Don't you just love the George W. Bush manner? When he speaks to America about something really, really important, he puts on his intimate voice and teaches us what he is the last to know.
Today, for example, he passed along what he learned from his scriptwriters about energy.
In his speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, Bush let us in on a truth, "To reduce gas prices, our oil companies have got a role to play."
Gee, no kidding. Maybe you can tell us the role that the oil companies played in helping formulate our energy policy, or do those records remain secret George?
But wait, there's more:
"Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures or the use of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research into deep water drilling."
Congress needs to understand? What, Dubya already knows this? Than why has this Texan been so kind to his oil brethen lo these many years. When has he ever held them accountable for anything? Why does he still refuse to enact a windfall profits tax to make a dent in the money these conglomerates have been pumping out of our wallets?
Better still, who knew he could pronounce geophysical?
I could go on and on about his blather about promoting fuel efficiency or how it's really important to disrupt the air quality to lower prices. Or how ethanol is God's little side effect of growing corn.
But what speaks volumes is what this man does not do. He refuses to enact meaningful policies that will force these companies that are financially raping us to return any of that money back into the system. Bush has neglected to seek out any realistic alternative energy policy but informs us we are "addicted to oil." So what does that make Bush, the world's most arrogant pusher?
To entirely obfuscate matters, Bush has agreed to stop depositing into the strategic petroleum reserve. Wow, that will free up about a third of 1% of a days supply. Imagine the savings. Then, of course, to get around the alleged disruption caused by those annoying "boutique fuels," you know, the ones that force our air to be cleaner, he'll just deregulate some more.
What I am wondering though is what happened to those promises that accompanied the invasion into Iraq? The promises that referred to how Iraq's much-coveted oil supplies would foot the bill for the excursion. Hell, it's not even putting a down payment on the mother of all embassies we are building there.
All we have to show for the power grab at oil is a deficit in the trillions, a war which has eaten up all our financial and military resources with no end in sight, less oil and much higher prices.
But Bush, Cheney and their friends are far richer than they were 6 years ago and I suppose, that's all that really matters anyway.
I guess we have all learned a valuable lesson about Globalization and Energy, Bush-style.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
The Billion Dollar Embassy
Any illusion about our true intentions in Iraq are being erased by the mother of all embassies being erected.
According to a report in the administration-friendly Washington Times, the new embassy compound dwarfs other such embassies around the world and will be quite pricey. The Times reports, "Original cost estimates were more than $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwaiti builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion -- the embassy offices.
One would assume that future money will be funneled into this center, which is described as follows, "The embassy complex -- 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report -- is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified Green Zone just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial."
Additionally, it's got, "its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, 'systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities,' said the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.
"Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building."
As for safety, consider this, the complex is,"within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days."
So, still think we're not gearing up to establish a permanent presence and base in that country?
Let's put it in perspective. This is how the article begins, "The fortresslike compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the world's largest of its kind, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future."
Just the sort of message we want to send to the Iraqis....we're not going away. And, if your infrastructure seems to be chaotic, ours will be independent and function without a hitch.
Yeah, that should encourage Iraqis to get their act together.
According to a report in the administration-friendly Washington Times, the new embassy compound dwarfs other such embassies around the world and will be quite pricey. The Times reports, "Original cost estimates were more than $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwaiti builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion -- the embassy offices.
One would assume that future money will be funneled into this center, which is described as follows, "The embassy complex -- 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report -- is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified Green Zone just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial."
Additionally, it's got, "its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, 'systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities,' said the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.
"Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building."
As for safety, consider this, the complex is,"within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days."
So, still think we're not gearing up to establish a permanent presence and base in that country?
Let's put it in perspective. This is how the article begins, "The fortresslike compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the world's largest of its kind, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future."
Just the sort of message we want to send to the Iraqis....we're not going away. And, if your infrastructure seems to be chaotic, ours will be independent and function without a hitch.
Yeah, that should encourage Iraqis to get their act together.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Don't Run John, Don't Run
Senator John Kerry is considering a repeat of his campaign for president. For the good of the party and this nation John, please don't run.
George Dubya Bush was ripe for defeat in the '04 election. His defeat by you in the debates should have meant a slam dunk at the polls.
My belief in GOP dirty tricks at the polls notwithstanding, Sen. Kerry, you were an abyssmal campaigner.
When you were sucker-punched by the swift boaters, your appalling initial reaction was to merely ignore it. Then when you fought back, it was to defensively parry.
How can a decorated war hero lose the issue of managing national security to a man who never really served? Additionally, because of the cleverly Rovian baiting of Dan Rather, the press never again attempted to bring up the fact that nobody seems to be able to remember serving alongside Bush Jr. One would think that you, Sen. Kerry, would respond by going on the offensive. What, did you think Dubya wasn't behind the 'anti-patriot' attacks?
I am so tired of the apologist and elitist politics of the Democratic party. We campaign as if we feel inferior for being left-of-center. Liberalism is honorable. There is no shame in true moral values; compassion for the poor, inclusion of minorities, taking care of those who cannot care fend for themselves, seeking peaceful, diplomatic resolutions of global conflicts.
We need to be pro-active and tough. Senator Kerry pro-active? I don't think so.
Worst of all was Kerry's refusal to pursue the many serious complaints of GOP Election Day shenanigans. These are no hollow complaints. There are scores of documentation to be found. "Fooled Again" by Mark Crispin Miller is essential reading. He lists numerous illustrations of misconduct and reveals some dangerous practices that threaten our entire system of free elections. As Mr. Miller writes, if we don't speak out they will steal the next election as well.
What have you done, Senator Kerry, in the wake of these charges? Anything?
Sorry sir, you have forfeited your right to represent me.
Kerry is the epitome of the re-active candidate, who only operates from the defensive. Karl Rove and crew would once again eat him alive. We need a candidate who is willing to take the challenge to the president and the GOP.
Somebody with real courage like, say, Senator Russell Feingold.
George Dubya Bush was ripe for defeat in the '04 election. His defeat by you in the debates should have meant a slam dunk at the polls.
My belief in GOP dirty tricks at the polls notwithstanding, Sen. Kerry, you were an abyssmal campaigner.
When you were sucker-punched by the swift boaters, your appalling initial reaction was to merely ignore it. Then when you fought back, it was to defensively parry.
