Enemy Combatant
Monday, December 29, 2003
OK, I just read a very informative article this morning (not available online yet, I don't think) that said the following (I'm summarizing):
California's Vehicle License Fee (VLF) was set up something like a non-self-executing REVERSE "cost-of-living-adjustment" tax, to go down when times are good and up when the economy sours . . .
" . . . During the boom years of the late 1990s, the VLF had been chopped to one-third of its full amount, and the state had 'backfilled' the dollars lost to local governments, replacing them with money from the general fund.
"Before voters recalled him, Gov. Gray Davis raised the VLF to its full level to help cover the state's huge budget deficit, estimated at around $40 billion.
"However, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took office, he fulfilled a campaign pledge to once again lower the fee to its one-third level. Essentially, he did it by declaring there was no fiscal crisis in California and using his power as governor to unilaterally reduce the VLF. The reduction in the fee created an additional funding shortfall of $4 billion.
"[When local governments howled, and threatened to sue the state,] Schwarzenegger responded by unilaterally diverting $2.6 billion to counties and cities to cover the money they'd lost when he reduced the VLF. He did it under an obscure state budget law, called Section 27, that was designed to allow the governor to cover some unexpected budget shortfalls in times of crisis. In other words, he did it by declaring that California was in a fiscal state of emergency and by claiming for himself the power to unilaterally appropriate money."
So, Gray Davis got recalled because he RESTORED a car tax to its previous level. Arnold then: (a) repealed the car tax because there was no crisis warranting the raise; then turned around and (b) grabbed money out of the general fund while the legislature was not in session, on the grounds that there was a new fiscal emergency (entirely of his own making, of course).
Can you IMAGINE any Democrat getting away with this kind of headspinning, schizoid, Donovan-like behavior? ("First, there is a crisis/Then there is no crisis/Then there is")
Sunday, December 21, 2003
I watched this my own damn self, and saw and heard Clark say it, with my own eyes and ears.
"No shit," as it were:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/nation/2312399
Dec. 21, 2003, 1:25AM
Better not mess with Clark
Associated Press
DERRY, N.H. -- Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.
"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. "I hope that's not on television," he added.
It was, live, on C-SPAN.
'Thing is, he didn't euphemistically say he'd "beat the s--- out of them" -- in a one-on-one conversation with a supporter, about what he would do if Bush tried the same chickenshit disinformation campaign that he spread about John McCain in South Carolina -- Clark said that he'd "beat the SHIT out of them" -- right there on public access, gu'mint TV.
HA! I loved it . . .
Keep talking blunt like that, General, you're gonna find yourself drawing bigger crowds . . .
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Two BIG, BIG decisions out of two different federal courts of appeal today, each delivering a roundhouse punch to Generalissimo Culo de Pita, erstwhile Maximum Ruler of Gitmo.
First, from Best of the Blogs, the good news for Jose Padilla:
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Justice Served
Jose Padilla has won a big victory for all Americans over our imperial president and his administration's outrageous, illegal and immoral efforts to concentrate all power in the Executive branch. A federal appeals court just ruled that the president does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant. Little by little, the courts are rolling back the excesses. I don't think even the Supremes are going to go along with Junior on this one.
posted by Jerry Bowles 4:21 pm
Next, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held, essentially, that ALL Gitmo detainees were being held illegally:
"Even in times of national emergency . . . it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," said the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It added it could not accept the position that anyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US could be held without "recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement".
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Excellent article on how our Squanderer-in-Chief, the Job Houdini, is increasingly being perceived out in the Red States:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0349/perlstein.php
{snip}
. . . Intriguing cracks are opening in the Republican firmament. Take the factory owners I meet in the Rock River Valley's population center, the city of Rockford, who are ready to burn George Bush in effigy.
"I'm very conservative," Eric Anderberg of Dial Machine says, in the boardroom of the machine-parts factory his family built in 1966. "Always voted Republican. But I'm extremely concerned with what I hear from this current administration." Eric is 32, fiercely political, and articulate. He's called over two of his older industrial-park neighbors, Don Metz of Metz Tool and Judy Pike of Acme Grinding. Family manufacturers like these were the foundation of the modern conservative movement, reacting against the moderate Republicanism of Dwight Eisenhower in the '50s. Now they are a wedge in the Republican coalition. I ask if they could imagine supporting, for president, a Democrat. Don Metz, who in his golf shirt looks like he just came back from a midday round, doesn't hesitate: "No problem. Somebody steps forward and says we're going to make manufacturing a priority in this country." They would even donate the legal maximum of $2,000.
The reason is economic near-devastation. Unemployment around here has increased by half in the last three years. . . .
{snip}
I think those inside the rightwing echo-chamber that now calls itself the American news media are completely unprepared for the political tsunami that's coming next November . . .
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Perhaps someone can step off the Rightwing Spincycle Carousel long enough to tell us -- why does Jeane Kirkpatrick hate America so?
Jeane Kirkpatrick, 1979 -- Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war.
Monday, November 03, 2003
My sister sent me this link from Down Under -- why aren't they telling us this stuff up here in the USA?
Linda Tripp wins [AUS]$800,000 in privacy payments
November 4, 2003 - 10:32AM
The US government will pay Linda Tripp, a central figure in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, more than [$595,000, US] as part of a settlement of lawsuits in which she accused US officials of violating her privacy, court documents showed today.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/04/1067708179189.html
(Keep in mind, this is the BUSH administration's settlement reached with a fellow Clenis-hating wingnut, Linda Tripp:
"Twist my arm! Ow! OK, I'll give you another $100 thou!"
"Here, anoint yourself with this Crisco. Chant together now, in unison: 'Bad, bad Clenis!'")
Sunday, October 12, 2003
US soldiers bulldoze farmers' crops
Americans accused of brutal 'punishment' tactics against villagers, while British are condemned as too soft
By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya
12 October 2003
US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.
complete article at
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=452375
Why, I'm shocked! -- when collective punishment was working so well for our allies, the Israelis.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
It's not just that they're racists, specifically -- it's that they're lunatics generally:
This quote -- in defense of Rush -- is from yesterday's edition of the 700 Club on CBN.
