Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Here's an interesting AP story.

Russian lawmakers target Jewish groups

By Steve Gutterman

Jan. 24, 2005 | MOSCOW (AP) -- A group of nationalist Russian lawmakers called Monday for a sweeping investigation aimed at outlawing all Jewish organizations and punishing officials who support them, accusing Jews of fomenting ethnic hatred and saying they provoke anti-Semitism.

They're trying to outlaw Jewish organizations on the basis that they "provoke anti-Semitism"?

Here we go again.

This morning we received the following email from the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), ostensibly from Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

Dear 201k,

Conservatives have gathered in the nation's capital to celebrate George W. Bush's re-inaugural. And what, exactly, do you think they're celebrating?

That President Bush and his Republican Congress will soon have run this country so deep into debt that it will take generations to repair the damage? Or is it the fact that President Bush has publicly promised that no one will be held accountable for the mess in Iraq, despite mass deception about weapons of mass destruction, and despite the fact that we have lost more than 1,500 heroic soldiers with more than 10,000 wounded?

Personally, I don't feel much like celebrating. So I'm going to mark the occasion by pledging to do everything in my power to fight the extremist Republican's destructive agenda.

I encourage you to do the same by supporting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for 2005. Please make a secure online contribution right now to tell President Bush that party time is over.

201k admires and respects Nancy Pelosi, but this was our response:

By "keep fighting" you mean donate more?

Why should we? Only 2 Democrats voted against Condi Rice's confirmation.

All the Democrats except Barbara Boxer and John Kerry went along with the farce that was the confirmation hearing. Joe "We Surrender" Lieberman gave her an introductory speech in the Senate. But we're supposed to "keep fighting"--by sending more money?

I don't think so. We'll fight when you fight.

We turn, at last, to the question of why George W. Bush was re-elected. We understand there has been a certain amount of thought given to this topic already, but all of it has been wrong.

Putting aside for the sake of argument that he *was* re-elected--that's another story entirely--we're sufficiently rested now to delve into this.

First off, experience (and number crunching) has convinced us that the number of Americans who agree with the far right on most issues hovers between 33 and 37%. We know the right claim that at least half of all Americans are with them, but that's bluster, deceit, and wishful thinking. 37% is still too many, yes, but it's not a majority.

So why did that crucial 14% swing for them? Because of the crazy guard dog theory.

It is naive to think that 51% of Americans were duped by the Bush administration and the New York Times into believing that Iraq had WMD. There must be a significant number--both Republicans and swing voters--who knew it wasn't true but went along with it anyway. In other words, that they knew it was a lie and were ok with that.

That's what we're dealing with.

An awful lot of people know the case was bogus. They don't care. Why? Because we were attacked and they wanted to strike back.

We struck back at the wrong people, you say. Well, they don't care. Scare the terrorists, they think--scare the world. Just start blowing s*** and people up and they won't f*** with us. Period. Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, Indians, Basques, Danes, Macedonians, Muslims, Hindus, Hondas, Saudis, Saabs--whatever, they say. Nuke 'em.

Believe it. We aren't actually a nation of morons who don't know when we're being lied to; we're a nation of scared people who believe in the power of violence. Did you ever doubt that? Violence is our national god.

Ask a random American if they'd rather have a smart guard dog or a crazy guard dog, and 201k will bet you a bottle of Jamesons that most will say crazy.

But, you say, a smart guard dog will know what's a threat and what isn't! Yeah, yeah--you and your smarts.

Listen: a smart guard dog will never bite the mailman, that's true. And a crazy, dumb-a** guard dog will. He'll bark all night at nothing, tick off the neighbors, scare the paperboy, dig holes, wreck your fence, take a piece out of your niece's finger, and basically drive everyone crazy.

But no one will go in your yard--because you have a crazy guard dog.

And that's the way Americans think. Bite first and deal with the police later.

And that's why that 14% voted for the guy that looked them in the eye and lied. It wasn't about "values", and it wasn't because they felt he knew what he was doing in the "War on Terror". It was because, of the two guys running, he was the one who'd start dropping bombs even if it was a bad idea. Because in this world, they'd say, you can be the one shooting or the one being shot at, so you'd better be the one shooting.