How can a decorated war hero lose the issue of managing national security to a man who never really served? Additionally, because of the cleverly Rovian baiting of Dan Rather, the press never again attempted to bring up the fact that nobody seems to be able to remember serving alongside Bush Jr. One would think that you, Sen. Kerry, would respond by going on the offensive. What, did you think Dubya wasn't behind the 'anti-patriot' attacks?
I am so tired of the apologist and elitist politics of the Democratic party. We campaign as if we feel inferior for being left-of-center. Liberalism is honorable. There is no shame in true moral values; compassion for the poor, inclusion of minorities, taking care of those who cannot care fend for themselves, seeking peaceful, diplomatic resolutions of global conflicts.
We need to be pro-active and tough. Senator Kerry pro-active? I don't think so.
Worst of all was Kerry's refusal to pursue the many serious complaints of GOP Election Day shenanigans. These are no hollow complaints. There are scores of documentation to be found. "Fooled Again" by Mark Crispin Miller is essential reading. He lists numerous illustrations of misconduct and reveals some dangerous practices that threaten our entire system of free elections. As Mr. Miller writes, if we don't speak out they will steal the next election as well.
What have you done, Senator Kerry, in the wake of these charges? Anything?
Sorry sir, you have forfeited your right to represent me.
Kerry is the epitome of the re-active candidate, who only operates from the defensive. Karl Rove and crew would once again eat him alive. We need a candidate who is willing to take the challenge to the president and the GOP.
Somebody with real courage like, say, Senator Russell Feingold.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
So Much For Washington Post Credibility
I suppose I should have seen this coming, but today's editorial confirmed to me that the Washington Post no longer has credibility as an impartial newspaper.
Today's mind-boggling peek through the looking glass of the Washington Post editorial board reveals that it is, indeed, a mouthpiece for Bush administration talking points.
Here is what today's editorial had to say about a "good leak" by President Bush:
"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling."
So, the fact that only selective elements from that intelligence document were leaked to a reporter, thus misrepresenting the entire report to make political points, is allegedly correct foreign policy. Not only that, but those who do not see it that way are engaging in "hyperbolic charges."
But WaPo doesn't stop there. Ambassador Joseph Wilson is now Darth Vader:
"The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.' The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."
Ambassador Wilson was "the one guilty of twisting the truth?" Oh, I guess that Iraq really was purchasing uranium? How could I have missed that one?
Considering the reports we have out of Great Britain that the administration seemed bent on fixing intelligence to support their march to war, it is not hard to connect the dots and see Judith Miller being played in the same manner here. After all, weren't her initial WMD reports based upon selective intelligence being fed to her as well?
The Washington Post seems to have no problem with the contradictions between a president who says that leaks for political reasons are bad, with his own decision to selectively release portions of classified intelligence that, standing alone, would tend to support his own political stance. If that wasn't the case, why not release the entire report at that time, so Ms. Miller could have seen ALL the doubts that were being raised over the uranium claim.
We have a president that says "we don't leak," "we don't wiretap without a warrant," and, the biggest whopper of them all, "no president wants war."
It's nice to know that the Bush team has such good friends at the Washington Post.
It explains a lot....like the Ben Domenech fiasco, for instance. Interestingly, even in that case, the Post couldn't admit that they were wrong in bringing in an extremist right-wing blogger for alleged 'balance.' No, it was the fact that he was a plagiarizing extremist.
This is the looking glass, after all.
UPDATE: In Monday's Huffington Post (4/10/06), Jane Hamsher does a meticulous dissection of the WaPo editorial. It is a terrific read and can be found here.
Today's mind-boggling peek through the looking glass of the Washington Post editorial board reveals that it is, indeed, a mouthpiece for Bush administration talking points.
Here is what today's editorial had to say about a "good leak" by President Bush:
"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling."
So, the fact that only selective elements from that intelligence document were leaked to a reporter, thus misrepresenting the entire report to make political points, is allegedly correct foreign policy. Not only that, but those who do not see it that way are engaging in "hyperbolic charges."
But WaPo doesn't stop there. Ambassador Joseph Wilson is now Darth Vader:
"The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.' The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."
Ambassador Wilson was "the one guilty of twisting the truth?" Oh, I guess that Iraq really was purchasing uranium? How could I have missed that one?
Considering the reports we have out of Great Britain that the administration seemed bent on fixing intelligence to support their march to war, it is not hard to connect the dots and see Judith Miller being played in the same manner here. After all, weren't her initial WMD reports based upon selective intelligence being fed to her as well?
The Washington Post seems to have no problem with the contradictions between a president who says that leaks for political reasons are bad, with his own decision to selectively release portions of classified intelligence that, standing alone, would tend to support his own political stance. If that wasn't the case, why not release the entire report at that time, so Ms. Miller could have seen ALL the doubts that were being raised over the uranium claim.
We have a president that says "we don't leak," "we don't wiretap without a warrant," and, the biggest whopper of them all, "no president wants war."
It's nice to know that the Bush team has such good friends at the Washington Post.
It explains a lot....like the Ben Domenech fiasco, for instance. Interestingly, even in that case, the Post couldn't admit that they were wrong in bringing in an extremist right-wing blogger for alleged 'balance.' No, it was the fact that he was a plagiarizing extremist.
This is the looking glass, after all.
UPDATE: In Monday's Huffington Post (4/10/06), Jane Hamsher does a meticulous dissection of the WaPo editorial. It is a terrific read and can be found here.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Howard Kurtz Owes Jill Carroll An Apology
Eric J. Weiner made 2 entries in the Huffington Post today, here and here.
The gripe was with columnist for The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, seeming to take a position regarding statements that Jill Carroll made after her release, while she was still on Iraqi soil. Without knowing the details, many on the right, and blowhards such as Don Imus, attacked Carroll's patriotism. The problem was, and is, that Kurtz has yet to issue an apology for his comments.
This is what Kurtz wrote in his Friday "Media Notes" column in WaPo, in a piece titled, "Questions About Carroll's Captivity" (emphasis is mine):
"This is a courageous young woman.
"I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.
"Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?
"Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.
"As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon."
Forget couching the comments to hedge his bets. Those allegations should not have been made until Carroll was on American soil and given a chance to explain her actions.
