From Sully:
"I was chatting with some friends after the Maher show. They'd been against the war from the beginning. They were African-American and said it was obvious to them that the WMD argument was what they called "game." They weren't surprised. I was. I believed George W. Bush. And I trusted him. And as the evidence has poured in that my faith and trust were betrayed, my surprise has turned to rage. I'm not a generally angry person. But if I have placed my trust in someone on a matter of this gravity and I find out they lied, bungled and betrayed me and others who trusted them, then all I can say is: they picked the wrong guy to bamboozle."
I suppose that one of the "African-American's" that Andrew refers to here is Harry Belafonte, who had also appeared on Maher's show that night. If so, Belafonte's distrust of GWB should have been of no surprise--no more then any other African-American who historically has been skeptical of the US government since the government accepted and institutionalized slavery (Dred Scott decision and beyond) and segargation (Jim Crow). In general, blacks, whether we want to admit it or not (and usually we don't when we are in the company of whites) know like the Native American that whites (and let me clarify, rich-landowning, powerful whites) speak with a "Forked Tongue." How could we not? Remember the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me again..." well beside the Native American no one has gotten as fooled by white political leaders than the Afro-American. Black cynicism is so deep rooted in this country that it becomes, politically and culturally, part of our idenity. Even Black leaders are distrusted, and why not? To be a black leader means playing the white man's game. Whites have no choice but to view this cynicism as racism, and perhaps even blacks feel that it racism, but if one gets periodically kicked in the ass by people who (at least on the surface) look alike isn't it at least understandable if one gets prejudiced towards that particular figure?
Now that being said, let me talk a bit about my father's particular distrust towards George W. Bush. My father, sharing in many of the biases African-Americans share in regards to white politicians, found a unique skepticism towards our current president for reasons that are still unknown to him or I. When questioned, my father's only response is, "I don't know why, but I didn't trust that snake from the moment I saw him." Yet I've been wondering this myself, and the only answer I can come up with is that something about GWB's record compouned my father's inherent distrust. Here comes a canidate who's dodged the draft, failed at finding oil in Texas, failed at taking a Baseball team to the World Series, and then was, at best, a mediocure Governor, yet he's the man to lead America? To my father, I suppose, he looks at him as not only as a white canidate, but as an inept white canidate. Yet another "surprise" that seems to have shocked the world. You might as well have voted Corey Haim as President. On second thought, that might have been a better choice.
Frankly Sullivan can take his rage and cram it. How dumb, how delusional, are whites (at least poor/ Christian fundamentalist/ conservative whites) not to see the forest for the trees, or the body bags for their free trade ideology. Maybe the conquest of Hawaii should have enlightened them, or the invasion of Cuba? No? Then how about the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA? The Gulf of Tonkin? The invasion of Granada? The invasion of Iraq? And we haven't even touched civil rights yet!
Still every cloud does have its silver lining--and something that both my father and I have hope in is that the Bush reign will awaken regular Americans of all colors that they have been bamboozled from the very beginnng, and that "cleaning house" aren't just words that politicans use rhetorically but is the responsiblity of the people. And, furthermore, cynicism is a good thing. Let me not say that all white politicans are bad or corrupt, but this particular breed of politicans--rich, established, and generationally powerful, need to go. Blacks may be the first to distrust them but, in the end, it is all of us that get screwed.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
So this is what our political debate has boiled down to...
Foolishness like this:
"The result [Of negative ads] has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. A few examples of the "character issues" taking center stage two weeks before Election Day:
In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.
In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive "push polls" that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children could not have healthy relationships when they grew up.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin distributed a mailing linking Democratic House candidate Steve Kagen to a convicted serial killer and child rapist. The supposed connection: The "bloodthirsty" attorney for the killer had also done legal work for Kagen."
I'm just embarassed.
"The result [Of negative ads] has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. A few examples of the "character issues" taking center stage two weeks before Election Day:
In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.
In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive "push polls" that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children could not have healthy relationships when they grew up.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin distributed a mailing linking Democratic House candidate Steve Kagen to a convicted serial killer and child rapist. The supposed connection: The "bloodthirsty" attorney for the killer had also done legal work for Kagen."
I'm just embarassed.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Back to Stupid...
Rush Limbaugh had a few choice words to say about Michael J. Fox appearing in an ad for Democratic Senate canidate Claire McCaskill, who supports the stem cell research that might help cure Parkinson's Disease.
