The other day I was browsing AmericaSupportsYou.mil, the site mentioned by Bush in his recent Iraq-related address.  His description:

The Department of Defense has set up a website -- AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

Of course, I'm skeptical of most anything proposed by Bush.  But I figured it's my tax money paying for this website too, and I do honestly support the troops (just not the war), so I figured I'd check it out.

As I expected, "support the troops" is really just code for "Support the war" - here are a few messages being promulgated by our tax money (after the break):

So I've followed, but not really participated, in much of the recent sexism discussion here.  I want to sincerely thank those who have retold their personal experiences - you've done much to provide perspective and background to those of us who have not been through what you describe.  I also want to acknowledge the reality of these issues, and preemptively clarify that the purpose of my diary is neither to marginalize them nor otherwise dismiss them.  That said, I do believe that some of the arguments being shot back and forth are neither valid nor constructive, and would like to take a brief moment to disassemble them.  Follow me below the break...

A disappointing ruling, to say the least.

WASHINGTON Jun 6, 2005 -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

You are likely aware that the new Star Wars film opens today.  It's already been shown and reviewed in a few limited locations, such as the Cannes Film Festival (yes, the same one Michael Moore won last year).  And interestingly, a number of stories are circulating about the supposed political message and ramifications of the film.  At first my reaction was "give me a break", but after perusing the articles a bit I must admit there are some noteworthy correlations between the movie (or at least the lines cited in the articles) and the current political climate.

Before I continue, I should issue a full and complete spoilers warning.  If you are a real "Star Wars fanboy", you may not want to read this or the linked articles.  There are several movie lines and descriptions of movie scenes - nothing that I feel is unexpected (though that said, nothing about this movie is unexpected, we all know what's going to happen anyway), but if you're real big on the "purity" of it all then it might bother you nonetheless.  That aside, I'll go on to the actual discussion.  Follow me after the break...

This really scares me:

It can currently be seen in the lower right of the GOP homepage, and I find it to be terrifying, as to me it is a major step down the "flag-wrapping" road that Republicans have already embraced.  Granted, Democrats can be guilty of the same thing on occasion, but the use of nationalism (e.g. "patriotism", etc.) for political purposes is really something the Bush administration has made into central part of their partisan boondoggling.  More below the break...

I normally don't bandy these polls about, because I know enough about statistics and sampling to be skeptical about polls in general and online polls in particular.  Still, the poll currently on the front page of CNN (scroll down) is on minimum wage, with a quite encouraging 79% (out of over 86,000 votes) saying it should be raised.  I'm not sure why they're polling on this issue now, but I felt like pointing that out as it's really quite impressive.

To me, this substantial public support means we should push this issue.  Organize, write politicians, and make it apparent that we want change.  We'll put the ball in Bush's court, and force him to react.  Once he does, with a presumably very unpopular reaction, it might hurt other elements of his agenda as well.  Bush is weak on domestic issues, we should push on that.

First off, this diary isn't going to make much sense unless you follow this abomination.  Suffice it to say that I wanted to wipe the slate clean, but felt that deleting the old diary was wrong.  So, if you're not interested in meta-issues and you're off-put by my general rambling, pondersome style, then you should likely be on your way.  However, if you want to hear my responses to how a simple meta-topic triggered an explosion even larger than many genuinely controversial issues have around here, then read on.

...aka yet another meta diary.

You know, whenever I see one of those "Yeah!" or "Agreed" or "Right on!" or "Well said" comments, the ones that are either -nt- or one liners, I'm extremely tempted to rate them 2.  Not out of spite, as I often find myself in agreement as well, but because they really are just marginal comments.  They add nothing new to the discussion, they're inherently redundant and just state the obvious.  As much as I am for expressing common support here (our own unity and strength as a community is important to our success, and I realize this), it seems that just rating a comment you like a "4" is much better than adding a useless reply.  Such replies just slow everything down, clog up the database, cost Kos bandwidth/server space, slow down the site for everyone, and perhaps most importantly, adding more noise to the site that makes it more difficult to divine the signal.

A heartening story.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Syrian-backed government resigned on Monday in a surprise decision greeted with jubilation by thousands of protesters in central Beirut gathering to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Prime Minister Omar Karami's government came under unprecedented pressure after the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Protesters turned their sights on the president and demanded he also step down.

"The people have won," main opposition leader Walid Jumblatt told LBC television after Karami announced the resignation of the cabinet to a parliament session debating Hariri's killing.

Crossposted on my blog, but worth discussion here I think. You know, I don't understand "empowerment" - maybe it's just my gender, but I really don't get it.  If any of the female (or male) readers out there would like to give a shot at explaining it, I would be greatly appreciative, as I think it might go a long way to resolving some of the issues I'm about to engage.

For whatever synchronistic reasons, I've run across a fair number of feminism issues as of late.  Part of it has to do with V-Day, whose message I support but whose tactics, on my campus at least, seem asinine.  Namely, they hung up a bunch of shirts in our commons - they still haven't taken them down, either.  They're just a bunch of old shirts with, I suppose, "empowering" messages painted on them.  Messages that I agree with, mind you, but messages that I still think are stupid to paint on a t-shirt and hang in a university commons for a week.

