| No Fear of Freedom |
|
| Anti-right rants from an obnoxious lumpen proletarian. Aiming to Arm the Choir. |
March 31, 2004 Ah'm A Pledgin' On Outta Here, I ThinkThese arguments are so long-winded and boring, maja (mine as well as yours), That I don't think they really lend themselves well to the blog format, so I'm thinkin' 'bout makin' this the last one.OK. Just for your personal info, I was joking about Olson. I mean that you would dare to agree with him. He's still completely wrong of course. "The mere insertion of the word "god" in the Pledge does not create or even suggest the establishment of a state religion without further modification. If the phrase were to be reworded "under Christ" or "under Buddha" or "praise be to Allah", then Phaedrus would be right."Does not even suggest the establishment of a religion? I would like for you to explain to me how that's anything other than a statement of pure opinion. Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, and probably ohers don't believe in God. I don't think Muslims take too kindly to calling Allah God. A lot of toes get stepped on, and to what purpose? You can say whatever you want, but you know that this crap is purely about politicians pandering to Christians. Under God in the pledge hasn't got a damn thing to do with the Founding Fathers. The Deists among them would have actually objected to it. If the founders wanted this to be a nation under God, why didn't they mention God in the Constitution? "God" is a generic term, owned by nobody and by everybody. God is not a generic term. You're arguing that the word God has no meaning. Merriam-Webster's -- 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind Course, you can argue with the dictionary. Most people do when they're desperate to win an argument. God, at the very least, implies monotheism. There's this weird belief, and apparently you hold it, that typically American expressions of religion are totally inoffensive. Well they're not. I know, because I'm offended. Every religion in the world uses it, and they all mean something different when they do. That's nonsense too. Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and Taoist, that I know of off-hand, don't use it. Pagans, Hindus, Wiccans, and I don't know who all else, don't use God in the sense of a monotheistic God, and that's clearly how it is used in the Pledge. Ketchup, by the way, is a generic term, but only because it doesn't exclude any ketchups. Under God, on the other nipple, excludes many people's belief's. And I'm amazed you don't see it. Care to disclose the source of your bias? NO clause in the Consitution prevents public acknowledgement of religion, nor would the Framers have stood for such a clause. Why? Once again, Olson: Except the civic and ceremonial? Yeah, and except for me bein' five foot five, I coulda been a hall of fame basketball center. That's a pretty big except. The part that is historical fact has nothing to do with under God in the Pledge, and I don't see how you've established that it does, unless I count repeated, unsupported assertions. It never occured to them to banish acknowledgement of a deity from governmental discourse, and if it had, they would have rejected it outright. That may or may not be true, but let me ask you this. Why should anyone give a shit. What's the deal with worshipping largely rich folk-protecting, anti-democratic, dead white men? The Founding Fathers' thoughts and wishes were never intended to govern us more than about 30 years. Now we've turned them into sages for the ages, demi-gods. And that's idolatry. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship...." But if a Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist kid refuses to participate in the teacher led pledge, there's a good chance he'll have to account for it on the playground, and he'll probably be outnumbered by a bunch of little fundamentalist bully lunatics. No, of course, the Constitution doesn't prevent public acknowledgement of religion. That would be a violation of the First Amendment. What it forbids is government acknowledging and fostering religion, which is exactly what under God in the Pledge does. Congress passed a law that leads to people being either forced to profess that this is a nation under God or risking being singled out in unpleasant and possibly even dangerous ways. Surely you see that's wrong. I do want to ban the Senate invocation. I want to ban all official government mentions of religion in any form, and arguing, "Oh, geez, it's only tepid religion." Doesn't change a thing for me. Oh, bull. It's not that confusing, and anyway if the question is asked it's a great lead-in to a discussion of what the Founders believed and how those beliefs affected their decision to break away from England and what kind of country to have once the break was made. Oh, bull, my ass. It is totally confusing. The only people I hear babbling about this crap are you, Ted Olson, and right wing ideologues -- and they're working from talking points. The vast majority of Americans have never thought "under God" means what you and Ted Olson say it does. They don't think it now. For damn sure the kids we make say it don't think so. Most people, oddly enough, don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the phrase "under God" is code for something completely different than its plain meaning. If most people are confused, and they are, I'd say it's pretty confusing. I said, If the phrase is included in a National Pledge we must take the reference to be to the word as used by the people who formed the Nation. It cannot rightfully be taken in any other context without violating logic. It is far more illogocal to assume it means something else. You're gonna have to explain your logic then. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but those statements are plainly deranged, because the plain meaning of under God is under: in or into a condition of subjection, subordination, or unconsciousness; God: one supernatural being. Yet you say we must take it to mean something altogether different from what it plainly means and what it was intended to mean. Justify that must. Remember, what a fool believes he sees, the wise man has the power to reason away. Your seeing something different than most people see, and I suspect it's purely because you want to, though I don't know why. The weakness in your argument isn't that "god" is primarily a religious word, it's in the assumption that simply saying it establishes an official religion. The onus is on you: How does it do that? It establishes a limit on personal beliefs by telling people that their beliefs are wrong. Tell me this. Do you believe the government has the right to say atheism, or any other belief, is wrong? That's exactly what the pledge does. Is saying that someone is wrong in their beliefs perfectly OK because it's not an actual establishment of religion? The Constitution protects government expression of religion even to the point of denigrating the beliefs of others, I suppose. Remember, even if you can find a way to technically defend the Constitutionality of the Pledge or government expression of religion, all you're doing is proving to me that the Constitution is wrong, as it is on so many other things. I only care about the Constitution up to a point. I care about right and wrong a lot more. I'm an agnostic, but I vehemently object to the phrase "under God." The phrase says that the nation is either ruled by or guided by God, as well as saying that God exists. To say we are a nation "under God" is as anti-democratic a statement as I can imagine. We are a nation whose government derives its just power from the will of the people. From the will of the people, damnit. Not through the will of God. That's extremely offensive and dangerous. You do realize you're playing right into the hands of the theocrats here, right? Those are your biggest allies on this issue. That would make me uncomfortable. Phaedrus said: I'm gonna take on maja's argument on the Declaration of Independence, but not because it has anything to do with "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't. Maj, how can the Declaration be unconstitutional? It's not a law, it's not part of the constitution, for purposes of American government it doesn't even exist. Oh, my God, maja. You must have some terrible bias here. I can't believe you've said this. If I believe that for something to be declared unConstitutional it has to be a law or have some force in law I've lost my argument? If something has no force in law and is not part of government, it's constitutionality simply isn't at issue. If you think it is, please explain how. Is it your claim that if I'm telling you the Pledge is a law I've lost my argument? If it turns out the Pledge, quite unlike the Declaration, is a law passed by Congress, can I declare that you've lost? Cuz it is, and most people, I think, know that. I notice you didn't even bother to defend your claims that overturning the Declaration (though there's nothing to overturn) would somehow damage the nation. It doesn't say the govt can't express religious feelings or thoughts or beliefs. It says it can't establish one in preference to others, in other words, a state religion. The words in the Pledge don't establish because they don't single out one religion over the rest. Your problem is that they single out religion over non-religion. Where in the First Amendment does it state that you can't single out one religion over the rest, but it's OK to select out a group of religions in preference to the rest. I don't see that in the black type, so it must be in the white part. So it shows preference for all monotheistic religions over all non-monotheistic religions. A group over a group. That's OK. Discriminating against Pagans, Wiccans, Buddhists, Taoists (All of whom you've apparently unilaterally declared non-religious.), as well as atheists and agnostics, all that's perfectly OK in the Constitution. Then change the damn Constitution. It's wrong. If government doesn't respect the beliefs of all people, religious and non-religious, we cannot have anything like a democracy. It should guarantee freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, among many other things. If it doesn't, it needs to be changed. It's pretty outdated in general anyway. Oh, come on. Are we to pass laws now only if they can be understood by children 5-11? Yes! When the law aims to have them repeat some bit of anti-democratic religious bunkum every day, and under the guise that it means something altogether different from its plain meaning, yes, that should be a criteria. The pledge is meant to indoctrinate kids, but you don't think it matters if they understand? And you say you don't think it should be said in schools. It's hardly said anywhere else, and hardly ever said by anyone but kids. You'd have to torture the First Amendment to get your interpretation out of it. If I have to torture the First Amendment to get truth and morality out of it, then I fuckin' well will. It's better than torturing the plain meaning of words like you and Ted Olson. If offending peoples beliefs by government "expression" of religion is Constitutional, then the First Amendment sucks. "Under God" in the Pledge is morally wrong, and I base this on one of the few moral rules that is held by nearly every major religion. Do unto others as you would have others do unto. We're not doing that with the Pledge. And that's my whole position in a nutshell.
posted
8:39 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Just Play The BluesEnough. Fuckin' right dingers. I'm gonna take a break and play my harmonicas, which I haven't done for a long time. But I got to now. My baby just bought me the finest amp I've ever had. An Epiphone 10 watt class A design all tube amp. I oughta get the sweetest, glassiest tone I've ever had. I jus' hope it's not too loud. Gibson has a retro Les Paul, Jr., 6 watt class A, which I would have rather had, but it was $500. For a 6 watt amp. Oh well. The Epiphone'll arrive any day now. Y'all hold down the fort. I'm sure I'll be back later.OK, UPDATE: I was listenin' to Big Joe Turner's "Shake, Rattle and Roll," and the station mentioned that Turner influenced both Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley, which for me called to mind another of my many pet peeves. In my eternal quest to piss off the widest swath of people possible, I will explain. Elvis Presley was not the King of Rock and Roll. Chuck Berry was. I can give you the easy, but seemingly not quite convincing, arguments. Chuck Berry sang. Elvis Presley sang. Chuck Berry played guitar (And so well that Bob Seger uses the line "All Chuck's children are out there playin' his licks." Which is true. What rock guitarist doesn't use some Berry licks, whether he knows it or not? Elvis sang. Chuck Berry wrote songs. Songs so good I've heard the lyrics talked about in upper division poetry classes. His sense of the rythms of the english language was incredible. And that's probably the language's strongest points. Before the fine, Teutonic culture of the english speaking peoples was corrupted by contact with sissy nations, english poetry was based on rythm, not rhyme. Rhyme is unnatural in english. Oh, yeah, Elvis sang. OK, I admit Elvis was pretty damn cool onstage, especially in the early days. But even here, Chuck ain't exactly a piker. Remember the duck walk? Now that I've probably driven away all the Elvis fans, let me say, I love Elvis. I grew up on Elvis. My mom played Elvis when I was little. Elvis was a great rocker, certainly a Prince of Rock and Roll. But let's face another ugly fact. Elvis was a Bat Boone that worked. He was a white guy performing black music. It was derivative. He was damn good at it, but it's not the same as being an orginal. Chuck Berry was an original. So much so that he was a seminal influence in rock and roll. Elvis sure helped spread the word, but Chuck helped to create the word. Now, I'm really gone for awhile. Discuss amongst yer ownselves.
posted
11:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Wisdom(?) Forum Projects UpdateWell, this don't look like it's gonna work out. There's a good deal of silliness and not much wisdom but, worse, the right wingers seem to be the same silly asses I've encountered elsewhere. Now I've wasted most of the morning answering the "arguments" of a half-wit right winger. For example:Right winger, "So the practical reason the status quo is superior is because it is superior to a worse alternative. So it’s better as long as one worse condition can be named? Genius. You make my point, superior is based on a comparison, and an evaluation criteria. Saying the status quo is better simply because it is the status quo is dodging such a comparison."And it just goes on like that. They make claims to authority, like "numerous studies" without citing the studies. Then they claim that studies are of no value, the scientific method is inapplicable to people. They make up what I say, they make up what they say, they use sleazy, insupportable, underhanded arguments, and they think they're the smart ones. Seems like I used to know intelligent conservatives, but it's sure hard finding any these days. I just read Virginia Postrel and Jonah Goldberg. I can easily tear their arguments to pieces. That's almost always the case with right wingers, but why bother? Right wingers don't listen, they believe what they want to believe, and I don't think too many people are dumb enough to listen to them.
posted
10:48 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 30, 2004 Any Religion's An Infinite LongshotYa know, I reason thusly about religion: I am forced to bet that every religion on earth is wrong. I'm an old poker and horse player. It's simple arithmetic. When you see an overlay, you take it. You have to. So, the math. Say there've been a million different religions here on earth, though I doubt there are more than 50 or 100 right now. But It doesn't matter. You could make it 5 million, 6 billion, it doesn't matter. I told ya. The arithmetic is simple. Watch this part closely: How - many - possible - religions - are - there? That's right. An infinite number. And how many times does a billion go into infinity? Uh-huh. An infinite number of times. That's some overlay. Infinite odds. Ya can't pass that up.
posted
7:15 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Fact Free Reporting Is Killing DemocracyI thought Nedra Pickler of the AP was an evil, biased harpy intent on sandbagging Democratic candidates. Turns out she may only be hopelessly incompetent. The AP Rolls Over And Dies:As we pointed out yesterday, the AP's Tom Raum and Nedra Pickler let the Kerry camp spin them by declaring that Bush has "lost 3 million jobs" during his term in office. The actual number is either 2.2 million, if you're counting from January 2001, or 2.3 million if you start with the employment numbers from February 2001.Actually, I think John Kerry could weasel this, and politicians are nothing if not weasels. At one time we were down 3 million jobs under Bush, we just aren't anymore. But campaign reporters aren't 'sposed to get weaseled.
posted
4:35 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Very Superstitious - Nobody Listened To Stevie"When you believe in things you don't understand you get in trouble. Superstition ain't the way." I stole this story of Angolan insanity from Jeanne at Body and Soul."Helena Kufumana makes a pathetic witch.These people're soft. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. Wimpy heathens. The scale and viciousness of the attacks on so-called criancas feiticeiras, or child witches, confounds even hardened human-rights workers in the war-haunted country, and some said the abuse is one of the most disturbing outbreaks of domestic violence seen in Africa in recent years.Damn savage. Freakin' witch doctor. See? This is another example of how Western culture is superior. Or not. Matumona, 51, denied this.Wimpy evangelical. Must be that pagan influence. He should know better'n to leave 'em alive. Now, it's true Angola is suffering a society wide case of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Twenty-seven years of civil war can do that to you. But imagine a community of agnostics and atheists suffering the same pain. Something bad might well happen, but it's hard to believe theyd' do something like this. Expressing pain through this particular sort of bizarre violence results from superstition. Yeah, that's right, I said it. Christianity is superstition. So is Islam. Etc. No different from believing in Norse mythology, or Greek, or Roman, or anything else that was made up by ignorant people. And if you don't think a bunch of nomadic, desert herdsman who lived thousands of years ago were ignorant . . . . Well, I think humans are still ignorant. We still don't know even a significant fraction of all there is to know. But, what we lack in knowledge, we make up for with arrogance. Some will say that Western Christians, American Christians, are more enlightened. That's true, most of them are. But they're more enlightened only to the extent that they don't take their religion too seriously or the Bible too literally. Here's a funny thing I thought about taking the Bible literally recently. You notice right in the beginning? You know, Genesis, the beginning? Adam and Eve sin by eating the fruit of a tree from which they were forbidden to eat. This little episode's hilarious: Genesis 3:11And how does Adam answer? What's the first fuckin' thing he does? Anybody remember? 3:12Thaats right. He rats out Eve. What a fuckin' punk. And women have had our number ever since. So God punishes them, but he doesn't stop there. No. He punishes all mankind. 3:16Oh, great. Eve's gonna be ruled over by the same son of a bitch that ratted her out. 3:17Got it? Pain, sorrow, suffering for all mankind. Over 6 billion people and counting. Over 6 billion innocents suffering for the crime of the two guilty people. I think it was at least kinda decent a God to do this right at the beginning. He let's us know right outta the gate that we're dealing with an evil monster who intends to spend thousands of years, at least, tormenting us. A fact he goes on to confirm through much of the Old Testament. You probably won't be surprised to learn that Jeanne's take on this is a bit different. I recommend reading it. Whereas I'm one of the pissed off walking wounded, Jeanne is more of a beautiful soul.
posted
4:15 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Anti-Plutocratic Reform - A Snowball's Chance?iPundit has some pretty good suggestions in Solution: Campaign Finance Reform.I think this one's the best:Democracy Dollars Accounts for Federal Candidates - While taking the bundling route is a safer alternative, the Democracty Dollars Accounts(DDA) is downright revolutionary. I'm not sure if it has been proposed before but the idea may save our campaign finance system. Currently checks from individuals go straight to candidates. I'm not suggesting that $2,000 will buy a candidate's support, if it did, we would be in much bigger trouble than we had thought. However, 100 donations from an energy companies employees sent to the candidate can certainly be considered substantial. DDA would be accounts managed by the Federal Government but owned by the candidate. The only difference is that checks would be sent to the DDA in the name of the candidate, the name of the donor(s) would never be disclosed to the candidate.He says a lot more about it, but the part in bold is key. Candidates would not be allowed to know where their money comes from. I doubt this would solve the plutocratic problem, but it would be a step in the right direction. My only question is, how ya gonna pass something like this when it so obviously will hurt the plutocracy? Whaddaya t'ink dis is? Guvmint a da people? Thanks to Votelaw.
posted
7:30 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The (Non) Right NeighborsMan, I don' even know my neighbors, but I'm likin' 'em more all tha time. Thanks to Fundrace 2004 Neighbor Search, you can find out which of the presidential candidates your neighbors have donated to. I thought I knew this neighborhood was OK politically. I found out it's a lot better'n that. Within a radius of about five miles of me, people made 258 donations to presidential campaigns. (I didn't weed out multiple donations from the same person.) Only 31 of those went to Bushwa. Twelve percent. Hah!And it gets better'n that. The closer you get to me, the more the donations skew Democratic. Twenty-eight donations were made within a one mile radius of me and only one of 'em went to Bush. That's a little over three and a half percent. But it gets better'n that. Most of the support went to Howard Dean, which at least means that, like me, they don't have much love for the mainstream Democratic party. Hope they still donate to Kerry, though. Like him or not, he's all we got. Getting down to comparing specific zip codes, in my zip people donated $24,832 to Democratic presidential campaigns. One guy gave $2,000 a pop to Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Graham. But he dint give nothin' ta Lieberman. Hah! Bush got a total of $2,200, $2,000 of it from one guy, a CEO. But I been savin' my very bestest news for lastest. My brother lives behind what we call the Orange Curtain. Orange County, California. Until quite recently the most conservative area in America. Maybe it still is, but it is slippin'. That right wing nut job Bully Bob Dornan thought he had a permanent seat in the House running from Orange County. Dana Rohrabacher, who I'm pretty sure only seems less crazy than Dornan because he's quieter, is another O.C. right winger. O.C. is where the John Birchers went to breed when they discovered they was colored folks in they home towns. Ha-ha! They made tha move in tha days b'fore Republicans and white people started pretending racism is over, and they were quite open about why they were movin' to O.C. I'm talkin' 'bout people I grew up with here. I know what I'm talkin' about. I've heard a lotta black people say they wish they could be a fly on the wall to hear what white people say about 'em when they're not around. I am that fly on the wall. When I was a kid the O.C. was mostly orange groves. We used to drive for miles and miles, just orange groves. Now there's hardly an orange grove left cuzza all tha houses they hadda build ta handle tha white flight. My sister-in-law hates ta come over ta here, cuz she's got an irrational fear of crime. I don' like goin' over ta there cuz I always end up listenin' to remarkably ill-informed Repukelicans shootin' their mouths off as though they actually know somethin', an' I can't say a Goddamn thing cuz their my brother's friends. Man, that hurts. I don't know if I'm makin' myself clear here, but the O.C. is definitely not Kucinich country. Yet, in my brother's zip code, 20 people gave to tha Dems, only 18 ta Bush. Course, because those non-elitist Republicans happen ta be richer than the elitist Democrats, Bush did get more money. But not much. Dem candidates got $19,140, Bushwa got $23,170. Bush got lots of maximum donations of $2,000. That's in the heart of Orange County. That's in Dana Rohrabacher's district. It means Bush is doing terrible in tha land of the rock-ribs. An' that is good news. I think I could play around with this shit endlessly, And yes, I do know I'm a little unusual. Tip O'The Tam to Votelaw.
posted
7:07 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Risible Watergate Redux - MaybeCul at Ratboy's Anvil republishes this CNN story:Historian: Kerry FBI files stolen "It was a very clean burglary. They didn't break any glass. They didn't take anything like cameras sitting by. It was a very professional job," Nicosia said.How many professional burglars would want to steal Kerry's FBI files, and only Kerry's FBI files? What would the motive be? Remember, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.
posted
4:31 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 29, 2004 Traitors, Traitors EverywhereDamn. I don't know how I missed this. Thanks to Reuters (Limey bastards.), the right dingers have been able to identify 49 more traitors who hate America.Retired brass urge delay in U.S. antimissile shield A group of 49 retired U.S. generals and admirals is urging President George W. Bush to postpone the scheduled deployment this year of a multibillion dollar missile shield and spend the money instead on securing potential terror targets.Goddamnit, man. Now even the military has forgotten that true patriotism consists of abject, unquestioning subservience to Fearless Leader. Fuckin' liberals. Tip O'The Tam to Orcinus.
posted
8:27 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
A Gaze Blank And Pitiless As The SunThe Second ComingTurning and turning in the widening gyreA vast image out of Yeats' sight has long troubled me. Yet today I feel the stirrings of conviction in the best. The worst, though still full of passion, are now filled also with desperation, panic. It looks more and more likely that this election will stop the movement of Bush's slow thighs. Course, in Bush's case we'd have to say, "A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, and with less flash of intelligence." Is it too much to hope that humanity will stop slouching towards Bethlehem? Probably. But there's hope, there's hope.
posted
7:20 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
'Dead Zones' - Between Right Wingers' EarsAs I unnerstan' it, the right wing theory of "free" market frivolity holds that ev'ything'll be jus' hunkey-damn-dory if we jus' export our incredibly wunnerful capitalist industrialism to ev'y cuntry on tha planet. Sort of a magnanimous rape. Puts me in mind a white man's burden. On'y problem is, can't be done. If we try it, tha human race'll go extinct. Gar-Own-Teed. George Carlin's right, a course. Tha earth'll be jus' fine. Tha earth's gonna shake us off like a bad case a fleas. But we're gonna be wanderin' through tha netherworlds, askin' each other how inna hell we coulda fucked up so bad.U.N. Warns About Ocean 'Dead Zones' So-called "dead zones," oxygen-starved areas of the world's oceans that are devoid of fish, top the list of emerging environmental challenges, the United Nations (news - web sites) Environment Program warned Monday in its global overview.Ya don' wanna fuck wit' da phytoplankton. They's tha foundation a tha ocean food chain. And they's a huge carbon sink. As in CO2? As in global warming? Gotta tell ya, I don' know too much 'bout phytoplankton, but I do worry 'bout 'em. Really. I do. So are these 'dead zones' gonna be tha death a us? No. I doubt it, anyway. But let me tell ya somethin', my precious kittens, they are just the tip, the very tip-top a the iceberg when it comes ta environmental problems. Capitalism's jus' tha verah mos' wonnerful thing ta ever troll down tha pike a human hist'ry, 'cording ta tha right wing, an' maybe, jus' maybe, they'd be right if it wasn't fer one little thing. As we practice it, it is completely an' outrageously unsustainable. Use ta know a guy in the pool business (swimmin' pools) that use ta tell peebles 'bout repairs they needed but dint wanna pay fer, "Pay me now or pay me later. It's gonna cost more later." An' that's where we're at. Oh, sweet muthafuckin' Jesus, are we evah gonna pay later.
