TORTURE OR TICKLING?

So I'm watching "Washington Journal" this morning and they have Heather Mac Donald from the Manhattan Institute on. She is a neoconservative apologist, though it takes a few callers to point that out. C-Span, in its stenographic, completely objective way (and it now strikes me that "complete objectivity" is really ignorance--one can only be "completely objective" if one has no knowledge of good and evil, of actions and consequences, of history, and so forth; so to ask a reporter or journalist to be completely objective is to ask them to be as innocent as a child, to pretend they don't know anything and to dutifully and unquestioningly scribble down whatever anyone tells them just because that's what was said), never challenged her and never ID'ed her for what she truly was. Since C-Span is objective, I think a lot of people assume that their guests are objective.

Anyway, this woman answered a caller (who said she was lying about the torture not being ordered from the top and who said he'd been in contact with Abu Ghraib's Janice Karpinski) by offering this comforting scenario (I don't have a transcript, so this will be the gist). In contrasting how the U.S. treats prisoners vs. how al Qaeda treats prisoners, she pointed out that they cut off heads, while we offer McDonald's Filets-o-Fish (for real, apparently) to these "terrorist" yahoos. Who's better then, is her implication, us with our filets or them with their decapitation?

Which would be a good point if she wasn't employing the logical fallacy of comparing apples to oranges. She compares our best behavior to their worst behavior. That doesn't compute, especially when our behavior involved prisoners being killed at Abu Ghraib, not being given Filet-o-Fish sandwiches.

This is also what Justin Raimondo is getting at in his antiwar.com column today. The neocons want to play semantic games, i.e., they say "define abuse." They want to know if "abuse" is yelling at a detainee or if it's sleep deprivation or if it's keeping them from going to the bathroom, expecting that critics will back down and say, "well, I guess that's not exactly 'abuse'--it's unpleasant and aggressive, but not really 'abuse.'"

That's what they want us to say, and they want to get us bogged down in an argument over whether yelling is abuse. Notice they don't ask whether or not hooking up electrodes is abuse, or whether putting naked people in piles is abuse, or whether threatening them with dogs is abuse, or whether killing them is abuse. There's one simple answer to this question that every neocon critic needs to give--if it's abuse when done to one of ours, then it's abuse when done to one of theirs.

Oh no, they'll scream--that's moral equivalence! We don't target civilians--they can't wait to kill civilians--that's what Ms. Mac Donald said! She said that is all they think about, it's their only goal in life, killing civilians. Goddamn it, these vile neocons are good at demonization!

Well, here's moral equivalence for ya--as a result of our actions, as many as 100,000 Iraqis have died. Even if you assume that's wildly inaccurate and concede to only a tenth of that figure, that's still more of their people that we have killed than they have killed of ours. For a long while, people were fond of hollering "but they murdered 3,000 innocent civilians on 9/11!" ARE WE FUCKING EVEN YET? Frankly, who's smarter and more efficient--they sacrificed 19 to kill 3,000 for what was the figure, $50 K or $500 K? We've sacrificed over 1,300 (that's just the dead, not counting the thousands more wounded) to kill maybe 100,000 for how much now, $200 billion? Who the fuck is laughing now? We've killed more of their citizens, sure, but we spent a lot more money to do it and lost a lot more of our fathers, mothers, sons and daughters to do it! The "terrorists" are probably thinking of that schoolyard taunt where you beat someone up with their own hands "America, why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourself! Why won't you stop hitting yourself?"

So suck on that! Americans have no morality monopoly. We gave that shit up long ago. Hell, we've never been moral--in the original constitution, blacks were property and counted as 3/5 of a person, women couldn't vote, poor whites couldn't vote, we slaughtered the Indians, and so forth and so on. Only the worst kind of sick and dangerous religious zealot could paper over those and hundreds of other instances to say that America was conceived in some kind of unimpeachable righteousness and that's the banner that George W. Bush carries us forth under today. But there are a hell of a lot of sick, dangerous, religious zealots out there, and right now they control us all...

We should all pray for not only this country, but for the whole world...because in 50 years, the stuff these religious and government wackos are saying will seem like clear statements of intent to undermine American society and people in the future will wonder why we didn't see it coming when it was as plain as the noses on our faces...

SONGS OF 05

I am going to try something different this year...I'm going to try to keep a running list of the songs that tickle my fancy. Some I'll comment on, others I won't. That doesn't really say anything about the quality of the music one way or another--if I comment, it's only because I could think of something to say. So here's the first installment:

Rainstick Orchestra-The Floating Glass Key In The Sky: Trick, Electric Counterpoint Fast
Dexateens-Red Dust Rising: Pine Belt Blues, Bitter Scene, Pistol Totin’ Man, Devoted To Lonesome [these guys kick ass and they come from right up the road in Tuscaloosa, AL--strange that their website doesn't mention their great new record. It's more "together" than the first one, but it still rocks loose and beautiful]
The Coke Dares-Here We Go With...: Disappearing Up The Wizard’s Sleeve, Black Beauties [short tunes-32 songs in 32 minutes--like if the Minutemen played power chords]
Brice-Cabin Capers: True Love [unpolished (in a good way) earnest pop rock]
Hexstatic-Master-View: Distorted Minds, Extra Life, Chase Me, Pulse [I have already paid money to get this--that's the highest praise I can give something like this because I can copy the one from our station any time I care to, but this thing is awesome--the DVD is brilliant and can be appreciated by toddlers and stoners alike]
Low-The Great Destroyer: Just Stand Back, Broadway (So Many People) [more raucous than I remember them, but just as good if not better than their other stuff]

SHORT BUT SWEET

So Conyers' Challenge was short-lived and "quickly disposed of" in the dismissive language of the Associated Press. It was important to do it anyway, to show the Repukes, the press, the Dems, and everybody that some things are worth fighting for just on principle.

Sure, the Repubes used Kerry's concession against him, as they have all along, and as they did against Gore in 2000 (note to future Democrats-don't fucking concede--ever again!). They want to make it out like standing up for something important just makes you a "sore loserman" but what Dems and liberals need to remember is that sticks and stones may break their bones, but standing up the fascist right can only help us. So good for Boxer and Tubbs-Jones and Conyers and all the rest who spoke but I didn't get to see because I was reading this tripe from the "liberal media" over the airwaves (like every other radio schmo with an AP wire) at noon today:

The White House is accusing Democrats of engaging in "conspiracy theories." Democrats have succeeded in delaying today's certification of the Electoral College count in the presidential race. It will be held up for a couple of hours, as lawmakers debate alleged vote problems in Ohio.

That's the story in its entirety. To me, it perfectly encapsulates the problem with the American media--by the way, I didn't read the first sentence on the air.

Here's How The Shit Is Fucked Up

Notice that the story quotes the White House but no one else. There is no "fair-and-balancing" quote from a Democrat--maybe they could've talked to Conyers or Boxer or Tubbs-Jones and put in a blurb from one of them. How about if the story had read this way: The White House is accusing Democrats of engaging in "conspiracy theories," but a Democratic senator says she is seeking "electoral justice." That new bit is from Boxer's website and was almost certainly sent out to major news orgs as a press release--probably more or less around the same time some Bushite spokesmen was called Democrats "conspiracy theorists."

That way, the story would have a yin and a yang. Repubes say it's a "conspiracy theory" while Dems say it's a lack of "electoral justice." A statement like my altered one would truly allow the reader to decide who's right and who's wrong by presenting both sides rather than just repeating a snarky White House statement.

And that's part of the problem that people like McChesney and Matt Miller bring up--the press as stenographer. The White House said it, so they have to write it down and publish it. Which might be fine if the White House stayed doped up on truth serum, but no White House does that. That's why they teach you in journalism classes that you have to have more than one source. Because there are always at least two sides to a story. The AP just gave one.

The whole tone of the story is dismissive, saying that Conyers' Challenge was merely "delaying today's certification" and merely "held up for a couple of hours" the foregone conclusion. Did the Associated Press know for sure that Ohio's electoral votes would not be successfully challenged? Are they clairvoyant? Is the AP able to see the future? Were they given the final result by Diebold and ES&S? Or by the Lord Jesus himself? Now granted, the challenge had little to no chance of succeeding in overturning the results, but that doesn't mean that it was impossible.


The Second Story

That first story came down the wire at 12:51 p.m. EST. This second story came down at 3:56 p.m. EST. Here's the second story:

Congress is quickly disposing of a challenge by some Democrats who were unhappy about the way the election was conducted in Ohio. The protestors invoked the rule requiring the official counting of the electoral votes to stop long enough for a debate on their complaints. But the Senate has already finished the debate and voted to reject the protest.

Again, dismissive language--"disposing of," "the protestors," and "their complaints." The first sentence is particularly odious, as though the AP were saying "All is well, corporate America! Fear not, for the Republican Congress hath disposed of the wicked Democrat's unseemly challenge and hath smitten them mightily!" Like the half of the country that voted for Kerry is reassured somehow by that "quick disposal."

