ORIGINALISM IS A CODE WORD
Just watched “Meet The Press”...I’ve got to stop doing that (I mainly wanted to see what Russert would say about the contradictory testimony to the Fitzgerald grand jury–and if he would talk much about the leak). It was almost exclusively about John Roberts, and that reminded me of a caller to the Majority Report who recalled hearing Scalia speak about so-called “originalism.”
According to this caller, Scalia and the originalists say, correctly, that the Supreme Court’s function is to interpret laws passed by Congress in light of what the Constitution says. But that last part–“what the Constitution says”–is wide open to debate.
Again, according to the caller, my understanding of what he said Scalia said was that the Supreme Court can only go by the “original” words of the Constitution and I believe he said that the “intent” of the Framers should also be considered. Sam Seder rightly rebuked the caller and said originalism is bunk.
For example, it was the intent of the Framers to make black people count for 3/5 of a human being for population purposes. It was the intent of the Framers to have Senators appointed by state legislatures rather than by being elected by the citizenry. And so on. So the “intent” of the Framers is questionable, other than what they have written. Not that the Framers weren’t important, brilliant men, but we in the present cannot possibly divine their intent–we can’t even truly divine the intent of people who are living and breathing right this minute, i.e., conservatives routinely say that liberals “intend” to undermine America and all that it stands for while liberals deny this and hurl the charge right back at conservatives. So who’s right? Well, the short answer is “whoever’s in power.” But my point is that anyone can accuse a person of “intent” to do one thing or another which the accused can deny.
Why God created Brains–and Amendments
But getting back to the “original” words of the Constitution...a two-term limit for the Presidency wasn’t originally in the Constitution, the right of women to vote wasn’t originally in the Constitution, and so forth. That’s because throughout our history, people have understood that the main purpose of the Constitution is to protect the liberty of the citizens of this country. If that much isn’t clear, I can’t imagine that anything is (but as Krugman points out, these days there is no such thing as a nonpolitical truth).
In other words, the only thing set in stone about the Constitution is whether every citizen’s liberty is protected, assured, not violated–however you want to say it. The conservatives themselves know this but act like they don’t. That’s why many of them are proponents of originalism but can simultaneously propose changing the document for the stupid purposes of outlawing flag burning, outlawing gay marriage, outlawing abortion, and so forth.
This is why God gave us brains and constitutional amendments–so that we could eradicate injustice wherever we find it, even if it’s in the original words of the Constitution.
I realize that I am in fact using the original words of the Constitution to defend the idea of changing those words in some instances. Obviously the problem is that different people have different words that they want to change, but I would hope and pray that overall, everyone wants to keep the part about “securing the blessings of liberty.”
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
IRAQ AND DEMOCRACY?
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com does it again! His column today shows, with extensive quotes from the Iraqi constitution that is being drawn up, that even the feeble Bushian excuse that we're in Iraq to bring democracy to that country is just as false as the claim that Iraq had WMD prior to our invasion.
Here is a particularly galling sample:
That's what we're fighting for, good people--free health care for Iraqis while Bush and his HMO/Big Pharma buddies try to make it as expensive as possible to get health care for ourselves.
Raimondo goes on to point out how each grant of liberty in the Iraqi constitution is followed by a caveat that allows for it to be easily negated, as he explains here:
And this brings up an interesting question--is this the first you've heard of this? Because it's the first I've heard of it. Why is MSNBC, for example, running movie preview/celebrity puff shows on the weekends instead of say, putting together a program or programs about...oh, I don't know, the contents of the Iraqi constitution?
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com does it again! His column today shows, with extensive quotes from the Iraqi constitution that is being drawn up, that even the feeble Bushian excuse that we're in Iraq to bring democracy to that country is just as false as the claim that Iraq had WMD prior to our invasion.
Here is a particularly galling sample:
A pretty cushy deal, eh? Oh, but it gets better in Article 7:
"Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care. The Iraqi federal government and regional governments must provide it and expand the fields of prevention, treatment, and medication by the construction of various hospitals and health institutions".
I guess the Iraqi Founders can afford to be generous. After all, you're paying for it – yeah, that's right, you, the American taxpayer. You may be unemployed, widowed, orphaned, and eventually driven into homelessness by confiscatory taxation or just the sheer cruelty of having to keep pace with the rat race, but please rest assured that none of these terrible fates will be suffered by the Iraqis. You may be without healthcare, but no Iraqi will go without. That's what it means to be "liberated," these days – if you don't wind up as "collateral damage," you get to spend other people's money, and the sky's the limit.
That's what we're fighting for, good people--free health care for Iraqis while Bush and his HMO/Big Pharma buddies try to make it as expensive as possible to get health care for ourselves.
Raimondo goes on to point out how each grant of liberty in the Iraqi constitution is followed by a caveat that allows for it to be easily negated, as he explains here:
The apotheosis of this Islamofascist legal-political doctrine has got to be Article 13, my own personal favorite, which solemnly states:
"1. Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency."
In Basra, in the south of Iraq, the religious police are already patrolling the streets, brutally repressing all signs of un-Islamic behavior: alcohol, bright clothing, modern haircuts, men who shave their faces, unveiled women, and other such abominations. This provision legalizes these fanatic vigilante gangs and paves the way for their institutionalization as legal arms of the "Islamic Republic of Iraq."
And this brings up an interesting question--is this the first you've heard of this? Because it's the first I've heard of it. Why is MSNBC, for example, running movie preview/celebrity puff shows on the weekends instead of say, putting together a program or programs about...oh, I don't know, the contents of the Iraqi constitution?
Thursday, July 21, 2005
THE NOOSE TIGHTENS...
Americablog has the scoop, as does Raw Story...somebody is lying in all this, and the only ones who really have any motivation to lie are Rove, Libby, et. al. Olbermann pointed out this evening that the Wall Street Journal will have more on the classification level of that State Dept. memo and it doesn't look good for Rove and friends, because it was marked "Top Secret" and the sentences about Valerie Wilson were marked "SNF"--short for Secret--No Foreign intelligence services can see it. By the way, Olbermann is a great broadcaster in my book.
Shit, goddamn...these Rove defenders are running out of excuses...the facts just ain't turning their way...
Here's a short list of some of the arguments/justifications they've used in the past, and even tonight on Hardball with McCain (even if he cut his losses with Bush now, he's still tarnished by his campaigning for Bush in '04 and his water-carrying for Bush ever since):
1. Plame was not undercover--the Washington Post story from today and the Wall Street Journal article from tomorrow disprove that.
2. The British still stand by the "16 words" (McCain trotted this out on Hardball tonight)...
Well, wait a second--in looking for links I ran across this summary of this debunking of the pro-Rovers. Someone's got this numbering thing all wrapped up, so I'm leaving it at that...
More Terror Attacks in London...
You know, I was a little disappointed in Jon Stewart tonight. He commented on the strategy of the bombers in London, mocking them for bombing civilians when what they want to achieve is Britain's withdrawal from Iraq. He said that commuters have no power to withdraw the British from Iraq and aren't responsible for British soldiers being there in the first place.
Well, I know he said that as a gesture of solidarity with the British people, echoing his emotional remarks after 9/11, but it wasn't funny or even that helpful. Let's remind ourselves again, these people don't want to destroy British or Western society. The successful London bombers were part of it and benefitted from it.
What they want is the West out of the East, and they know they don't have the military might to attack the leaders of the West. But they know they can attack the people those leaders supposedly represent, and so they do, hoping that will cause the represented to badger their representatives about getting out of a situation we should have never created in the first place. Because in fact, in a democracy, each of us is responsible for the policies of our government.
God knows I feel nothing but sympathy and heartache for the victims of suicide bombings. That shit is so fucked up. But if we want them to end, all we have to do is accommodate the reasonable wishes of these people. And those of you who would write me or make comments that don't agree with this will of course draw a parallel to Chamberlain and Municha and appeasement and argue that you can't negotiate with terrorists and so forth and so on--I know the drill. Spare me.
But really, what they want is so simple--it's what people everywhere want, which is to be left alone and to be free of interference from foreign governments and not to be occupied by other countries who seek to control their resources and what have you. It's actually not unreasonable at all and ought to be heeded. Don't forget the conclusions of Robert Pape in Dying to Win...
I'm in no way saying that if terrorists threatened endless suicide attacks unless America became a fundamentalist Islamic country, that we should go ahead and do it so the suicide attacks would stop. We have defend our right to exist as we see fit, just as they are doing. But demands that we leave their lands do not strike me as unreasonable, and yes, I am aware that we use a lot of their oil. But we should have gotten off oil decades ago and we should accelerate our research into renewable sources of energy and convert to them pronto and then, as Dan Bern says, we won't have to kiss the ass of whoever's got the oil...
Americablog has the scoop, as does Raw Story...somebody is lying in all this, and the only ones who really have any motivation to lie are Rove, Libby, et. al. Olbermann pointed out this evening that the Wall Street Journal will have more on the classification level of that State Dept. memo and it doesn't look good for Rove and friends, because it was marked "Top Secret" and the sentences about Valerie Wilson were marked "SNF"--short for Secret--No Foreign intelligence services can see it. By the way, Olbermann is a great broadcaster in my book.
Shit, goddamn...these Rove defenders are running out of excuses...the facts just ain't turning their way...
Here's a short list of some of the arguments/justifications they've used in the past, and even tonight on Hardball with McCain (even if he cut his losses with Bush now, he's still tarnished by his campaigning for Bush in '04 and his water-carrying for Bush ever since):
1. Plame was not undercover--the Washington Post story from today and the Wall Street Journal article from tomorrow disprove that.
2. The British still stand by the "16 words" (McCain trotted this out on Hardball tonight)...
Well, wait a second--in looking for links I ran across this summary of this debunking of the pro-Rovers. Someone's got this numbering thing all wrapped up, so I'm leaving it at that...
More Terror Attacks in London...
You know, I was a little disappointed in Jon Stewart tonight. He commented on the strategy of the bombers in London, mocking them for bombing civilians when what they want to achieve is Britain's withdrawal from Iraq. He said that commuters have no power to withdraw the British from Iraq and aren't responsible for British soldiers being there in the first place.
Well, I know he said that as a gesture of solidarity with the British people, echoing his emotional remarks after 9/11, but it wasn't funny or even that helpful. Let's remind ourselves again, these people don't want to destroy British or Western society. The successful London bombers were part of it and benefitted from it.
What they want is the West out of the East, and they know they don't have the military might to attack the leaders of the West. But they know they can attack the people those leaders supposedly represent, and so they do, hoping that will cause the represented to badger their representatives about getting out of a situation we should have never created in the first place. Because in fact, in a democracy, each of us is responsible for the policies of our government.
God knows I feel nothing but sympathy and heartache for the victims of suicide bombings. That shit is so fucked up. But if we want them to end, all we have to do is accommodate the reasonable wishes of these people. And those of you who would write me or make comments that don't agree with this will of course draw a parallel to Chamberlain and Municha and appeasement and argue that you can't negotiate with terrorists and so forth and so on--I know the drill. Spare me.
But really, what they want is so simple--it's what people everywhere want, which is to be left alone and to be free of interference from foreign governments and not to be occupied by other countries who seek to control their resources and what have you. It's actually not unreasonable at all and ought to be heeded. Don't forget the conclusions of Robert Pape in Dying to Win...
I'm in no way saying that if terrorists threatened endless suicide attacks unless America became a fundamentalist Islamic country, that we should go ahead and do it so the suicide attacks would stop. We have defend our right to exist as we see fit, just as they are doing. But demands that we leave their lands do not strike me as unreasonable, and yes, I am aware that we use a lot of their oil. But we should have gotten off oil decades ago and we should accelerate our research into renewable sources of energy and convert to them pronto and then, as Dan Bern says, we won't have to kiss the ass of whoever's got the oil...
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
A SUPREME CORNUCOPIA OF MUSINGS...
I enjoyed the Daily Howler's take on the Supreme Court story...When I first looked the stories last night, I thought the same thing that he elaborated on today...He says the press is already spinning Roberts' story, trying to turn him into an option that Republicans can argue no reasonable person can refuse, even though he apparently was instrumental in the Florida recount of the 2000 election...Political payback sure is sweet.
I noticed that Alterman used some of the same logic regarding this nomination as the man he vilified during the election of 2004--Ralph Nader.
Alterman takes a more or less blase attitude toward the nomination, pointing out that maybe the people who voted for Bush should get a taste of the horror they voted for, hoping that in a decade or two they'll wise up and get rid of the Bush types. Nader has been using that exact argument for a while now...I first heard him mention it in the 2000 election.
Raimondo at antiwar.com has an excellent piece on the Rove distraction. He points out how the whole investigation is not even really about Rove or Novak or Cooper or whatever, it's about finding out how we were lied into war. But Rove did in fact leak Plame's identity to Cooper and probably others.
Finding vs. Getting A Job
And then I was checking my Hotmail account and ran across this quiz. I realize they're just trying to be helpful by posting this tripe, but reading through it just made me tired and depressed and I'm not even looking for a job. But hell, if this war keeps going and this deficit keeps growing, we may all be looking for jobs soon.
It's a pretty standard "self-marketing" questionnaire--multiple choice answers to what are supposedly standard interview questions. What I don't understand is why any employers are asking such questions since there are so many resources like this quiz that tell a jobseeker what to say. And I'm sure there are some newly minted popular interview questions that aren't covered in the questionnaire. What is the hapless jobseeker supposed to do then?
I was entertained by the way the quiz's author kept saying that you should answer the questions honestly then proceeded to tell people how to bullshit effectively when questions about why you left your last job come up. The most useful thing that this article could have told a potential jobseeker is that universal, immutable truth of job-hunting: You have to know somebody on the inside to get hired.
But my point is that most people are lucky to even get an interview. There was a period in my life a few years ago where I put on the coat and tie and handed in applications for somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 jobs and got maybe five interviews. And from what recent jobseeking friends have told me, their experience has not been much different.
It's like I've always said, there's a giant chasm between "finding" a job and "getting" a job even though most people use the terms interchangeably. Anyone can "find" a job, but "getting" a job is a bitch...