And people listen to Rush because...?
And people listen to Rush because...?
Pass that idea over this way!
From Sullivan:
"People keep asking me on this tour who I think can save conservatism, who I favor for 2008, etc. But that's the wrong question. Conservatives do not need a savior. They need a coherent governing philosophy. That requires some hard soul-searching, some healthy recriminations, and a debate from first principles...You may not agree. Great. Let's debate. But it's a start."
substitute "Conservatives" for "Liberals" and you have the essence of why the Democrats have been losing since 2000. The Messiah complex isn't partisan, but it's a vestigial organ of the laziness that we all are subject to--the idea that "someone else" will come save us, rather than toss in the hard work and thought that brings about positive change. Democracy doesn't work unless the people are willing, not to sit down with members of other parties, but members of their own community, and have the courage to formulate strong and solid ideals.
"People keep asking me on this tour who I think can save conservatism, who I favor for 2008, etc. But that's the wrong question. Conservatives do not need a savior. They need a coherent governing philosophy. That requires some hard soul-searching, some healthy recriminations, and a debate from first principles...You may not agree. Great. Let's debate. But it's a start."
substitute "Conservatives" for "Liberals" and you have the essence of why the Democrats have been losing since 2000. The Messiah complex isn't partisan, but it's a vestigial organ of the laziness that we all are subject to--the idea that "someone else" will come save us, rather than toss in the hard work and thought that brings about positive change. Democracy doesn't work unless the people are willing, not to sit down with members of other parties, but members of their own community, and have the courage to formulate strong and solid ideals.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Shameful
A new study of the Iraqi war has shown that the war has led to 655,000 Iraqi deaths. Some highlights:
"Gunfire found to be most common killer of Iraqis; car bombings on the rise
Study says 2.5 percent of population killed since war; death toll rising each year
Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
Researchers interviewed more than 1,800 randomly selected Iraqi households"
Don't worry, I'm sure that the US will at least give the suriviors a "I lived through Operation Iraqi Freedom and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" T-shirts. Or a tax break.
"Gunfire found to be most common killer of Iraqis; car bombings on the rise
Study says 2.5 percent of population killed since war; death toll rising each year
Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
Researchers interviewed more than 1,800 randomly selected Iraqi households"
Don't worry, I'm sure that the US will at least give the suriviors a "I lived through Operation Iraqi Freedom and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" T-shirts. Or a tax break.
A Complex Problem For a Simple President
Is it just me or is any body else worried about North Korea? It reminds me of that really large mosquito that flies around your house dissappearing intermittingly, but long enough that you forget about it until it circles around again. We're mired in Iraq for a reason that still is unrecognizable to most of the world, and now it seems that we don't have a proper solution for NK. Should we invade? Cut of aid? Or ignore it all together and hope that it goes away?
Gib has a fine breakdown of the ideals of the situation here, dealing primarilly with NK's obscene human rights violations that probably make Saddam green with envy. On the flip side Rude Pundit asks us to tread over Kim Jung-Il with a bit more tact:
"Now, Kim Jong-Il's pissant nuke is, among other scarier things, a cry for help. Not just mental health help for a nutzoid dictator of a decimated country, a pathetic monomaniacal boy who is so overcompensating for his lack of stature that he has to show everyone in the area his little missle so we can all be so fucking impressed. No, it's also a cry for attention. And, like a toddler holding a butcher knife to his own throat, we probably oughta be gentle and bribe it away from him. Start by, oh, fuck, why not bilateral talks. Just for the fuck of it. Just to see if it works. Then start talkin' the cash money. Naive? Yeah, but the sophistication of bombs and bullying has worked so well in the last few years."
And he's right. The Bush doctrine has failed and it has failed miserably. Neither Iran nor North Korea has been detered in seeking weapons of mass destruction, nor should they be--it's hard for a soverign country to submit to such blatant intimidation by another, especially one that practices such an aggressive foreign policy. Diplomacy still seems to be the key--even if it is "dealing with the devil." Something I'd like to address now.