And then there's the description of Democrats as merely "unhappy." Ah poor Dems! Are you feeling down today? Turn that frown upside down! C'mon, all is well in the land, for King George hath ascended once more to his rightful throne..."Unhappy?" That's the best adjective they could come up with? How about this more neutral sentence instead of the AP's loaded one: "Congress is nearing the end of a discussion about a challenge brought by Democrats who say Ohio's conduct of the election was problematic."

And the "protestors" the story refers to? There are less loaded yet accurately descriptive words that could have been used here: "congresspeople," "Democrats," "legislators," etc. And the "congresspeople" didn't bring forth mere "complaints," they brought forth "objections" or "exceptions," perhaps. "Complaints" makes the people the word is attached to sound whiny, while "objections" sounds more reasoned and professional.

But that's our kickass "liberal" media at work, always ready to suck up to the Democrats and the liberals...Oh shit is this country in trouble...

WATCH C-SPAN TOMORROW AT 1 p.m. EASTERN!!

To see whether the Democrats will step up or puss out. It ain't gonna make Kerry president, but it will tarnish Bush's much-ballyhooed mandate. As Randi Rhodes pointed out this afternoon, the best possible outcome of Conyers' Challenge will result in the President being determined by the House Of Representatives. So in 2000, he was appointed by the Supreme Court and in 2004 he was "elected" by the House of Representatives. Thom Hartmann lays out how it all works in this excellent article:

Electors have already met in the various states to vote, but that vote will not be opened until Thursday, January 6th. If Conyers' protest is matched by the protest of at least one single senator, then the House and Senate retire to their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours to debate the legitimacy of the Ohio (and, possibly, other) electoral slates. After two hours, with a maximum of 5 minutes for any member to speak, a vote is taken. If both the House and the Senate vote by majority to sustain the challenge, then the presidential vote goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has a single vote.

So the House only gets to vote on the matter if majorities in both houses agree to sustain the challenge--which they probably won't do since they're both controlled by Republicans. But at least the evidence will get an airing and the story will be so big that the mainstream media cannot ignore it. But then again, they might ignore it by covering it--just give it a few lines or a couple minutes and then move on to the regularly scheduled broadcast of "Reforming By Deformity--Tax Codes, Social Security, and Torts."

Not That It Matters...

But whatever became of the issue of whether or not Bush properly served out his time in the National Guard?

I was thinking of a couple other stories along these lines that were a big splash at one time but now are completely dropped, but I forgot them between the time I thought of them and now, when I'm typing. Oh well...

Oh, one other thing--let's get the hell out of Iraq!! It was a bad idea to do it in the first place, now it's just a death trap for everyone involved.

Oh yeah, Gonzales' confirmation will be on C-Span tomorrow also...whew--a busy news day.

CRAPPY NEW YEAR

Oh, I only say "crappy" because of the "re-election" of George W. Bush. Today is the day of Jesse Jackson's "Count Every Vote" rally in Columbus Ohio. I haven't had a chance to read much today, so let's go together to "Ohio Election Fraud," a blog about the vote situation in Ohio, and this story from the Columbus Post.

OK, so not much about how it went. I guess we'll know tomorrow what the results were--but only if you read Buzzflash or Democratic Underground or maybe this spot.

Tsunami

That damn tsunami is taking all the juice out of this election story. Can't the American media effectively cover more than one big story at once? We were told every gory detail of Scott Peterson's case over and over again in various media outlets, but this election thing--nope, can't spare a column inch.

It's like Matt Miller asked in his recent column "Whose Agenda Is It Anyway" (interesting note--this column is dated 12-8-04 on Miller's website and appeared in my local paper just today):

Public life is like any bulletin board (or a front page) of finite size. When some things are chosen for that bulletin board, others are by definition crowded out. So, "hard news" (like bombs in Iraq) aside, a citizen should always ask when he plucks his newspaper off the driveway in the morning: "Why are we discussing what we are discussing?"

Hmmm...maybe because Jesse Jackson and John Conyers are trying to bring up disconcerting questions about the election in which the media basically forced John Kerry to concede (he shouldn't have, but I can't say that I would have done anything differently were I in his situation) prematurely. So it's a good thing for the press that there was a horrific disaster in Asia--and to be sure, it's a very important story--so there doesn't have to be any real coverage of our own possibly stolen election. Which is in itself a hugely important story.

The Media Forced Him?

Well of course "the media" didn't put a gun to Kerry's head and make him concede. But reading through the "Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader," which I got from my pals for Christmas, it occurred to me that the national television networks should not "call" states for one candidate or the other, especially not on election night.

We don't have to know who won the night of the election. Most states don't finalize and certify their vote counts until days or weeks after an actual election, so why are TV networks prematurely usurping the states' (by which I mean "the people's" power?

It's a bad idea. Instead of "calling" an election, they could just report the preliminary percentages they receive, i.e., "NBC News reports that exit polls from Ohio show candidate X with 5% of the vote and candidate Y with 4%." The operative phrase from the last two elections is "too close to call." Why the hell are they even trying to "call" an election at all? They should just wait until the states count their votes and then we can find out who won.

What's Up With Strokin'?

My band played a New Year's Eve party at the Forrest County Multi-Purpose Center on Friday, and we were pressured into faking the Clarence Carter tune "Strokin'." We'd never played it before and in fact, we had to get an audience member to sing with us--he did quite a good job, by the way.

At any rate, we announced that we were going to play it after I suggested a chord progression to the group that I thought was close enough. So we start playing 3 chords over and over again (E-D-A, kinda like "Gloria" or "Let It All Hang Out") with a funky beat behind it.

Well, it had the desired effect because a bunch of people started grinding to the music. But what struck me about it was that we didn't even really (and still don't) know the song. We were just playing some simple chords over a funky beat. Which is kind of what we do with our original tunes, but they don't necessarily inspire people to start grinding and losing their minds.

I understand that people like "Strokin'" and there is sort of a predictable, prepared reaction that people have to it, but why is that? If we had played the exact same chord progression with the exact same beat, with lyrics just as suggestive and horny, would people have reacted the same way? I don't think so.

Because as I say, our originals are fairly simple affairs--our lyrics aren't really salacious, but I don't think suggestiveness has anything to do with a crowd's reaction to a song (see "Brown-Eyed Girl" or "Mustang Sally"). We play three or four chords in various sequences over danceable beats (as do lots of bands), but they don't necessarily create such a reaction. I mean, people enjoy the songs, but they don't dry hump each other.

Is It The Beat?

So I'm wondering, what is it about that stupid song that gets that reaction? I think I've ruled out the beat, the chords, the type of lyrics--pretty much everything having to do with the makeup of a song. So what is it? I mean, I wonder the same thing about "Brown-Eyed Girl" and "Mustang Sally" too, but the thing is, we actually know those songs. We didn't really know "Strokin'," but people reacted to it like it was the sexiest, funkiest thing they'd ever heard.

Hmmmm....

Calling Just One Senator

Will a Senator stand with John Conyers or will we relive the first scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" all over again? Let's WATCH C-SPAN on Jan. 6 and find out!!

GOOD FOR YOU, JOHN CONYERS

Conyers, a House member from Michigan, is lobbying Senators to challenge Ohio's electoral votes due to "numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law." This guy has some balls.

Either that or he realized a couple of things after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, which by the way, is an excellent movie that makes a lot of really good points (I'm not going to wring my hands or pretend to wring my hands in front of the finger-wagging conservatives--Michael Moore kicks ass with some agitprop and everyone knows it and more of us lefties should be associating ourselves with him publicly rather than disassociating ourselves with him). Like for instance, he realized that he didn't look so great admitting that legislators don't really read the full text of the bills they're going to sign.

He also realized that a lot of people really sympathized with the Congressional Black Caucus when they tried to challenge the 2000 vote in Florida but couldn't because no Senator would sign. What a bunch of fucking pussies that bunch was.

Not that different now

And I hate to say it, but there're still a bunch of pussies there on the Democratic side now. You might think, well, John Kerry--the candidate himself--is a Democratic senator. Yes, indeed, but unfortunately he's also a pussy--and I say that for one reason only. And that reason is that he conceded when it wasn't clear at all that Bush had won. And he helped validate Bush's victory. Why in hell's bells he conceded I'll never know...

And please don't think that I think George W. Bush is any less of a pussy. In fact, he's more of a pussy. He wouldn't go to war himself, but he sure loves a good international conflict. He filtered his audiences on the campaign trail and made them sign loyalty oaths and what not. He is a giant, worthless pussy of a shithead and I find him a disgrace to the office of president. And I'm ashamed that he, like me, is from Texas.

So I guess we shouldn't expect much from this challenge. I'm going to predict that no Democratic senator will sign on this time either. They're all too busy trying to protect their jobs and their prestige. I bet a Senator or two, sometime in the next week or so, will publicly flirt with the idea of joining Conyers' challenge (or will leak through someone else that they're flirting with the idea), but then Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter--the 4 horseshits of the apocalypse--will shout that person down with vile, baseless, ad hominem attacks and epithets and the timid Democrat(s) will be cowed into submission.

Hopefully I will be wrong...

