obvious that industries like the health insurers and media conglomerates are actively damaging the interests of the nation. Nobody wants to speak out too strongly against the Bush administration, because there's this "mythical middle" of people who like torture, in small doses, and like the president breaking laws, and you just can't take the risk of pissing those people off.

If elected, would Hillary Clinton help get the monstrous bankruptcy bill repealed or watered down? Would she work with the requisite speed to rebuild sections of the government that have now been gutted of their experts and nonpartisanship by conservative cronyism? Does she understand that corporate-backed healthcare would be a fiasco, just as it is now? Does she understand that it is not enough to simply return to the Clinton years, but that the damage done in the meantime must be reversed?

On the one hand, I'm pleased that the netroots has shown that they understand pragmatism, and are willing to embrace any good Democrat as long as they represent a shift, however small, towards more rational and progressive goals than we have been treated to in the last seven years. On the other hand, hearing people talk about how we should be rallying around one candidate already, because by the time the (entirely pointless, I presume) actual primary voting takes place we need to have made the irrevocable coronation -- nonsense. If we're going to have an election, let's have an election.

If Clinton is being tagged with the triangulation label, it's because she has absolutely earned it, during her time in the Senate. She has been carefully cultivating the image of a business-friendly moderate, all this time, and her version of moderation has been to lend herself only weakly to any of the challenges presented in the Bush years. Name the top five Democrats to actively fight against the excesses -- no, the abominations -- of Bush rule: unconstitutional violations of law, the 'defining down' of torture, criminal acts by members of the administration, corporate handouts on a staggering scale. Name the top ten Democrats. The top twenty? Is Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) anywhere in that top list? In contrast, Clinton has played the far more conventional establishment game, by the establishment rules -- while other Democrats have put their reputations on the line on various issues they have passion for, Clinton has carefully cultivated behind-the-scenes, institutional power, and avoided potentially damaging fights about the big-picture issues that face the nation. Very smart, yes. But not progressive, and certainly not courageous.

I will support Clinton as being absolutely better than any possible Republican -- and if we truly have an all-New-York general election, Clinton vs. Giuliani, God help us all live through that -- but there's no scenario in which she deserves the nomination more than any one of a dozen other Democrats we could name. She doesn't get to be coronated just because she's ahead. If one team is clearly favored before the World Series, they don't just call it off before the first game and declare that team the winner -- they still have to show up on the field and play the damn game.

I am uncomfortable enough that we have devolved into believing that the most valid rulers of our nation are those with immediate family ties to the last rulers -- as I said, an entire generation of contested monarchy under the guise of a republic. But demanding candidate fealty even before the first votes are cast -- preposterous. Show up on the field and play the game, and don't be surprised if people want to judge your actions with the same attention that they give your name.

Let us at least pretend at a democracy, shall we?

How completely through the looking glass is this "administration?" The nomination now pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for Attorney General serves to crystallize the issue by shattering all meaning behind two comfortable platitudes that used to function to satisfy all onlookers that all was right in Heaven.

First, there was the assurance from the nominee and his supporters that he'd respect the "rule of law." That used to be a fine phrase to toss out there without having to worry about it meaning too much one way or the other, until we learned that everything we once thought was a "law" was now a "hypothetical."

And now Senator Russ Feingold is testing the limits of the remaining currency of another shopworn but previously serviceable platitude -- the old throwaway explanation for a bad vote on a nominee:

He may be the best nominee we can get from this administration in this respect.

Senator, I'm afraid I'm going to have to challenge you on that. This "administration" has taken us well past the point where stock phrasing will be sufficient.

You must explain to us what -- given the limitless view of executive power Judge Mukasey has endorsed -- his being "the best nominee we can get" even means, and why anyone, including you, should care about that.

Specifically what purpose of George Bush's is it that you believe will be unduly frustrated by the rejection of Mukasey? And given this president's proclivity for ignoring the law when it suits him, does the lack of an attorney general confirmed by the Senate realistically present any obstacle to that purpose?

UPDATE: Apparently, that's a question we'll have to ask Senators Feinstein and Schumer, as well.

UPDATE II: Worse by far, Feinstein and Schumer actually say they'll vote yes. This is unconscionable.

Republicans like Mitt Romney just can't bring any change to American foreign policy. Mitt Romney's counter-terrorism advisor is also the vice-chair of Blackwater.

Black, who did not respond to requests for an interview, is a fervent promoter of an expanded role for Blackwater, which is not named for him. In April 2006, he stunned a conference of former special forces soldiers by proposing to deploy Blackwater troops to global hot spots, including humanitarian crises such as the massacres in the Darfur region of Sudan.

OK, I'll bite...

