Scooter Blue

Scooter Blue, Where Are You?

2005-04-14T20:50:00.000Z

Well well well, it's been a while. I bet my three (Okay, two) loyal readers are wondering what the hell I've been up to.

Here goes:

I've been dealing with some heavy personal stuff lately, for one. I don't like to discuss personal matters on my blog; I'd rather stay anonymous. Let's just say I've had neither the time nor the desire to do regular blogging lately. I hope that changes in the near future.

Also, I've had a crisis of confidence in my blogging. I noticed that I started to lose the "edge" I had been developing earlier - around the time of Bush's Inaugural, I felt like I was on fire! (Or was it just the Mexican food?) But soon after, I began to run out of inspiration. It's not that I wasn't outraged at what I saw in the news every single fucking day, it's just that I couldn't come up with much of any original commentary. I was merely posting links, and I don't want to become a liberal version of Instawanker.

Really, there is a plethora of excellent blogs that provides the kind of insight I wish I had - check out my blogroll, for starters. I really don't feel like I'm adding anything to the discourse, and I don't want to only be part of the liberal "echo machine." I respect too many bloggers to do that.

So I took a voluntary hiatus. And I'm still not really ready to come back just yet. And if and when I do, I've decided I won't be just a political blogger. I have deep passion for other topics, like music and pop culture, for instance. I think that if I commented on those areas, along with politics, I could maybe find that fire I once had.

Until then, I bid you adieu.

P.S. to Froth - I miss Drinking Liberally. Perhaps this summer I will return. Thanks for everything!

Today's Big Tool

2005-03-22T19:00:00.000Z

John McCain!

Link #1:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - President Bush and Sen. John McCain put on another showing Tuesday of their good-cop, bad-cop routine on Social Security, trying to prod Democrats into cooperating with rather than opposing the president's drive to create private accounts within the system.

I guess this writer hasn't heard...they're personal accounts, not private accounts! (-snicker-)

McCain, after speaking glowingly of ``the pride I feel in this president,'' had a less conciliatory message for Democrats in Congress, whom he accused of being obstructionist and shortsighted. (emphasis mine)

"Some of our friends who are opposing this idea say, `Oh, you don't have to worry until 2042.' We wait until 2042 when we stop paying people Social Security? That's not what this is all about,'' he said. ``Please urge our Democrat friends to come to the table and sit with us and do this for the greater good of the United States of America. ... This issue isn't shouldn't have anything to do with partisan politics.''

He also aimed some of his "straight talk'' at AARP, the powerful lobby for older citizens that opposes Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal accounts that could be invested in the stock market in trade for reduced guaranteed benefits.

Does this guy's fawning not make you want to vomit? Especially after all the nasty stuff Bush did to him back in 2000?

Link #2:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the conclusions of a commission investigating intelligence failures on weapons of mass destruction should not lead to new questions about whether the Iraq war was justified.

"America, the world and Iraq is better off for what we did in bringing democracy," McCain said.

The Arizona Republican is a member of a commission formed by President Bush over a year ago after the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, resigned saying "we were almost all wrong" about the pre-war estimates that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons.

The nine-member panel is to release a final report at the end of the month that is expected to take a critical look at the assessments of weapons programs, particularly in Iraq, Iran and North Korea, by the 15 agencies that comprise the U.S. intelligence community.

McCain, in appearances with Bush at Social Security events in the West the past two days, has been offering a glowing endorsement of the president's second-term push for democracy around the globe. In two states Monday and here on Tuesday, he ticked off changes in Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Middle East and Iraq as proof that Bush "is on the right side of history" and deserves credit for advancing freedom throughout the world. (emphasis mine)

Ugh. Never forget - McCain may not be a fundie, but ever the good soldier, he tows the party line every time.

Shameful

2005-03-21T19:12:00.000Z

I haven't covered the Schiavo case at all, on the account that many others are doing a great job already of exposing the Repug hypocrisy. But I came across this at Raw Story - the infamous GOP talking points that so many have been talking about:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida - has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Meanwhile, have any of you talked to anyone who would want to be kept alive in the same sad state as Terry Schiavo? I know I haven't, even from the most diehard wingnuts. I know if if were me, I'd want my loved ones to do the right thing - and pull the plug. But we all know this is about much more than that...at least, those of us who read liberal blogs...

Again, the GOP is out of touch.

Waaaah! Waaaah!

2005-03-20T13:28:00.000Z

Great article by Russell Jacoby at The Nation, about whiny-ass conservatives and their ironic preoccupation with "academic freedom."

Jack Kelly: Racist and sexist?

2005-03-20T13:07:00.000Z

Either that, or just plain stupid. Read his latest pile of excrement, and pay special attention to his conclusion about shifts in Armed Forces enlistment:

Money for college was the principal reason young people gave for a willingness to enlist, followed by "duty."

Proportionately more blacks and women enlist for the economic benefits, while a higher proportion of white males give duty as a reason for joining up.

So blacks and women who enlisted primarily for the benefits are being replaced by white males who enlist primarily to serve their country. That's not such a bad thing. (emphasis mine)

Hooray for the dutiful white men! It's about time they took the place of those shiftless, money-grubbing blacks and women! (Sarcasm, anyone?)

Myopia

2005-03-16T21:38:00.000Z

I normally don't slag other bloggers, but this was just too much. Powerball, a fundie conservative, writes:

Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.
The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

Hey as long as I don't have to pay two bucks a gallon you can drill on top of Mount Rushmare for all I care. Move over caribou, here comes Exxon. (emphasis mine)

I could snipe about spelling and grammar, but the main point is that, despite what your Dear Leader says, drilling in ANWR won't make a great difference, and I'd be willing to bet that we won't see considerably cheaper gas prices because of it. And is cheaper gas worth damaging the environment? I don't like expensive gas either, but there are many other, better ways to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. This whole brouhaha is more about politics than helping the "common man":

Others who advised Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums because of political and environmental concerns.

``If you can't do ANWR,'' said Matthew R. Simmons, a Houston investment banker for the energy industry, ``you'll never be able to drill in the promising areas.''

Freaking unbelievable

2005-03-16T21:15:00.000Z

I'm sure you've already heard about this, but the neocon takeover continues:

President George Bush risked the ire of the international community for the second time in as many weeks yesterday as he nominated his administration's leading neo-conservative hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, to be the head of the World Bank.

Barely eight days after he nominated John Bolton, a hotly anti-United Nations State Department official as US ambassador to the UN, the President's choice of World Bank president seemed virtually guaranteed to raise hackles in diplomatic circles, and among development professionals who believe Mr Wolfowitz currently Deputy Secretary of Defence is unqualified for the job...

Mr Wolfowitz is not only an international lightning rod because of his central role in mounting the Iraq war. The appointment of a conservative ideologue with no direct experience of the financial world is also likely to be unsettling to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as they seek G8 backing to cancel debts in the world's poorest nations.

Wow. Look here for a list of Wolfie's delusions about Iraq. A few choice excerpts:

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: "They've worked at hiding things very, very deliberately. There's no question in my mind that there was something there. There are just too many pieces of evidence, and we'll get to the bottom of it." May 31, 2003.

Rebuilding Iraq: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." March 27, 2003.

Look on the right side of this blog for the ever-rising cost of the Iraq war, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Wofie's plan to eradicate poverty: Look for food in Somalia ("It's gotta be in there somewhere!") and kill thousands of poor people ("Well, there's less poverty now, right?").

Spin cycle

2005-03-16T21:00:00.000Z

Via Raw Story:

When things don't go your way, spin, spin, spin:

President George W. Bush said Tuesday that Italy and other nations will start pulling out of Iraq as Iraqis are able to defend themselves.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has announced that Italy's troops will start withdrawing from Iraq in September, but Bush said the Italian leader had assured him during telephone talks on Tuesday that there was no change of policy.

"He wanted me to know that there was no change in his policy, that in fact, any withdrawals would be done in consultation with allies and would be done, depending upon the ability of the iraqis to defend themselves," Bush told a press conference.

"I think you will find that countries will be anxious to get out when Iraqis have the capacity to defend themselves, and that is the position of the United States."

On the ol' homestead

2005-03-15T22:45:00.000Z

Tim at Chuck Pennacchio's site has some clever coverage of Santorum's residency issues. Check it out - anything to give Ricky a headache...

This is just plain stupid

2005-03-14T19:00:00.000Z

Believe it or not, I'm not criticizing the Bush Administration this time, just a bunch of morons in Wyoming:

CHEYENNE - As if the hair in your salad wasn't bad enough, a city health inspector here said there had been "several cases" of tongue rings and other facial jewelry found in the food in the city's restaurants.

It was enough to persuade the Governor's Food Safety Council to recommend banning facial jewelry for restaurant workers who prepare food -- perhaps becoming the first state in the country to do so. Katherine Kim of the National Restaurant Association said her organization isn't aware of any other state that banned facial piercings.

But despite his testimony, when contacted by The Associated Press, Jon Cecil of Cheyenne Health Department couldn't cite a single documented case of facial jewelry falling into a restaurant dish.

That's not what he said in a Jan. 25 hearing before the Food Safety Council.

"We've had several cases of old ladies finding tongue rings and rings and whatnot in their food," Cecil testified. "We actually had a lady at one of our finer restaurants in town and ... she found a tongue ring." (emphasis mine)

Okay, I think I've solved the mystery, Shaggy. Some cranky old lady (sorry if that sounds age-ist) got freaked out over the Subway Sandwich Artist's lip ring and complained. And now a stupid law could be passed that would discriminate against (by and large) young people.

One question: Would the law pertain to ear piercings? I'm sure they're much more common than nose or eyebrow piercings, and just as likely (read: not likely at all) to "fall" into someone's Extreme Fajitas.

At least some people in the area have some common sense:

...Troy Meeks, general manager of the Snake River Bar and Grill in Cheyenne and a 23-year veteran of the restaurant business, said he had never heard of piercings making their way into a customer's food.

"It sounds kind of silly to me," he said.

Cindy Weindling, vice president of the Colorado Restaurant Association, saw little reason to ban facial jewelry.

"I don't see a health hazard," she said. "If it's not a health hazard, why do we need a regulation?"

Global warming? What global warming?

2005-03-14T18:50:00.000Z

The Guardian features some disturbing photos. I wonder why we haven't seen more of this sort of thing in the American media? Probably too busy running Bush Administration propaganda.

Surprising?

2005-03-14T18:40:00.000Z

Hardly:

WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department's former independent watchdog says he was twice summoned to then-Secretary Tom Ridge's office last year and asked why his reports criticizing the agency were being sent to Congress and whether they could be presented more favorably to the department.

Ridge "was trying to get me not to give things to Congress and also to try to spin reports in a way most favorable to the department, and I resisted both of those," former Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin said in an interview.

Of course, Ridge denies it. But this administration has a habit of suppressing dissenting points of view in favor of more "friendly" ones.

Schadenfreude

2005-03-11T18:55:00.000Z

Those darn Americans just won't get in line:

SHREVEPORT, La. Mar 11, 2005 — In state after state along President Bush's Social Security road campaign, hand-picked audiences cheer him, leaving the impression that the nation wholeheartedly backs his ideas for reform.

The reality is different.

While a majority of Americans approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and foreign policy, just 37 percent like his approach to Social Security, an Associated Press poll found. (emphasis mine)

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I'm lovin' every minute of it! (Gratuitous Loverboy reference)

Note to Democrats: Do not give in!

Light blogging over the weekend - see you Sunday or Monday.

Still out of touch

2005-03-10T17:27:00.000Z

Link:

Most American voters say the decisive presidential election last week has given them renewed confidence about the nation's electoral system and they're hopeful about the next four years, an Associated Press Poll finds.

At the same time, they feel a sense of urgency about Iraq, their top priority for President Bush to tackle after his re-election, questioning disclosed. Iraq was followed by terrorism among voters' leading concerns...

The poll taken in the days following the election also found that voters want Bush to cut the deficit, which ballooned under his watch, rather than pushing for more tax cuts.

The voters' concerns stood in contrast to the priorities Bush cited after he defeated Democrat John Kerry. Bush pledged to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, tax laws and medical malpractice awards. Terrorism was a chief concern both for Bush and many voters in the poll...