YEAH, IT'S HIM

Why does the story always break like this? First, it's reported that a tape "believed" to have the voice of bin Laden is released. Then a couple days pass, and I guess we're all supposed to be waiting with bated breath to find out whether or not the tape is actually bin Laden. And then they always come back and say, "Yeah, it's him." Just like today.

I mean, my point is, why not just say it's definitely bin Laden when the tape is first "released." Bin Laden's got his own label, yo, and he's got to keep it fresh fo' his peeps. Again, the tapes are always confirmed to be the voice of bin Laden. I'm just wondering what sort of strategy the State Dept. or who-the-fuck-ever (in the above link, it's a "senior government official" speaking on "condition of anonymity") is in charge of releasing this information is trying to employ.

Some guesses

1. Fear (the waiting is the hardest part): Here's how they play this one: "Bin Laden is releasing tapes, so that means he's still out there and he's gonna getcha! But wait, he's an unreliable terrorist, we can't be 100% sure that the voice on this tape is even his. I hope the suspense doesn't kill you [wink, wink] while we try to determine if this very dangerous person is still at large and therefore a dire and immediate threat to your personal safety...Do do de do do...still running tests--it's gonna take a day or--oh wait, it is him. Be very afraid!"

2. Number one is my best, and really only, guess. I thought I had something else but forgot it while composing that little gem.

I'm not necessarily saying that the press necessarily connives to do this, but they feel like they have to go along with the game that the State Dept. or who-the-fuck-ever is playing with them. And so every single time it's like, a new OBL tape, is it him, authorities can't confirm, wait a couple days, yeah, it's him. And so the press is happy because they get a couple days of looking responsible and bringing you serious news and the State Dept. or who-the-fuck-ever is happy because they're doing their part to rattle everyone.

But it's all a bunch of bullshit.

So what?

So bin Laden is calling for a boycott of Iraqi elections. Big deal. That's within his purview. That's exactly what you'd expect him to do. But what is annoying is that now this makes it look like al Qaeda did have ties to Saddam before the war. Just to be clear, though, IRAQ AND AL QAEDA HAD NO OPERATIONAL CONNECTION BEFORE THE WAR. Maybe they do now, but this is after the fact--their current connection does not retroactively justify this godawful war we're currently in.

The Iraqi elections won't be for real anyway. Ayad Allawi will win, and if Bush doesn't let him get the job just because it's so predictable, it'll be some other American puppet who will be installed. And then we'll call it a free and clean election and keep right on killing and being killed and looking for ways to extract treasure from Iraq.

And you know, I was thinking today--it doesn't or wouldn't surprise me at all if Iraqis and Middle Easterners in general remained angry at us for a long time about our illegal invasion of Iraq. I'm still angry about it and I'm as WASP-y white bread as they come.

But anyway...

Take the "p" out of "pharmacy"...

Check this shit out...

As a drug company executive, I care about profits. When I was responsible for a region in Northern Europe, I doubled sales in two years by lowering drug prices, and in the process increased my company's sales ranking in Sweden from No. 19 to No. 7 in less than two years. I proved that it is possible to do good business with lower prices.

This guy is a vice-president of marketing at Pfizer...wonder if he'll be fired, killed (in an accident, of course), or given a raise as a buy-off to shut up making perfectly logical comments like these.

Because you know Big Pharma ain't gonna go out like a bitch...they gon' git they money...

HERKY JERKY XMAS

Had a good holiday...I had no idea that I would like cargo pants so much...Got a pair from my dad and thought I'd get the receipt, but then put them on when I got home and found out they kick ass! They're comfy and cool-looking--I never thought so before when I'd see them hanging on the rack...

Conceptual Go-read-it

And of course my father and I had a political discussion. We had to--he mentioned that he was offended by people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Now if this isn't the biggest crock of shit to come along and muddy up the issues, I don't know what is.

What shocks and scares me is that someone like my father has fallen for this new conservative campaign. My father is, in a lot of ways, the smartest, most versatile person I know of. He has two master's degrees, a phD in thermodynamics, he's an excellent carpenter, he's done well with animal husbandry, he's a blueberry farmer, he has a master of divinity degree, he's spent time in Europe, Mexico, and Africa, he voted for Carter in 1980, he's for legalizing weed, he is a scientist, and on and on. But he buys into the horseshit spewed by drug addicts and sexual harrassers (Limbaugh and O'Reilly, respectively).

I told him that "Happy Holidays" is inclusive, while "Merry Christmas" is exclusive figuring that would make sense to him seeing as how the Christian thing to do is to include rather than exclude people. Acknowledging the belief systems and religious calendars of other people is not a sin, it's not wrong, it's just polite and friendly.

Oh, anyway, more on that in a minute...But I wanted to say that I was reading the Conceptual Guerilla's latest tirade--"What Do You Do With An Ugly Baby?" He does a really good job of explaining the conservative ideology and how it affects those who adhere to it and how to counteract it. Just wanted to point that out. Here's a sample passage:

You can snare a snake handler with two questions. 1. Is god omniscient -- is he everywhere? 2. Was God present when the serpent tempted Eve? He's trapped. If he says "yes," he's contradicted the account in Genesis, wherein God was absent. Conclusion: The Book of Genesis has at least one fact that is inaccurate. If he says "no," then God isn't omniscient -- contradicting a fundamental tenet of his faith. Now press him with "which one is it -- because you're wrong about one or the other?"

That's a good one, here's another that I liked because it deals with rationality vs. irrationality (which the wingnuts like to use to their advantage):

See how thorny the problems are in dealing with ideologues? You are used to thinking rationally. You may assume that other people think rationally, since you do. You view politics as a rational process, wherein differing ideas are selected on the basis of reason, evidence and common sense. Then you confront a flying monkey, and you don't what to do with him. The rules of rationality don't appear to apply to him. He is outside of your rational system. So you appear to be required to deal with him in terms of simple force -- something distasteful to you, if you are a rational human being.

Just the "Facts"...

And that's kind of what my dad and I discussed. I thought that a way we could get around talking about political issues was to talk about how we (and by extension, our fellow citizens) should talk about politics in the future. By which I mean that my father and I always end up conceding to each other that neither of us have the "facts" to back up what we're saying. That is to say, we know the facts as we see them, but we can't remember a specific book to cite right there off the top of our heads.

So I proposed that maybe we try to establish what we would use as "facts" so that our future discussions might actually be fruitful as opposed to exercises in which of us remembers our partisan screeds more completely. But when I laid out my criteria to him, he was dissatisfied with them and doubted that people such as him and me could ever really get "the facts" if there even are such things in matters of policy.

Of course my response to that was, if there are no objective facts or any objective reality, then nothing is rational and nothing makes any sense and basically anything you propose as a policy is just as good as anything else. And for that matter, why have a government or anything, if you can't ever really determine the facts?


Reason vs. Faith

I think the disagreements between my father and me come down to the age-old battle of reason vs. faith. I would argue that people need both and they are not mutually exclusive--I don't have to suspend my powers of reasoning to have faith in God and neither do I have to abandon faith in God because I think reason, as opposed to faith, should govern relations among men. And I think my father is coming to the conclusion as he ages that faith is all you can really count on. And he may be right in some sense about that. For example, everyone tries to twist "the facts" their way until you don't even know what to believe whereas your faith is your faith--it belongs to you and you don't have to justify it or subject it to the scrutiny of reason, and so in that sense, faith is all you really ever have.

But shit-a-mighty, I think we should all be able to agree that government should be run according to reason rather than faith. And forget George W. Bush--this would be true whether he was president or not. And the reason that reason is preferable is because reason requires proof. If you piss on my boots and tell me it's raining, reason tells me your piss is making me wet, not rain. I therefore know that I can't trust you.

But if I feel like I just have to "just trust our President in every decision that he makes and...just support that...and, um, be faithful in what happens," then I set myself up for being lied to. Because faith requires no proof. If people let faith rather than reason guide them in the non-religious parts of their lives, they'll find themselves being duped and taken advantage of time and again. Because what's to stop someone from taking advantage of your "faith?" Nothing, that's what.

That's exactly the problem with this country--we have too much faith in ourselves. People say, "Oh, America is the greatest country in the world--okay, we torture people from time to time, but still--the world's greatest country." Or "America--greatest country--yes, yes, there are no WMD in Iraq, but this is the greatest country."

Why not look at it like this--there is no greatest country. There are just countries and they all do some good stuff and some bad stuff. And hopefully the citizens of the countries try to keep their governments from doing too much of the bad stuff. But that whole false construction of "greatest country in the world" covers up a multitude of sins in the minds of a whole lot of people and keeps them from demanding that we do anything about our sins...

OK, I'm exhausted...gotta go to bed...

HAPPY XMAS (War Not Over Yet, Though)...

Happy holidays to regular readers...haven't kept up with the news much the past few days...did see "Napoleon Dynamite" and thought it charming...

Media Matters has a good list of the Top 10 most outrageous conservative comments...and while we're talking about Media Matters, their recent book "Mis-Stating The State Of The Union" is very informative...and cheap.

Hopefully on Jan. 3 and 6 we'll see some fireworks regarding the Ohio vote...unless the Dems chump out like they did in 2000...let's all watch C-Span those two days at least so we don't feel like dumbshits when Michael Moore includes the footage in a documentary 3 years hence (as the Majority Report's Sam Seder pointed out)...