Look, Cros is right when he says:
"The 23 million North Koreas live in hell on earth. Any promise of security and recognition for Kim Jong-Il will only perpetuate that hell. Any aid we deliver will be used to prop up the regime and is frequently diverted to military uses, and the regime frustrates any effort to monitor aid distribution to ensure that aid is going where it is intended to go - to people starving because of Kim Jong-Il's catastrophic cruelty and incompetence. If we explicitly promise Kim's regime security, and we mean to keep that promise, we are condemning this generation of North Koreans, and the next, and in return are likely recieve only Kim Jong-Il's word, which is of no value. If we break this promise, North Korea will be entitled to its feeling of betrayal."
If you have a heart, you will find yourself sick to your stomach when you review his links, which are, to say the least, disturbing. And yet to ensure the safety of this country and our allies, one is forced to make deals that are morally repungnent. We're allies and even trade partners with China, which isn't exactly a beacon of liberity and civil rights. We're allied with Russia who's not a bastion of freedom, and let's not forget that we allowed Pakistan to get nukes, and their PM is a military despot. If we run around only dealing with "Popes, and Saints" we'd find ourselves in lonely company indeed. In fact, you (and I mean you personally) might be the only one sitting in the General Assembly.
And let's get another thing clear. If you think that "humanitarian aid" goes to the poor you're delusional. In some sectors aid is mismanaged through ignorant but good meaning politicians and philanthropists who just don't know the best way to help an impoverished population. But many times aid, especially aid given by governments, is a pay off to greedy dictators and military operators. What is it a pay off for? It's a pay off to protect the government's interests. We've seen this when we funded Saddam in their battle against Iran, or when we backed Bin Laden when he was fighting against the Soviets, and in the whole Iran-Contra affair.
This is a complex issue, but, unfortunately, we have a simple President. His policy of preemptive attack, underestimating his opponents, and turning a deaf ear to his own military, advisors, and critics show that he is incapable of dealing with this issue. We have to sit at the table with NK and Iran, and work out options, increased aid, perhaps even bribes, to maintain a stable peace, while at the same time working out trade agreements that will encourage coorporation between these counties and the West. Let us not forget that while China has a long way to go, it is because of Nixon asking to deal with the Chinese, in a peaceful, mutually benificial format, that has allowed a more progressive and liberal (oooh nasty word!) government to form. To deny the opportunity to form this same bond with the Middle East (read Iran) and North Korea, is imprudent policy and the short road to oblivion.
Gib has a fine breakdown of the ideals of the situation here, dealing primarilly with NK's obscene human rights violations that probably make Saddam green with envy. On the flip side Rude Pundit asks us to tread over Kim Jung-Il with a bit more tact:
"Now, Kim Jong-Il's pissant nuke is, among other scarier things, a cry for help. Not just mental health help for a nutzoid dictator of a decimated country, a pathetic monomaniacal boy who is so overcompensating for his lack of stature that he has to show everyone in the area his little missle so we can all be so fucking impressed. No, it's also a cry for attention. And, like a toddler holding a butcher knife to his own throat, we probably oughta be gentle and bribe it away from him. Start by, oh, fuck, why not bilateral talks. Just for the fuck of it. Just to see if it works. Then start talkin' the cash money. Naive? Yeah, but the sophistication of bombs and bullying has worked so well in the last few years."
And he's right. The Bush doctrine has failed and it has failed miserably. Neither Iran nor North Korea has been detered in seeking weapons of mass destruction, nor should they be--it's hard for a soverign country to submit to such blatant intimidation by another, especially one that practices such an aggressive foreign policy. Diplomacy still seems to be the key--even if it is "dealing with the devil." Something I'd like to address now.
Look, Cros is right when he says:
"The 23 million North Koreas live in hell on earth. Any promise of security and recognition for Kim Jong-Il will only perpetuate that hell. Any aid we deliver will be used to prop up the regime and is frequently diverted to military uses, and the regime frustrates any effort to monitor aid distribution to ensure that aid is going where it is intended to go - to people starving because of Kim Jong-Il's catastrophic cruelty and incompetence. If we explicitly promise Kim's regime security, and we mean to keep that promise, we are condemning this generation of North Koreans, and the next, and in return are likely recieve only Kim Jong-Il's word, which is of no value. If we break this promise, North Korea will be entitled to its feeling of betrayal."
If you have a heart, you will find yourself sick to your stomach when you review his links, which are, to say the least, disturbing. And yet to ensure the safety of this country and our allies, one is forced to make deals that are morally repungnent. We're allies and even trade partners with China, which isn't exactly a beacon of liberity and civil rights. We're allied with Russia who's not a bastion of freedom, and let's not forget that we allowed Pakistan to get nukes, and their PM is a military despot. If we run around only dealing with "Popes, and Saints" we'd find ourselves in lonely company indeed. In fact, you (and I mean you personally) might be the only one sitting in the General Assembly.