More than one-fourth of respondents, 27%, named Iraq as the top priority for Bush's second term, ahead of terrorism, the economy and health care. Only 2% named taxes as a priority in the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

By more than a 2-1 margin, voters said they preferred that the president balance the budget rather than reduce taxes further. (All emphasis mine)

Chuck Who?

2005-03-10T17:20:00.000Z

That's what the PA State Democratic Party seems to be saying about Chuck Pennacchio. Not only is this a big mistake, it's just plain rude:

Pennacchio finds the Party's approach "disrespectful."

"It was very disrespectful, and mostly to the volunteers," Pennacchio said. "We had hundreds of volunteers who have been giving their time and energy. Also, it's disrespectful to the people this campaign represents. We represent working class people, middle class men and women, children, older Americans... Our campaign stands for a better and brighter future."

What does Casey stand for? (silence)

I like music!

2005-03-09T20:35:00.000Z

Yes, I do. I usually post bitter liberal screeds, but I felt like somehting different this time. I'm fairly new to the MP3 blog phenomenon, but Fluxblog is one of my favorites. Visit the site regularly for samples of a vast array of often unheard gems.

Rep. Conyers: U.S. Democracy in trouble

2005-03-09T19:02:00.000Z

Read here:

In summary, Rep. Conyers expressed concern at what he perceives to be a systematic erosion of due process throughout government. He asserted this departure from the “protection that the government provides people” should be a “wake up call” to those who cherish democracy in the United States...

The second longest ranking member of the House (Conyers was elected first in 1964) says he has great concern for America’s future under a presidency he feels has forgotten everyday Americans.

“We're dealing with a political viewpoint now that is witnessing the steady erosion of the protection that the government provides people in voting, against emergencies, problems in life, unemployment, running out of money, having to go into bankruptcy, or suing in court, where you may be injured far beyond some measly cap of $250,000,” Conyers said.

“It seems like on every front they're trying to frustrate, obfuscate and make it as difficult as possible for citizens to assert their rights,” he added.

Conyers said he believes the American democracy is struggling under the weight of current policies.

“This should be a wake up call to a lot of people who begin to realize that we're moving backwards in terms of democracy,” he said. “We're moving backwards in terms of economic security, we're having many of our rights taken away that we thought we had in the courts. ”

He also weighs in on Graham and Gannon, too. Check it out for yourself; it's a worthwhile read. It's really encouraging to hear at least a few of our elected representatives expressing the same concerns that pound in my fevered brain every single day. Between this and the GAO report, I actually feel a bit of optimism today. Now tomorrow, we'll see.

On a side note: Those who visit this blog, please feel free to leave comments on my posts or my blog and writing in general. I'm always eager to hear what you have to say, even if it's critical.

GAO: Bush plan bad for Social Security

2005-03-09T18:40:00.000Z

It's all in black and white:

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Private investment accounts such as those President Bush endorses not only will not save Social Security, but they also could accelerate the retirement system's financial problems, a nonpartisan government official told Congress Wednesday.

The testimony by Comptroller General David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office - a congressional watchdog agency - encouraged Democrats, who want Bush to drop his proposal for new personal accounts before they negotiate any plan to fix Social Security's long-term solvency shortfall.

But Walker also said that the impact that private accounts would have on Social Security would depend entirely on how they're funded and what other steps are taken - such as pension-benefit cuts or tax increases - to shore up the system's long-term solvency. The GAO chief also said that action is needed soon to address the system's solvency problem before it worsens.

"Social Security does not face an immediate crisis, but it does face a large and growing problem," Walker told the House Ways and Means Committee in its first hearing this year on problems facing the national pension system. (emphasis added)

Again, more good news for all Americans - that is, unless Democrats get in the mood to cut a compromise deal with Republicans. Why do it? We're right, and they're wrong, end of story. Would Republicans do the same in our position? You're damn right they wouldn't!

Not so fast, there

2005-03-08T19:40:00.000Z

The party in Lebanon might have to be put on hold for a while:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Pro-Syrian protesters gathered in a central Beirut square Tuesday, answering a nationwide call by the militant Shiite Muslim Hezbollah group for a demonstration to counter weeks of massive rallies demanding Syrian forces leave Lebanon.

Loudspeakers blared songs of resistance and organizers handed out Lebanese flags and directed the men and women to separate sections of the square. Black-clad Hezbollah guards handled security, lining the perimeter of the square and taking position on rooftops. Trained dogs sniffed for bombs.

Large cranes hoisted two giant white and red flags bearing Lebanon's cedar tree. On one, the words ``Thank you Syria'' were written in English; on the other, ``No to foreign interference.'' (emphasis added)

Could Bush's heavy-handed tactics be backfiring?

Look, you'll never hear me say that democracy and freedom are bad things. It's ridiculous that wingnuts have so many Americans somehow convinced that liberals/progressives are against these values. But to credit Bush with what's happening in Lebanon? Please. Shouldn't we give the Lebanese their props?

From listening to the right-wing blogosphere and much of the MSM, one would think that the Lebanese people have been cowering in fear, just waiting for the Messiah of Freedom (Bush) to bomb the hell out of Iraq as the "OK" sign for them to speak out. Bullshit.

Atrios has some thoughts on the matter, too.

Down the Memory Hole

2005-03-06T22:25:00.000Z

Evidently, Santorum's having trouble on the Internet:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has removed a poll on his Web site that didn't go his way,” Roll Call’s Mary Ann Akers will declare in Monday’s Roll Call, RAW STORY can reveal.

The poll, an image of which appears on the website of Democrat Chuck Pennacchio, a Democrat vying against Santorum in the race.

“The question in his online poll asked, ‘Do you support the creation of voluntary Personal Retirement Accounts as a part of Social Security reform?’” Akers

pens. “Answering yes were 9.2 percent of respondents; 90.8 percent clicked ‘No, Social Security should not be reformed to include Personal Retirement Accounts for Individuals.’”

Asked about the results of the poll, a Santorum spokeswoman told Akers the senator switches polls so visitors can register their opinions on various issues. Akers reports she had no comment on what the senator thought of the “overwhelming response opposing personal accounts.”

Nice score on that one from Chuck Pennacchio!

Worse than Ward Churchill?

2005-03-06T14:10:00.000Z

Way worse. Anti-gay bigots thank God for 9/11: (Via Raw Story)

CLEVELAND - A Topeka, Kansas anti-gay and lesbian group picketed near Truett-McConnell College Saturday in Cleveland, protesting against the Gay-Straight Alliance Club.

Eight demonstrators from Westboro Baptist Church, six adults and two children, held up protest signs on the roadside near the college entrance as a heavy escort of Cleveland Police and State Troopers looked on.

The group was barred from Truett-McConnell grounds because it is private property.

Shirley Phelps-Roper held a bright neon painted sign that read "Thank God for 9-11" and claimed it was her duty to come to Cleveland...

Another protester, Katherine Hockenbarger,claimed the 9-11 attack was divine retribution.

"That was but a small sign of the doom of this nation," she said. "You can't live your life anyway you want to and expect to go to heaven."

Lovely. BTW, I've been meaning to address Churchill's infamous essay for a while now, but have never found enough time to devote to a trenchant analysis. Hopefully soon.

Social Security destroys GOP

2005-03-06T14:00:00.000Z

Yeah, I know, you thought it would be the other way around. This article from the LA Times shows how Bush's divisive, unpopular stance on Social Security is creating cracks in the GOP's mighty exoskeleton, revealing the soft, gushy stuff inside.

Of Freedom and Reality

2005-03-06T13:08:00.000Z

The Post Gazette publishes a pretty fair assessment, by Fred Kaplan, of "freedom on the march" in the Middle East.

Hunter S. Thompson murdered?

2005-03-03T20:36:00.000Z

Some think so - read here. Thompson was evidently working on a 9-11 expose' before his death and warned a friend that he might be killed and the murder made to look like a suicide.

Granted, the site I linked to above is rife with conspiracy theory, but the article itself has pretty legit sources (Toronto Globe and Mail, AP, etc.). I'm extremely skeptical, but intrigued. Will Thompson's unfinished work be published? To be continued...

What book are you?

2005-03-03T17:15:00.000Z

You're The Giver!

by Lois Lowry

While you grew up with a sheltered childhood, you're pretty sure
everyone around you is even more sheltered. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, you were
tapped on the shoulder and transported to the real world. This made you horrified by
your prior upbringing and now you're tormented by how to reconcile these two lives.
Ultimately, the struggle comes down to that old free will issue. Choose
wisely.

Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Language gone mad

2005-03-03T16:35:00.000Z

Scrutiny Hooligans breaks down Republican-speak, and it's not pretty:

(Frank) Luntz released a 160 page playbook for the Republican party. It's basically a primer on how to talk if you want to win. It doesn't address ethics, truth, or integrity. It addresses only how to talk. It is sophistry for dummies, and it's what we can expect from the Republican party for the next couple of years.

Read more here.

He's out of touch, he's out of time...

2005-03-03T16:20:00.000Z

Sorry for the Hall and Oates reference, but it seems that Americans are wary of the Bush agenda:

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll...

On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that the program would become insolvent near the middle of the century if nothing was done. The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in a reduction in guaranteed benefits. And 45 percent said Mr. Bush's private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system.

In a sign of the political obstacles confronting the White House, a majority of those surveyed said they would support raising the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll tax above its current ceiling of $90,000, an idea floated by Mr. Bush but shot down by Republican Congressional leaders. Yet there is strong resistance to other options available to Mr. Bush and lawmakers to repair the system, in particular to raising the retirement age or making participation voluntary.

Notwithstanding Mr. Bush's argument that citizens should be given more control over their retirement savings, almost four out of five respondents said it was the government's responsibility to assure a decent standard of living for the elderly.

Hooray! Keep up the fight, Dems - we're winning the Social Security battle (kind of)! Remember what that felt like?

The ratings on Iraq are a mixed bag:

In an apparent reflection of the success of the Iraq elections, 53 percent of those surveyed said that efforts to bring order to Iraq were going very or somewhat well, up from 41 percent a month ago. That is the highest rating on that score since the capture of Mr. Hussein.

Still, 42 percent now say that Mr. Bush would have been better off trying to counter the threat of North Korea before invading Iraq, compared with 45 percent who think Mr. Bush was correct to focus first on Iraq.

But check out the domestic numbers:

Four months after Mr. Bush won a solid re-election over Senator John Kerry, 63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans.

What about foreign policy?

And Mr. Bush does not appear to be much more in step with the nation on what the White House has long viewed as his strong suit: 58 percent of respondents said the White House did not share the foreign affairs priorities of most Americans.

Okay, so all this, in a way, is good news: It confirms what many of us already knew. Americans are, at best, ambivalent about the policies of the Bush Administration. So why did Kerry lose? I'm not sure if I'm the most qualified respondent, but I'll say that several factors played into Bush's slim (percentage-wise) victory:

1. The God, Guns and Anti-Gay voters were rallied in full force.
2. For all his faults, Bush is likeable to a lot of people (ugh).
3. Kerry ran a weak campaign and failed to articulate a clear alternative to the Bush Administration.

What do you think?

Oscar censorship?

2005-02-28T19:07:00.000Z

Looks like last night's Oscars was a victim of the chilly, culturally conservative times:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - At the Oscar awards, what was not said was probably more interesting than what was.

Hollywood's big night on Sunday was beamed to the world with a five-second time delay, and broadcaster ABC ordered some controversial quips cut before the show, sparking debate about how far political correctness should go and freedom of speech controlled.

Comedian Robin Williams said it all when he walked on stage with a piece of white tape over his mouth.

Williams was to have performed a song lampooning conservative critic James C. Dobson, whose group had criticized cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in a video it branded "pro-homosexual."

He was going to do it by concentrating on the dark underside of other cartoon characters, asking, for example whether Casper the Friendly Ghost wore that white sheet as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Marc Shaiman, who wrote Williams' original routine, said he decided to withdraw the material after ABC raised objections that would have led to him re-writing 11 of 36 lines. ABC declined to comment.

"It's ironic because I feel the song is silly and the situation is silly and yet on the other hand it's extremely serious," Shaiman told Reuters from New York. "This is the most blatant, immature censorship that I've ever come across..."