I enjoyed the Daily Howler's take on the Supreme Court story...When I first looked the stories last night, I thought the same thing that he elaborated on today...He says the press is already spinning Roberts' story, trying to turn him into an option that Republicans can argue no reasonable person can refuse, even though he apparently was instrumental in the Florida recount of the 2000 election...Political payback sure is sweet.
I noticed that Alterman used some of the same logic regarding this nomination as the man he vilified during the election of 2004--Ralph Nader.
Alterman takes a more or less blase attitude toward the nomination, pointing out that maybe the people who voted for Bush should get a taste of the horror they voted for, hoping that in a decade or two they'll wise up and get rid of the Bush types. Nader has been using that exact argument for a while now...I first heard him mention it in the 2000 election.
Raimondo at antiwar.com has an excellent piece on the Rove distraction. He points out how the whole investigation is not even really about Rove or Novak or Cooper or whatever, it's about finding out how we were lied into war. But Rove did in fact leak Plame's identity to Cooper and probably others.
Finding vs. Getting A Job
And then I was checking my Hotmail account and ran across this quiz. I realize they're just trying to be helpful by posting this tripe, but reading through it just made me tired and depressed and I'm not even looking for a job. But hell, if this war keeps going and this deficit keeps growing, we may all be looking for jobs soon.
It's a pretty standard "self-marketing" questionnaire--multiple choice answers to what are supposedly standard interview questions. What I don't understand is why any employers are asking such questions since there are so many resources like this quiz that tell a jobseeker what to say. And I'm sure there are some newly minted popular interview questions that aren't covered in the questionnaire. What is the hapless jobseeker supposed to do then?
I was entertained by the way the quiz's author kept saying that you should answer the questions honestly then proceeded to tell people how to bullshit effectively when questions about why you left your last job come up. The most useful thing that this article could have told a potential jobseeker is that universal, immutable truth of job-hunting: You have to know somebody on the inside to get hired.
But my point is that most people are lucky to even get an interview. There was a period in my life a few years ago where I put on the coat and tie and handed in applications for somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 jobs and got maybe five interviews. And from what recent jobseeking friends have told me, their experience has not been much different.
It's like I've always said, there's a giant chasm between "finding" a job and "getting" a job even though most people use the terms interchangeably. Anyone can "find" a job, but "getting" a job is a bitch...
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
UMMM...AHHH...KARL ROVE SUCKS...
So much going on I don't know where to start...
Well, first of all I'll try using the new "BloggerImage" service...
I've dropped off on my intended "Songs of 05" tidbits that I planned on dropping here and there all through the year so that when it came time to make my Top 10 list of songs and albums in December, I would have an easy way to compile it. But anyhoo, if you like indie rock that slavishly imitates Pavement but yet that is somehow refreshingly its own beast (and quite inventive, tuneful, and catchy), get the album by Hockey Night pictured here...
It's definitely a contender for my 2005 Top 10. Not that I sit around and make music lists all the time, but I was thinking today about the musical acts that are most important to me, most influential to me. So here is a short, ever-evolving list off the top o' me head:
1. U2 (every album through "Achtung Baby")
2. Beatles (everything they ever did, but especially Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper)
3. Police (every album is great, even Zenyatta Mondatta)
4. Steely Dan (every album up to Gaucho is sheer genius--melodically, harmonically, etc.)
5. Bob Dylan (a student of my father's made me a cassette copy of the whole Biograph box set when I was in high school and I couldn't get enough of it)
6. R.E.M. (through Automatic For The People they could do no wrong--what a perfectly subversive combo of strangeness and accessibility--something I always try to achieve)
7. Firehose/Minutemen (don't make me choose--they're both Mike Watt and George Hurley playing with a singer/guitarist. Firehose is awesome because of the melodic sense of Ed Crawford, while the politics and chemistry of D. and Watt is unparalleled and irreplaceable)
8. Zappa (my favorite is One Size Fits All, but have a soft spot for Best Band You Never Heard...because it was the one that got me into his music)
9. Captain Beefheart (Trout Mask Replica and Lick My Decals Off, Baby are complete reinventions of rock & roll that not many have even heard and even fewer "get"...I didn't get it until I listened to it over and over while playing Super Mario 3 in my apartment in 1995...I had bought it long before that and was turned off every time I tried to listen to it)
10. Joni Mitchell (brilliant lyrics, crystalline voice, inventive guitar tunings--there are bright spots on all her albums, but Court and Spark and Blue are peerless works of art)
11. The Rolling Stones (their stuff is so familiar now that I thought about leaving them off just because they seem so obvious, but damn they have a ton of kickass tunes and that ragged sound is so...right)
12. Jimi Hendrix (again, this one seems to go without saying, but what a great lyricist he was, not to mention his guitar playing and his band...a lot of his solos were really good and memorable, but a lot of them not so much...but his songs and his feel and his spirit were/are unprecedented and his rhythm playing was always stellar)
Others that I just can't justify putting on the list, but that might appear on it at any time in the future...King Crimson, Sonic Youth, The Church, The Cure, and so forth.
Well, that was fun...I'll leave this as a music-only post and get back to politics tomorrow...
So much going on I don't know where to start...
Well, first of all I'll try using the new "BloggerImage" service...
I've dropped off on my intended "Songs of 05" tidbits that I planned on dropping here and there all through the year so that when it came time to make my Top 10 list of songs and albums in December, I would have an easy way to compile it. But anyhoo, if you like indie rock that slavishly imitates Pavement but yet that is somehow refreshingly its own beast (and quite inventive, tuneful, and catchy), get the album by Hockey Night pictured here...
It's definitely a contender for my 2005 Top 10. Not that I sit around and make music lists all the time, but I was thinking today about the musical acts that are most important to me, most influential to me. So here is a short, ever-evolving list off the top o' me head:
1. U2 (every album through "Achtung Baby")
2. Beatles (everything they ever did, but especially Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper)
3. Police (every album is great, even Zenyatta Mondatta)
4. Steely Dan (every album up to Gaucho is sheer genius--melodically, harmonically, etc.)
5. Bob Dylan (a student of my father's made me a cassette copy of the whole Biograph box set when I was in high school and I couldn't get enough of it)
6. R.E.M. (through Automatic For The People they could do no wrong--what a perfectly subversive combo of strangeness and accessibility--something I always try to achieve)
7. Firehose/Minutemen (don't make me choose--they're both Mike Watt and George Hurley playing with a singer/guitarist. Firehose is awesome because of the melodic sense of Ed Crawford, while the politics and chemistry of D. and Watt is unparalleled and irreplaceable)
8. Zappa (my favorite is One Size Fits All, but have a soft spot for Best Band You Never Heard...because it was the one that got me into his music)
9. Captain Beefheart (Trout Mask Replica and Lick My Decals Off, Baby are complete reinventions of rock & roll that not many have even heard and even fewer "get"...I didn't get it until I listened to it over and over while playing Super Mario 3 in my apartment in 1995...I had bought it long before that and was turned off every time I tried to listen to it)
10. Joni Mitchell (brilliant lyrics, crystalline voice, inventive guitar tunings--there are bright spots on all her albums, but Court and Spark and Blue are peerless works of art)
11. The Rolling Stones (their stuff is so familiar now that I thought about leaving them off just because they seem so obvious, but damn they have a ton of kickass tunes and that ragged sound is so...right)
12. Jimi Hendrix (again, this one seems to go without saying, but what a great lyricist he was, not to mention his guitar playing and his band...a lot of his solos were really good and memorable, but a lot of them not so much...but his songs and his feel and his spirit were/are unprecedented and his rhythm playing was always stellar)
Others that I just can't justify putting on the list, but that might appear on it at any time in the future...King Crimson, Sonic Youth, The Church, The Cure, and so forth.
Well, that was fun...I'll leave this as a music-only post and get back to politics tomorrow...
Sunday, July 17, 2005
MEET THE PRESS WITH ROBERT PAPE
I don't usually like to watch "Meet The Press" because not only do I find it infuriating, I also find it harmful. I mean, for the most part, the people on the show have something to hide and it almost always stays hidden and/or is obscured even more by some fast talkin'. And so the harmful part of the show is that rather than being educated by it, I feel that one actually "unlearns" by watching it.
But today I watched it anyway and thought it wasn't too bad. It never ceases to amaze me how some people (since 2000, it's been almost exclusively Republicans) can be faced with a fact, dead to rights, and still act like it isn't true, it's not a fact, etc. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman did this beautifully when Tim Russert pointed out that, by the admission of all parties involved, Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source on Valerie Plame's identity ("Wilson's wife" can only mean "Valerie Plame") and was therefore at least one of the leakers.
Mehlman acted as if that fact just didn't exist and proceeded to make up his own because he knows that Rush's listeners and Fox watchers will buy into it. He said that the information now available exonerates Rove rather than implicates him. But he knows that that argument is poppycock--he can't actually believe what he's saying. He's like the stereotypical drug dealer, and lies are the drug he's peddling. He wants you to get hooked on them but he knows better than to try the junk himself.
Krugman had a column this past week that really exposed and explained this kind of behavior:
And that part in bold has been the poisoned genius of the Republican disinformation campaign that has gone on since at least the late 60s. They got their own thinktanks doing "research" and publishing "findings" that are at odds with the mainstream of whatever field you can name, and then "working the refs" for access to the supposedly "liberal media" until there are now perceived to be two versions of reality--the actual one and the crazy rightwing one (sane rightists believe in the actual reality). Indeed, these days, as Krugman points out, "the facts are irrelevant" to these crazed cons in any given argument--global warming (it doesn't exist), tax cuts (help the poor), separation of church and state (they shouldn't be separate), and so forth.
The Logic Of Suicide Terrorism
And a new book by Robert Pape explodes another cherished wingnut myth--that Islamic fundamentalism is out to take over the world through terrorist attacks. His new book is called "Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism" and I have only read a few pages of the intro and seen the last ten to fifteen minutes of his appearance on "Washington Journal" this morning.
But what an intro! He says that he's compiled a list of the 315 suicide-bomb terrorist attacks that have taken place everywhere in the world from 1980-2003. That includes two Intifadas, unrest in Chechnya, and so forth and so on--I'm assuming he used '03 as the cutoff because that's when the war in Iraq started. And guess what his conclusion was? Why it's what educated, reasonable people have been saying for years and the reason that suicide bombers themselves almost always give--to end occupation of their land or to bring an end to some wrong they feel is being continuously committed against them.
And on a side note, I was surprised to read that there have been only 315 suicide attacks--of course, one is too many, but as many times as one hears about suicide attacks, it feels like there have been thousands upon thousands of them. And there have only been 315. And the group that has committed the most of these atrocities is not even Islamic. It's the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, a Marxist group.
In this interview in the American Conservative, Pape says that Islam is not necessarily the overriding motivation for suicide attacks. Here's what I thought was the relevant text:
So the principle is as simple as this--don't antagonize people just for the sake of it, just because you can. Or, specifically in our case, don't invade Iraq just because we feel like it. They don't like that. Disagreements should always be settled in the manner that can be seen as equitable by all parties involved. For but one example of how revenge and excessively punitive measures create monsters, recall that resentment about the terms of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was one of the conditions Hitler was able to exploit to accomplish his malicious ends.
So I guess I gotta get the book...hopefully it will help turn the tide in favor of our withdrawing from Iraq and ceasing to antagonize other nations/people. But I doubt it--see above about the politics of truth...
I don't usually like to watch "Meet The Press" because not only do I find it infuriating, I also find it harmful. I mean, for the most part, the people on the show have something to hide and it almost always stays hidden and/or is obscured even more by some fast talkin'. And so the harmful part of the show is that rather than being educated by it, I feel that one actually "unlearns" by watching it.
But today I watched it anyway and thought it wasn't too bad. It never ceases to amaze me how some people (since 2000, it's been almost exclusively Republicans) can be faced with a fact, dead to rights, and still act like it isn't true, it's not a fact, etc. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman did this beautifully when Tim Russert pointed out that, by the admission of all parties involved, Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source on Valerie Plame's identity ("Wilson's wife" can only mean "Valerie Plame") and was therefore at least one of the leakers.
Mehlman acted as if that fact just didn't exist and proceeded to make up his own because he knows that Rush's listeners and Fox watchers will buy into it. He said that the information now available exonerates Rove rather than implicates him. But he knows that that argument is poppycock--he can't actually believe what he's saying. He's like the stereotypical drug dealer, and lies are the drug he's peddling. He wants you to get hooked on them but he knows better than to try the junk himself.
Krugman had a column this past week that really exposed and explained this kind of behavior:
What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.
And that part in bold has been the poisoned genius of the Republican disinformation campaign that has gone on since at least the late 60s. They got their own thinktanks doing "research" and publishing "findings" that are at odds with the mainstream of whatever field you can name, and then "working the refs" for access to the supposedly "liberal media" until there are now perceived to be two versions of reality--the actual one and the crazy rightwing one (sane rightists believe in the actual reality). Indeed, these days, as Krugman points out, "the facts are irrelevant" to these crazed cons in any given argument--global warming (it doesn't exist), tax cuts (help the poor), separation of church and state (they shouldn't be separate), and so forth.
The Logic Of Suicide Terrorism
And a new book by Robert Pape explodes another cherished wingnut myth--that Islamic fundamentalism is out to take over the world through terrorist attacks. His new book is called "Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism" and I have only read a few pages of the intro and seen the last ten to fifteen minutes of his appearance on "Washington Journal" this morning.
But what an intro! He says that he's compiled a list of the 315 suicide-bomb terrorist attacks that have taken place everywhere in the world from 1980-2003. That includes two Intifadas, unrest in Chechnya, and so forth and so on--I'm assuming he used '03 as the cutoff because that's when the war in Iraq started. And guess what his conclusion was? Why it's what educated, reasonable people have been saying for years and the reason that suicide bombers themselves almost always give--to end occupation of their land or to bring an end to some wrong they feel is being continuously committed against them.
And on a side note, I was surprised to read that there have been only 315 suicide attacks--of course, one is too many, but as many times as one hears about suicide attacks, it feels like there have been thousands upon thousands of them. And there have only been 315. And the group that has committed the most of these atrocities is not even Islamic. It's the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, a Marxist group.