And let's get another thing clear. If you think that "humanitarian aid" goes to the poor you're delusional. In some sectors aid is mismanaged through ignorant but good meaning politicians and philanthropists who just don't know the best way to help an impoverished population. But many times aid, especially aid given by governments, is a pay off to greedy dictators and military operators. What is it a pay off for? It's a pay off to protect the government's interests. We've seen this when we funded Saddam in their battle against Iran, or when we backed Bin Laden when he was fighting against the Soviets, and in the whole Iran-Contra affair.
This is a complex issue, but, unfortunately, we have a simple President. His policy of preemptive attack, underestimating his opponents, and turning a deaf ear to his own military, advisors, and critics show that he is incapable of dealing with this issue. We have to sit at the table with NK and Iran, and work out options, increased aid, perhaps even bribes, to maintain a stable peace, while at the same time working out trade agreements that will encourage coorporation between these counties and the West. Let us not forget that while China has a long way to go, it is because of Nixon asking to deal with the Chinese, in a peaceful, mutually benificial format, that has allowed a more progressive and liberal (oooh nasty word!) government to form. To deny the opportunity to form this same bond with the Middle East (read Iran) and North Korea, is imprudent policy and the short road to oblivion.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Pretty dammed disgusting...
...The whole Mark Foley incident. I don't think you have to be a bleeding heart anything not to feel icky and sick at the mere mention of this story. Needless to say I was wondering what kinda damage control the right would come up with. Sure enough, Ann Althouse had the guts to defend the RNC with the same vigor they had shown in ignoring the fact that they had a serial pedophile in their midst. Money quote:
"So it seems in the run-up to the election we won't have to talk about Iraq and terrorism and detainees anymore. Let's talk about sex."
WHOOO! Sure was lucky for those Dems that this happened, cause they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on come November. I mean with Woodward's book, and the NIH report, and the death toll in Iraq, and all that torture...they really needed one more scandal. Do you think Foley was a closet Democrat Ann? And maybe he set it all up to ensure a victory? Or do you think that you're more delusional than a Crackhead on PCP? Yeah maybe that's it.
I am so moving to Iceland.
"So it seems in the run-up to the election we won't have to talk about Iraq and terrorism and detainees anymore. Let's talk about sex."
WHOOO! Sure was lucky for those Dems that this happened, cause they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on come November. I mean with Woodward's book, and the NIH report, and the death toll in Iraq, and all that torture...they really needed one more scandal. Do you think Foley was a closet Democrat Ann? And maybe he set it all up to ensure a victory? Or do you think that you're more delusional than a Crackhead on PCP? Yeah maybe that's it.
I am so moving to Iceland.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lieberman loses--Nelson shouts "HA HA!"
Who could have seen it coming? Just about any one hooked up to the Internet that's who. People talk about loyality to the incumbent, and to the party, but the result of the Lieberman/ Lamont contest should show that what really matters should be loyality to the people. It's been obvious for years, at least to this blogger, that Lieberman has been a Republican in Democrat clothing, sideing with the right on various socially conservative matters over the years. Yet the war became Joe's death bed, and now that he made it, he has to lie in it. Dem's are cleaning house, and if H. Clinton's baking of Rummy a week ago is any indication, many of them are moving to a different area code before the Regulators strike.
Joe Scarborough make the great point here that the hopes of the Democrats are going to be an extreme shift to the left--centrism be dammed--noting how the same shift, but to the right, was what put the GOP in office the first time. It's Vietnam all over again, and people are fed up.
Joe Scarborough make the great point here that the hopes of the Democrats are going to be an extreme shift to the left--centrism be dammed--noting how the same shift, but to the right, was what put the GOP in office the first time. It's Vietnam all over again, and people are fed up.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Gibson to Israel? Maybe not such a bad idea...
My tenth favorite movie critic (after Rex Reed, the guy that works with Ebert, and my dad) Michael Medved as the interesting idea of sending Mel Gibson to Israel to "atone" for his sins:
"At a time when Israel finds herself isolated as never before, imagine the impact of Gibson announcing a supportive trip to Jerusalem in the company of selected Jewish leaders--- with a reverent, remorseful stop at Auschwitz on the way."