Williams was not available to comment on his act at the Oscars, but he told the New York Times on Friday:

"For a while you get mad, then you get over it. They're afraid of saying Olive Oyl is anorexic. It tells you about the state of humor. It's strange to think: How afraid are you?"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

2005-02-27T12:10:00.000Z

Jack Kelly, hawkish conservative columnist, seems to think everything's A-OK in Iraq:

It will be some months before the news media recognize it, and a few months more before they acknowledge it, but the war in Iraq is all but won. The situation is roughly analogous to the battle of Iwo Jima, which took place 60 years ago this month. It took 35 days before the island was declared secure, but the outcome was clear after day five, with the capture of Mt. Suribachi.

Proof of this was provided by Sen. Hillary Clinton. Iraq is functioning quite well, she said in a press conference in Baghdad Feb. 19. The recent rash of suicide attacks is a sign the insurgency is failing, she said.

I'll hold you to that, Mr. Kelly. Interesting how Hillary's opinions are "proof" to Kelly. Think he will feel the same if Hillary becomes the 2008 Democratic Presidential frontrunner? Just wondering.

Meanwhile, more signs that everything's "okay" in Iraq here and here. And even if (and that's a mighty big "if") things eventually become "okay" in Iraq, will it have been morally right to invade? Will it have been worth the human (American and Iraqi) cost?

Chuck!

2005-02-24T21:15:00.000Z

Chuck Pennacchio is going to challenge Santorum in the next PA Senate race. Check out his site and see what you think. It's a little early for me to get on board 100% yet (although I'm against Santorum 110%), but I'm open to whatever Chuck and any other Democratic challengers have to say.

Light blogging the next couple of days - I've got a busy weekend ahead, the good kind, too! I'm also mulling various changes to the blog; feel free to leave any suggestions, comments, insults, etc.

Something random and fun

2005-02-22T18:49:00.000Z

Try this and pass it on:

1.Grab the nearest book.
2.Open the book to page 123.
3.Find the fifth sentence.
4.Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5.Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

From J.D. Salinger's Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour, An Introduction:

"Permanently, from that morning on, Seymour was hooked."

Via Scrutiny Hooligans and others.

I needed this. Things have been a little rough lately. For every positive, there seems to be three negatives. And the everyday grind of life threatens to engulf me. But tomorrow's another day, right?

Right?

Hunter S. Thompson and Bush - drug buddies?

2005-02-22T15:50:00.000Z

Not exactly. But notice what the good Doctor had to say about meeting Bush at a party in the Seventies. Even if it's not 100% true, it's an interesting read.

So long, Raoul

2005-02-21T14:55:00.000Z

There's a lot going on today that I could write about, but I just can't bring myself to do it. We just lost Arthur Miller, and now Hunter S. Thompson (aka Raoul Duke):

ASPEN, Colo. Feb 21, 2005 — Hunter S. Thompson, the hard-living writer who inserted himself into his accounts of America's underbelly and popularized a first-person form of journalism in books such as "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," has committed suicide.

Thompson was found dead Sunday in his Aspen-area home of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, sheriff's officials said. He was 67. Thompson's wife, Anita, had gone out before the shooting and was not home at the time. His son, Juan, found the body.

I just don't know what to say. He was truly a giant among men, and one of the greatest writers of our time. I can't really do the man justice, so I'll post a couple of quotes from his best known work, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas:

"We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold."

"But our trip was different. It was a classic affirmation of everything right and true and decent in the national character. It was a gross, physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country - but only for those with true grit. And we were chock full of that."

"And that, I think, was the handle---that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting---on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave...
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in
Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can
almost see the high-water mark---the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back."

The Purple Finger

2005-02-20T14:05:00.000Z

This is a little after-the-fact, but Naomi Klein puts the Iraq elections in perspective:

So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers: They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited flowers and candies, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger.

The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes." The UIA also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects." In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expand the public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least if Adel Abd al-Mahdi gets his way--he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted as leader of Iraq's next government.

Almost everyone felt joy seeing Iraqis get to vote and help shape their own destiny. But we can't let that feeling blind us to the fact that the majority voted for policies that the occupation opposes. The message being sent to the Iraqi people: "Well, that's just great that you got to vote. Don't think that it really means anything, though." If they begin to realize that the vote may have been a farce, we could be in for even more trouble than we already have.

More intriguing Iraq news: U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents

The plot thickens

2005-02-18T20:26:00.000Z

Gannon/Guckert was just on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. Pretty interesting stuff. Even though it was previously taped and obviously edited, it did a good job of exposing Jeffy for the buffoon he really is. But of course, there are more important things about this story than his incompetence and second job as a gay escort.

He didn't work for a legitimate news source, and yet managed to obtain a White House press pass. His employer, Talon News, is owned by the shadowy Endeavor Media Group: (courtesy of intrepid blogger The Raconteur)

But what about Talon News? According to whois records, talonnews.com is owned by Endeavor Media Group in Houston TX -- a company with a PO Box and a fake phone number listing. When checking on endeavormediagroup.com in whois, the same info comes up -- but endeavormediagroup.com is a Forbidden domain. Also, googling "endeavor media group" gets you nothing. It's like this company doesn't exist.

And it didn't -- until Monday.

Endeavor Media Group, LLC (39068802O)
info@endeavormediagroup.com
P.O. Box 891354
Houston, TX 77289
US
Phone: 999-999-9999

Record expires on 07-Feb-2008
Record created on 07-Feb-2005
Database last updated on 07-Feb-2005

So what's the deal? Talon News changed ownership right around the time the Jeff Gannon controversy was about to boil over.

But wait, there's more.

Talon News' "#1 client" GOPUSA.com, is also, as of Monday, owned by Endeavor.

Domain Name: GOPUSA.COM Administrative Contact , Technical Contact : Endeavor Media Group, LLC (39068802O) info@endeavormediagroup.com P.O. Box 891354 Houston, TX 77289 US Phone: 999-999-9999 Record expires on 27-Sep-2007 Record created on 27-Sep-1999 Database last updated on 07-Feb-2005

Oh my. What kind of media organization hides behind a P.O. Box and a fake phone number? Interesting about the Texas thing, too. Remember, Bush was Governor of the Lone Star State. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but this is just too unusual. If I lived anywhere near Houston, I'd stake out the 77289 post office...any takers?

To be continued.

Army's on Ecstasy

2005-02-18T19:18:00.000Z

No joke:

US soldiers traumatized by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be offered the drug ecstasy to help free them of flashbacks and recurring nightmares.

The US food and drug administration has given the go-ahead for the soldiers to be included in an experiment to see if MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, can treat post-traumatic stress disorder.

Actually, I'm all in favor of this, as well as using ecstasy and other drugs in therapy. Can it be any more harmful than Vioxx? The only thing I wonder is, will those who are trained to kill want to do so again after taking the empathogenic drug?

The army's on Ecstasy
so they say
I read all about it
in USAToday
They stepped up urine testing
to make it go away
'cause it's hard to kill the enemy
on ol' MDMA

Said the King of contradiction
to the Queen of mystery
the Prince of paradox, he dogs me like a flea
so I'll set my troops upon him
and bring him to his knees
When all is said and done
I'll pick a fight with the Chinese

The Queen she stared at him long and hard
and then she softly said
I'll rub you down with linseed oil to ease your throbbing head
She slipped a note into an apricot
and threw it to the whores
The jester read the words
something wicked this way roars

The Army's on ecstasy
so they say
I read all about it
in USAToday
They stepped up urine testing
to make it go away
'cause it's hard to kill the enemy
on ol' MDMA

The price they put upon the heads
of folks with poignant views
Would be better spent on
The children without shoes

And when the King condoned
the actions of the liar
He forgot to weigh the awesome power
of the village crier

The Army's on ecstasy
so they say
I read all about it
in USAToday
They stepped up urine testing
to make it go away
'cause it's hard to kill the enemy
on ol' MDMA

Army's on Ecstasy by Oysterhead

The more things change...

2005-02-18T16:11:00.000Z

the more they stay the same:

BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 18, 2005 — A series of explosions ripped through Baghdad and a nearby city Friday, killing at least 35 people and injuring dozens on the eve of Shiite Islam's most important holiday, officials said. It was the deadliest day since Iraq's landmark elections last month.

Suicide bombers attacked two Shiite mosques in Baghdad as Friday prayers were ending, another explosion occurred near a Shiite religious procession and a third suicide bomber blew himself up at an Iraqi police and National Guard checkpoint in a Sunni neighborhood.

On Friday evening, a car bomb exploded outside a Shiite mosque in Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of the capital, killing seven people and wounding 10, doctors said on condition of anonymity...

Two Americans were killed Friday in separate attacks, bringing to five the number of U.S. soldiers slain since Wednesday, the military said.

Fleischer and Dowd on Gannon

2005-02-17T19:28:00.000Z

No, this isn't the title of a three-way porn flick. Ari had reservations about Gannon/Guckert:

NEW YORK Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was so concerned about Talon News reporter James Guckert's potential ties to the Republican Party that he stopped calling on him at press briefings for about a week in 2003, Fleischer told E&P today.

"I found out that he worked for a GOP site, and I didn't think it was my place to call on him because he worked for something that was related to the party," Fleischer said in a phone interview. "He had the editor call me and made the case that they were not related to the Republican Party. He said they used the GOP name for marketing purposes only..."

"I don't think that party organizations should have people in that room acting as reporters," Fleischer said, explaining his initial concerns. "They are advocates, not reporters, and a line should be drawn." But, after speaking with Eberle and looking at Talon News, he was convinced that GOPUSA.com and Talon News were not official party sites.

"It looked like a conservative news organization," Fleischer said. "If I thought that they were part of the party, I would not have [resumed] calling on them..."

Fleischer also stressed that, beyond security concerns, reporters from any regular news organization should be allowed to a have White House access unless they can be shown to be a threat. "It is a slippery slope for any press secretary in any administration to pick and choose who gets a credential based on ideology," he said, adding, "so long as they are a legitimate reporter."

Hmmm...meanwhile, Maureen Dowd couldn't get a press pass:

I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.

In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.

Sounds suspicious to me.

D'oh! Looks like Kos scooped me by about twenty minutes; he even had almost the same title, except he didn't include Dowd in the mix. Oh well, the more the merrier, I say.

Hate crime? Maybe not, but...

2005-02-17T16:21:00.000Z

Hate Crime charges against "Repent America," an anti-gay group, have been dismissed:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A judge dismissed charges on Thursday against four anti-gay Christians accused of violating hate crime laws when protesting at a gay street festival, saying free speech rights allowed them to do so.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe said the four members of "Repent America" exercised their right to free speech when they refused to move away from the city's gay pride "Outfest" last October.

The protesters used bullhorns and placards to warn festival participants that they would suffer eternal damnation for their homosexual behavior. After a noisy, nonviolent confrontation with gay people, they were charged with incitement to riot, and violating a 1982 Pennsylvania law that bars inciting hatred on the basis of race, color, religion, nationality or sexuality.

"You cannot stifle free speech because you don't want to hear it," Dembe said. "Many of these messages may be repulsive and offensive but people are allowed to make them."

I'm no legal eagle, but I very, very reluctantly agree with the court's decision, although the protesters may be guilty of other crimes. The festival was held on public streets, after all. However, these tools at "Repent America" are clearly not in good company:

The right to free speech extends to neo-Nazis marching in towns where Holocaust survivors live and to the Ku Klux Klan, the judge told a packed courtroom.

Here's more:

The leader of the group, Michael Marcavage, 25, said after the ruling that he felt vindicated.

"It's a good thing to know that there are still some judges who respect the First Amendment," he said, adding that his group plans to protest another local gay rally on May 1.

Okay, maybe this psycho is technically not guilty of hate crimes, and he's free to protest the upcoming rally. Is it illegal to pelt fundie idiots who refuse to MYOB with eggs and rotten tomatoes? Just wondering!

Do the math

2005-02-17T16:01:00.000Z

Talking Points Memo links to an online calculator that demonstrates your benefit cuts under the Bush plan to destroy Social Security. Most fun I've ever had with math...

This is not good

2005-02-16T20:45:00.000Z

Bad news:

Iran and Syria announced a common front against the United States yesterday as Washington ratcheted up its pressure on two of the countries highest on its list of rogue states.