Also, the good ol' "liberal media" is really letting Bush have it over him sanctioning torture...the Washington Post at least brought it up:

But the documents also confirm that interrogators at Guantanamo believed they were following orders from Mr. Rumsfeld. One FBI agent reported on May 10 about a conversation he had with Guantanamo's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who defended the use of interrogation techniques the FBI regarded as illegal on the grounds that the military "has their marching orders from the Sec Def."

Don't these people know that Rumsfeld is a great "Sec Def" according to Bush?...

Well, try to have a Merry Christmas anyhoo...

ACK ACK ACK ACK...

So the Hattiesburg American printed my letter...all right! The more the idea of "end the war" creeps into people's consciousnesses, the better...

A Blessing?

Saw a father of a wounded soldier on MSNBC talking about how it was a "blessing" for his son to be "given" to him twice (here's a link--this is probably the story, but I'm not sure since I didn't catch the guy's name on MSNBC)...I understand they're glad their son isn't dead, but for god's sake, he's lost both legs below the knee plus his right thumb. Even if the son makes miraculous progress in physical therapy and has a super-duper can-do attitude, it will still suck for him (the soldier) that he's an amputee with no thumb.

And I'm not sure that this soldier should be positive. Or he should be positive about the recovery part, but negative about the unnecessary war part. But these people tend to get this sort of treatment in our screwy media:

He lost both legs and a thumb fighting for our freedom in Iraq. He overcame adversity and is now the best-selling author of "Two Limbs And A Digit: An Inspiring Story Of Hope." He'll join us today for his overwhelmingly positive view on life post-amputation.

Then, when the guy is on the air, it's all positive or at least the question of why he was put in the position he was put in isn't brought up. So to the viewer/reader, the message delivered is "injured in war, now just fine...lost limbs for freedom, now just fine...war not that bad...war just fine...war causes wounds...wounds heal and are source of inspiration and book sales."

Whatever. I just thought it was a little propagandistic to show this father talking about how "blessed" he is that his son is a triple amputee (of sorts). I mean, why didn't the guy say "we're glad he's alive" or "we're glad he's still with us" or something like that. War wounds are not a blessing! They are a curse!

Again, my grandfather had a nervous breakdown in WWII. They said he was never the same. Yet my grandmother would say "I LOVE the military." That's like saying "I love prisons!" Both are necessary evils that we'd be better off without. Ugh.

The PX

So let's end the goddamn war already. I'm tired of going to Wal-Mart (yeah, I know) and having it look the PX. There're so many military people in there, and it weirds me out. I look at 'em and go--"Wonder how long he'll make it" and stuff like that. I'm tempted to go up to some of them and tell them I'm sorry that they're being shipped off to Iraq and I would like nothing more than for the war to end immediately. But I don't.

I just try not to look them in the eye.

END THE WAR..LIKE NOW, MAN

Here's a letter on the opinion page that provoked a response from me...

I have never written anything on the Opinion page or voiced my opinion before concerning wars and conflicts. But I have read several articles about American soldiers being court-martialed for killing Iraqis. Duh! What is the point of American soldiers being over there if not to kill the enemy?Wake up, U.S. leaders and politicians who are inflicting this travesty on American soldiers. Why don't you yellow bellies in government go over there if you think you could actually do a better job?

Why not invite some more attacks on U.S. soil and kill more American citizens while you're at it.

Our soldiers face an almost impossible task because the enemy looks just like every John Doe over there. I know our weak leaders will no doubt keep on punishing soldiers who make mistakes, but they should be rewarding soldiers for killing the enemy.
Wake up, politicians, war is for killing the enemy.

Let the soldiers do their jobs and return to their families.

Wow...who does this guy like? Other than soldiers...he hates politicians because they abuse soldiers, he hates Iraqis because they keep trying to kill our guys and we can't help but kill more of them than we mean to because after all they all look exactly alike (just like the "gooks" and the "niggers"), he hates peace because instead of trying to end fighting, he wants to encourage more death.

This joker is off his friggin' rocker. He starts off with this "aw shucks/humble southerner" routine--I ain't never raised my voice about nothin'...Then he all but says the Iraqis are our enemies and deserve death, that they all look the same and "our leaders" are weak and wrong in every way. If he's talking about George W., he couldn't be more right. But I have a feeling he ain't...Then he wants soldiers to be rewarded for killing more people...I mean, should they get a trip to Cozumel for every ten "sand people" they "liberate?"

Support Our Troops?

I'm almost positive that this guy is a no-holds-barred, yellow-ribbon-magnet-sporting, SUV-piloting Bush backer, but I'm not 100% sure. The only reason I'm not sure is that he is critical of "U.S. leaders." You have to understand that people from where he's from may or may not be aware that the Republicans are in control of the entire gov't. So he may think that he's really sticking it to the liberal elite cabal without being aware that the cabal is totally sitting on the sidelines nursing its wounds.

Anyway, I'm almost certain that this guy is a hardcore "support our troops" guy. I mean, literally every other car in this area has at least one yellow ribbon magnet sticker and most usually have 3 or 4. You know, you gotta support the troops--when they shoot wounded Iraqis in the head, when they abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and whatever else it is they do.

"Support the troops"--there's no qualifiers. Support them regardless of what they do. That's this guys' problem. He thinks that even if our soldiers commit atrocities and violate the laws of war, they should be allowed to get off scot free because they're Americans, damnit. Americans are only capable of doing good. Americans can never be evil.

Ugh, you get my point...I attempted several responses and this is what I eventually sent in (via email and the paper's drop box):

William R. Johnson is upset ("Let soldiers do their jobs," December 17, 2004) because he feels that soldiers should not be court-martialed for “killing the enemy.” He says that instead, soldiers should be “rewarded” for killing the “enemy,” a word he uses interchangeably with “Iraqi.”

However, he doesn’t cite a specific case of a court-martial that he thinks is unjust.
One has to assume then, that he thinks all the courts-martial he’s referring to are unjust, because after all, the cases only involve Americans heroically killing Iraqis. And killing the people we’re told we’re “liberating” is to be encouraged, because hey, what’s the point of having this awesome war if we don’t get to kill anybody, right?

I do, however, agree with Johnson that our troops should come home and the sooner the better. Rather than agitating for rewards for more death and destruction, let’s call on the President and our fellow citizens to end this illegal and immoral war immediately.

Roger Ailes is a disgusting fatso and not cause he's fat

He was on the new Q & A program on C-Span today. He said that Columbia School of Journalism's reading list is 100% anti-American. Brian Lamb asked him to clarify, and Ailes said that the books were railing against capitalism.

My point: being against the ravages of unbridled capitalism is not anti-American. In fact, Roger Ailes is anti-American precisely because he is for the ravages of unbridled capitalism (just look at the guy--he is the ravages of capitalism incarnate).

Does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the United States shall be a capitalist society and shall pursue profit above all things? No, it doesn't--therefore capitalism isn't inherently "American" and socialism isn't inherently "anti-American." Roger Ailes and Fox News and the right wing smear machine are a bunch of anti-freedom, anti-Christian, anti-American haters.

Oh, and he was really hung up on parties and restaurants (again, look at the guy--I ain't the thinnest guy on the block, but c'mon). Lamb was asking what Ailes perceived the "media establishment" to be--which Ailes implied Fox News isn't a part of--and Ailes repeatedly mentioned certain parties and restaurants that the so-called "media establishment" types go to and that's what makes them the media establishment.

And then of course, he talked about how goes to the same parties. But wants to be seen as separate from the establishment. But yet has the most popular cable news network there is. But is most definitely, absolutely not part of any media establishment. You know why? Because of parties and restaurants.

This guy is an ape and thinks everyone else is a baboon.

I missed this exchange, but it seems fairly pregnant with, shall we say, um...utter bullshit:

LAMB: How would you define journalism?

AILES: Journalism is a collection of stories, editing them and presenting them to the people in some fair manner with as many facts as you can muster to get it through to people. It’s a pretty simple craft. It’s not brain surgery. It’s simple but it’s not easy. And to do it right is hard work.

Egad...if you look at the transcript, most of the stuff I'm talking about is almost at the end...

Stuff I watched and listened to

Saw "Maria Full Of Grace" this weekend. Good movie--real insight about how poverty perpetuates the drug trade (and hot mules!). Not exactly what I expected, but that's a good thing. Also, saw "Badder Santa"--goddamn that fuckin' movie has some fuckin' cursing in it. But I liked it too.

My biggest discovery was the show "Signifcant Others" on Bravo. Friggin' hilarious!! I don't know a thing about it so I'm off to search for a website. OK...here's one. I didn't realize it was improvised...very nice.

Listened to "Sacred Steel Instrumentals" a pretty good bit. Those guys really make those steel guitars sing. I mean, every now an again, you almost can't really tell that it's not a human voice singing. Aubrey Ghent's version of "Just A Closer Walk With Thee" is what stands out right this second, but everything on there is worth checking out.