At first I just thought this was dumb, but then I thought about it and now I'm starting to think it's a pretty good idea. First of all, atonement...let's leave that up to the Jews, who are either going to like him again, or won't. As as far as Mel Gibson and I are concerned the only thing I care about is having him do another Lethal Weapon movie. So what I say is he goes there and films another one. This time Gibson and Glover, on assignment to Israel, join two Mossad agents (Robin Williams and George Clooney) to break up and international terrorist organization that's linked to Hezbollah and Hamas. And--here's the best part--at the end of the movie everyone gets blown to bits. Now that's good entertainment and realistic.
"At a time when Israel finds herself isolated as never before, imagine the impact of Gibson announcing a supportive trip to Jerusalem in the company of selected Jewish leaders--- with a reverent, remorseful stop at Auschwitz on the way."
At first I just thought this was dumb, but then I thought about it and now I'm starting to think it's a pretty good idea. First of all, atonement...let's leave that up to the Jews, who are either going to like him again, or won't. As as far as Mel Gibson and I are concerned the only thing I care about is having him do another Lethal Weapon movie. So what I say is he goes there and films another one. This time Gibson and Glover, on assignment to Israel, join two Mossad agents (Robin Williams and George Clooney) to break up and international terrorist organization that's linked to Hezbollah and Hamas. And--here's the best part--at the end of the movie everyone gets blown to bits. Now that's good entertainment and realistic.
An end to US involvement in Iraq?
Sullivan says so, so does Broder and Friedman. Can't deny that Rumsfeld and Bush's incompetence seems to have handed over control of the country to the most extremist members of Iraq, and the Hezbollah affair has only increased their dominance. Israel's not helping matters by bombing civillians at a number far outweighing their opponents. Expect this to escalate in the next couple of days with Hezbollah targeting Tel Aviv.
The worse part about all of this is that the entire West seems impotent and undecisive in this situation. They want a cease fire, but won't commit troops, and we want to win Iraq but don't want to commit the proper resources to our troops. Two years ago we needed to piss or get off the pot, but now the toilet's backed up and the outhouse is totalled.
The worse part about all of this is that the entire West seems impotent and undecisive in this situation. They want a cease fire, but won't commit troops, and we want to win Iraq but don't want to commit the proper resources to our troops. Two years ago we needed to piss or get off the pot, but now the toilet's backed up and the outhouse is totalled.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Hez hides where?
Seems to be that the Israel-Lebanon battle has now boiled down to a global sympathy war based on who has the moral high ground. Does Hezbollah hide among Lebanese civilians, using them as human shields, and thus Israel has no choice but to bomb civilian areas? Or are Israeli forces intentionally targeting Lebanese civilians to intimidate and destroy their will to support Hezbollah? (Which would, ironically, be the same tactics used by terrorists). Sullivan says yes, Salon.com says no, and my posting about Israel's civilian targeting in Gaza here. Summary? Wars take civilian lives, and for as long as Sherman marched on Atlanta, civilian targeting will continue to be a tactic. Solution? Stop whining and call the cease fire already.
Me? An extremely simple man.
Me? An extremely simple man.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Disturbing News...
According to a report by the Independent, Israel is fighting a largely unknown war in Gaza:
"The operation is codenamed "Samson's Pillars", a collective punishment of the 1.4 million Gazans, subjecting them to a Lebanese-style offensive that has targeted the civilian infrastructure by destroying water mains, the main power station and bridges.
Before Israeli tanks moved into northern Gaza, yesterday, 12-year-old Anas Zumlut joined the ranks of dead Palestinians, numbering more than 100. His body was wrapped in a funeral shroud, just like those of the two sisters, a three-year-old and an eight-month-old baby, who were killed three days ago in the same area of Jablaya."
Complete and utter FUBAR, and I think that anyone who's picking a side in this is dead wrong. Sullivan's right to criticize the left-wing for not addressing the issue (Crooks and Liars should be ashamed for not even touching on the situation) but to say that Hamas and Hezbollah are the ONLY ones who target or hide behind women and children is just a conscious censoring of the truth.
"The operation is codenamed "Samson's Pillars", a collective punishment of the 1.4 million Gazans, subjecting them to a Lebanese-style offensive that has targeted the civilian infrastructure by destroying water mains, the main power station and bridges.