In this interview in the American Conservative, Pape says that Islam is not necessarily the overriding motivation for suicide attacks. Here's what I thought was the relevant text:
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
So the principle is as simple as this--don't antagonize people just for the sake of it, just because you can. Or, specifically in our case, don't invade Iraq just because we feel like it. They don't like that. Disagreements should always be settled in the manner that can be seen as equitable by all parties involved. For but one example of how revenge and excessively punitive measures create monsters, recall that resentment about the terms of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was one of the conditions Hitler was able to exploit to accomplish his malicious ends.
So I guess I gotta get the book...hopefully it will help turn the tide in favor of our withdrawing from Iraq and ceasing to antagonize other nations/people. But I doubt it--see above about the politics of truth...
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
WHERE TO EVEN BEGIN...
Freedom is on the march all right--away from American citizens. A U.S. soldier was arrested for questioning the mission in his blog. The soldier's name is Leonard Clark, and one of his friends has been keeping up with this situation at his blog (scroll down a little).
Is that legal? I mean, I have no idea, but I wouldn't think so. Aren't soldiers supposed to disobey orders they know to be wrong? And wouldn't that require them to be critical thinkers? And might that critical thinking bring them to a place where they don't agree with the mission? Is freedom of speech signed away when you join the military?
If so, no wonder the National Guard didn't meet its recruitment goals again.
And if Bush didn't smear himself with the blood of 9/11 victims every time someone asks him a simple question, Karl Rove would be sooo fucked. But remember, we don't have to get him fired (though that's the preferred outcome) or have him resign (another nice possibility)--we just have to smash the windshield of their credibility. Maybe also slash the tires and put sugar in the gas tank of the Bush administration. So then the press and the public won't let Bush and company pass the inspection and won't give them an inspection sticker and Bush will then be given a ticket and have a court date set.
I know it sounds vindictive, mean, and nasty to say all that, but we don't make the rules right now. Our guys aren't in charge of all three branches of government, our guys aren't spouting their ideas on every backwoods AM radio station in southern Rubetown 24 hours a day, and so forth. They make the rules, and a big chunk of the rules have to do with ending civility and rational discourse. If we put on our best suit and speak in the most precise yet polite language there is, we will only be laughed at and called out of touch with the people--see Al Gore in Election 2000.
The current rules are to be folksy and perceived as down-to-earth. You also have to be willing to fight. Pleas for civility are seen as weakness. So we only have to break out our rhetorical brass knuckles long enough to kick these motherfuckers' asses bad enough that we can get things back to how they should be. You know, where we're in control.
Always remember and never forget:
Oh yeah, and don't forget that the facts were being "fixed around the policy."
Don't forget, Iraq had no WMD, no nuclear program, no chemical weapons.
Saddam was given the key to the city of Detroit in 1980.
George Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Bill Clinton was America's favorite president out of the last three.
America is the only country in the world that has ever used atomic weapons against another country.
Writing was invented in the area where Iraq now is--between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
A Muslim born in Baghdad introduced algebra, use of zero, negative numbers, and so forth.
The Catholic church forced Galileo to recant his heliocentric theory of the universe.
Freedom is on the march all right--away from American citizens. A U.S. soldier was arrested for questioning the mission in his blog. The soldier's name is Leonard Clark, and one of his friends has been keeping up with this situation at his blog (scroll down a little).
Is that legal? I mean, I have no idea, but I wouldn't think so. Aren't soldiers supposed to disobey orders they know to be wrong? And wouldn't that require them to be critical thinkers? And might that critical thinking bring them to a place where they don't agree with the mission? Is freedom of speech signed away when you join the military?
If so, no wonder the National Guard didn't meet its recruitment goals again.
And if Bush didn't smear himself with the blood of 9/11 victims every time someone asks him a simple question, Karl Rove would be sooo fucked. But remember, we don't have to get him fired (though that's the preferred outcome) or have him resign (another nice possibility)--we just have to smash the windshield of their credibility. Maybe also slash the tires and put sugar in the gas tank of the Bush administration. So then the press and the public won't let Bush and company pass the inspection and won't give them an inspection sticker and Bush will then be given a ticket and have a court date set.
I know it sounds vindictive, mean, and nasty to say all that, but we don't make the rules right now. Our guys aren't in charge of all three branches of government, our guys aren't spouting their ideas on every backwoods AM radio station in southern Rubetown 24 hours a day, and so forth. They make the rules, and a big chunk of the rules have to do with ending civility and rational discourse. If we put on our best suit and speak in the most precise yet polite language there is, we will only be laughed at and called out of touch with the people--see Al Gore in Election 2000.
The current rules are to be folksy and perceived as down-to-earth. You also have to be willing to fight. Pleas for civility are seen as weakness. So we only have to break out our rhetorical brass knuckles long enough to kick these motherfuckers' asses bad enough that we can get things back to how they should be. You know, where we're in control.
Always remember and never forget:
Oh yeah, and don't forget that the facts were being "fixed around the policy."
Don't forget, Iraq had no WMD, no nuclear program, no chemical weapons.
Saddam was given the key to the city of Detroit in 1980.
George Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Bill Clinton was America's favorite president out of the last three.
America is the only country in the world that has ever used atomic weapons against another country.
Writing was invented in the area where Iraq now is--between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
A Muslim born in Baghdad introduced algebra, use of zero, negative numbers, and so forth.
The Catholic church forced Galileo to recant his heliocentric theory of the universe.
Monday, July 11, 2005
ROVE-ING TOWARD THE TRUTH (we don't have to win to not lose)
Don't have much to say about the Rove revelations that hasn't already been said. I disagree with Bob Somerby at the Howler about several things in his column today about the left's take on the Rove sitch. I think we should be making lots of noise and filling the air with a bunch of triumphalism, just like the Repukes did with Clinton. It worked, didn't it? I mean, if the beating that the Refucklicans gave W.J. Clinton didn't fuck up Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the country, then nothing did.
I say that to say that we should be foaming at the mouth for the downfall of Rove, even if it doesn't come down exactly the way we hope it will. After all, the Repukes did not achieve Clinton's removal from office, but hell, by the time they were done with him, it was almost as if he had been removed from office.
And that's the point with Rove and Bush. So what if Rove doesn't go to jail or get fired as a result of this? The point is for him to be walking wounded, so that the grilling Scott McClellan got today intensifies and Rove/Bush just becomes an untrustworthy joke, that the conventional wisdom becomes that "Bush wouldn't even fire Rove even though Rove was the leaker and Bush said he'd fire the leaker--you can't trust Bush, he says one thing and does another," etc. If the only positive thing that comes out of this is that the press finally gets its nuts back and calls bullshit on these guys as directly and fearlessly as it did today, that'll be more than we can say for the last several years.
Because frankly, this law about not outing undercover agents seems impossible to break even if you wanted to. That's how some people are talking about the Rove situation, pointing out that the law says that to violate the law, the violator has to "knowingly" reveal an agent's identity. And so far all we know for sure is that Rove referred to Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife" in conversations with Time's Matt Cooper.
It sounds like this law was passed only for political purposes, as it is all but unenforceable. I mean, how can you prove in court that someone "knows" something? The accused can simply deny "knowing" as Rove has and then the prosecution has to find a way to prove "knowledge."
Come to think of it, that's the only way the right-wing crazies have been able to defend Bush and his lies about the Iraq war--they take the George Costanza approach, saying that a person cannot be said to be lying if they really believe what they're saying is true, as they say Bush was doing when he spoke about the threat from Iraqi WMD. That seems to me to be an all but nonexistent standard to define what a lie is--if people caught in lies have only to protest that they believed their lies to be truth at the time they were lying, then no one can ever be found guilty of perjury, one of the Ten Commandments (I don't know which number "bearing false witness" is and don't care to look it up right now) is null and void, etc.
It seems to me that a better standard is to hold a person to what they reasonably should have known or could have known. In Rove's case, for example, he claims not have known Plame's name and split hairs saying "I didn't leak her name." And that last part may actually be true, but the first part also more than likely is false--Rove was certainly in a position to know her name, having access to lots of classified material. In other words, he had the motive and the opportunity.
But that only creates a circumstantial case, but from what I have read of the wording of the law, it seems that a circumstantial case is the only kind of case that can be created regarding breaking this law.
But enough of that. Let us continue to make noise about this and not let it pass, not wait for it all to be sussed out before we pass judgment. That's how we lose. And we must remember, that we don't have to win to not lose. As long as Rove and Bush are sullied by this affair (as they should be sullied, at the very least) and the press sticks it to them harder and more skeptically, that's a victory, however small.
Don't have much to say about the Rove revelations that hasn't already been said. I disagree with Bob Somerby at the Howler about several things in his column today about the left's take on the Rove sitch. I think we should be making lots of noise and filling the air with a bunch of triumphalism, just like the Repukes did with Clinton. It worked, didn't it? I mean, if the beating that the Refucklicans gave W.J. Clinton didn't fuck up Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the country, then nothing did.
I say that to say that we should be foaming at the mouth for the downfall of Rove, even if it doesn't come down exactly the way we hope it will. After all, the Repukes did not achieve Clinton's removal from office, but hell, by the time they were done with him, it was almost as if he had been removed from office.
And that's the point with Rove and Bush. So what if Rove doesn't go to jail or get fired as a result of this? The point is for him to be walking wounded, so that the grilling Scott McClellan got today intensifies and Rove/Bush just becomes an untrustworthy joke, that the conventional wisdom becomes that "Bush wouldn't even fire Rove even though Rove was the leaker and Bush said he'd fire the leaker--you can't trust Bush, he says one thing and does another," etc. If the only positive thing that comes out of this is that the press finally gets its nuts back and calls bullshit on these guys as directly and fearlessly as it did today, that'll be more than we can say for the last several years.
Because frankly, this law about not outing undercover agents seems impossible to break even if you wanted to. That's how some people are talking about the Rove situation, pointing out that the law says that to violate the law, the violator has to "knowingly" reveal an agent's identity. And so far all we know for sure is that Rove referred to Valerie Plame as "Wilson's wife" in conversations with Time's Matt Cooper.
It sounds like this law was passed only for political purposes, as it is all but unenforceable. I mean, how can you prove in court that someone "knows" something? The accused can simply deny "knowing" as Rove has and then the prosecution has to find a way to prove "knowledge."
Come to think of it, that's the only way the right-wing crazies have been able to defend Bush and his lies about the Iraq war--they take the George Costanza approach, saying that a person cannot be said to be lying if they really believe what they're saying is true, as they say Bush was doing when he spoke about the threat from Iraqi WMD. That seems to me to be an all but nonexistent standard to define what a lie is--if people caught in lies have only to protest that they believed their lies to be truth at the time they were lying, then no one can ever be found guilty of perjury, one of the Ten Commandments (I don't know which number "bearing false witness" is and don't care to look it up right now) is null and void, etc.
It seems to me that a better standard is to hold a person to what they reasonably should have known or could have known. In Rove's case, for example, he claims not have known Plame's name and split hairs saying "I didn't leak her name." And that last part may actually be true, but the first part also more than likely is false--Rove was certainly in a position to know her name, having access to lots of classified material. In other words, he had the motive and the opportunity.
But that only creates a circumstantial case, but from what I have read of the wording of the law, it seems that a circumstantial case is the only kind of case that can be created regarding breaking this law.
But enough of that. Let us continue to make noise about this and not let it pass, not wait for it all to be sussed out before we pass judgment. That's how we lose. And we must remember, that we don't have to win to not lose. As long as Rove and Bush are sullied by this affair (as they should be sullied, at the very least) and the press sticks it to them harder and more skeptically, that's a victory, however small.
Friday, July 08, 2005
THE BRITS HAVE REALLY GOOD INTELLIGENCE...
...so said one of the guests on today's Washington Journal. David Heyman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies was making this point amidst talk about our own terror preparedness in this country. It was kind of an aside, but he was basically saying that the British have a lot of experience with terrorism (thanks to the IRA) and that they have accordingly developed an intelligence service among the best in the world.
Two questions came immediately to mind: 1) why then did they know not about yesterday's plot and 2) why do pro-war types pretend to not take seriously the contentions in the Downing Street memos that, among other things, the case against Saddam Hussein was "thin"?
And Justin Raimondo takes up the question of the Netanyahu warning today at antiwar.com. The first reports were that Netanyahu was warned by Scotland Yard before the attacks, then stories were changed--"clarified"--that Netanyahu was warned to stay in his hotel only after the first explosion.Raimondo makes the obvious connection that since the conference at which Netanyahu was to speak was at a hotel above one of the subway stations that was hit that Netanyahu was being targeted.
Hmmm...this story will never make it into the mainstream media, but there it was for all to see on the AP page yesterday at news.yahoo.com.
NEVER COMPLETELY SAFEIn his Washington Journal appearance, Heyman also conceded that no matter what anyone does in any country, terrorism will never be out of the realm of possibility. Everyone knows this, yet people still want to know, as one emailer to the program did, "are our chemical plants adequately protected," and so forth.
Of course reasonable steps should be taken to deter those who might be planning to commit atrocities, but let's get it clear--there is nothing anybody, not even His Holiness George W. Bush, can do to completely stop terrorism.But a very wise first step is to stop antagonizing other countries and other cultures--i.e., pull out of Iraq now. Not in October 2006 (the month before the midterm elections, natch), not whenever Bush decides to get around to it--now. Today. Let's have the troops home by this weekend. And then maybe we can avoid 7/8 or 7/9 or 8/14 or Terror Wednesday or Sunday Bloody Sunday or whatever we'll call the next horrible terror attack on New York or L.A. or wherever. Because they want us out and we have no reason to be there--no WMD, no links to al Qaida. Why isn't everyone clamoring for withdrawal? Bush is a fake, a dimwit, and a very dangerous person--spank his ass and get our troops home now so we don't have to live in fear.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
DO WE UNDERSTAND? DO WE GET IT?
London mayor Ken Livingstone issued this defiant statement today in response to the London bombing:
These bombers are more than likely only as interested in destroying the western concept of a free society as we are in occupying Iraq. In fact, the bombers pointed out as much, saying that their attacks were meant as revenge for British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan:
It's fairly simple, in other words--don't attack us and we won't attack you. Let us not forget that Iraq had no WMD, no pre-9/11 links to al Qaida, and was a sovereign nation that had not attacked either Britain or the U.S.