Also recently been digging Hawkwind. I'm really into a band like that that has a whole universe built around them. The album I liked most so far is "Hall of The Mountain Grill." Never had heard Hawkwind much and really just knew that Lemmy from Motorhead used to be in the band. But damn, they've really got some awesome space rock--the keyboards are very nice and are a high point, but frankly the songwriting is also quite good.

2004 Top 10

In no particular order, just the ten that made the cut:

RIDE THE BLINDS Ride The Blinds
ALL NIGHT RADIO Spirit Stereo Frequency
!!! Louden Up Now
FANCEY Fancey
COMETS ON FIRE Blue Cathedral
HELLACOPTERS By The Grace Of God
HONEYCHURCH Makes Me Feel Better
BRIAN WILSON Smile
TED LEO + PHARMACISTS Shake The Sheets
SONIC YOUTH Sonic Nurse

The new Prince album was good, so was the new Tears For Fears. I never really listened to the Wilco. I liked Paul Westerberg's album, didn't think much of R.E.M's and only liked U2's in comparison to the one that came before. I thought The Court and Spark's album was nice and the Polyphonic Spree made a good follow up. I'd say more about each of these, but I'm short on time this evening...

OUTFUCKINFOXED

Watched "Outfoxed" tonight. Very nice piece of agitprop for our team. Bill O'Reilly acknowledges telling a guest to "shut up" only "once in six years." Then footage is shown of him saying it numerous times in numerous contexts. The movie also had a good segment on the Jeremy Glick interview that O'Reilly did. I had read a lot about it but never seen it.

And that brings me to my topics for the day.

Topic One

Al Franken talks about the Glick incident in "Outfoxed." Glick and Franken apparently know each other and have talked about the situation, which is that O'Reilly did several follow-ups on the Glick appearance--one the next day, one six month later, one eleven months later, and so on. In each of these follow-ups, O'Reilly distorted what Glick had actually said and demonized Glick and by extension, the antiwar position and those who hold it.

Now this is the interesting part. Franken says Glick asked if Glick had a case against O'Reilly. Franken talked to his lawyer (the same one who handled the suit that O'Reilly brought against Franken), and his lawyer said that for Glick to have a case, Glick would have to be able to prove that O'Reilly "knew he was lying" about what Glick said during Glick's appearance on the O'Reilly show.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but from what I do know of the law, the only defense against libel is the truth (my wife, who is a lawyer, confirms this). Therefore, it would seem to me that Glick would not have to prove anything about O'Reilly's state of mind to bring and/or win a suit againt O'Reilly. All one would have to do is look at transcripts of the original interview and compare it to the follow-up pieces in which O'Reilly attributed statements to Glick that he never made.

Case closed--Glick never said what O'Reilly repeatedly attributed to him after the fact.

It's not a lie if you believe it

Thus spake Costanza on "Seinfeld" in a hilarious skewering of the logic that people use to make themselves feel better about being dishonest. But I have seen that very argument used in many articles to defend or explain people's attitudes toward real-life liars--usually George W. Bush. In Lakoff's "Don't Think Of An Elephant," he
breaks it down thusly on p. 76:

Most people will grant that even if [a] statement happened to be false, if he [Bush]
believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm anyone, then there was no lie.

I'm not saying Lakoff is endorsing this train of thought, but some people do endorse it, like Franken's lawyer. However, this defense of lying makes the very concept of lying obsolete--if all you have to do to get off the hook when accused of lying is to say that you really believed it at the time you said it and never meant to hurt anyone, then what's the point of penalties for perjury or false advertising, etc.?

I don't know the answer (at least it's not coming to me as I've been interrupted from this writing about 10 times already and it's getting late and I've got other things I gotta get to), but the question is worth asking...it seems to me that if progressives accept this definition of lying, we are letting the Repukes get away with whatever they want.


Topic Two

Also in "Outfoxed," the great David Brock makes a couple of appearances. One thing he said articulated more or less what I've tried to say here in this blog a couple of times, and that has to do with objective reality, i.e., is there or is there not such a thing as global warming? Or do Bush's tax cuts help mostly the wealthy in a certain bracket or do they assist mainly the bottom income percentages?

And what he said was that Fox wants news to become only a matter of opinion, because opinions can't be proven false. So then people, like members of my family, will say that there is a conservative side and a liberal side to every issue and that neither one is necessarily right. However, that makes no sense--when you're talking about issues like global warming or tax cuts, there are scientific studies and financial balance sheets that reveal the reality of each situation.

Anyway, it's a good movie. It was $7.99 at Best Buy.

IF JANEANE HAS TO BE GONE...

Then I'll take Eric Alterman and Thomas Frank talking to Sam Seder on the Majority Report on Air America. Just read Alterman's blog today and found something very useful--more useful than anything I've yet found in Lakoff's "Don't Think Of An Elephant" (still not finished!):

In principle, I think it’s wrong that foreign-born Americans cannot become president. I mean, who cares? Lots of people who would make great presidents were not born in the U.S. and, in principle, nobody should be penalized for where he happened to be born. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

On the other hand, almost everything in this country will suck a great deal more if we elect yet another Republican next time around, and Arnold’s eligibility would make that more likely. So I’m against it. Who cares about the “principle?” My acting on principle is not going to do anybody any good save the fact that I get to feel self-righteous. But reducing the likelihood of another four or eight years of Republican misrule sure will, especially to the people living on the margins, most vulnerable to the various cruelties of extremist Republican rule. To me that’s an easy choice. If you need a “principle,” to make you feel better, I chose utilitarianism. (A second argument against principle in this case is that the Republicans have none—see “Bush vs. Gore”-- and their opponents cripple themselves if they act upon theirs. But I don’t even need to go that far.)

As he points out, this is part and parcel of the Republicans' entire winning strategy: talk up the principle, then do whatever the hell you want. It's loathsome, but it's reality. We should do the same.

IF I WENT TO CHURCH...

This would be the denomination I'd favor...the UCC's ad was turned down by NBC and CBS and now the UCC is challenging their FCC licenses...that's the way to do it. That kicks ass. Don't back down, don't (ahem) concede. Hit 'em where it hurts...

Also, I found this intriguing for those of us down south:

The United Church of Christ was the first voice to demand that broadcasters who use the public airwaves have a responsibility to operate in the public interest. In the 1960s, the United Church of Christ earned its place in U.S. broadcasting history by successfully challenging the license of WLBT-TV in Jackson, Miss, for refusing to broadcast news and information about African Americans.

I did not know that...good for the UCC. I guess it paid off, as WLBT no longer has a moratorium on broadcasting info about blacks...they even have 3 blacks on-air...I guess progress does get made...it just takes a really long time.

BUSH=TERROR

That headline has nothing directly to do with this post, it's just a bumper sticker I thought of this morning. Hell, I'm already nervous enough about the bumper stickers I already have on the back of my car. I might not feel that way had my car not been vandalized several times during the election because of my Kerry stickers. If nothing else, Homeland Security officials can use them to take note of who they need to dispose of...

Oh well, I just wanted to write in since I've gotten a new link or two and because I do miss writing in the blog. With the election over, it feels like there's not much to work toward, but in fact the opposite is true. Started reading "Don't Think Of An Elephant" by George Lakoff. It's actually pretty perceptive, but so far, all I've been reading is how progressives/liberals can't communicate as effectively as the right.

The Problem

Lakoff seems to be arguing (and I say "seems" because I haven't finished the book yet) that if progressives would only use the right words and what he calls the right "frames," we can take back America. I sure hope so, but I kind of have my doubts...and here's why.

It's said pretty well in an Arianna Huffington column that she put out a few weeks before the election. She said that the Repubes were appealing to the lizard part of peoples' brains to motivate them to vote for the Terrorist-In-Chief. Meaning of course, that their appeal was to the primitive, base part of people's psyches. And that is certainly true and that's why I fear that no amount of appeal to peoples' good sides is going to pay off for long. Because most people are intuitively racist and sexist and mean and bitter and the Repubes know that and want to use it to the fullest.

I do recommend reading the book, though, and I hope I'm convinced.


A Few Other Things

1. Can we please end this war? Not only am I getting very tired of American and Iraqi casualties, I'm sick to death of the yellow ribbon stickers and all their different varieties. The people who put these stickers on their cars mean well, but they really just demonstrate the following point...

2. Since when did being an American make you a perfect, guileless, creature of unending love and kindness? The reason I ask this is because in conversations with my parents and others,in conversations between pundits on TV, in the underlying assumptions of news stories and on and on, there is this sense that no person who is American would ever intentionally do anything wrong.

For example, the guy who killed the Iraqi with a shot to the head while the cameras were rolling is not a bad guy, he's just in the heat of battle. Yeah? How come none of the other soldiers freaked out and shot the Iraqi?

For example, how come the media, influenced by John O'Neill and his ilk, painted the soldiers in Vietnam as saintly do-gooders, when many soldiers admitted to atrocities and studies have shown that they happened?

Why does my father assume that George W. Bush is among the purest of the pure because he's the freaking President of the God-fearing nation of America when his career in oil and politics is so clearly linked to the saintly nation of Saudi Arabia?

