Mouse party!

This is the most fun I've ever had learning about brain function.  That is all.

We're not that far apart

More so than other states, we have a strong "anti-war"* contingent leading the charge against Iraq.  It's a coalition of pacifists, veterans, those with loved ones in Iraq, plain ol' Democrats opposed to the direction in Iraq, and a host of others.  This coalition is so robust that much has been made of the rift in the Party and those who would exploit that rift, both inside and outside the Party.  This group has made great inroads and achieved successes, and has become a strong force in local politics.  Yet they continue to complain of being downtrodden, trivialized, overlooked and ignored.  What is this about?  Is this rift even real?

In some ways, it is.  Over the last few months, I and people like me have been called shills and sell-outs, told we don't have the necessary life experience to know what war is, have chosen Party loyalty over morality, have blood on our hands (that never gets old), or assured that if we had a loved one in Iraq our thinking would change.  Conversely, way too many progressives who don't agree with this coalition have used the name-calling and motive-assigning game, assuring these folks that they're just working to elect a Republican, they're too self-involved to see reality, or just plain stupid.  All of this is just blah blah blah...and it's the only actual rift that exists.

Because really, there is no rift.  There is unanimous agreement among Democrats (Joementum excepted) that we need to get out of Iraq.  I'll say it again for my friends who are currently doing a slow burn at my dismissive tone towards their beliefs.  There is unanimous agreement that we need to get out of Iraq.

I happen to not be part of this "anti-war"* coalition.  Not because I love war like a warm blanket, but because I disagree with the conclusions they've drawn.  And this is the rub - this is the only place where actual disagreement exists.  Not the question of "what", but the question of "how".  Ask any Democrat anywhere (not Joe) what we should do with regard to Iraq, they'll tell you, we've got to get out of there.  Ask the any Democrat anywhere how to achieve that aim, you'll get about a million different answers.  

Here are the things on which we all agree:

•  war is bad
•  killing innocent people is abhorrent
•  we should not have gone to Iraq
•  Iraq is not going well
•  without Iraq, many of the atrocities (Haditha, etc), would have been avoided
•  permanent bases in Iraq = bad
•  we need to get out

With the exception of number 4 in that list, these are issues about which you can get 95% agreement within the Democratic party (and that one's about 85% - Joe does have his fans).  We are united in opposition to the decision to have gone there in the first place.  We are united in our revulsion at the killing, torture, rape, and commensurate pain and suffering.  We are united that we don't belong there long-term.  And for those who have suggested as much, I don't need to have a loved one in Iraq to know how bad war, innocent deaths, and Iraq are.  

But the next questions are how long should we be there, under what circumstances do we leave, what will our withdrawal mean for Iraq, and how does the withdrawal happen.  And those, my friends, are much more difficult questions, IMO, than the "anti-war"* folks think they are.  It is not clear, at all, how long we should be there.  We did break Iraq, and while cutesy sayings like "you break it, you buy it" are bullshit, the breaking unleashed some things that Iraq itself is not currently equipped to handle.  We all agree the sooner we're out, the better, but that's as close as we're going to get.  It's virtually impossible to picture the circumstances under which we could get out.  Peace isn't going to happen, whether we stay or go.  The Iraqi forces are actually already shouldering more of the burden than most people think, but they're still much too weak and ideologically compromised to be truly effective.  Our withdrawal or lack of it means the same thing for Iraq:  explosive Shiite/Sunni violence.  That nonsense has already begun.  What is exceedingly unclear is whether our staying or our leaving would cause the violence to get significantly worse - and that's really the question we need to be able to answer.  How the withdrawal happens, I think, has been addressed by John Murtha - I think most "anti-war"* and warmongers like me all agree that phased rapid withdrawal will be the best method, when we do it.

Two questions are raised here:

•  can the Iraqis manage their own affairs
•  what's worse for Iraq (and America's security) - our staying, or our withdrawing