Pat Robertson: "The truth is that people of minority groups, whether they're African American, Hispanics, Asians or whoever, have been denied opportunity in the past in the United States. And there is, without question, an incredible effort on the part of the media and Hollywood screenwriters etc., to elevate these minorities into positions of prominence, at least if nothing else in fictional stories. You look at Morgan Freeman who is a tremendous actor. He started off playing a chauffer in Driving Miss Daisy and then they elevated him to head of the CIA and then they elevated him to President and in his last role they made him God. I just wonder, isn't Rush Limbaugh right to question the fact, is he that good an actor or not? And was there a preference given? The same thing with the quarterback, did they give him a break? And are the media giving him a break or not?"
Statement by Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way:
"Words fail me."
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Guess the Bush administration is finally having its Pay-No-Attention-To-That-Traitor-Behind-The-Curtain moment:
SHE HAS BEEN UNDER COVER FOR THREE DECADES'
A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outted CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested.
Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR.
"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At
that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...
"For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...
"I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.
"I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."
Shout this from the rooftops between now and November 2004, people.
Friday, August 22, 2003
Poor Fox News -- so "fair and balanced" -- yet so clueless, evidently, about the reach of the First Amendment . . .
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
This whole Al Franken-Fox News dustup reminds me of Groucho Marx's response to Warner Bros.' threats to enjoin his movie, "A Night In Casablanca" because it incorporated the title to their Bogart-Bacall movie. Here's part of Groucho's letter:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?ResourceID=31
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about ìWarner Brothersî? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventorís eye, and even before there had been other brothersóthe Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and ìBrother, Can You Spare a Dime?î (This was originally ìBrothers, Can You Spare a Dime?î but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to ìBrother, Can You Spare a Dime?î)
Sometimes utter ridicule can provide a pretty thorough legal defense to an ill-advised trademark infringement claim . . .
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Well, I was commenting to my wife, that the California gubernatorial recall is shaping up to be a circus sideshow, what with the strongman, the midget, the floozy, . . .
. . . everything but the bearded lady.
. . . to which my wife replied, "I guess Arianna waxes."
Monday, August 11, 2003
Goddamn it! This kind of misleading headline really pisses me off:
Poll: Schwarzenegger would beat Davis
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Aug. 10, 2003 †|† LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California voters would take away Gov. Gray Davis' job and give it to actor Arnold Schwarzenegger if the Oct. 7 recall election were held immediately, a poll found Saturday.
What they mean is, if the recall were held today, Gray Davis might not make the 50%-+-one votes he needs to hold his seat. Whereas the Viennese musclehead might pull 20-25% in the circus sideshow free-for-all that will follow.
Which means -- under the new might-makes-right, any-justification-will-do rules the GOP (and, evidently, their corporate media lickspittles) operate under, Ahnuld "beats" the guy with double his votes . . .
. . . sounds like the 2000 election, only more so, doesn't it?
Thursday, July 24, 2003
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.
SECTION IX
Assassination
Art. 148.
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.
Too bad Uday and Qusay came along 140 years too late.
(By the way, the White House vehemently denies the rumor that Uday's and Qusay's "secret family nicknames" were Jeb and George W.)
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Kim Osterwalder over at free pie nails it.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
from today's NYTimes:
Senior Bush administration officials adjusted their defense today of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, insisting that the phrasing was accurate even if some of the underlying evidence was unsubstantiated.
No, no, no! That won't wash! Because what Bush said in his SOTU was that "the British had LEARNED that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium," etc.
"Learned" implies truth, whereas US intelligence agencies had already advised Bush that this "fact" was bullshit.
Your closest ally doesn't "learn" a disputed factual assertion that your own people tell you is bullshit; the Brits may have "heard" it, they may "believe" it, but Kommander Kodpiece's Krew of Keystone Krips inarguably crossed the border into Rancho Mentiroso when they asserted that this bullshit was "knowledge" to be "learned."
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Another point to make about the recent sodomy decision, Lawrence v. Texas: I was wondering what Justice Kennedy's expansive, almost poetic opening lines reminded me of, and it finally occurred to me: Papachristou v. Jacksonville, another case in which the cops busted an interracial couple and tried to charge them with an ostensibly race-neutral offense: "prowling by auto."
First, here's Justice Kennedy's opening lines in the Lawrence case:
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
And here's Justice Douglas writing for the Court in Papachristou, back in 1972:
The poor among us, the minorities, the average house-holder are not in business and not alerted to the regulatory schemes of vagrancy laws; and we assume they would have no understanding of their meaning and impact if they read them. Nor are they protected from being caught in the vagrancy net by the necessity of having a specific intent to commit an unlawful act. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 ; Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra.
The Jacksonville ordinance makes criminal activities which by modern standards are normally innocent. "Nightwalking" is one. Florida construes the ordinance not to make criminal one night's wandering, Johnson v. State, 202 So.2d, at 855, only the "habitual" wanderer or, as the ordinance describes it, "common night walkers." We know, however, from experience that sleepless people often walk at night, perhaps hopeful that sleep-inducing relaxation will result.
Luis Munoz-Marin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once that "loafing" was a national virtue in his Commonwealth and that it should be encouraged. It is, however, a crime in Jacksonville.
"[P]ersons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children" - like habitually living "without visible means of support" - might implicate unemployed pillars of the community who have married rich wives.
"[P]ersons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children" may also embrace unemployed people out of the labor market, by reason of a recession or disemployed by reason of technological or so-called structural displacements.
Persons "wandering or strolling" from place to place have been extolled by Walt Whitman and Vachel Lindsay. The qualification "without any lawful purpose or object" may be a trap for innocent acts. Persons "neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting . . . places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served" would literally embrace many members of golf clubs and city clubs.
Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be "casing" a place for a holdup. Letting one's wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. Yet it may, of course, be the setting for numerous crimes.
The difficulty is that these activities are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have been in part responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent and have honored the right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits rather than hushed, suffocating silence.
They are embedded in Walt Whitman's writings, especially in his "Song of the Open Road." They are reflected, too, in the spirit of Vachel Lindsay's "I Want to Go Wandering," and by Henry D. Thoreau.
This aspect of the vagrancy ordinance before us is suggested by what this Court said in 1876 about a broad criminal statute enacted by Congress: "It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large." United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221 .
