I just got this email from a friend about a phone poll that Gov. Schwarzenegger is conducting :

The current governator is conducting a telephone poll that includes same sex marriage. Predictably, right-wingers are flooding the office with calls. Since California will likely soon be considering a variety of marriage and domestic partner bills, it’s a good time to show support on the issue. This takes less than a minute. Call (916) 445-2841 On the phone tree, press in order: Press #5 for “Hot Issues.” Press #1 for Same Sex Marriage. Press #1 to support gay marriage in California.

If you’ve got a minute and you don’t have to worry about long distance charges, it couldn’t hurt to call and let the Terminator know that not everyone in California is a bigot.

When I met Michael Moore last January, we spent most of the time talking about the senate primaries and how disastrous the Bush presidency has been, but one of the subjects that naturally came up was Bush’s actions on September 11th. Now there’s been a lot written about the “seven minutes” sequence in Fahrenheit 911 for good reason (it’s pretty damning to watch the leader of the free world sit still while his nation is under attack), but that wasn’t the question that seemed to tug at Mike the most. When we spoke, his big question was about the reports that on the evening of 9/11, Bush went to bed at his normal time, around 11PM.

“How could he have just gone to bed after all that? Everyone I know was glued to their TV’s and unable to sleep.” he said.

That’s a damn good question and one whose answer is probably every bit as disturbing as Bush reaction to the plane hitting the second WTC tower. While I can’t speculate how Bush was able to fall asleep while the rest of us remained sleepless for weeks afterwards, I gotta say I’m a little surprised that it wasn’t one of the questions posed in Fahrenheit 911. Maybe he couldn’t figure out a good way to pose the question in a film or couldn’t track down any footage of Bush wearing his footie pajamas.

(Before you ask, the answer is “No, Michael Moore wasn’t insinuating that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.”)

So, I finally saw Garfield and I…just kidding. It seems kinda pointless to write a post about Fahrenheit 911 since everybody has already chimed in with their two cents. I’ve read a ton of reviews and blog posts in my attempt to wrap my head around the film and I can’t say that I’m much closer to articulating my feelings about it that when I first left the theater. My favorite reviews of the film so far have been from Tom Tomorrow, Roger Ebert, David Edelstein and Fox News.

One of the complaints I’ve heard the most about this film is that it takes a lot of “cheap shots”, one of which is pointed out in this mixed review from Kevin Drum :

Finally, the last half hour of the film includes a piece of street theater in which Moore accosts congressmen on Capitol Hill and asks if they’ll try to get their sons and daughters to enlist in the military. It’s a brutally unfair question, but one that echoes a standard debating point of Hitchens and others: “Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power?” It’s a question that’s unanswerable in 10 words or less, and about as meaningful as Moore’s ambush interviews with congressmen.

So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they’re so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.

If anything, I think the tone of this movie was so different from his earlier work that the two “gonzo” style scenes felt out of place. Personally, I don’t see Moore’s “ambush” as any more cheap than the earlier scene of him reading the Patriot Act from an ice cream truck. He wasn’t really expecting Congressmen to sign up their kids anymore than he was expecting them to sit on the curb and listen to the text of a bill they’d passed without reading. This was just one of those “make powerful people look like buffoons” scenes that’s been a staple of motion picture comedies since Chaplin’s tramp kicked a cop in the butt.

Upon reflection, one scene from the film did rub me the wrong way a little. In the scene with Lila Lipscombe and her family sitting around the living room, when she cries “Why did this happen?” (or something like that), Moore immediately cuts to a Haliburton montage. That edit didn’t sit well with me at all. Maybe it’s because I find the whole argument that the war was about nothing but oil and money to be a bit simplistic.

Yeah, I think the fact that Iraq sits on such a huge oil reserve was one of the primary motivations for the war, but I think an equally strong motivation was the neoconservative obsession with getting rid of Saddam despite the evidence that he wasn’t a threat to us. Either way, I think generating profits for Haliburton was a secondary concern at best.

That aside (and it really is just a minor complaint), I think Fahrenheit 911 is one of the most patriotic films I’ve ever seen. By keeping himself out of the spotlight this time around, Moore has focused more on the lives of our soldiers, their families, and the Iraqi people than we’ve seen in the last year and a half’s worth of cable news puff pieces. In the end, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, this movie should provide something to piss you off and make you cry. Considering how crucial this upcoming election is, that’s exactly what moviegoers need right now. If you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing out on one of the most rewarding moviegoing experiences that’s come along in a long while. If you have already seen it, reccomend it to your conservative friends and relatives.

Did you know the bush’s dog, Barney, has his own section of whitehouse.gov? It inclused a biography, “Barney Cam”, a Q & A section, and a photo of the day. Here’s my favorite from a couple weeks ago :

Note to protesters : Next time you want to picket one of these economic summits, try dressing up like a dog.