So did Hillary Clinton play the gender card? And if so does it matter? I've got to agree with Ezra that anyone who claims she "played the gender card," with all that that phrase connotes, during her appearance at Wellesley College yesterday doth protest a bit too much.

Clinton, speaking to her alma mater, said, "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics." That's the only invocation of gender since the debate. And to me, it sounds like nothing more interesting than alumni puffery. She didn't say the "boys" were beating up on her for being a woman. She didn't say the questions were unfair or the attacks sexist. She just said that her alma mater helped prepare her to enter this world. That's not making this about gender. It's mentioning gender, and pumping up her college.

And as far as calling the election an "all-boys club" goes, that seems unambiguously true. In a nation that's more than 50 percent female, where women made up 54 percent of the electorate in 2004, exactly one out of the 17 candidates currently vying for the presidency is female. But what we're upset about is that Hillary Clinton mentioned that fact? The men doth protest too much, methinks...

But that's not to say that she hasn't played it at all. Look at the "Politics of Pile On" fund-raising ask the Clinton campaign sent out yesterday.

On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary.

She is one strong woman. She came through it well. But Hillary's going to need your help.

Between this e-mail and the video that they released to go with it, there does seem to be a definite effort to use the debate and the imagery of 6 men going after one woman in order to evoke sympathy for Clinton among women. As Carla Marinucci said on Hardball last night:

That is smart, because every woman listening and watching that debate, by the way, has seen this movie before.  Whether it`s in the board room, the news room, the class room, or sitting around the dining room table with your brothers, a woman against a whole team of guys.

Look, this doesn`t mean she gets a pass just because she`s wearing a skirt.  She`s got to be a strong candidate on every level.  But I think that this is a smart strategy for her.

Of course, it's a risky strategy too, as it casts men as the villain and risks alienating male voters. But as Chris Cillizza pointed out on Hardball, that's a risk they're willing to take because using this to increase support among women is a winner in the Democratic primary in which 60% of voters are women. If they need to win some men back, they'll cross that general election bridge when they come to it.

But Cillizza made another good point last night, which was that the very fact that we're talking about the whole gender card issue is an indication of the extent to which the Clinton camp has actually won the post-debate PR war. They wanted to change the topic away from her double talk and away from drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Mission accomplished.

John Edwards, for his part, is doing his darnedest to change it back.

A snippet of an email blast from Ilana Goldman, President of the Women's Campaign Forum:

When we started She Should Run, we just weren't sure what to expect.  No one had ever tried this kind of effort before.  With your help, we now have over 1,000 women who have been nominated to run for office.  Women from all walks of life have been nominated - lawyers, teachers, businesswomen, mothers and community activists.  We have been thrilled not just by the number of people who have responded so positively about the campaign, but by the heartfelt and thoughtful nominations we've received time and time again.

Now that we've met our goal of 1,000 nominees, we're ready to begin the real work of reaching out to each and every woman who has been nominated and giving her the information, encouragement and support she needs to make an informed decision about running for office.

One thousand nominations is a great first step.  How many of those nominations will eventually become candidates?  At the WCF's panel discussion that I recently attended there was a lot of talk about creating a pipeline of qualified women office holders at the local and state levels.  She Should Run is an innovative way to assist in that creation.

The Writers Guild of America is set to strike:

The union's board of directors is set to formally ratify the strike plans at a 10 a.m. meeting today at the West Coast guild's headquarters in the Fairfax district.

Barring a last-minute deal, a strike would probably start Monday, people close to the guild said. That would mark the first time in nearly two decades that writers had walked off the job. The guild represents about 12,000 film and TV writers, of which roughly 7,000 work regularly.

In a boost to the power of the strike, the Teamsters will be supporting the WGA.

Being writers, they've amply documented the issues involved in this dispute, including with a blog, United Hollywood. So what are some of the issues?

Internet and new media: The writers want residuals for their content that gets used on the internet - all those full episodes of shows you can now watch on network websites, for instance - and coverage for original online-only content.

DVDs: Currently, writers get 4 cents for each DVD sold. They'd like 8 cents. Out of the $15-20 cost of a new DVD.

Huffington Post blogger Robert Elisberg tells us what to expect in media depictions of the strike:

3. Both sides will go to the press. Writers will point out that the studios make ungodly profits and screw everyone in sight. Studios will point out how many people will be laid off if writers strike against studios that make ungodly profits and screw everyone in sight.

5. The press will side with the studios. Three reasons. A) They don't have a clue who any of the writers are. B) Studio execs will actually call the press and talk about themselves. Writers won't call the press because they're pissed off at being ignored by them all the time. And C) No reason for the press to tick off an executive because, who knows, they might want to pitch one of their own screenplays to them later.