posted
3:26 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Freaky-Deak FaithfulTexas Woman Who Stoned Sons Set for TrialTwo young boys gruesomely murdered. A 14-month-old recovering from a fractured skull. She fucking stoned them! One would have to assume the poor woman's mentally ill, but even that wouldn't ordinarily explain someone stoning their sons to death. Laney, 39, a deeply religious woman who home-schooled her children in the tiny town of New Chapel Hill, 100 miles southeast of Dallas, called 911 just after midnight on May 10 and told a dispatcher: "I've just killed my boys."Oh-oh. I think I'm gettin' warm here. She said God ordered her to do it.Shit! Damnit! I knew it! I keep tellin' people. When you talk to God, that's called prayer. When God talks to you, that's called Schiz-O-Phreenia. Some might think I'm joking here. I'm not. I wouldn't joke about something like this. I've been around and known a lot of mentally ill people in my life. I've seen a lot of -- interesting -- things. I really do worry about people who think God communicates with them, and that includes people in my family. That shit Freaks. Me. Out. And one of the reasons is shit like this. I'll bet there was every kind of sign that this poor woman was dangerously mentally ill, but because she masked it as religious fervor nobody did anything. If she had seen or heard devils or wood nymphs or whatever, maybe somebody would've seen to it that she got the help she needed. But many devout Christians, and actually many people not so devout, feel that they have to pretend that hearin' God talkin' to ya is normal. It is not normal. It is schizophrenia. Or psychosis. Damnit!
posted
1:59 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
MoveOn The Bookseller!Smells a lot like democracy to me.MoveOn's new book has hit the streets and is already at #2 on Amazon. Can we push it to #1 at all booksellers? All royalties go to support our work together. The book is called MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country: How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change. With introductions by Al Gore, Gail Sheehy, Nancy Pelosi, and the MoveOn team, the book focuses on the best fifty personal stories amongst thousands submitted by MoveOn members. These uplifting stories demonstrate the power of the individual, with tips and resources to turn inspiration into action. They're about ordinary citizens changing laws, getting out the vote, hosting meet ups, and much more.Trade paperback, only $10.95. I'm linking to Powell's Books now whenever I can because I hear they treat their workers better than Amazon does. Have to vote with your dollars as well as your ballot.
posted
1:07 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Hey, Kerry: Christianity's A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of The GOPBush Campaign Blasts Kerry's Bible QuoteKerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech Sunday at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at "our present national leadership." Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"Sounds like a good question to me. Where are the works of our most famously "compassionate" conservative? Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack."Now, I'm jus' wonderin', where are the bounds of acceptable discourse? And more importantly, how are they marked? Chalk, paint, police tape, what? We'd all like to know, I'm sure. Even if I'm gonna spend most of my time outside the bounds, I'd still like to know when I cross 'em.
posted
11:40 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Government By Initiative - Hell, The Legislature Don't Work No MoreTo Raise Taxes, Some Pin Hopes on State Ballot BoxThey's ackshully at least three initiatives to raise taxes fer specific services in California, but I'll stick with my pet cause here. A tax on millionaires to pay for expanded mental health services.That's us, that's the Campaign for Mental Health, right over there near tha top a tha sidebar. Organizers of the proposed mental health expansion recently submitted their petition to the secretary of state's office with twice as many signatures as required to qualify for the ballot.The homeless mentally ill are a "special interest?" I bet they don't feel all that special. A recent [Public Policy Institute of California] poll in Los Angeles County showed that 68% of likely voters would support a tax on millionaires to pay for mental health programs.I like that. Rich folks are wonderful, superior beings, far more valuable than regular folk. If all a tha rich folk died by tha end a tha week from, I don't know, a bug transmitted only by extremely expensive caviar, maybe, the world would be doomed. We'd have no idea how to feed ourselves. We'd have no one ta change our diapers. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth, right up till we split up all their money. And Repukes accuse Dems of elitism. Any rich fuck who leaves the state over this tax (And they ain't gonna be many. The backers specifically polled the people who would have to pay the tax and they said no problem.), any rich fuck that leaves, all I gotta say is, don't let tha door hitcha in tha ass on yer way out. An' I ain't worried 'bout yer ass.
posted
8:39 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Credibility In Tatters - As If It Wasn't AlreadyHah. Ya know, the White House ain't 'sposed ta be as amusin' as a Three Stooges short. Richard Clarke said Bushwa yanked him 'n the gang inta tha situation room on 9/12/2001, and told 'em, "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Well, the White House denied it. No, wait, they just wanted you to think they'd denied it. Government by inuendo, ya know.Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.But now: President Asked Aide to Explore Iraq Link to 9/11 The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.Musta run outta ways ta plausibly deny it. And when Repukelicans demanded the declassification of Clarke's testimony before a Congressional committee, bet they weren't expecting this response from Clarke: He said declassifying his testimony -- as well as other memorandums and materials from Ms. Rice and the administration -- would show he had long complained that the Bush administration failed to take aggressive action against Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks.As somebody, I think Josh Marshall, said, Clarke's charges aren't even particularly controversial. The stuff he's saying was already part of the public record. So why all the hoopla all of a sudden? Cuz Bushwa's down to exactly one issue that might win him this election. His reputation as the Great and Wonderful Terror Slayer. (Pay no attention to that fraud behind the curtain.) Any other issue or combination of issues, Kerry wins handily. Bush absolutely cannot afford to lose his aura as a "war-time" president. I don't like his chances. Mr. Clarke said the administration is intent on attacking him personally through a "character assassination campaign" rather than debating the arguments he has raised about Mr. Bush's prosecution of the campaign against terrorism.I'm takin' bets, right here, right now. Whose credibility winds up in tatters ya think?
posted
5:49 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Socialists, Socialists I Tell You, Resurgent In France!Spain, too, come ta think about it. "We best ta run fer the hills, granny." Just assume the falsetto voice, OK?French voters dump Chirac party And they dumped 'em for socialists. The horror! The socialists and their allies won 50% of the second-round votes, leaving Mr Chirac's centre-right governing UMP party trailing on 36.9%.Well, actually, they're not socialist. None of the social democratic parties of Europe are socialist anymore, and I wonder how many people in the US are confused about this. I'm sure most of the right wingers are. From Wikipedia: Mitterand was the last elected national leader in Europe to attempt to carry out a socialist program.So what's a moderate social democratic party? More Wikipedia: Social Democratic parties are among the largest parties in most countries in Europe. Some studies claim that globally, more people share the basic ideals of Social Democrats than of any other political movement. They are seen as centre leftNow remember that, dingers, next time you go claimin' liberals're outside the mainstream. Nowadays, Social Democrats are in favor of a capitalist market economy, but with a strong and large government. Many Social Democratic parties are also shifting emphasis from the traditional goal of creating a Socialist economy to human rights and environmental issues.They sure ain't socialists no more. They're really more similar to what we think of as liberal Democrats. Unless you truly think Kerry is a liberal Democrat. They're a little to the left of center. Kerry's not. Very confusing. The general lesson here, though, could be that the left has moderated while the right has grown more extreme. It should be noted that Karl Marx didn't think well of social democrats and similar groups. In Communist Manifesto of 1848 he stated that workers should seize the control of means of production from the capital owners and form a state dictatorship of working class. This is in sharp contrast to social democratic ideas, such as workers' unions and employers' unions debating over the wages of the workers to better the working people's living conditions, while control of the means of production would remain in the hands of capitalists.So dingers should quit claimin' socialism and communism're the same thing, but I know they won't. Ignorant and proud. Through the 20th century, few of the policies instituted by any Social Democratic government have been successfully repealed by successors: an income tax, universal medical insurance, tuition-free university education, are seemingly permanent features of most European nations, and increasingly so in more conservative nations such as the United States. The services may vary in quality but never seem to be withdrawn completely - the gains made by Social Democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods.But right wingers're right and the public is wrong. Such a democratic attitude.
posted
5:00 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
And Democracy Continues To BlossomIraqi outcry as US bans newspaperHundreds of Iraqis have protested in Baghdad after a Shia newspaper was banned for allegedly inciting violence against the US-led coalition.That's right, piss-off some more Iraqis. It worked in Vietnam.
posted
3:54 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 28, 2004 Defending Luddites And LiberalsSomethin's never sounded right ta me 'bout the Luddites' story. They've always been presented to me basically as people who opposed labor-saving technology cuz they were, ya know, jus' crazy and stupid. They just had groundless fears. And that never made sense to me. For good reason. Turns out they had very well grounded fears.The Luddites Tens years into the new century things had begun to change. The English economy was suffering due to the war in Europe with the French. France's military leader, Napoleon, enacted the Continental System, which prohibited English goods from entering the continent. The blockade led to a drop in England's exports of some 33 1/3 percent by 1811(20). In due course, the decline in exports induced a widespread financial panic which ended in many bankruptcies and bank failures. These two events had the net effect of lowering wages about 50 percent in 1811. While on the average the prices of goods, which had been continuously rising from 1790, were 87 percent higher.Uh, I make that to be a real cut in their pay of as much as 73%. Anybody out there think they could, ya know, fit that inta the budget? Just kinda adapt, right? Tell you what, 'bout tha only adaption I could afford ta make is tha one that takes ya ta tha great beyond. I mean, times were kinda haarrd, ya know? Another contributing factor was that for some time the working classes had been aware that if business was allowed to progress the way it was there would be terrible inequalities between them and the wealthier classes.Ah, but there's nothin' wrong with terrible inequalities, ya know, 'cept for the terrible part. But they don't bother rich folks a bit and if they can manage to be so stoic, I don't see why the workers can't also. By 1811 The frameknitters of the Midlands were being forced to rent the frames they worked on by the manufactures, hosiers. A year later mass production was being introduced by the use of wide knitting frames. These frames made the work less labor intensive, because the stockings were made of a one cut piece of material, which was called a "cut-up." Consequently, stockings were cheaper to manufacture. The knitters felt that these methods of manufacturing were displacing skilled labor and that the deterioration in quality, due to the cheaper production practices, was producing the decline in the purchase of stockings. There were many manufactures who agreed with the knitters but the practice was becoming so common that the only way for them to compete was to follow their competitors lead.An early example of capitalism destroying quality. But I think the economists are right on this. We choose it. Most of us prefer cheap to good. Or do we? Actually, an awful lot of us don't get a real choice. We can only afford cheap, even if we think good is better. Right about now yer askin', "What's with that shit in the title about liberals?" I'm gettin' there. I'm gettin' there. The manufacturers, having found profit saving methods, began to employ various methods to either lower or to defraud the knitters, weavers, and croppers of their earnings. They were able to do this because there were no laws in place to control the amount or method of payment for wages. Many manufacturers would just simply not display schedules of prices for work, this way they could pay their workers whatever they felt like paying them. In some instances workers were paid with store credit, which was only good for purchasing items at a company store. This was tough on the workers because most of the items were over priced. If a manufacture did not use either one or both of these methods to cheat their workers he would pay them in "truck" payments. By adopting this practice they could pay the workers with goods instead of money.The manufacturers, with new profits in hand, were content to share tha new bounty with their workers because . . . . Wait, no, that's not what was said. No, instead they cheated the workers, and there was none a that damned evil regulation ta stop 'em. Falsetto now and, preferably, dancing on tippy-toe, say, "Let the market decide, let the market decide!" Don't be afraid to show your enthusiasm. I think the right actually depends on our crummy schools. If most people actually learned some history, they wouldn't fall for that "let the market decide" bullshit. At that time petitions, from the cotton districts, began to pour into Parliament for relief of the unjust practices of the manufacturers. But Parliament dismissed their pleas and the workers knew that any continued political outcry would be met either with death or with banishment to one of the colonies. As Duvall noted in his text:Wellnofuckin'shit. I would think freakin'-fuckin'-frothin'-at-tha-mouth pissed OFF would be more like it. On March 11th a crowd of framework knitters gathered in the market place at Nottingham. The crowd was so large and volatile that town officials called in the militia to disperse them. That same day during the evening some 60 knitting frames were broken in Arnold. The frames which were broken were only those that belonged to hated manufacturers.I don't think they were specifically pissed off at tha machines. The initial success of the Luds led E. P. Thompson to write, "'[w]e have an impression of active moral sanction given by the community to all Luddite activities short of actual assassination.'"Active moral sanction -- among tha salt a the earth. You know tha manufacturers were wrong. However, one of the most poignant examples of one of the reasons that may have motivated these people to revolt is from an anonymous man from Manchester speaking of his plight:Once again with fervor now, "Let the market decide, let the market decide." Ya know, before capitalism and other coercive systems people didn't have to work as hard to live. They didn't have to make somebody else a profit. Progress. Now to the liberals. Easy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress, if they had been in charge, would have prevented the Luddites rebellion. The Luddites had very real grievances. They were suffering. What made the manufacturers think they could inflict that on large numbers of people and suffer no consequences themselves? People will kill you to protect their families. I've always found that an endearing quality. Sure, the new technology would've unavoidably caused disruption, but there was no reason for all of the pain to fall on the workers and their families. FDR woulda got in there an' taxed tha manufacturers ta provide unemployment, welfare, workfare, soup kitchens, public works, and nobody would've gotten hurt, nobody would've had to die, no machines would've been destroyed. The only 'harm' that would've resulted is that tha manufacturers would've been a little less rich. I bet tha dead ones woulda taken that trade if they could. I don' know why dingers always gotta make things worse than they hafta be.
posted
6:07 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The WINCThe Wounder in Chief. I've been slow to comment on this, probably because I think humor is a field fraught with mines. It's pretty easy to have a joke blow up on you. But now that I've thought about it awhile, it's just wrong. And humor is no excuse.If someone you loved died or was seriously wounded in Iraq, and we're talking about many thousands of people here, in a war George W. Bush justified on the basis of WMDs that weren't there, and you heard that Bush was making jokes about not being able to find the WMDs, how would you feel? I know how I'd feel, and if comedy isn't pretty, how I'd feel is ugly beyond belief. George Bush had to have hurt many people quite badly with his jokes about WMDs, and none of 'em were me. But you know us bleedin' heart liberals, we just don't understand that the only person worth caring about is #1. I don't think this was evil. I do think the Bush Administration is evil, but not because of this. This was something else, something frighteningly typical of this administration. It was thoughtless. I mean, you ask yourself, what could they have been thinking? And you have to answer, obviously they weren't thinking. I'm sure Bush didn't come up with the jokes himself. So somebody thought 'em up, somebody approved 'em, Bush told 'em, and nobody along the way ever thought, "Hey, you 'spose jokes like this could be hurtful to anybody?" Or if anybody did think of it, that somebody didn't care. An' I'm bein' kind. David Corn puts it this way: Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."
posted
12:53 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
I'm Extremist? What The Hell's The Right?OK, finally, it was Krugman I was tryin' ta get to. The Medicare Muddle.In 1997 Congress tried to take a big step in that direction, requiring Medicare to pay per-person fees to private health plans that accepted Medicare recipients. There was much talk about the magic of the marketplace: private plans, so the theory went, would be far more efficient than government bureaucrats, offering better health care at lower cost.My "extremism" on economics consists of thinking that everyone should benefit from our economy and that we should rely on markets, where markets get the best results, and government, where government gets the best results. In other words, I'm a heretic. Burn him! Health insurance ain't one a the areas where markets work best. That's why Kerry's health plan is stupid. Too expensive, doesn't do enough. Single payer is the only sensible solution. But Kerry's not allowed to say that in the land of "free" market theology, our real state religion. In the land of "free" market theology you must accept that markets work best all the time, no matter what, regardless of experience or the facts. And if you don't have absolute faith in the magic of markets, everywhere, all the time, you're an extremist. And up is down, black is white, and cows can jump over the moon.
posted
8:58 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Defending "Under God" In The PledgeWilliam Safire states:The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right.Oh, geez, if that's all he's got goin', he should shutup and leave the rest of us alone. Where'd anybody get the silly idea that bein' right mattered? President Bush has written that the current pledge is a way of "humbly seeking the wisdom and guidance of divine providence."Uh, maja, the Prez seems to be unaware of or, more likely, unable to understand your abstruse theory on the meaning of "under God" in the pledge. He seems to think it's a religious expression. Though it pains me to agree with Bushwa, he's right, it is a religious expression. Since in my first attack on "under God" in the pledge I didn't have any of the "liberal" arguments in favor at my fingertips, I hereby print a John Kerry quote via Safire: John Kerry said on Boston television in 2002 that the Ninth Circuit ruling holding "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional was "half-assed justice . . . the most absurd thing. . . . That's not the establishment of religion."Now, can anyone tell me the difference between that statement and, "Because I said so, that's why?" That statement never worked on me as a kid, and I was immune to spankings, so you can guess what a fun time my folks had. I haven't changed all that much, but I'm really not all that obstreperous either. Not if you explain the whys and wherefores satisfactorily. But nobody dictates to me. Nobody.
posted
8:31 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bafflin' 'em With BullshitDavid Brooks has got to be today's most visible practitioner of the art. One Nation, Enriched by Biblical Wisdom seems intended to say nothing whatsoever. At least, nothing useful.According to Chappell, there were actually two camps within the civil rights movement. First, there were the mainstream liberals, often white and Northern. These writers and activists tended to have an optimistic view of human nature. Because racism so fundamentally contradicted the American creed, they felt, it would merely take a combination of education, economic development and consciousness-raising to bring out the better angels in people's nature.See? Black civil rights activists had a better understanding of the darker side of human nature because they were religious. It didn't have a fuckin' thing ta do with havin' been enslaved, beaten, raped, lynched, falsely imprisoned, deprived of the right to vote or even use the same facilities as whites, and generally treated as less than human by for generations. Nobody would ever get a dark view of human nature from that. That could only have come from the Bible. Obviously. Truth is, if your life experience has led you to believe that all people are by nature good, you've led an awfully sheltered life. But if the Bible is the source of the right wing belief that all people are by nature bad, then the Bible's fulla shit. According to Brooks, it is. Because the experiences of the Hebrew prophets had taught them to be pessimistic about humanity, the civil rights leaders knew they had to be spiritually aggressive if they wanted to get anything done.Yeah. It was the Hebrew prophets what taught black folks ta be pessimistic 'bout humanity. And what inna hell good can come from being pessimistic about humanity? Social progress? Nope, not possible. People are just no good. That's why we've never in human history made any social progress whatsoever, and why I'm king of Middle Earth. If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.Right. Stupid liberals. Except . . . I don't know of any liberals sayin' people shouldn't bring religous values into politics. Joe Lieberman wants to wear a yarmulke on the campaign trail, I don't know anybody's got a problem with that. What's more, Brooks knows Goddamn good and well that the complaints are about religion in government, such as coercing people to profess a faith that ours is a nation under God. This is a typical right wing strategy. Invent an argument similar enough that it can be easily mistaken for the argument your opponents are making, but different enough that it can be easily attacked as silly or stupid or evil, then act as if you've refuted you opponents argument even though you haven't ever actually addressed it. The lesson I draw from all this is that prayer should not be permitted in public schools, but maybe theology should be mandatory. Students should be introduced to the prophets, to the Old and New Testaments, to the Koran, to a few of the commentators who argue about these texts.I, too, would favor the teaching of theology in the schools. Not being a right wing nutfuck, however, I wouldn't limit it to the Bible and the Koran. What, the Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, Hindus, Bahais an' all got nothin' to say? Why? From this perspective, what gets recited in the pledge is the least important issue before us. Understanding what the phrase "one nation under God" might mean -- that's the important thing. That's not proselytizing; it's citizenship.I'm thinkin 'bout offerin' a prize ta anyone can explain that last paragraph. Understanding what the phrase means? What the hell does Brooks think it means? What's "citizenship," not "proselytizing?" What inna fuck is this Yin-Yang on about?
posted
8:07 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Mr. Rogers' NeighborhoodAnd then on the more lunatic side, my friggin' neighbor was just at my door. At 5:15 AM. It's still fucking dark outside. He babbled 'bout wanting ta go ta church, an' how that's why he's all dressed up, an' he needs someone ta tell his troubles to. I'm thinkin', 'Not me, Goddamnit.' He ast me do I go ta church. Huh. I went ta church for a while not too long ago. Unitarian-Universalist. Could'n take it. Too religious. I'm just waitin' for him to ask me fer money so I can tell him no an' get him an' his boomin' voice away from my door. I don' want him to wake Honey Punkin'. She don' keep fisherman's hours. He really was babblin'. I think he's a speed freak. Somethin', for sure.If he had woken Honey Punkin', woulda been his ass. Honey's lit inta him b'fore 'bout wakin' her up that time a day. It's always fascinated me how the sweetest woman I've ever known can instantly turn into a flaming bitch from hell if ya cross her. She only does it ta people who richly deserve it, though. You'd like Honey Punkin'. I ain't goin' out on no limb ta say that. Everybody likes Honey Punkin'. Even the people she's torn a new asshole. It's amazin'. Uh-oh. Honey Punkin' just rolled over an' mumbled groggily, "Tell Barry if he comes over here yellin' this early again, I'm gonna kick his ass." Oh well. He's been warned before.
posted
5:41 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Electoral College - Intended To Undermine DemocracyAnd doin' a damn fine job of it. CJR's Campaign Desk, in Spin Buster, takes a look at how the media discuss swing states. Depending on who you read or listen to, this election will be decided by a little more than half the population of 10 to 20 states. What that means is, as in 2000, no one will be campaigning for the votes of Texicans, Californians, New Yorkers, hell, probably 60% or more of the country. All they have to do is pander to the voters they need in "battleground" states. They need the votes of citizens equal to the total number of voters in anywhere from about 5 1/2 states to 10 1/2 states. Pander to the few, govern the many. That's what I call democracy.How does such a terrible thing happen? Hell, I can't remember the last time a Californian's vote mattered in a presidential election. How does that happen? The Electoral College. It was designed to be undemocratic, and they sure got it right. All the right dingers've been totally defending the College ever since their boy lost the popular vote and still got in. But c'mon, we all know dingers. The first time it goes the other way, they'll be screaming to get rid of it. I don't believe they have a shred of intellectual honesty in 'em.
posted
5:10 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Why The Right Is Hard To Beat"You get fifteen democrats in a room, and you get twenty opinions."And, oddly enough, you get fifteen Tom DeLay-type Republicans in a room, you get only one opinion, but it's a really strong opinion. "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure."And the two so often go hand in hand. Thanks to Quotes of the Day.