Today, Kurtz did not apologize in either his daily column, or 1-hour online chat.
Kurtz knows the power of the written word, he needs to take responsibility.
The gripe was with columnist for The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, seeming to take a position regarding statements that Jill Carroll made after her release, while she was still on Iraqi soil. Without knowing the details, many on the right, and blowhards such as Don Imus, attacked Carroll's patriotism. The problem was, and is, that Kurtz has yet to issue an apology for his comments.
This is what Kurtz wrote in his Friday "Media Notes" column in WaPo, in a piece titled, "Questions About Carroll's Captivity" (emphasis is mine):
"This is a courageous young woman.
"I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.
"Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?
"Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.
"As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon."
Forget couching the comments to hedge his bets. Those allegations should not have been made until Carroll was on American soil and given a chance to explain her actions.
Today, Kurtz did not apologize in either his daily column, or 1-hour online chat.
Kurtz knows the power of the written word, he needs to take responsibility.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Separated at Birth: Sessions & Beverly
Not only do these 2 sound alike, they look alike. I am referring to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and character actor Leslie Jordan, who plays the diminutive, and closeted, Beverly Leslie on "Will & Grace."
I know that I have never seen these 2 in the same room together. Have you?
Attributions:
Jordan photo from http://www.hollywoodfyi.com/lesliejordan.html
Sessions photo from http://www.bamagop.org/images/elected_officials/jeff_sessions.jpg
GOP As 'God's Own Party'
I think the entanglement of religious fundamentalism with the governing of America has ascended to levels where the propogators of such policy can no longer hide it.
Starting with confining their fights to topics such as abortion rights and gay marriage, the religious right has been emboldened enough to expand their agenda.
The current climate allows the questioning of evolution, the dismissal of global warming concerns, a holy war against stem cell research, and so on. These folks even seek to use the government to force brain-dead people to remain on life support.
So, it was interesting to read a column in today's Washington Post by Kevin Phillips. The story, "How the GOP Became God's Own Party," was written by a man who predicted the upcoming attempt at the theocratic hijacking of American politics.
Mr. Phillips, a former member of the Nixon Administration, had once published a seminal work on the changing political landscape that was referred to as the "political bible of the Nixon Era." So I suppose Phillips, as much as anybody, can assess the transformation that so few in the mainstream media are willing to admit is occurring.
Among many interesting assessments, Phillips writes, "No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system."
But his most most compelling assertion is how the current GOP has merged this fundamentalism into what is essentially, a 3-headed monster:
"In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.
"The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.
"President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.
"Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860."
While many progressives are keenly aware of the dangers presented by the religious right, it is comforting to hear it spelled out so keenly by a man who has more credibility on the subject than most.
Starting with confining their fights to topics such as abortion rights and gay marriage, the religious right has been emboldened enough to expand their agenda.
The current climate allows the questioning of evolution, the dismissal of global warming concerns, a holy war against stem cell research, and so on. These folks even seek to use the government to force brain-dead people to remain on life support.
So, it was interesting to read a column in today's Washington Post by Kevin Phillips. The story, "How the GOP Became God's Own Party," was written by a man who predicted the upcoming attempt at the theocratic hijacking of American politics.
Mr. Phillips, a former member of the Nixon Administration, had once published a seminal work on the changing political landscape that was referred to as the "political bible of the Nixon Era." So I suppose Phillips, as much as anybody, can assess the transformation that so few in the mainstream media are willing to admit is occurring.
Among many interesting assessments, Phillips writes, "No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system."
But his most most compelling assertion is how the current GOP has merged this fundamentalism into what is essentially, a 3-headed monster:
"In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.
"The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.
"President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.
"Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860."
While many progressives are keenly aware of the dangers presented by the religious right, it is comforting to hear it spelled out so keenly by a man who has more credibility on the subject than most.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Bush Thought Police Alive & Well In Georgia
Every day we are treated to new and scary ways that the powers-that-be try and make the America our founders died for unrecognizable.
According to the following AP story, a Georgia woman faces a fine for an allegedly lewd bumper sticker:
"Denise Grier, 47, of Athens was recently pulled over in suburban Atlanta's DeKalb County where she works as a nurse when a police officer spotted her bumper sticker that reads: 'I'm Tired Of All The BUSHIT.'
"The officer who stopped her thought it was lewd, and she was cited for violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles."
There is no such word as 'bushit,' so how would this ever even pass the most minimal of court tests for alleged lewdness? Still, the ACLU is stepping in on the woman's behalf.
Apparently, the 4th Amendment isn't enough, Bushies want to take away our 1st Amendment rights as well.
According to the following AP story, a Georgia woman faces a fine for an allegedly lewd bumper sticker:
"Denise Grier, 47, of Athens was recently pulled over in suburban Atlanta's DeKalb County where she works as a nurse when a police officer spotted her bumper sticker that reads: 'I'm Tired Of All The BUSHIT.'
"The officer who stopped her thought it was lewd, and she was cited for violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles."
There is no such word as 'bushit,' so how would this ever even pass the most minimal of court tests for alleged lewdness? Still, the ACLU is stepping in on the woman's behalf.
Apparently, the 4th Amendment isn't enough, Bushies want to take away our 1st Amendment rights as well.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
AFA Attacks Fox
The AFA is apparently shameless. In the pursuit of money, they will even attack their bedmates.
Knowing full well that emotions might be running high after the recent death of a NASCAR driver (both the driver's death and the 'offending' conversation took place on Sunday....not sure of the exact timeline), the AFA is mounting an FCC attack on Fox over allowing the word "shit" to be aired. The word was uttered by a driver who had just been in a car crash.
In the same e-mail, AFA seeks donations to keep up this "worthy" effort.
Anybody who contributes to these insensitive louts needs to have their head examined. Here is the full text of the letter (sans the linkage). I have removed the e-mail address where I get their alerts for obvious reasons.
Here is the ridiculous AFA alert:
March 27, 2006
Fox allows 's' word. Take a stand for our children!
Dear xxxx (deleted),
Tired of all the profanity on TV? Want to do something about it? Here is your opportunity.
File a complaint with the FCC against Fox Network for using the "s" word.
This past Sunday afternoon, Fox network broadcast the NASCAR "Food City 500" race. During the course of the race, driver Martin Truex, Jr. crashed his car after being bumped by another driver.