Jonathan Tasini puts the need for a strike in context:

For all those folks who aren’t writers and get a regular paycheck, it’s really important to understand the plantation-like economic model that powers—and enriches—Big Media. At any given time, 95 percent of WGA members aren’t being paid a salary by Big Media. Instead, thousands of writers churn out scripts and ideas for content—most of which is never bought. You might sell a script or an idea one year and, then, not sell another product for the next 5 or 7 years. It’s not because of a lack of talent. It is simply because Big Media has set up a brilliant system—it keeps a whole workforce turning out its products and doesn’t have to keep them on any payroll, or pay their health care or pensions if Big Media decides not to buy what they produce.

And, so, the way writers try to survive is over that stream—in most cases, quite modest stream—of royalties that come every time a DVD is sold which contains their creative output. Remember this: the vast majority of writers do not—do not—live in mansions or fly in private jets. They are mostly trying to live a middle-class life—and that isn’t easy.

By contrast, in a story we know too well, the CEOs of media companies are being paid rather well.

Hollywood writers are of course not the manufacturing workers of iconic strike images, but the thing is, you don't need to be an iconic manufacturing worker to be screwed by your employer - the American economy is increasingly built on that fact. So it's important for workers in all sectors to stand up for contracts that address actual working conditions: If studios make money on online content, so should writers. Our sacrifice will be along the lines of Daily Show reruns, but in whatever ways we can, we should stand with the WGA.

(h/t to hekebolos for the barrage of links)

While our current follies in Iraq were madness from the start, the 1991 edition of the Gulf War set the standard for broadcast surrealism.  Anyone watching CNN in those days was treated to the incredible spectacle of reporters providing commentary from Baghdad while US bombs crashed into the streets around them and anti-aircraft fire lanced up into the sky.  Fox News had not yet appeared to lend their own sound effects, CGI graphics, and perky blonds to the fight -- for that we had to wait for the sequel -- but the coverage was still jaw-droppingly weird.  Over a period of 42 days, Iraq was "softened up" through the gentle application of better than 88,000 tons of explosives.  That's more than six times what went into Hiroshima.

We didn't get that kind of ringside seat in Afghanistan, but over a period of a few weeks in the fall of 2001, the mountains, plains, and pre-rubbled cities of that nation got a taste of nearly 10,000 tons of explosives.  That includes what went into the fight at Tora Bora.

Funny thing is, there's another place experiencing more fire power than was ever leveled at either of these nations, and there are no cameras on hand to watch.  In West Virginia, better than 2,500 tons of explosives per day are being used to level the mountains.  The total explosive force being unleashed there dwarfs activities on the battlefields.  It's an Afghanistan every four days.  A Hiroshima a week.  All of it dedicated to destroying one of the most beautiful and biodiverse areas of our country.  And unlike the ruined cities that happened to fall to colorful events on CNN, the mountains can't be rebuilt.  Not even with a fat no-bid contract for Haliburton.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration's first list of "terrorist organizations" in the United States was topped by groups of "eco terrorists" like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).  The FBI even designated ELF as the United States' "top domestic terrorism threat".  It seems strange that these groups should be considered eco-terrorists, when the companies involved in blowing up the environment with mega-tons of explosives are being coddled. I don't for a moment want to suggest that I condone the destructive activities of ELF or any other group, but next to what's being done "legally," they're pikers.

The only way to save the Appalachian Mountains is to act now, before the Bush administration's relaxed rules on mountaintop removal mining leave us with an eroded plain of poisonous rubble in exchange for one of our nation's great natural beauties.  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox don't have any correspondents standing buy for the war against the mountains.  Fortunately, there are witnesses willing to speak out, and there is action you can take.

You can contact your representative and get them to sign on as a cosponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 2169).  The CWPA is designed to stop mine waste from filling streams and turning rivers into sludge.  It will reverse the Bush administration's gift to the real eco terrorists and put a halt to most of these operations.  There are already 107 cosponsors for the bill in the House, but we need more, damn it.  Quickly.  Like today.  Check the list to see if your representative is already on board.  If so, thank them and let them know this issue is important to you.  If not, it's even more important that you contact them and tell them to sign on.  

Check after the break for a list of kossacks who have already taken the time to contact their representatives.

Every Friday we're highlighting five events happening around the country, but with the one year out events approaching (tomorrow!), we want to make sure all of you take part. It's going to be our first nationwide organizing push, and we're going to unveil our confidential organizing plans for those who attend.

Here are 5 of the hundreds of events happening around the country. You can find an event to attend -- or start your own -- by clicking here!