posted
4:48 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 27, 2004 Parsing The Pledge - The DebateAll right. Maja at Omnium has taken exception to my post, Parsing The Pledge - Right Wingers Do It Oddly, (2nd post)(Hot damn, a real argument.) saying "under God" in the pledge is obviously unconstitutional. Maja says something really unforgivable: "But Olson is quite right." Taking Ted Olson's side. I tell ya. Here's what Olson said at the Supreme Court:Solicitor General Olson told the justices that the appeals court misunderstood the pledge. The phrase "under God" did not place the pledge in the category of religious expressions that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, he said, for example "state-sponsored prayers, religious rituals or ceremonies, or the requirement of teaching or not teaching a religious doctrine."And Olson's right? Right about what? That "under God" in the pledge is not a religious statement? Nearly everyone who's recited it thought it was. Ya know, it wasn't added by the Founding Fathers. It was added in 1954, and lawmakers fully intended it as a religious statement. "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.But now we're gonna pretend otherwise. Maja claims it doesn't matter what was intended in 1954. It really doesn't, because any way you look at, including maja's way, it's an unconstitutional establishment of religion. And how about this? If it's not meant as a profession of faith, if it's really there to honor the faith of our Founding Fathers, how 'bout we change to something a little more accurate and drop even the appearance of a profession of faith? Something like, ". . . one Nation, acknowledging the beneficial beliefs of the Founding Fathers . . ." Eh, I know we got a poet somewhere who could put it better 'n that, but I mean, if "under God" really honors the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, shouldn't we say that. What the hell is this, a guessing game? "Bobby, what do you think 'under God' means in the pledge?" There, that should satisfy everyone. Whadda ya mean it won't? Why the hell not? Would Jefferson, the Deist, have approved of "under God?" Well: Deists believe that God exists, created the universe, wound it up, let it go, departed and hasn't been seen since. Thus, they believe that we are not "under God" because God isn't around any more.Eehhhnnntt! Sorry, trick question. Nobody knows, so it doesn't make a fuck. I don't know what the fuck it is these days with people saying (Deepish voice, projecting through the nose [kinda like milk, when you were a kid]), "We must follow the intent of the Founding Fathers." What? Have we discovered that psychics can contact the dead? Cuz that's the only way you're gonna know. Anything else, letters, diaries, notes, you still don't know. Conservatives, for some reason, think living in the past is not only a good idea, but actually possible. It isn't. Who inna hell makes this shit up, anyway? On the first Sunday in February 1954, a Presbyterian minister, Rev. George Macpherson Docherty presented an idea to his congregation. He came upon the idea independently and apparently not realizing any other effort was underway. From his pulpit that faithful day, he explained, "It struck me [while talking with my son about the Pledge] that it [the pledge] didn't mention God,". "I was brought up in Scotland, and in Scotland, we sang, 'God save our gracious king.' It was everybody's belief that God was part of society." President Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the front pew of the 1,400-seat sanctuary.Thass pretty cute. There is no "Buddhan" God. And not all Americans think God is part of society. Thomas Jefferson didn't. How is Olson right? Did he present any evidence that the phrase "under God," which, as normally defined in english, is clearly a religious statement, was only intended as a "civic and ceremonial" phrase without religious meaning. The only evidence I'm seeing says otherwise. I'm gonna take on maja's argument on the Declaration of Independence, but not because it has anything to do with "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't. Maj, how can the Declaration be unconstitutional? It's not a law, it's not part of the constitution, for purposes of American government it doesn't even exist. But let's say "the Declaration of Independence, and the underpinnings of the Philosophy that justified the Revolution, brought about the creation of the United States as a political entity apart from Britain, and mandated the Constitution" were declared unconstitutional. (They can't be destroyed. Just not possible.) Say they were. Now, what changes? How does American government and American life change? Answer: It doesn't. Because none of that stuff has any force in American law. Jefferson's brand of Unitarianism did not differ much from Deism. In his scheme, God was the creator of the universe, of man, and of morality; but the idea that God was an active presence in the world he dismissed as mere superstition. As for Jesus, although he was the greatest moral teacher, he was not divine, nor was he the anointed servant of the divine. Not surprisingly, the adult Jefferson never uttered a word in prayer.Whoa-oh. Still doesn't sound like Jefferson would have agreed with "under God." An' I bet Christians wouldn't be too thrilled if he did. Maja writes: "Under god" in the Pledge must be taken to mean their god, the Deist god, the god from whom our rights flow, not as a gift but as part of our nature, as much a part as our limbs, our eyes, our voices or our minds--the god of the Declaration. You don't have to believe in that god--or any god--because that is your right, too, as a human being. But the men who wrote the Constitution did, and that is the "god" that's in the Pledge. A god that tolerant, I don't have a problem with.Why "must" it be taken to mean their God? I see no evidence whatever that it was intended to mean their God, and even if it was, the very same Founding Fathers provided for freedom of religion in the first amendment. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. If I accept maja's argument, then Congress, in 1954, made a law establishing Deism as the religion of the United States. They must, as you put it, have established some religion, unless they understood the phrase "under God" to have no meaning at all. Somehow I doubt that. Even if "under God" "must" be taken to mean the God of the Founding Fathers, how does that make it OK? Government is professing faith in the God of the Founding Fathers. That's an establishment of religion. The only dog that should count in this fight is the Godless Constitution. How in the world can it be constitutional to inflict upon people a profession of faith and to ascribe to the government a submission to faith. Under God. It means subjugation to God. And it is, without a doubt, unconstitutional to make it a part of government. There's a legitimate reason for those words to be there. It may not be the reason intended when the words were inserted in 1954, but it exists nonetheless, and it should not be ignored. Those words are a recognition of the reason the people who risked their lives and property took those risks. It is a recognition of the forces and convictions that created us and without which we wouldn't exist.Those words have nothing to do with all that stuff. You wanta honor that stuff, fine, but make yourself clear. Don't use a phrase most people understand to mean something completely different. There is no legitimate reason for those words to be there. "Under God" simply does not say or imply any of the things which you say justify its presence. You wanna put an honorific in about the Founding Fathers' beliefs, I got no problem with that. But you are not honoring the Founding Father's beliefs when you profess their belief's. You're professing their beliefs, which is a religious act. Suppose you and me go around asking every kid in America between the ages of 5 and 11 what they think "under God" in the pledge means, how many are gonna give us your spiel about the Founding Fathers? Hell, if we ask every American over the age of 5, how many? It's ridiculous, and it's a kind of legalistic Jiu Jitsu, to claim that a phrase means something no one would guess, rather than what it plainly means. It's plainly a religious expression and plainly unconstitutional. Sorry, buddy, but you were almost half right. It's not just a slam dunk, it's a Shaquille O'Neil Monster Jam/Thunder Dunk that shatters the backboard.
posted
5:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Wisdom Can't Be This Easy. Can it?Well, here I go again. I've joined a discussion forum. I'd kinda hoped this blog would lead to more discussion, but it turns out just about all the discussions I get involved in here are with people who agree with me on the issues, we only disagree on tactics or nuances. Trolls flame by, but they don't argue or discuss. They hit and run, never to return. I wouldn't mind being insulted. How could I mind, as insulting as I am to them? But I mind not hearing a reasonable argument.Course, most of the real right wingers, arguin' with them's like tryin' ta teach a pig ta sing. They have no interest in any ideas they don't already agree with, they're not open to any criticism of their ideas, they reject any facts that don't totally support what they already b'lieve, and they use the ADI method of argument: Make an Assertion, Demand others accept it, call anyone who doesn't an idiot. The very basis of fact free argument. But this outfit's been advertising at the top of my blog, The Wisdom Project, and I like their idea. How the Wisdom Project Works (Excerpt) The Question: If you had the power and influence to change the USA, what would you do to solve the problem of so many people and children without health insurance? Or, do you believe the current health care systems and policies are the best solution?The whole explanation is longer, but that's kinda the gist of it. So I thought I'd participate. Might learn sumpin', ya know? But I don't have high hopes so far. Right wingers. Assert, Demand acceptance, call anyone who doesn't accept an Idiot. Fer instance, where do right wingers get the idea that government has no right to take their money through taxes and use it for any purpose that doesn't directly benefit them? They assert it all the time, but what's the basis for it? What constitution is that right enshrined in? Is it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is there a government anywhere in the world that guarantees that right to its citizens? And if there is, have they let the guy who designed it out of the insane asylum yet? ADI. But I'll try it.
posted
12:57 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Full Panic Boogie - The People Don't Even Need A BeatLeaders of G.O.P. Try to Discredit a Critic of BushBut they don't do a very good job. Republican Congressional leaders said Friday that they would seek to declassify past Congressional testimony from Richard A. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, in an effort to demonstrate that the former aide had lied this week about Mr. Bush's record.Oh, my, big ol' scary threat. And it is meant as a threat. Some small probs, though: A senior Democratic Congressional aide said Democratic staff members from both the Senate and House intelligence committees reread Mr. Clarke's 2002 testimony on Friday and that they believed he had been "fully consistent" in his views.And: [Former Senator Bob] Graham said he supported the request to declassify Mr. Clarke's testimony. But he said it should be released in its entirety and that the White House should declassify other documents integral to Mr. Clarke's testimony, including his January 2001 plan for action against Al Qaeda. Mr. Graham has also sought to release 27 pages of the report examining the involvement of foreign nations in support of the 19 hijackers.When you threaten to do something and your opponents say, "Oh, yes. That is a good idea, please do!" It's not a good sign for your side. The Greedy Old Party is doin' a full panic boogie right now, cuz they know it's try anything time. They know that, short of a miracle, this one's gonna take 'em down.
posted
8:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Stupid Is As Stupid Does - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Taxes, Jobs . . .So I'm readin' Digby at Hullabaloo when I snap to exactly what makes Bush-bubba the worst president ever, to a factor of at least two. Maybe ten. Digby says it, but too politely.But, the bigger issue, I think, is that this illustrates once again what a grave mistake it is to have a president who is arrogant yet intellectually incurious and whose inexperience in life and government makes him manipulable by others.But that is it, that's the fundamental problem with Booshie-Booshie. He's an arrogant man who has nothing to be arrogant about. If he had something to be arrogant about, at least he'd be a man of some ability. If he wasn't arrogant, however minimal his actual capabilities, he wouldn't be nearly so bad. I believe America would be better off with a bacterium as president, but that's only because a bacterium can only fail to do good. It can do no actual harm. (As president. It might be kinda hard on your intestines, I don't know.) That would be an improvement over Bush. This is a man exceedingly proud of his own bravery, though he's never done anything to demonstrate bravery. A man proud of his wartime leadership, though I'm certain Churchill and FDR would both sneer and snarl at his incompetence. A man with supreme confidence in his gut instincts. Even he can't believe in his powers of reason. But he doesn't believe he needs reason, either. He knows in his gut that the death penalty is a deterrent, so pay no attention to those pesky scientific studies. Apparently, he feels about the same way about global warming, shit, about everything. Bush looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and claimed to have seen Putin's soul. It seemingly never occurred to him that maybe when you look into the eyes of a KGB man, you see what he wants you to see. I don't care if you're a Bush defender these days, or an attacker. Both sides are saying Bush is incompetent. Listen to Bush's defenders. A whole string of people one would've thought would be loyal to Bush are saying bad things about him. And his defenders say they're all disgruntled, disloyal, political hacks, most of whom were "out of the loop" and incompetent. On top of that, it's pretty obvious now that, though still loyal, Condi and Cheney are incompetents. (C'mon, Dick, Clarke was "out of the loop?" On terrorism? I think you better have that heart equipment checked out. I don't think you're gettin' enough oxygen to the brain.) OK, Bush defenders. Who was responsible for the hiring of this motley crew? Not that he necessarily made the direct hiring decisions, but ultimately, in the White House, who's responsible? As Digby says: The bigger lesson in all of this, and one which I'm sure will go inheeded by many, is that you should not elect stupid people to the presidency. Smart ones can screw up, but it's not guaranteed that they will. But, a stupid yet arrogant president is bound to fail. The job is just too complicated for someone like that.I know, I know, Bush is not a stupid person. Even Molly Ivins says so, and I happen to agree. Bush is not a stupid person, but he sure inna fuck is a stupid president. Who inna hell really thinks the average NASCAR fan is qualified to be president? The good news is I really think Bush is going to lose. Both candidates have framed the presidential race as a contest of machismo. Well one of 'em is macho, and one of 'em thinks he's good at acting macho. If you're gonna get into a pissing contest (hands allowed), it's best if you got a real dick. (Cheney not allowed.)
posted
6:31 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 26, 2004 Faux Gnus - No Journalistic Ethics Allowed"Our weapons are powerless!"Aside: I'm outraged that Fox approached the White House with this background briefing tape. According to McClellan, "it was Fox News who yesterday came to us and said they had a tape of this conversation with Mr. Clarke." If that's true, then a news organization that was included in a briefing with the agreement that it was on background -- that is, with no quotes and the briefer not be identified -- approached a source's former employer and offered to give up apparently conflicting words that the employer could use against the source. (I read the transcript. It's not particularly contradictory, frankly, and can easily be read as how Clarke characterized it.) This is a major journalistic no-no. When I was at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, we were taught to go to jail before you give up your sources. And you sure as hell don't approach someone you're supposed to be covering and offer to help them out against someone.Bastards have forfeited the right to be called a news station, even derisively. Hence: Gnus.
posted
12:59 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Speakin' A Proven Liars"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001"[Former FBI wiretap translator Sibel] Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."But if Rice contradicts Richard Clarke then, obviously, Clarke's lying. Mm-hmm. UPDATE: For a point-by-point analysis of Condi's proven and outrageous lying ways, see Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap. In fact, ya jus' need to read the Progress Report from 9/11 - Bush Admits Negligence on. Unbelievable. I just want the name of whoever delivers the electric kool-aid to the White House and, just outta curiosity, how mucha that stuff Condi drinks. RE-UPDATE: (I'm calling the next one ad nauseam, I swear.) White House Fights Clarke Fire With Fire Administration officials were so intent on mobilizing every possible argument that some of their points seemed contradictory. Collectively, they said Clarke was responsible for counterterrorism but out of the loop, claimed he was obsessed with which meetings he could attend but refused to go to some meetings, and argued both that his book was published too soon and too late.Shit. Could'n get their ducks in a row after all, but they say Clarke is untrustworthy.
posted
10:23 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How Far America Has Moved To The RightA large segment of Barry Goldwater's supporters in 1964 were considered right wing nuts. Yet when Goldwater was defeated, by a landslide, because he was percieved as too right wing, that segment went to work on taking over the Republican. Nobody thought they had a chance. Nobody was right and everybody else was wrong. It took 'em a while, but their first big national success came with Ronnie Raygun. That success was only partial. The GOP wasn't in their control yet. But they kept working.Today, they have control. Bush/Rove bends to their will. DeLay and Hastert are part of the "movement." In all the time they've been working to get control of the party, these people who were thought to be wingnuts in 1964 have steadily moved farther to the right, so much so that Goldwater disowned them long ago. I try to tell people that and they look at me like I'm crazy. Say something that conflicts with the conventional wisdom, no matter how true, and you must be crazy. Well feast on this: Yet in his older years the founding father of conservatism gazed out upon his works and recoiled. It was not, after all, what he had had in mind. In his plainspoken manner, indifferent to what anyone else thought, he railed against the right's intolerance, sanctimony and bullying. Mr. Conservative, author of its early seminal manifesto, "The Conscience of a Conservative," took to calling himself in public a "liberal." He spared no words in denouncing the right as the enemy of liberty.And the Republican right has moved even farther to the right since then. Now for the good news. Republicans for Kerry? After enduring a sustained offensive from conservatives, Republican moderates are quietly mounting a counterattack against Bush, DeLay & Co. I'm gettin' a good feelin' 'bout this election I never thought I'd have. I thought Bush was a lock. I even half-thought four more years of Bushit might be good for the nation. Ya know, shock therapy. (That thought never would of stopped me from working for Bushwa's defeat, though.) Now I'm afraid any more shock therapy might kill the patient. The nation at least needs a break from this insanity, and a surprising group may agree with me. Looks like moderate Republicans are rebelling. I know moderate Republican sounds like an oxymoron, but it isn't. Not quite. Not yet. Only 80% of Republicans identify themselves as conservatives. That's the Repukelican wing. So maybe there arent' a lot of moderate Republicans, but Bush can't afford to lose any Republicans, for two reasons. One, Bush can't afford to lose any Republicans. Two, if he does, it almost certainly means he'll take a pounding among the independents. If either happens, he probably loses. If both happen . . . well, ya know.
posted
9:57 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Ethics In WonderlandDeep Throat Loses His Cover?In order to "prove" that Richard Clarke is an unethical bastard without a shred of credibility, the White House and Faux News collaborated to commit an unethical act. I know, it's not a surprise, and even the irony is wearing thin, but this administration can't sing but one note, maybe two. "Lie, obfuscate, lie, obfuscate." Don't blame me, I voted with the majority. Journalists have long understood confidentiality to exist solely between a source and a reporter. If someone speaks "on background," the only ethical way in which a reporter can divulge the person's name would be if the source changed his mind and decided to go on the record.I'm sure Clarke was asked to lie in the backgrounder, and I'm sure he did. That's kind of typical loyalty-to-the-president lying (likely by omission). If that discredits Clarke, what does it say about the Bushwa fab five? And what does this say about Faux News' ethics? Josh Marshall caught 'em cutting and pasting Clarke's testimony before the comission in an utterly dishonest way. They got their noses so far up the GOP's collective ass that the dingleballs are causin' 'em sinus problems.
posted
5:55 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 25, 2004 Five Proven Liars' Words Against Clarke's9/11 scrutiny hits Bush aura on terrorStill, even if public memory of this week's testimony fades by Nov. 2, it was not a positive week for the Bush White House, analysts say. Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and press secretary Scott McClellan, were put on the defensive, often uttering identical phrases that showed the care taken in a coordinated response.I'm sure the reporter meant to say "programmed reposnse." Just like cops testilying, they had their ducks in a row. In one embarrassing exception, Cheney claimed Monday that Clarke had been "out of the loop" in the fight against terror, raising the obvious question of why a White House would not involve its counterrorism chief in major decisions.So Rice "corrects" Cheney. Does anyone know what's going on in the White House? Or did Penis Cheney forget to clear his lie in advance? It was, after all, a pretty stupid lie and he's been off the reservation before. Or was it just habit? He's used that line, "out of the loop," so many times. "Basically, the way it's lining up is Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and the president's word against his," says GOP strategist Charlie Black. With some of the charges Clarke is making, he adds, "you can demonstrate whether he's right or they're right. By Monday or so, I don't think he'll have much credibility left."Riiighht. Five people's word against Clarke's. Course, ever' one of 'ems a proven liar and Clarke's the only one who's had the decency to take responsibilty (saying he probably deserves some of the blame) and to apologize to the 9/11 families. But Clarke's credibility will lie in tatters. I'll betcha Black is wrong.
posted
5:12 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Parsing The Pledge - Right Wingers Do It OddlyAtheist Presents Case for Taking God From PledgePuh-lease! An eight year old oughta be able to win this case. I know I'm tilting at windmills here, and lots of people will insist that I'm weirdly illogical, but here goes anyway. The "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance is not merely unconstitutional, it is stunningly obvious that this is so. It's an open and shut case, a slam dunk, shootin' lunkers in a teacup. It's been really amusing to hear the majority of both Democrats and Republicans argue that it's not only no way in hell unconstitutional, but also that this is self-evident any sane person. Yet their arguments pretty much amount to "because we don't want it to be, that's why." Now Ted Olson has argued before the Supremes that "under God" does not mean under God. No, no, nothing like it. Rather, Mr. Olson said, "under God" was one of various "civic and ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new country." He said the framers believed "that God gave them the right to declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the unalienable principles given to them by God."See? They ain't a thing r'ligious 'bout it. Ya know, 'cept for the God part an' all. Does language mean anything to Repukelicans? I don't have that much dog in this fight personally. Nobody makes me say it anyway, an' I'm not an atheist. But Newdow is, an' I agree with his complaint, even if I do think atheists are as silly as believers. Newdow said: ". . . when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, it's like I'm getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you know, `this is a nation under God, your religious belief system is wrong.'"An' I don' wanna hear about how there's this huge majority that favors "under God" in the pledge. Wouldn't matter if it was a billion to one against Newdow. The principle doesn't change no matter how people vote or think. Human rights aren't determined by majority rule. Religious freedom is a human right due all human beings regardless of what any and all other human beings think about it. The pledge with "under God" in it is a slap in the face to atheists as well as Buddhists an' I don' know who all else. Agnostics like me, a course. The pledge as written is obviously unconstitutional.
posted
3:00 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How Will The Bushies Slime Foster On Medicare?It's gettin' a be a parlor game, I swear. Medicare Official Testifies on Cost FiguresThe chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, told Congress on Wednesday that last June he provided the White House with data indicating that prescription drug legislation would cost 25 percent to 50 percent more than the Bush administration's public estimates. That information did not make its way to Congress for six more months.In June the Bushies new that the Medicare bill would cost $500-600 billion, but they swore up an' down to Congress that it would cost no more than $400 billion. (Yes, that was also the CBO estimate, but the Bushies knew better.) The extremely close vote on that bill forced GOP floor leaders to hold the voting open for an unseemly, if not obscenely, long period of time. If the White House had told the truth about Foster's estimates, no way would the bill have passed. Faced with certain defeat, the Bushies lied. Simple, obvious, effective. And an ugly, unforgivable and deliberate subversion of democracy. BushCo has tried to smear everyone who's said a critical word about the administration, and they're working overtime on Richard Clarke. Well, BushCo says Bush is the only one who can protect us from terrorism -- just look what a wonderful job he's done so far. Then again: Former US terror chief slams Bush Mr Clarke also reiterated his criticism of the decision to invade Iraq, saying Mr Bush had "greatly undermined the war on terrorism".Hmm. BushCo? Or Clarke? Considering BushCo's track record, who ya gonna b'lieve?
posted
9:00 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Helping The Homeless Mentally IllThey make up 1/6th of all homeless in California. I will probably be posting on this issue from time to time between now and November. CampaignforMentalHealth.org (I've also added them to the sidebar.) is pushing an initiative to provide stable funding for services to the mentally ill homeless. They'd get it by adding a one percent surcharge to incomes over $1 million per year. I know some of the people involved and they've told me that they've done polls of people with such stratospheric incomes and they have no problem with the tax. The opposition comes from the anti-tax nuts and middle class voters who think they might be rich someday. Yah, Hokay, dream on.This is a California initiative that will be on the ballot in November. I don't know how many California readers I have, so if anybody knows a California blogger they could pass this on to, that'd be great. The University of Pennsylvania's Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research has done a five-year study that tracked 4,679 homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities placed into service-enriched housing created by the 1990 New York/New York Agreement to House Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals, a joint initiative between New York City and New York State. Service-enriched meaning they get extensive psychiatric help, life coaching, rehabilitative services and so on. The study showed that it cost the public only $1,908 more a year to provide service-enriched housing to an individual with mental illness than it does to allow him or her to remain homeless.So 'twould appear we could get all the mentally ill homeless off the streets at a cost of about $37 a week each. If there are 17 million taxpayers in California, and I'm guessing but that should be in the neighborhood, then the total cost to get all the homeless mentally ill off the streets in California comes to a staggering 11 cents per taxpayer per week. Maybe even less. Remember, we're talking about the mentally ill homeless. Anyone who's unwilling to spend so little money to help such a helpless population better hope the Christians are wrong. I would'n wanna be judged fer sumpin' like that.
posted
7:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Smear Merchants Forced To Lie BlatantlyRichard Clarke should be the dagger in the heart of this administration. What he's saying should devastate Bushwa's reputation as a "war" president and it has forced admin officials into some of their most bald-faced, stupid lies yet. My favorites include the claim Clarke's disgruntled because Bush demoted his position from cabinet level. Maybe, but why would the "war" president who has protected us so well from terrorism demote the counterterrorism chief to below cabinet level if he was serious about terrorism? He didn't replace Clarke with another cabinet level official on terrorism, he just demoted Clarke's position.My other favorite is Clarke "wasn't in the loop." Really. The White House conterterrorism chief was out of the loop -- the counterterrorism loop. If true, wouldn't that be remarkable, reckless irresponsibility on the part of the White House? On top a that, the White House has used that same 'out of the loop' defense several times. Tried the same bullshit with Paul O'Neill, fer instance. But wait! There's more! Act now and the Center For American Progress will document several more juicy lies. Call within the hour and we'll take a set of fine Spanish China and throw it out the window in your name. We may even hit a bystander. You can't beat that.
posted
6:03 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 24, 2004 Heritage Con-Foundation - Professional Liars For The RightThe Heritage Con-Foundation says In Understanding Poverty in America, by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Backgrounder #1713:In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.First time I saw it I thought that number looked funny. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using census data, reports: Nearly two-thirds of all poor families with children included a worker in 2002. These individuals typically work a significant amount. In 2001 (data for 2002 are not yet available), workers in poor families with children worked an average of 44 weeks per year, and an average of 41 hours during the weeks in which they were employed. (The average exceeded 40 hours a week because some poor families have more than one worker.)You can do the math yerself if ya wanna, but it works out to around 1200 hours worked per poor family with children. I don't know how the Heritage Con Artists massaged the data (But I do know they massage data.), but it sure looks ta me like they's lyin. Remember, too, that in many cases they's a good reason why nobody's workin' in that other 1/3 of families. Disability, off tha top a my head, but they's probly other good reasons. An' I got severe doubts 'bout that 75% a children bein' lifted outta poverty. Full time work at the US minimum wage only brings in about $11,000 a year, which is way b'low that poverty line for a fambly wit' kids. An' tha OECD says: . . . the United States has consistently been the OECD country with the highest relative poverty rate for working households.Heritage also claims: While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.Oh, well as long as it's only short-term. Their figures here appear pretty close ta right, but they're leavin' stuff out. Tha CBPP, using census data, said: In 2001, 44.5 percent of poor households with children experienced either food insecurity or hunger at some point during the year. (Households that experienced food insecurity were unable to acquire, or were uncertain of having, enough food to meet the basic needs of all household members, because they lacked sufficient income and resources.)Tha USDA reports 41.8% for the same group, which is ballpark. So, ya know, po' folks ain't got nothin' ta worry 'bout in tha food department. Nothin' ay- tall. Rotten evil bastards. An' ya can tell Joe Lieberman I said so. They ain't jus' wrong, they's evil.