I don't know the answer to these questions, except to say that we've developed a severe case of the "It can't happen here" syndrome. Even as American citizens are held incommunicado for months without being charged, and people are penned into "free speech" zones during important civic events, and government workers are subjected to secret background checks and fired with no explanation and no chance of appeal, or an un-elected president takes us to war on the basis of lies, we all try to comfort ourselves with the idea that it's only an anomaly, or we don't know all the facts, or that America is just not the kind of place where such things happen.

Wake The FUCK Up

Well, if you think that way, wake up, would you? You're helping to ruin it for everybody by allowing this crap to go on. Please think for yourself, please question what your preacher tells you, what your teacher tells you, what your mommy and daddy tell you, what your boss tells you and so forth.

OK, two more things...here is a list of some evil Americans to prove that just because one is a citizen of the U.S., one can still do bad things:

Al Capone
John Gotti
Timothy McVeigh
Jeffrey Dahmer
Eric Harris
Dylan Klebold
John Mohammed
Charles Manson
and so on...

Ben Franklin
Watched the History Channel specials on Ben Franklin. I didn't know he invented the glass harmonica. I didn't know he consorted with hookers and had a child with one. But most importantly, I never knew that he quit working in his early 40s because he felt he had enough money and wanted to pursue other things. That is amazing--he had sex with whores, yet he wasn't a whore himself. Also, his inventions like bifocals, the lightning rod and the Franklin stove were never patented by him--he never made a dime from exclusive rights to them. He did it just to help the world and to contribute to the ages. If that doesn't refute Bill O'Reilly in this post and vindicate what I said, I don't know what does (scroll down to "Incentive Theft")...

MAKING ASSES OF YOU AND ME

I'm gonna keep this short. This war needs to end. The summary executions have to be stopped. The civilan casualties have to be stopped. The endless appropriations for this conflict have to be stopped--we're paying troops to knock buildings down and then also paying for them to be rebuilt, usually so some fatcats can make a killing both on the reconstruction and on the business that goes on there afterward.

Don't Assume

So it seems that the reason this is allowed to go on is that people are trained to assume that we have to be in Iraq. Almost every pundit show and news article and opinion piece more or less bases arguments on the supposed fact that we have to be in Iraq. In other words, they assume Iraq.

There are so many articles to link to in order to demonstrate this, so here's one I read today. It's a Slate article basically defending the soldier who shot the unarmed, wounded Iraqi.
Now, it doesn't really argue for or against our being in Iraq or anything, but I use it as an exhibit of "assuming Iraq" because, if it weren't for the fact that we're in Iraq, the article wouldn't need to be written. The poor bastard that was shot wouldn't (necessarily) be dead, and the poor bastard who shot him wouldn't have been put in that position by George W. Bush.

But the article prattles on about how saintly the U.S. military is and how the killing of the Iraqi isn't morally equivalent to the killing of Margaret Hassan as war critics might like to say. They say this is true because Hassan was never a combatant, unlike the headshot Iraqi.

What they conveniently leave out, because they assume Iraq, is that we invaded their country under false pretenses. Were the tables turned and the United States was being occupied by Iraqis, we in America would surely think that the unfortunate deaths of the combatant and Hassan were morally equivalent. Here's the interesting way the Slate authors look at it:

As it turned out, the Iraqi was entitled to mercy, but Hassan was truly innocent. There is no legitimate moral equivalence between a soldier asking for quarter and a noncombatant like Hassan.

So what the writers (two former military men wrote this article) are saying, by contrasting Hassan and the headshot Iraqi, is that the Iraqi is guilty because he fought. Well, according to this logic, the logic put forth by these writers, fighting makes you "guilty." Well, guess who the Iraqi was fighting? The Americans, who are also fighters.

So these Slate writers are doubly hypocritical in that 1)they're apologists for war crimes (just as they accuse those who would criticize our involvement in Iraq as "insurgent apologists" and 2) they're arguing that the insurgents are the guilty ones, not U.S. soldiers, while they make the implicit case that combat taints a person--but both sides are engaged in combat.

Asses
And that's what frustrates and angers me. Like I said at the beginning, we shouldn't have to be puzzling through this. We should not have gone to Iraq in the first place, we should not be there now, and we should never go back in the future unless Iraq actually does attack us.

I thought the "war on terror" was supposed to be a "new kind of war." Well, what we see on TV every night seems like the same old kind of bloody, imperialistic, nasty, unnecessary, foul, hellish business it always has been.

What We Should Have Done

Given that we've spent between $100-200 billion already on this stupid, unnecessary war and sustained thousands of casualties, we should have just given Saddam $10 billion if he would agree to move to a compound in Paris, where he would be monitored but could enjoy the billions any way he saw fit as long as he was not using it to build up armaments to attack other countries or anything else of a similar nature. Not a shot fired, not a life lost on either side. And much cheaper than what we're doing now.

Could that be construed as "rewarding" Saddam for his bad behavior? Well, I suppose one could come to that conclusion about as easily as one might conclude that going to war under false pretenses like we've done is punishing our soldiers for joining the military.

We shouldn't even have an army when we're not at war. And we should only be involved in wars of defense, yes, after we've been attacked. Sorry, Bushfucker, that's they way it works. The "pre-emptive" doctrine and the "war on terror" are designed so that we will always have wars and therefore the people will always be on edge and always ready to sacrifice liberty for security.

It's kind of like an ex-military man I might right before the start of the war said when I asked him if he thought it was a good idea to go to Iraq--he said, "Well,we've got the most powerful military in the world--it seems a shame not to use it." And I was in the company of another soldier years ago and we happened to hear the song "War" by Edwin Starr ("War/what is it good for/Absolutely nothing). The soldier said "I hate this song--if it were'nt for war, I wouldn't have a job."

And even my own dear departed grandmother once said "I love the military" as we were looking through photo albums. How she could say this after living with my grandfather in the years after his nervous breakdown during WWII after which, according to all accounts, he was never the same again.

What is wrong with people?

FUCK 'EM ALL



1. Fuck the FCC.

2. Fuck the American Family Association.

3. Fuck George Bush.

4. Fuck what Eric Alterman said today.


Fuck 'em? Why?

1. The FCC has gone from watchdog to lap dog, and now has networks afraid to show an Oscar-winning movie with Oscar-winning actors made by an Oscar-winning director about one of the most important events of the 20th century, warts and all.

2. The American Family Association is a Christo-fascist organization that promotes ignorance and despises reality. Why, they suggest, do you have to have all that swearing in a realistic war movie? Wouldn't it be just as realistic without the "'f' words" and the "'s' words?" No, it wouldn't--would the King James version of the Bible be as holy without the words "piss," "ass," "hell," and "damn?"

What these jackbooted Christian thugs are trying to do is sanitize everything to make it more acceptable somehow in their crazed fantasies of how the world ought to be. Well, when you sanitize war and try to make it acceptable, that helps--maybe just in the smallest of ways--to make war acceptable. War is failure and weakness and to try to make it an acceptable option is evil.

3. He's just as clueless, mean, and stupid as ever. I can't wait till news of his love child with Karen Hughes comes out. He constantly says the Palestinians have to "stop terror" but in the same breath says Israel has to "defend herself." He has no idea how to handle the Israel-Palestine situation.

4. Which brings us to Eric Alterman's problem with Noam Chomsky. Eric Alterman is a passionate, brilliant writer and progressive advocate whose blog I read every day. But he'll take a shot at Chomsky every now and again, saying he disagrees with almost everything Chomsky says.

Today he tried to clarify why he feels that way, but didn't really say it himself. He sent readers in search of some elusive Web data (I gave up on trying to find the "H-Diplo" discussion at that convoluted site) that Alterman said expressed how he felt about Chomsky.

Well, it seems to me that Alterman is really just trying to be iconoclastic with these sorts of assertions--taking a swipe at one of the big boys to make himself appear to be in Chomsky's league (which he is) and position himself as the cool new major alternative progressive thinker. I also think Chomsky critics like Alterman have a problem with his moral clarity in that it doesn't favor "us" over "them." In Chomsky's analysis, there is only one "us"--humanity.

Therefore, Chomsky has no problem saying that U.S. violence and/or complicity in violence against other nations is no different to other nations' violence and/or complicity in violence against the U.S. Because, frankly it isn't different. We have our reasons for bombing, they have theirs. When we bomb them, they suffer just like we suffer when they bomb us.

This is one major point of Chomsky's oeuvre (what I've consumed of it, anyway) then, as I see it:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I doubt he'd put it that way, but that's what underlies all his criticism of the U.S.--we don't do that. For example, we go to war with Saddam because he invades a sovereign nation (Kuwait, of course). The hypocritical line we take is that countries do not invade other countries without provocation. Then we do the very same thing by invading Iraq, a sovereign nation that did not provoke us. A simple yet clear and recent example.

So I don't understand why Alterman has a problem with the fact that Chomsky takes exception to the fact that we don't always follow the moral standards that we would have others follow. Except that Chomsky is Jewish and is often very critical of Israel. And apparently that's a no-no in some circles.

But Chomsky calls a terrorist act a terrorist act, no matter who commits it, and that ruffles feathers. He's just trying to get us to see ourselves for who we really are so that we can change, stop antagonizing the world, and maybe really have peace or something close.