The expansive language of Lawrence means, I think, just what Justice Scalia in his dissent clearly fears it means: Other anti-gay laws are now doomed, as well. The first to go, IMHO, will be "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Surely the Code of Military Justice's sodomy ban can't hold up in the face of the Right to Privacy, can it? And if gay sex is constitutionally protected, the NEXT case to bring, IMHO, is one arguing that an individual homosexual male has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to take up arms to DEFEND HIS COUNTRY! (Actually, this case SHOULD have been brought during the Afghanistan War -- and, who knows? it may well be percolating through the system even as I type . . . )
What, more blowhard blowback? Time to gear up for the War on Criticism!
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Adam Felber's blog (Fanatical Apathy) entry from yesterday:
"Bush Double-Dog Dares Militants to Hurt US Soldiers"
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on..."
"...in fact," the President continued, "I don't think Iraqi militants have the guts to kill more Americans. I think they're yeller." Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule, made his remarks a mere 6,211 miles from the front lines.
Military reaction to Bush's words was joyous. "Finally," said Lt. Pete Bundt of the Army 3rd Armored Division, "I was beginning to worry that the Iraqis might stop shooting at us and ambushing our convoys and wounding our men. Now we can be sure that there'll be more action."
Despite some criticism that his statements might be provocative, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the President's remarks were consistent with the administration's foreign policy agenda. "The more enemies you have, the more likely it is that any given bullet you fire is going to hit one of 'em. It's simple math," he said.
The President himself downplayed the idea that his words might spur more violence. "No chance of that," he said, "because everyone knows that Iraqis are big fat chickens. Buck-buck-buck...""
Sunday, June 29, 2003
from Jeff Hauser's blog:
EASY POLITICAL PICKINGS, ONE HOPES
A) ALTERMAN: "House Democrats were voted down last week on a party-line vote in their effort to restore huge cuts to military family housing, paid for by a slight reduction in scheduled tax cuts for millionaires. Hereís what Army Times had to say: ìTaken piecemeal, all these [GOP] corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale ó especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.î http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php†; more at http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp#030627†, but the best account is by Daily Kos, who is himself a veteran: http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003195.html#003195
Remember, many swing state swing voters know people in the military.† A very, very good issue here, if properly played up in a niche way, or used as a broader symbol.† It's clear that the Dem nominee will need to offer a VERY detailed alternative budget/tax plan.
Dem candidates need to ignore Adrenal Boy in the faux Jodhpurs and Epaulettes, screaming in their faces, and talk DIRECTLY to America's military, and their families: Bush has a real barnburner of a defense plan, but ever see what's left AFTER the barn burns? Yeah, well . . . you can bet Bush never has.
We can't go on like this, folks. We've got each foot in a separate new Vietnam, and we keep on whacking more hornet's nests, everywhere we find them. This is no way to run a foreign policy.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Let's not overlook this tidbit in Lawrence v. Texas:
FROM THE DISSENT By Justice Thomas
I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. . . .
OK, now, a show of hands: How many of you believe, if Clarence Thomas really were "a member of the Texas legislature," he'd risk his position by defying the knuckledraggers who voted him into office, and vote to end the continued criminalization of homosexual sodomy in Texas?
Anyone? Anyone?
Didn't think so.
[Psst: Clarence. The interview's over; you already GOT the job.
You can stop the LYING now!]
Thursday, June 26, 2003
"Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else."
What, SCALIA -- the driving force behind the Supreme Court's triple-play interference with Election 2000 --- actually wrote those words, and wasn't immediately struck down by lightning?
There is no God; I rest my case.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Clip and save the concatenation of lies, spin, blather and misleading obfuscations here.
Is there any question, if this were Our Last Elected President (Without Supreme Court Intervention), this clip-n-sav LieList would be Exhibit A at his impeachment?
Thursday, June 05, 2003
from the Village Voice:
Why the "Dirty Bomber" Case Threatens Everyone's Rights
A Lifetime in Limbo
by Chisun Lee
June 4 - 10, 2003
He disappeared down the rabbit hole.
A year ago this week Jose Padilla, nabbed while on a visit to Chicago, was taken into military custody and sealed off from the rest of the world. To date, the government continues to deny the Brooklyn native a right all Americans take for granted: to tell his side of the story.
The public was told back then that his banishment was their salvation. Attorney General John Ashcroft, the nation's top law enforcer, revealed in a dramatic announcement via satellite from Moscow, "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb." The day before, June 9, 2002, President George W. Bush had deemed Padilla so grave a threat to national security that he ordered him held incommunicado until the war on terrorism was over.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0323/lee.php
I'll tell you, as a practicing lawyer who's always thought the Constitution would just plod along, with more-or-less minor veers to the right and left, I find the very concept of an American gulag, beyond the reach of the American justice system entirely, equal parts mind-boggling and revolting. It scares the hell out of me, frankly. MORE than terrorism.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Eat your heart out, Ari Fleischer: Rumor has it, Bush's NEXT press secretary will be a "rocket scientist":
One of the problems with explaining Quantum Iraqi Invasion Nano-Dynamics to the layman is that many of its most fundamental results can be so counter-intuitive. For example, consider the WMD wave function, which describes (or, more precisely, whose square describes) how the probability of finding WMD caches in Iraq changes over time and space. In a 24-dimensional manifold, this wave function conserves Einstein symmetries when rotated about any non-forbidden Higgs-Frum conjugate axis. What this implies is that any non-degenerate WMD particle is, when viewed from an eigenaxis, its own anti-particle, which means it instantly annihilates itself in inverse hyperbolic anti-time, causing the Big Bang to happen. Hence, in a seeming paradox, the absence of WMD in Iraq not only proves that they exist, but also explains how our universe came to be created from nothing. Seems strange, but physics tells us that this is not only logically consistent, but logically required. And, conversely, if we did find WMD, it could very easily set in motion a set of processes which would cause the universe to wink out of existence entirely, something which would no doubt please far Left moral relativists like Jim Jeffords and Brent Scowcroft. Or else they fell through a wormhole into Syria.
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Question: If there really WERE a liberal media,
wouldn't conservatives be OPPOSED to further media
consolidation?
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Heh heh. This story's got LEGS, folks:
Question: Why is Leung like Watergate?