Now, killing innocent civilians is always deplorable and horrible and inexcusable. But we need to get to a point in the West where we can view terror attacks in the same way Chris Rock talked about understanding to a degree why O.J. killed Nicole, listing some provocative things she'd done: "I ain't sayin' he shoulda killed her...but I understand."
The right thinks that view is bunk, but we're already trying it their way with the 'misunderstanding" approach--i.e., invading Iraq and Afghanistan--and that's not turning out so well, so maybe we could try something else (Robert McNamara makes this point exactly in "The Fog Of War" when he recounts how nuclear war was averted by Llewellyn Thompson's suggestion of "understanding" Khruschev, who had actual WMD 90 miles away from us). At least trying to understand your enemy's motives and asking if maybe, just maybe you might have done something to provoke that enemy doesn't get tens of thousands of your own citizens killed and wounded in a desert quagmire.
Speaking of which, another soldier from my neck of the woods ,was killed this week, leaving behind a wife and two children. He was the same age as me and his family learned of his death just hours after receiving an email from him inquiring about the family's July 4th plans.
Once again, I'll point out that this morning's explosions blow a car-bomb-sized hole in Bush's argument that fighting terrorists in Iraq keeps us and our allies from having to fight them in our own streets. If anything, as these bombings illustrate, fighting in Iraq makes it even more likely that we'll have to deal with terrorist attacks here.
And 36 soldiers from my home state have had to die to disprove Bush's theory. Enough is enough--troops out now, send aid, apologize, throw Bush and Co. in jail (don't forget the Downing Street memos), develop renewable energy sources posthaste, and spend money and manpower improving our schools, hospitals, and lives.
"I know that you do fear you may fail in your long term
objective: to destroy our free society."
These bombers are more than likely only as interested in destroying the western concept of a free society as we are in occupying Iraq. In fact, the bombers pointed out as much, saying that their attacks were meant as revenge for British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader
government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain
committed in Iraq and Afghanistan."
It's fairly simple, in other words--don't attack us and we won't attack you. Let us not forget that Iraq had no WMD, no pre-9/11 links to al Qaida, and was a sovereign nation that had not attacked either Britain or the U.S.
Now, killing innocent civilians is always deplorable and horrible and inexcusable. But we need to get to a point in the West where we can view terror attacks in the same way Chris Rock talked about understanding to a degree why O.J. killed Nicole, listing some provocative things she'd done: "I ain't sayin' he shoulda killed her...but I understand."
The right thinks that view is bunk, but we're already trying it their way with the 'misunderstanding" approach--i.e., invading Iraq and Afghanistan--and that's not turning out so well, so maybe we could try something else (Robert McNamara makes this point exactly in "The Fog Of War" when he recounts how nuclear war was averted by Llewellyn Thompson's suggestion of "understanding" Khruschev, who had actual WMD 90 miles away from us). At least trying to understand your enemy's motives and asking if maybe, just maybe you might have done something to provoke that enemy doesn't get tens of thousands of your own citizens killed and wounded in a desert quagmire.
Speaking of which, another soldier from my neck of the woods ,was killed this week, leaving behind a wife and two children. He was the same age as me and his family learned of his death just hours after receiving an email from him inquiring about the family's July 4th plans.
Once again, I'll point out that this morning's explosions blow a car-bomb-sized hole in Bush's argument that fighting terrorists in Iraq keeps us and our allies from having to fight them in our own streets. If anything, as these bombings illustrate, fighting in Iraq makes it even more likely that we'll have to deal with terrorist attacks here.
And 36 soldiers from my home state have had to die to disprove Bush's theory. Enough is enough--troops out now, send aid, apologize, throw Bush and Co. in jail (don't forget the Downing Street memos), develop renewable energy sources posthaste, and spend money and manpower improving our schools, hospitals, and lives.
FIGHT THEM OVER WHERE?
I thought we were fighting al Qaeda in Iraq so we didn't have to fight them here--surely what the English thought and/or were told as well. Well, that doesn't seem to be holding true for the Brits--#2 in Iraq.
Of course, the bombings this morning were terrible, regrettable, and atrocious.
But could it be that by fighting in Iraq we're provoking attacks on us and our allies? Could it be--well, yes. Quite.
Of course, the bombings this morning were terrible, regrettable, and atrocious.
But could it be that by fighting in Iraq we're provoking attacks on us and our allies? Could it be--well, yes. Quite.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
TAXES, SCHMAXES--I'M RICH, MOTHERFUCKER!
So the G8 summit is underway, and Bono Geldof wants something done about African debt--"drop the debt," they say, and "make poverty history." How fitting then, that this week the incomparable David Cay Johnston brings us another one of his striking tax stories. The one-sentence summary that came to my inbox when I emailed the article to myself says it all:
Hear what that sentence says--these are "affluent" people, yet they paid no federal income taxes. They have big incomes but don't pay federal income taxes on them. And we know that there is no FICA tax after a worker's first $90,000 of income, so they're not really helping fix the Social Security problem either.
And this is happening while we are enjoying the highest federal budget deficit in history. This is happening while we're in the midst of a $300 billion + war of choice. And it's being done while the world's poorest people--the "least of these," if you will are dying every three seconds (if Will Smith is to be believed).
You know, maybe if these people paid some taxes, we could make poverty history in America and Africa. I'm not even necessarily suggesting that they be made to pay all the taxes that people in their income bracket. If they'd just be made to pay something, it would be infinitely better than nothing.
These people use the roads, the police, are protected by our armed forces, and use our infrastructure just like the rest of us yet they pay nothing to maintain it? Can it possibly be true? I know it's hard to believe, and I hate corporate America and I'm a liberal. I can't imagine that Rush's regular conservative, pro-business, pro-war listeners can bring themselves to believe it. Especially since the information is reported by the (gasp!) New York Times.
But I do believe it is true. After all, the information came from the Bush administration itself (which actually makes it automatically suspect)--I guess they want to show their corporate owners that their bidding is being done. And oh, how it's being done...
So the G8 summit is underway, and Bono Geldof wants something done about African debt--"drop the debt," they say, and "make poverty history." How fitting then, that this week the incomparable David Cay Johnston brings us another one of his striking tax stories. The one-sentence summary that came to my inbox when I emailed the article to myself says it all:
"The number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal income taxes jumped more than 15 percent in 2002."
Hear what that sentence says--these are "affluent" people, yet they paid no federal income taxes. They have big incomes but don't pay federal income taxes on them. And we know that there is no FICA tax after a worker's first $90,000 of income, so they're not really helping fix the Social Security problem either.
And this is happening while we are enjoying the highest federal budget deficit in history. This is happening while we're in the midst of a $300 billion + war of choice. And it's being done while the world's poorest people--the "least of these," if you will are dying every three seconds (if Will Smith is to be believed).
You know, maybe if these people paid some taxes, we could make poverty history in America and Africa. I'm not even necessarily suggesting that they be made to pay all the taxes that people in their income bracket. If they'd just be made to pay something, it would be infinitely better than nothing.
These people use the roads, the police, are protected by our armed forces, and use our infrastructure just like the rest of us yet they pay nothing to maintain it? Can it possibly be true? I know it's hard to believe, and I hate corporate America and I'm a liberal. I can't imagine that Rush's regular conservative, pro-business, pro-war listeners can bring themselves to believe it. Especially since the information is reported by the (gasp!) New York Times.
But I do believe it is true. After all, the information came from the Bush administration itself (which actually makes it automatically suspect)--I guess they want to show their corporate owners that their bidding is being done. And oh, how it's being done...
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
BRING ME THE HEAD OF KARL ROVE
or in lieu of that, here's some lines I shat out today:
---------------------
----------------
Don't have much to say in the way of politics today. I just want Rove news and there wasn't much forthcoming today...I watched "Hardball" for half a second--long enough to hear Andrea Mitchell ask that coif from the Family Research Council what kind of justice they will "allow" George Bush to appoint.
Of course we all know that Bush and the Repubics have hitched their falling, fading star to the religious right, but it's got to suck if you're the fucking leader of the free world, He Whose Finger Is On "The Button", etc. and then you see Andrea Mitchell on Hardball letting on that you take orders from some lame-ass "research" council...
Also, when is the Downing Street Memo gonna take W. down? And one more thing...if only it were Kerry that was getting to choose a Supreme Court nominee...
or in lieu of that, here's some lines I shat out today:
---------------------
with all these podcasts and bomb blasts i can't hear myself think
through all the pop ups and blogs i can't form an opinion
but the steady soft hum of my dell comforts me
i don't need myspace because i've got my own place
and all the nipples and the thighs get old after a while
anyone can pass as foxy and bright at their own website
i'm always worried that i'll eventually run out of memory
so i try to remember where the superhighway's exits are
every war from this one on will be fought online
in every chat room, forum, message board, and filtered inbox
with every mpeg, jpg, mp3, and html tag fortifying the supply line
forget your CTS, point and click, and let's get it on
the future is now just like the future was then
you can't see the future til you're in the past
maybe a flash animation will help put it all in perspective
or just forget your passwords and download into history
----------------
Don't have much to say in the way of politics today. I just want Rove news and there wasn't much forthcoming today...I watched "Hardball" for half a second--long enough to hear Andrea Mitchell ask that coif from the Family Research Council what kind of justice they will "allow" George Bush to appoint.
Of course we all know that Bush and the Repubics have hitched their falling, fading star to the religious right, but it's got to suck if you're the fucking leader of the free world, He Whose Finger Is On "The Button", etc. and then you see Andrea Mitchell on Hardball letting on that you take orders from some lame-ass "research" council...
Also, when is the Downing Street Memo gonna take W. down? And one more thing...if only it were Kerry that was getting to choose a Supreme Court nominee...
Friday, July 01, 2005
TIME FOR A NEW MEME
Somerby at the Daily Howler talks about how spin is created in general and offers the specific case of Clinton's '92 victory in general. The conventional wisdom or meme promulgated by Limp-dick and the crazy right is that Bush would've beaten Clinton had Perot not been in the race. Somerby ably disproves this here.
A current meme is that Bush is a "popular" president--which implies "well-liked", most likely because he recently won re-election (sorry, "won" should be in quotes). However, new poll numbers indicate that he is in fact currently not well-liked. In fact Bill Clinton was more liked than either the current Bush or his father. To wit, this week's ABC/Washington Post poll shows that 51% of Americans disapprove of the job the president is doing while 40% "strongly disapprove" and only 27% "strongly approve." Alterman points out here that Clinton's worst "strongly disapprove" number was 33% in fall 1994 and Bush I's worst was 34% in summer 1992.
So our new meme should be that President Clinton was in fact the country's favorite president of the last three. Just remember those figures--and that a lower number is better:
Clinton's highest disapproval: 33%
Bush I's highest disapproval: 34%
Bush II's highest disapproval (so far): 40%
SIGNIFICANT?
Now of course this is significant--after all, Clinton will have been the only Democratic president in the last 28 years (come 2008) and he was smeared the whole time he was in office and ultimately impeached (but of course, not removed). The right would therefore have us believe that he was a terrible president, a terrible person, and not at all well-liked and this is supposed to lead the public to believe that Democrats are not fit for the presidency.
Bush II is supposed to be the leader that unified the country after 9/11 and rid the world of terrorists. For those things to have happened would be nice and would certainly create an all but inarguable proposition that Republicans are the best choice for the Presidency. But those things haven't actually happened and Bush II has actually created the largest deficit ever, led us into a dubious, ruinous war, presided over the most lost jobs since Hoover, and so forth. And the public knows this deep inside and currently 40% of them "strongly" disapprove of the job he's doing.
By contrast, Clinton presided over a period of unprecedented economic growth, created a budget surplus, and wartime activity was kept to a minimum. And only 33% of the population ever "strongly" disapproved of the job he was doing. So it's fair to say that Clinton was actually the most well-liked president of the past three--it's possibly more (in italics) accurate (close italics) to say that he was the "least disliked" president of the last three, but the former construction sounds better.
This defeats the argument that Democrats are not suited for the presidency and in fact has positive implications for Hillary's expected bid in '08. I wish some pundits would take this meme and run with it...
Somerby at the Daily Howler talks about how spin is created in general and offers the specific case of Clinton's '92 victory in general. The conventional wisdom or meme promulgated by Limp-dick and the crazy right is that Bush would've beaten Clinton had Perot not been in the race. Somerby ably disproves this here.
A current meme is that Bush is a "popular" president--which implies "well-liked", most likely because he recently won re-election (sorry, "won" should be in quotes). However, new poll numbers indicate that he is in fact currently not well-liked. In fact Bill Clinton was more liked than either the current Bush or his father. To wit, this week's ABC/Washington Post poll shows that 51% of Americans disapprove of the job the president is doing while 40% "strongly disapprove" and only 27% "strongly approve." Alterman points out here that Clinton's worst "strongly disapprove" number was 33% in fall 1994 and Bush I's worst was 34% in summer 1992.
So our new meme should be that President Clinton was in fact the country's favorite president of the last three. Just remember those figures--and that a lower number is better:
Clinton's highest disapproval: 33%
Bush I's highest disapproval: 34%
Bush II's highest disapproval (so far): 40%
SIGNIFICANT?
Now of course this is significant--after all, Clinton will have been the only Democratic president in the last 28 years (come 2008) and he was smeared the whole time he was in office and ultimately impeached (but of course, not removed). The right would therefore have us believe that he was a terrible president, a terrible person, and not at all well-liked and this is supposed to lead the public to believe that Democrats are not fit for the presidency.
Bush II is supposed to be the leader that unified the country after 9/11 and rid the world of terrorists. For those things to have happened would be nice and would certainly create an all but inarguable proposition that Republicans are the best choice for the Presidency. But those things haven't actually happened and Bush II has actually created the largest deficit ever, led us into a dubious, ruinous war, presided over the most lost jobs since Hoover, and so forth. And the public knows this deep inside and currently 40% of them "strongly" disapprove of the job he's doing.