posted
7:57 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Left And The RightLeft and right are not a set of positions and policy proposals, they're frames of mind. The positions change over the long haul, nearly always shifting left, because the left is right much more often than the right. Ironic how lefties got tagged with the wrong label. Blame the French. Ever'thing else is their fault.Under monarchies, the right consistently supported monarchy. In republics with a severely limited franchise, the right supported keeping it that way. Slavery? The right supported it. Women's suffrage? The right opposed. Jim Crow? The right supported it. The social welfare state common to every major Western democracy for decades? The right still opposes it. Why does the right so often wind up on the wrong side of history? Fear. Fear drives most right wingers. Not all, but most. Fear of other countries, fear of other races, fear of people's "evil nature," fear of God, and most of all, I suppose, fear of change. A couple a scientists produced a controversial study that found fear tha prominent feature in tha right wing psyche, butcha don' need a study. Jus' listen to 'em. You can hear it in almost ever'thing right wingers say. Terrorism's gonna destroy Western civilization unless we wipe out half the Middle East. Yeah, an' a mosquito's gonna tear down the pyramids. If we don't stop 'em in Iraq, terrorist battalions will march through the streets of America. I've actually heard that one. Terrorist battalions marchin' in America? How the hell many anti-American terrorists do they think there are? If they have an army capable of invading the US, why are they piddlin' around with terrorism? Considerin' tha probable odds a becomin' a victim of terrorism in the US, most a tha right sounds like a bunch a pulin' cowards ta me. I'm amazed they can get up tha nerve ta ride in a car or cross a street. Those are greater risks. Before terrorism, Communism was the great bogeyman used to manipulate the right. At all times we must have an extremely powerful, extremely expensive national "defense." Cuz right wingers is skeered. The military-industrial complex is their security blanket. Kerry's -- OH MY GOD -- weak on defense. Never mind that we spend more on "defense" than tha next 14 nations combined. Never mind that since WWII the military's been used more often fer offense than defense. And who is it strongly feels tha need fer a gun ta "protect" themselves? My brother and sister-in-law are rock-ribbed Republicans. They live in a $350,000 dollar house in a city that's more 'n once been rated tha safest in America. Somebody gets pulled over for speeding there, six cop cars show up. Not cuz it's a hot situation, they just don't have anythin' better ta do. But they felt it necessary ta keep both a revolver an' a shotgun at tha ready in their house ta protect themselves. From what? I live in a "bad" neighborhood, by way a contrast. Bad enough that we find new graffitti on the apartment building jus' about ev'ry day. Tha front a tha buildin's mostly glass and it seems like the graffitists always find ingenious new ways ta permanently deface tha glass. C'mon guys. Think watercolors. Ya know yer gonna be back tomorrow night anyway. So it's a "troubled" neighborhood, but not a quarter as bad as my sister-in-law thinks it is. She won't even come over here. We do live within a mile of tha worst neighborhood in the city, though. An' I feel no need for a gun. Never had any real trouble in any part a tha city. Sure, I keep a T-ball bat in tha apartment, but that's mostly fer if I take a notion ta go beatin' on some Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormon missionaries, or any other damn proselytizers who don't move smartly away from my door when asked politely. An' fer certain a my wife's friends, a course. Honey Punkin's a very tolerant woman, which is both a blessin' an' a curse ta me. A blessin' cuz she puts up with me, an' I don' know that many women would. A curse cuz she tolerates people in serious need a moral correction via an intimate encounter with Bobby. That's what Honey Punkin' calls my bat. She has a club of her own called Billy. Get it? Ya don' wanna mess with Honey Punkin'. She can be a hard woman. With right wingers, every change comes rollin' down tha pike'll surely destroy civilization. Lack a prayer in schools, no ten commandments in tha courthouse, women workin' outside tha home, divorce, gay unions, an' tons a similar things over tha years. I happen ta think civilization's a good bit more resilient 'n that, but try tellin' it to a right winger. They mostly live in cages called fear. Some say that greed defines right wingers, but the greed heads aren't really right wingers. They're what I call corporate conservatives, an' nearly their whole drivin' force is greed. But they're necessarily an elite minority. Fer them ta feel rich, most people got ta have less'n them. Both wealth and poverty, once tha bare necessities been met, are relative, not absolute. It's easy ta see that at tha extremes. If everyone made $15,000 a year, nobody'd be poor. If ever'body made $10 million a year, nobody'd be rich, although they'd probly be really, really, comfortable. That "a rising tide lifts all boats" bullshit comes from the corporatist wing, and ya know it's bullshit cuz they don' want all boats lifted. There's three ways they can get richer. They can get more while ever'one else gets more, but not as much more as them. They can get more while ever'one else stands still, which is pretty much what's happened over tha last 30 years in America. Or they can stand still while everyone else gets poorer. I'm sure they prefer the first, but any a these'll do. Relative, not absolute. If ever'one gets richer at about tha same rate, the rich haven't gotten richer. An' that won't do it fer these guys. So tha corporatists, or greed wing conservatives, are necessarily a minority. If they weren't they'd be miserable failures. As a minority, and a minority few people really like, they need political allies. They're eager ta finance and manipulate the fear wing. And fearful people are easily manipulated. None a this is ta say that I think rightists're inherently bad people, or that they should be eliminated, or even utterly defeated. It greatly irritates me that so many on tha right have taken a notion that they can and should win final victories. Bush has convinced them evil can be defeated. No one's ever managed it in a million years or so, but they're gonna do it. And since liberals are evil, we gotta go too. Things don' work like that. In tha metaphorical car called social progress tha left's tha gas pedal an' tha right's tha brake. 'Thout a gas pedal a car ain't much good, but I don' know anybody wants ta drive a car with no brake. Tha left has a tendency ta run too fast fer mos' people. We have a vision a tha future an' b'lieve we can change things fer tha better, an' we usually do, but most people can't grasp unfamiliar ideas as easily as we can. Very few people can actually think outside tha coffee can. They need time ta get used ta new ideas. The right's there ta buy 'em that time. But tha right can't be allowed ta stand on tha brake forever, and they can never, ever be allowed ta put tha car in reverse. Tha right has its role ta play, but they's goin' way beyond that a late. These days they're tryin' ta sabotage tha damn car. That ain't a gonna cut it. It's up ta us ta stop 'em.
posted
1:28 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 23, 2004 What Makes Your Own Team Jump On The Dogpile?Screwin' up really badly, I would think.Kerry Gets Boost From Surprising Sources The article mentions John McCain and Chuck Hagel defending Kerry on defense. On Sunday, Hagel, a maverick Republican with a reputation similar to McCain's for speaking his mind, criticized the Bush campaign ad that called Kerry "weak on defense." Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Hagel said: "The facts just don't measure [up to] the rhetoric." He said it is unfair to isolate one or two votes over a 19-year career to make such a sweeping assessment of Kerry. "You can . . . take any of us, and pick out the different votes, and then try to manufacture something around it," he said.Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and other congressional conservatives criticizing Bush on the domestic front, particulary lying about the cost of the Medicare bill. Kerry's campaign is circulating Flake's recent remark that Congress would not have passed the Bush Medicare law if members had been told of its projected cost.And former administration officials John J. DiIulio Jr., the White House's guy on faith-based programs, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and now counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke have all, quite patriotically, jumped Bush's sorry ass. All disgruntled politically opportunistic liars, sez the White House nobody in their right mind would trust. At least now we can say, "Even conservatives and Republicans . . ."
posted
8:29 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
A Clear Attempt To DecieveVideo news releases (VNRs) are apparently quite common, as are press releases, which I guess we're now caling print news releases (PNRs). Health and Human Services sent out VNRs about the Medicare bill that include a PR flack posing as a reporter. CNN distributed the VNRs and in many, if not most cases, they were not clearly identified. Many stations ran them as straight news. CJR's Campaign Desk dug a little deeper.Most of the news directors we spoke with were also genuinely angry at the Bush administration, for what they saw as a deceptive public relations campaign that took conscious advantage of the smaller stations' well-known lack of resources: "Shame on them -- that's pretty sneaky," said Veazey, referring to HHS. Julie Akins of KSEE-Fresno was harsher: "It's clear that there was an attempt to deceive ... It's shocking that the Bush administration would manipulate the news media in this way."But a lotta station managers were pissed at CNN too. Seems the package often wasn't clearly labeled, perhaps even deceptively labeled. And Lynn Brooks of WVUA-Tuscaloosa, confirmed in an email to a viewer, obtained by Campaign Desk, that when her station received the Medicare story, it "was designated as a 'reporter package', with nothing distinguishing it as a video news release."VNRs are common. About 3,000 are sent out a year, and they usually aren't that different from PNRs in principle, or lack thereof. Thing is, though I"ve known since college that PNRs are sometimes run in their entirety as straight news, it still bugs the shit out of me. It's still wrong. It's propaganda and a lotta corporations spend a lotta money to get it placed as news. What HHS pulled was even more wrong. HHS Spokespig Bill Peirce tried the "everybody does it" defense, but it turns out: But not all VNRs are created equal: Neither Moscowitz nor Pierce could point to a VNR produced for the federal government that, in the midst of an election campaign, promoted legislation as politically-charged as the Medicare benefit. Nor, more importantly, does there seem to be a precedent for an administration making a VNR that includes a p.r. professional impersonating a reporter, and signing off "reporting from Washington."Blatant, despicable duplicity. But wait! There's more! Send in your vote today and you get a bonus lie! And a New York Times editorial Saturday agreed, taking HHS to task for the VNR incident, and for its "foolhardy obsession" with claiming that Ryan is a freelance journalist, not an actor.Honor an' integrity my bleeding ass! Lyingest administration in my lifetime, and I'm including Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Never thought I'd see the day. I can't recommend CJR's Campaign Desk highly enough. Seriously.
posted
7:02 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 22, 2004 Dick Cheney Says Clarke Was "Out Of The Loop"From Paul Krugman's column:He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.)Uh, Penis? Why would the counterterrorism chief be "out of the loop?" I mean, considerin' how serious y'all were 'bout terrorism an' all? Or is it unpatriotic to ask? An' jus' how stupid are you folks in tha White House?
posted
9:11 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Don't Believe The Corporate Media!In What The Hell Does It Take? Neologic reviews the headlines on the Clarke say Bush sucks on terrorism story, national and international. Sure looks like the American "liberal" media's doin' it's best to spin it in favor of Bush. I'm so dissappointed. Not surprised, mind you, just dissappointed.
posted
8:46 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Everybody's A Liar And A Political Partisan Except The BushiesUh-huh. Maja at Omnium provides supporting evidence for what Richard Clarke has said about the Bush administrations handling of terrorism, partly in the form of excerpts from a 2002 book, The Age Of Sacred Terror, written by two former National Security Council directors. The book quotes Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton and Gen. Don Kerrick, and not in a way the Bushies will find congenial. The thicket of lies pouring from this administration will take hundreds of machetes to chop through it, but at some point the American people are going to see the truth. Will it be in time?
posted
8:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Global Unity On IraqDear Mr. Bush,A pitcher gallery. Thanks to Omnium.
posted
7:32 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How 'Bout A Real Presidential Campaign?MoveOn has a request.Ask Bush to Stand Up to a Real DebateWhat I'd really like to see is a series of townhall type meetings with both candidates answering the same unfiltered questions from the audience, but I don't think Bush even has the balls to face Kerry in any more debates than the three he can't avoid. Thanks to Keywords for the heads up.
posted
6:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
A Missive From The Attorney GeneralRemember, if you vote for John Kerry, you're voting for who the terrorists want to be President! If you don't let the terrorists dictate how you vote, the terrorists have won!Ya gotta check this guy out. I only wish I could write as funny as him.
posted
6:40 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Is Anybody On The Right Wing Funny Since O'Rourke?I'm kind of curious, so if you know of anybody, I'd appreciate a heads up. Got a link to Eric Alterman's stint on Dennis Miller's show. I hear some laughs on the show, but they might be canned. I can't see where Miller is anything but an asshole in this interview. For those right dingers who insist liberals only stopped thinking Miller was funny after he turned right wing, I was a big fan of P.J. O'Rourke for a long time, and I never agreed with a thing he said. But I found him funny. He eventually wore out on me, but most humor writers do. After a while you know all a guy's tricks and then they don't make you laugh anymore. Same thing happened with Dave Barry.I don't know when Miller stopped being funny, or when he turned right wing. I wasn't paying that close of attention. I'm not sure I ever found Miller funny. Pompous, maybe. Pseudo-intellectual, maybe. But humor's important to me. If a guy can make me laugh, I don't give a good Goddamn about his politics. I can't remember the last time I heard Miller say anything funny. Judging strictly by this video clip, I'd say he's just a snot-nosed punk these days. Tip O'The Tam to In Search Of Utopia.
posted
6:27 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Richard Clarke Interview TranscriptThe transcript of Leslie Stahl's interviews with Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and Deputy NSA Stephen Hadley on 60 Minutes is here, thanks to Sadly No.
posted
4:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Oh, Those "Family Values" RepublicansSeems Ben Cagle is one of five well-off white kids arrested for beating and robbing Guatemalan immigrants. Seems Ben Cagle's grandparents are founding members of Cherokee County, Georgia's Repukelican party. Imagine how bad he'd be if his grandparents were liberals. Hell, he mighta even thought racism was wrong. Orcinus has the details.There's more of those fine Repukelican values on display in the very next post down at Orcinus. Billy Yow, a Republican County Commissioner in N. Carolina, has been selling a t-shirt for eight months that features the Confederate stars-and-bars and a character pissing on the letters NAACP. He says it's just free speech, and he's right. It's just racist free speech. Why don't those dumbass black folks vote Repukelican? Oh, I remember. Cuz they ain't a tenth as dumb as dumbass Repukelicans think they are. Yeah, Democrats often take black votes for granted, an' it pisses me off. I 'magine it pisses black folks off more'n it does me. But how many black folks in their right minds're gonna vote for a party so frequently associated with racism? Oh, now I remember that too. 'Bout ten percent, though I doubt they're all in their right minds.
posted
3:53 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Royal Court Stenographer Publishes Lies In The NYTJosh Marshall presents more evidence that the execrable Judith Miller of the "liberal" NYT ought to be arrested for pimping for the administration.
posted
11:17 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Patriotic American FascistsOrcinus posts on a story from Fresno where a Freeper tried, in hostile fashion, to disrupt an anti-war rally. The organizer, Ken Hudson, said he'd call the police if the man did not desist. He didn't desist, so Hudson called sheriff's deputies who came out and made an arrest -- of Hudson. Wonder whose side they're on. There're links in the post to eliminationist rhetoric, death threats, and more of the typical crap we've come to expect from right wingers.My point is, we gotta stand up ta these yokels. We gotta call 'em on their bullshit. I know most liberals don't wanta get down in the mud an' wrestle, but ya not only can't back down ta these pukes, ya can't even appear ta them ta back down. These mouthy punks are bullies and cowards and they know it. But you've got to call them that, because they don't know you know it. If ya don't confront 'em, they think yer afraid of 'em. If ya don't confront 'em, ya embolden them. An' we gotta back their asses off now lest they become a majority. That happened in Germany's Weimar Republic an' by tha time the liberals realized what'd happened, their cause was lost. The lesson of Germany and Italy is ya gotta stop tha fascist fucks before they get their little monkey mitts on too much of society. Funny thing is, the dingers're doin' all tha threatenin', all the talkin' 'bout civil war an' eliminatin' liberals, all the pointin' out that "Remember, we've got the guns, g'ya huk, g'ya huk, g'ya huk," but they seem blissfully unaware that they're also a small minority. Every protest, every rally, every march, every action, if ya tote 'em all up, the leftists far outnumber the rightists. In Fresno they had 200 people turn out for the anti-war protest. A grand total of three Freepers, as best I can tell, turned out in opposition. An' Free Republic is based in Fresno. The dingers ever get their damn civil war, which I don't they've actually got the guts for, we'll whip 'em easy. But blood will run in tha streets, an' I don' think anybody wants ta see that except a few right wing idjiots. Last year Atrios posted this: If I were given a choice of pressing one of two buttons - one to do away with terrorism or another to do away with those Democrats up in Washington - I wouldn't even have to think about it. I would do away with the Democrats, and do this country a favor.Now thass an honest ta God, patriotic American fascist fuckhead.
posted
11:07 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Left Is Subversive By DefinitionFBI Shadowed Kerry During Activist EraIntelligence officials referred to the [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] in their reports as the "New Left." "Due to abundant indications of subversive influence, we are actively investigating VVAW," read one FBI report from 1971.Ya know, cuz if ya speak out and ya ain't right wing, yer automatically a subversive. The dingers still believe that today. Cuz in Amurricah, ya can b'lieve anthin' ya want, so long as it's not left a center. And remember, capitalism's enshrined in tha Constitution. Course it is.
posted
8:37 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Door Ain't Revolvin' - It's Spinnin' Like A TopIn the Hall as a Lobbyist After Time in the HouseBack when Steve Largent, the Hall of Fame wide receiver, was playing football for the Seattle Seahawks, he was hired to give inspirational talks to the employees of Cellular One, a mobile phone company. The year was 1984. Cellphones were still novelties and as big as bricks.Which, I'm thinkin', is what fully qualified him ta be a Repukelican Congress Critter. In November, he became chief executive of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, the industry's main lobbying group, a position that now puts him squarely in the middle of several controversial policy battles.Big ol' industry lobbies hirin' people relatively fresh from gummint service to head their efforts to manipulate said gummint, but, hey, every American voter has an equal say in gummint. That's tha Amurrican way.
posted
8:02 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush Doing Such A Good Job In IraqDelivery Delays Hurt U.S. Effort to Equip IraqisSenior American commanders in Iraq are publicly complaining that delays in delivering radios, body armor and other equipment have hobbled their ability to build an effective Iraqi security force that can ultimately replace United States troops here.The Iraq war has been one giant clusterfuck, a total FUBAR, and Bush is braggin' on what a good job he's done. And now a word from our sponsor: Get the JetCo 6000 sextuple blade razor today. It's six blades actually peel the flesh right off your face and cut the hair so far back that you won't have to shave for a week. Painlessly. The JetCo 6000, cuz you'll b'lieve any fuckin' thing. (May result in some minor scarring .) (SNL actually did this bit with a mere three blade razor, proving, perhaps, that if irony is dead, capitalism killed it.)
posted
7:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush Two-Faced On God And The PledgeWell, why not? He is about everything else.One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does 'Under God' Mean? According to the Bush administration, which is defending the pledge, its recitation is no more a religious act than pocketing a coin imprinted with "In God We Trust." The administration's brief says both are simply patriotic acknowledgments of "the nation's religious history" and of the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God," an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state.So the pledge, as written, according to Bush, is merely an empirical statement and no threat to separation of church and state while, at the same time, it proclaims "our reliance on God." But Kerry's a flip-flopper. Bush is just an improbable straddler. What kills me about this whole thing, along with gay marriage and the ten commandments, is that evangeli-fundie Christians continually argue that we nasty liberals and leftists and gay rights supporters are trying to impose our lifestyle on them. Which amounts to arguing that if they don't get to impose their lifestyle on everyone else, that's an imposition on them. Well, I suppose it is in a way. It's a limitation on their "right" to legally coerce others. We also limit the "rights" of people to murder and steal, which is an imposition on them. We need to distinguish between limitations on the individual that increase general freedom and those that reduce it. A teacher led recitation of the pledge is certainly coercion and limits personal freedom for no good reason. Don't come at me with that "voluntary" bullshit. What do you think happens to the kids who don't say it once they're out on the playground? Commie's is probably one of the nicer things they'll hear. The problem with extreme libertarians, and I think anarchists, though I've never been able to quite figure out anarchists, is that they don't understand that without limits to freedom, there is no freedom. People must be prevented from harming and coercing others to have anything like freedom. And coercion is a broader category than libertarians think. God needs ta git his ass outta gummint. Do whatcha want in yer churches, yer homes, hell, if ya must, even in public. But take yer grubby hands off gummint. Quit usin' gummint to coerce others into accepting your beliefs. If God in gummint ain't unconstitutional, then it sure as hell oughta be.
posted
6:51 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 21, 2004 Clarke's 60 Minutes Turn Ought To Be DevastatingIn 1999, when George Tenet at CIA warned Bill Clinton of impending, major terrorist attacks, Clinton sent his cabinet to "battle stations," meaning they met almost daily. In 2001, George Bush was warned by George Tenet in June, July, and August of the imminence of a major terrorist attack. His cabinet never went to battle stations.So says Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who served the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II White Houses. On January 24, 2001, Clarke sent a memo to Condi Rice urgently requesting a high level cabinet meeting to address terrorism. Luckily, he got it. On September 4, 2001. Clarke was asked on CBS' 60 Minutes if someone who worked in the White House didn't owe the president loyalty, and wasn't his book disloyal. He said yes, up to a point. But the President put American lives at risk. Clarke believes the Iraq war was a terrible mistake that made Americans and the world less safe. He said we stepped into bin Laden's trap. OBL had been warning muslims that the US would attack an oil rich nation, and that's exactly what Bush did. Now terrorist recruitment has reached new highs. There was no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or Al Qaeda, but the Bushies kept saying look again, look again. A course Stephen Hadley, depity NSA, in essence says Clarke's a liar. He denies everything. As if he could do anything else. What's he gonna say? "Well, Clarke's right. We totally screwed the pooch." He even claimed the White House could find no record of a meeting between Clarke and Bush in which Bush pressured him to find the goods on Iraq. Didn't even phase him when Leslie Stahl said 60 Minutes had two sources who independently confirmed Clarke's story. Didn't happen, didn't happen. Who ya gonna b'lieve? Me? Or yer lyin' eyes? So Clarke's a liar, Greg Theilman's a liar, Karen Kwiatkowski's a liar, Joe Wilson's a liar, Gen. Anthony Zinni's a traitor, Paul O'Neill's a liar. Damn. The prez sure has had a lotta liar's workin' fer 'im. None of the people I just mentioned, butchew know.
posted
8:34 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
And Here's Why Most "Moderates" Are FoolsFormer Candidates Urge More Civil U.S. Campaign"Let's keep it civil so we don't get so nasty that we discourage people from coming out and voting in a very important election," [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday."See Joe? That's why nobody voted fer yer silly, right wing ass. An' what was ya doin' on Faux News, anyway? Damn Dino. Cute line an' all, ya know? Been hearing it all my life, ya know? An' maybe even it used ta be true, or maybe I just used ta be more naive. I mean there's gotta be some reason why ever'body sez they're votin' fer the lesser a two evils. George Bush is evil. He's responsible, at minimum, for the unnecessary deaths and injuries of many, many thousands of innocents. An', hold on ta yer seats, poison goils. They's worse Republicans than Bush. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay leaps to mind. So does Zell Miller. I don't consider Zell Miller a DINO. I consider him a NAFINO. Not A Fascist In Name Only. Ackshully, that goes for DeLay as well. [Sen. John] McCain said, "If it stays with this tone -- and it is the tone of the campaigns as much as it is specific words -- if the tone doesn't change, you're going to see low voter turnout, particularly among young Americans."I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not too impressed with the CW. Seems more and more like most of what "everybody knows" is wrong. For one thing, why do we assume a negative campaign will turn off the voters? If given a choice between watching Mr. Rogers or the WWF, well, I think the people already cast those votes. Sorry, Rog, everybody'd rather watch a train wreck than a tea party. For another, Kerry has no choice because Bush/Rove made their choice long ago. They are among the dirtiest campaigners in history, as McCain knows from hard experience. Remember his "illegitimate" "black" daughter? An' there's a reason for their choice. Dirty campaigning works. If you're opponent goes dirty and you don't, you'll almost certainly lose. You can't afford to take the high road when they take the low road. That was part of Al Gore's problem in 2000. Kerry better damn sure go dirty hard and long. Otherwise we get four more years of the evildoers.