Fox network aired a conversation between Truex and his crew chief, Kevin Manion. During the course of the conversation, Manion told his driver, "We missed the set-up today. It (the car) was a piece of s**t.
Fox had been warned about allowing the "s" word on the air. The network could have used a delay and bleeped the profanity. But they chose not to. The network chose to air the segment live. Millions of viewers, including children, were offended by the crude profanity.
Also, please forward this to your family and friends. Together, we can make a difference!
Take Action
Here is your opportunity to make the networks more sensitive to your concern. The FCC is willing to fine the stations, but viewers must complain! Please file a complaint with the FCC against Fox stations for the broadcast of indecent language.
Click Here to File Your Formal Complaint to the FCC Now!
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
Knowing full well that emotions might be running high after the recent death of a NASCAR driver (both the driver's death and the 'offending' conversation took place on Sunday....not sure of the exact timeline), the AFA is mounting an FCC attack on Fox over allowing the word "shit" to be aired. The word was uttered by a driver who had just been in a car crash.
In the same e-mail, AFA seeks donations to keep up this "worthy" effort.
Anybody who contributes to these insensitive louts needs to have their head examined. Here is the full text of the letter (sans the linkage). I have removed the e-mail address where I get their alerts for obvious reasons.
Here is the ridiculous AFA alert:
March 27, 2006
Fox allows 's' word. Take a stand for our children!
Dear xxxx (deleted),
Tired of all the profanity on TV? Want to do something about it? Here is your opportunity.
File a complaint with the FCC against Fox Network for using the "s" word.
This past Sunday afternoon, Fox network broadcast the NASCAR "Food City 500" race. During the course of the race, driver Martin Truex, Jr. crashed his car after being bumped by another driver.
Fox network aired a conversation between Truex and his crew chief, Kevin Manion. During the course of the conversation, Manion told his driver, "We missed the set-up today. It (the car) was a piece of s**t.
Fox had been warned about allowing the "s" word on the air. The network could have used a delay and bleeped the profanity. But they chose not to. The network chose to air the segment live. Millions of viewers, including children, were offended by the crude profanity.
Also, please forward this to your family and friends. Together, we can make a difference!
Take Action
Here is your opportunity to make the networks more sensitive to your concern. The FCC is willing to fine the stations, but viewers must complain! Please file a complaint with the FCC against Fox stations for the broadcast of indecent language.
Click Here to File Your Formal Complaint to the FCC Now!
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
Sunday, March 26, 2006
What A Representative Iraqi Blog Is Saying
Rather than add anything, read this recent post from the blog "Baghdad Burning," as is.
It is eerily reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda. Neighbor turning on neighbor, all because of the Islamic sect they belong to.
This is why we should always make it a habit to read the blogs coming out of Iraq. Compare the current entries with the entries from the same blog that were written at the start of our involvement there. See how those entries evolved over the past 3 years. In many cases you will see how attitudes towards us have undergone a profound change. Unfortunately, not for the better.
Baghdad Burning
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Three Years...
It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence. Three years of occupation and bloodshed.
Spring should be about renewal and rebirth. For Iraqis, spring has been about reliving painful memories and preparing for future disasters. In many ways, this year is like 2003 prior to the war when we were stocking up on fuel, water, food and first aid supplies and medications. We're doing it again this year but now we don't discuss what we're stocking up for. Bombs and B-52's are so much easier to face than other possibilities.
I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired.
Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.
School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up- more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday. I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year more than they’ve been in school.
I’m especially worried about the Arba3eeniya this year. I’m worried we’ll see more of what happened to the Askari mosque in Samarra. Most Iraqis seem to agree that the whole thing was set up by those who had most to gain by driving Iraqis apart.
I’m sitting here trying to think what makes this year, 2006, so much worse than 2005 or 2004. It’s not the outward differences- things such as electricity, water, dilapidated buildings, broken streets and ugly concrete security walls. Those things are disturbing, but they are fixable. Iraqis have proved again and again that countries can be rebuilt. No- it’s not the obvious that fills us with foreboding.
The real fear is the mentality of so many people lately- the rift that seems to have worked it’s way through the very heart of the country, dividing people. It’s disheartening to talk to acquaintances- sophisticated, civilized people- and hear how Sunnis are like this, and Shia are like that… To watch people pick up their things to move to “Sunni neighborhoods” or “Shia neighborhoods”. How did this happen?
I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.
I remember as a child, during a visit, I was playing outside with one of the neighbors children. Amal was exactly my age- we were even born in the same month, only three days apart. We were laughing at a silly joke and suddenly she turned and asked coyly, “Are you Sanafir or Shanakil?” I stood there, puzzled. ‘Sanafir’ is the Arabic word for “Smurfs” and ‘Shanakil” is the Arabic word for “Snorks”. I didn’t understand why she was asking me if I was a Smurf or a Snork. Apparently, it was an indirect way to ask whether I was Sunni (Sanafir) or Shia (Shanakil).
“What???” I asked, half smiling. She laughed and asked me whether I prayed with my hands to my sides or folded against my stomach. I shrugged, not very interested and a little bit ashamed to admit that I still didn’t really know how to pray properly, at the tender age of 10.
Later that evening, I sat at my aunt’s house and remember to ask my mother whether we were Smurfs or Snorks. She gave me the same blank look I had given Amal. “Mama- do we pray like THIS or like THIS?!” I got up and did both prayer positions. My mother’s eyes cleared and she shook her head and rolled her eyes at my aunt, “Why are you asking? Who wants to know?” I explained how Amal, our Shanakil neighbor, had asked me earlier that day. “Well tell Amal we’re not Shanakil and we’re not Sanafir- we’re Muslims- there’s no difference.”
It was years later before I learned that half the family were Sanafir, and the other half were Shanakil, but nobody cared. We didn’t sit around during family reunions or family dinners and argue Sunni Islam or Shia Islam. The family didn’t care about how this cousin prayed with his hands at his side and that one prayed with her hands folded across her stomach. Many Iraqis of my generation have that attitude. We were brought up to believe that people who discriminated in any way- positively or negatively- based on sect or ethnicity were backward, uneducated and uncivilized.