By contrast, Clinton presided over a period of unprecedented economic growth, created a budget surplus, and wartime activity was kept to a minimum. And only 33% of the population ever "strongly" disapproved of the job he was doing. So it's fair to say that Clinton was actually the most well-liked president of the past three--it's possibly more (in italics) accurate (close italics) to say that he was the "least disliked" president of the last three, but the former construction sounds better.
This defeats the argument that Democrats are not suited for the presidency and in fact has positive implications for Hillary's expected bid in '08. I wish some pundits would take this meme and run with it...
Thursday, June 30, 2005
OH PLEASE...
My prediction about the new president of Iran supposedly being one of the Iranian hijackers in 1979: this is one of those stories that we'll look back on as one of the ways in which the Republicans swept Congress in the 2006 election. We've already been told that "Al Qaida [is] hiding in Iran" and now we're told that the new president of that country is a "terrorist" as Tucker Carlson just did. And not just any terrorist, but one involved with the one of our most ignominious encounters with Middle East culture prior to Sept. 11.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Ahmadinejad was in fact not actually one of the captors, and he and others have already protested to the contrary. However, let's remember that in these times, facts, truth, and reality have no bearing on anything our leaders do. What matters is that today Bush said that if Ahmadinejad was one of the captors, that raises "serious questions" or some such rubbish. The Bush smear jihad never ends: McCain, Gore, Paul O'Neill, Max Cleland, Kerry, Durbin, and now Ahmadinejad.
It's the only winning strategy the Repukes have: demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify--or if you prefer, call it "the ol' smear 'n' fear". Mark my words, after this case of mistaken identity thunderstorm blows over, we'll get the facts in a light breeze that no, in fact Ahmadinejad was not one of the captors. But by then conventional wisdom will already be fixed--the new president of Iran is a cold-blooded terrorist and always has been. So when the Iran invasion is rolled out, that will already be set in the public's mind.
LINCOLN MEMORIAL
And then there's this story about changing the video at the Lincoln memorial because it contains footage of pro-abortion and pro-gay rights activists but not Promise Keepers or other Christo-fascist rubbish. What makes these Christ thugs think that abortion and gay rights activists aren't Christians and that those movements aren't in fact rooted in Christian sentiment? Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality or abortion? No, he did not--not one word. Did he say anything about loving people even if they don't love you and giving people as much as you are able if not more? Ummm, yeah, he did.
Not only that, but the fight for abortion and gay rights are civil liberties issues, of a piece with the black struggle for equality--civil rights are civil rights. The Promise Keepers are about men being better fathers--a noble undertaking, but not necessarily the moral equivalent of fighting for civil rights. This just feeds into what has become the conventional wisdom among evangelicals--that Christianity is under fire in the U.S. and this Lincoln Memorial video is just one more strike against it.
Well, let's put it this way, no one is trying to introduce a constitutional amendment that says only Catholics can marry or that Baptists can't get married or what have you. The Christian persecution complex is only perceived and objectively not real, whereas homosexual persecution is perceived because it is objectively real.
If only Fred Phelps would get as impassioned about the other things in the various lists in which homosexuality is included in the Bible--he might picket the White House with signs saying "God HATES Liars"...
My prediction about the new president of Iran supposedly being one of the Iranian hijackers in 1979: this is one of those stories that we'll look back on as one of the ways in which the Republicans swept Congress in the 2006 election. We've already been told that "Al Qaida [is] hiding in Iran" and now we're told that the new president of that country is a "terrorist" as Tucker Carlson just did. And not just any terrorist, but one involved with the one of our most ignominious encounters with Middle East culture prior to Sept. 11.
I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Ahmadinejad was in fact not actually one of the captors, and he and others have already protested to the contrary. However, let's remember that in these times, facts, truth, and reality have no bearing on anything our leaders do. What matters is that today Bush said that if Ahmadinejad was one of the captors, that raises "serious questions" or some such rubbish. The Bush smear jihad never ends: McCain, Gore, Paul O'Neill, Max Cleland, Kerry, Durbin, and now Ahmadinejad.
It's the only winning strategy the Repukes have: demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify, demonize and terrify--or if you prefer, call it "the ol' smear 'n' fear". Mark my words, after this case of mistaken identity thunderstorm blows over, we'll get the facts in a light breeze that no, in fact Ahmadinejad was not one of the captors. But by then conventional wisdom will already be fixed--the new president of Iran is a cold-blooded terrorist and always has been. So when the Iran invasion is rolled out, that will already be set in the public's mind.
LINCOLN MEMORIAL
And then there's this story about changing the video at the Lincoln memorial because it contains footage of pro-abortion and pro-gay rights activists but not Promise Keepers or other Christo-fascist rubbish. What makes these Christ thugs think that abortion and gay rights activists aren't Christians and that those movements aren't in fact rooted in Christian sentiment? Did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality or abortion? No, he did not--not one word. Did he say anything about loving people even if they don't love you and giving people as much as you are able if not more? Ummm, yeah, he did.
Not only that, but the fight for abortion and gay rights are civil liberties issues, of a piece with the black struggle for equality--civil rights are civil rights. The Promise Keepers are about men being better fathers--a noble undertaking, but not necessarily the moral equivalent of fighting for civil rights. This just feeds into what has become the conventional wisdom among evangelicals--that Christianity is under fire in the U.S. and this Lincoln Memorial video is just one more strike against it.
Well, let's put it this way, no one is trying to introduce a constitutional amendment that says only Catholics can marry or that Baptists can't get married or what have you. The Christian persecution complex is only perceived and objectively not real, whereas homosexual persecution is perceived because it is objectively real.
If only Fred Phelps would get as impassioned about the other things in the various lists in which homosexuality is included in the Bible--he might picket the White House with signs saying "God HATES Liars"...
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
IT IS WORTH IT...
...if you work for Halliburton
...if you work for Fluor
...if you are Osama bin Laden
Really, can George Bush really convince people that this war is worth it? Hopefully not--people are finally starting to come around, based on a couple of recent polls. But we all know how to listen to a Bush speech--everything that he asserts as being true isn't. So when he says bullshit like "It is worth it," that means that in reality, the war isn't worth it, and so forth.
For the real dope on Iraq and how things have progressed, or rather, devolved, Antiwar.com had some great links today, this one from the Independent foremost among them...
Canada seems so civilized...they're going to legalize gay marriage. And I guess we'll just continue to oppress people down south in Washington D.C.
...if you work for Halliburton
...if you work for Fluor
...if you are Osama bin Laden
Really, can George Bush really convince people that this war is worth it? Hopefully not--people are finally starting to come around, based on a couple of recent polls. But we all know how to listen to a Bush speech--everything that he asserts as being true isn't. So when he says bullshit like "It is worth it," that means that in reality, the war isn't worth it, and so forth.
For the real dope on Iraq and how things have progressed, or rather, devolved, Antiwar.com had some great links today, this one from the Independent foremost among them...
Canada seems so civilized...they're going to legalize gay marriage. And I guess we'll just continue to oppress people down south in Washington D.C.
Friday, June 24, 2005
HAS THE NEXT "DOWNING ST. MEMO" ALREADY GONE...DOWN?
Meaning, of course, when the fight that Bush is now trying to pick with Iran starts (with another OK for Bush to use force hitting Congress in Oct. '06, natch) in spring '07, will we be seeing a leak of a memo that was written I don't know--yesterday?
The reason I ask this is because we've seen a drip-drip-dripping of these types of stories on Internet portals and such: on the MSN home page, one of the headlines is "Al Qaida hiding in Iran?" and then when clicked on, the headline is "Al Qaida Finds Safe Haven In Iran." These hints are being drop-drop-dropped in the laps of the ever-credulous mainstream media and right now they're not front-page, blaring news--i.e., the other two headlines on the MSN homepage right now are "3 N.J. boys found dead" and "2nd case of mad cow in U.S." Not pleasant stuff, but the Iran tease is third in the list.
And then, the story is not about Al Qaida finding "safe haven" in Iran or setting up a camp there as the headlines would have you believe, it's about some complicated deal the Iranians supposedly worked out with the Saudis to detain some Al Qaida leaders. Or something. At any rate, the damage is done to Iran's reputation to the casual headline-glancer--if you don't read the story, you see the phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran" and maybe you see the question mark at the end, maybe you don't. Maybe you can't remember later if there was any punctuation, but that one phrase sticks in your mind "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." So when Foxbaugh Coulterannity starts to talk about how Iran is our enemy and they need to do what we say and they're a terror state with links to Al Qaida, the headline-glancer subconsciously remembers that phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." The glancer thinks: I know Al Qaida was deemed responsible for 9/11 and...now...they're...in...Iran? Did they have some hostages or somethin'? Aren't they fuckin' crazy towelheads like the rest of 'em? Damn right Mr. Foxbaugh, let's go get 'em--I read somewhere that Al Qaida is hidin' in Iran! I'll glady send everybody else's sons and daughters to fight over something that has come to us on the word of a handful of anonymous sources--and let's make sure I get my $300 in tax "relief" while we spend another $300 billion we don't have! Because Al Qaida is hiding in Iran!"
So let's ask right now--does everybody know now, like people are saying "everybody knew" in summer '02, that we're going to invade Iran? Or is it in fact, an open question? Scott Ritter of course has made his prediction and Seymour Hersh has done his story on U.S. operations in Iran.
Let's look around and take note--are we being told that the president has already decided to go to war with Iran? Are we being told that right now? Is that what we should get from these little popcorn kernels of news?
I wish a White House reporter would ask every day, starting right now, if the President has already decided to go to war anywhere. And a different reporter should ask every day "Has President George Walker Bush [gotta be very specific so that no conservative asshole can come along in 2 or 3 years and say that the answer to this question was just some flunky's opinion] decided today or any time this week to go to war or commit troops to any other country in the world besides Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Ask that fucking question every day starting right now and then when Son of Downing Street is leaked, we'll know for sure whether "everybody knew" that the President has decided on war or not. But no, we're in such a tizzy about whether Korpulent Korporate-whore Karl insulted liberals and is the current Downing Street memo real or fake or new or old or whatever that talk of war with Iran is going to be floated ever so quietly, like brushes on a snare.
And then, after Labor Day '06, the new product line will be introduced, all Democratic veterans will have their pictures morphed into Saddam Hussein's in attack ads, all in the hope that Republicans will at least not lose any seats in Congress. Because if there was ever a time that they need to keep a majority, it's now. If they don't, in a variation of what the Thing might say "It's impeachin' time!"
Meaning, of course, when the fight that Bush is now trying to pick with Iran starts (with another OK for Bush to use force hitting Congress in Oct. '06, natch) in spring '07, will we be seeing a leak of a memo that was written I don't know--yesterday?
The reason I ask this is because we've seen a drip-drip-dripping of these types of stories on Internet portals and such: on the MSN home page, one of the headlines is "Al Qaida hiding in Iran?" and then when clicked on, the headline is "Al Qaida Finds Safe Haven In Iran." These hints are being drop-drop-dropped in the laps of the ever-credulous mainstream media and right now they're not front-page, blaring news--i.e., the other two headlines on the MSN homepage right now are "3 N.J. boys found dead" and "2nd case of mad cow in U.S." Not pleasant stuff, but the Iran tease is third in the list.
And then, the story is not about Al Qaida finding "safe haven" in Iran or setting up a camp there as the headlines would have you believe, it's about some complicated deal the Iranians supposedly worked out with the Saudis to detain some Al Qaida leaders. Or something. At any rate, the damage is done to Iran's reputation to the casual headline-glancer--if you don't read the story, you see the phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran" and maybe you see the question mark at the end, maybe you don't. Maybe you can't remember later if there was any punctuation, but that one phrase sticks in your mind "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." So when Foxbaugh Coulterannity starts to talk about how Iran is our enemy and they need to do what we say and they're a terror state with links to Al Qaida, the headline-glancer subconsciously remembers that phrase "Al Qaida hiding in Iran." The glancer thinks: I know Al Qaida was deemed responsible for 9/11 and...now...they're...in...Iran? Did they have some hostages or somethin'? Aren't they fuckin' crazy towelheads like the rest of 'em? Damn right Mr. Foxbaugh, let's go get 'em--I read somewhere that Al Qaida is hidin' in Iran! I'll glady send everybody else's sons and daughters to fight over something that has come to us on the word of a handful of anonymous sources--and let's make sure I get my $300 in tax "relief" while we spend another $300 billion we don't have! Because Al Qaida is hiding in Iran!"
So let's ask right now--does everybody know now, like people are saying "everybody knew" in summer '02, that we're going to invade Iran? Or is it in fact, an open question? Scott Ritter of course has made his prediction and Seymour Hersh has done his story on U.S. operations in Iran.
Let's look around and take note--are we being told that the president has already decided to go to war with Iran? Are we being told that right now? Is that what we should get from these little popcorn kernels of news?
I wish a White House reporter would ask every day, starting right now, if the President has already decided to go to war anywhere. And a different reporter should ask every day "Has President George Walker Bush [gotta be very specific so that no conservative asshole can come along in 2 or 3 years and say that the answer to this question was just some flunky's opinion] decided today or any time this week to go to war or commit troops to any other country in the world besides Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Ask that fucking question every day starting right now and then when Son of Downing Street is leaked, we'll know for sure whether "everybody knew" that the President has decided on war or not. But no, we're in such a tizzy about whether Korpulent Korporate-whore Karl insulted liberals and is the current Downing Street memo real or fake or new or old or whatever that talk of war with Iran is going to be floated ever so quietly, like brushes on a snare.
And then, after Labor Day '06, the new product line will be introduced, all Democratic veterans will have their pictures morphed into Saddam Hussein's in attack ads, all in the hope that Republicans will at least not lose any seats in Congress. Because if there was ever a time that they need to keep a majority, it's now. If they don't, in a variation of what the Thing might say "It's impeachin' time!"
Thursday, June 23, 2005
EVIL GENIUS? NO, JUST EVIL...
So "evil genius" Korpulent Kocksucker Karl Rove does exactly what I pointed out yesterday--he conflates criticism of the war or our tactics with criticism of the soldiers:
And then another wacko had this to say:
Oh my, this is politics at its dirtiest...another Repuke said that "what we've seen from Democrat leaders is a growing pattern of jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops, bending over backwards to promote the interests of terror-camp detainees while dragging our military's honored reputation through the mud."