posted
6:52 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush Is Hip PropagandaA Bush Surprise: Fright-Wing SupportI know this is supposed to be a man bites dog story, but the problem is it's not. Gosharoony, Punkers support Bush! OK, that is kinda shocking until you read the whole article and find that only a very small percentage of Punks support Bush and the GOP. What's surprising about that? Oh. Nothing. So what's the point of the story if it isn't just pro-Bush propaganda? My guess is skinhead racists probably support Bush too, but I don't see the papers goin' on about it. How come the story doesn't focus on the massive support for Kerry among Punkers? Too boring? Yeah, like this story's exciting.
posted
2:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Evidence The Media's A Right Wing Propaganda MachineThe Keywords blog's comment on Eric's Altercation with a seemingly stoned Dennis Miller.But there is a more depressing story here. We always here about "the market" and how important ratings and market forces are for determining TV programming, but the more you learn about how the industry works, you find out that it is ideology and not market forces that actually drives programming decisions:And Alterman's comment which provoked it: Really, what can CNBC be thinking with this guy? His ratings are not just in the toilet they have traveled all the way to the septic tank. And as we all know, they need to pay audience members to show up. It has got to cost more than the Phil Donahue show to produce, given the size of the audience and the set and that was yanked even though it was then the highest rated show on MSNBC.I DON'T BELIEVE THE RIGHT WING MEDIA. At least not without confirmation.
posted
1:39 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Raygun Won The Cold War And America Lost The WorldThe last is true, the first is very unlikely. I gotta highly recommend this online book. It's 180 pages not counting the end notes, and I think it was published about 1991, so it's a little out of date, but a fine review of the US's militarist history since WWII, and discusses what we ought to be doing differently. We've made so many enemies around the world that it's simply childish not to think about what America has done to bring on both hatred and terrorist attacks. It's entirely possible to condemn terrorist acts and examine our own faults. Ya might even call that an adult reaction.Today, many security analysts contend that the controlled arms race was a great success, because it hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. By forcing the Kremlin to allocate huge sums of money on defense, according to this argument, the controlled arms race weakened the Soviet economy and stoked discontent in the Soviet people. There's no evidence, however, that the Soviets responded to the Reagan arms buidup by jacking up military spending. According to the CIA, Soviet military spending both before and during the Reagan Administration's rearmament program grew at a steady two percent per year.So how, exactly, did Raygun win the Cold War? I'm dyin' ta hear. To protect democracy, as well as to defend its business and political interests abroad, the United States built up and maintained a vast interventionary apparatus, which included some 700 bases spread across 40 countries and territories and a navy with nearly 600 ships patrolling the world's oceans.I don't see how that can not look like imperialism to the rest of the world. U.S. armed forces fought undeclared wars in Korea, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq [twice now], and U.S. intelligent agents undertook or supported covert actions in more than 40 countries. The morality of these interventions, which killed, maimed, napalmed, bombed, and tortured many millions of people, is dubious.Many millions of people. And I'm sure their friends and relatives all love us. Faced with a choice between the unpredictability of revolutionary reform and the certainty of conservative dictatorship, American presidents have often supported the latter. In a few instances they resolved to replace popularly elected but left-leaning governments with dictators that were reliably anti-Communist.And I'm sure the people of those countries all love us. Oh, wait, one of 'ems Iran, and they hate our guts. Hm.
posted
1:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
NY Times Still Stumping For BushI don't know who wrote this headline. It's an AP story in the NYTs. I'm pretty sure the Times' headline writers wrote it, though. The NYT has been pretty pro-Iraq war all along. Witness the work of Judith Miller, stenographer to the Iraqi National Congress.Thousands Take to the Streets in Global Antiwar Demonstration Thousands? Thousands? They make it sound like their were maybe a dozen protesters in each city. The official (always low) estimate in Rome alone was 250,000. I counted up the official estimates in one story and came up with 625,000, and there were no estimates for a great many cities. I read at least five or six different stories on the protests, and I'm pretty sure the total was over a million. And the Times' headline reads, "Thousands." A course, the headline is supposed to reflect the lead paragraph, so lets take a look at that. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world rallied against the U.S. presence in Iraq on the first anniversary of the war Saturday, in protests that retained the anger, if not the size, of demonstrations held before the invasion began.Hundreds of thousands. Hundreds. Yet the headline writer reduces it to thousands. Way to minimize reality, guys. That oughta be worth a perk or two when yer boy gets reelected. What conservative media?
posted
10:19 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Gitmo Practically A Terrorists' ParadiseGuantanamo Detainees Deliver Intelligence GainsEverything's hunky-dory on Gitmo. They've made no mistakes and, screw human rights, they're gettin' intelligence from the prisoners. Hope they know they can't transplant it to baBushka. They've dotted all the T's and crossed all the I's. I b'lieve everything they say, too, cuz it's every American's patriotic duty to b'lieve everything Fearless Leader and his minions say, just like the Russians with Stalin. 'Sides, I been in tha military an' nobody ever did nothin' wrong, 'less ya count sellin' our food on the black market ta buy paint. Ya can't eat paint.
posted
7:42 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 20, 2004 Kerry Soft On Defense, Record Shows . . . .Or his opponents are soft in the head. This is from Kitty Seelye, the Kerry hatchet mistress, so, ya know.After 19 Years in Senate, Kerry of Today Is Far From Kerry of 1985 Of the 19 defense authorization bills he has voted on during his Senate career, he supported 16.Criminy! Whatta ya have ta do ta be hard on defense? Vote fer ev'y thing, no mattah what?
posted
10:26 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bombing Group Reportedly Wants Bush Re-ElectedUncommon Thought Journal indeed.An Islamic militant group that had claimed responsibility for the train bombings in Spain says it supports the re-election of President George W. Bush. The group said it needs what it calls Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" to "wake up" the Islamic world.So Kerry's got unnamed leaders, and Bush is endorsed by terrorists. Which thoughtful people already knew.
posted
7:47 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Faith Based Con Jobs - Elmer Gantry, now BushwaThe Fruit of the Tree. This is a great post on the dangers of wolves in sheeps clothing, such as journalist Jack Kelly, the serial fabricator at USA Today who wore his evangelical Christianity as a shield, and maybe one or two other folks.George Bush often speaks of his compassion. I've yet to see him show it. Am I missing something?Yep, the devil's gonna be a Baptist preacher, or something similar. An' that's all I gotta say about Bushie boy for the moment. Fundamentalists'll b'lieve anything."Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves."
posted
7:28 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Global Warming Set To Get Its Party StartedCarbon Dioxide Reported at Record LevelsThat year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.Pre-industrial era, it was only 280 parts per billion, and I got swell news, peebles. Five point eight degrees Celsius could well be no friggin' way in the world you can adapt bad. It could result in the die off of most mammal life, including us'ns. So what's "Who, me? Worry?" Bushwa doin' 'bout it? The United States, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, signed the [Kyoto Protocol] but did not ratify it, and the Bush administration has since withdrawn U.S. support, calling instead for voluntary emission reductions by U.S. industry and more scientific research into climate change.In other words, nothin'. 'Nother bit a news. Kyoto ain't nearly good enough, we're gonna have ta do a lot more'n that. But Bushwa's doin' nothin'. UPDATE: U.N. Urges Russia to Save Climate Plan IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE?OK, grandkids, say, "Thank you, President Bushwa."
posted
6:38 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
AP's Solomon Cribs Kerry Bashing Article From RNCCJR's Campaign Desk has uncovered evidence that AP reporter John Solomon lifted parts of his article, Kerry's 1994 Effort to Cut Defense Eyed, directly from the RNC's research brief EVEN FELLOW DEMOCRATS WARNED KERRY ABOUT HIS DANGEROUS CUTS. The RNC has twenty-three quotes from "fellow Democrats," (The horror!) but all of them come from only two senators, Dennis DeConcini, AZ, and Daniel Inouye, HI. John Solomon's AP article brings the number of critical senators quoted up to a nice round three with the addition of Robert Byrd.Solomon wrote, ""And that's just what Kerry's fellow Democrats had to say," and he used two quotes identical to those in the RNC research brief. Could be a coincidence, but not very likely. The budgets from which Kerry wanted to cut $1 billion per year totaled $25.8 billion at the time. The RNC's hit piece claims, "KERRY PROPOSED SLASHING INTELLIGENCE BUDGET." Yes. "Slashing" it by 3.9%. Admittedly, that's a pretty decent sized cut, but if I slashed my personal budget, which is quite small, by 3.9%, it would be uncomfortable, but I don't think it would be all that painful. Was it a good idea? I really don't know, but by the eighth paragraph (The arrangement of paragraphs is one of many ways to subtly bias a news story.) Solomon finally quotes Kerry himself on the issue. "What we have offered to the Senate is an opportunity to register our votes for real choices, for a set of choices that reflect what the American people would really like to be spending their money on as opposed to being forced to spend it by the continuation of programs that the president has asked to have cut; that the National Academy of Sciences boards have said are worthless; that most of the evaluations say are wasteful," Kerry argued.Now, if that last bit's true, and I don't know of any reason to think it's not, t'would seem Sen. Kerry might've had a good point. The fact that 75 senators voted against might only prove how beholden most are to the military-industrial complex. Campaign Desk titled their post "Echo Chamber." It sure looks like the AP is part of the mighty Wurlitzer. Considering this and other recent articles, and the beating the press gave Al Gore in the last presidential campaign, why would anyone suspect a conservative bias in the media?
posted
5:53 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush The Terror Destroyer, & Other JokesAide: Rumsfeld Urged Iraq Attack Sooner[Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time (of 9/11)] also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.Clarke spent 30 years in government service. He's a counterterroism pro, not a wild-eyed partisan. What inna hell we gotta do ta get this gun ta smoke? If the "war on terror" is really Bush's strength, he oughta lose in a landslide.
posted
2:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Capitalism More Important Than Democracy To BushBBC Newsnight carries an interview with Jay Garner by Greg Palast. Turns out one of the ways Garner ran afoul of the Bushies was by focusing on Democratic institutions instead of forcing a radical "free" market economy on the Iraqis. About that Iraqis could not be allowed a choice. "Democracy," Republican style. The Guardian also did a piece on the interview.Kind of amazing how many generals, both active and retired, have run afoul of the Bushies. But you know how left wing the military is. Thanks to Ungodly Politics.
posted
1:34 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Cut "Waste & Fraud," Cut The "Fat"Jus' like I allays thought, people're people wherever ya go. Turns out Georgia's a lot like Cal-ee-forn-eye-ay. Dipshits (I consider most people dipshits, so it's not all that strong an epithet coming from me.) all over the golden state voted for Schwarzenwhoopie cuz he promised he'd balance the budget by cutting waste an' fraud, not raising taxes. He could'n find any significant waste an' fraud, so now he's cuttin' tha shit outta programs for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill. The dipshits blame the failure to cut waste an' fraud on the Democratic legislature, but then there's Georgia.Legislators cut 'fat' that state needs During their long years in the political wilderness, Georgia Republicans would preach endlessly about the thick layers of fat that they knew existed in state government. If voters ever showed enough wisdom to put the GOP in power, they promised, they would cut all that fat and be able to cut taxes, too.We allays blame tha politicians for this shit but tha truth is we oughta blame the voters. Most seem ta b'lieve that there's endless room to cut "waste and fraud." My grandmother was like that. Went around chanting, "Waste and fraud, aauckk! If they'd just cut the waste and fraud." Like a goddamned parrot. She also new the secret to making money on the stock market. "Buy low, sell high. Aauckk! Buy low, sell high." Who knew it was so fuckin' easy? T'other thing is, all most voters ever ask is how much a program costs. They never ask how much it costs not to do it. But thass a pretty fuckin' impo'tant question. What both Georgia and California need is a tax hike, but any politician who calls for a tax hike during his campaign is dead on arrival. Hope ta hell that don't hold true wit' Kerry. An' most politicians involved in actually raising taxes're in trouble come tha next election. The truth about the voters is, they really, really want the services. They just don't want to pay for 'em. I guess they ain't no hope we'll ever grow up. Tip O'The Tam to Omnium.
posted
12:35 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Racism As Sickness - In New Zealand As In The USAntipodean Pain: The Psychopathology of Don BrashThe idea that the event of the Orewa speech is symptomatic of psychic disturbance is suggested by the most striking aspect of Brash’s speech and its aftermath: the insistence that Maori enjoy both privilege and special legal rights. Brash articulated this fantasy of special privilege and legal rights for Maori in two key passages of the Orewa speech. The first invoked the imaginary of Maori privilege, while the second fantasized about greater legal rights for tangata whenua:Geez, where have I heard similar arguments? Shall we take a look at these "special privileges" the Maoris receive? Unemployment: in the past six years, Maori unemployment has fallen from 19% to 10%. Meanwhile, Pakeha unemployment went from 8% in 1991 to just 3.3%.Just substitute black for Maori and nothing fundamental changes about the tale. Whites like me oughta be damn grateful that we don't get the same fuckin' "special privileges." Gotta warn ya, it's rather a deep post.
posted
11:42 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
World Should Clean Up George's Mess - On His TermsBush: Iraq Is 'Global Responsibility'Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. Bush started it over the opposition of the UN and much of the world, Bush refuses to turn over the rebuilding to the UN (which would stop the Spanish pullout) because they might not rebuild Iraq the way he (not Iraqi's) wants to, but it's a global responsibility. That attitude shouldn't alienate any allies.
posted
9:23 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The War On Terra Is Bush's Strong Suit?Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on QaedaSenior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act.Zelikow not only served on the transition team, he co-authored a book with Rice, and Zelikow is on the 9/11 Commission. How inna hell duzzat make sense? There ought not to be any doubt that the Clintonista's warned the Bushies. There ought to be no doubt because the Bushies admit it. "The president and his team received briefings on the threat from Al Qaeda prior to taking office, and fighting terrorism became a top priority when this administration came into office," Sean McCormack, a White House spokesman, said.Yet what was the result? STOPPING TERRORISM VS. PROMOTING THE RIGHT: NO CONTEST Since the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, followed by attacks on U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the suicide ramming of the U.S.S. Cole only 11 months before 9/11, there were growing signs, picked up by the CIA, U.S. military intelligence, and their counterparts in Europe and the Middle East, that more such attacks were in the offing. Yet on September 10, 2001 (yes, that's the right date), Attorney General John Ashcroft submitted the final budget request for the Justice Department for fiscal 2003 to Budget Director Mitchell Daniels. Ashcroft dismissed FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts, and 54 additional translators. Instead, he proposed reductions in 14 such programs; one was a $65 million cut for state and local governments for counterterrorism equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training for preparedness.Cute, huh? At least Condi Rice was on the ball. David Corn wrote of the 9/11 Commission report in July, 2003: The report is a good start in establishing the historical record. It reads at times like tragedy, at other times almost as farce. The signs were there. Few paid attention. Two, if not more, of the hijackers were within reach of US law enforcement, but nobody saw that. Five days after the attacks, Bush said, "No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society." And in May 2002, Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Actually, the report has proof that the attacks of 9/11 were foreseen. Not in terms of date and time. But intelligence reporting indicated and terrorism experts warned that Al Qaeda was interested in mounting precisely these types of attacks. Yet the US government – the Bush II and Clinton administrations – did not prepare adequately. The attacks were far less outside the box than Bush and his aides have suggested. Thwarting them was within the realm of possibility.Now, either Condi Rice is a flat-out liar or she's too lazy or stupid to be the National Security Advisor. I wonder which epithet she'd prefer? That such attacks had been planned had been well known in the intelligence community for years. David Corn can't quite understand this little matter: One crucial matter is missing from the report: how the White House responded to the intelligence on the Al Qaeda threat. That is because the Administration will not allow the committees to say what information reached Bush. The Administration argued, according to a Congressional source, that to declassify "any description of the president's knowledge" of intelligence reports -- even when the content of those reports have been declassified -- would be a risk to national security. It is difficult to see the danger to the nation that would come from the White House acknowledging whether Bush received any of the information listed above or the other intelligence previously described by the committees. (The latter would include a July 2001 report that said bin Laden was looking to pull off a "spectacular" attack against the United States or US interests designed to inflict "mass casualties." It added, "Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning. They are waiting us out, looking for a vulnerability."Luckily, I can explain this. See, if that information were released, it would demonstrate just how fucking stupid the president is, which would embolden terrorists and damage our national security. The administration can always claim that they did a heckuva darn good job after 9/11, but what's 'at prove? What prez would'n a gotten serious about terrorism after 9/11? Oh, wait, this president, since he felt it was more important to pursue a massive and poorly planned diversion in Iraq. Whiskey Bar posts: A Nice Tight Bombing Pattern
posted
8:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 19, 2004 The Party Of Honor And Integrity - And Elephant ShitThe Carpetbagger Report lists Republican Scandal after scandal after scandal, 13 that are currently under investigation, and all since Bush first took office. The WaPo adds several more ethics violations by GOP members of the House. Seems like all Repuke politicians have the morals of Rush Limbooby, a man you can trust with your wife and daughters in a motel room overnight because you can be sure he'll be too loaded on hillbilly heroin to get it up.Thanks to Salon.com.
posted
9:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Common Man Speaks - In The UKAnd this just in...The GOP National Committee announced today that it is changing the Republican emblem from an elephant to a condom because it more clearly reflects the party's political stance, i.e., a condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives one a sense of security while screwing others.
posted
8:00 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Google Bomb The Anti-SemitesI've never participated in a Google bombing before, but this one seems truly worthwhile.Google Bomb Them Back To The Stone Age! If you've ever Googled the word Jew, you may have noticed that an antisemitic hate site, Jew Watch, inexplicably and disturbingly comes up as the top result on what is beyond a doubt the most frequently relied upon search engine in the world. Troubled by his recent discovery of this fact, a staff reporter at San Francisco's j. magazine brought this matter to the attention of Google's executives, who showed little more than indifference towards the revelation.The URL for "Jew" above is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
posted
6:56 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Democracy And Neocon TreacheryOrcinus sure got this right. The Neocon reaction to the Spanish elections is utterly anti-democratic. But neocons have never believed in democracy. What they believe in is Machiavellian tactics coupled with the appearance of democracy. If you don't realize you're not free, you won't struggle for your freedom. Won't work on everybody, but maybe enough.
posted
5:29 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Democratic Mr. BushHe don't even bother to pretend. From Salon.com:It was July 4, 2001, and we were both at one of those things that the late historian Daniel Boorstin would have labeled a "pseudo event": a church picnic in Philadelphia, designed to help promote George W. Bush's faith-based policies. Because I had serious misgivings about the president's performance to that point, my own involvement in the whole operation had left me feeling a bit like a pseudo person, so when I had the chance to shake Bush's hand, I said, "Mr. President, I hope you only serve one term. I'm very disappointed in your work so far."Hell, he's only an American citizen, why the hell should King George I of Amerika care what he thinks? Thanks to Orcinus.
posted
5:13 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
My Sentiments ExactlyFrom a commenter on Talk Left:Vote for Kerry or Bush, and you'll be left in a field of shi* a foot deep.
posted
4:38 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Idiot Culture? So It's Not Just Me Thinks So.Ex-Watergate writer laments 'idiot culture'But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."Gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy passing for news, Carl sez. He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.And not a damned thing we can do about it as long as we place capitalism (greed) uber alles. Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."
posted
2:54 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Iraq Roundup - Bush's Excellent QuagmireMuch news on Iraq today. Let's start with stuff the Bushies were wrong about -- or lied about. One's as bad as the other. These excerpts are from the WaPo.--WMDs --Links to Al Qaeda --Cost On April 23, 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, laid out in a televised interview the costs to U.S. taxpayers of rebuilding Iraq. "The American part of this will be $1.7 billion," he said. "We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."It's only cost 44 times as much as administration estimates so far. We ain't done spendin' yet. Wolfowitz and the OMB were similarly off and they had no excuses. They were given better estimates and chose to ignore them. --The welcome we would receive in Iraq. "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," Vice President Cheney said in a March 16 interview.Six hundred and seventy-four dead coalition soldiers and more than 3200 wounded later, I'm hopin' nobody ever greets me as a liberator. The presence of U.S.-led forces in Iraq is opposed by 51 percent of Iraqis. -- That Neocon wave of democracy in the Middle East. The administration's forecast that the toppling of Hussein would start a wave of democracy and a disavowal of terrorism in the region has not yet happened. There has been progress; Libya, for example, has since relinquished its nuclear weapons program. But while the administration had often predicted that Hussein's ouster could resolve the impasse between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the standoff between the two has worsened.I'd like to see the odds the bookies are makin' on that. -- Making us safer from terrorism. Blix: War didn't help world The one positive result Blix sees from the war: Independent inspection teams should gain greater credibility in international weapons crises because the UN team's work in Iraq has held up so well.No doubt right dingbats will ridicule Blix' statement, but remember, Blix has been ridiculed by right dingers before on WMD in Iraq. Look who turned out right. So can we call it quagmire yet? Salon thinks so. Welcome to the quagmire The Bush administration invaded Iraq a year ago expecting a shower of rose petals. Today, the country is on the verge of chaos, and there may be no way to stop it. By Juan Cole, who knows a little 'bout tha Middle East. And now, it seems, the so-called "coalition of the willing" may not be all that willing anymore. Spain and Poland have announced plans to pull out, and South Korea is gettin' pretty damn squishy. It wasn't much of a coalition ta begin wit'. Ninety countries (Wow!) contributing an average of 267 soldiers each (Not so wow.), less in the hot stages of the war. Twelve thousand of those troops are British. Take them away and you have 89 countries contributing 135 soldiers each, about one tenth of one percent of all troops in Iraq. That kinda international support just makes me all tingly inside. This is one of the accomplishments Bush intends to base his campaign on? How come every time Bush "accomplishes" something it puts the US deeper in the shit? Thanks, in great part, to Salon.com.
posted
10:04 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Then Bush Is Insane"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.""No jobs yet? More tax cuts!" -- Bush in essence.
posted
7:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 18, 2004 McCain The Voice Of Reason. Last One In The GOP?Holy Shit! I think I could kiss John McCain if he promised to keep his lips clamped.McCain Comes to Kerry's Defense on National Security Senator John McCain added a rare bit of restraint to the escalating tone of the presidential campaign today, rejecting assertions by other Republicans that his colleague, Senator John Kerry, would endanger national security if elected.I've said it before, McCain belongs to a seemingly dying breed of decent, thoughtful conservatives. Use ta be a lotta them back in tha day. Ya know yer an ol' fart when ya start talkin' 'bout the good ol' use ta be. But watcha gonna do?
posted
5:46 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Typical Right Winger, Sullivan Will Say AnythingI am ever impressed by the right's willingness, one might say eagerness, to lie shamelessly. Andrew Sullivan writes:MoveOn's ad attacking Donald Rumsfeld is not entirely fair. Rumsfeld never said that the threat from Iraq was imminent, or immediate, but that he could not know for sure.Yet the transcript of Face The Nation, quoting Rumsfeld, reads (pg. 6): Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'Now if anyone claims that his statement was not intended to convey the idea that the threat from Iraq was "immediate," which means the same thing as imminent, then I'm gonna have ta bring up Bill Clinton trying to parse a 2-letter word.