“We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats,” Mohammad Reza Aref, the Iranian Vice President, said after meeting Naji al-Otari, the Syrian Prime Minister, in Tehran.

Any bets on how soon we'll hear about tactical air strikes against one or both nations?

GOP slime equates Dean, Pelosi with Lynne Stewart

2005-02-16T19:33:00.000Z

Courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

NY GOP chair Stephen Minarik, who seems to be making a name for himself by mischaracterizing Dean and the Democrats as "radicals," is at it again. Now he says that "the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean." Basically, he's saying that we liberals and Democrats are terrorist sympathizers. Nothing new, just incorrect and irritating. Can you picture what would happen if Dean equated Republicans with Neo-Nazis and racists?

If you don't already know, Stewart, who was convicted of aiding terrorists, has no affiliation with the Democratic Party, as pointed out by none other than NY Governor Pataki. Tactics like these betray the fear some Republicans feel when they see liberals standing up for their principles instead of taking it lying down.

Here's the best part:

Calling Stephen Minarik's comments "offensive," (Dean) said, "The American people deserve better than this type of political character assassination."

Far from apologizing, Minarik issued a statement deriding the national chairman's comments as "the latest `Dean Scream.'"

Is that all you've got? Dean's response to Minarik's misleading comments was fair and even-tempered, and Minarik comes back with cliche'd invective. Who's the one "screaming?"

Triumph of blandness

2005-02-16T19:11:00.000Z

House votes to raise indecency fines. Not much to say about this, really. It's bad enough that there were fines in the first place, and that the FCC (an unelected body) is allowed to decide for me what is "indecent," but now the maximum fine has been raised from $32,500 to $500,000! And it also appears that this was a bipartisan effort.

Weekly roundup of reasons to drink

2005-02-15T18:27:00.000Z

Headed to Drinking Liberally tonight, so here's a collection of stories that will inspire my consumption:

Kerry Backs Bush War Spending Plan

Bush Asks Congress to Renew Patriot Act

Senate Unanimously Confirms Chertoff

Reporters May Be Headed to Jail for Refusing to Name Sources

Pat Robertson Warns Dems Against Opposing Bush Judicial Nominees

Bartender, can I have another?

On the bright side, the new This Modern World comic is hilarious.

It's funny because it's true

2005-02-14T19:35:00.000Z

Something funny I heard this weekend on Saturday Night Live:

(This is paraphrased, from memory, several beers into the night)

From Weekend Update:

President Bush's latest job approval rating is 50%, or as high school teachers call it, an F.

Here's a big waste of money...

2005-02-14T19:25:00.000Z

Bush's missile fails to launch: (-snicker-)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's planned ballistic missile shield suffered another setback on Monday when an interceptor missile again failed to launch during a test of the U.S. missile defense system.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it was unable to complete the planned $85 million repeat of a failed December test after the interceptor missile, built by Raytheon Co., failed to launch from its base in the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, the article mentions that the Bush budget would cut spending on the ballistic missile defense by $1 billion - now they only have $8.8 billion to play with. Awww, poor babies! Meanwhile, the budget proposal would slash many programs to help the underprivileged.

What a country!

Coming out of the woodwork

2005-02-14T18:58:00.000Z

You knew it was going to happen:

ALBANY, N.Y. New York's party chairman are exchanging brickbats over Howard Dean's election as chairman of the national Democratic Party.

Stephen Minarik -- Republican chairman in the Empire State -- says Dean's election shows Democrats are radical, out-of-control and sadly out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Is Dean really so far left that he would be considered "radical" by most Americans? Or are Republicans a little scared of Dean's potential to ignite passion and fundraising in the Democratic Party?

I knew the smear tactics would start soon, but just not this soon.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me...

2005-02-13T21:37:00.000Z

Well, not really. But we need to support Dean and the Democrats now more than ever. So, I figured I'd join the liberal blog armada and post this link:

...Dolla Dolla Bill, Y'all...

Get out yer raincoats

2005-02-12T12:48:00.000Z

Atrios points out that the wingnuts are up to their old tricks again - labeling liberals as terrorist sympathizers, or worse. Read the links he provides - the scary thing is that even people like Instawanker seem to agree. I don't want to be paranoid or anything, but it's looking more and more like the Red Scare every day - see the latest furor over "academic leftists" in Ohio:

Professors would have to include diverse opinions in classrooms under legislation being pushed in Ohio and several other states by conservatives who fear too many professors indoctrinate young minds with liberal propaganda. Such measures have had little success getting approval in the other states.

"I see students coming out having gone in without any ideological leanings one way or another, coming out with an indoctrination of a lot of left-wing issues," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Mumper, a former high school teacher whose Republican party controls the Legislature.

Where is the evidence? Define "indoctrination." I call shenanigans! Complete and utter bullshit.

Read on:

Professors dismissed the bill as unnecessary and questioned whether its supporters had ulterior motives, such as wanting more conservative professors...

The Ohio legislation is based on principles advocated by Students for Academic Freedom, a Washington, D.C.-based student network founded by conservative activist David Horowitz.

Big surprise there...

Joe White, a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said students could use perceived discrimination as an excuse to refuse to learn.

"We're not supposed to teach for their comfort," he said.

Other opponents, including the American Association of University Professors, say such bills could stifle debate.

"We see nothing but mischief if we invite people from outside of the university to somehow start monitoring what goes on inside the classroom," said David Patton, an AAUP member and professor emeritus of Ohio State University.

Sen. Teresa Fedor, a Democrat from Toledo, agrees: "Can we say 21st century witch hunt and book burning?"

I knew you could! Sometimes I think we're one terrorist attack away from internment camps and loyalty oaths. Next time I hear some wingnut whine about "persecution," I've got a few choice words from him or her.

Okay, one more...

2005-02-11T17:30:00.000Z

...and I'm taking a break for a little bit. Bloggin', like pimpin', ain't easy, and my blog muscles atrophied a bit during my involuntary hiatus. Peruse and print out How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must), which I found over at Tom Paine. Remember, be informed and frame the debate!

Krugman to Dems: The Bush budget is a gift

2005-02-11T17:22:00.000Z

Read Paul Krugman's latest op-ed about the regressive Bush budget.

His conclusions are:
1) The budget is all-out class warfare. (And we all know which side it favors)
2) Democrats have stood strong and surprised many by fighting effectively against the destruction of Social Security. Now it's time to take it further by doing the same with the budget and Bush's tax policy. With Dean at the head of the DNC, we can expect more of this sort of principled opposition.

Meanwhile, some are wary of the Dean revolution. Fine, that's their prerogative. I only hope Dean and 48% of America (and rising) can prove them wrong.

RIP Arthur Miller

2005-02-11T16:11:00.000Z

Playwright Arthur Miller dies at age 89.

I missed out on a chance to see him speak a few years ago. I read The Crucible a long time ago, but I recently saw the great film adaptation starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder. This play, if you're not familiar, is an allegory of the McCarthy Red Scare witchhunts of the 50s set during the Salem Witch Trials. But an astute reader will see many parallels with the current War on Terra, right down to Reverend Parris' assertion that all innocent and Christian people are happy for the Trials, and Danforth's Bush-like claim that their Draconian methods are justified because of the time and the situation:

. . . But you must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road
in between. This is a sharp time, now, a precise time
--we love no longer in the dusky afternoon when evil mixed
itself with good and befuddled the world. Now, by God's grace,
the shining sun is up, and them that fear not light will
surely praise it. I hope you will be one of those. (Miller 94)

He was ahead of his time - and come to think of it, in a way the Puritans were, too. Miller was on record as a critic of the Bush Administration's tactics. Oh yeah, and he was once married to Marilyn Monroe! How great can one get?

We'll miss you.

Republicans feeling the Social Security heat

2005-02-10T21:05:00.000Z

A sign that Bush's unpopular plan to destroy Social Security may be causing fellow Republicans to squirm:

(AP) -- A senior House Republican with long experience in Social Security matters outlined legislation Thursday that jettisons two controversial elements in President Bush's plan in an attempt to court Democratic support.

"I think politically it's the most salable," Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla., said of his alternative, although he conceded neither the White House, the House GOP leadership in the House nor any Democrat has yet to lend backing.

Shaw said his measure would meet two key goals outlined by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last week, creating private accounts while placing Social Security on a path toward permanent solvency. But unlike the administration's blueprint, it does not rely on payroll taxes to fund the individual accounts, nor does it envision cutting promised benefits for future retirees.

Shaw outlined his alternative as Bush made stops in two states in an effort to reassure congressional Republicans that tackling Social Security won't end their political careers.

The president has yet to win a single Democratic convert and clearly has more work to do among lawmakers of his own party.

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., said that despite a presidential sales pitch delivered in person on Wednesday, "I will have problems" if the eventual legislation relies on payroll taxes to finance personal accounts.

Asked whether the issue could cost him his seat in 2006, Simmons, who represents a competitive district, said, "I could lose my seat over almost everything."

That last statement sounds suspiciously like an attempt to ward off accusations of "giving in" to Democrats. "Naw, boss, I'm still yer friend!"

For the record, even though this plan, from the few details provided, sounds better than the Bush plan, I am not in favor of it. I am still not convinced that there is any need to make sweeping changes to Social Security. However, one thought has crossed my mind of late. I'm all for people making their own decisions - about their leaders, their personal life, what to do with their bodies, etc. Many supporters of the Bush plan keep invoking this personal freedom issue, all the while trying to infringe on the rights of gays and women. Maybe we could find a way for all of these nuts to invest their own Social Security funds as a sort of a trial run of the program! They'd probably line up for the chance. Then in thirty years, when they're working at McDonalds to afford enough dog food for dinner, they can tell us all about the joys of this brand of "freedom."

An official Guckert/Gannon investigation afoot?

2005-02-10T19:03:00.000Z

It will be if Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg has his way:

WASHINGTON, DC -- In light of yet another scandal involving the Bush administration's manipulation of the media, United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today requested from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan all the documents relating to the press credentials of James. D. Guckert, a.k.a. "Jeff Gannon"; the "journalist" now famous for being the White House correspondent for his softball questioning of President Bush and various Administration spokespeople.

"I am writing to request that you immediately release documents to my office relating to the White House press credentials of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. "Jeff Gannon." Specifically, I am seeking documentation related to the question of which name Mr. Guckert/Gannon used when applying for credentials, and which name was on the official White House press credentials he received," wrote Lautenberg.

"As you may know, Mr. Guckert/Gannon was denied a Congressional press pass because he could not show that he wrote for a valid news organization. Given the fact that he was denied Congressional credentials, I seek your explanation of how Mr. Guckert/Gannon passed muster for White House press credentials," Lautenberg wrote.

Senator Lautenberg has been the Senate leader in exposing the Bush administration's propaganda efforts.

I don't want to get too optimistic, but it appears that so far, Democrats aren't giving Bush a free pass in his second term. Of course, in this case, the truth about Gannon...I mean, Guckert would've never been uncovered if the lefty blogosphere hadn't jumped on it. (My computer picked a hell of a time to break down!)

Nevertheless, the story has found its way into the mainstream media - see this CNN article. Ol' Froth wonders if the whole gay escort angle is what's making the story appealing - what do the rest of you think?

Chertoff Update

2005-02-10T18:37:00.000Z

I've written before about Chertoff, Bush's nominee for Homeland Security chief - here's a well-documented report on his questionable civil liberties record from the ACLU.

Wheels within wheels

2005-02-09T22:29:00.000Z

If you don't already know about the Jeff Gannon story, read Tom Tomorrow's post and the subsequent links.

One word: Wow. So far, the closest thing to mainstream media coverage of this story was a piece on Olbermann tonight (didn't get to see it myself). But hopefully it will filter down soon, as did the No Pundits Left Unpaid scandal. Someone tell me how this news is not a far bigger, more insidious problem than "Rathergate!"

Roving Lunatic

2005-02-09T17:54:00.000Z

No, I didn't misspell the headline. Karl Rove has been promoted - and why not, really? His slimy tricks have helped make Bush into the "great" President he is today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, will take on a wider role in developing and coordinating policy in the president's second term, the White House announced on Tuesday.
Rove, who was Bush's top political strategist during his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, will become a deputy White House chief of staff.