Crossposted, but I believe worthy of some discussion here.

"Gannongate" is iconic of the effects of favoritism on the White House Press Corps and the media in general. White House access is notoriously difficult to get and as such is treasured by the media community. As a result, journalists will compromise their principles (or sometimes, as with Gannon, their principles are likely already compromised) in order to gain and keep this access. So while anybody with actual journalistic integrity and the cohones to ask hard questions will have their access denied on any technicality the White House can cook up, those who ask softball questions like Gannon (who also ironically mused that Kerry would be the first gay president due to his approval by the gay community - an assertion so false and hypocritical that I'll just let it speak for itself) can get away with all sorts of questionable behavior (false name, false credentials, working for an organization that isn't really a media source, and amusingly though arguably irrelevantly is a purveyor of gay military-themed pornography) and still get admitted to the White House.

Welcome to what may be the start of an ongoing series (depending how it's received and such), "Refuting Rush", where I pick up and poke some generous holes through some current Limbaugh rhetoric.  Why bother, you ask?  Because even if he is, in many ways, not worth responding to, he does have a large influence and as such is worth paying attention to.  He is a good barometer of the current extreme-doublethink-rightist tendencies, and as such picking up on his "arguments" and showing some of the many inconsistencies is both a productive and entertaining exercise.  So without further adieu:

Rush Limbaugh recently argued against hybrid cars, reasoning that lower gas sales hurt state taxes to support highways.  And as for why that's just silly, keep with me after the break...

Alright, in an attempt to confront what I at least feel is the important issue of fixing/improving the diary system, but to do so in a punchy "bite-size" way that might, just might, get some attention, I'm going to write what might be the first meta-meta diary.  That is, a diary about diaries about diaries.  Keep with me on this one, after the break...

Scoop-powered Daily Kos is a beautiful thing: it truly is.  The sheer amount of information and ideas communicated here is staggering.  And more importantly, everybody has a voice.  Unlike some rightist blogs that are really just one-person soap boxes (such as Instapundit), Daily Kos has a vibrant and interactive community.  Besides the multiple front-page editors, everybody can comment, rate, and post their own diaries like I am doing now.

But with increased volume comes a number of problems.  These problems (diary speed causing near-randomness in which diaries are fortunate enough to get recommended, redundant diaries being deleted, and so forth) are well recognized by most Kossacks, but still merit further discussion.  So, here we go (in the extended entry, that is).

A week ago I wrote a diary about the Socratic method and politics, in order to provide an alternative to the more direct methods of political intercourse often discussed here.  It garnered decent discussion, but failed to really "catch fire", likely because I wrote it in a largely ponderous and impractical style, like this very introduction.  So, without further ado I will provide a few concrete examples of the Socratic method and politics (if you want background on what the Socratic method actually is, read my first diary that I linked to).

Somebody tells you: "I support Bush because he's strong on terror/defense and Democrats are weak."

Socratic response: "What exactly does it take to be 'strong on terror'?"

Explanation: This is obviously a major issue, as "terror" is seen as Bush's strongest point.  Don't confront it too directly and partisanly or you'll turn them off, but rather attempt to lead them into thinking about what it actually takes to defend this country.  Hopefully they'll realize that Bush is nothing but rhetoric, and it takes more than strong words to truly be strong.

(Continued after the fold)

This site is often about strategizing and planning what course of action would be most effective in order to promote progressive political ideals.  The recent "non-compliance" diary by rcvanoz is making quite a stir along those lines.  Yet while I endorse and admire such direct action (in some situations, at least), I happen to work a bit differently.  So, I figured it was worth sharing my own peculiar method when it comes to engaging and promoting political ideas.  Maybe it'll help a few of you out there who aren't as "Promethean" as rcvanoz, but who are rather more Socratic.  More below the fold...

So there've been a lot of threads about "the South" recently, varying from complaining to insulting to the more pleasant instructions on how to "win it".  And, as a "northerner" (really I'm from Oregon which is a different matter entirely, but it's close enough I suppose), I understand and agree with a lot of the points people are making about how it's not that there's anything "wrong" with the South, we just need to get a candidate who can appeal to them.  That doesn't mean compromising stances, it just means finding charisma (a la Clinton).

That said, a voice in me still speaks up and complains.  More below the fold...

This diary is intended as an open question, directed to anyone who agrees that reform is needed in the current Democratic party.  Kos and others here have repeatedly and strongly made the case for reform, championing a Dean DNC and generally saying that "we tried it their (Clinton/Kerry/etc.) way and it didn't work, so now we're changing it."  I largely agree with this sentiment, and feel that reform is needed if we're ever to really succeed.

But then it hit me: isn't this the same battle as Dean's presidential candidacy?  And if it fails again, what then?  Do we pick up the pieces and move on to support the status quo regardless?