1. Idaho Democrats - Making It Work-- Hattaway (Boise, ID)
   Join hundreds of Democrats from around Idaho as we roll out our strategy for victory in 2008 and beyond. We need every person who cares about the future of the state to attend or host a house party on November 3, and to volunteer to help in the year to come. Please attend!
2. year out neighborhood parties (Key West to Summerland, FL)
   We are having several parties throughout the Lower Keys to get ready for the 2008 elections. Come out to meet your neighbors, learn what will be on the ballot, and find out what the local dems are doing to get ready.
3. “ONE YEAR AWAY” DAY HOUSE PARTY (Charles Town, WV)
   Come enjoy an afternoon at a neighbors house in Jefferson County to learn all there is to know about Jefferson County Democrats!
4. House Party (Elberta, AL)
   We will be viewing a video from Howard Dean on the stragety for the coming year. We will discuss the video, have a question session,and look at canvasing a neighborhood.
5. Loree Weber House Party (Raymore, MO)
   1 year out house party to be hosted by Loree Weber

Yes, Markos is headed for Hollywood, my news reader and internet connection are acting up, and it's a lazy Friday afternoon, so it's meager pickings for poor old midday open thread. I'll try to add some items as we wind our mutual way through the rest of the day.

I suspect somehow you folks will find something to talk about ....

• Congress hears scary, scary airplane stories.
• #12. On a truly bizarrely chosen and defined list.
• Chet at North Decoder blog seems to have turned up a case of petty fluff plagiarism on the part of Bush's nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, former ND Governor Ed Schafer.
• David Brooks does Dems... debate, that is. We anxiously await his post-Republican debate opinionatin'.
• Not that the Bush administration pays any attention to the UN, but the UN's chief atomic regulator Mohamed ElBaradei would like the world to know that there is no evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons.
• Blue Jersey shows us how NJ Republicans employ national GOP pants-wetting points to answer the question, "Is it possible to laugh and vomit at the same time?" [KX]
• When the State Department announced that they were looking for volunteers out of a pool of 200 "prime candidates" who "were selected by factors including grade, specialty and language skill," to go to Iraq or be fired, an uproar ensued amongst the lucky candidates.  But today it is being reported that:

  ...since the call-up to fill 48 vacant Iraq posts was announced last Friday, 15 diplomats have volunteered to work there.

  Great news, right?  Maybe not;  from yesterday's State Department press briefing:

  MR. MCCORMACK: Fifteen people. Fifteen other people volunteered.

  QUESTION: Not in the -- not in the prime candidate --

  MR. MCCORMACK: Not in the candidate pool.

  QUESTION: Got it.

  Well, who needs specialities or language skills in Iraq anyway? [BinMD]

• The 2007 WebLog Awards are open for voting. Vote for whatever you want, but you should strongly consider voting for "phony" soldier Army of Dude for military blog. Remember this snippet about his fellow "phony" soldier?

  Brian Chevalier was going to reenlist but decided against it before he was killed on March 14 during our first mission in Baqubah. His phony life was celebrated in a phony memorial where everyone who knew him cried phony tears. A phony American flag draped over his phony coffin when his body came home. It was presented to his phony mother and phony daughter.

  Edger has more. (mcjoan)

I got an email from Tom Harkin today informing me that he has extended the deadline to donate $25 or more to enter for a chance for me and a guest to dine with him and at the JJ dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10th with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden.

Harkin is even giving the winner a free night at the Hotel Fort Des Moines and up to a $500 travel stipend.

This is a great idea and Harkin has been on here and DailyKos a lot lately to promote his awesome work in the Senate, so count me in Senator! Lets show our support for Sen. Tom Harkin and by donating to his campaign for a chance to win this great opportunity! Even if I don't win, it would be great if a MyDD or DailyKos reader would win and be able to report back on their experience! The email from Harkin is below:

Dear Friend,

We are pleased to announce to that we have extended the deadline to enter for a chance to win two tickets to the sold-out 2007 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. The lucky winner will sit at my table and get up close and personal with all of our great presidential candidates next Saturday night.

The new deadline to donate $25 or more to our campaign is now Monday, November 5th at midnight. The winner will be announced the following day on Tuesday, November 6th.

Please click here to support my campaign and remember for each $25 donation you will get another chance to win. So if you donate $100 you will be entered for 4 chances to win.

In addition to the dinner, the winner will also be given up to a $500 travel stipend and lodging at the historic Hotel Fort Des Moines.

The Iowa caucus is just three months away; this is one of the most important events for our presidential candidates and our party.

Enter for your chance to win today.

Thank you and good luck!

Tom Harkin