I've been following the leung story very closely. This is a cautious summary of what is known publicly, although no mainstreamer has connected the dots or raised the suppositions in a clear way:
Katrina Leung, a GOP fundraiser/contributor, appears also to have been a conduit for illegal campaign donations from the Chinese government and others to Republican candidates, according to reputable reports, during the time she was also an important FBI asset. Her handler and lover JJ Smith was heavily involved in the investigation of similar activities involving the Democrats and the Chinese. These investigations have recently been called into question by people closely involved with them.
If Leung was illegally funneling money to Republicans, it seems more than likely that Smith, an important FBI official, knew about it. It raises the question of whether he was actively involved in it himself and whether he was encouraged to do so by others, perhaps at the FBI.
As much of the information regarding the scandals came from Leung herself, the case also raises concerns that the investigations into alleged Democratic/Chinese illegalities were a diversion, to deflect attention away from the flow of some $2.5 million into Republican war chests from the Chinese.
This is similar to what Watergate looked like early on, a lot of impossible to believe weird facts that sort of, but didn't quite fit.
tristero
Something tells me the idea of the GOP as the REAL ChiCom-cash-cow will not go over well in the American heartland . . .
Friday, May 02, 2003
Reason #437 why Santorum is an idiot
I've been thinking long and hard about this "right to privacy" issue, given voice by quite possibly the Senate's dimmest member (a noun I use euphemistically), and I realize that we need to change the terminology if we ever want to draw a few libertarian conservatives to our side.
From now on, it's NOT "the right to privacy" -- it's "the right to be left alone" -- get it? Good.
Now let's take a quick, strict-constructionist look at the Ninth Amendment -- it says,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
My read on that is that while the government is given limited, enumerated powers, certain other rights not expressly enumerated under the Constitution are nonetheless to be protected from government encroachment.
In other words, the "right to be left alone."
Now, what's this got to do with Santorum, you ask? Well, let's look at the kernel upon which Roe v. Wade is built: Griswold v. Connecticut. This 1965 US Supreme Court decision established that -- for married heterosexual couples at least -- there was (and still is, last I checked) a constitutional right to access to birth control devices. (The heavily Catholic Connecticut legislature had banned the sale of all such devices -- the pill, IUDs, condoms -- virtually everything. The Court expanded this ruling as applicable to nonmarried couples in 1972 in Eisenstadt v. Baird.)
But what does Griswold rely on as precedent? Primarily two cases, from the 1920s: Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Meyer v. Nebraska.
Pierce established that, under the Constitution, the state legislature could not require every high school student to attend public school -- an obvious attempt to destroy (or at least marginalize) Catholic schools.
Meyer stands for the proposition that parents' rights to educate their children trumps the state government's claim that it had the right to ban the teaching of the German language, even in private schools.
Before Santorum and other RW idiots begin pulling at this thread, they ought to consider taking a look at everything they'll unravel.
Monday, April 21, 2003
Those of us who still mourn the loss of Paul Wellstone could use a few laughs, nowadays. Thank you, Al Franken.
Sunday, April 20, 2003
Apr 20, 1:53 PM EDT
Religious Group Helps Lawmakers With Rent
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the "Fellowship" and the "Foundation" and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
The Fellowship hosts receptions, luncheons and prayer meetings on the first two floors of the house, which is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a church.
The six lawmakers - Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev. and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. - live in private rooms upstairs.
Rent is $600 a month, DeMint said.
{snip}
Oh, and one more thing. They've all been neutered, and they all just bought identical Nikes.
Nothing further to investigate here!
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Great letter in yesterday's Juneau Empire:
On to Damascus
To all those whiners and complainers who've been wringing their hands about the destruction over the weekend of the National Museum and National Library of Iraq - hey, there's a war on, and bad stuff happens during a war. Sure, it was a war that didn't have to happen, but we won, so quit bellyaching. Yeah, you'd think that the most powerful military machine in the history of the world could have spared a couple of platoons of Marines to keep the local criminal element from burning and pillaging the irreplaceable heritage of Mesopotamian and Iraqi antiquity and you'd think that an administration that can manage to round up more than enough federal employees to search every last airline passenger in every airport across the country, right down to their skivvies, could manage a little bit of security, even for a bunch of broken statues and crumbly old cuneiform tablets, but that's the "old American" way of thinking.
Sure, the French and their sympathizers will denounce the destruction of this museum as an act of cultural, artistic and even spiritual vandalism, but what do you expect from a nation that spends more on the arts than on smart bombs? Anyway, they're practically socialists, which is pretty close to communist, and communists are against private property, and museums and libraries are public property, which means they must be a waste of taxpayer money, if not downright subversive! The common good is so "old Europe."
What everyone has to realize is the museum wasn't looted, it was privatized. Priceless Iraqi antiquities, which until now were merely safeguarded for future generations of Iraqis, are now free to be purchased by the entrepreneurs and job creators who have the cash and the acquisitiveness to truly appreciate them where they belong, in the good old US of A.
Its too bad about that library in Baghdad, but it's probably on line somewhere and history is irrelevant anyway, 'cause let's face it, you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, that makes you an evildoer. Besides, print is "old Europe" too.
Art historians, museum curators, and other shameless apologists for international terrorism are starting to compare last weekend's cultural catastrophe with the burning of the library at Alexandria. No way! That is just so not true! When the library at Alexandria got torched, only about 1,000 years of history and literature went up in smoke - at the Iraqi National Museum, 10,000 years worth of artifacts and art were smashed or stolen.
Welcome to the New America! And on to Damascus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't these people know that every time you even think an "unpatriotic" thought, it makes Flagwaving Jeebus cry, and then he smites down one of our troopers in the field?
I mean, have they lost the power of rational thought?
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
In a BBC radio interview (transcript not yet posted), former (Bush I) Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger opines on the possibility of Operation Likudnik Wetdream spreading to Syria and Iran next:
Lawrence Eagleburger, laughing) I can only tell youÖ.maybe Iíll be made of fool of when I say this but I canít even imagine that and Iíve only recently heard somebody else say that this is a possibility. I just donít think that anybody who says that truly understands the American people. You saw the furor that went on in this country before the President got sufficient support to do this. Weíre just not built like that. Whether anybody is prepared to admit it or not, this is still a democracy and public opinion and the public still on these issues rules. If George Bush decided that he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria now, and Iran after that, he would last in office for about 15 minutes. Youíre talking to somebody who frankly wishes we could knock Syria around a bit because I think they have been absolutely outrageous for years in terms of their support for terrorism. But, because I happen to believe that, doesnít mean itís going to happen. If President Bush were to try it now, even I would feel that he ought be impeached. You canít get away with that sort of thing with this democracy. Itís ridiculous.