You can plainly see the button-pushing, hyperbolic phrases--"our military's honored reputation," "guerilla warfare on American troops." What Dick Durbin said had nothing to do with besmirching our military's honored reputation--it merely pointed out that the tactics which have been authorized by our leaders, i.e., Rumsfeld, et. al. are plainly against what America stands for.
The whole war is wrong, not the troops. Love the troops, hate the war. But these motherfuckers are playing the dirtiest of games--deliberately misrepresenting what Democrats and antiwar activists have said for their own political gain. It's what Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has been pointing out for seven years now--these people are making a joke of our public discourse.
So we have to fight back and fight back hard and dirty. Like Dr. Alterman has been saying recently, we have to abandon our so-called "principles" of fair play and logic and so forth. We're after results, not a game fairly played. We have to get it together and not have Democrats/liberals backbiting and contradicting each other. We have to present a united front and do our bickering in private.
Our main goal has to be getting these Repukes out of power and reminding Red-Staters and the media that it is perfectly acceptable and logical to LOVE THE TROOPS, HATE THE WAR...
So "evil genius" Korpulent Kocksucker Karl Rove does exactly what I pointed out yesterday--he conflates criticism of the war or our tactics with criticism of the soldiers:
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
And then another wacko had this to say:
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who joined Pryce at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops..."
Oh my, this is politics at its dirtiest...another Repuke said that "what we've seen from Democrat leaders is a growing pattern of jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops, bending over backwards to promote the interests of terror-camp detainees while dragging our military's honored reputation through the mud."
You can plainly see the button-pushing, hyperbolic phrases--"our military's honored reputation," "guerilla warfare on American troops." What Dick Durbin said had nothing to do with besmirching our military's honored reputation--it merely pointed out that the tactics which have been authorized by our leaders, i.e., Rumsfeld, et. al. are plainly against what America stands for.
The whole war is wrong, not the troops. Love the troops, hate the war. But these motherfuckers are playing the dirtiest of games--deliberately misrepresenting what Democrats and antiwar activists have said for their own political gain. It's what Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has been pointing out for seven years now--these people are making a joke of our public discourse.
So we have to fight back and fight back hard and dirty. Like Dr. Alterman has been saying recently, we have to abandon our so-called "principles" of fair play and logic and so forth. We're after results, not a game fairly played. We have to get it together and not have Democrats/liberals backbiting and contradicting each other. We have to present a united front and do our bickering in private.
Our main goal has to be getting these Repukes out of power and reminding Red-Staters and the media that it is perfectly acceptable and logical to LOVE THE TROOPS, HATE THE WAR...
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
FUNERALS AND FOLDEROL: LOVE THE TROOPS, HATE THE WAR
Sgt. Arnold's funeral was today. He and another Mississippian, Terrance Lee, were both killed in Iraq when an IED went off near the vehicle they were riding in on June 11. I saw on the AP wire today that Lee was posthumously promoted to sergeant, which at first I took as an insult to Lee and a morale killer for other troops, i.e., want a sure-fire way to get that promotion--just die in battle! But now that I think about it, maybe it was something that was pending anyway and his promotion will give his family a little more money. After all, he has two young children already and his wife is expecting their first child together in September.
This kind of stuff makes me sick inside. Sgt. Arnold's wife missed his last phone call and their 28th wedding anniversary would have been in July or August and he had grandchildren, for God's sake. Sgt. Lee is more than a decade my junior--that's so odd to me for some reason.
But please, oh please can we not end this war yesterday? Even Republican Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones has had his fill. But there's too much of attitudes like Bill O'Reilly's--who said that Sen. Durbin and the employees of Air America have committed treason and should be put in chains--and this obviously anti-anti-war (I didn't want to say "pro-war," because only criminals like Bush and Cheney deserve that epithet) propaganda piece I saw on a forum today. Here's a link and here's the text in full:
Now this little tearjerker was posted in this forum under the heading "Military Wife Speaks Out," as though it were an actual interview with an actual person. So you start reading it, and even I got drawn in, and then you forget that you thought you were hearing from a real person and it's not till it's over that you realize that it had to have been written by some gay-bashing, Bible-thumping, jingo-jango, the-military-is-great-even-when-they-torture-prisoners type of Republican propaganda group. Unless you are a member of such a group, then you think "Right on! That brave woman put those snooty college whores in their place--they think they're so goddamn smart but they don't realize they shouldn't even be allowed to say such things--or even think them! This is America!"
But the whole argument that this pile of dung is based upon is this: American soldiers are protecting the righteous conservatives as well as the ungrateful liberals by being in Iraq. The problem is, they're not protecting us.
Look, everyone understands they're just doing their job and that the nature of the military is that you follow orders and shut the fuck up. The antiwar movement has no beef with the soldiers, in fact, the antiwar movement wants the soldiers out of harm's way as soon as possible (if I may presume to speak for the antiwar movement for a hot minute). Hell, if the antiwar movement had its way, the soldiers would have never gone to war in the first place.
And that's why bullshit like that exists, because the anti-antiwar people know that their cause is helped by making people think that the antiwar movement is against the soldiers when in fact the antiwar movement is against the policy of the war. Of course, the soldiers are the tools that are used to implement the policy, but nonetheless, they are completely separate from the policy.
Of course, every time a pro-war or anti-antiwar person is on TV and is asked about 6 out of 10 people being against the war (i.e., Karl Rove on "Hardball" last night, they make sure to make their answer about the brave sacrifice of our soldiers rather than addressing whether or not the policy is wrong. For Christ's sake, it's perfectly clear and logically acceptable that you can feel sorry for the troops and wish them no ill and simultaneously realize that the war is the most vile thing ever.
And maybe that's what a lot of this Christo-fascist-yellow-magnetites are thinking, i.e., "if I speak out against the war, I'll be hurting the troops." And Rush and O'Lie-ly and Hannity and all the others have worked very hard to put that idea in people's heads--if you criticize the war, you're criticizing the troops. But of course nothing could be further than the truth. Maybe more of these pro- and anti-antiwar types will come around if we do a better job of helping them realize that critcism of the war is not even remotely close to a criticism of U.S. soldiers.
Sgt. Arnold's funeral was today. He and another Mississippian, Terrance Lee, were both killed in Iraq when an IED went off near the vehicle they were riding in on June 11. I saw on the AP wire today that Lee was posthumously promoted to sergeant, which at first I took as an insult to Lee and a morale killer for other troops, i.e., want a sure-fire way to get that promotion--just die in battle! But now that I think about it, maybe it was something that was pending anyway and his promotion will give his family a little more money. After all, he has two young children already and his wife is expecting their first child together in September.
This kind of stuff makes me sick inside. Sgt. Arnold's wife missed his last phone call and their 28th wedding anniversary would have been in July or August and he had grandchildren, for God's sake. Sgt. Lee is more than a decade my junior--that's so odd to me for some reason.
But please, oh please can we not end this war yesterday? Even Republican Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones has had his fill. But there's too much of attitudes like Bill O'Reilly's--who said that Sen. Durbin and the employees of Air America have committed treason and should be put in chains--and this obviously anti-anti-war (I didn't want to say "pro-war," because only criminals like Bush and Cheney deserve that epithet) propaganda piece I saw on a forum today. Here's a link and here's the text in full:
I was sitting alone in one of those loud, casual steak houses that you find all over the country. You know the type--a bucket of peanuts on every table, shells littering the floor, and a bunch of perky college kids racing around with longneck beers and sizzling platters.
Taking a sip of my iced tea, I studied the crowd over the rim of my glass. My gaze lingered on a group enjoying their meal. They wore no uniform to identify their branch of service, but they were definitely "military:" clean shaven, cropped haircut, and that "squared away" look that comes with pride.
Smiling sadly, I glanced across my table to the empty seat where my husband usually sat. It had only been a few months since we sat in this very booth, talking about his upcoming deployment to the Middle East. That was when he made me promise to get a sitter for the kids, come back to this restaurant once a month and treat myself to a nice steak. In turn he would treasure the thought of me being here, thinking about him until he returned home to me.
I fingered the little flag pin I constantly wear and wondered where he was at this very moment. Was he safe and warm? Was his cold any better? Were my letters getting through to him? As I pondered these thoughts, high pitched female voices from the next booth broke into my thoughts.
"I don't know what Bush is thinking about. Invading Iraq. You'd think that man would learn from his old man's mistakes. Good lord. What an idiot! I can't believe he is even in office. You do know, he stole the election."
I cut into my steak and tried to ignore them, as they began an endless tirade running down our president. I thought about the last night I spent with my husband, as he prepared to deploy. He had just returned from getting his smallpox and anthrax shots. The image of him standing in our kitchen packing his gas mask still gives me chills.
Once again the women's voices invaded my thoughts. "It is all about oil, you know. Our soldiers will go in and rape and steal all the oil they can in the name of 'freedom'. Hmph! I wonder how many innocent people they'll kill without giving it a thought. It's pure greed, you know."
My chest tightened as I stared at my wedding ring. I could still see how handsome my husband looked in his "mess dress" the day he slipped it on my finger. I wondered what he was wearing now. Probably his desert uniform, affectionately dubbed "coffee stains" with a heavy bulletproof vest over it.
"You know, we should just leave Iraq alone. I don't think they are hiding any weapons. In fact, I bet it's all a big act just to! Increase the president's popularity. That's all it is, padding the military budget at the expense of our social security and education. And, you know what else? We're just asking for another 9-ll. I can't say when it happens again that we didn't deserve it."
Their words brought to mind the war protesters I had watched gathering outside our base. Did no one appreciate the sacrifice of brave men and women, who leave their homes and family to ensure our freedom? Do they even know what "freedom" is?
I glanced at the table where the young men were sitting, and saw their courageous faces change. They had stopped eating and looked at each other dejectedly, listening to the women talking.
"Well, I, for one, think it's just deplorable to invade Iraq, and I am certainly sick of our tax dollars going to train professional baby killers we call a military."
Professional baby killers? I thought about what a wonderful father my husband is, and of how long it would be before he would see our children again.
That's it! Indignation rose up inside me. Normally reserved, pride in my husband gave me a brassy boldness I never realized I had. Tonight one voice will answer on behalf of our military, and let her pride in our troops be known.
Sliding out of my booth, I walked around to the adjoining booth and placed my hands flat on their table. Lowering myself to eye level with them, I smilingly said, "I couldn't help overhearing your conversation. You see, I'm sitting here trying to enjoy my dinner alone. And, do you know why? Because my husband, whom I love with all my heart, is halfway around the world defending your right to say rotten things about him." "Yes, you have the right to your opinion, and what you think is none of my business. However, what you say in public is something else, and I will not sit by and listen to you ridicule MY country, MY president, MY husband, and all the other fine American men and women who put their lives on the line, just so you can have the "freedom" to complain. Freedom is an expensive commodity, ladies. Don't let your actions cheapen it." I must have been louder than I meant to be, because the manager came over to inquire if everything was all right. "Yes, thank you," I replied. Then turning back to the women, I said, "Enjoy the rest of your meal."
As I returned to my booth applause broke out. I was embarrassed for making a scene, and went back to my half eaten steak. The women picked up their check and scurried away.
After finishing my meal, and while waiting for my check, the manager returned with a huge apple cobbler ala mode. "Compliments of those soldiers," he said. He also smiled and said the ladies tried to pay for my dinner, but that another couple had beaten them to it. When I asked who, the manager said they had already left, but that the gentleman was a veteran, and wanted to take care of the wife of "one of our boys."
With a lump in my throat, I gratefully turned to the soldiers and thanked them for the cobbler. Grinning from ear to ear, they came over and surrounded the booth. "We just wanted to thank you, ma'am. You know we can't get into confrontations with civilians, so we appreciate what you did."
As I drove home, for the first time since my husband's deployment, I didn't feel quite so alone. My heart was filled with the warmth of the other diners who stopped by my table, to relate how they, too, were proud of my husband, and would keep him in their prayers. I knew their flags would fly a little higher the next day. Perhaps they would look for more tangible ways to show their pride in our country, and the military who protect her. And maybe, just maybe, the two women who were railing against our country, would pause for a minute to appreciate all the freedom America offers, and the price it pays to maintain it's freedom.
As for me, I have learned that one voice CAN make a difference. Maybe the next time protesters gather outside the gates of the base where I live, I will proudly stand on the opposite side with a sign of my own. It will simply say, "Thank You!"
(*Lori K is a 31 year old teacher and proud military wife. A California native, Mrs. K currently lives in Alabama)
To those who fought for our Nation: Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Now this little tearjerker was posted in this forum under the heading "Military Wife Speaks Out," as though it were an actual interview with an actual person. So you start reading it, and even I got drawn in, and then you forget that you thought you were hearing from a real person and it's not till it's over that you realize that it had to have been written by some gay-bashing, Bible-thumping, jingo-jango, the-military-is-great-even-when-they-torture-prisoners type of Republican propaganda group. Unless you are a member of such a group, then you think "Right on! That brave woman put those snooty college whores in their place--they think they're so goddamn smart but they don't realize they shouldn't even be allowed to say such things--or even think them! This is America!"
But the whole argument that this pile of dung is based upon is this: American soldiers are protecting the righteous conservatives as well as the ungrateful liberals by being in Iraq. The problem is, they're not protecting us.
Look, everyone understands they're just doing their job and that the nature of the military is that you follow orders and shut the fuck up. The antiwar movement has no beef with the soldiers, in fact, the antiwar movement wants the soldiers out of harm's way as soon as possible (if I may presume to speak for the antiwar movement for a hot minute). Hell, if the antiwar movement had its way, the soldiers would have never gone to war in the first place.
And that's why bullshit like that exists, because the anti-antiwar people know that their cause is helped by making people think that the antiwar movement is against the soldiers when in fact the antiwar movement is against the policy of the war. Of course, the soldiers are the tools that are used to implement the policy, but nonetheless, they are completely separate from the policy.