In that role, he will be in charge of coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council...

Rove, 54, will continue to oversee White House strategy to advance Bush's agenda and will "make sure we have an open and fair process for the development of policy and to make sure the policy is complementary and consistent with the various councils," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

My guess is that Rove is being brought in as a policy stormtrooper for the second term. A lot happened while I was away, including the unveiling of Bush's ambitious neoconservative agenda. Thankfully, Dems and a few thoughtful Republicans have stood strong - so far. Bush will need Rove to help devise methods to pass as much of this nonsense as possible. Be on the lookout, friends...rough seas ahead.

More Rove antics here and here.

Guess who's back...back again...

2005-02-08T16:48:00.000Z

Scooter's back...tell a friend...

Yes, I am back. All five of my readers may now wipe away their tears. My computer has returned from rehab, clean and sober. I knew he had a problem when he was wandering the streets at night, rubbing his mouse up against strange computers...we were all concerned about him. But he acknowledged his problem, and now he can once again help me criticize the Bush Administration.

I've got a lot to catch up with, but there will surely be more to come.

Rest In Peace, Johnny

2005-01-23T14:22:00.000Z

Johnny Carson, 30-year king of late night TV, dead at 79 - USAToday.

Uh oh

2005-01-23T14:08:00.000Z

Light blogging the next few days - my computer's on crack again (just got back from rehab, too). So here's a quick one:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has declared all-out war against Iraq's landmark elections in a warning intended to scare away voters a week before they go to the polls amid a raging insurgency...

Zarqawi, a shadowy Jordanian militant who tops America's wanted list in Iraq, berated the country's Shi'ite majority for embracing the coming election and urged Saddam Hussein's once-dominant Sunni minority to wage a holy fight against it.

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as Zarqawi said in an audio tape on the Internet.

"Those who vote ... are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions)," he said.

Zarqawi's network has assassinated politicians and beheaded foreign hostages in the countdown to the election. Despite a $25 million (13 million pound) U.S. bounty on his head, he has eluded a U.S.-led manhunt and continues to thumb his nose at American troops.

His group's almost daily attacks -- including most of the deadliest suicide bombings of the past year -- have raised fears of a bloodbath during next Sunday's election, Iraq's first since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam.

Iraqi officials say Sunni guerrillas are not only trying to wreck the election, expected to cement the new-found power of the long-oppressed 60 percent Shi'ite majority, but also want to provoke sectarian civil war.

Ohhh, man. And elections are a week away? This is really bad. Don't get me wrong, now - al-Zarqawi is a murderous fearmonger, and I admire the courage of those who will actually try and vote. But I can't help thinking, why are all of us (Americans and Iraqis) in this mess? This is what happens when neocon idealism is set loose, untempered by realism. Ideally, the fall of Saddam is great. But do the ends justify the means? And what about the possibility of all-out civil war?

Remember this infamous Bush quote: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."

Out of the closet?

2005-01-22T18:31:00.000Z

No, I'm not talking about Sponge Bob. I mean the neocons:

WASHINGTON - In the unending struggle over American foreign policy that consumes much of official Washington, one side claimed a victory this week: the neoconservatives, that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East...

"This is real neoconservatism," said Robert Kagan, a foreign policy scholar who has been a leading exponent of neocon thinking - and who sometimes has criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."

On the other side of the Republican foreign policy divide, a leading "realist" - an exponent of the view that promoting democracy is nice, but not the central goal of U.S. foreign policy - agreed.

"If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy..."

Another sign of the administration's bent: Several of the leading realists of the first term, notably Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his closest aides, have left. But leading neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz, are staying. And at least one, National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams, is said to be in line for a more prominent job at the State Department or NSC.

Wow. When you have other conservatives calling your administration "extremist," then you know there's something fishy going on. I definitely sensed the neocon message in the inauguration. Wolfowitz and his ideological allies are driving the Administration's foreign policy. Look here for more insight. If you don't already know about the Project For The New American Century, read the whole site to learn more. The list of members reads like a neocon roll call - Cheney, Bennett, Jeb Bush, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol. This is the blueprint for the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

One thing I found intriguing is the article's "idealist" labeling of the Bush Administration. I suppose in a way, their policies are idealist - see definition of word. I have no problem with idealism, even though I am often a realist. I think a healthy dose of both, and knowing when to apply the one perspective vs. the other, are crucial, especially in foreign policy.

For example, liberals and progressives would love to see true freedom and liberty spread all over the world, but how to accomplish it? At the barrel of a gun, as the Bush Administration has tried to do (and, if all indicators are accurate, we'll see much more of), or by using diplomacy and building true, broad coalitions?

Compare the article from the LATimes (link above) to this Orlando Patterson op-ed from the NYTimes (registration req'd). It discusses Bush's version of "freedom" vs. the classic liberal definition of the word. What I agree with is the point that Bush's so-called idealistic version of freedom is basically, as the author put it, "doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other." This differs with the liberal definition, which "emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries."

And there rests the problem with the neocon version of freedom. Sure, it's idealistic. And we often should think in idealistic terms. But when dealing with delicate foreign policy issues, the idealism needs to be tempered with realism. When we have an Administration so hawkishly supporting the forceful spread of "freedom" around the world while purging the realists in their own ranks, well, we're in for trouble. If you think Iraq is bad, wait and see what other idealistic pursuits of freedom they have in store.

Well, this is just plain stupid

2005-01-21T18:42:00.000Z

The dumbest conservative idea ever - W Ketchup! Here's more:

Choose Heinz and you're supporting Teresa Heinz and her liberal causes, such as Kerry for President.

And here's a dubious bit of information from the FAQ page:

What does the “W” stand for?
Our official position is that the “W” stands for “Washington”.

Sorry, I'll stick to Heinz (and that has nothing to do with Teresa).

I have finally arrived...

2005-01-20T18:48:00.000Z

...in the blogworld! Why, you ask? Because I got my first visit from a troll today! His name is warriorjason and he has his own blog, warriorsvoice.

Here are the comments he left:

On Coronation Day:

Were is the outrage and protests concerning the Islamofacists who cutt off heads and disembowl their fellow muslims whos only crime is trying to vote? Oh yeah I never see you left wing extremists complaining about that.

On There is no crisis:

Of course you liberals are NOW saying that there is nothing wrong with Social Security but three months ago you were complaining about it.
Hypocrites

On Weekly roundup of reasons to drink:

I'd be more concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons.

And finally, on Kerry strikes back:

I do agree that there needs to be one way to do the election. Just look at how the libs stole the election in Washington state.

I have to admit, I'm a little flattered. I mean, I must be doing something right to get that kind of response. warriorjones, stop by anytime. I love reading uninformed, misspelled responses.

Bored with the Social Security mess?

2005-01-20T17:51:00.000Z

Yesterday I posted about There Is No Crisis, a website about the nonexistent Social Security crisis. I noticed today that I had a comment on the post. (Trust me, it's unfortunately a rarity.)

The comment was from Daniel, author of Bloggledygook, one of the better blogs in the Pittsburgh area. Take some time to check out his site; he's a self-professed liberal, but not a leftist (although I'm not 100% sure what that means exactly). We've had a friendly back-and-forth for a little while now. We disagree on many counts, but I have some degree of respect for him. Read his comment to the post here.

I wish I could be as bored with the Social Security issue as Daniel is. But I'm too busy being concerned. And I really don't care who's zooming who. (Wasn't that an 80's Aretha song?) What really gets me is when Daniel writes "The issue come down to what you believe. Should government take money from one person to give it to another? Should younger generations be forced to support older generations who frankly should have thought ahead?"

I think this is a central idea behind the plan to dismantle Social Security. People see it as theft from their hard-earned paychecks to pay for shiftless seniors. Of course government can take money from one person and give it to another - it's called taxes! No one enjoys paying them, but where do you think the infrastructure of our society comes from? It sure doesn't come from selfish corporations. We all enjoy the fruits of our tax dollars - the Internet, the highway system, public services, etc. And when we get old, Social Security is there to provide a basic level of modern existence. Senior citizens are the ones who built the world we live in, with their own efforts and tax dollars.

Social Security wasn't intended to be the only support for seniors. It was supposed to supplement their pensions and private savings. How many of you get a substantial pension nowadays? Not that many. As for as private savings go, the vagaries of the stock market could wipe those out mighty quick. And again, how many of you make enough today to set aside much money, let alone enough to live on comfortably for 10-20 years? Not nearly enough. (There goes the "ownership society.") And so what if some senior citizens screwed up and wasted their money? Don't we, as a civilized society, owe them basic sustenance now that they're no longer able?

And as far as giving a "choice," well, I just don't think those advocating "choice" have looked closely enough at Bush's ideas. There is no crisis. If you are able to save for retirement and choose to do so, then go ahead. But we should still provide Social Security as a guarantee that, if you work all your life, pay taxes, and make it to those golden years, you will be provided for on a very basic level.

That's just what I think. I'm still not sure if Daniel supports privatization of Social Security; I don't want to put words in his mouth. Again, check out Bloggledygook sometime. Even if you don't agree with everything you see there, at least it'll provoke thought.

Coronation Day

2005-01-20T17:26:00.000Z

Well, today was Bush's coronation-I mean, inauguration. I considered doing the Bush Blackout thing, but decided against it because I didn't want to give him or his cronies the satisfaction. (Yeah, I know, like I even register on their radar!) I posted yesterday that he planned to hype the "ownership society" idea, and yes he did, among other things.

One of the main themes was "freedom." Okay, freedom's great. That's precisely why he hyped it so much - it's completely non-controversial! It's like taking a stand...against murder (gasp)! What else of any significance does Bush have to say? Absolutely nothing.

However, the way he wants to apply freedom is curious (same link as above):

The president pledged to continue efforts to spread democracy throughout the world. "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.

Every ruler and nation? That's a mighty tall order there...

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

Except if we identify them as "enemy combatants." Then we can torture and imprison them at will!

"... In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty."

I shouldn't have to point out that Bush is not an authority on justice and human rights. (see Gonzales, Rice, Ashcroft/Chertoff, Guantanamo, etc.)

All in all, quite a day. One more thing: anyone hear the tool shouting "Four more years!" at the end of the speech? Yeah, you won. As many conservatives are wont to say nowadays to us liberals: "Get over it!"

How tacky

2005-01-19T19:07:00.000Z

Inaugural speeches give a President a chance to reach out to the American people and draw them together, or to call them to a higher purpose. For example, JFK exhorted us to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" and FDR reminded us that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." (How relevant is that one in today's Terror Level world?)

So what does Bush plan to talk about tomorrow at his second inauguration? the evils of government and the wonders of the "ownership society":

...Domestically, Mr. Bush will talk about freedom from government...Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush "will talk about the importance of advancing freedom to achieve peace abroad and security at home, and he'll also talk about the importance of extending freedom in the United States by building an ownership society.

"The President wants people to have more control over their own lives and have more say over their own lives," Mr. McClellan said.

Except if they're women or gay or if they disagree with the President's policies! And I'm so sick of hearing about "the evils of government" from hypocritical conservatives. They seem to like it when it benefits them; I could go on and on. I'll save it for another post.

I'll wait to hear tomorrow's speech to make a final judgment, but if this article is at all accurate, then Bush's speech will be as vapid as the man himself. So tacky...

There is no crisis

2005-01-19T18:25:00.000Z

Crisis: an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty.

The Bush Administration and its cronies would have you think that this word describes the state of Social Security. Hopefully, you know it just isn't the case, just like the other times Bush invoked "crisis" to get what he wanted (WMD, anyone?). Atrios turned me on to this great site: There Is No Crisis. It's entirely dedicated to debunking the conservative myth that Social Security is in imminent trouble and must be replaced with privatization and cuts in benefits. Take some time to check it out; I plan to link back to it on a regular basis.

Weekly roundup of reasons to drink

2005-01-18T18:35:00.000Z

I've got to make this quick - I'm heading to Drinking Liberally tonight. So , without further ado, the weekly roundup of reasons to drink:

Rumors of Iran as next target=Iran says they're not afraid of U.S.=deja vu?

Also, more pre-election mess in Iraq.

Libations, anyone?