Obviously, Mr. Eagleburger has yet to "drink his Kool-Aid," like a good American. We'll see how long it is before he's forced to eat those words like a good Bushbot (which, for a GOP member, usually just means granting another interview to claim you were "misquoted" or that your words were "taken out of context"). In the wake of this administration, the ground is littered with the remains of eaten hats.
Of course, Mr. Eagleburger may prove to be one of those increasingly rare species, the Principled Republican, and refuse to backtrack from his statements. If this happens, watch for the Keystone Crips in and out of the Bush administration to savage him in true thug fashion, beginning with snarky comments about his obscenely-unpatriotic surname.
Friday, April 11, 2003
I read an article today in the Wall Street Journal (paper edition, of course; online they CHARGE for) entitled: "U.N. Rifts Could Block Iraq Oil":
Hussein may have vanished, but U.N. economic sanctions devised to contain him remain in force, creating a diplomatic tangle that could tie up plans to fund Iraq's reconstruction with its oil revenue.
So the UN might well put the kibosh on the backdoor-Bush-baksheesh . . .
Thursday, April 03, 2003
from Eschaton, a blog by Atrios (emphases mine). For those rightwingers who have the collective memory of a fruitfly when it comes to "anti-war" talk:
Last Refuge of Scoundrels
From the Baltimore City Paper.
excerpt:
So here's a few questions. When the Clinton administration sent troops to quell the ethnic cleaning in Kosovo, we can presume Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) was giving "aid and comfort" to mass-murdering tyrant Slobodan Milosevic when he said, "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. . . . [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." What a traitor to America.
When then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said of the intervention that "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," we can presume that his criticism of the president's foreign policy provided clear and forthright evidence that DeLay hates America.
You see, "freedom" is funny like that. Of course DeLay and Nickles were no more unpatriotic for denouncing administration policies while U.S. troops were in the field back in 1999 any more than [singer Natalie] Maines or [Sen. Tom] Daschle are today.
There's no shortage of it, and it's not new to this period of conflict, either. Recall White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's veiled warning after colossal boob Bill Maher remarked on the cowardice of U.S. fighter pilots--that Americans need to "watch what they say."
And remember when critics asked Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett exactly what information the government had prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Bartlett said that asking pointed questions like those "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do."
Last September, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) posed the ludicrous question, "Who is the enemy here? The president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?"
The simpleminded, the Know-Nothings, the John Birch-style ¸ber-patriots like to create a "slippery slope"--a classic logical fallacy--to support their contention that the president equals the troops, which equals the flag, which equals the Constitution, which equals freedom. There's no daylight, no wiggle room, between any of them--as long as it's their guy in power.
There was no shortage of criticism of Bill Clinton during his presidency, and it hasn't abated since he left. The far Right has tried to draw a metaphor from an act of consensual sex to everything from fiscal policy to the refrain that the Clinton administration somehow bankrupted the U.S. military. Funny how this criticism never was seen as treasonous. I suppose it's all depends on whose ox is gored.
When a government seeks to paint any opposition as unpatriotic and any dissent as treason, when it uses its allies in industry and the media to hound skeptics and blacklist celebrities, when it attempts to paint legitimate questions of policy as either a vote for America or a vote for dictatorship, that's not freedom any more.
That's fascism. Smart people know the difference.
-Atrios, 8:45 PM
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Daniel Ellsberg was arrested at an antiwar demonstration in DC today. He said he wanted to stay the weekend because there is no TV. Then he read from a great early American whom the rightwing seems to have entirely forgotten: Henry David Thoreau:
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her -- the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Wish I could write like this: Some lacerating truths from Paul Krugman:
Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing ó how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks.
Saturday, March 08, 2003
Well, I think we've underestimated the "persuasiveness" of pRess ConFronts II:
for example, two prominent erstwhile fence-sitting/pro-war bloggers whom I read regularly -- Josh Marshall and Calpundit -- have, as of today, joined the ANTI-war camp . . .
. . . glad to have you guys. Grab a protest sign, and a cup of coffee. Demonstration lines form to the rear . . .
Friday, March 07, 2003
It occurred to me the other day, the seeming barbarians who run North Korea could do us all a HUGE favor, and score brownie points with the civilized world (well, minus the US and UK anyway), by just playing "the Pyongyang gambit" over the next few days, and calling Bush on his "preemptive" bluff.
They could say, "Well, the day the US invades Iraq is the day all the old rules go out the window, and we have to keep up. Therefore, once the shitstorm of gore they laughingly call Shock and Awe begins, we in North Korea assert our OWN right to preemptively strike, if we in our own estimation feel 'threatened.'
"Which we do -- or will, the moment Shock and Awe is launched.
"So we'll THEN strike the United States West Coast. With nukes.
"We're not defending Iraq OR Saddam, per se. We're just defending ourselves -- you know -- preemptively."
If Georgie wants to play geopolitical chess, he ought to think a few steps ahead.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
I recall, days after a bare majority of the Supreme Court committed an impeachable offense (and the source of all our present woe), having an email exchange with a Republican friend wherein I used the phrase "oceans of red ink" to describe what was to come . . .
P.L.A. does a fantastic job of "nailing" it:
Budget Deficit Balloons
The Bush administration has projected the budget deficit for this fiscal year to be slightly more than $304 billion. The fiscal year started last October and runs through next September. The New York Times reports, that even that dismal projection is no longer operative:
The federal deficit is growing much more quickly than expected, even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq, Congressional analysts have concluded.
Analysts for the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee have raised their estimates of this year's budget shortfall by about $30 billion, some 15 percent beyond the forecast that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued only five weeks ago.
Those estimates do not include any cost of the looming war in Iraq or any occupation of Iraq.
* * * * * * * * *
It is a good thing this is the Responsibility Era. There is going to be a lot of responsibility to accept.