Before Israeli tanks moved into northern Gaza, yesterday, 12-year-old Anas Zumlut joined the ranks of dead Palestinians, numbering more than 100. His body was wrapped in a funeral shroud, just like those of the two sisters, a three-year-old and an eight-month-old baby, who were killed three days ago in the same area of Jablaya."
Complete and utter FUBAR, and I think that anyone who's picking a side in this is dead wrong. Sullivan's right to criticize the left-wing for not addressing the issue (Crooks and Liars should be ashamed for not even touching on the situation) but to say that Hamas and Hezbollah are the ONLY ones who target or hide behind women and children is just a conscious censoring of the truth.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Number shell game part II...or is it part III?
According to the Washington Times, 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs prior to US invasion, up from 36% last year. They speculate that the rise in number may have come from Sen Santorum's admission that 500 "aging" canisters of chemical weapons had been discovered in Iraq, however not much press had been given to the statement by the mainstream media, and debate continues on the agents viability as WMD.
Of course the same WT study also claims that:
"Seventy-two percent of respondents said the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam Hussein's regime -- a figure similar to that of 2004, when it stood at 76 percent. In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda, up from 62 percent in October 2004. Fifty-five percent said that "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq." And although the response is tepid, American confidence in the Iraqis has improved: 37 percent said Iraq would succeed in creating a stable democracy, up five points since November."
Who knew so many people watched Fox News?
Of course the same WT study also claims that:
"Seventy-two percent of respondents said the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam Hussein's regime -- a figure similar to that of 2004, when it stood at 76 percent. In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda, up from 62 percent in October 2004. Fifty-five percent said that "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq." And although the response is tepid, American confidence in the Iraqis has improved: 37 percent said Iraq would succeed in creating a stable democracy, up five points since November."
Who knew so many people watched Fox News?
Middle East updates
Congress set to sue the President
You've come a long way baby shouldn't just be the slogan for Virginia Slim's cigarettes, but should now be passed on to Congress. After five years of cowtowing to the President's criminal behavior, Congress seems ready to take back some of the power it has been relinquished since 9/11. Guess that's what happens when your poll numbers fall beneath Nixon--after he was impeached.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican and former GOP primary candidate for President is leading the fight to pass a bill that would allow Congress to sue the President for signing defacto rules into bills that Congress previously passed.
Hey George, with friends like these...?
But before we all go praising Specter's obviously political maneuver we ask the question, if you were so adamant about this why didn't you support Russ Feingold's Censure resolution? [Only supported by Sens Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry] Why did it take you so long to publicly criticize the President for actions that he had no legal power to enforce? You don't need to be a Supreme Court judge to know that he has absolutely no right to write his own laws into action. And finally why go through the actions of suing him, when it seems pretty obvious that signing statements is against the law, and is a criminal--not civil--offense? Hell, even OJ had to go through a criminal trial before he was civilly sued.
Of course I support any and all non-violent legistation and actions that would bring the downfall of this President, but I'm going to support these actions with my eyes wide open. You, Sen. Specter, are an opportunist of the worse sort. And far getting praise from this blog you get the wave of the finger. After all, no one deserves a reward for kicking a dead horse.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican and former GOP primary candidate for President is leading the fight to pass a bill that would allow Congress to sue the President for signing defacto rules into bills that Congress previously passed.
Hey George, with friends like these...?
But before we all go praising Specter's obviously political maneuver we ask the question, if you were so adamant about this why didn't you support Russ Feingold's Censure resolution? [Only supported by Sens Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry] Why did it take you so long to publicly criticize the President for actions that he had no legal power to enforce? You don't need to be a Supreme Court judge to know that he has absolutely no right to write his own laws into action. And finally why go through the actions of suing him, when it seems pretty obvious that signing statements is against the law, and is a criminal--not civil--offense? Hell, even OJ had to go through a criminal trial before he was civilly sued.
Of course I support any and all non-violent legistation and actions that would bring the downfall of this President, but I'm going to support these actions with my eyes wide open. You, Sen. Specter, are an opportunist of the worse sort. And far getting praise from this blog you get the wave of the finger. After all, no one deserves a reward for kicking a dead horse.
Energy plan? Who needs one?