CONCESSION

Why oh why did you concede John Kerry
I told you not to here on this blog
that you have neither read
nor been informed of the existence of

But whether I told you or not
you should have known not to concede
you're a fighter and a "good closer"
but under a little pressure
you shut down

why

the FBI now says they never gave
a terror warning to Warren County, Ohio
whose election officials barred reporters from the counting areas

why

and all the talking heads
say this story and others like it
would be pursued much harder
had you not conceded

will we ever know whether Ohio's 20
electorals
should be subtracted from Bush leaving him with 266
and added to you
giving you a winning total of 272

will you at least make a statement


OK...enough of that. I meant to do my election post-mortem the day after the election in this space, but I was sick. Literally. Diarrhea and nausea and exhaustion.

So here's a really capsulated version.

2004 Post Mortem

How could Kerry have lost?

-He won the debates
-He was endorsed by more papers and even papers that endorsed Bush last time
-Omens like the Redskins loss and the Red Sox win were in his favor
-There were no WMD, but thousands of Americans have been killed or wounded “looking” for them, not to mention the number of Iraqis killed or wounded
-And so on...

Oh, wait, here's a couple reasons why he "lost" (if he did in fact lose)...

1. He tried the “centrist”, triangulating position—i.e., supporting the war but not really.

2. Bush timed the war (or drug it out, as in the case of not “really” assaulting Fallujah until after election) to coincide with election, obviously knowing that no president has been turned out of office in wartime.

3. Kerry never really refuted Swift Boat attacks. Big mistake.


Kerry should have fought for Ohio in the courts. That’s the Democrats for you—they’ll fold as soon as the heat is on for fear of looking inappropriate. Republicans know that most people will forget any appearance of impropriety soon enough. So they fight dirty, tooth and nail. They expect behavior from others that they themselves would not provide for others.


So what now?

NAIL BITING

Yikes...this is a close one.

Mr. Kerry, whatever you do, DO NOT CONCEDE!!! DO NOT BE NICE!!! Bush got into the White House through a court challenge, so can you!!!

TOMORROW'S THE DAY!! a vote for Bush is a vote for the loser...

On Wednesday morning, George W. Bush will have to start packing his bags, shredding documents and planning pardons, 'cause he's going down!!

Why this is so:

1. Gore had 100,00 times the votes that Bush "won" by in 2000--537. So that's already more popular votes to begin with. Add to that the disaffected Republicans like Andrew Sullivan and Nader voters like my wife and me, and you've got a lot more than a 537,000 (give or take) vote margin.

2. The Packers beat the Redskins. I went to college with Brett Favre, who I'm sure wants Bush to win, but oh well. Maybe he should've taken it easy on the 'Skins. I'm no sports fan, but apparently this has correctly predicted the winner since 1936.

3. The millions of new registrants are likely inspired more by wanting to change the status quo (i.e., remove Bush) than by wanting to maintain it.

4. Record turnouts are predicted and turnout helps the challenger, they say.

5. With increasing numbers of people not maintaining land-line phone service, the polls don't necessarily reflect the real attitudes of potential voters because pollsters don't call cell phones.

6. Zogby says he'll win.

7. Florida Democrats are fucking pissed about the 2000 election.


And so forth.

Dirty Tricks and Theft

Hopefully the dirty tricks by the Repukes will be kept to a minimum, but even if they aren't and they really get in gear to steal this thing, Kerry and the liberals won't roll over and play nice like they did in 2000. What happened there of course, was that liberals generally assume that people are rational and reasonable and want to get along with others. Therefore, Democrats in 2000 were willing to say, "Look, this thing was close, we had the Presidency for eight years, our guy did concede and then rescind his concession--we'll just go along with Bush. His rhetoric wasn't over the top and he's known for bipartisanship and moderation. How bad could it be?"

Well, we now know to what lengths these Repukes will go. Give 'em an inch and they'll steal a thousand miles. So we can't just roll over and try to be reasonable this time if they try to steal it. And they probably will--Bush and his people are so dead set on him having a second term and not being a one-termer like dear old Daddy.

Christians For Kerry

Saw a guy at Blockbuster this evening with a "Christians For Kerry" shirt he'd had made. He and his friend had been going door to door soliciting votes and thought such shirts would be a nice touch. On the back was a quote from Garrison Keillor: "Bush doesn't own Jesus."

Amen.

I'm so nervous and jumpy about tomorrow--I hope I can sleep. Kerry on, my wayward son.

A SIGN STAYED UP a vote for Bush is a vote for inhumanity...

Stapling the signs high up on a tree seemed to work, as the sign in the ground was stolen (as usual), but the Kerry sign in the tree stayed through the night!!! I'm finally winning my war on the Bush terrorist thugs that roam these parts...

What "Librul" Media

Not much to say...still just ready for the election to get here...Was it last night or no, I think it was early this morning on MSNBC where they played a Brian-Williams-hosted Kerry special about Vietnam. I didn't see most of it, but from what I saw (toward the end), it wasn't exactly flattering but it wasn't a condemnation either.

Which is fine, except that the Bush piece they played immediately afterward was part of their "Headliners and Legends" series, and it started off as a gigantic Bush puff piece--i.e., extremely flattering.

But I guess that's the liberal media for ya...always beating up on the conservatives...it's a real travesty.

Kerry Was In Vietnam

And the five minutes of "Meet The Press" I watched was infuriating. I saw Giuliani call Kerry "anti-military." To his credit, Russert did point out that Kerry was in combat, while Bush escaped in the National Guard, Cheney didn't serve at all, and neither did Rude-y. But as per usual, he didn't say "You're right Tim. Maybe that remark was a little out of line. It is rather inappropriate for me to apply the word 'anti-military' to a decorated Vietnam vet, especially since I've never served."

No, Rude-ass just kept on with his lateral lisp and his eyelid-straining, looking (and being) deranged as he pointed out what a jerk was when Kerry came back from the war. That's what the Repukes want Iraq vets to know--as long as you don't tell the truth about what you experienced during your time in harm's way, we won't smear you. But the second you point out how there were no WMD and go all John Kerry on us, you're fucked, soldier.

O'Neill Wants To Die

Then later in the day I'm watching more BookTV and see Doug Brinkley ably defending Kerry and explaining "Tour Of Duty." Of course, in the interest of "balance," Lamb wraps up with Brinkley then shows an appearance of O'Neill at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. O'Neill talked so fast and in such an uninspiring monotone that you could easily see how he's lost his soul.

My God, he's so whiny. What sour grapes coming from this guy. He's told these stories a thousand times and can't for the life of him understand why it's not making the 51% of the country that will elect John Kerry fall prostrate before Bush. It's pathetic to watch him, actually. He's on the wrong side of history but just can't admit it to himself.

He is actually very smart, but he's so angry that Kerry is tall, thin, rich, famous and about to be elected President--Kerry is everything O'Neill is not. But, O'Neill whines, Kerry was only in combat for 4 months! I was in combat so much longer! I should be the famous good-looking presidential candidate!

Aw, boo-hoo ya porky black-souled tool...Dry up and try to think straight. You know this guy is just wishing for death so he won't feel compelled to have to talk about John Kerry all the time. I mean, O'Neill probably feels slighted because Kerry once rebuffed O'Neill's sexual advances. Come on, for someone who doesn't like John Kerry, O'Neill sure talks about him a lot. I think someone's got a widdle kwush and doesn't feel wuvved...

SLOW WEEKEND a vote for Bush is a vote for the end of the world...

Got up and took my son around town with me...got the Wired magazine Creative Commons CD. I first heard about the CD when I saw it available for download as mp3s. But since I don't really have the proper software to edit mp3s, I figured I needed to buy the CD for wav files. I'm listening to it right now. I really like the My Morning Jacket tune. That's as far as I've gotten. It would have been more helpful if they had provided the elements of the tunes instead of just the tune itself. But this is a step in the right direction...even Hilary Rosen is warming up to the idea of Creative Commons...

Hilary Rosen a Dem? Who Knew?

And speaking of Hilary Rosen, I saw her on Hardball (I think) as a Democratic surrogate...all during the Napster/RIAA face-off, I had her pegged as a corporatist Republican fascist whoremonger--but she is gay. So I guess she doesn't totally try to sell herself out.

Beinart v. Coulter-No Contest

Watched BookTV a little this afternoon...saw the Beinart/Coulter debate from Oct. 17. Boy did Beinart kick Coulter's ass...He made his points with facts and figures, she had very few facts and figures and relied instead on sarcastic, flippant remarks to appeal to the few righties in the audience...Apparently, that's how the right-wing communicates to its own--they don't communicate with facts and figures, but rather with attitude and tone of voice. Perhaps that's why right-wing radio is so popular--because it's mindless and there's plenty of attitude.

Wal Mart and the Rebel Flag

Went to Wal-Mart--yes, MS is the red state to end all red states...saw lots of soon-to-be-deployed military types. Didn't really get hassled even though I was wearing a Kerry shirt. Speaking of that, hopefully we've solved our sign theft problem--we got a ladder and stapled the signs high up on some trees in our yard. I guess we'll find out tonight.