The thing most worrisome about the situation now, is that discrimination based on sect has become so commonplace. For the average educated Iraqi in Baghdad, there is still scorn for all the Sunni/Shia talk. Sadly though, people are being pushed into claiming to be this or that because political parties are promoting it with every speech and every newspaper- the whole ‘us’ / ‘them’. We read constantly about how ‘We Sunnis should unite with our Shia brothers…’ or how ‘We Shia should forgive our Sunni brothers…’ (note how us Sunni and Shia sisters don’t really fit into either equation at this point). Politicians and religious figures seem to forget at the end of the day that we’re all simply Iraqis.
And what role are the occupiers playing in all of this? It’s very convenient for them, I believe. It’s all very good if Iraqis are abducting and killing each other- then they can be the neutral foreign party trying to promote peace and understanding between people who, up until the occupation, were very peaceful and understanding.
Three years after the war, and we’ve managed to move backwards in a visible way, and in a not so visible way.
In the last weeks alone, thousands have died in senseless violence and the American and Iraqi army bomb Samarra as I write this. The sad thing isn’t the air raid, which is one of hundreds of air raids we’ve seen in three years- it’s the resignation in the people. They sit in their homes in Samarra because there’s no where to go. Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.
Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year).
It is eerily reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda. Neighbor turning on neighbor, all because of the Islamic sect they belong to.
This is why we should always make it a habit to read the blogs coming out of Iraq. Compare the current entries with the entries from the same blog that were written at the start of our involvement there. See how those entries evolved over the past 3 years. In many cases you will see how attitudes towards us have undergone a profound change. Unfortunately, not for the better.
Baghdad Burning
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Three Years...
It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence. Three years of occupation and bloodshed.
Spring should be about renewal and rebirth. For Iraqis, spring has been about reliving painful memories and preparing for future disasters. In many ways, this year is like 2003 prior to the war when we were stocking up on fuel, water, food and first aid supplies and medications. We're doing it again this year but now we don't discuss what we're stocking up for. Bombs and B-52's are so much easier to face than other possibilities.
I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired.
Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.
School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up- more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday. I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year more than they’ve been in school.
I’m especially worried about the Arba3eeniya this year. I’m worried we’ll see more of what happened to the Askari mosque in Samarra. Most Iraqis seem to agree that the whole thing was set up by those who had most to gain by driving Iraqis apart.
I’m sitting here trying to think what makes this year, 2006, so much worse than 2005 or 2004. It’s not the outward differences- things such as electricity, water, dilapidated buildings, broken streets and ugly concrete security walls. Those things are disturbing, but they are fixable. Iraqis have proved again and again that countries can be rebuilt. No- it’s not the obvious that fills us with foreboding.
The real fear is the mentality of so many people lately- the rift that seems to have worked it’s way through the very heart of the country, dividing people. It’s disheartening to talk to acquaintances- sophisticated, civilized people- and hear how Sunnis are like this, and Shia are like that… To watch people pick up their things to move to “Sunni neighborhoods” or “Shia neighborhoods”. How did this happen?
I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.
I remember as a child, during a visit, I was playing outside with one of the neighbors children. Amal was exactly my age- we were even born in the same month, only three days apart. We were laughing at a silly joke and suddenly she turned and asked coyly, “Are you Sanafir or Shanakil?” I stood there, puzzled. ‘Sanafir’ is the Arabic word for “Smurfs” and ‘Shanakil” is the Arabic word for “Snorks”. I didn’t understand why she was asking me if I was a Smurf or a Snork. Apparently, it was an indirect way to ask whether I was Sunni (Sanafir) or Shia (Shanakil).
“What???” I asked, half smiling. She laughed and asked me whether I prayed with my hands to my sides or folded against my stomach. I shrugged, not very interested and a little bit ashamed to admit that I still didn’t really know how to pray properly, at the tender age of 10.
Later that evening, I sat at my aunt’s house and remember to ask my mother whether we were Smurfs or Snorks. She gave me the same blank look I had given Amal. “Mama- do we pray like THIS or like THIS?!” I got up and did both prayer positions. My mother’s eyes cleared and she shook her head and rolled her eyes at my aunt, “Why are you asking? Who wants to know?” I explained how Amal, our Shanakil neighbor, had asked me earlier that day. “Well tell Amal we’re not Shanakil and we’re not Sanafir- we’re Muslims- there’s no difference.”
It was years later before I learned that half the family were Sanafir, and the other half were Shanakil, but nobody cared. We didn’t sit around during family reunions or family dinners and argue Sunni Islam or Shia Islam. The family didn’t care about how this cousin prayed with his hands at his side and that one prayed with her hands folded across her stomach. Many Iraqis of my generation have that attitude. We were brought up to believe that people who discriminated in any way- positively or negatively- based on sect or ethnicity were backward, uneducated and uncivilized.
The thing most worrisome about the situation now, is that discrimination based on sect has become so commonplace. For the average educated Iraqi in Baghdad, there is still scorn for all the Sunni/Shia talk. Sadly though, people are being pushed into claiming to be this or that because political parties are promoting it with every speech and every newspaper- the whole ‘us’ / ‘them’. We read constantly about how ‘We Sunnis should unite with our Shia brothers…’ or how ‘We Shia should forgive our Sunni brothers…’ (note how us Sunni and Shia sisters don’t really fit into either equation at this point). Politicians and religious figures seem to forget at the end of the day that we’re all simply Iraqis.
And what role are the occupiers playing in all of this? It’s very convenient for them, I believe. It’s all very good if Iraqis are abducting and killing each other- then they can be the neutral foreign party trying to promote peace and understanding between people who, up until the occupation, were very peaceful and understanding.
Three years after the war, and we’ve managed to move backwards in a visible way, and in a not so visible way.
In the last weeks alone, thousands have died in senseless violence and the American and Iraqi army bomb Samarra as I write this. The sad thing isn’t the air raid, which is one of hundreds of air raids we’ve seen in three years- it’s the resignation in the people. They sit in their homes in Samarra because there’s no where to go. Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.
Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year).
What Proof Does The NY Times Need To Call This A Civil War?
In today's NY Times there is a stunning story on the level of sectarian torture and murder currently going on in Iraq. The story, by Jeffrey Gettleman, "Bound, Blindfolded and Dead: The Face of Revenge in Baghdad," offers the following bleak picture:
"Mohannad al-Azawi had just finished sprinkling food in his bird cages at his pet shop in south Baghdad, when three carloads of gunmen pulled up. In front of a crowd, he was grabbed by his shirt and driven off.