As for the first question, the answer currently seems to be "no".  When or if they'll soon be able to manage their own affairs is an open question for smarter folks than I, but it simply is inhuman to think that we should leave them incapacited governmentally or militarily.  And, a little tip:  No one else is going to come in there at this point.  The option of getting EU forces or other Middle East countries to come in and provide security is long gone.  That ship sailed about 8 Bush cowboy moments ago.  As for the second question, no one can predict if the situation will get worse or better if we get out.  The "insurgents", at least the ones from outside Iraq, will certainly either make Iraq a base for international terrorism or they'll move to other countries still friendly to them.  They'll never lack for work.  The Iraqis, though...what of the sectarian violence?  Will the Shiites join Al Qaeda or the Iranians (because if we pull out of Iraq, we're going to Iran.  Well, we're going into Iran either way), continuing to escalate the risk to America's security?  Or, lacking our big Stryker targets, will they turn even more violently on their Sunni neighbors, further destabilizing Iraq's government and security apparatus and giving Al Qaeda a sizable and resource-rich safe haven (continuing to escalate the risk to America's security)?  Or, will the outside insurgents go home with a job well done, and the Shiite and Sunni, glad to finally have the Americans out, heave a sigh of relief and get down to the work of building a multi-sectarian homeland for themselves?  Or any of the myriad (mostly very bad) shade in between all these choices.

If any of you can truly say you know, for damn, absolute sure, that things will be better for Iraqis and for us if we withdraw, please immediately remove yourself to northern Virginia and seek a job with the CIA, State Department, or DOD.  They could use your brand of genius/psychic ability.  

So this brings us to the real rift.  Not "what" we do, but "how" we do it.  It's a real debate, and it's the debate, most importantly, that we're all avoiding, because from this debate will come the plan that gets our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neices and nephews, aunts and uncles back home on safe American soil.  Debating the rightness or wrongness of war only sets us at odds with each other.  Discussing how, exactly, to craft a plan and implement it, and what the situation needs to look like before the plan is triggered, is the surest path to electoral and more importantly, moral success.  In other words, let's talk with each other about what to do instead of shouting at each other about why to do it.  

A note about Maria Cantwell before I go.  

Maria Cantwell, Washington state's Democratic demon-spawn, has in fact much to recommend her.  She's been an environmental champion and bruising advocate for women's rights.  She's beginning to get on the Patty Murray train for veteran's rights.  She single-handedly beat back the FERC and Enron to save Snohomish county over $100 million.  This is no corporate DLC shill - she's just not a liberal.  She views the world and free-markets differently than you or I do.  If that's reason to vote against her, fair enough.  She isn't a nice person, that is well known.  But to suggest that she's anything but less than honest is downright foolish.  She's never shied away from her own beliefs - on Iraq, she's been upfront with us:  she believed as far back as the '90's that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed.  Hence, she will never "apologize" or believe she was wrong to vote for the IWR, because she wasn't voting for Bush's trumped-up nonsense - she had her own reasons that still ring true to her.  She tends to believe in the free market and open trade agreements - she comes from corporate America.  While her beliefs bring her closer to the DLC than to us, it's idiotic, frankly, to suggest that this is because of some flood of corporate money.  Check the FEC reports - she doesn't take PAC money (kiss my ass, Josh Feit).  Argue about the disagreements, that's fair and I happily stand out of the way because I will never defend the reasoning behind Cantwell's beliefs.  But I will defend vigorously against the idea that her beliefs are not her own.  I have a strong sense of fairness, and I think it's more than fair to try to change her mind; that's democracy.  It isn't fair, given all the evidence we have about her thinking, to suggest that her mind is not her own.  

I will stand with you, my friends, and gladly support any efforts (which, without exception, have been admirable) to bring an end to this ugly action in the Middle East.  I know the overwhelming majority of those you think are against you share my support for your goals, if not always your methods.  but we have to stop this useless fighting over whether or not war is bad and who's a real Democrat and who isn't.  Let's stop talking about problems and start solving them, together.

*anti-war is in quotes here.  Why, Switzer, why?  Because aside from the pacifists, no one in this coalition is really anti-war, they're just anti-Iraq-war.  The media, right-wing radical nutcases and progressives who are tired of being yelled at overuse this tag, but for brevity, it works here (in quotes, o' course).  I could have used "peace and justice", but that's a meaningless semantic twist to avoid being labeled.  And it has lots of letters.

Love is fun, sex is heaven, we're the class of '87!

Oh, my.  My 20th high school reunion is looming right around the corner, and I'm beside myself.  I've offered my services with web development (you can see from this website I'm a smooooth operator).

Meanwhile, I have been casting the ol' memory back to the day, remembering the look and feel of 1987  and what it meant to be in high school (in my case: "Let me out of here!  I'm little and easily harmed by others!").  I get a flood of names and faces.