Unfortunately, their photo of the day archives don’t have my favorite Barney photo.

This morning on CNN they were showing live footage of a John Kerry stump speech on education. I thought they only did that for Bush? Maybe now that the news is starting to pay some more attention to Kerry, he can solve that “voters don’t know who the hell I am” problem.

The speech itself was really good, especially considering how boring the subject matter was. Kerry spoke with ease about the problems for women and minorities in higher education, he was quick with numbers without being nerdy like Gore, and he seemed to have a passion for what he was talking about. By peppering his speech with details of his educational plan, he seemed to have a firm grasp on what he wanted to do. Hell, he even fell back on his “band of brothers” shtick and made it sound fresh.

Is he always this good? Most of the times I’d seen him speak were at those senate debate clusterfucks, and those didn’t seem to bring out the best in anybody. If Kerry’s speech at the senate Convention is as good as the speech he gave today, he’ll win this thing in a landslide.

I was wrong, when I said Bush wasn’t getting a photo-op out of today’s Iraq handover. As shown by this note (which the Administration is hoping will grace the covers of every major newspaper), it looks like Bush not only speaks in hyperbole, but writes in it as well :

Does it seem off that Bush would use the word “reign”? Maybe not if you read the definition :

reign (r n) n.
1. Exercise of sovereign power, as by a monarch.
2. The period during which a monarch rules.
3. Dominance or widespread influence: the reign of reason.

intr.v. reigned, reign?ing, reigns
1. To exercise sovereign power.
2. To hold the title of monarch, but with limited authority.
3. To be predominant or prevalent: Panic reigned as the fire spread.

“To hold the title of monarch, but with limited authority”? Hmmm…sounds pretty accurate to me. Although I’m still open to the suggestion that he just misspelled “ring”.

Credit where credit’s due, handing over “sovereignty” early was a good idea (though it wasn’t Bush’s idea). I’m sure there’s a lot of car bomb makers that are pissed right now, but I wonder if they’re as pissed as King George is that he’s not going to be able to turn this into a campaign commercial. Hopefully he saved the receipt for his golden chariot and bejeweled crown.

Of course this whole “letting Iraqis control their government” thing is hogwash. The top story on Yahoo has some of the fine print that Bush and co. are hoping you don’t read :

Although the interim government will have full sovereignty, it will operate under major restrictions ? some of them imposed at the urging of the influential Shiite clergy which sought to limit the powers of an unelected administration.

For example, the interim government will only hold power seven months until, as directed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, there must be elections “in no case later than” Jan. 31. The Americans will still hold responsibility for security. And the interim government will not be able to amend the interim constitution. That document outlines many civil liberties guarantees that would make problematic a declaration of emergency.

As Iraq’s highest authority, Bremer had issued more than 100 orders and regulations, many of them Western-style laws governing everything from bankruptcy and traffic, to restrictions on child labor and copying movies.

Some are likely to be ignored. One law requires at least a month in jail for people caught driving without a license ? something many Iraqis do not have. Another demands that drivers stay in a single lane, a rule widely ignored in Iraq’s chaotic streets.

Others are more controversial. On Saturday, Bremer signed an edict that gave U.S. and other Western civilian contractors immunity from Iraqi law while performing their jobs in Iraq. The idea outrages many Iraqis who said the law allows foreigners to act with impunity even after the occupation.

A Bremer elections law restricts certain candidates from running for office, banning parties with links to militias, for instance.

The Coalition Provisional Authority’s laws remain in effect after the occupation ends unless rescinded or revised by the interim government, a task that another Bremer-signed law allows, but only after a difficult process.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in a few weeks. If our guys are still dying over there, will Americans really be willing to accept the “don’t blame me, they’re sovereign” excuse?

I know I’m probably in the minority here, but the Bush Campaign does have a point in this email I received the other day :

On Friday night, John Kerry’s campaign denounced our use of these ads, and called that use “disgusting.”

The Kerry campaign says, “The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”

We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry’s coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting.

Where was John Kerry’s disgust when he hired Zack Exley – the man responsible for encouraging the production of these ads as part of a MoveOn contest – to run the Kerry campaign’s internet operation?

Where was John Kerry’s sense of outrage when Al Gore, just yesterday afternoon, compared the Bush Administration to the Nazis saying, “The Administration works closely with a network of ‘rapid response’ digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for ‘undermining support for our troops.’”

Where was John Kerry’s anger when Al Gore in May spoke of “Bush’s Gulag”?

Why has John Kerry not denounced billionaire and Democrat Party donor George Soros for comparing the Bush Administration to Nazis. Soros stated, “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (‘The enemy is listening’).”