"Mr. Azawi was among the few Sunni Arabs on the block, and, according to witnesses, when a Shiite friend tried to intervene, a gunman stuck a pistol to his head and said, 'You want us to blow your brains out, too?'
"Mr. Azawi's body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment plant. A slight man who raised nightingales, he had been hogtied, drilled with power tools and shot.
"In the last month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured and executed in Baghdad."
That gets followed, revealingly, by this line:
"As Iraqi and American leaders struggle to avert a civil war, the bodies keep piling up."
Say what? "Struggle to avert a civil war?"
Pardon me for asking, but if this isn't civil war, what is? Hundreds of kidnappings, tortures and executions isn't enough? What is the litmus test here? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
Later in the Times piece. Gettleman refers to 30 kidnapped and murdered Iraqis who had their fingers and toes sawed off. Not a civil war? Everything this correspondent writes about screams 'civil war.'
These are not isolated incidents. They are readily verified by any number of blogs coming out of Iraq, one of which I will get to in a separate post shortly. So why can't this paper, or most American media for that matter, tell it like it is? Afraid of crossing swords with White House bullies? Afraid of being branded the evil liberal media?
I can't think of any other explanation.
"Mohannad al-Azawi had just finished sprinkling food in his bird cages at his pet shop in south Baghdad, when three carloads of gunmen pulled up. In front of a crowd, he was grabbed by his shirt and driven off.
"Mr. Azawi was among the few Sunni Arabs on the block, and, according to witnesses, when a Shiite friend tried to intervene, a gunman stuck a pistol to his head and said, 'You want us to blow your brains out, too?'
"Mr. Azawi's body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment plant. A slight man who raised nightingales, he had been hogtied, drilled with power tools and shot.
"In the last month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured and executed in Baghdad."
That gets followed, revealingly, by this line:
"As Iraqi and American leaders struggle to avert a civil war, the bodies keep piling up."
Say what? "Struggle to avert a civil war?"
Pardon me for asking, but if this isn't civil war, what is? Hundreds of kidnappings, tortures and executions isn't enough? What is the litmus test here? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
Later in the Times piece. Gettleman refers to 30 kidnapped and murdered Iraqis who had their fingers and toes sawed off. Not a civil war? Everything this correspondent writes about screams 'civil war.'
These are not isolated incidents. They are readily verified by any number of blogs coming out of Iraq, one of which I will get to in a separate post shortly. So why can't this paper, or most American media for that matter, tell it like it is? Afraid of crossing swords with White House bullies? Afraid of being branded the evil liberal media?
I can't think of any other explanation.
What Dems Must Do To Take Back Congress
Despite, encouraging poll numbers that suggest that Democrats hold a huge edge over the GOP in upcoming local races, there are several things that are imperative for the Dems to get back the House and Senate:
1) More than anything else, we have to be alert to the GOP dirty tricks at the polls. Among these problems are a way to guarantee that the vote that is cast is the one that is registered. Why is this not more of a front-and-center concern of Dem politicians? For a full airing of the most recent election fraud, please read Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book "Fooled Again."
2) Make this election about oversight, over everything else. It is relatively easy to argue that keeping GOP incumbents in power will allow George Bush to never have to answer for anything. Make this race about Bush, because, thanks to lack of accountability by his GOP cohorts, it is. Remind voters that the GOP has stalled investigation of important issues at every opportunity.
3) Ignore the comments of lame Dem consultants that argue against taking a position on anything, preferring to let the GOP shoot themselves in the foot. We must dispense with this sort of 'loser' mentality that has cost us the last 2 elections. We should not always be re-active to GOP attacks. We must be pro-active and put the GOP on the defensive. That was what Senator Russell Feingold was attempting to do with his censure proposal. My God, what are we afraid of?
If we start with the above 3 important items, we have a chance to get our country back. If we don't, do not be too surprised. Democratic leadership has constantly shown it isn't ready for prime time. If they do not wake up, if they do not win in '06, if the election results again conveniently do not match exit polls, than we must demand an entire shake-up of the Democratic party, and the whole election mindset, from top-to-bottom.
1) More than anything else, we have to be alert to the GOP dirty tricks at the polls. Among these problems are a way to guarantee that the vote that is cast is the one that is registered. Why is this not more of a front-and-center concern of Dem politicians? For a full airing of the most recent election fraud, please read Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book "Fooled Again."
2) Make this election about oversight, over everything else. It is relatively easy to argue that keeping GOP incumbents in power will allow George Bush to never have to answer for anything. Make this race about Bush, because, thanks to lack of accountability by his GOP cohorts, it is. Remind voters that the GOP has stalled investigation of important issues at every opportunity.
3) Ignore the comments of lame Dem consultants that argue against taking a position on anything, preferring to let the GOP shoot themselves in the foot. We must dispense with this sort of 'loser' mentality that has cost us the last 2 elections. We should not always be re-active to GOP attacks. We must be pro-active and put the GOP on the defensive. That was what Senator Russell Feingold was attempting to do with his censure proposal. My God, what are we afraid of?
If we start with the above 3 important items, we have a chance to get our country back. If we don't, do not be too surprised. Democratic leadership has constantly shown it isn't ready for prime time. If they do not wake up, if they do not win in '06, if the election results again conveniently do not match exit polls, than we must demand an entire shake-up of the Democratic party, and the whole election mindset, from top-to-bottom.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Dixie Chicks Powerful New Song
Having seen firsthand, and being morally appalled by, the blackballing of the Dixie Chicks after their criticism of George Bush, I am pleased to report that they are not just gonna "shut up and sing."
On their website you can catch their new song, "Not Ready To Make Nice," (click the hyperlink to hear it) with the following potent lyrics:
Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
On their website you can catch their new song, "Not Ready To Make Nice," (click the hyperlink to hear it) with the following potent lyrics:
Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should
Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Lieberman Proposes "Short Ride" For Rape Victims
Do we need any more of a reason to support Ned Lamont against Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary? Because this self-righteous tool of the Bush Administration has just handed over another.
According to The New Haven Register:
"Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for 'principled reasons' shouldn’t be forced to do so. 'In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital,' he said."