Kerry strikes back

2005-01-17T15:10:00.000Z

Via The Raw Story: Appearing at a Martin Luther King Day event in Boston, Kerry denounced voting irregularities in Ohio:

Kerry, Bush's Democratic challenger, spoke at Boston's annual Martin Luther King Day Breakfast. He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but went on to say that "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote."

"Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans sorted through in ten minutes -- same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

"We're here to celebrate the life of a man who if he were here today would make it clear to us what our agenda is, and nothing would be made more clear on that agenda that in a nation which is willing to spend several hundred million dollars in Iraq to bring them democracy, we cannot tolerate that too many people here in America were denied that democracy," Kerry said.

Okay, great. So now I (and many others) want to know: What are you going to do about it? Speaking out isn't enough; legislation needs to be passed to standardize and streamline voting procedures nationally. I don't see how this could be anything but a positive for Democrats, and the nation as a whole. We're waiting!

In the spirit of the holiday (that Cheney and friends originally opposed, BTW), here are a few very relevant MLK quotes:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

"All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality."

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Pre-election omens?

2005-01-17T11:05:00.000Z

You might have already heard, but things are looking scary as the Iraq election draws near:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents killed at least 16 Iraqis on Monday in two attacks aimed at security forces, and U.S. forces suffered casualties in a suicide bombing in the flashpoint western city of Ramadi as violence continued to build ahead of national elections scheduled for Jan. 30.

Some of the latest violence, including a series of weekend attacks along a highway southeast of Baghdad, occurred in provinces which U.S. and Iraqi authorities have deemed safe enough to hold the elections and appear to be attempts to scare the country’s majority Shiites away from the Jan. 30 polls.

Of course, there's more. Read for yourself. To place it all in perspective, here's a golden oldie from Vice President Cheney, on March 16, 2003:

"Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

Looks like I spoke too soon...

2005-01-17T10:56:00.000Z

...in my earlier praise of Ted Kennedy. MyDD has the goods:

So today I'm watching the Sunday morning funnies, a.k.a. the political shows, as is my usual Sunday morning routine to get the blood pressure up. I'm flipping back and forth, and start with Face the Nation, and Sen. Kennedy, a leading liberal voice for our party, talking about several issues, Social Security among them. I flip over to ABC and watch Sen. Frist, GOP majority leader for the dark side, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is also talking about Social Security. The contrast in the arguments could not be greater.

I sat there stunned, remote falling from my hands, as I watched Sen. Kennedy reinforce the GOP frame, and at one point actually talk about raising taxes to fix social security. In horror, I pick up the remote and flip over to see Frist on point, on message, and reframing several very tough questions just to repeat his message on his terms. I sit there shaking my head and again wondering why.

Their guys get it. Our guys don't...

To be fair to Teddy, at least he's "leaning against" confirming Gonzales (I'll be watching!), but that doesn't excuse his Sunday bumbling. I can't say it enough: all progressives/Dems/liberals must read Don't Think of an Elephant! And no, George Lakoff isn't paying me to say this...

Got yer accountability right here

2005-01-16T21:56:00.000Z

Via The Guardian, Accountability in action:

Two US defence contractors being sued over allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison have been awarded valuable new contracts by the Pentagon, despite demands that they should be barred from any new government work.
Three employees of CACI International and Titan - working at Abu Ghraib as civilian contractors - were separately accused of abusive behaviour.

The report on the Abu Ghraib scandal implicated three civilian contractors in the abuses: Steven Stefanowicz from CACI International and John Israel and Adel Nakhla from Titan.

Stefanowicz was charged with giving orders that 'equated to physical abuse', Israel of lying under oath and Naklha of raping an Iraqi boy.

It was also alleged that CACI interrogators used dogs to scare prisoners, placed detainees in unauthorised 'stress positions' and encouraged soldiers to abuse prisoners. Titan employees, it has been alleged, hit detainees and stood by while soldiers physically abused prisoners.

Investigators also discovered systemic problems of management and training - including the fact that a third of CACI International's staff at Abu Ghraib had never received formal military interrogation training.

Despite demands by human rights groups in the US that the two companies be barred from further contracts in Iraq - where CACI alone employed almost half of all interrogators and analysts at Abu Ghraib - CACI International has been awarded a $16 million renewal of its contract. Titan, meanwhile, has been awarded a new contract worth $164m.

More background information on the topic from Robert Fisk here.

Permission to screw up, granted!

2005-01-16T11:52:00.000Z

Nowadays, outrage is my primary emotion while reading the news. But this one was just too much:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

So getting 51% of the vote gives this dolt permission to screw up as much as he can? The worst part is that, in a very small way, he has a point - with all that Bush did wrong, Kerry still lost. Just goes to show what a flaccid campaign the senator had. All the more reason why Dems have to go on the offensive, stop worrying about responding to every single nonsensical accusation from the right, and articulate a clear progressive agenda.

Just for fun, I'll leave you with another nugget of wisdom from the Prezdint (same link as above):

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."

Thanks, Captain Obvious!

Following orders?

2005-01-14T19:34:00.000Z

A little while ago, Charles Graner was found guilty of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib:

A 10-member military jury found Graner, 36, a former civilian prison guard, guilty on 10 charges, many of which were documented by photographs of sexual humiliation of naked men that shocked the world after they were leaked last year.

Graner stood at attention and looked straight ahead without any visible reaction as the verdict was read. He held his hands tightly clenched...

In his closing argument, Graner's lawyer said the former Pennsylvania prison guard was following orders of military intelligence officials at Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad as part of a vital, larger U.S. war effort in Iraq.

"Corp. Graner is a smart guy, professional and he was doing his job in Iraq," defense attorney Guy Womack told the court. "Now the government would ask a corporal, an E4, one of the junior people there, to take the hit for it."

The prosecution argued that Graner and others in his unit acted without orders for their own gratification.

"This cannot become the recruitment poster for the United States Army," prosecutor Capt. Chris Graveline said as he held up an enlarged photo showing Graner in front of a pyramid of naked detainees.

No doubt about it, what Graner did was wrong. However, it appears that he was thrown to the wolves in order to protect those who devised the plan for prisoner torture: Gonzales and the Bush Administration. Graner's lawyers tried to point this out in his defense, but to no avail.

In related news, Tom Ridge commented today that torture should not be ruled out if it could protect many lives:

Speaking to the BBC, Tom Ridge said the US did not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists.

But he said that "under an extreme set of circumstances" such as the threat of a nuclear attack, "it could happen".

It comes a day after the US was accused of eroding human rights by campaigners...

Mr Ridge told BBC News 24's HARDtalk: "By and large, as a matter of policy we need to state over and over again: we do not condone the use of torture to extract information from terrorists."

You don't?

But he said it was "human nature" that torture might be employed in certain exceptional cases when time was very limited.

In the event of something like a nuclear bomb threat "you would try to exhaust every means you could to extract the information to save hundreds and thousands of people", he said.

One could be drawn into all sorts of "what if" dilemmas about situations in which torture might actually be justified. But the problem is that reality is rarely as simple as these hypothetical situations. Start thinking this way, and pretty soon any terror suspect could be seen as possessing the knowledge that could save countless lives. It's a slippery slope you're walking, Mr. Ridge:

He said the US did not have the luxury of knowing where and when a terrorist attack might happen.

"I don't think it is 'if'. I think it's a matter of 'when'. We operate that way," he said.

Scottie takes one for the team

2005-01-13T18:50:00.000Z

As usual, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan does his best to cover for Bush's latest screwup (WMDgate); story courtesy of David Corn at The Nation. I have to admit, McClellan is good at what he does - deflecting criticism and sidestepping hard questions. Look here for more fun with Scottie!

More fallout from Williamsgate

2005-01-13T18:33:00.000Z

Oh no, I'm not going to let up on this one. Now Senators, the FCC, and even lame duck Education Secretary Paige are calling for more investigations:

Education Secretary Rod Paige directed his agency Thursday to begin a speedy investigation into its public relations contract with a prominent black media commentator after leaders of a Senate committee asked for records of the department's publicity deals.

At the same time, a Federal Communications Commission member asked that his agency investigate whether the commentator, Armstrong Williams, broke the law by failing to disclose that the Bush administration paid him $240,000 to plug its education policies to minority audiences...

The (Education) department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired Williams to produce ads that featured Paige and promoted Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also called for Williams to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.

Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.

"Given our jurisdiction over the funds involved, we would appreciate your careful review of the contract with Ketchum and the payment made to Mr. Williams," said Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in a letter to Paige.

The letter, dated Wednesday, was obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday. The lawmakers are the chairman and the ranking member of the panel that oversees education spending.

They asked Paige for a list of any grant, contract or arrangement of public money being used "for public relations or anything similar to the purpose of the Ketchum contract" from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 budget years.

Harkin also plans to introduce a bill requiring federal agencies to report their entire advertising budgets to Congress, and to make clear in their ads that public money was used.

The whole debacle is truly sickening, especially in light of Bush's shortchanging of NCLB funds. Look here for more:

...Funding is still $7 billion a year under what was envisioned in the authorizing legislation for No Child Left Behind, according to the National Education Association.

And it isn't just Democrats and the teachers unions saying it. In Republican-dominated Utah, the superintendent of the state's largest school district estimated it would cost $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind, compared to the $2.2 million per year it now receives in federal aid. And in Republican-dominated Ohio, a study for the state department of education estimated the cost of compliance with the law to be $149 million per year.

And now Bush wants to expand testing for high school students. I hope there will be funds left to help implement this plan - I mean, there are many other pundits waiting for fat paychecks!

Growing a spine?

2005-01-12T18:31:00.000Z

Hopefully, the Democrats are doing just that. The hearings on the Ohio elections were one positive sign, and now there's this:

Sen. Edward Kennedy offered a mild dig at fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign Wednesday, saying Democrats should have done a better job talking about values.

Kennedy said relatively small swings in several states including a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio could have triggered a different outcome or given Democrats more seats in the House and Senate. He also rejected suggestions that Bush's win was "somehow a sweeping or a modest or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security."

Go, Teddy, go! You're almost making me forget about my earlier criticism of you. More:

While Kennedy said it is too easy to blame the loss on a particular issue or tactic, Democrats do need to "do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in."

"We were remiss in not talking more directly about them about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies," he said. He added that Kerry's loss also showed that Democrats must communicate better with voters on issues of deep conscience, including abortion, without yielding the party's support for a woman's right to choose.

In a speech punctuated with broad liberal proposals to expand federal support for education and Medicare, Kennedy outlined a progressive agenda for Congress and the party.

"We cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices," said Kennedy, who has served 42 years in the Senate. "We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose."

He said Medicare should be gradually expanded to cover all citizens, and the cost would be funded through payroll taxes and general revenues and offset by savings through advances in technology.

Yes! Wow, does it feel good to hear someone as prominent as Kennedy say something like this. His comments relate directly to a book I just finished reading, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (A Progressive Guide to Action) by George Lakoff. I will be posting about it more in the days to come - it's a quick and easy read, and a must for anyone with progressive leanings. Kennedy basically paraphrased the book's themes in his speech today. Please do yourself a favor and learn what Lakoff has to say! It sounds like someone else has, too...(Read the book, than the link, and it'll all make sense.)

Cry Wolf

2005-01-12T18:15:00.000Z

Today we learned that the U.S. has officially ended the hunt for WMDs in Iraq. I'm aware that many other bloggers have already covered this, but I'd like to take a trip back in time - come along, won't you?

Here are Bush's comments about the subject back in October, 2002 (note the ironic heading "Iraq: Denial and Deception"):

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith...Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Well, we all know now what he had in mind. The scare tactics continued:

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Look here for more outrageous quotes from the Bush administration on the supposed WMDs that made Iraq such a threat. And the evidence Bush spoke of? Check here for a thoroughly documented refutation. Much of this trickery was apparent right away, despite Bush's claims that it wasn't his fault there was bad intelligence coming from the CIA. (See Seymour Hersh's findings on the subject.) And either way, Bush found other rationales for the war to cover his tracks.

This is all old news. But now the search for WMDs is over. And how many Americans have died? 1357, with at least 10,500 wounded. Bush seems to find the humor in the situation, but I doubt the families of these men and women do.

One more related item: Bush is again playing the "crisis" card, this time with Social Security. Hopefully the American people have learned their lesson - Bush is the President Who Cried Wolf.