Why has Kerry not spoken out against filmmaker Michael Moore who last October compared the Patriot Act to Mein Kampf. “The Patriot Act is the first step. ‘Mein Kampf’ – ‘Mein Kampf’ was written long before Hitler came to power.”

We created this web video to show the depths to which these Kerry supporters will sink to win in November.

Now I disagree with that last sentence (obviously) and I think most of the attacks in their list are either unfair (the MoveOn stuff) or against points that are arguably true. I agree with both sides however that Nazi analogies are disgusting and uncalled for. It all reminds me of this classic Tom Tomorrow strip :

But there are two additional reasons why the Nazi analogies are bad ideas :

They’re not going to convince any fence-sitters to take your side. If someone is undecided, they’re obviously willing to give Bush or Kerry the benefit of the doubt. With that being the case, do you really think they’re one commercial away from thinking your opponent is pure evil?

They’re lazy clich?s. When I hear someone use a Nazi comparison, I immediately think they’re talking out of their asses.

Let’s get a little perspective here, people. There are hundreds of reasons why Bush is an awful, awful president that don’t make us look like jackasses.

Have you guys seen Bush’s new commercial? It’s been getting flack for comparing the Democrats to Hitler (oddly enough while showing a clip from the commercial that MoveOn disavowed). I’ll leave it to others to point out the blatant hypocrisy there, but there’s one thing odd I noticed : a clip of Michael Moore’s infamous Oscar acceptance speech. What makes this so odd is that Moore was unable to get permission to use the clip himself for the Bowling for Columbine DVD. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences usually likes to keep a pretty tight rein on Oscar clips, so unless AMPAS made a rare exception to their rules, the Bushies are thieves. If you’re as concerned about the “rule of law” crowd stealing footage in order to land a cheap shot against liberals, you can turn them it at ampas@oscars.org or (310) 247-3000.

For those of you who still have a shred of doubt about how callous and awful Fox News is, click here to see a clip of their anchors laughing at someone being beaten by the police. Seriously. (via The Hamster)

The Economist has a great breakdown of the campaign season (via Political Wire):

Most presidential campaigns are three-act dramas. Act I is a referendum on the incumbent. Voters look at the president and ask ?Does he deserve four more years?? If the answer is a clear yes?as in 1984 or 1996?it barely matters who the challenger is; he may as well go home. This stage lasts until the party conventions. Assuming voters have not definitively decided on re-election?and, manifestly, they have not this time?Act II starts with the conventions and runs until about September. Voters then turn their attention to the challenger: is he ready for prime time? If he is, Act III, the real horse race, begins in September with the presidential debates. Then, and only then, do the head-to-head comparisons matter.

All that means Mr Bush has time to recover from his current woes. Voters have barely begun to look at Mr Kerry, let alone make direct comparisons with Mr Bush. And events may yet play a big role in determining the outcome of the vote. The publication of the September 11th commission’s report on the eve of the senate convention may help Mr Kerry. Better news from Iraq, or (God forbid) an attack by al-Qaeda would almost certainly help Mr Bush.

But it is clear that Mr Bush has done worse in Act I than an incumbent should. His crown sits all the more uneasily because the polls suggest that the vast majority of voters have already made up their minds (only one in ten say they are undecided). If he is to triumph in Act III, Mr Bush has a lot of crowd-pleasing to do. Mid-June might mark his electoral nadir; but it might also be seen as the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency.

With Act I winding down, I’d say Bush is already on the ropes. He’s had a string of failures that have driven his poll numbers down. Worse than that, however, is that he’s still trying to strengthen his base with crap like his “gay people are gross” amendment to the constitution at a time when both candidates would normally be racing to the middle.

Sure, Kerry’s got similar problems from the far-left, but he’s largely a question mark in the eyes of most voters. Americans, who have been getting to know Bush for the last four years, already know how they feel about the man from Connecticut Crawford. At this point, perceptions of Bush’s presidency are set in stone compared to those of Kerry. This explains why Bush’s website has more negative things about John Kerry than positive things to say about George Bush. Now who’s the “pessimist” again?

Matt Yglesias poses an interesting question :

Daniel Drezner uses rhetorical devices when writing his columns, just like the rest of us. “Unless the entire country–particularly the political class–is required to take an introductory economics course, the mercantilist mindset will be hard to shake.” Which brings to mind a good question — why not require the entire country to take an introductory economics course? If everyone had to learn a little basic, non-calculus economics it seems to me that that would be a very worthwhile investment.

While I think this idea has some merit, this email sent to me by Hal Millard makes me think we should set our sights a little lower.

I’m a former newspaper reporter, now a pro freelancer. I’m not sure if you have worked in the trade or not, but here’s the dirty little secret behind the media’s seeming ineptitude in all things financial — J-schools, by and large — never teach the stuff. And that lack of a foundation is only compounded as reporters advance and become editors.