Of course, every time a pro-war or anti-antiwar person is on TV and is asked about 6 out of 10 people being against the war (i.e., Karl Rove on "Hardball" last night, they make sure to make their answer about the brave sacrifice of our soldiers rather than addressing whether or not the policy is wrong. For Christ's sake, it's perfectly clear and logically acceptable that you can feel sorry for the troops and wish them no ill and simultaneously realize that the war is the most vile thing ever.
And maybe that's what a lot of this Christo-fascist-yellow-magnetites are thinking, i.e., "if I speak out against the war, I'll be hurting the troops." And Rush and O'Lie-ly and Hannity and all the others have worked very hard to put that idea in people's heads--if you criticize the war, you're criticizing the troops. But of course nothing could be further than the truth. Maybe more of these pro- and anti-antiwar types will come around if we do a better job of helping them realize that critcism of the war is not even remotely close to a criticism of U.S. soldiers.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
VIETNAM & KKK
So Killen got convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Well, at least that's something.
Well, I'll say this, Killen and the KKK may have gotten rid of three civil rights workers, but the civil rights movement kicked their ass. It's still kicking their ass, and amen to that.
VIETNAM
Oh the irony is so rich. Vietnam's prime minister comes to visit--he probably didn't have a problem with Bush, because Bush got out of having to fight against the Vietnamese. He was boldy and bravely not living up to his Air Guard commitments, remember? But Bush will finally get to see Vietnam next year, from the comfort of air-conditioned motorcades in exquisite government buildings. Unlike John Kerry, who first saw it through shrapnel and gunfire. But yeah, Bush is the big "commander-in-chief"...it's disgusting...
So Killen got convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Well, at least that's something.
Well, I'll say this, Killen and the KKK may have gotten rid of three civil rights workers, but the civil rights movement kicked their ass. It's still kicking their ass, and amen to that.
VIETNAM
Oh the irony is so rich. Vietnam's prime minister comes to visit--he probably didn't have a problem with Bush, because Bush got out of having to fight against the Vietnamese. He was boldy and bravely not living up to his Air Guard commitments, remember? But Bush will finally get to see Vietnam next year, from the comfort of air-conditioned motorcades in exquisite government buildings. Unlike John Kerry, who first saw it through shrapnel and gunfire. But yeah, Bush is the big "commander-in-chief"...it's disgusting...
Monday, June 20, 2005
ALL DOWNING STREET, ALL THE TIME...
If only the Downing Street memo had been abducted in Aruba...
Oh yeah, fuck you, Dana Milbank and thank you, Greg Mitchell...
Raw Story pointed this out: UK official says WMD claims were totally implausible
PARSING THE MEMO
For fun, let's parse this section of the memo, frequently referred to as the "most damning" section in the hopes that it will give us 1)insight into what was said and 2) ammo to repel belittling attacks on the memo after having gained such insight:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam": OK, so did everybody else. That's not so terrible.
"through military action"--Why did he want to do it through military action? Weren't there other ways of doing it? Buying him off, for instance? Staging an Allende-esque coup, for example? Negotiations about ending sanctions, inspections, etc.--there were many options available to Bush besides military action. Already, the "damning" stuff has started.
"justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"--Ah! That's how they'd make the case that only military action on our part could/should be used--because Saddam is known to reward terrorists and encourage terrorism and supposedly has WMD. But as Powell and Rice both indicated pre-9/11, Iraq was known to not have this capability. And of course, that's why 9/11 was such a godsend for Bush, because even though Iraq was in fact a weak nation lacking the means to inflict harm on the US (again, by the administration's own admission), the spin on 9/11 was that just when we think we're safe, the "evil ones" will strike.
"But the intelligence and facts"--Dearlove knew that the "intelligence" that Saddam had little to no capability to strike the U.S. created the "fact" that Iraq was therefore not a threat to the U.S. or, as Powell pointed out, his regional neighbors. To justify the war, the intelli-facts had to be and were being fixed around the policy.
"were being fixed around the policy": The right wing freakos want to argue that this is a British colloquialism that is being misunderstood by the American public, that to Britons, "fixed around" means "telling the absolute truth" or some such rubbish (too British?--"garbage" would've worked just as well). But that is merely a continuation of the semantic game the Repukes have gotten too good at (thank you, Frank Luntz)--create the slightest doubt that words may not mean what they seem to mean, and then hammer away at it. But "fixed around," from the context of the memo, clearly means "being obfuscated" or "being used to bamboozle the American public"--as Alex Hamilton pointed out at DailyKos, if "fixed around" didn't mean "doctored," there would be no need for the explanatory "but" at the beginning of the sentence. What the memo is saying is that, the Americans know and we know the case against Saddam is weak (the memo goes on to say that our "NSC had no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record [because they know that would show Iraq to not be a threat]"), but not to worry, the Yanks will convince their people otherwise in accordance with the Bush admin. desire to go to war.
Note that there are no other incidences of British slang throughout the memo--this was serious business and slang was not being employed.
If only the Downing Street memo had been abducted in Aruba...
Oh yeah, fuck you, Dana Milbank and thank you, Greg Mitchell...
Raw Story pointed this out: UK official says WMD claims were totally implausible
PARSING THE MEMO
For fun, let's parse this section of the memo, frequently referred to as the "most damning" section in the hopes that it will give us 1)insight into what was said and 2) ammo to repel belittling attacks on the memo after having gained such insight:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam": OK, so did everybody else. That's not so terrible.
"through military action"--Why did he want to do it through military action? Weren't there other ways of doing it? Buying him off, for instance? Staging an Allende-esque coup, for example? Negotiations about ending sanctions, inspections, etc.--there were many options available to Bush besides military action. Already, the "damning" stuff has started.
"justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"--Ah! That's how they'd make the case that only military action on our part could/should be used--because Saddam is known to reward terrorists and encourage terrorism and supposedly has WMD. But as Powell and Rice both indicated pre-9/11, Iraq was known to not have this capability. And of course, that's why 9/11 was such a godsend for Bush, because even though Iraq was in fact a weak nation lacking the means to inflict harm on the US (again, by the administration's own admission), the spin on 9/11 was that just when we think we're safe, the "evil ones" will strike.
"But the intelligence and facts"--Dearlove knew that the "intelligence" that Saddam had little to no capability to strike the U.S. created the "fact" that Iraq was therefore not a threat to the U.S. or, as Powell pointed out, his regional neighbors. To justify the war, the intelli-facts had to be and were being fixed around the policy.
"were being fixed around the policy": The right wing freakos want to argue that this is a British colloquialism that is being misunderstood by the American public, that to Britons, "fixed around" means "telling the absolute truth" or some such rubbish (too British?--"garbage" would've worked just as well). But that is merely a continuation of the semantic game the Repukes have gotten too good at (thank you, Frank Luntz)--create the slightest doubt that words may not mean what they seem to mean, and then hammer away at it. But "fixed around," from the context of the memo, clearly means "being obfuscated" or "being used to bamboozle the American public"--as Alex Hamilton pointed out at DailyKos, if "fixed around" didn't mean "doctored," there would be no need for the explanatory "but" at the beginning of the sentence. What the memo is saying is that, the Americans know and we know the case against Saddam is weak (the memo goes on to say that our "NSC had no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record [because they know that would show Iraq to not be a threat]"), but not to worry, the Yanks will convince their people otherwise in accordance with the Bush admin. desire to go to war.
Note that there are no other incidences of British slang throughout the memo--this was serious business and slang was not being employed.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
HOLY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, BATMAN...
Just watched most of the Conyers (God bless that man) hearing on C-Span 2. It re-airs tomorrow on C-Span 2 at 8:00 Eastern. It's good, real good...damn good. My wife says, "Yeah, but nobody's watching this." They may not have seen this hearing, or even the next few hearings, but there will be a hearing that the American public at large will be aware of and attend to.
What I found most pleasing about it was the frequent use of the word "impeachment" and the reassurance that the Downing Street Memo is in fact the "smoking gun" that proves Bush's mendacity. The witnesses at the hearing were spectacular--I had heard of John Bonifaz and Ray McGovern but hadn't seen them on TV (what a shock--what with our "liberal media" and all). Cindy Sheehan was very important to have on hand as well.
But yes, the Downing St. document is the smoking gun. On Countdown, James Vandehei of the Wash. Post tried to downplay it with the Repuke-lickin' talking points--there's nothing new in it, we've known everything in it for years now, etc. But he did point out--and in the process undermining his attempt to undermine the DSM--that the DSM is our first evidence on paper of what was going on.
Well, Vandehei, then at least that is what is new (even though there's so much more). We didn't have a paper trail before, and now we do. That's extremely important.
LYNCHING
I don't know about you, but I get the impression that Thad Cochran and Trent Lott and some of their rich, elitist Republican fellow travelers are pro-lynching. Why in God's holy name would any senator in 2005 think that they shouldn't sign on as a co-sponsor to the lynching apology? Didn't Trent Lott learn anything from sucking Strom Thurmond's wrinkled dick? He and Cochran are complete and utter jackasses. I wish I could say they'd lose their seats when their times come, but this is Mississippi. This poll shows why Lott and Cochran will retain their seats (should show up on this page tomorrow).
Just watched most of the Conyers (God bless that man) hearing on C-Span 2. It re-airs tomorrow on C-Span 2 at 8:00 Eastern. It's good, real good...damn good. My wife says, "Yeah, but nobody's watching this." They may not have seen this hearing, or even the next few hearings, but there will be a hearing that the American public at large will be aware of and attend to.
What I found most pleasing about it was the frequent use of the word "impeachment" and the reassurance that the Downing Street Memo is in fact the "smoking gun" that proves Bush's mendacity. The witnesses at the hearing were spectacular--I had heard of John Bonifaz and Ray McGovern but hadn't seen them on TV (what a shock--what with our "liberal media" and all). Cindy Sheehan was very important to have on hand as well.
But yes, the Downing St. document is the smoking gun. On Countdown, James Vandehei of the Wash. Post tried to downplay it with the Repuke-lickin' talking points--there's nothing new in it, we've known everything in it for years now, etc. But he did point out--and in the process undermining his attempt to undermine the DSM--that the DSM is our first evidence on paper of what was going on.
Well, Vandehei, then at least that is what is new (even though there's so much more). We didn't have a paper trail before, and now we do. That's extremely important.
LYNCHING
I don't know about you, but I get the impression that Thad Cochran and Trent Lott and some of their rich, elitist Republican fellow travelers are pro-lynching. Why in God's holy name would any senator in 2005 think that they shouldn't sign on as a co-sponsor to the lynching apology? Didn't Trent Lott learn anything from sucking Strom Thurmond's wrinkled dick? He and Cochran are complete and utter jackasses. I wish I could say they'd lose their seats when their times come, but this is Mississippi. This poll shows why Lott and Cochran will retain their seats (should show up on this page tomorrow).
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
SUPERHEROES DON’T DIE
This story says it all...a soldier from a town near where I grew up died in Iraq on Saturday. This story from the local paper really validates everything that’s ever been said about the poor being sent to fight the rich man’s war, i.e. :
Unfortunately, one of Arnold’s sons is also in the military–does the same fate await him, too?
Also, according to the article, the father died after reaching retirement eligibility. What a pisser. George W. Bush and the neocons preyed on the patriotism, sense of duty, and lack of other choices of people like Sgt. Arnold. Here’s how Arnold’s wife put it:
Grandfathers Dying
Not only is Arnold a father of three, he also had two grandchildren and was married to Melinda for almost 28 years. He was 46 years old. That’s who this foul, evil war is killing–grandfathers and faithful, devoted husbands–and not just on the American side. If that fact doesn’t utterly sicken you deep within, given that every reason we were told we had to invade and occupy Iraq has now turned out to be not just untrue but in fact vicious, sinful lies, then you literally have no soul.
Make One Giant Magnet
Sgt. Arnold is the very emblem and reason we should all rip the yellow magnets off our cars, point them all to the east simultaneously and hope that the magnetic force generated will attach to the troop transports and pull them back here. We should be lying down en masse to stop traffic and striking en masse to grind our economy to a halt until our boys are back home. We should encircle the White House with Bush inside and lay siege to it until he issues the order to bring the soldiers back home and then submits to being thrown into the brig.
But I fear that none of that will happen–even Sgt. Arnold’s own son, one of the people who should be the angriest of all, misunderstands what is happening:
This story says it all...a soldier from a town near where I grew up died in Iraq on Saturday. This story from the local paper really validates everything that’s ever been said about the poor being sent to fight the rich man’s war, i.e. :
CARRIERE - A gray 1949 Chrysler will become a tribute to Sgt. Larry Arnold Sr., killed Saturday in Iraq by a roadside bomb, his son said Monday. [snip]People don’t live in “mobile homes” by preference. If a person has a choice between a tornado magnet or a real house, they don’t choose the magnet. Could it be that the Arnolds couldn’t afford a real, non-mobile home and that’s why they lived in a trailer? Being from the area and knowing its vast quantities of trailer parks and very low income statistics, I’d say that of course that’s why this “superhero” lived in a trailer (“superhero” is what his son described him as).
The car has tremendous sentimental value, said Larry Arnold Jr., sitting outside the mobile home where the family lives in rural Pearl River County.
Unfortunately, one of Arnold’s sons is also in the military–does the same fate await him, too?
Also, according to the article, the father died after reaching retirement eligibility. What a pisser. George W. Bush and the neocons preyed on the patriotism, sense of duty, and lack of other choices of people like Sgt. Arnold. Here’s how Arnold’s wife put it:
Obviously Sgt. Arnold was a real man of loyalty with a powerful sense of kinship with his brothers in arms. He even decided to forego retirement to be with his men on what their commander-in-chief told them was a vitally important mission, to supposedly defend America from an inevitable and devastating “nuke-you-luhr” attack (now that I write this, maybe that’s why Bush the Criminal insists on that pronunciation–because it implies that you will be nuked–“nuke-you-luhr”)."He had his 20 years just about the time they got the orders for activation," Melinda Arnold said.
Her husband did not try to avoid the second tour of duty in Iraq.
"He wanted to go over there and finish what he started with the 890th," she said. "He wanted to finish his mission."
The troops remaining in Iraq stayed on his mind during Arnold's two-week leave in early May, she said.
"The whole time he was home, he worried about the guys in Iraq," she said. "He wasn't comfortable."