Update: Atrios has a link to The Poor Man's chart comparing Rathergate to WMDgate. What's the bigger outrage? Does Instawanker have anything to say about it?

Sick and tired...

2005-01-11T20:19:00.000Z

...a little of both, actually, so unfortunately I'm missing Drinking Liberally tonight. I need some sleep, so I'll keep it quick today.

Bush finally nominated a new Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff. It seems that he already has broad, bipartisan support:

The choice of Chertoff, whose appeals court nomination sailed through the Senate, won immediate applause on Capitol Hill.

Well, let's not start patting each other on the back quite yet. The ACLU has some reservations about the choice:

The ACLU said it takes no position on the nomination, but "we are troubled that (Chertoff's) public record suggests he sees the Bill of Rights as an obstacle to national security, rather than a guidebook for how to do security properly."

The ACLU said Chertoff "has been a vocal champion of the Bush administration's pervasive belief that the executive branch should be free of many of the checks and balances that keep it from abusing its immense power over our lives and liberty."

The group added, "His nomination as head of the Department of Homeland Security -- a new and untested agency with great influence on civil liberties -- means that Chertoff should be questioned aggressively to ensure his fitness for the position, and the strength of his dedication to the Bill of Rights."

I found this older criticism of Chertoff, from Counterpunch:

...What's so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad hoc, case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess.

A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui , now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia. Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District is. But Chertoff is McNulty's boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff argued the government's case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge Leonie Brinkema's ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the government's star witnesses against him. The government has refused and appealed. Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to deny Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses...Chertoff's goal, I believe, and the goal of Ashcroft and Bush in supporting this prosecution in federal court, is to subject federal trials, as they see fit, to ad hoc exemptions of whatever laws (be they constitutional, criminal code, or rules of procedure) that will suit their purposes. Their grand scheme is to ultimately cripple and dismantle the federal courts as we know them, one brick at a time...Chertoff argued to the 4th Circuit that the Court could not order the government to produce its start witness against Moussaoui because (are you ready?) he, the witness, is out of the country at an undisclosed location. True, but the witness is in the custody of the federal government! The out-of-the country argument is a sham. This is similar to a ruling recently by the federal court that ruled that Guantanmo Bay prisoners had no access to federal courts for claims that they be charged or release because-they are out of the country!! Of course, in federal custody, but that does not matter...

So basically, it's business as usual for the Bush Administration.

Two quickies

2005-01-10T18:35:00.000Z

Here are a couple more things that I found today:

To start, Fahrenheit 9/11 won the People's Choice Award! Hooray! Moore's speech, to his credit, was short, sweet, and appropriately dedicated to the soldiers in Iraq.

Next, for those who say that there were no problems with Election Night in Ohio, check out Ohio Election Fraud. Now try and say that the recent hearings were nothing but liberal whining.

Instawanker!

2005-01-10T17:54:00.000Z

Normally, I'm unable to blog at work - I'm too busy...working! But I occasionally have time to briefly check the news on the Net, and inspiration will strike. This one has been brewing all day, so here goes...

First of all, I noticed this post from Instapundit about (you guessed it) Rathergate. Now, I've posted before about Glenn's singular obsession with this scandal and the irony involved, considering his own ties to big right wing media like Fox and MSNBC. (Click links for examples of bias.)

So CBS has decided to fire four employees. This comes as no surprise to me, and really, there seems to have been some sloppiness on CBS's part in this whole thing. It's not like there's no valid question of Bush's National Guard service - look here, for instance. Meanwhile, Kerry's own record was smeared by the Swift Boat Liars, and it was treated as legitimate.

In another previous post, I wondered aloud whether or not Glenn would ever mention Williamsgate, or No Pundit Left Unpaid as I also call it. Well, to be fair, he did, although of course he waffles in his criticism by sputtering "But...Clinton probably did it too!" So what? If he did (and right now it's only hearsay), then I condemn it as much as I condemn Bush's deception. Just because Clinton may have done it does not excuse Bush's confirmed actions. Meanwhile, Kos has the dirt: Williams admitted "There are others." Glenn's stance looks more and more tenuous...

Finally, Atrios drew my attention to this. I'll second the motion: Glenn should be from now on known as Instawanker.

Stop, you're killing me!

2005-01-09T15:48:00.000Z

I just had to post this:

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich is taking steps toward a potential presidential bid in 2008 with a book criticizing President Bush's policies on Iraq and a tour of early campaign states...

Really, can anyone picture Newt getting the 2008 nomination? This almost sounds like an article from The Onion. However, the laughing stops when you read some of his ideas:

--"We must establish that our rights come from our Creator and that an America that has driven God from out of the public arena is an America on the way to decay and defeat."

--"There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular left's unending war against God in America's public life."

I dunno, maybe the fundies have their man!

Winning hearts and minds

2005-01-09T14:32:00.000Z

You might already have heard about this:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops targeted by a roadside bomb have mistakenly killed two Iraqi policemen and two bystanders hours after an American warplane bombed the wrong house, exacting a heavy civilian toll, Iraqi officials say.

The back-to-back incidents on Saturday fuelled anti-American anger over the deaths of innocents during a raging insurgency just three weeks before Iraq's first election since U.S.-led forces toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

Residents said 14 people were killed in an air strike in the northern village of Aaytha, and showed 14 freshly dug graves. The military, making a rare admission of error in its fight against guerrillas, said its 500-pound bomb killed five people.

Shortly afterwards, a U.S. military convoy was hit by a explosion near a police checkpoint south of Baghdad in an lawless area known as the "Triangle of Death".

Troops escorting the vehicles struck back but at the wrong target, Interior Ministry spokesman Adnan Abdul-Rahman said. Two police officers and two civilians were killed. He said a fifth Iraqi suffered a heart attack and died at the scene.

The U.S. military launched an investigation into the bombing at Aaytha, near the restive city of Mosul, but said it had no immediate information on the convoy attack near Yusufiya.

Anymore, I barely have the will to post this sort of news. It seems to get worse and worse. I know, some of you out there may be thinking, "Well, Scooter, that's war for you. It ain't pretty!" Yes, true. And that's why I'm generally opposed to war, especially this sort of nation-building, unilateral, pre-emptive war without a clear rationale.

I just don't see how Iraqis are supposed to be kissing our feet because we got rid of Saddam, only to create even more violence and chaos and establish ourselves as an occupying force with no real end in sight. Think - would you be able to appreciate "freedom on the march" when your whole family had been acccidentally snuffed out by foreign occupiers? It sounds like many Iraqis can't see the bright side of the war:

Iraqis voiced resentment over what they see as heavy-handed U.S. military tactics and callousness toward mounting civilian deaths, sentiment that has dented U.S. efforts to win hearts and minds and get the country behind the January 30 ballot.

"Why did these poor people have to die?" lamented Baghdad taxi driver Doraid Abdul Khaliq, 28. "Bombing, shooting and running a tank over cars have all become something normal."

Those scary Europeans

2005-01-07T19:43:00.000Z

Bush must really be feeling the opposition to destroying-I mean, reforming Social Security:

(Reuters) - A top White House economic adviser warned on Friday the U.S. economy could become "more like those of Europe" if taxes were raised to stabilize Social Security for the long haul.
"That is not the direction we should be heading," the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, told a conference in Philadelphia sponsored by the American Economic Association.

It's not surprising that he's trying to rally the faithful by invoking Big Bad Europe, especially with his dismally low approval ratings:

(Bloomberg) -- Fewer than half of Americans approve of President George W. Bush's job performance as he prepares to enter his second term, according to an Associated Press/Ipsos poll.

The same proportion of Americans approve and disapprove of the president, with 49 percent on either side of the divide, according to the poll of 1,001 adults. Bush's approval rating is among the lowest of any re-elected American leader in 50 years, according to AP, comparable to that of Richard Nixon, the only U.S. president to resign.

To the Democrats: You need to come through in stopping the President's Social Security plan, and offer your own sensible, viable alternative that preserves the program as well.

Payola!

2005-01-07T19:22:00.000Z

It's Friday, and I'm tired, but I had to post this anyway. Atrios is spreading the word about Williamsgate, as I've decided to call it:

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter...sent a letter to David D. Smith, Chief Executive of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, and Johnathan Rodgers, Chief Executive of TV ONE, demanding that their contracts with syndicated broadcaster Armstrong Williams be terminated immediately.

As reported in today's USA Today, Williams was allegedly paid $240,000 by the Bush Administration to discuss the No Child Left Behind program in a favorable light as a regular part of his radio and television broadcasts on stations owned by the two broadcast groups.

Slaughter noted in her letter that if the Fairness Doctrine were still in place, this type of deception would not be possible. The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which required radio and television stations to air all sides of important or controversial issues.

A new low, I would say. What a waste of taxpayer dollars! And, as Talking Points Memo points out (also via Atrios), do you really think this is the only time this has happened? Some conservatives will probably try to counter that this sort of chicanery is necessary to counter the "omnipresent liberal media bias." I wonder if Instapundit will find time to discuss this, with all of his posts about Rathergate...

Slippery Gonzales, Spineless Dems

2005-01-06T19:34:00.000Z

Well, Gonzales' confirmation hearing kicked off today, and of course he exhibited a great deal of propriety:

Gonzales defended his advice as President Bush's White House counsel that al-Qaida and other terror suspects are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. But that wasn't the whole story, he said.
"Torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration,'' Gonzales told Judiciary Committee senators. "I will ensure the Department of Justice aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.''

Sure you will. So the advice was okay, but acting on the advice isn't! At least some Dems took him to task:

Democrats said it was Gonzales' January 2002 memo as White House counsel that led to the stripping, mocking and threatening of suspects with dogs. He had argued in his memo that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.''
Gonzales, as President Bush's White House counsel, was at the center of decisions about "the legality of detention and interrogation methods that have been seen as tantamount to torture,'' said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Added Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.: The "legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel.''

Gonzales tried to show his soft side, but thankfully some saw through it:

Saying he was sickened and outraged by photos of Abu Ghraib abuses, Gonzales described the U.S. troops in them as "people who were morally bankrupt having fun.'' Other abuses of foreign detainees probably were caused because "there wasn't adequate training, there wasn't adequate supervision''... Gonzales' response to some questions Thursday seemed to contradict his description of the Geneva Convention in his January 2002 memo.
"I consider the Geneva Convention neither obsolete or quaint,'' he said at the hearing, promising to ensure U.S. compliance "with all of its legal obligations in fighting the war on terror.''
Gonzales declined to give a legal opinion on the prisoner abuse, suggesting he didn't want to prejudice a possible criminal case as the attorney general nominee. That led to a 10-minute lecture from Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., on Democrats' long-standing complaints about Bush nominees not directly answering their questions.
"We're looking for candor, old buddy,'' Biden said. `"I love you, but you're not very candid so far.''
Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined in on some of the criticism, saying the administration "dramatically undermined the war effort'' by "getting cute with the law.''
"I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be,'' he said..."When you start looking at torture statutes and you look at ways around the spirit of the law, you're losing the moral high ground. ... I do believe that we've lost our way.''

Wow, those are pretty strong words coming from a Republican! Nice one. Sadly, all the tough talk from spineless Dems appears to be just that, talk:

Despite their questioning, Democrats showed no interest in opposing or delaying Gonzales, the 49-year old son of Mexican immigrants, from succeeding John Ashcroft as attorney general.

To quote ol' Billy Shakespeare: "...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." If Teddy Kennedy and the rest really had any guts, they'd try to block this guy. Instead, they grandstand and then take the politically expedient path. I'm a progressive liberal type and all, but Dems piss me off when they act like this.

One more thing that got overshadowed today: Nine American soldiers were killed in Iraq today, the most in one day since the Mosul attack. That brings the count to 1350.

Gobbledygook

2005-01-05T19:03:00.000Z

A few unrelated thoughts:

First, Drinking Liberally was a grand success. Thanks to Ol' Froth for organizing it and making us all feel at home. I usually am not hypersocial, but I had a great time. Hopefully this will become a weekly event! Check out his blog sometime; it's one of the best ones in the 'Burgh.

Next, anyone noticing a deadly pattern in the news coming out of Iraq? Just wondering.