It looks like California will be having rolling blackouts to handle their increasing energy demand, which has come in response to record high temperatures. So far there have been 29 heat related deaths in the state, and today temps are expected to reach up to 112 degrees. In St. Louis there have been blackouts that have stranded 200,000 people without electricity, and in Astoria, Queens in NYC 1,000 people have been left without power for nine days.
Word of the People's main man mayor Bloomberg has astonished this blog by backing NYC's power provider Consolidated Edison claiming that,
"Kevin Burke [CEO of Con Ed] deserves a thanks from this city. He's worked as hard as he can every single day since then, as has everybody at Con Ed."
Shocking words coming from the usually populist politician, although the looks from his supporters in the rear during the press conference were priceless, as their stoic faces morphed into gazes of confusion and disbelief. Afterward the Assemblyman for Astoria, Michael Gianaris said,
"Has he not seen what's been reported about the lies they told both to him and to the rest of the city about how many people were affected for days and days and days? This is just astounding to have stood there and heard that."
While this writer admits that Con Edison's continued response has been slack, I'm not so quick to pin all the responsibility on our power company. All across the US there has been a record breaking demand for power, and our current system is not prepared to handle it. It was only two years ago that New York had a blackout which encompassed all of the state and extended into Canada, sparking rumors of terror attacks. In the aftermath there had been discussion about inherent problems with the grid--problems that would only get worse as demand increased, and yet, without significant raises in prices these changes cannot be made unless the federal government helps out. Nuclear power, solar energy and other methods of alternative fuel have not recieved the funding and attention it deserves. When you compare America's policy to that of England and other Western nations (and I'm not even about to discuss Iceland, which makes us all look like cavemen warming ourselves by a fire) you can see that we are extremely far behind.
The continued funding of alt fuel sources is important not only for the environment but for our defense against terrorism. Can anyone imagine what would happen if there was an attack during a power outage? The resulting chaos would reach a biblical, nearly apoplectic level that would make 9/11 look like the first World Trade Center bombing. It is of vital importance that we build new structures before the old ones collapse upon our heads.
Word of the People's main man mayor Bloomberg has astonished this blog by backing NYC's power provider Consolidated Edison claiming that,
"Kevin Burke [CEO of Con Ed] deserves a thanks from this city. He's worked as hard as he can every single day since then, as has everybody at Con Ed."
Shocking words coming from the usually populist politician, although the looks from his supporters in the rear during the press conference were priceless, as their stoic faces morphed into gazes of confusion and disbelief. Afterward the Assemblyman for Astoria, Michael Gianaris said,
"Has he not seen what's been reported about the lies they told both to him and to the rest of the city about how many people were affected for days and days and days? This is just astounding to have stood there and heard that."
While this writer admits that Con Edison's continued response has been slack, I'm not so quick to pin all the responsibility on our power company. All across the US there has been a record breaking demand for power, and our current system is not prepared to handle it. It was only two years ago that New York had a blackout which encompassed all of the state and extended into Canada, sparking rumors of terror attacks. In the aftermath there had been discussion about inherent problems with the grid--problems that would only get worse as demand increased, and yet, without significant raises in prices these changes cannot be made unless the federal government helps out. Nuclear power, solar energy and other methods of alternative fuel have not recieved the funding and attention it deserves. When you compare America's policy to that of England and other Western nations (and I'm not even about to discuss Iceland, which makes us all look like cavemen warming ourselves by a fire) you can see that we are extremely far behind.
The continued funding of alt fuel sources is important not only for the environment but for our defense against terrorism. Can anyone imagine what would happen if there was an attack during a power outage? The resulting chaos would reach a biblical, nearly apoplectic level that would make 9/11 look like the first World Trade Center bombing. It is of vital importance that we build new structures before the old ones collapse upon our heads.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
I'm losing track...is it World War III or IV?
Sometimes, when sequels begin to grow that large, they just change the name. Ergo, Superman Returns instead of Superman V. Then again the James Bond movies tossed out the whole numbering sequels thing entirely, which is good considering that they're up to twenty-something movies, and six Bonds. The original cast of Star Trek did number their movies, but every one really remembers them by their sub-titles. That is except for Star Trek V, which no one remembers.