In fact, I went to a large, well-respected J-school and never once had to take any math class, much less a class on how to report and write about financial and economic issues. (I did have to take Econ 101, but that shit is no more advanced than the stuff you learned in high school).

The sad part is, I now derive most of my income from writing about business and finance. I’ve had to learn everything on the fly, and still I feel like a sham sometimes even though I somehow manage to be right most of the time and have never had a major fuckup (yet).

I can count on one hand the number of journalists (financial writers or generalists) I know of that can intelligently write about these things.

That’s just sad, because government officials and biased experts can consistently fool the vast majority of reporters every time.

There are even websites that explain “math for journalists!” And we’re talking things such as how to figure percentages!

In my opinion, no reporter (rookie cub or pro) should step foot in a newsroom until they can show they know how to construct and manipulate a spreadsheet program in order to analyze information, and completely understand a P&L statement and basic SEC filings.

But I’m not holding my breath. Until J-schools change or newsrooms provide much-needed remedial or continuing education for reporters, American media consumers will remain ignorant about what’s really going on behind all those numbers.

What are we to make of a situation in which the people who are supposed to be dumbing down complex subjects for the rest of us are making it up as they go along? Of course, this whole “blind leading the blind” situation would explain a lot of the positive coverage Bush’s economic proposals have received over the last few years…

For those of you who do your websurfing on your PDA’s or celphones, I’ve created a slimmed down version of the site for you. You can see it by clicking here. The mobile version of the site has the most recent five entries and the comment thread. I don’t know much about WAP or anything like that, so if it doesn’t work on your celphone, there’s probably not much I can do about it.

Also, since I’ve been doing most of my blog reading through a newreader, I’ve updated my RSS 1.0 and 2.0 templates to include full entries. If you’ve got a blog, I reccommend doing the same. For those of you with Movable Type, all you have to do is replace this line in your RSS templates :

<description><$MTEntryExcerpt encode_xml=”1″$></description>

With this :

<description><$MTEntryBody encode_xml=”1″ remove_html=”0″ $><$MTEntryMore encode_xml=”1″ remove_html=”0″ $></description>

That’s it.

Since I’m moving tomorrow, I’ve spent the last two weeks going through everything I own. One of the things that I found at the bottom of a box was this letter that I think you’ll all get a kick out of. First a little background…

The first internet company I ever worked for was your classic “start-up” situation. These guys didn’t care about what they had to do as long as they got that golden IPO that would make us all millionaires. When I joined the company, their business plan was to be a virtual real estate company that would take pictures of various houses for sale and post them on the site. When that started to fall apart, they decided to go with an online yellow pages sort of thing and try to sell advertising space in the listings. The day after Time magazine had a cover story on ecommerce, the company reinvented itself yet again as one that sold random crap.

While the company was always a step or two behind internet trends, they made sure to be a step or two ahead of their creditors. In my time there, we’d moved the company’s offices twice (the rumor was so we could avoid paying rent). I’d also survived two rounds of layoffs and had paychecks bounce. When I decided to move and gave my two weeks notice, I was fired the next day out of fear that I would develop “short-timers syndrome” and hurt the company (they were doing that well enough on their own). Needless to say, this is the main reason I’m so comfortable working for a big, “evil”, and stable corporation.

At some point during my employment with this company, I intercepted the following letter at the fax machine which was so juicy, I had to photocopy it and hold on to it for the last 6-7 years. (Names have been omitted to protect the innocent…and my ass)

Dear ______,

I want to renegotiate the note with you and I want to come to some amicable terms.

Monday morning I plan to write a form letter regarding your failure to disclose certain payments to your underwriter and to ________ and fax it to all 50 state regulatory agencies plus the SEC (I have all their fax numbers programmed). That should keep your company busy and in front of the right people.

I have relatives in _____ and have asked them for a good law firm to represent me. ______ lied to me regarding your company, _______ lied, ____ lied and you are all going to jail. If I can help put you all in the same cell I will do my best.

I will go through your document word by word tonight on the train. I will rip you an asshole big enough for your entire computer system to fit through without feeling any pain.

I have been in the brokerage business my entire life (25 yrs) and I know how to make a NIGHTMARE out of your dream.

You like lawyer bills and writing to the 50 regulators, be my guest.

Tomorrow you will return my call and settle this matter one way or the other.

I dunno about you, but I’m still shocked the internet bubble ended up popping. With such honest and business savvy people at the helm, I just assumed all of our wildest dreams would come true…

I’ve got five free Gmail invites for anyone who wants one. The first five people to email me get them. Just don’t forget to check your bulk mail folder.

UPDATE : Sorry folks, I’m all out. If any of you have some Gmail invites to share, please donate some of them to Gmail4Troops.com (which I didn’t find out about until this morning).