Finally, something funny (we need it):

Well known for his vocal support of Tibet's Dalai Lama and celebrated for his captivating good looks, (actor Richard) Gere urged Palestinians in a television commercial broadcast ahead of Sunday's poll in the West Bank and Gaza to get out to vote for a new president to succeed Yasser Arafat, who died in November...But many voters, already struggling with the labyrinthine politics of the West Bank and Gaza, say they have never heard of the actor who swept Debra Winger off her feet as a dashing Navy officer in the 1982 film An Officer and a Gentleman and were even less interested when they were told he's an American.
"I don't even know who the candidates are other than Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), let alone this Gere," Gaza soap factory worker Manar an-Najar told Reuters on Wednesday.
"We don't need the Americans' intervention. We know who to elect. Not like them – they elected a moron."

Gonzales flip-flops!

2005-01-05T18:45:00.000Z

This is perplexing:

Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel criticized for calling parts of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment "obsolete," will promise to live by anti-torture treaties if he is confirmed as attorney general, according to a statement obtained on Wednesday.
Gonzales said he was "deeply committed to the rule of law," in a statement for delivery at Senate confirmation hearings on Thursday. The hearings are likely to focus on Gonzales' role in policies that critics say gave rise to abuses such as those at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison... Gonzales will be questioned in particular about a January, 2002 memo to Bush in which he says parts of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment were "obsolete" or "quaint" and did not apply to al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

So what Democratic Senators need to ask is the following: "Do you or do you not feel that the Geneva Conventions are 'obsolete?' Do they or do they not apply to prisoners captured in the Iraq war and antiterrorism efforts? A simple yes or no answer will suffice." I'll be watching.

Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War, says it all:

"This nation deserves to hear and to know what (Gonzales) believes about torture," Andrews told reporters. "This is extremely important, not only because of the moral ramifications but because of the damage this has done to the nation worldwide."

More mess in Iraq - I need a drink

2005-01-04T18:44:00.000Z

This'll be quick - I think I'm headed to Drinking Liberally tonight. As if we needed it, here's a reason to drink:

The governor of the Baghdad region, known for co-operating closely with American troops, was assassinated along with six bodyguards as he drove to work Tuesday in yet another bloody day of rebel attacks that exposed grave security flaws in Iraq with elections less than a month away.
Other assaults Tuesday killed five American troops as well as 10 Iraqi commandos, bringing the death toll in the last three days to more than 70. Despite the violence, which U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces have been helpless to prevent, American and Iraqi leaders insist the Jan. 30 vote would go forward..."For much of the country, the situation is secure enough to move forward on holding elections," McClellan said. "There are a few areas that we're continuing to work to improve the security situation, so those areas will be able to have as full a participation as possible in elections."

Well...

While it's true that many areas of Iraq are calm, there are vast regions, including the capital, that are extremely dangerous. In places like Fallujah, which was bombed to ruins in a U.S.-led campaign in November, and the northern city of Mosul, there has been little headway in preparing for the vote.
The attacks have prompted Sunni Arab clerics to call for a boycott, and Iraq's largest Sunni political party announced it was pulling out of the race because of poor security.

The five American soldiers killed brings the count to 1340. For what? WMDs...I mean...Al Qaida...I mean..."freedom on the march?" Goddamnit. And an estimated 15,000-20,000 wounded, many never to fully recover, not to mention at least 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

Time to have a drink? You bet.

Stopping Gonzales would be huge

2005-01-03T19:18:00.000Z

Bloomberg.com: This report shows growing opposition to his nomination, from unlikely sources:

A dozen former military officers, including retired Army General John Shalikashvili, are opposing the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to be U.S. attorney general because he endorsed detaining suspected terrorists without protections accorded prisoners of war...The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Jan. 6 on Gonzales's nomination by President George W. Bush to succeed Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. Democrats led by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy say they will ask Gonzales to explain his role in drafting policies that they say spawned the prisoner abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Stopping Gonzales would be a huge win for progressives and an astounding blow to Bush's illegal handling of the "War on Terra," especially in light of this:

The United States is preparing to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial, replacing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp with permanent prisons in the Cuban enclave and elsewhere, it was reported yesterday.
The new prisons are intended for captives the Pentagon and the CIA suspect of terrorist links but do not wish to set free or put on trial for lack of hard evidence...The Pentagon has built a new 100-cell prison on Guantanamo Bay, known as Camp 5, and plans to ask Congress this year for $25m (£13m) to build Camp 6, a 200-bed version. The two jails are intended for suspected members of al-Qaida, the Taliban or other extremist groups, who are unlikely to go before a military tribunal because military prosecutors lack proof.

This is too frightening. Bush and his buddy Gonzales are pushing a twisted vision of America where no proof is needed to imprison and torture someone for life.

If this, as it should be, is abhorrent to everything you stand for, do something. The least you can do is sign this petition and contact your Senators.

Is this all they have?

2005-01-02T14:31:00.000Z

Instapundit and other rightwing bloggers keep flogging "Rathergate" as a prime example of the omnipresent liberal bias in the media. In fact, Glenn seems to do it on an almost weekly basis - today's post, for example. Is this really all they've got to talk about on the subject? Methinks some of them should clean up their own backyards first - Glenn himself has been buddy-buddy with Fox News, and we all know about their biases...

Did Bush flip-flop?

2004-12-31T16:44:00.000Z

Reports say that the U.S. will now offer $350 million in aid to tsunami victims:

"Initial findings of American assessment teams on the ground indicate that the need for financial and other assistance will steadily increase in the days and weeks ahead," Bush said Friday in a statement released in Crawford, Texas, where he is staying at his ranch.
"Our contributions will continue to be revised as the full effects of this terrible tragedy become clearer," he said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this epic disaster."

This is obviously great news, and to be fair I wanted to make note of this (considering my earlier criticism of the $35 million offer). But one has to wonder, why initially offer $15 million, then $35 million, and only days later increase that figure tenfold? Could it be that Bush was shamed into showing some of that "compassionate conservatism?" Would there have been any increase in aid if we hadn't been called "stingy?" Sounds like a lack of resolve to me...

Happy New Year to everyone.

Ominous news from Iraq

2004-12-30T12:00:00.000Z

Despite your political leanings, this Reuters article should be cause for concern:

A frontal assault on U.S. troops by dozens of Iraqi insurgents in Mosul left an American soldier and about 25 guerrillas dead in one of the boldest attacks yet on occupying forces in Iraq.

It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?

Battle raged late on Wednesday as President Bush said his forces would do all they could to make it possible to hold next month's election in Mosul and other violent cities. But many residents of Mosul say they are too afraid to vote.

The elections are next month? Anyone actually think they'll run smoothly? Didn't think so.

The soldier died of wounds, the military said on Thursday.
He had been on a patrol that was hit by a suicide car bomb close to a U.S. outpost. Gunmen tried to overrun the area, sending in another suicide truck bomber and firing mortars and rockets in an apparent bid to wipe out an entire U.S. unit.

First the attack on the mess hall, now this. They're only getting bolder.

...Wednesday's attack was one of the stiffest U.S. forces have faced since the guerrilla war began last year.
A series of other attacks in the past 10 days, along with a new endorsement from Osama bin Laden, have underscored the continued vigor of the insurgency despite the loss of Falluja.

I thought we had "broken the back of the insurgency" by taking Fallujah.

The U.S. military has conceded it is not in control of some parts of Mosul and plans to send thousands more troops to Iraq's third city for the election. Many residents of the largely Sunni Arab city of two million still say they are too afraid to vote... U.S. generals conceded this month that they face a "sophisticated" and increasingly effective enemy.

As I've said before, I have a very bad feeling that, despite the outcome of the elections, January 30th will be a very bloody day indeed. Can anyone (this means you, Fox News watchers) point me to something that shows otherwise? I'm waiting, believe me, I'm waiting.

About time someone stood up to bigotry...

2004-12-29T22:02:00.000Z

An Arkansas court has struck down a law banning gays from becoming foster parents:

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox said the state Child Welfare Agency Review board had overstepped its authority by trying to regulate “public morality,” and in doing so had excluded a pool of effective foster parents.
Having a gay parent, or a gay person in the home, does not increase the risk of psychological or behavioral problems for children, Fox said, adding that there is no proof that heterosexual parents are better able to guide children through adolescence.

I'm sure the fundies are already up in arms on this one.

Do we liberals "hate the troops?"

2004-12-29T13:01:00.000Z

Of course not. Kos delivers the smackdown to a NYPost writer who thinks we do. Couple the writer's sentiment, though, with this godawful new country song, "The Bumper Of My SUV", and you've got a creepy trend developing.

Blame Clinton!

2004-12-29T11:09:00.000Z

Via Talking Points Memo:

We liberals get accused of "blaming America first." What about the popular conservative tactic of "blaming Clinton first?":

Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president was confident he could monitor events (concerning the tsunami) effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements in Crawford...a White House official said: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain' "...Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said...

So far, from what I've found, the U.S. has pledged $35 million in relief, whereas the inaugural festivities will run $30-40 million, not including security costs.

Yes, actions do speak louder than words, loud and clear.

A worthwhile read...

2004-12-28T23:38:00.000Z

...besides this humble blog, of course! Letters To The President is a blog documenting one man's daily e-mails to Bush. I wonder if he gets any responses?

Permanent vacation - if only...

2004-12-28T16:49:00.000Z

Not much today that other bloggers haven't covered ably, so how about this - Bush goes on holiday:

Besides monitoring the devastating earthquake in Southeast Asia, President Bush is biking and strolling around his ranch here and pondering tax reform and other goals in his second term..."He's clearing some brush this morning," deputy White House press secretary Trent Duffy said Tuesday...

If only this was the beginning of a permanent vacation away from the White House as opposed to the calm before the storm:

"He's doing some biking and exercising as he normally does, taking walks with the first lady, and thinking about what he wants to accomplish in the second term."

Get out your galoshes and raincoats, everyone!

The future of women's health?

2004-12-27T20:15:00.000Z

Check out this article from Utne:

Abortion is all but universally illegal in Latin America. In Chile, for example, having the procedure can land a woman in jail for up to five-years. Yet, the region has one of the highest abortion rates in the world and, consequently, an equally staggering rate of failure. Each year, an estimated 5,000 women die as a result of clandestine abortions, and another 800,000 are hospitalized (all totaled, that means about one-fifth of those who pursue the procedure suffer complications).

Is this what Bush wants?

A divider, not a uniter....

2004-12-27T14:09:00.000Z

I ran across this the other day, but because of Christmas and all that (yes, many liberals celebrate it too!) I didn't get a chance to comment on it until now:

President Bush announced yesterday his intention to renominate 20 people previously blocked by Senate Democrats for federal court seats, setting the stage for renewal of the bitter partisan battles over the makeup of the federal judiciary.
The president's list includes seven appeals court candidates whose nominations were stalled on the Senate floor by Democrats, who labeled them "extremists" because of their conservative views. The others never made it to the full Senate. Buoyed by his re-election victory and a four-seat Republican gain in the Senate, Bush said he would submit the names of the nominees when the Senate returns to work in January.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Didn't Bush say something after the election about coming together as a nation? Then why resubmit these nominees? Again, I think it's payback to the fundies for their efforts to get him elected. Without them, there's no way Bush would've made it (he barely did with their help), and no matter what one might say about him, he knows not to bite the hand that feeds. The article notes that nominees are connected to anti-abortion efforts and the Gitmo detainee policies - imagine that!

Of course, Dems will try to block them again. So what to do? Oh, yeah - change the rules in your favor, or as I like to call it, DeLaying:

During Bush's first term, Democrats would not allow a vote on 10 of the 52 appointments he made to fill vacancies on federal courts of appeals. The overwhelming majority of Bush's 229 judicial nominees, however, were confirmed by the Senate. In the wake of the GOP Election Day gains, conservative groups have been increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to force votes on Bush judicial nominees. Senate Republicans are considering whether to employ a rare and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver -- dubbed the "nuclear option" -- to declare filibusters against judicial nominations to be unconstitutional.

Crybabies! Go whine to daddy about why everything's unfair, and maybe he'll fix it all for you.

More info: One nominee practiced law without a license for four years, and Kavanaugh and Allen are quite shady as well.