posted
5:14 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
None Dare Call It Fascism IILemme see now. Fascists and Nazis hated communists, socialists, liberals, dissidents, trade unionists and homosexuals. They liked (among other things) nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission (American exceptionalism.), aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit; and reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism. They also hated equality and fraternity, and had a peculiar view of liberty.All this reminds of some political movement in America, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Course, we got lots a good, God fearin' (And if you've read your Old Testament, you know why they're afraid.) Christians in America, and I'm sure they'd save us from fascism, except that Christianity is a natural ally of the bosses and authoritarian government. Christianity, after all, is authoritarian. Nobody gets to vote for God. Nobody gets to question God either. Yet God is an absolute ruler. Fascists and Christianity can get along just fine. Ya know, historically, the left has championed democracy, though there've been a few wrong turns. I'd like to know what the right has done to promote democracy. Historically. Iraq don't count. I suspect Iraq really don't count.
posted
4:36 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
None Dare Call It FascismLittle Soldiers in the Culture WarWhile the students at the Charter School of Excellence are divided fairly evenly between blacks and whites, they dress alike, with the boys in dark blue pants and green buttoned-up golf shirts and the girls wearing white blouses under plaid jumpers. All eyes are focused on their young and attractive teacher, Mrs. Blocker, who leads them in song:Yep, outstanding character training. Servile Character First! Sounds like they forget to tell 'em to spy on their neighbors and friends, though. David Clark, the spokesman for the 65,000-member Florida Teaching Profession-National Education Association, said: "We are suspicious and leery of those types of things. This is not Mao's China. It sounds innocent on its face, but it smacks of thought police and a lock step mentality."It sounds innocent on its face? To who? Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, the Bush Family? That rumbling sound you hear is George Orwell's body breaking the sound barrier as he spins in his grave. Character First! has been taught in more than 250 public schools across the country, according to CTI's representatives.Welcome to Amerika. In an interesting sidelight, the article shows how easy it is to buy government in Florida -- and probably everywhere else. Tip O'The Tam to Jesus' General.
posted
12:46 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Are The Humans Leaving The Sinking Rat?Spain's announced they will pull out of Iraq, now this:Poland 'Misled' on Iraq, President Says President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was "misled" about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.We were all deliberately misled, including we the people. When will the people realize that Bushwa is a compulsive, serial liar? And is this a sign that "democratic" governments may finally listen to their people? Polling the Poles on their military presence in Iraq: A poll last week found 42 percent of adults in favor and 53 percent opposed. The CBOS survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
posted
11:48 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Asscroft's Internet Snooping On The Wrong TrackAnd it's headed for you.From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLUIt's a free fax, man, how can you pass that up?
posted
11:06 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Some Economists Rethinking "Free" Trade - FinallyIf you can call what economists do thinking. I think of it more as faith-based number-crunching. Old joke about economists: A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a can of beans, but they have no way to open the can. The physicist says, "Maybe if one of us climbs that tree and drops the can onto that rock it will burst open and then we can eat." The chemist says, "We could use seawater to corrode the can so it weakens to the point that we could open it." And the economist says, "No, no, you guys are going about this all wrong. First, we assume a can opener."Too much truth in that joke. Too much of economics is based on assumptions rather than fact. Hiding in the NYT Business section (We reported it, honest. Just not where regular people might read it.), because regular people aren't interested in trade and its affect on their jobs, I guess, was this: Questioning Free Trade Mathematics Economist's generally assume that free trade is a net benefit to society. So far, their studies still support that, but the support is declining. And how come nobody ever asks, "Benefit to whom?" I mean, if it benefits the rich and hurts everyone else, I don't call that a benefit. If it benefits the top 20% or 40% and hurts everyone else, that ain't a benefit. In general, most economists believe that the "consumer surplus" that results from lower prices far outweighs the cost of lost jobs or lower wages. In other words, there are many more winners than losers. But recent research suggests that the magnitude of this advantage has been exaggerated. Also, the plight of the losers has clearly been sorely neglected in the economic literature.Jesus. A 100-1. Does the system have that much slack in it? Actually, no. It is hard to argue with such a lopsided benefit. But Mr. Klein, Mr. Schuh and Mr. Triest note that Mr. Magee neglected crucial costs of job dislocation, like the likelihood of displaced workers being paid a lower wage when they got new jobs. A 1980 study took into account more job dislocation costs, but found that benefits from a 50 percent cut in global tariffs still exceeded dislocation costs 20 to 1. Such results understandably led economists to neglect the costs of job dislocation.Tol' ya economists make stupid assumptions. Astonishingly stupid in this case. For example, the authors find that in a large sample of manufacturers, 1.3 jobs per 100 were lost on balance each year from 1973 to 1993. But 10.2 jobs per 100 were destroyed, while 8.8 were created. (The discrepancy is a result of rounding.)So roughly 10% of workers suffered serious expenses and dislocations in their lives that usually resulted in downward mobility every year for 20 years. That's a staggering burden on the average American. The authors estimate that if some of these costs of job dislocation were taken into account, the benefits of trade would outweigh the costs by a far smaller margin. For example, the ratio in the 1980 study would be reduced from 20 to 1 to only 2 to 1.Yeah, 2-1 sounds nice, but the benefit's gone down with each successive study. Who's to say the latest study is right? And again I ask, where does that benefit go? Sure don't look like it's goin' ta tha workers. On the other hand, keeping domestic wages high adds to the demand that can generate productivity gains.Yeah, we're doin' a real good job a keepin' wages high. Moreover, the basic tenets of free trade assume that the economy is operating at full employment - in other words, almost everyone who wants a job can find one.And there's another major, stupid assumption. And this stuff is stupid on its face. A PhD ought to spot it easily, yet they don't. When's the last time we saw full employment? So ya can't trust a fuckin' one a these studies. If there is a big net gain from trade, as there is from technological improvements which also result in dislocation, why is it morally wrong to take some money in taxes from the winners to help those who've lost through no fault of their own? Because the winners earned it? Bullshit. Nobody has truly earned everything they have. There's all kinds of luck involved. Because "free" market theology demands it? Armadillo shit. Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.Goddamn right. Are we right wing rats or decent human beings? You have to choose. You right wing dingbats who don't give a fuck who gets hurt in the service of you capitalist theology are going to lose in the long run. You're gonna lose because you're factually wrong, and because you're morally wrong. And ya jus' might wind up in hell.
posted
10:38 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Paperless Electronic Voting Machines - Lefties Just ParanoidYa know, lefties like Fortune Magazine and state Senator Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, California. Knight-Ridder Election 2004 reports"Paperless electronic voting machines were chosen by Fortune magazine as the "worst new technology" of 2003 for good reason. Not only are they horribly insecure, but they make it enormously difficult to detect error or fraud (see "Diebold PR department files early entry in 2004 "Black is White" contest, Electronic voting machines able to simulate Daley-era Chicago") And yet by November of this year, almost every state in the union will be using them to count votes in the upcoming presidential election. So it's reassuring to read of the efforts of two California legislators who are calling for a ban on the use of touch-screen voting machines this fall. Citing malfunctions in e-voting machines during the recent primary, state Sens. Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, asked Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to decertify all touch-screen voting machines before the upcoming general election. "[The March 2 primary] was a test-flight of widespread use of these machines. I think it's fair to say the test flight crashed and burned," said Perata. "None of us wants California to be the sequel to Florida."Though conflicted about it, I've added Knight-Ridder's election blog to the blogroll. They're union busters, for which I carry a personal grudge, but they have damn good reporters and we need the information.
posted
8:00 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 17, 2004 Iraq On The RecordThis is good. They got a report, they got a searchable database containing 237 misleading or false statements, and that's conservative. Perfect for convincing that undecided voter that the White House is chock full o' lying sacks o' salamander shit.The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq, compiled by Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.
posted
8:24 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Right's Spin Machine Waves Red Flag At TerroristsThe right wing's Might Wurlitzer has been spinning away, insisting that the Spanish elections were a victory for Al Qaeda. It's dangerous blather. They're practically begging for more of the kinds of attacks that hit Madrid. The terrorist attacks in Madrid did not lead to Aznar's party's defeat. First, the Socialists might have won without the attacks. They were down 42-38 in the polls, well within the margin of error. Second, if public opinion did shift after the attacks, it wasn't as a result of the attacks. It was a result of the Aznar government's lies about the authors of the attacks. The conservatives said ETA, the people knew better and heckled Aznar at the polls, calling him a liar.So it's blather, political spin, no doubt. But why dangerous blather? Because perception matters more than facts. If terrorists believe that the attacks in Spain brought down the Spanish government, some terrorist group will certainly pick their targets based on that perception. Probably several times. And the "conservatives" are deliberately reinforcing that perception. Terrorists never actually "win," nor does anyone actually "lose." Terrorism is not an enemy. It's not a country, it's not an ideology, it's not a group, it's not a person. It's not a thing. Capturing bin Laden won't end terror. Rolling up Al Qaeda won't end terror. A "war" on terror can't be won, because terror is a tactic. As somebody I can't remember said, it's like fighting a war against the flanking maneuver, which is silly. So puffing people up to fight a "war on terror" is not only an exercise in futility, it's an exercise in idiocy. This behavior won't bother the so-called consciences of professional "conservative" spinmeisters. They care much more about politics than they do about people's lives. Besides, terrorism's good for the conservative cause. When people are scared, they tend to run to the right. They forget that the father figure they run to often turns out to be a bully, and bullies don't make good protectors.
posted
6:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Everybody Wants To Come To AmericaWell, not quite. Though this is one of the dingers' favorite claims, and though I think they sincerely believe it, it's yet another example of what dipshits they are. Second and Third World people may well think, correctly for the most part, that they will have better lives in America, but people from advanced countries don't share that view. According to a Pew Research Center poll, A Year After Iraq War:Americans overwhelmingly believe this to be the case -- 88% say people who move to the U.S. from other countries have a better life. By contrast, just 14% of Germans, 24% of French and 41% of British think that people who have moved to the U.S. from their countries have a better life.Anyone with a functioning brain figured this out on their own. But, hey, long as we compare ourselves to Third World hell-holes we come off lookin' pretty good. So that's nice. Here's another thing people with half a brain ought to be able to figure out without Kerry having to "name names." Much of the world hates George Bush's guts. Majorities in every country surveyed except the U.S. have an unfavorable opinion of President Bush, with negative ratings ranging from 57% in Great Britain (with 39% favorable) to 85% negative in both France and Germany. Six-in-ten have an unfavorable view of Bush in Russia, and two-thirds (67%) feel this way in Turkey. Feelings about Bush are nearly unanimously negative in Jordan (96% unfavorable) and Morocco (90%), and are nearly as low in Pakistan (67% unfavorably, 7% favorable, 25% no opinion).
posted
11:22 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Tax Cuts Worked, The Tax Cuts Worked!How do we know? Because Bush says so. But -- worked for who? From the Center for American Progess' Progress Report:"Morgan Stanley now calculates private payrolls are running 8.2 million jobs [below] what would have occurred in a normal recovery - that's more than $400 billion in forgone growth and wages."'Bout the worst recovery on record and Bush is braggin' that the tax cuts are responsible. And that's a good thing -- how? Oh, well, on the bright side, the tax cuts have contributed a great deal to the deficit. Deficit Study Disputes Role of Economy
posted
6:35 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Fact-Checking Bush Ads - Endless DeceptionDid Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?Yes, along with $87 billion worth of other things. But Bush didn't send enough in the first place. Announcer: Few votes in Congress are as important as funding our troops at war. Though John Kerry voted in October of 2002 for military action in Iraq , he later voted against funding our soldiers.Whoopsy. Got a lie right off the bat. The Bush ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.Voting to grant authority to use military force is not at all the same thing as voting to use military force, though I've no doubt the distinction is too subtle for most right dingers. Senate Clerk: Mr. Kerry:That's a no on the whole bill, the only honestly related vote in this whole ad. What did Kerry have to say about this vote? Kerry: And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.Really, all this shit shouldn't be wrapped up in a take-it-or-leave-it package, but that's the way the American government makes sausage. Announcer: Body armor for troops in combat.Eehhnnt! Bullshit alert. No such vote was taken. Don't you think that if an individual vote had been taken to provide body armor to the troops the support would have been unanimous? For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.Hmm. Sent to Iraq without vital equipment. Was that Kerry's fault too? Announcer: Higher combat pay.Same deal, same deal. No specific votes were taken on those issues. Announcer: Wrong on defense.I'm George W. Bush and I approved these blatant lies and distortions of Senator Kerry's record.
posted
6:12 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Balanced News Is Unfair NewsThere's good reason to believe that Hollywood's favorite environmental gadfly is running a scam, and most reporters failed to notice because it was easier to run "balanced" stories. I detest any attempt at balance in the news.Journalists noted that there were two sides of the story: Brockovich-Ellis said there was a problem, while the city and the wells' owner, a company named Venoco, said there wasn't. The New York Times's coverage was typical, offering dueling quotes while leaning toward Brockovich-Ellis's position: a celebrity school's students say oil wells are making them sick, announced a June 17 story.Just because there are two sides doesn't mean the sides should be presented more or less equally. "Is there any evidence that benzene at the levels found at Beverly causes cancer? No," says Thomas Mack, chief of the epidemiology division at the University of Southern California's medical school. "You're just as likely to get cancer from your car stereo."See, that's the story. Ed Masry and Brockovich-Ellis had no evidence for their claims, a fact they only revealed under court order. "Norma works really hard, and she's honest," says USC's Mack, who is less impressed with other journalists' efforts on the Beverly story. "Reporters tend to rely on balance because they're unsure of themselves or not knowledgeable enough to put something in context. So they make it a 'he said, she said' rather than going to a third or fourth source to resolve or try to understand the apparent conflicting information."Norma Zager is editor-in-chief of the Beverly Hills Courier, a free weekly. It's a powerful position. The paper has two editorial employees, counting Zager. Yet she got the story right when few, if any, of the major news outlets did. Why? Because the majors watch the corporate bottom line. That means fewer reporters. It's much cheaper to run "balanced," he said/she said stories than it is to do some digging and get at the facts. One result is the stories we got for years and years about global warming. Many scientists believe we're heading for trouble, but on the other hand some say we're not. Those stories left a lot of people, maybe even the majority of Americans, thinking that whether global warming was a problem we should do something about was an open question. Those stories should have reported that a strong majority of atmospheric scientists thought the problem was both real and serious, and only a minority disagreed. But that would have screwed with the "balance" formula and might have required the stenographers we call reporters to do some actual digging. "Balanced" reporting will bury this country.
posted
5:32 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 16, 2004 Trust Bush - Gitmo Holds Only "Worst Of The Worst"Yet we're letting an awful lot of the worst go free. Twenty-six more released and returned to Afghanistan and Pakistan.Freed Afghans condemn Cuba prison Seems nearly all of them say the US treated them badly on Gitmo. Seems the US still holds about 600 prisoners and 119 have been released, many after being held two years or more. So more than 15% of the "worst of the worst" have been released without charges. So far. Sounds like Just Us to me.
posted
9:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
No Labor Rights, No Freedom, No DemocracyThey go hand in hand. A liberal writing at The American Street criticized unions as elitist organizations that had failed in their duty to organize low-wage and, in particular, agricultural workers. Agricultural workers have no protection under US labor law. They are excluded from the Wagner Act. Liberals and everyone else better understand that the fault does not lie in unions, it lies in US labor law which fails to protect a basic human right, the right of free association of workers. Said right is considered, internationally, a major bulwark of freedom and democracy. Welcome to America, land of the sort of free, home of the getting poorer but still brave.All of the excerpts below come from the Human Rights Watch 2000 report on human rights violations in the US involving labor and the right to organize. The excerpts are lengthy, but if you haven't had personal experience with this stuff you really need to read the whole report. None of this is news to me, and I know HRW ain't makin' it up. I've served on a union bargaining committee, I've been a shop steward, I've taken part in an organizing campaign. I've see this bullshit up close. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions.The following case is pretty typical. HRW has many other examples. V. CASE STUDIES OF VIOLATIONS OF WORKERS' FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATIONThose are all illegal acts by the company, but obtaining judgments from the NLRB and the courts takes years, and then the penalties are puny, a miniscule cost of doing business for the company, far cheaper than allowing a union. In a national poll, 59 percent of workers said it was likely they would lose favor with their employer if they supported an organizing drive. And 79 percent agreed that it was "very" or "somewhat" likely that "nonunion workers will get fired if they try to organize a union." Among employed nonunion respondents, 41 percent believed that "it is likely that I will lose my job if I tried to form a union."How easy is it to intimidate workers who already believe such stuff? One firing should be plenty, but they usually fire more than that. A 1997 study by the Secretariat of the North American Commission for Labor Cooperation under NAFTA's labor side accord reported that employers threaten to close the workplace in half of the organizing campaigns undertaken by workers in the United States, but rarely in Canada or Mexico. Such threats are used even more intensively in U.S. industries where workers feel most vulnerable to shutdowns and relocations. Employers threatened closings in nearly two-thirds of organizing efforts in manufacturing facilities and warehouses.Yep, we sure got a right to organize -- on paper. And that's all. International human rights law prohibits the use of state power to repress workers' exercise of their right to freedom of association. Forming and joining unions, bargaining collectively, or exercising the right to strike may not be banned or rendered impotent by force of law. Officially or unofficially, authorities may not harass workers, arrest them, imprison them, or physically abuse or kill them for such activities.The failure to affirmatively protect the right to organize is a failure to protect a basic human right under international law. In the United States, millions of workers are excluded from coverage by laws to protect rights of organizing, bargaining, and striking. For workers who are covered by such laws, recourse for labor rights violations is often delayed to a point where it ceases to provide redress. When they are applied, remedies are weak and often ineffective. In a system replete with all the appearance of legality and due process, workers' exercise of rights to organize, to bargain, and to strike in the United States has been frustrated by many employers who realize they have little to fear from labor law enforcement through a ponderous, delay-ridden legal system with meager remedial powers.Those figures have fallen to around 13% total and less than 9% in the private sector, and not because unions are outdated. Other democracies have not had similar declines. The US drop in union density began with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over the veto of Harry Truman, who denounced it as a "slave-labor bill". The effects didn't show up for some years and were accelerated by the passage of the Landrum-Griffith Act in 1959. The orginal Wagner Act, creating the NLRB, by-de-by, is named for a Republican Senator. Try to imagine a Republican voting for it today. This is supposed to be government of, by, and for the people. What are the majority of Americans? They're workers. So how come workers have no real rights in this great "democracy?" What do you call a country that ignores a basic human right? Certainly, authoritarian comes to mind. As does evil/savage/facist/fuck-the-worker land.
posted
8:25 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Stop One-Party Rule In AmericaThe Republicans are out to destroy any chance of the Democratic Party having any significant influence on America. John Kerry is launching a $10 million in 10 days fundraising drive today. Bushwa has already raised $160 million, mostly from the rich. If you like the idea of a one-party plutocracy, then please, don't donate. Otherwise, contribute to John Kerry.
posted
11:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Nonsensical Threat From IraqWhat they said, and what they meant to add."There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States." -- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03 If by people of the United States you mean the president's dad. "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, 7/17/03 We also eliminated the threat from Saddam Hussein's alliance with the Klingon Empire. Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03 We will now address the second greatest threat of our time -- untreated hangnails. Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03 Because, as we all know, civilization is a wimpy house of tissue thin cards that could be brought down by a Black Cat firecracker. Iraq "threatens the United States of America." -- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03 Much the way an ant fuckin' an elephant threatens vaginal tearing. "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." -- President Bush, 1/3/03 How many times did the Nazis say you have to repeat a lie? "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." -- President Bush, 11/23/02 And what I mean by unique is, it's an urgent threat that's not actually an urgent threat. That's pretty darn unique. "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." -- President Bush, 11/1/02 I also see that a grain of sand on the surface of the moon is a significant blemish. "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." -- President Bush, 10/2/02 Because not all urgency is the same. Some urgency requires immediate action, while other urgency, uh, hmm, what the hell was it Dick told me? "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." -- President Bush, 10/2/02 Bush, stamping his foot, "Because I said so, that's why!" "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." -- President Bush, 9/26/02 Yet, I imagined it. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 (In sing-song voice.) Nah, na, na-na, nahh. I didn't say imminent. Thanks to the Center for American Progress for the quotes. Keep lyin' about Iraq, guys. I think it's doin' ya a world a good. After all, it's never the coverup what gets ya inta trouble, it's the scandal. That is how that goes, id'n it?
posted
10:17 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Wastrel's "War" On Terror, And It's DiscontentsWhat in the hell does Bushwa think he has to brag about in the "war on terror?"Weak on Terror, by Paul Krugman. Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality. The truth is that Mr. Bush, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of an unrelated war, has shown consistent reluctance to focus on the terrorists who actually attacked America, or their backers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.Yeah, but it's all Clinton's fault. Because Repukes say so, that's why! After that, the administration appeared to lose interest in Al Qaeda; by the summer of 2002, bin Laden's name had disappeared from Mr. Bush's speeches. It was all Saddam, all the time.So Bush pulled resources off a real, honest to God imminent threat in order to go after a vague, almost non-threat. And the administration is still covering up for Pakistan, whose government recently made the absurd claim that large-scale shipments of nuclear technology and material to rogue states -- including North Korea, according to a new C.I.A. report -- were the work of one man, who was promptly pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. Mr. Bush has allowed this farce to go unquestioned.Pakistan really has been in the business of nuclear proliferation, but we go after nebulous threats in Iraq instead. Course, Pakistan has real nukes, ya unnerstan', not Saddam's ghost nukes. That does make it a little tougher to go after them. So Saddam had to stand in as straw man.
posted
9:13 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Keep Harassing The Bush-LiarsFrom the Democratic National Committee:Take Action on Medicare Bush Administration Lied to Congress About Medicare Costs, Threatened to Fire Expert for Revealing the Truth Sign the PetitionCJR's Campaign Desk notes that Health and Human Services has been pushing new lies. Bring Us The Heads of "Karen Ryan" and "Alberto Garcia" Television stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states have aired "news" segments about the recently enacted Medicare law, featuring "reporters" Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia (in the Spanish language version). Unbeknownst to viewers, however, writes Robert Pear in today's New York Times, the "news" was in fact a free videotape produced and directed by the federal government.These were commercials masquerading as news. If we don't start holding the bastards accountable, we got no chance at democracy. Please sign the petition.
posted
6:36 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 15, 2004 Authoritarianism Equals Courage To BushSpain's blow to Bush"Time after time, President Bush has responded to critics who say he has alienated America's closest allies by pointing to Mr. Aznar as a courageous example of a leader who ignored poll numbers -- upward of 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the war -- and who acted in Spain's best interests."Our leaders are supposed to be our representatives. We don't elect them to "courageously" ignore our wishes. That's my understanding of democracy. In a democracy, the people have a right to be wrong. The people have the right to decide. Elected representatives should not have the right to ignore our wishes.
posted
6:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kerry A Coward? Only If You're A Flying Pig.Here's one for the right wing jackasses that have either said or implied that Kerry was a coward in Vietnam.Repaying a Big Debt to Lt. Kerry The eyes still get watery 35 years later, and Jim Rassmann -- former Green Beret, retired California cop -- doesn't want anybody to see. He turns away or uses his beefy hands to cover up.The actions of a coward. I could tell ya who the friggin' cowards are, but I betchya already know. Rassman, by-de-by, is a retired cop and a registered Republican. And very good with orchids.