Grandfathers Dying
Not only is Arnold a father of three, he also had two grandchildren and was married to Melinda for almost 28 years. He was 46 years old. That’s who this foul, evil war is killing–grandfathers and faithful, devoted husbands–and not just on the American side. If that fact doesn’t utterly sicken you deep within, given that every reason we were told we had to invade and occupy Iraq has now turned out to be not just untrue but in fact vicious, sinful lies, then you literally have no soul.
Make One Giant Magnet
Sgt. Arnold is the very emblem and reason we should all rip the yellow magnets off our cars, point them all to the east simultaneously and hope that the magnetic force generated will attach to the troop transports and pull them back here. We should be lying down en masse to stop traffic and striking en masse to grind our economy to a halt until our boys are back home. We should encircle the White House with Bush inside and lay siege to it until he issues the order to bring the soldiers back home and then submits to being thrown into the brig.
But I fear that none of that will happen–even Sgt. Arnold’s own son, one of the people who should be the angriest of all, misunderstands what is happening:
"He was a real life super-hero," he said of his father. "The super-heroes in comic books don't have anything on him. He went to serve his country and protect the people of Iraq and America.But the superheroes in comic books don’t die (and even if they do, they always come back to life), and soldiers dying in Iraq are not protecting America. Saying that doesn’t mean Sgt. Arnold is any less of a true patriot who clearly loved his country more than his own life. It means that George W. Bush and company will have a hell of time come judgment day.
Monday, June 13, 2005
BEEN A LONG TIME...
...since I did some blog...
Goddamn I love Sam and Janeane on the Majority Report! Listen! Listen!
It's so kickass that Edgar Ray Killen has to be wheeled in for his trial...it's the long arm of the law, baby. Nobody's too broke down to face lady justice, Nazi punks fuck off, hey hey fuck the KKK, and all that...
Iraq support way down...finally! But hey all you fucking red-state cannon fodder types--TOO LITTLE TOO LATE! Where was this dissatisfaction around say, 7 months ago, last November, when it might have fucking mattered? We all have to learn that no one should ever vote for a Republican, not even John McCain...if Jesus H. Christ came back to earth and ran on a Republican ticket you shouldn't vote for Jesus. Don't do it--they fuck shit up.
As our fine friend the Conceptual Guerilla has pointed out, the economy is better, unemployment is decreased, and a whole host of other good things happen when Democrats hold the Presidency.
Oh, and Michael Jackson. I'm glad he was found innocent, and I'll tell you why. You can't believe the testimony of children, especially not when the stakes are this high. Teaching school for five years taught me that much. Kids lie, especially when their parents or parent or whatever tell them to. Michael Jackson ain't perfect and he is weird, but so what...
And, one last thing, the new White Stripes album blows. "Blue Orchid" is a rockin' song, but the rest of the album is pretentious fluff. And Pitchfork was dead wrong about Robbie Fulks' latest--it is great. The new Teenage Fanclub is nice--nothing new, but there was nothing wrong with what they were doing before, so why change it?
...since I did some blog...
Goddamn I love Sam and Janeane on the Majority Report! Listen! Listen!
It's so kickass that Edgar Ray Killen has to be wheeled in for his trial...it's the long arm of the law, baby. Nobody's too broke down to face lady justice, Nazi punks fuck off, hey hey fuck the KKK, and all that...
Iraq support way down...finally! But hey all you fucking red-state cannon fodder types--TOO LITTLE TOO LATE! Where was this dissatisfaction around say, 7 months ago, last November, when it might have fucking mattered? We all have to learn that no one should ever vote for a Republican, not even John McCain...if Jesus H. Christ came back to earth and ran on a Republican ticket you shouldn't vote for Jesus. Don't do it--they fuck shit up.
As our fine friend the Conceptual Guerilla has pointed out, the economy is better, unemployment is decreased, and a whole host of other good things happen when Democrats hold the Presidency.
Oh, and Michael Jackson. I'm glad he was found innocent, and I'll tell you why. You can't believe the testimony of children, especially not when the stakes are this high. Teaching school for five years taught me that much. Kids lie, especially when their parents or parent or whatever tell them to. Michael Jackson ain't perfect and he is weird, but so what...
And, one last thing, the new White Stripes album blows. "Blue Orchid" is a rockin' song, but the rest of the album is pretentious fluff. And Pitchfork was dead wrong about Robbie Fulks' latest--it is great. The new Teenage Fanclub is nice--nothing new, but there was nothing wrong with what they were doing before, so why change it?
Friday, May 13, 2005
NUCLEAR OPTION & FACTS
[Added this link after writing everything below--this link should settle this argument. It's from the Department of Justice website and it says in black and white how many judicial positions there are to fill and how many are vacant. The 95% number is correct.]
So in my local paper today, there appeared these two letters to the editor (how come they don’t print two antiwar letters on the same day?) that both favored triggering the nuclear option because in their minds, Bush has had less of his judicial appointees approved than Clinton and others. Just read through these two letters to see why we’re all screwed:
The problem, of course is that these two writers come at this issue with a different set of facts than we liberals do. Who’s right? In this particular part of the debate, there can only be one right answer. Either Bush has a 95 % confirm rate or he has more or less half that.
FOOLPROOF & MATHEMATICAL
There is a foolproof and mathematical way to determine which percentage is right. And of course, that is to look at the number of confirmations versus the number of nominations and derive a percentage. But, the problem is that neither you nor I nor most of us in the great unwashed have the time, research resources, or the inclination to figure out this easy math problem. This is true of most, if not all, political situations.
So we have to trust the media to give us facts.
So there’s the rub–if I pointed out to one of these letter writers that The Washington Post verifies a near 95% confirm rate for Bush, you’d think that would settle the issue, right? “Oh hell no,” this writer and millions like him would say–“the Washington Post is biased in favor of the liberals–it’s part of the elite liberal media.”
Now this particular accusation about the Washington Post may or may not be true. Is the Washington Post part of the “liberal media?” Well, yes and no–it depends on what the word “liberal” means, and it means a little something different to everyone. Except the people who buy into the idea of “the liberal media,” who almost uniformly think “liberal” means “evil” and/or “anti-American.”
OK, maybe the Washington Post is liberal. For the sake of argument, let’s just say it is. But is it right about the 95% confirm rate? If the Post is correct about this, their perceived “bias” should not matter. A fact is a fact. However, the conservatives’ greatest victory has been to make their cohort blind to facts when there is suspicion that some media outlet might be biased.
And time and again, it has been shown that those who consume primarily conservative media, i.e, Fox News, etc., don’t have the facts right. Like this study that showed that Fox viewers believed Iraq was behind 9/11 even though the 9/11 commission and their dear beloved president said that such a thing was not so.
DEATH OF DISCOURSE, DEATH OF ORDER
So this is the problem. People have to see that there is only one correct set of facts about any given issue. Citizens are entitled to feel any way they’d like about these facts and the reporters of these facts, but facts are facts.
But how can this be fixed? I don’t know the answer, I’m just posing the question. I think one way that it might start to be fixed is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another. For example, too many radio stations across the South (and, I’m assuming, the entire country) have nothing but right-wing opinions from sign-on to sign-off (or if there are left-wing opinions, they’re broadcast during hours when there are the least listeners). And no, that is not “making up” for how there were supposedly hours and hours of leftist opinion being broadcast in the past. If that had been the case (and perhaps it was, I didn’t really pay much attention until the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded), there was the Fairness Doctrine to which citizens could appeal to get their side heard. And so forth...
How can we solve any problems when each side claims completely different facts? Only one set of facts can be right. And that takes me back to the beginning–either Bush has 95% confirm rate or he has much less than that. Which is it?
And it matters which it is, because if 95% confirm rate is correct, that makes Bill Frist and the Republicans look unreasonable. And if the other is correct, then the Democrats do look like obstructionists. And that’s the whole reason this stupid debate matters–who’s really the party being unreasonable here?
And according to most conservatives, no one should trust the nation’s oldest and most respected newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post to tell them the answer because they are “the liberal media.” Instead, they argue, you should trust alternative papers like the Washington Times or the New York Post, both owned by men (Rev. Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, respectively) who are openly and vehemently conservative, much more than the owners of the Times and Post are similarly liberal. So such papers can clearly be said to have a conservative bias.
OK, I gotta jump off here and get some links put in here and then get some sleep...
THE 95% IS A FACT as a "fact" is generally understood. If we are to doubt this 95% figure that is given to us by our government, would we not have to question many other "facts" given to us by our Republican-controlled government, like whether or not Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq and "fix the facts around the policy" because he and the British all knew Iraq had no WMD?
[Added this link after writing everything below--this link should settle this argument. It's from the Department of Justice website and it says in black and white how many judicial positions there are to fill and how many are vacant. The 95% number is correct.]
So in my local paper today, there appeared these two letters to the editor (how come they don’t print two antiwar letters on the same day?) that both favored triggering the nuclear option because in their minds, Bush has had less of his judicial appointees approved than Clinton and others. Just read through these two letters to see why we’re all screwed:
LETTER 1
GOP should use nuclear option
Well, Mr. Warren ("An 'attack on people of faith?'" May 10), thank you for bringing this up. Now I will set the record straight.
What the Democrats are doing to judicial nominees is unheard of. Not in the history of the Senate have judicial nominees ever been filibustered. You see, the rules are these: the nominees must go through committee; if they pass the committee, then there is to be an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The Democrats know they will lose this, so instead of following and upholding the Constitution, they filibuster.
Basically, they are breaking the Constitution, so the Republicans have to - which is legal, by the way - use the "nuclear option."
When Bill Clinton was in office, he got over 70 percent of his nominees through. And there was not one filibuster. That is the average of any president in history. Until now.
Most of George Bush's nominees have made it through committee. Only 50 percent have made it through the whole process - the lowest of any president. If you look as to why these men have not, it is very clear that it is due to the fact that these men claim to be men of faith. Not only do they claim this, but they live up to the claim, which scares the Democrats because these men will uphold the Constitution - unlike the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California or the courts that ruled in the Terri Schiavo case.
One more thing: George Bush should not consult with the senior Democrat on the committee. The voice of the people was heard. It's called elections.
Jim Hogan
LETTER 2
Getty Israel of Jackson stated in the Hattiesburg American Opinion page Wednesday that the Republicans seek "absolute power." She also quotes that President Bush had a confirmation rate of almost 95 percent. I have yet to locate a source for this confirmation statement.
President Bush has or had the lowest judicial confirmation rate from what I have found on the Internet. All the Republican Party really wants is an up-or-down vote on its nominees. Is that too much to ask of our representatives?
Ammon Cranford
The problem, of course is that these two writers come at this issue with a different set of facts than we liberals do. Who’s right? In this particular part of the debate, there can only be one right answer. Either Bush has a 95 % confirm rate or he has more or less half that.
FOOLPROOF & MATHEMATICAL
There is a foolproof and mathematical way to determine which percentage is right. And of course, that is to look at the number of confirmations versus the number of nominations and derive a percentage. But, the problem is that neither you nor I nor most of us in the great unwashed have the time, research resources, or the inclination to figure out this easy math problem. This is true of most, if not all, political situations.
So we have to trust the media to give us facts.
So there’s the rub–if I pointed out to one of these letter writers that The Washington Post verifies a near 95% confirm rate for Bush, you’d think that would settle the issue, right? “Oh hell no,” this writer and millions like him would say–“the Washington Post is biased in favor of the liberals–it’s part of the elite liberal media.”
Now this particular accusation about the Washington Post may or may not be true. Is the Washington Post part of the “liberal media?” Well, yes and no–it depends on what the word “liberal” means, and it means a little something different to everyone. Except the people who buy into the idea of “the liberal media,” who almost uniformly think “liberal” means “evil” and/or “anti-American.”
OK, maybe the Washington Post is liberal. For the sake of argument, let’s just say it is. But is it right about the 95% confirm rate? If the Post is correct about this, their perceived “bias” should not matter. A fact is a fact. However, the conservatives’ greatest victory has been to make their cohort blind to facts when there is suspicion that some media outlet might be biased.
And time and again, it has been shown that those who consume primarily conservative media, i.e, Fox News, etc., don’t have the facts right. Like this study that showed that Fox viewers believed Iraq was behind 9/11 even though the 9/11 commission and their dear beloved president said that such a thing was not so.
DEATH OF DISCOURSE, DEATH OF ORDER
So this is the problem. People have to see that there is only one correct set of facts about any given issue. Citizens are entitled to feel any way they’d like about these facts and the reporters of these facts, but facts are facts.
But how can this be fixed? I don’t know the answer, I’m just posing the question. I think one way that it might start to be fixed is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another. For example, too many radio stations across the South (and, I’m assuming, the entire country) have nothing but right-wing opinions from sign-on to sign-off (or if there are left-wing opinions, they’re broadcast during hours when there are the least listeners). And no, that is not “making up” for how there were supposedly hours and hours of leftist opinion being broadcast in the past. If that had been the case (and perhaps it was, I didn’t really pay much attention until the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded), there was the Fairness Doctrine to which citizens could appeal to get their side heard. And so forth...
How can we solve any problems when each side claims completely different facts? Only one set of facts can be right. And that takes me back to the beginning–either Bush has 95% confirm rate or he has much less than that. Which is it?
And it matters which it is, because if 95% confirm rate is correct, that makes Bill Frist and the Republicans look unreasonable. And if the other is correct, then the Democrats do look like obstructionists. And that’s the whole reason this stupid debate matters–who’s really the party being unreasonable here?
And according to most conservatives, no one should trust the nation’s oldest and most respected newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post to tell them the answer because they are “the liberal media.” Instead, they argue, you should trust alternative papers like the Washington Times or the New York Post, both owned by men (Rev. Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, respectively) who are openly and vehemently conservative, much more than the owners of the Times and Post are similarly liberal. So such papers can clearly be said to have a conservative bias.
OK, I gotta jump off here and get some links put in here and then get some sleep...
THE 95% IS A FACT as a "fact" is generally understood. If we are to doubt this 95% figure that is given to us by our government, would we not have to question many other "facts" given to us by our Republican-controlled government, like whether or not Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq and "fix the facts around the policy" because he and the British all knew Iraq had no WMD?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