North Korea, I'm sure, is becoming a sore subject around the White House -- particularly as it points up everything that's incoherent and hypocritical about our policy toward Iraq. CalPundit has some good comments on that subject -- but why is it nobody in the Western press has even mentioned -- much less confirmed or debunked -- this cryptic story out of the South Korean press that a testfired (and presumably empty) North Korean warhead has been found in Alaska?
Hankooki.com > Korea Times > Nation
`NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaskaí
By Ryu Jin
Staff Reporter
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.
"According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska," former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. "Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyangís missile capabilities."
The report was the culmination of monthlong activities of the Assemblyís overseas delegation to five countries over the North Korean nuclear crisis. The Assembly dispatched groups of lawmakers to the United States, Japan, China, Russia and European Union last month to collect information and opinions on the international issue.
The team sent to Japan, headed by Rep. Kim Hak-won of the United Liberal Democrats, reported, "Nakayama said Washington has come to put more emphasis on trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan and the United States since it recognized that the three countries are within the range of North Korean missiles."
According to the group dispatched to the U.S., American politicians had a wide range of opinions over the resolution of the nuclear issue, from "a peaceful resolution" to "military response."
Doves, such as Rep. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chairman of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, called for a peaceful settlement of the current confrontation, by offering food, energy and other humanitarian aid to the poverty-stricken country, while urging the North to give up its nuclear ambitions.
Rep. Markey also said the North should return to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the U.S. should make a nonaggression pact with the communist North.
Hardliners, however, warned that the Northís possession of nuclear weapons will instigate a nuclear race in the region, provoking Japan to also acquire nuclear weapons. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, an Illinois Republican, said the U.S. might have to bomb the Yongbyon nuclear complex should the North try to export its nuclear material to other countries.
Over the controversy concerning the withdrawal of U.S. forces stationed here, most American legislators that the parliamentary delegation met said U.S. troops should stay on the peninsula as long as the Korean people want, the report said.
jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr
03-04-2003 17:27
Sunday, March 02, 2003
Every Napoleon has his Waterloo, and every Nixon his Watergate.
(Let's hope, anyway.)
A shiny new doubleplusgood national anthem, as envisioned by Eric Idle:
We're much better than you are.
We're much bigger than you.
We're much stronger than you are.
Our God is much bigger, too.
We've more money than you have.
Our girls have much bigger tits.
We're much better than you are.
You're just a nation of shits.
We're much tougher than you are.
We're much rougher than you.
We're much butcher than you are.
Our boys are better hung, too.
We're much prouder than you are,
And if you stand in our way,
We'll be more pissed than you are
And we'll just blow you away.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
So the Supreme Court decides to throw the civil rights community a meager bone? All except Clarence Thomas, of course -- "the Supreme Court's cruelest justice."
My quick take on Thomas's dissent: "Ain't no racism here! Why, look, I went over everything with a fine toothcomb, and if you slice it all thin enough, it's just not racism -- no matter what all those crackers in the majority say! Why, it's just like the Rodney King video -- slow it all down to molasses, and analyze the shit out of each frame, and -- presto! -- the police brutality just disappears!"
Thomas needs to get to the doctor, to have that racism hyperopia looked at.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
I have yet to see any major American media reporting this war crime from the first Gulf War; shouldn't somebody be prosecuted for this?
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
This story at Talking Points Memo is a good one: Seems the New Hampshire GOP paid a group to "get out the vote," and they instead used that money to jam the Democratic Party's phone banks.
Late last week, the head of the New Hampshire GOP, Jayne Millerick, told the [Manchester] Union Leader that she's decided not to seek any refund after all, preferring instead to "move forward."
"Move forward" -- translated from GOPspeak, that means, "Quick, kids! Scatter! It's the cops!"
"Ours is a useful trade, a worthy calling: With all its lightness and frivolity, it has one serious purpose; one aim; one specialty and it is constant to it: The deriding of shams; the exposure of pretentious falsities; the laughing of stupid superstitions out of existence. And that whoso is by instinct engaged in this sort of warfare is the natural enemy of royalties, nobilities, privileges and all kindred swindles -- and the natural friend of human rights, and human liberties." -- Mark Twain
Boy, the "moral clarity" of the Endless War Against a Vicious Method of Warfare just keeps smacking us in the face, doesn't it? If what Seymour Hersh tells us is true, don't we need to begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney NOW? Before they start ANOTHER war?
Monday, February 17, 2003
Statement by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.
High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats,labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.
Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time."
Sunday, February 16, 2003
Let's see the bought-and-paid-for media try to spin this away . . .
(and thanks to Diane Everett for collecting the pictures -- that one of the guy in the hazmat suit clutching a photo of a serviceman -- his son? -- gets me every time)
I'm amazed and glad to see Chris Matthews come out in opposition to invading Iraq. "Every Arab school a madrass school" and likening Bush's foreign policy to Bernard Goetz are only two of his better bon mots. Here's a snippet:
. . . We're taking on a billion people. A battle for Baghdad could ignite a war with Islam. I think people in the Muslim world are going to see this as the Second Crusades. Every geography book in the world is going to say "American-occupied Iraq" over the map of Iraq. That's going to be the most glaring indignity the Arabs have ever faced. Every school in the Arab world will be a madrass school.
The way bin Laden points to the U.S. military bases in Saudi ArabiaÖ
Right. And nobody ever explained to me why we kept troops there all these years, when we know it drove them crazy. We're not even using them this time around. So why not get them out? Why didn't we recognize how much it bothered them spiritually and politically?
I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion. Five years from now, 10 years from now, there's going to be a huge Islamic population in the world, they're going to be nationalistic, they're going to be religious, and they're going to be militant. The question will be, "Do they hate us or not? Do they have a grievance?"
Well, do they?
Well, they will after this, won't they?
Friday, February 14, 2003
On the radio last night I heard a number of scientists and others working in the area of chemical and biological weapons, who all sounded a bit exasperated about the whole "duct tape and plastic sheeting" advice coming out of Washington.
They pointed out that, for one thing, such an attack probably would come without advance warning, so you'd have to "duct tape" your house (or at least a room) beforehand. But that's not the REAL kicker: In order to prevent contamination, what you'd need to do is to seal up at least one room, airtight.
Which leaves you, of course, with one OTHER big problem: Air.
You'll have about 5 hours' supply, before you pass out and die.