posted
5:44 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Phaedrus To Bush: Prove AssertionTwo posts down, the White House demands that Kerry prove his assertion that some foreign leaders have privately supported him. Whether true or false, name six Americans who actually give a fuck. So what? Bush, on Saturday made a much more substantive assertion dealing with a critical policy issue.Bush Radio Address Raps Kerry's Tax Plans President Bush used yet another forum to issue a thinly veiled attack against Democratic rival John Kerry, saying Saturday in his weekly radio address that higher taxes and new trade barriers would be "a recipe for economic disaster."See, Bush doesn't think he needs to prove this assertion cuz it's one of those things "everybody knows." Yeah, well, guess what? A lotta times the stuff everybody knows is wrong. I dug into the data in Table 1.1.1 at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and here's what I found: Under FDR, our high taxing, socialist president, GDP growth averaged 6.3% from 1933-1940, and 15% from 1941-1944, basically the war production years. Production financed with government spending in large part. For 12 years of Roosevelt, we averaged 9.2%. The top marginal tax rate climbed as high as 91% and remained high by modern Repukelican standards until Ronnie Raygun took over in 1981. From 1945-1980, GDP growth averaged 3.2%. After the mighty tax-cutter saved us from economic disaster, growth surged to 3% from 1981-1992, a drop off of 6.7%. When the evil Bill Clinton raised taxes, Repukes predicted economic disaster, just as Bushwa is doing now. Boy, were they ever right. During the Clinton years the growth rate plummeted to 3.7%, more than 20% better than the Reagan-Bush years. And, of course, the current might tax-cutter has had a stellar economic performance, averaging 1.9% growth. Ooo, that's not all that stellar, is it? Well, not to worry, it's actually worse than it looks. The overall score of the high tax years vs. the low tax years is an average of 4.66% to 2.78%. Under high tax presidents the economy only beat the performance of low tax presidents by about 68%. So where's that lying Puke Bushwa's proof for his assertion?
posted
4:59 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Regulation Is Always Wrong - Let The Market DecideBecause the market is more important than human life. AP: Mexican Worker Deaths Rise SharplyThe jobs that lure Mexican workers to the United States are killing them in a worsening epidemic that is now claiming a victim a day, an Associated Press investigation has found.Just because it would probably save a huge percentage of lives is no reason to think regulation is a good idea. People don't realize that if you let the market decide everything, the market will always decide that some human life is cheap. Economically, it is. Are we humans or economists? OSHA's own officials say their resources are insufficient and note the agency's own policies generally provide for punitive action only after an accident.Thank you, Repukelicans know best. This is not a contest of pure opinion. Republican policies cost lives -- lots of 'em. This is only a small example.
posted
3:26 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Spokespig Expresses Typical Republican False DichotomyWhite House to Kerry: Prove AssertionKerry should identify the (foreign) leaders who purportedly hope he beats President Bush in November, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Either he is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president," the spokesman said.Another completely idiotic statement that right dingers will eat right up. Exactly how, Spokespig McClellan, is that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn? F'r instance, yer sayin' it's impossible to conclude that the leaders expressed support fer Kerry, but wish to remain anonymous. That's completely impossible. And it's completely irrational to think that there might be foreign leaders who support Kerry because -- well, because, uh, it's, uh, common knowledge that Bush is universally popular among foreign leaders. Listen, Spokespig, have we slipped once again into that parallel reality where black is white and up is down?
posted
1:08 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Rumsfeld Spinning Like A Drunken TopWhen interviewed on CBS Face The Nation, Rummy staggered like a rummy. First, he denied that the administration had ever claimed Iraq posed an immediate threat. The interviewer screwed him up on that question because he failed to follow the script. He was supposed to say that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat, something Rummy could then blithely deny, using the typical right wing "it depends on what the definition of is is" semantic argument. Ya know, we didn't use that exact word, therefore we never said any such thing. But the interviewer said immediate threat, and Rummy denied that any of the major players in the administration ever said that. Small problem. Rummy said it.Second, we have this gem: SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about a criticism that's been leveled by the Military Officers Association of America--that's 300,000 retired and active duty officers--who say that your plan to increase the size of the Army by the policy they call stop-loss is simply a backdoor way to reinstitute the draft. They say that when you decided to increase the force levels up to, I think, 30,000--I may not be exactly right on that figure--that instead of doing that by recruiting more people, what you're doing are telling people who are already in the service that they're going to have to stay an extra amount of time, maybe as much as 16 months. And he--and what they say--this is their criticism--is that this is the most unfair kind of draft because what you're doing is drafting people who have already served the country. What is your response to that?I'm not gonna tell ya I've always had great respect for officers, but let's think about this. All officers today have college educations. Hell, my battalion commander was a Rhodes Scholar. These guys ain't dummies, and here they're addressing an issue that affects not only their carreers but their chances of surviving combat. But, obviously, they're not well informed about it. Typical Bushwa. First, anyone opposed to the Iraq war was at least wrong if not a traitor. Then liberals were traitors. Then Gen. Zinni, Joe Wilson, Wes Clark and anyone else who disagreed with the Booshies was a traitor. Now, the Military Officers Association of America is obviously wrong. The Bushies and those who agree with them are always right, everyone else is always wrong. These are just the kind of arrogant assholes I want defending America. Tip O'The Tam to Eschaton.
posted
9:41 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Middle Class Imperiled & How To Save ItI love the beginning of this article because it echos my own thoughts. Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class, by Thom Hartmann.Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history:By 1980 pseudo-conservative activists had moved the Republican party well to the right and, because many middle class voters forgot their roots, the right moved into political ascendancy. Now, for 24 years, it's been downhill for everyone but the wealthy. I suspect, however, that people are beginning to recognize that. My grandad, who lived near 90 years, almost the whole of the 20th century, frequently told me that in politics, "The pendulum always swings." It seemed a true statement, but I had come to doubt it in recent years. Yet now, I think I feel that pendulum slowing, maybe even beginning its downward arc. I only wonder if it will be in time. The far right has done great damage to the nation. Four more years of GDub might just finish us off. It's even possible that it's too late already, but best not to worry about that. Too defeatist. A dinger commenter at Seeing The Forest, where I found this, called Hartmann's article "anti-market," unwittingly demonstrating that he doesn't know the difference between markets on the one hand and "free market" ideology on the other. Free markets, as Hartmann points out, are an impossibility. The right believes in free markets based on faith alone. Theology as economics. There're better ways to handle economics than the right wing believes, which is an enormously good thing. The system we have is not sustainable. If the right wing is right about economics, we're all doomed.
posted
6:54 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 14, 2004 The Right Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies LiesAnd Oliver Willis has the goods of the moment on Instapundit in Insty Leads The Kerry Smear Machine. As ODub says, "It's like they don't think we're looking, or something."
posted
3:34 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Maybe Spain's A Democracy After AllWish I could say the same about the US. Spain's Socialists Defeats Popular Party. Looks like Aznar wasn't foolin' too many Spaniards. Good. The son of a bitch betrayed his people in a major way by supporting the Iraq war when 90% (!) of Spaniards were opposed. Now it looks like Al Qaeda may have retaliated by slaughtering 200 innocent Spaniards and wounding many, many more. But, hey, long as no Americans were killed, the war on terror's still a big success. Screw the Turks and the Iraqis and the Spaniards and anybody else who gets killed as long as their are no attacks on Americans. Sad thing is, I think most of us really think that way.
posted
3:13 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Right's Determination To Rape The PoorI don't really know because I never get a chance to have an actual discussion with the right -- all I get is trolls who leave one to four or so nasty, irrational comments and never come back (Don't tell me to try discussion threads. Been there, done that. Arguing with the right is like tryin' to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.) -- but some may wonder why I'm so angry and mean when it comes to the right wing. I don't mind the trolls' nastiness, I'm nasty myself towards them. I do mind the refusal to present rational arguments based on factual evidence.I'll tell you why I'm so angry, mean and nasty. It's because the right wingers, with their airy-fairy theories and faith-based solutions are doing real harm to real people. A lot of harm. Their only excuse is that they're sure they're not doing such harm. Well, in my book, willful ignorance equals criminal negligence. Criminal! I almost hesitate to post this stuff because the hate the poor crowd picks what it wants to out and uses it as another reason to hate the poor. Sick fucks! But here we go anyway. Jeanne at Body and Soul posts What we see, and what we can't, a moving bit of her personal experience with poverty, and she links to A Poor Cousin of the Middle Class, by David K. Shipler, a NYT Magazine article. I know a little about this stuff. I've spent a lot of my life in poor neighborhoods, and I don't mean just driving through with the windows rolled up and the doors locked like the right wing cowards. I know harder stories, and sadder. A lot of poor people, most of 'em really, irritate the shit out of me. But that's true of most people, period. I'm a long ways from being a saint. And just like the rich people, and the right wingers, and the middle class people, and the new age freaks and who knows who all else that irritate the shit out of me, poor people are people too, and they're entitled, entitled, do ya hear me? Entitled to be treated decently, to have healthcare, including eye care and dental, to have a decent place to live, decent clothes, nutrition, and, yes, Goddamnit, even leisure time and recreation. They're entitled to a decent job. For anyone to deny people any of that is, quite simply, indecent. The way that Caroline Payne, from Shipler's article, and her family have been treated is simply indecent. And to you "free" market fairies (When I use the term fairies, I'm not insulting gay people. I'm speaking of wood nymps and the like, magical creatures.), you laissez-faire loons, who try to say oh, that's all up to the market, we have to let the market decide, I say BULLSHIT! You're just trying to lay off the blame on mechanical forces because you want to evade responsibility. Only an amoral machine or a sociopath would treat people the way the poor are treated in this country. You know they don't even have slums in Canada? There's no good reason for life to be this way, there's just the right wing's evil behind it, just greed and prejudice and unreasoning meanness. And you assholes on the right can't even begin to comprehend just how angry I really am. UPDATE: Kerim's Website posts some useful figures on poverty and what it would take to address the problem. In 1998, the poverty line for a family of three was $13,003 and $16,660 for a family of four. That year, half the median income for a family of three was $24,466 and $28,030 for a family of four - 88% and 68% above the official poverty lines. Even the modest assumption that the poverty line should be half again as high as it is would suggest a poverty rate of 22% in 1998, rather than the official 12.7% figure...As I've maintained for some time, poverty is much worse in the US than the government tells us. Oh, but it would be so hard to do anything about it. The amount of money it would take to bring all officially poor households up to the pverty line is amazingly small: 0.5% of GDP, or jsut over 3% of the income of the richest fifth of households. It would take a bit more money to bring the poor up to a civilized standard, but not that much. Doubling the incomes of the poorest 20% of households - form an average of $10,136 (in 2001) to $20,272, which is still less than half the median - by taxing the richest 20% would require the affluent fifth to sacrifice less than 7% of their income, bringing it down from an average of $145,970 to a mere $135,834. That would reduce their share of the national pie to late-1980s levels, hardly a period when the upper orders were suffering. But clearly it's much more important that the affluent be able to buy Hummers than to accomplish this bleeding-heart goal.Yeah, that'd be rough. Course, you do have to remember that on principle it's wrong to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That's what the right dingers say. Well, I got a little moral principle for them. People suffer because of poverty. People die. When you have the ability to alleviate the suffering of millions of people, the majority of them children, and it would cost so little yet you still refuse to do it, I don't care how you dress it up with principle. That's just plain evil. That's greedy-mean, suckin' Satan's scaly dick evil. I'm not in the habit of wishin' people into hell. People're so weak, I'm not sure any of 'em deserve it. But by Goddamn, if anybody deserves to go to hell, people who would act so evil do. And I'd be more than happy to send you there myself. Told you I was pissed.
posted
1:44 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush's Determination To Rape The EarthGot a letter from Barbara Boxer. Yep, me an' Babs is tighter'n the hatches on a submarine. It concerned the Clean Water Act and the second paragraph read:While the conditions of many of our waterways have improved, much more still needs to be done. Therefore we must oppose efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act. On three separate occasions, I joined my colleagues in sending letters to the President urging the Administration to rescind plans to stop regulating waters such as non-navigable streams, creeks, ponds, small tributaries, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. If regulation is lifted, the way would be opened for polluters to degrade water that has been protected for 30 years.Yeah, Booshwa's got a hell of a record on the environment. I am so sick of people who think the differences between the parties and between the far right mirage and everybody else is purely a matter of opinion. If it is, then here's the real difference: The non-right is of the opinion that there is an objective reality and we need to do our best to discover it and deal with it as it is. The Republican right thinks it makes more sense to invent or imagine reality to suit their preconceived notions. The right believes in faith-based science, economics, politics, everything. Idiots.
posted
11:12 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kerry's Shown Political Courage And HeartThere's a real tendency to focus on what's wrong with John Kerry, and not just among Republicans. Disillusioned Democrats, Naderites, and people like me have shown the same tendency. It's true Kerry has some serious flaws, but so do nearly all our politicians. We need to understand that the system is seriously flawed. Nonetheless, Kerry has done a number of good things in the Senate, as David Corn points out in What's Right With Kerry.I'm dyin' to see the equivalent What's Right With Bush, which I think will have to pretty much consist of, "Um, uh, uh, no, wait a minute, something will come to me . . . ." Of course, there's always the war on terror, in which we've made no progress, possibly regressed, and along the way we've wasted hundreds of American lives, thousands of civilian lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, and what's their big sign of success? Libya's given up its WMDs, something it's only been tryin' to do for about a decade. OK, it's nice an' all, but at 200 billion bucks a pop, I'm not sure it's really cost effective. From Corn on Kerry: There is, as evidence, his nineteen-year Senate record, during which he has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights and environmental policies, opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, led the effort against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, pushed for higher fuel economy standards, advocated boosting the minimum wage and pressed for global warming remedies. But what distinguishes Kerry's career are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate.Kerry investigated and found the connection which was confirmed 10 years later by the CIA inspector general. After the contra investigation, Kerry next turned to a far more sensitive target: a bank connected to a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser. During their investigation of Noriega, Kerry's staff discovered that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International had facilitated Noriega's drug trafficking and money laundering.Kerry had to buck the CIA, the Repulicans, and the Democrats on this one. He did, and he got at the ugly truth. While Kerry was in the middle of the BCCI muck, Senate majority leader George Mitchell asked him to assume another difficult task: investigate the unaccounted-for Vietnam POWs and MIAs.Talk about a thankless job. But Kerry did it, apparently well, in collaboration with Republicans like John McCain and Bob Smith. On September 10, 1996, as he was in a tight re-election contest against William Weld, the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure. Several leading Senate liberals--including Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy--had voted for it. But on the floor of the Senate that day, Kerry, who noted that he did not support same-sex marriage, said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political." He refused to pretend that the bill was not a wedge-issue trap devised by conservative Republicans. The legislation, he charged, was "meant to divide Americans," and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional. "If this were truly a defense of marriage act," he said, "it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse.... It would guarantee daycare for every family that struggles and needs it."This one's huge with me: The following year, a re-elected Kerry was in another lonely position as one of only five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. The measure would remove practically all special-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. (Kerry's colleagues were Wellstone, Leahy, John Glenn and Joe Biden--all Democrats.) "Kerry was totally into it," says Ellen Miller, former executive director of Public Campaign, a reform group pressing for the legislation. "He believes in this stuff."Kerry has taken special-interest money, and Bush has taken a hell of a lot more yet thinks he can tar Kerry with the issue. Here's one little difference, though. When has Bushwa ever lifted a finger to get special interest money out of politics? Kerry's had more than a few high points, and they ought to count for something.
posted
10:50 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Bush Soft On Terrorism And Dems Should Say SoIt's the President who's been weak on fighting terrorism, instead pouring enormous resources into a war that had very little to do with keeping America safe. Atrios covers this in some detail. A small excerpt:What Kerry - and the Democrats - need to do is to overturn conventional wisdom by re-framing the debate. September 11th happened on Bush's watch, after his administration completely ignored the threat of terrorism. Right now, We All Know that George Bush showed "great leadership" after 9/11. How do we know that? Well, because the goddamn Democrats keep saying it. Truth? Bush ran and hid and then didn't stop wetting his pants until 3 days later. He then went and bombed a stone age country back to the stone age, and then didn't provide the resources to rebuild it. Thousands of Taliban and al Qaeda members were allowed to escape to Pakistan, defeating much of the purpose of said bombing, and we never found Bin Laden, the stated architect of the 9/11 attack.
posted
7:11 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 13, 2004 Air America Radio Preaching To The ChoirThat's the right wingers' criticism of the new liberal radio network which is to begin broadcasting Mar. 31, in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. They say it like it's a bad thing. To right wingers all three cities are "liberal bastions," although if you live in Los Angeles you know that's a trait well-hidden from Angelenos. I don't doubt we're a little to the left of Alabama, but hell, who isn't?Saw a right wingnut blogger who made what I'm sure was his typically cogent criticism of the nasty lefty radio venture, arguing that there was no point in preaching to the converted. So I'm guessin' every church in America needs to fire it's priest or pastor or minister right now, before they have to pay for another pointless sermon on Sunday. There's a lot to be said for preaching to the converted. What the hell do they think the Limboobies, insanity-Hannities, and all the other right wing lie machines on talk radio do? They sure as hell ain't preachin' to the liberals. What's more, preachin' to the choir is sorely underrated. Unopposed preaching from the far right on the airwaves has convinced far right dingers that they are the majority and, at the same time, convinced those who lean left of the Republican party that they're in the minority, which is impressive. They've actually convinced the majority that it's the minority. A new voice of moderate liberalism preaching to the converted can convince the converted that they're not alone, that they too are allowed to speak out in America, that maybe it really is worthwhile to get off their duffs and work for change, because the right really doesn't dominate America. And the more people on the left who feel emboldened to stand up and speak out, the more people will publicly support their cause. I know I'm not dreamin' this up, cuz I've watched it work for the right. Christ, for years liberals in Orange County, and even many parts of LA, were scared to open their mouths. Too much chance they'd either get shouted down contemptuously or even physically attacked. All of which ignores the business aspects of the decision. You'd think that would leap immediately to a right dinger's mind, such as it is. They all think they're so damn smart about business. I don't know what this network's chances for success are, but if their first three cities were Charleston, SC, Tupelo, Mississippi, and Macon, Georgia, where they surely wouldn't be preaching to the converted, I think we could assume they'd go under almost overnight. And wouldn't that just suit right dingers? My general rules of thumb are: If a right dinger criticizes, you're doing something right. If a right dinger gives you helpful advice, do the opposite. You'll hardly ever go wrong.
posted
10:02 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 12, 2004 Emperor George I's Feet Can't Touch The GroundMy buddy (who has no idea I exist) Jimmy Breslin delivers Money in his coffers, but no dirt on his shoesFor days now, the job at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County has been to follow the order from the White House through the Secret Service and down to the park workers:So they're building temporary walkways everywhere the Resident might go. That's some Texican cowboy, ain't it? George Bush's feet cannot be allowed to touch the earth directly, even with his shoesies on. Lord only knows how he'd feel about cowshit or horseshit. But Kerry's the elitist. Tip O' The Tam to Omnium.
posted
10:38 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
As Long As We Understand What Democracy MeansUS revealed to be secretly funding opponents of ChavezWashington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.I'm sure nobody'd mind if Nicaragua found a way to return the favor. Now here's a basic lesson in what the right wing means by democracy: But critics of the NED say the organisation routinely meddles in other countries' affairs to support groups that believe in free enterprise, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any form. In recent years, the NED has channelled funds to the political opponents of the recently ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that Washington was blocking loans to his government.Here and I'm so Goddamned stupid that I thought democracy meant the people decide. If they want socialism, they should have socialism. If only I was a right dinger I'd be so much smarter. In Venezuela, the NED channelled the money to three of its four main operational "wings": the international arms of the Republican and Democratic parties - the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs respectively - and the foreign policy wing of the AFL-CIO union, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity.The AFuckinL-CIO. That's pleasant. Sell-out bastards. Thanks to Ungodly Politics.
posted
9:59 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Stupid Bush TricksNo More Excuses on Jobs, by Paul Krugman.As the Economic Policy Institute points out, if [people] hadn't dropped out [of the work force], the official unemployment rate would be an eye-popping 7.4 percent, not a politically spinnable 5.6 percent.Bush is a one trick pony on the economy, and it ain't much of a trick. Big tax cuts for the affluent. Didn't work? More big tax cuts for the affluent. Repeat until broke.
posted
8:39 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kennedy Has The Antidote To Right Wing Lies"Creating a Genuine 'Opportunity Society'"This is a great speech by Ted Kennedy, a veritable progressive manifesto. Short version: When the country mostly followed progressive policies from the turn of the century until about 1980, we had strong economic growth and everyone benefited. Once the far right became ascendant, starting with Reagan, everything's gone to hell, except for the rich. People need to listen to the right wingers, for Christ sake. They're all theory and no facts. They regularly make claims that contradict the facts. They're all religion and no worldly reality. It's faith-based economics and faith-based politics. How 'bout we start doing things that make sense based on the known facts for a change? Tip O' The Tam to ConNiPtioNs.
posted
6:35 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Update On Kerry "Gutting" IntelligenceThe tangled web"In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have 'gutted' intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting."But, ya know, the Prez ain't a liar or nothin'.
posted
5:10 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
What Bush Has DoneKey Republicans Admit Anxiety Over CampaignRepukelicans is skeered. Admittedly, they skeer purty easy but, still, it strikes me as a good thing. One Repuke has a solution: Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi, an Ohio Republican who represents Columbus and its northeastern suburbs, agreed. "The president himself is going to have to take the offensive and be aggressive in talking about what he's done," he said.So I asks m'self, what has Bush done? Off the top a my head, he's: Totally dropped the ball on terrorism prior to 9/11. Pressured the EPA to lie about the air quality in New York after 9/11. Pushed through a Medicare bill that does more for corporations than for seniors. In fact, it's highly debatable whether it does anything for seniors. The cost is over $500 billion over 10 years, and the White House lied about that to the tune of around $130 billion. Lied us into a war that hasn't turned out anything like he told us it would. The war has actually been a distraction from fighting terrorism, no WMDs have been found; the Iraqi people, though happy that we toppled Saddam, don't want us there anymore, and we've been tied down in a guerrilla war for most of a year. While we're on the subject of lies, he's told more lies more continuously than any administration in my memory, and LBJ, Tricky Dicky, Ronnie Raygun, Poppy Bush, and Clinton weren't no pikers. Failed to catch Osama Bin Laden and, if he's done such a good job making us safe from terrorism, how come the threat level never seems to drop below orange? After having all but completely screwed up the Iraq war, from vastly overstating the threat to failing to prepare the troops (No decent flak jackets, shortages of ammo and armor and food and water.) to blowing the occupation in nearly every way possible, nobody even gets canned. The buck stops -- well, apparently, anywhere but with the administration. Lost more than two million jobs, and wages are doing badly too, and he brags about how well he's handled the economy. Got huge tax cuts for the rich that don't seem to have helped the economy one bit. Spent the Social Security trust fund he promised to keep in a lockbox. Done his damndest to drive the country toward bankruptcy. And I'm sure I'm leavin' lots a stuff out. Hell, I'm dyin' for Bush to campaign on what he's done, but I doubt even he's that stupid. The Pukes have been sayin' that Kerry and the Dems only talk about how bad Bush is and don't talk about their own agenda for the future. That's really not true, but even if it was, so what? I don't like the modern Democratic Party, but you only get two choices in this country. Even of the Democratic candidates, none of whom would be my first choice, Kerry was maybe my 3rd or 4th, maybe even 5th choice. But Bush really is so bad that it doesn't matter. Some woman said that if they put a duck up as the Dem nominee, she'd vote for it. I would too. A duck obviously couldn't handle the job, but doing absolutely nothing would be a massive improvement over Bush.