Principled reasons?
How principled is it to, in effect, tell a rape victim that she should carry the rapist's baby to term. Essentially, that is what some hospitals are doing when they refuse contraception. Why would you make a rape victim travel to a different hospital for treatment? These are 'family values?' This is 'morality?'
If it were his own daughter, I wonder if Lieberman would be so cavalier in insisting she take that "short ride" to a more friendly hospital.
What a disgusting remark to make. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that he did not get to serve as VP.
According to The New Haven Register:
"Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for 'principled reasons' shouldn’t be forced to do so. 'In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital,' he said."
Principled reasons?
How principled is it to, in effect, tell a rape victim that she should carry the rapist's baby to term. Essentially, that is what some hospitals are doing when they refuse contraception. Why would you make a rape victim travel to a different hospital for treatment? These are 'family values?' This is 'morality?'
If it were his own daughter, I wonder if Lieberman would be so cavalier in insisting she take that "short ride" to a more friendly hospital.
What a disgusting remark to make. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that he did not get to serve as VP.
I'll Have What Rummy Is Smoking
Considering the administration-friendly nature of the media, the fact that the majority of Americans understand the debacle of Iraq is rather encouraging. After all, it is hard to totally dismiss accounts of the daily carnage that does filter through. In fact, by virtually all accounts, the situation in Iraq borders on civil war, with the most optimistic assessments referring to a long, uphill climb to even somewhat stabilize the region.
Unfortunately, on the other side of the looking glass, we have the fantasyland known as the Bush Administration.
And what a grim fairy tale they spin.
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asserts that we are doing a helluva job.
The piece is titled "What We've Gained In 3 Years In Iraq."
Right off the top, in my mind it conjures up the following; more than 2,000 of our troops killed, countless more injured and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, record U.S. debt, collapse of American stature abroad, and so on.
But Rumsfeld has different ideas.
For example, he states "The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case."
Rummy has his stats, which would be relevant if this administration had ever presented honest facts. He writes:
"Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces -- not U.S. or coalition troops -- that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate."
That is all fine and good if this sunny assessment were supported by any independent source. But it isn't. Anybody can cite some stat to support virtually any position. In this case, do we even know what these statistics and assertions honestly mean? Can we consider any alleged facts by an administration with zero credibility as truthful?
Polls have shown that the Iraqis do not want us there and that our presence could more likely lead to continued violence. Almost all accounts out of Iraq indicate that the situation is dire.
In light of this, one would think that the Bushies would focus on making adjustments to their failed policy and do what they can to mitigate further casualties.
Instead, it is the lockstep 'feel good' campaign, as if Dubya was back under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Whatever these guys are smoking, it must be rather potent.
Unfortunately, on the other side of the looking glass, we have the fantasyland known as the Bush Administration.
And what a grim fairy tale they spin.
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asserts that we are doing a helluva job.
The piece is titled "What We've Gained In 3 Years In Iraq."
Right off the top, in my mind it conjures up the following; more than 2,000 of our troops killed, countless more injured and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, record U.S. debt, collapse of American stature abroad, and so on.
But Rumsfeld has different ideas.
For example, he states "The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case."
Rummy has his stats, which would be relevant if this administration had ever presented honest facts. He writes:
"Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces -- not U.S. or coalition troops -- that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate."
That is all fine and good if this sunny assessment were supported by any independent source. But it isn't. Anybody can cite some stat to support virtually any position. In this case, do we even know what these statistics and assertions honestly mean? Can we consider any alleged facts by an administration with zero credibility as truthful?
Polls have shown that the Iraqis do not want us there and that our presence could more likely lead to continued violence. Almost all accounts out of Iraq indicate that the situation is dire.
In light of this, one would think that the Bushies would focus on making adjustments to their failed policy and do what they can to mitigate further casualties.
Instead, it is the lockstep 'feel good' campaign, as if Dubya was back under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Whatever these guys are smoking, it must be rather potent.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Democrats Shoot Themselves In Foot Again
Who needs Dick Cheney, when once again Senate Democrats have demonstrated a great capacity for inflicting injury upon their friends?
One would think that with the President's approval ratings in the tank, and his crusade to destroy civil liberties in high gear thanks to Dem capitulation, a vote to censure Bush would give Democrats a chance to make clear their displeasure.
Not this bunch.
Just like these cowards did to Rep Murtha, Dems are scurrying to have to avoid taking a principled stand on the war being waged on our civil rights.
After Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling for the censure of Bush, Senator Bill Frist, knowing the breed of coward he has been bullying, pushed to get a censure vote on the record. Predictably, the Dems freaked out and have managed to forestall such a vote. They made it very clear that they were doing so because they did not want to alienate allegedly 'swing' voters.
All these tweedle-dees did was to show just how similar they are to tweedle-dum.
It's one thing for Senator Lieberman to say he would have voted against censure. After all, Lieberman is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. But the whining and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects in the Senate plus Pelosi's mealy-mouthed response is too much to bear. Rep. Pelosi, you are no leader.
Do Democrats have any clue about the mood of the country, or their own party for God's sake?
We need to write our senators and congresspeople now and send a message.
Grow a spine, or lose our support in the primaries.
One would think that with the President's approval ratings in the tank, and his crusade to destroy civil liberties in high gear thanks to Dem capitulation, a vote to censure Bush would give Democrats a chance to make clear their displeasure.
Not this bunch.
Just like these cowards did to Rep Murtha, Dems are scurrying to have to avoid taking a principled stand on the war being waged on our civil rights.
After Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling for the censure of Bush, Senator Bill Frist, knowing the breed of coward he has been bullying, pushed to get a censure vote on the record. Predictably, the Dems freaked out and have managed to forestall such a vote. They made it very clear that they were doing so because they did not want to alienate allegedly 'swing' voters.
All these tweedle-dees did was to show just how similar they are to tweedle-dum.
It's one thing for Senator Lieberman to say he would have voted against censure. After all, Lieberman is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. But the whining and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects in the Senate plus Pelosi's mealy-mouthed response is too much to bear. Rep. Pelosi, you are no leader.
Do Democrats have any clue about the mood of the country, or their own party for God's sake?
We need to write our senators and congresspeople now and send a message.