Get your heads around it, folks. That's the way this country thinks. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

And, oh by the way, if it turns out that's a bad idea--Americans aren't responsible, George Bush is. See how easy? That's what happens when you've never had a foreign war taken to your soil and paid the price for the decisions you let politicians make in your name. You can vote for the guy that drops bombs on the wrong enemy, be appalled (in due time), get a good night's sleep, then vote for someone else next time.

Nighty-night!

Feelings are running deep, poor readers.

Editor,

Now that the November election is over and the results are tallied I, like the millions of Americans that unambiguously reject George W. Bush and his coterie of incompetent dissemblers, find myself contemplating the near future with an even higher level of unease than that which accompanied the disputed results of the election of 2000. Certain facts provide cold comfort, such as the fact that Bush and the equally odious Cheney will only be around for another four years; such as the fact that the 2006 bi-election holds the promise of pushing back the tide of conservative protofacism; such as the fact that liberals and moderates still represent the finest ideals for which our country is rightfully admired by less fortunate citizens in other parts of the world, such as the fact that the Founders were both wise and enlightened to the extent that they surely anticipated just such a situation as we find ourselves in now and provided the finest form of government infrastructure that allows the citizens of this nation to work through dangerous times such as these without devolving into violence and permanent division. Other facts provide no comfort whatsover:

1. The Supreme Court stands a very real chance of being corrupted by Scalia, Thomas, and their clones for several generations to come.

2. Evangelical tinpots and other assorted haircuts now believe they have the right to dictate, among other things, who is acceptable in society and who isn't. To dictate what will be taught in science classes throughout this nation as though the facts of science have suddenly come up for a vote. To dictate when and under what circumstances religion shall be forced onto the citizens of a free and secular society.

3. Congressional Democrats appear timorous and too willing to accept the judgement of Republican a*******, too eager to appear "bi-partisan", notably the new Minority Leader in the Senate, and at times seeming to accept the ridiculous notion that, in the country Jefferson built, the Democratic party does not represent average American citizens.

4. Most troubling is the fact that our government has now been turned into something that does the most good for the least number of people instead of its rightful function as an institution uniquely positioned to do the most good for the most people.

The words of the great Preamble to the Constitution of the United States are, among others, "[to] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." . I've read the text often and for the life of me I can't find any language that allows the right wing to use this great document to enshrine their own limited worldview in all its bigoted and venal ugliness. It's already been noted that the Amendments exist specifically to empower the individual and the only time this great document was amended to erode individual liberty was an unmitigated disaster to the extent another amendment was required to undo the damage of the previous one.

At one point in my life I was sure in the belief that the facts will speak for themselves. Now I know better. There are times when the facts must be spoken for. Clearly, loudly, proudly, and unambiguously spoken for. We are living in those times.

Mark P.
West Kingston, RI

Coincidentally, we've been thinking a lot about the words "promote the general welfare" lately. Something is banging around in our minds, but real life--as it often does--has intruded to keep us from getting it down here. And, to be honest, we've given ourselves a bit of break after the election. January will be tough--lots going on. But following that we promise to get back in the swing of things. In the meantime, all poor readers are encouraged to send their thoughts. There is, as you know, a great deal at stake.

--201k

Today we sent this email to the very fine gentlemen Daniel Okrent and Arthur Bovino at the NY Time's "Public Editor" desk:

Gentlemen,

This morning the headline for Mr. Andrew's job-numbers story (http://nytimes.com/2005/01/07/business/07cnd-econ.html) was something like, "Job numbers worse than Wall Street Prediction" (paraphrased from memory). Sometime later in the day it was changed to the far rosier: "Economy Adds 157,000 Jobs, Ending Best Year Since 1999"

Some questions:

1. What prompted the headline change and why?

2. What method of calculating the hiring figures was used? You may be aware this is a matter of significant controversy. Shouldn't the method--as well as the controversy--be reported?

3. The current administration has a record of revising downward "positive" job numbers months after their release. In your opinion should that be something reporters should make note of when covering the initial reports?

4. In your reading of today's article--the specifics of the numbers--do you feel that the rosier headline is remotely appropriate? It seems that the most one could charitably say about it is that it is, in some narrow sense, technically true. But it's surely no more true than the original headline, which, frankly, is more in keeping with the rather dismal picture the numbers paint.

Regards, as always,

201k