Which I thought particularly appropriate, given how this administration manages to spread disinformation at every turn -- even (on that extremely rare occasion) where it may not mean to.
So here's Homeland Security's big disaster plan, folks: Seal up the house. Drink the Kool-Aid. Lace up those Nikes.
Our Great Leader is taking us on a marvelous adventure, out behind Saturn, where we will all be whooshed away Home!
Thursday, February 13, 2003
A few questions for those who support a preemptive invasion of Iraq: First off, yeah, I'll readily concede that Saddam is surely one of the "bad guys" on the world stage -- but that's a pretty big crowd. Always has been, always will be.
Just because Chickenhawk Little in the White House is screaming "The sky is falling in!" is no reason to believe him, however -- since it's been proven eight ways from Sunday that he's lied to us continuously and repeatedly about the "dangers" of Saddam, and his "partnership" with Osama.
(Question: If a dozen hunters throw enough lead around the forest, and manage to drive both a bobcat and a snake up the same tree -- does that mean the bobcat and the snake are "cohabiting" up there? It's about as ridiculous as what Colin Powell has been nattering about the past week -- Osama's tape calls Saddam an infidel, and asks the Iraqi people to OVERTHROW HIM! Does that mean there's a "linkage" between Osama and Boy George?)
So what's Saddam got that Kim Il Sung (of N. Korea) HASN'T got? (Hint: It's one word, and it rhymes with "linoleum.") And why aren't we going after Kim first? (Answer: Because he can actually fight back -- with nukes.)
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
This administration is proving, on a daily basis, that its foreign policy (which is to say, its reelection campaign) now consists of nothing more than Stoking the Jihad. The CIA tells us a preemptive strike against Iraq is almost certain to bring more terrorist attacks here at home. But apparently the Bushies think that's an acceptable risk. Of course they do -- THEY won't be the ones wounded or killed. And if it's not them -- well, as they've proven time and again -- they just don't care.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
With apologies to the late Robert Frost:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the road all despots try
And that has made all the difference . . .
Sunday, February 09, 2003
And the hits just keep on coming! After the travesty of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN (which, if you discount the lies and exaggerations, shows that Saddam is definitely trying to hide something) one must conclude that Powell failed to prove (or even address, really) the second, crucial part of the equation -- what is the wisest thing to do about it right now? When the evil dictator with WMD has nook-u-lar weapons, and regularly threatens to use them on us -- well, that's when our unelected government downplays the danger, and pooh-poohs the threats.
On the other hand, when it's Iraq -- a nation far weaker than it was twelve years ago, when we last destroyed it militarily -- why, we can just waltz right in and take over. It's absurdist theater in place of a foreign policy, and worthy of a Monty-Pythonesque parody.
Friday, February 07, 2003
It occurs to me this morning that government is simply a tool. Democrats treat it like they own it; Republicans treat it like a rental.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
I must say I did find this a bit disturbing -- until I realized what Clinton was advocating back in '98 was stepped-up inspections, not war.
Nathan Newman points out how Bush sells out the Kurds -- for a third time. Gosh, why do they hate us?
And enough about the dead astronauts already -- can't we grow a sense of perspective here, people?
(That last link was to CNNLies, the blog of a webfriend, Denis.)
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Gag Me With A Noon(an):
† †Peggy Noonan: ìThis, truly, is a good man Ö There is a profound authenticity to him, and a fearlessness too Ö More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift.î
ìFor a moment I though of earnest Clark Kent moving, at the moment of maximum danger, to shed his suit, tear open his shirt and reveal the big ëSí on his chest.î
"Yea, verily, he was like unto a God . . . and strode, colossus-like, across the American plain . . . " Has she no shame?
I think Noonan is missing her calling. She should be writing bodice-rippers.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Excellent interview with Daniel Ellsberg, courtesy of Interesting Times:
"So what exactly are the lies you say the press should be examining more deeply?"
"The first lie is: Saddam represents the No. 1 danger to U.S. security in the world. To allow the president and Rumsfeld to make that statement over and over is akin to them saying without challenge from the press that they accept the flat-earth theory. To say Saddam is the No. 1 danger is being made without real challenge from the press, with few exceptions. More dangerous than al-Qaida? North Korea? Russian nukes loose in the world? An India-Pakistan nuclear war?
"I'm impressed by the testimony of Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's mediator in the Middle East, who said he'd place Saddam sixth or seventh on any list of dangers we face. The question is, are we helping our cause against threats one through five by going after number six or seven?
"Two: That we are reducing the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by attacking Iraq. This is one of the most dangerous assertions since all evidence is that we are increasing the threat of such terrorism by the attack, as CIA Director [George] Tenet said in his letter to Congress. Tenet said the danger is very low that Saddam will use weapons if not attacked and fairly high if he is attacked.
"Three: The reason we are singling Saddam out is that he cannot be contained or deterred, unlike other leaders in the world, and again this is largely unchallenged by the mainstream press. No one brings out the following point: This is a man who had weapons of mass destruction, including nerve gas, and missiles capable of hitting Israel and ready to go in the 1991 war -- which he does not now have -- and he kept his finger off the button. So how unreliable is he if not on the brink of being deposed or killed?"
Anyone in the press out there with spine enough to ask the Bush regime these questions?
Sunday, January 26, 2003
More on the "astroturfed" letter from the Bushborg praising Great Leader ("Bush has demonstrated genuine leadership on the economy") -- and finally from the New York Times.
Thursday, January 23, 2003
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Paula Abood writes: 'Remember when you read vague stuff about the US government 'editing' bits from Iraq's declaration? If you read the quality press you'll have wondered just who these corporations were who'd supplied Saddam but whose names were removed. Here they are, courtesy of Berlin daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, No. 6934, 19 Dec 2002, page 3, "Exclusive: The Secret List of Arms Suppliers - Saddam's Business partners" (taz, in German):
Key
A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, and building of military plants.
USA
1. Honeywell (R, K), Spectra Physics (K), Semetex (R), TI Coating (A, K), Unisys (A, K), Sperry Corp (R, K), Tektronix (R, A), Rockwell (K), Leybold Vacuum Systems (A), Finnigan-MAT-US (A), Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K), Dupont (A), Eastman Kodak (R), American Type Culture Collection (B), Alcolac International (C), Consarc (A), Carl Zeiss - U.S (K), Cerberus (LTD) (A), Electronic Associates (R), International Computer Systems (A, R, K), Bechtel (K), EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R), Canberra Industries Inc. (A), Axel Electronics Inc. (A).