Grow a spine, or lose our support in the primaries.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Molly Ivins Voices The Challenge
Holy mini-tremors Batman, Molly Ivins has officially done it. She lays down the guantlet and challenges progressive activists in the blogosphere to show DC insiders that, essentially, we can do the job better and more efficiently. In other words, we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore.
Ivins asks those on the Net to unite together behind a progressive candidate. As a Senator Feingold supporter myself, I was rather excited to see him be the one Democratic senator singled out for praise.
However, I am a believer in what Ivins proposes here...rising to a challenge to become an organized and very potent force in the blogosphere. Like Ivins, I think we can raise a lot of money and find common ground. I also believe that with the level of super-achievers in cyberspace, a little bit will go a long, long way.
It's a topic I will be blogging about more in coming days.
Ivins asks those on the Net to unite together behind a progressive candidate. As a Senator Feingold supporter myself, I was rather excited to see him be the one Democratic senator singled out for praise.
However, I am a believer in what Ivins proposes here...rising to a challenge to become an organized and very potent force in the blogosphere. Like Ivins, I think we can raise a lot of money and find common ground. I also believe that with the level of super-achievers in cyberspace, a little bit will go a long, long way.
It's a topic I will be blogging about more in coming days.
Senator Feingold Takes Charge...Again
Once again, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold is taking a leadership role on issues of national importance. Take, for example, his upcoming resolution to 'censure' President Bush.
According to a story from AP, "The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has essentially accused Feingold of aiding and abetting the enemy. How else does one translate the charge that the censure resolution would, according to the AP summation of his remarks, "weaken the U.S. during wartime." Your point being?
It will be interesting to see if this resolution is even allowed to be brought to the floor for debate and vote. If it is, how many Democrats will join Senator Feingold in calling for censure?
If the House Democratic response to Rep. Murtha is any indication, I would just like to say to the good Senator, 'watch your back.'
As per usual, Senator Feingold is demonstrating how to truly represent the opposition party in a way that reflects the growing outrage in this country. The alternative is to follow Clinton, Reid, Biden, Dean and gang in the charade known as GOP-lite.
According to a story from AP, "The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has essentially accused Feingold of aiding and abetting the enemy. How else does one translate the charge that the censure resolution would, according to the AP summation of his remarks, "weaken the U.S. during wartime." Your point being?
It will be interesting to see if this resolution is even allowed to be brought to the floor for debate and vote. If it is, how many Democrats will join Senator Feingold in calling for censure?
If the House Democratic response to Rep. Murtha is any indication, I would just like to say to the good Senator, 'watch your back.'
As per usual, Senator Feingold is demonstrating how to truly represent the opposition party in a way that reflects the growing outrage in this country. The alternative is to follow Clinton, Reid, Biden, Dean and gang in the charade known as GOP-lite.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Why Brokeback Crashed
The loss of "Brokeback Mountain" as Best Picture at the Oscars, just like heavily favored, and openly gay actor, Sir Ian McKellen's loss for "Gods And Monsters," revealed how homophobic Hollywood is.
Don't believe me? Just rewatch the tape of Heath and Jake as presenters at the SAG Awards. A total embarrassment. As if they were ashamed they were cast as gay lovers. Maybe that is why Ang Lee chose not to mention them in his acceptance speech.
Forget the plethora of filmdom closet cases and GLAAD cocktail parties. Hollywood proved that they are as backwards as the rest of puritanical America in the face of global progression of glbt civil rights in other western nations.
You see, an image of 2 men being intimate and the reality of men being murdered solely for who they choose to love is too uncomfortable for these people to even watch. You can't vote for a film that you choose not to even see. Critics saw both and they knew which the better picture was.
So now our allegedly 'progressive' Academy voters can pat themselves on the back for honoring rap, albeit misogynist rap, and a faux 'racism' flick.
"Crash" is about as realistic as the bubble these voters house themselves in.
So is the homophobic result.
Don't believe me? Just rewatch the tape of Heath and Jake as presenters at the SAG Awards. A total embarrassment. As if they were ashamed they were cast as gay lovers. Maybe that is why Ang Lee chose not to mention them in his acceptance speech.
Forget the plethora of filmdom closet cases and GLAAD cocktail parties. Hollywood proved that they are as backwards as the rest of puritanical America in the face of global progression of glbt civil rights in other western nations.
You see, an image of 2 men being intimate and the reality of men being murdered solely for who they choose to love is too uncomfortable for these people to even watch. You can't vote for a film that you choose not to even see. Critics saw both and they knew which the better picture was.
So now our allegedly 'progressive' Academy voters can pat themselves on the back for honoring rap, albeit misogynist rap, and a faux 'racism' flick.
"Crash" is about as realistic as the bubble these voters house themselves in.
So is the homophobic result.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Not All Leaks Are Created Equal...And Sealing The Deal
While the White House continues to stonewall on the investigation of who compromised national security and released the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters, they do seem to have their knickers in a knot over other leaks.
According to a story in the Washington Post, "in recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program."
Hmmm, they aren't also investigating Plamegate? What a surprise.
In a signal of the upcoming wave of intimidation tactics, it was reported that "in a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper."
Additionally, "Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary."
We are watching a government so clothed and shrouded in secrecy that public documents that have been reclassified have been removed from the public archives.
That secrecy extends to the courts.
On the Federal Courts level, the AP reports on the unprecedented sealing of cases.
This apparently extends to locals courts as well. Today's Seattle Times refers to the plethora of inappropriately sealed court documents in the state of Washington.
The Bush Administration's legacy is not one that they will be able to look back on proudly in years to come. Unless, of course, they find a way to continue to shield the story from public view.
According to a story in the Washington Post, "in recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program."
Hmmm, they aren't also investigating Plamegate? What a surprise.
In a signal of the upcoming wave of intimidation tactics, it was reported that "in a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper."
Additionally, "Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary."
We are watching a government so clothed and shrouded in secrecy that public documents that have been reclassified have been removed from the public archives.
That secrecy extends to the courts.
On the Federal Courts level, the AP reports on the unprecedented sealing of cases.
This apparently extends to locals courts as well. Today's Seattle Times refers to the plethora of inappropriately sealed court documents in the state of Washington.
The Bush Administration's legacy is not one that they will be able to look back on proudly in years to come. Unless, of course, they find a way to continue to shield the story from public view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)