Speaking of signs, I keep meaning to take a picture of the house a few streets over that features a Confederate flag (not the state flag, but the full-fledged rebel flag) flying from the roof and not one, not two, but three Bush/Cheney signs out front...somehow it says it all.

RUNNING AND HIDING a vote for Bush is a vote for dystopia...

Apparently, you can run. And you can hide. And Bush says that Kerry can't run or hide. And we laugh at him, for Kerry will not only not run nor hide, he will kick Bush's ass!!!

CAN'T THINK STRAIGHT a vote for Bush is a vote for chaos...

I'm sleepy...I have P.E.A.D...every time I think about the election, my heart races and I get butterflies in my stomach...

I want to do something...My wife and I have donated money to the Democratic party for the first time in our lives...we've had yard signs and stickers from the minute Kerry became the de facto nominee...but I want to do more...

BUT...never fear...Kerry will get the most votes--without a doubt! Zogby even says he'll win...

Bin Laden

Say what you will about Osama...but he makes sense. For example:

"Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened [on 9/11]," he says.

Well, he's right about that. He made fun of Bush listening to a goat story rather than leaping to action to protect the U.S. To wit:

“It appeared to him that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God.”

Oh snap! When a godless terrorist is scoring points off of you, you know you're bound to lose!

Let's see, what else did he say? Oh, he once again said that we should stop knee-jerk support of Israel:

“God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind,” he says.

Is that such a bad idea, after all, to jerk Israel's leash and give some solace to the Palestinians? Don't say it's a bad idea just because it's what Osama wants. If we could be seen as being even-handed, many of our terrorist problems would end.

But that's not going to happen any time soon...so the terrorist wolves will keep lurking in the forest...

Who's The Terrorist Now?

Okay, so everyone agrees bin Laden is a terrorist--to us. We say that because bin Laden masterminded the death of 3,000 U.S. civilians, among other acts. George Bush facilitated the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children. But half of Americans have another name for our homegrown, office-holding terrorists: Mr. President.

THE GIGGLING KILLER a vote for Bush is a vote for giggling killers...

How's this for a shock?

The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

I heard this for the first time on Mike Malloy's Air America show. He went into a searing tirade against Bush and people who support him. It was really good, talking about how these innocent civilians' blood is on his hands and my hands and your hands. He asked Jesus if it was enough dead bodies to bring him back and save us from Bush, "the giggling killer."

And then this next part:

More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say.

How Can You Still Vote Bush?

So do Bush voters just look at these statistics and just go "La di la?" Can they still honestly say and truly believe in their hearts the "Bush is a good Christian leader?" If such carnage is the work of good Christian leaders, then I want nothing to do with good Christian leaders.

These Iraqi deaths are ten times the combined casualties of all "coalition forces." This is 9/11 times 33!! Here's what our conservative Christians say to justify this: "The terrorists killed 3,000 innocent civilians on September the eleventh." Here's what the Bible says:

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Well, now we've killed at least 100,000 civilians. Who live in a country that never attacked us. A country that had no WMD, no connections to al Qaeda, no nothing. So are we even yet?

Saddam Hussein, ironically, is still alive. Oh well, you have to break tens of thousands of Iraqi eggs to make a Saddam omelet.

Bush started this unnecessary, illegal, immoral war. I know very well that John Kerry voted for the resolution that gave Bush the authority to use force if all other options were exhausted, which they weren't. Kerry didn't want the war, but he didn't want the U.S. to be threatened by Iraqi WMD either. That's why he walked a fine line, saying "I'll support you Bush, but only after every peaceful alternative has been exhausted." Which did not happen. Kerry is absolutely right--Bush rushed to war.

So Mike Malloy is exactly right. Bush is a giggling killer. He should be impeached, removed, and imprisoned for this. Forget everything else. For the Iraq war alone he should be severely called to account. Yet half of America, and especially the ones that see themselves as the most religious, are still behind this man. What will it take to get them to see Bush for what he is? What is it going to take?

Stolen Sign

Had another Kerry sign stolen out of the yard tonight--between 10 and 11 p.m. And no one else's was stolen on our block or in our neighborhood. Hmmm...maybe it was the guys that were standing out in front of the house across the street when my wife returned from Walgreen's...

AND THE WINNAH IS... a vote for Bush is a vote for evil

I've been saying that Kerry will get the most votes for some time now. But that has of course stopped just short of saying he will win the election (because Gore got the most votes last time and didn't "win"). Don Imus has no such qualms and this morning said that Kerry will undoubtedly win.

I sure as hell hope he's (we're) right...Kerry won the MTV "pre-lection" and almost everyone at Slate is going to or already has voted for him.

I'm no fan of Eminem (he scowls too much and his music doesn't really do anything for me), but his new anti-Bush video "Mosh" is worth checking out...

WHY I’M VOTING FOR KERRY a vote for Bush is insane...

I was asked last night by a sales clerk why I was voting for Kerry. I had intended to write about this a while ago but never did. And now that the election is only a week away, I’m not sure it matters that much. But I want to do it anyway, because the quickest thing I could come up with last night was “Because he didn’t lie us into a war with Iraq.” Not that it really mattered if I had a convincing argument in this particular encounter–the clerk was not registered to vote.

The Reasons Bush Must Go

1. Bush isn’t really the President. He lost the popular vote in 2000 but won Bush v. Gore which stopped the counting of votes in Florida. So he “won” by having vote-counting stopped.

2. And despite the circumstances of his ascension to power, he proceeded to govern as though he’d won by a landslide.

3. During his time in office, the country has experienced the worst job loss since Herbert Hoover.
During the Clinton years, job growth averaged 239,000 jobs per month but in Bush’s first 2 ½ years, jobs decreased by an average of 69,000 per month.

4. His precious and gigantic tax cuts ate up the record surplus and turned it into a record deficit.

5. He ignored very clear warnings about terrorists wanting to attack inside the U.S. and failed to prevent 9/11.

6. He then used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, greatly exaggerating the severity of the threat Iraq posed to the U.S. Which is to say, Iraq threatened the U.S. not at all and had no WMD, a fact the Bush administration was aware of before the invasion.

7. The USA Patriot Act.

8. The fact that he’s a spoiled rich kid whose father was president and that he ascended to the presidency despite losing the election makes everything he says and does that much harder to take.

9. He avoided combat service during Vietnam then stands and refuses to condemn those who viciously attack his opponents who were in combat (i.e., McCain, Kerry).

10. He thinks God wants him in power.

11. He supports an amendment to the constitution that would outlaw gay marriage.

12. He says he doesn’t read the news and acts as though he has all the answers.

13. The number of people living in poverty and without health insurance has steadily risen every year Bush has been in office.



Why I Will Vote For John Kerry

1. He has dedicated his whole adult life to public service.

2. He has experienced combat (not that I think this is a requirement in a president, but it doesn’t hurt).

3. He is genuinely thoughtful, articulate, compassionate, and intelligent.

4. He is a published author.

5. He is a serious individual who tries to see all sides to a problem.

7. His actions helped bring about an end to the Vietnam War.

8. He won’t privatize Social Security and won’t appoint any Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

9. He will bring allies to the table in the “war on terror” instead of going it alone and alienating the rest of the world.

10. He will close tax incentives that encourage businesses to outsource jobs to foreign countries.

11. He acknowledges that the situation in Iraq is not good and that the deficit is a problem rather than insisting that all is well like Bush does.

12. He will govern with moderation and make decisions in deliberate manner after discovering all the relevant facts, rather than wanting an outcome and skewing or obscuring the available facts to achieve that outcome.

I would like to link to all this stuff, but it's late and I'm tired. A lot of the anti-Bush stuff can be found in "The Book On Bush," a great resource. Some of the other stuff is just taking Kerry at his word, but as of this writing I have no reason not to do so.

Also, I will be tempted to add to the list as the week goes by.

Stolen Signs

Weekend before last, I had Kerry signs stolen out of my yard on Friday and Saturday nights. I followed the bastards on Saturday night and got a license plate number, but the cops didn't do anything. I had another sign stolen during the next week. I've got another one up now and keep peeking out my window to see if the terrorist thugs are coming back.

REMEMBER, KERRY WILL GET THE MOST VOTES a vote for Bush sucks...

This is my first entry in 20 days...I actually composed at least one other entry but never got a chance to put it up...such is life with a 10-month-old.

And today is my 8th wedding anniversary!

Anyway, I'm going to make this one brief because this computer is acting screwy and I don't want to do a long post only to lose it due to computer malfunction...

Discovered a blog I really like a lot....americablog...

Mike Malloy talked about the Stanley Hilton 9/11 suit against Bush and Rumsfeld, et.al. I thought that lent it a little validity. I first heard about it from Alex Jones, who I enjoy but feel that he's a little wacko. Or maybe he's telling the unvarnished truth. I can't quite tell.

Actually now that I think about it, I first heard about the 9/11 suit from a caller to Malloy's program. Malloy must have checked out the site too...he didn't really know what to make of it either...

This Ashlee Simpson video edit is hilarious as is this Florida E-voting Video...