posted
4:49 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Madrid Bombings Blamed On Basque Terrorists - Why?At least 190 dead, as many as 1500 wounded, the numbers perhaps not final. A terrible, terrible thing. The Spanish government has already gotten the UN Security Council to condemn ETA, the Basque terrorist group, for the bombings. I find that interesting because I don't think ETA did it.This doesn't fit ETA's MO at all. They haven't carried out mass attacks on the populace before, they've usually attacked government buildings and government figures. They've usually issued warnings before attacks. They don't usually deny that they're behind the attacks. OK, MO's can change. But Aznar's Popular Party is the most hardline anti-ETA party in Spain. Elections are Sunday. Popular was leading in the polls by 5% at the time of the attacks, but if they had won, they would have had to form a coalition government. Some political scientists in Spain are now saying Popular may win an outright majority and be able to form a government without a partner. These attacks almost certainly helped the Popular Party. Why would ETA want to do that? If these were ETA attacks, they'd make more sense after the election than before. Aznar insists it was ETA, but I'm sure he feels that such a claim is helpful to his Popular Party. In fact, since campaigning has been suspended since the attacks, the Popular Party, in effect, is the only party still campaigning. They're doing so by blaming ETA, though they don't have solid evidence yet that it was ETA. Would Aznar and his party do something so cynical? Of course they would. I believe in government. Anarchy sounds tempting, but in hard reality, given human nature, it's only a pipedream. So I think government is a necessity, but I also think you're a damn fool if you trust government. There's never been a government worthy of trust and, given human nature, there never will be.
posted
11:46 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
How Do You Define Democracy?All kinds of countries claim to be democracies these days, yet several allegedly democratic countries supported the US invasion of Iraq despite strong opposition among their citizens. Let's just take Spain for example.Madrid Train Blasts Kill at Least 190 The Aznar government's support for the Iraq war was deeply unpopular among citizens, with polls indicating that 90 percent of the population was against it. Spain's involvement in Iraq had become a campaign issue, with the opposition Socialist Party promising to reverse the policy and bring troops home.Now it's just possible that the citizens of Spain have paid a heavy price for their government's failure to heed their wishes. How in the hell does that happen in a democracy? Just callin' it democracy don't make it so.
posted
11:12 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Pro-Life Movement Out Of ControlMother charged in Caesarean rowA US woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section has been charged with murder after one of her twins was stillborn.Goin' by this story there's some doubt whether the woman even did what prosecutor's claim, but even if she did, should ya be able ta charge a woman wit' murder fer refusin' a C-section? C'mon, pibbles, we cain't criminalize ever' damn thing we don' like. UPDATE: The woman's attorney reports that she has a long history of major mental illness.
posted
10:20 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Why Call 'em Liars And Crooks? Well . . . .because they are. Howard Kurtz of the WaPo has asked, as reported in Crooked Scream, "Is John Kerry's muttered aside the new Dean Scream?" The old "Dean Scream" was media bullshit to begin with, and if they make a deal about Kerry's remark, that'll be more bullshit with road apples on top. Kerry was absolutely right, and the evidence just keeps piling up.Medicare plan cost estimates ordered withheld The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.The White House knew at least five months before the Medicare bill passed that it would cost over $500 billion, not under $400 billion as claimed. But they also knew the bill would never pass if they admitted it, so they didn't. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which produced the $551 billion estimate, told colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers.Wow, way ta pick yer backers, Scully. Scully left the administration and in January took a job with Alston & Bird, an Atlanta-based law firm that represents numerous hospitals and health insurers. He was exploring jobs in the private sector while he was pushing for passage of the prescription drug bill, thanks to a waiver from Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was still a federal employee.So at least there warn't no confleect o' een-terest. For years before Scully's arrival in 2001, key lawmakers had direct access to Medicare actuaries.All in all it's just another brick off the wall.
posted
10:01 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 11, 2004 Support The Troops, Goddamnee!Bush losing support from military familiesThe failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or evidence that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida, lengthy deployments of active-duty soldiers and reservists and proposed cuts in veterans' benefits and perks to military families are threatening to erode Bush's once-strong support among military voters."Who'd a thunk lip service would'n a been plenty enough support?
posted
10:17 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Karen Kwiatkowski - Freaky, Anarchist BitchThe Big Story on Faux NewsThe big story on Fox News last night was Karen Kwiatkowski, the Pentagon whistleblower who wrote this exclusive insider's account in Salon about how the administration manufactured its case for war in Iraq. From the transcript, it's clear Kwiatkowski doesn't change the mind of "The Big Story" host John Gibson, who goes on to call Kwiatkowski an anarchist and sympathizes with the counterpoint guest, an RNC spokesman who has zero inside information about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans but joins us to provide political cover for the administration. What is the GOP to do "when people like that are talking and scoring points with people in the public," Gibson wonders?Karen Kwiatkowski, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, twenty years in the military, the fuckin' military, which has been such a good home to so many anarchists, is an anarchist. Shit, no wonder they call it Faux News. Whatever it takes to sell it, right guys? Geez, if the average American is buyin' this crap, then he's a lot dumber than I think, an' I don't have a lotta respect for most people's intelligence.
posted
9:58 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Could Kerry Win The Macho Vote?Ak-shully, I don' see why not. Kerry's a helluva lot more macho than that pissant pretend warrior who did the carrier deck prance.Domestic issues lift Kerry in new poll Another sign of trouble for Bush: Men, usually a Republican strength, split 47% for Kerry, 46% for Bush. Kerry has his party's typical lead with women, 53%-43%.Good Gawd amighty! A Dem-o-crat leadin' wit' men! Sure, it's widdin tha margin o' error, but it's still very bad news for Boy George. Hell, come ought five, he may have ta go back ta Crawford an' content hisself with stickin' firecrackers down tha throats a unwillin' frogs. Praise be.
posted
9:20 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kerry Just Might Have The Fire This TimeKerry Says He Will Not Apologize for Critical Comments Against RepublicansGood! Why the hell should he? Kerry said he was referring to the Republican "attack squad," and they sure as hell are crooks and liars. Kerry's shown plenty of guts before, in Vietnam, and in opposing the war in Vietnam. It's lookin' like Bush is gonna find out what it's like to run against a real man. (Sorry Al, but ya din't have the courage of your convictions, man.) Could be tough for a pretend war hero/goat ropin' Texican. Hell, id'n he a pretend Texican, too?
posted
8:55 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
No Worries On Trade - All We Give 'em's PaperWhat Goes Abroad Usually Comes Back, With Benefits, By HAL R. VARIANThink about it. If Oracle sends $10,000 abroad to pay an Indian programmer, then that money either finds its way back to the United States or it doesn't. If it comes back, it can be used to buy American goods and services, employing American workers. If it doesn't come back then it's even better from the viewpoint of the country: we've sent them paper, while they've sent us valuable goods and services.Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and information management at the University of California at Berkeley. Forgive me if I seem a tad bejangled, but I bumped my head on the floor after I was stunned unconscious by that last sentence. I had no idea I was gettin' such a good deal on everything I buy. I pay the rent, they let me stay in my apartment, and all they get from me is paper. The grocery store gives me food, and all I give them is worthless, meaningless paper. Everything I buy is absolutely free! Except, wait a minute, when I work, all they give me is . . . . Those sons of bitches! Fuckin' paper! Plain, ordinary, worthless paper! Actually, I'm quite worried about the UC system. They hired this guy as a professor, and he's either violently stupid or a vicious liar. How much ya wanta bet he votes Repukelican?
posted
8:09 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Here's Why US Would Like Venezuela's Chavez To FallThe Oil Company as Social WorkerAll across this oil-rich and poverty-riddled country, the state oil giant, Petróleos de Venezuela, the country's economic engine, is embarking on a radical and wide-ranging social spending program that includes building homes, running literacy programs and developing agriculture. In all, the company, known worldwide as Pdvsa (pronounced peh-deh-VEH-sah), is increasing its social spending from less than $40 million in previous years to $1.7 billion this year, according to the company's 2004 budget: $616 million on various programs, $600 million on agricultural development and $500 million on low-income housing.How dare that commie SOB help the people who put him in office. That's not how democracy's s'posed to work. Although it is how things work in the US, where the rich people decide who get's into office. That's how democracy's s'posed to work.
posted
7:37 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Justice? Or Just Bush?Britain Frees 5 Citizens Sent Home From U.S. JailThe police have freed all five Britons flown home from the jail at the American base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, raising questions about why they were held for two years, and on Thursday a lawyer for one of the men denounced their captors.Shouldn't that read 'concentration camp?' Two years in captivity on Gitmo, taken into British custody, held for less than two days and released without charges. Didn't Boy King George tell us the Gitmo captives were the "worst of the worst?" Din't he basically say, "Trust your government, we know what we're doing?" Now an awful lot of the "worst of the worst" have gone free, no charges, no trials. Obviously our government didn't know what it was doing and can't be trusted. Vote for Bush! Four more years of evil!
posted
6:51 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Almost As Silly As Electing SchwarzenwhopperShould 14-year-olds vote? OK, how about a quarter of a vote?The question: Should kids as young as 14 be able to vote?I only have one thing to say. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, oh, hell no. An' I don't care if that puts me in agreement with right dingers.
posted
6:23 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
The Bushies'll Do Anything To WinBush campaign to challenge legality Media Fund election adsBush-Cheney officials said they won't ask for the ads to be pulled off the air because the FEC doesn't have that authority, and because a court is unlikely to act before the FEC finishes its review of the new campaign finance laws. The object of the complaint is to highlight what Bush campaign officials say are Democratic hypocrisies and to prod the FEC to act more quickly than it has in the past, the officials said.Oh. Iss not a settled matter, but BushROVECheney din't mind sendin' threatenin' letters to 250 government-regulated TV stations claimin' that tha ads were a clear an' obivious violation of law an' that airin' tha ads would make tha stations complicit in tha crime. Ya know, iss jus' gamesmanship an' all.
posted
5:18 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
A Conservative Colonel Tells How We Were Lied To WarThe new Pentagon papersA high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war. I was present at a staff meeting when Bill Luti called Marine Gen. and former Chief of Central Command Anthony Zinni a "traitor," because Zinni had publicly expressed reservations about the rush to war.He called Zinni a traitor. Hell, an' I thought it was bad when they was callin' liberals traitors. Now, I'm purty sure that General Zinni an' me would not become good buddies, was we ta meet. I pride myself on never havin' met an officer I thought was qualified ta carry a top kick's (1st Sgt) testicles, butcha don't go callin' a fuckin' general a traitor 'less you got some awful good evidence ta back it up. Thass truly disgustin'. Instead of developing defense policy alternatives and advice, OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning.Yeah, that was mighty convenient, wan't it? Ya might even, if you was the indiscrete sort, call it a flat fuckin' lie. It is interesting today that the "defense" for those who lied or prevaricated about Iraq is to point the finger at the intelligence. But the National Intelligence Estimate, published in September 2002, as remarked upon recently by former CIA Middle East chief Ray McGovern, was an afterthought. It was provoked only after Sens. Bob Graham and Dick Durban noted in August 2002, as Congress was being asked to support a resolution for preemptive war, that no NIE elaborating real threats to the United States had been provided. In fact, it had not been written, but a suitable NIE was dutifully prepared and submitted the very next month. Naturally, this document largely supported most of the outrageous statements already made publicly by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld about the threat Iraq posed to the United States. All the caveats, reservations and dissents made by intelligence were relegated to footnotes and kept from the public. Funny how that worked.An' here's me not laughin'. Go figger. That other shoe fell with a thump, as did the regard many of us had held for Colin Powell, on Feb. 5 as the secretary of state capitulated to the neoconservative line in his speech at the United Nations -- a speech not only filled with falsehoods pushed by the neoconservatives but also containing many statements already debunked by intelligence.In other words, Colin Powell knowingly lied to the UN. Don't seem like it's worth admirin' anybody anymore. War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits -- an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn't get the chance for an honest debate.Democracy, democracy, democracy! What the hell's 'at s'posed ta mean, anyway? President Bush has now appointed a commission to look at American intelligence capabilities and will report after the election. It will "examine intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and related 21st century threats ... [and] compare what the Iraq Survey Group learns with the information we had prior..." The commission, aside from being modeled on failed rubber stamp commissions of the past and consisting entirely of those selected by the executive branch, specifically excludes an examination of the role of the Office of Special Plans and other executive advisory bodies. If the president or vice president were seriously interested in "getting the truth," they might consider asking for evidence on how intelligence was politicized, misused and manipulated, and whether information from the intelligence community was distorted in order to sway Congress and public opinion in a narrowly conceived neoconservative push for war. Bush says he wants the truth, but it is clear he is no more interested in it today than he was two years ago.So tha commission, no surprise ta us'n, is jus' another damn dog an' pony show. Ya know, not so very long ago, peops was doin' an awful lotta referrin' ta Boy George Bushwa as the Commander in Chief. In order ta puff his wussy ass up, ya know. Well, technically he is, but he ain't my Commander in Chief, an' he ain't Commander in Chief ta most of tha American people. We ain't obligated to take his orders or follow him. I ain't ever had but one Commander in Chief, an' that was tricky Dick Nixon, cuz I was in tha Army back then. Bushwa's only tha CINC ta tha military, an' this an' way too many similar stories make it obious he ain't qualified ta even be that. WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
posted
3:41 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Defeating Bush Ain't Nearly EnoughWatched Michael Moore's "The Big One" today and I gotta tell ya, I like the guy. Yes, he's guilty of some inaccuracies, as Spinsanity and some others have pointed out, but not nearly the kind of bald-faced lies intended to distort reality that many right wing authors are guilty of. But is he right in general and in principle? It'd be hard to be more right.In this film he's asking CEO's, when they'll actually speak to him, why extremely profitable companies are laying off American workers. At Johnson Controls, which closed a profitable American factory to move the work to Mexico at 80 cents an hour, he questions a company representative, a woman, about the layoffs. As she becomes aggravated (Moore has that effect on company representatives) she says, "I think our employees have a better understanding of this than you do." An' I'm thinkin', "Yeah, they sure ina fuck do, babycakes. They understand it better'n you do, too, bitch. They understand how their lives and community will be devastated for the sake of ever greater profit. They understand how much trouble they'd have sleepin' if they had to do your job. They understand what it means to have a conscience." Moore also says in the film that the richest 1% have two parties and we don't have any. We need a political party that speaks for us. We sure ina hell do. So why am I supporting Kerry 100%? Why do I support the Democratic party? Because they're all we've got. It's either them or the damn Repukelicans and Bushwa. We gots ta face facts, peebles. This is a two party system. Without a redesign of our government, it will always be a two party system. What we need to do is take over the Democratic party from the bottom up and make it the party of the people again. I know it's fun ta go around sayin', "Don't vote. It only encourages them," but you'd be better off jackin' off. At least that does no harm. In fact, the opposite is true. When you don't vote, it only encourages them. If we ever want the country to belong to all the people, instead of the just the top 1%, most people are gonna have to vote and a lot of us are gonna have to do a lot more than that. Organizing, educating, infiltrating the Democratic party structure. There's just no other way, and third parties are a cop-out.
posted
1:20 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Stern On The WarpathVia Ratboy we get "Culture War May Find WMD," By Laurie Spivak, AlterNet, arguing that Clear Channel and their protege, Boy George B, may have really stepped in it when they fucked with Howard Stern. From their pixels to God's Palm Pilot.
posted
12:47 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
THE ART OF THE WELL-PLACED ELLIPSISCampaign Journal, at TNR, notes an intentionally dishonest twisting of John Kerry's words by the Bush campaign. How dare Kerry call these assholes liars. Can't he think of a stronger word?
posted
10:45 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Mark Your Calendars - O'Franken Factor Airs 3/31Franken, Garofalo to Host Liberal RadioThe backers of Air America announced their programming lineup on Wednesday and said they planned to launch the network on March 31 in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco.Me, I'd just as soon not have a bunch of professional comedians out after my ass, especially if I was as naturally comical as Bushwa.
posted
8:26 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kerry Hurts L'il Chillun's Delicate FeelingsKerry Comment Riles Bush CampaignEarlier Wednesday in Chicago, Kerry toughened his comments about his GOP critics after a supporter urged him to take on Bush. "Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."Whew, that is awful. Repukelicans would never resort to attacks and false statements. Never mind that they're undoubtedly liars and I'd make it odds-on that they're crooks, and I'm sure Kerry knows more about that than I do. "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but, boy, they look at you and say, `You have got to win this; you have got to beat this guy; we need a new policy.' Things like that," Mr. Kerry said at a campaign appearance in Hollywood, Fla.In other words, Kerry's a communist, according to the RNC, or, at the very least, a fellow traveler. Never mind that every reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-informed person knows that a great many foreign leaders fear and oppose Bush. But that's not an attack on Kerry. Nor is this. "Senator Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, for Nafta, for the No Child Left Behind act and for the use of force in Iraq," Mr. Bush told supporters in Dallas. "Now he opposes the Patriot Act, Nafta, the No Child Left Behind act and the liberation of Iraq. My opponent clearly has strong beliefs -- they just don't last very long."The only way that statement could be even close to accurate would be if Bush had said, "My opponent clearly has strong beliefs and, as with me, they don't last very long. See here (7th post down). I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th -- convinced that -- with a sunset clause -- it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn't a perfect bill -- and it had a number of flaws -- but this wasn't the time to haggle. It was the time to act.So I guess it's supposed to be a terrible sign of weakness that Kerry changed his mind on the Patriot Act. No, weakness would be if you were too chickenshit to admit when you're wrong. NAFTA? Hell, much of the country has changed it's mind about NAFTA. Even Georgie had a little wiffle-waffle on free trade when he imposed steel tariffs, then took 'em off again. A double waffle. What about NCLB? Near as I can tell, Kerry opposes the failure to fully fund No Child Left Behind. That would mean he actually supports it, and would make Gee Whiz Bush a -- gasp -- liar. As Kerry says: By signing the No Child Left Behind Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind. And Iraq? From Josh Marshall's column in The Hill: As nearly as I can figure it, Kerry's position was to get inspectors back in the country and then see if America's national interests could be safeguarded short of war.But none of those lies and attacks is a lie or an attack on Kerry. He really should apologize to the frail flowers of the Republican party, to the girly-men of the RNC, and above all to Boy George Bush. Those guys throw shit like a steam shovel, but aren't men or women enough to stand one thimbleful thrown back at them. "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" -- John Maynard Keynes
posted
7:15 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 10, 2004 Support The Troops! Or Give 'em Lip Service, Anyway.Unknown Soldier Speaks Out To Bring Troops HomeThis really is a must read interview. These excerpts only scratch the surface. What's it like being a medical corpsman?I know something about OJT. It's a deceptive name. What OJT means in the military is, "Here's the job. Figure it out." You sink or swim. What OJT in a combat zone is gonna mean is if you don't get killed or have your limbs blown off in the first few months, you might begin to get the hang of it. To what extent do you feel that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have the proper equipment for what they face there?This is just fucking sick/ugly. I can understand restrictions on free speech in the military, but restrictions that only muzzle one side? Bullshit. Everybody's restricted or nobody is. The Bushit administration is using the military to push happy talk propaganda. And no, your supervisors should never be allowed to ask anything about your political beliefs. That was Bushit, too. How did you feel when you saw President Bush arrive in a flight suit on the aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego, with the banner "Mission Accomplished"? We laughed. Why? We have a saying about people who dress up in military uniforms, like Idi Amin or Mussolini. People like that have something to hide. The reason they wear the uniform is to make themselves feel big, feel proud.Gee, wonders whatever Bush might be hidin'? The fact he's a cowardly, lying goatroper, perhaps? Dingers're gonna question whether this guy's for real. I can't say for certain, but I can tell ya I was in the infantry, my baby doll was in the Air Force, and this guy sure sound's like the real thing to us.
posted
12:21 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Unions Outdated, Like Democracy In The USKerry Asking Wealthy to Pay Old Tax RateThe Massachusetts senator won the labor federation's endorsement last month and hopes to use labor's organizational muscle and money to boost his campaign. While labor's share of the work force has declined over the years, union members are reliable voters, with 26 percent of those casting ballots in the 2000 election coming from union households.OK, the excerpt doesn't reflect the headline. I found this more interesting. Union workers only represent about 13% of workers, but union households accounted for 26% of ballots cast in 2000. I think it'd be fair to say that turnout among union households was considerably higher than among the general population. If we could just organize more workers (Roughly 50% of non-union workers say they want to be union.), especially lower class workers, we could raise voter turnout in ways that would favor pro-worker policies. It would make America more democratic because more people would be represented. No, unions ain't perfect. What is? It's easy to see why cheap labor conservatives hate unions. Not only would more unions indirectly result in more votes against their policies, but there would be rather serious direct affects on them: Wage differential. (bottom of page) Union wages grew faster than nonunion wages in 2003, so the union wage differential rose from 25.7 percent in 2002 to 26.9 percent in 2003. If benefit costs were factored in, the total compensation differential would be much larger because unions were able to preserve benefits for their members in 2003 to a much greater extent than nonunion workers were.If you're not a cheap labor conservative and you think unions are bad in general, somebody's sold you a bill of goods. To organize more workers, we need serious changes in labor law. Sure ain't gonna happen if Bushwa wins.
posted
10:24 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Torture The Religious RightEmail,I get email, Right wing email And I don't know why. The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values. . . .And they want people to vote in their online presidential campaign poll. I did it, it's fun, cuz the results so far are: John Kerry 90.18%Gotta love it. So let's keep it going.
posted
9:26 AM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
March 09, 2004 Tucker Carlson, Enlightened Conservative MaleHe musta been drinking. Lowers inhibitions, ya know?
posted
8:10 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
That Communist/Terrorist Kerry Gutted IntelligenceDishonest injun. And now, some perspectivePresident Bush is attacking John Kerry for supposedly trying to "gut" U.S. intelligence services in the mid-90s. Here to refute him is former general counsel of both the CIA and Senate Armed Services Committee, Jeffrey Smith.Smith makes it clear that Kerry was very much in the mainstream on this issue. But you know Bush/Rove. Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
posted
7:57 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
You Must Sign Zee Paper, Old Man!Sign the Petition to Save Overtime Pay. Unless you think America needs fewer jobs and lower pay.
posted
7:30 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Aww, Shucks, Peoples. We Jes' Folks.A conservative group called Citizens United has run an ad in which the announcer says:Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Hairstyle by Christophe's: $75. Designer shirts: $250. Forty-two-foot luxury yacht: $1 million. Four lavish mansions and beachfront estate: Over $30 million. Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people. Priceless.Yep, we best ta jus' stick wit' dem po' boys in da White House, who dragged they raggedy asses inta Washington from da hinterlands an' da hollers a corporate America. Tip O'The Tam to CJR Campaign Desk.
posted
7:22 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Goddamnit! I Told You! Racism's Over!The impact of '3 strikes' laws a decade laterThe California three strikes law, the harshest in the nation, seriously needs amending. The argument that the law passed and crime went down is utterly typical of stupidly simplistic far right dingers, as one can glean from the article. Having my own pet causes, I'll just excerpt a little bit. The study also found that almost 60 percent of the third-strikers were in for nonviolent offenses, most of them drug possession. In fact, there are 10 times as many third-strikers serving time for drug possession as for second-degree murder.Butcha know, racism's over, at least in the imagination of many white people.
posted
6:48 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
Kerry Soft On Terrorism (Hah!) - In 1995, But . . .'Twould appear the Bush administration, particularly they're pet holy-roller, were only soft on terrorism up till about, say, Sept. 10, 2001. After that they got the picture. No dumbies they. G Dubya criticized Kerry for "cutting" intelligence spending in 1995. Atrios says:You know what, bitches? Bring it on. You really want to start digging into what people were doing about terrorism before September 11? You really want to ask how high a priority it was for the Bush "oops we shelved the Hart-Rudman report" administration? You want to remember just how important Bush's attorney general thought it was?More proof of Bush administration bullshit rescued from the memory hole. Apparently it takes a real man to get tough on terrorism. Under Mr. Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001.
posted
12:27 PM by
Phaedrus | Link |
|
"My opponent clearly has strong beliefs -- they just don't last very long," Mr. Bush said.Be careful what you criticize.Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it. |