Kent Bejcek, all-around good guy (way cooler than my circle of friends, of course) now running an internet dev company.  The Humphries twins (hot hot hot!).  Trina Camiletti, superhottie who retained the unusual quality of also being exceedingly and sincerely nice.  Scottie Parker and Scott Woog - short and tall extremes in the jock class.  Band fags (moi!), stoners (not moi - I wasn't even cool enough for these guys), jocks, cowboys/girls, asshats...it all comes flooding back.

I googled everybody in the class, just for fun.  I'm glad to say that I lead the class in Google hits, with around 22,000 mostly repetitive and occasionally badly aimed hits, but I was surprised at how many of them have just disappeared.  The worst part, though?

I'm an adult.  A grown man, nearing 40, with my insecurities in the past.  I have a lovely wife and children, I'm respected by my peers - at least some of them, and have taught my children many lessons about not worrying what other people think.  Yet going down that list, more than once I saw a name and was immediately irritate, thinking "that guy's a jock - why do I want to google that dick?".  (I'm no sexist - I had a few "what a bitch; I hope she doesn't show up" moments, too) 

Seriously, wtf?  I see now why reunions can be so ridiculous.  The immediate return to high school biases, hurt feelings, love gone wrong, is very disorienting.  I suddenly found myself pining for friends who I cared for deeply, yet never talked to again after May 15, 1987.  Very weird.

So anyway, I've decided to make the 20th reunion an ongoing topic here.  I'm going to try and get in touch with folks and fill out their story here, and maybe all the weirdness can be handled before we ever meet back in Colorado.  Look for embarrassing photos and awkward conversations to come...

Stupid STP

Seriously, WTF??  So, Mrs. Switzer is riding the STP this weekend.  Now I have to schlep all over the freaking state, I have to leave work early to pick up packets and stuff, and the dog has to go in a kennel.  I have to stay in a hotel!!  All so Portland can get a little press by having 4 million bicycles on the streets on Sunday. 

Bastards.  I want my weekend back.

Worst. Song. Ever. -- LIVE

Hat tip to the Slog.

Playing at the Rebar, to my tremendous delight (although I’m quite likely to miss it)…

‘Trapped in the Closet’ (HIPHOPERA) The Brown Derby crew—infamous for their fast-and-loose staged readings of everything from Showgirls to The Exorcist—take on R. Kelly’s epic tangle of sex, cops, guns, sex, midgets, cheating, cherry pie, sex, and sex. They will perform all 12 released episodes of Trapped in the Closet, plus the as-yet-unreleased 13th episode. Featuring Ian Bell, Imogen Love, Rebecca Davis, Nick Garrison, Dusty Warren, Adé, Sarah Rudinoff, Cory Nealy, Kirk Anderson and Evan Mosher of “Awesome,” and others. (Re-bar, 1114 Howell St, 233-9873. 8 pm, $10, 21+.)

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?? THIS IS THE COOLEST THING EVER! I suppose I’ll have to settle for YouTube’s collection of Trapped-in-the-Closet-obilia, since I can’t go see the live version. *sigh*

Net Neutrality is your problem, too

The mark-up of the Net Neutrality amendment died 11-11. As with all legislation, it isn't really dead, but needs some resuscitation. According to this article (which gives a decent look at both sides of the argument, albeit simplistically), our side plans "to use procedural maneuvers that would force supporters of the bill to get 60 votes to pass it". They're not going to get 60 votes, so the telecom bill is probably dead for this session and we'll take up the fight again in January, hopefully with a Democratic House and (please Lord) Senate.

PCWorld has a debate between a good-guy weenie and a shill for the telcos who makes it sound as though all the small businesses that are creating innovation on the web today are just taking the poor telcos to the woodshed, so we should all start paying more today for pretend infrastructure development next week.

If we lose this debate, friends, the damage will be more far-reaching than you think.

Verizon is a company that is run by Republicans, gives huge quantities of money to Republicans, and whose interests are better served by the corporate whoremongers groveling at their feet Republicans. Do you honestly think Verizon would hesitate to close the pipes on JibJab in 2008 if given the chance? Comcast has already proven to be less than trustworthy. Given the chance to hit Daily Kos with enormous fees, do you think they'd hesitate?

We're not talking about telcos blocking what information you or I can access from the internet - we're talking about telcos having the ability to block information from leaving Daily Kos' servers in the first place. In other words, in the guise of "non-discrimination" and the "free market", the telcos are spending millions to convince Congressmen that the telcos themselves can determine what "freedom" appears in the "market". If they're able to do it to Kos, who makes quite a bit of money to deal with overhead, small but relatively influential blogs like ours or HorsesAss don't stand a chance of staying in the pipes.