In addition to these 24 home-based companies are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US.
Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.
FRANCE
Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (A), Sciaky (A), Thomson CSF (A, K), Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R), Cerbag (A), Protec SA (C), Thales Group (A), Societe General pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A)
GREAT BRITAIN
Euromac Ltd-Uk (A), C. Plath-Nuclear (A), Endshire Export Marketing (A), International Computer Systems (A, R, K), MEED International (A, C), Walter Somers Ltd. (R), International Computer Limited (A, K), Matrix Churchill Corp. (A), Ali Ashour Daghir (A), International Military Services (R) (part of the UK Ministry of Defence), Sheffield Forgemasters (R), Technology Development Group (R), International Signal and Control (R), Terex Corporation (R), Inwako (A), TMG Engineering (K), XYY Options, Inc (A)
JAPAN
Fanuc (A), Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A), NEC (A), Osaka (A), Waida (A)
NETHERLANDS
Melchemie B.V. (C), KBS Holland B.V. (C), Delft Instruments N.V. (K)
BELGIUM
Boehler Edelstahl (A), NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation (C), OIP Instrubel (K), Phillips Petroleum (C), Poudries Reunies Belge SA (R), Sebatra (A), Space Research Corp. (R)
SPAIN
Donabat (R), Treblam (C), Zayer (A)
SWEDEN
ABB (A), Saab-Scania (R)
There you have it, folks: The WMD suppliers to (at least) one-third of the A of E -- the USA (including the government!), France, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden. I'm just surprised Germany didn't make the list.
Uh, remember that "astroturfed" letter praising Bush's "genuine leadership" on the economy? The media are finally beginning to sit up and take notice of it, too.
Maybe when we spot this letter in our local papers, we each need to send in a terse, two-phrase letter in response: "The Bushborg has spoken! Resistance is futile!"
The best thing that could happen to Democrats in 2004 would be for Bush to write his own State of the Union message in 2003.
Can't you just hear it?
"Evenin', folks. I wanna talk to ya about our upcomin' war with Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, an' tell y'all why we're goin' in there, despite the bellyachin' of all 'em pot-smokin' hippies that camped out here las' Satiddy . . .
"Anyhoo, 'member 9-11? We was attacked? Boy, I sure do.
[stares off vacantly for an uncomfortably long time]
"Well, 'course, we had ta go inta Afghanistan, because them Talibaners wouldn't go in and grab and turn over Osama bin Laden to us, just a SIMPLE request, ya think ANYone could get THAT done, . . .
". . . uh, heh, I guess we weren't supposed ta bring HIM up, eh?"
Friday, January 17, 2003
While I think of it -- I've got to put in some plugs here for Ted Rall's and Tom Tomorrow's cartoons, and for Get Your War On! ("If a tree falls in a forest and it's the Fourth Amendment, does it make a sound?") as well.
Oh, and -- how could I forget? -- blah3.com! (And its spinoff -- Take Back the Media!)
A blogger named the Pontificator had these helpful quotes in his Wednesday story on the execrable Hamdi decision:
Quotes are in order.
First from Justice Brennan:
"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism."
Second, from John Adams:
"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people."
Third, from Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And finally, chilling words from J. Edgar Hoover:
"Justice is incedental to law and order."
I guess the moral of this story, boys and girls, is that if you're contemplating armed insurrection against this government (I'm speaking entirely hypothetically here, Mr. Ashcroft!), be sure never to leave the country at any stage in this process.
Then, if and when you're caught, you should be able to rely upon your express Constitutional right to be tried in U.S. courts for treason!
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Can YOU find the astroturfbuilder in YOUR local paper?
from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Jan. 14th:
Genuine leadership
EDITOR: When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership. The economic growth package he recently proposed takes us in the right direction by accelerating the successful tax cuts of 2001, providing marriage penalty relief and providing incentives for individuals and small businesses to save and invest.
Contrary to the class warfare rhetoric attacking the president's plan, the proposal helps everyone who pays taxes, especially the middle class. This year alone, 92 million taxpayers will receive an immediate tax cut averaging $1,083, and 46 million married couples will get back an average of $1,714. That's not pocket change for a family struggling through uncertain economic times. Combined with the initiatives to help the unemployed, this plan gets people back to work and helps every sector of our economy.
TREVOR CARLSON
Santa Rosa
Now, here's the deal . . . besides wondering whether ol' Trevor here wasn't really Tucker's twin brother (or more likely -- Tucker himself, in fake nose and glasses), I also wondered if this letter wasn't "spammed" by the RNC, nationwide . . .
And guess what? It was!
Atrios of Eschaton points out that the same letter praising W's self-stimulus package and sporting the phrase "demonstrating genuine leadership" (a poll-friendly subliminable message) is simultaneously appearing under different names in newspapers nationwide. The practice of such unreality is called astroturfing.
You can google the phrase for a current look at which lazy-ass editors have been hoodwinked by propagandist drones most recently.
skimble
{ 10:10 AM }
As a consequence, I emailed the following letter to my local paper (I've added hotlinks, for your convenience):
Dear Editor:
I read with great interest the letter from Trevor Carlson in your January 14th issue, waxing rhapsodic about how George W. Bush is "demonstrating genuine leadership" with his new (self)-stimulus proposal for even more tax cuts. However, I have to say I found the argument unpersuasive.
In fact, it was no more persuasive than I have found it -- presented in the identical words, published under various signatures over the past few weeks -- in letters to the editors of, respectively, the Merced Sun-Star, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the Lynchburg, VA Ledger, the Klamath Falls, OR Herald and News, the International Herald Tribune, the Tucson Citizen, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- even the Houghton, MI Daily Mining Gazette.
This scam is called "astroturfing" -- because it's "artificial grassroots," designed to make it seem that there's a groundswell of opinion out there supporting these ideas. There isn't. I'm surprised, though, that you would allow your Letters to the Editor section to be "spammed" like this -- isn't it Press Democrat policy to publish only ORIGINAL letters?
Sincerely,
Michael P. Scott