Some great tidbits on how this campaign against freedom from censorship works come from Matt Stoller's coverage on 6/29:

Stevens, at one point in his rant, aimed some serious blows at the Internet companies. He said he felt that the 5 big Internet companies (all of whom wanted a "free ride" on the Internet) had cooked up this network neutrality amendment and were pushing it through the Congress. He said that in his opinion, more money had been spent by these 5 companies on this amendment than on any other amendment in history.

The irony of the moment was almost too much to bear. In the audience at the mark-up were around 200 people. I counted 8 from Internet companies. The total of telephone company lobbyists was more like 50 or 75. And of course, they are spending $15 million a week on advertising to push the bill and kill network neutrality. The Internet companies have bought almost no advertising, and they are outgunned by a factor of 10 to 1 in lobbying clout.

When Stevens was done, Dorgan just took him to the woodshed. Dorgan said, "You're such a passionate speaker, when you're finished, I'm not always sure whether you're carrying a strong hand or a weak hand. You've argued both sides of this case quite well." Everyone laughed. Dorgan then broke out the Hands off the Internet television commercial which claimed that telco-sponsored legislation prevented discrimination on the internet. Dorgan said, "Can you explain why it is that your supporters are lying on television? They say that nondiscrimination is in your bill. Can you show me where it's in your bill?" Dorgan hammered the point until Stevens wouldn't respond.

Full disclosure: I am involved, very loosely, in all this nonsense, in that my employer (whose opinions I don't represent here) is on the side fighting for Net neutrality and, hence, outgunned 10 to 1 in lobbying clout. I want you to think about how much influence the telcos are buying right now with their $15 million a week in advertising. It's simply unbelievable and mind-boggling.

In this diary, m3047 captures the classic misunderstanding of the issue:

I've been in the IT racket for a long time. The advocates for net neutrality were entirely unpersuasive in their public arguments, and I was left with the more rationalized than reasonable conclusion that this was about people who didn't want to pay for their Torrents bandwidth, or maybe pay extra for low latency+high bandwidth for their VoIP (which they haven't paid any number of telecomm taxes on): the "end to end cargo cult".

... so here's what I'm thinking:

I had no idea we were at the tipping point of returning to the point where you had to buy your "phone" from the "telcos".</blockquote>I'm hopeful that m will share with us the full response he got from Cantwell's office on the issue (perhaps in the comments here?), so we can all understand more fully what the hell's going on.

It ain't simple. No doubt, this is at its core about the telcos versus...well, everyone else except their Republican toadies and possibly Joementum. But the technical speak is difficult to negotiate. We believe telcos are trying to control the flow of information on the internet, they claim that we're all just freeloaders hitching onto their bandwidth. It's tough when both sides are crying foul based on issues of discrimination (and dontcha just love the poor ol' telcos crying about discrimination against them. Sound similar to any major religions that control all debate, most government offices and national holidays, yet cry about the war being waged against them and constant discrimination against poor little ol' them?).

We need some clarity here! In one of the best pieces I've seen on the issue, Tim Berners Lee has this to say (and I highly recommend his piece):

Net neutrality is this:

If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.

That's all. It's up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens. Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.

TBL is dead on, and his piece is required reading.

There are things we can do, right now, to make a bit of noise. Drop by and sign the petition at Save the Internet. Visit It's Our Net. Send a letter, fax, email or call Patty Murray to encourage her to be on the right side. Hell, send a note to Maria Cantwell to thank her for taking up the banner on the issue.

And because I always say we need to mix some humor in so we don't take ourselves too seriously, check out Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" interpretation of the internets as a Techno Remix. Bwahahahahaha! I hope someone gets this and starts playing it at all of Mike!'s campaign events. Let's find out if Mike! shares Ted's assessment of the internets (we already know he's opposed to Net neutrality).

Mr. A-List Blogger Keynote Speaker

This is beautiful!  I’ve always enjoyed the concept of the verbal blog when bloggers are asked to keynote.  I got to lead a caucus at Yearly Kos, and the schaudenfreude (sp??!!?) there was just plain weird.  I’m not a deep thinker (or blogger), so often my posts are marginally substantive, if at all.  To bring my “little-thought-if-at-all-went-into-this” style to a verbal setting seems, if not counterproductive, at least a little weird.  And yeah, I did exactly as the linked post suggests – I let the attendees fill the time.