Why do I bring this up? Well, beyond the fact that I like to hear myself talk I was wondering about this whole issue of calling the Israel/ Hamas/ Hezbollah thing World War III. Bill Berkowitz has a great review of the World War III label here, from Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press last week, to how the Project for the New American Century (or as I like to say, Nazis) used the term to rile up support for their Iraq war dream that became our nightmare. Personally, I'm sorta hyped for a World War III. One, it would simplify things tremendously. No longer would I have to say "the Israel/ Hamas/ Hezbollah thing," but I could just say World War III. Two, the little demonic neocon I have in my heart would like to have a World War just to feel like something great has happened in my generation. We lack goals. We shrug our shoulders when we hear about going to Mars, we sure as hell don't wanna end poverty, hunger, or AIDS, and our biggest challenge seems to be not keeping idiots in the White House. Truly this is a worthy goal...but it just doesn't have enough bombs and explosions and bullets to hold American interest which is roughly the span of a fruit fly. We want a Michael Bay extravaganza, not an Al Gore let's-all-recycle-and-save-the-planet hippyfest. Speaking of which, where the hell is he about what's going on? You know a lot of friggin pollution goes into the atmosphere when you're dropping twenty ton bombs on hospitals. What's the greenhouse gas emissions on that? Then again, at least the bodies of the children are bio-degradable.
What I find particularly funny about the neocon use of the the World War III label were that these are the same guys who tried to convince us that the Cold War was WW III. Course now they wanna roll that back because if they started calling it WW IV they'd have to explain to our poorly educated youth about the Cold War, and what that was ,and when it happened, and Lord knows you can't go educating people while you're trying to scare the holy ghost crap outta them.
Here's a rule of thumb to get you through the day: when ever you hear these guys trot out the terms "World War," or "War" in general, remember they are trying to get us involved. War to these folks doesn't mean death and bloodshed and suffering, but denotes opportunities for exploitation and corruption. That's why they're so goosed about World War III--but deny that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. We've drained all we can outta there, and regardless of their tough talk about 'staying the course,' and 'cutting and running,' they would love to leave Iraq like a coyote ugly girl they picked up at a bar the previous night who's wearing their t-shirt, and cooking them breakfast the next morning.
Regardless folks, don't believe the hype. This isn't World War III; and, if you ask me, World War II should have been World War I. Their use of the WW label demeans and degrades what should be something of global importance. Hitler was the greatest challenge this planet ever faced and there is no doubt in my mind that should he have won every man, woman, and child on this planet would have been affected. No matter who wins in this minor scuffle in the Middle East our lives in America will not be directly changed. Just like the Iraq war has not profoundly changed the face of the US, nor the first Iraq war, or Granada, or Panama. Call it small thinking, call it tunnel vision, but this idea of Team America: World Police has worn out its welcome, and its time that we get back from fighting World Wars, and get back to improving our country that we have neglected for far too long.
Besides, we should really save that next World War tag from something real juicy; like in 2015 when we get invaded by aliens. TO SERVE MAN! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!!
Why do I bring this up? Well, beyond the fact that I like to hear myself talk I was wondering about this whole issue of calling the Israel/ Hamas/ Hezbollah thing World War III. Bill Berkowitz has a great review of the World War III label here, from Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press last week, to how the Project for the New American Century (or as I like to say, Nazis) used the term to rile up support for their Iraq war dream that became our nightmare. Personally, I'm sorta hyped for a World War III. One, it would simplify things tremendously. No longer would I have to say "the Israel/ Hamas/ Hezbollah thing," but I could just say World War III. Two, the little demonic neocon I have in my heart would like to have a World War just to feel like something great has happened in my generation. We lack goals. We shrug our shoulders when we hear about going to Mars, we sure as hell don't wanna end poverty, hunger, or AIDS, and our biggest challenge seems to be not keeping idiots in the White House. Truly this is a worthy goal...but it just doesn't have enough bombs and explosions and bullets to hold American interest which is roughly the span of a fruit fly. We want a Michael Bay extravaganza, not an Al Gore let's-all-recycle-and-save-the-planet hippyfest. Speaking of which, where the hell is he about what's going on? You know a lot of friggin pollution goes into the atmosphere when you're dropping twenty ton bombs on hospitals. What's the greenhouse gas emissions on that? Then again, at least the bodies of the children are bio-degradable.
What I find particularly funny about the neocon use of the the World War III label were that these are the same guys who tried to convince us that the Cold War was WW III. Course now they wanna roll that back because if they started calling it WW IV they'd have to explain to our poorly educated youth about the Cold War, and what that was ,and when it happened, and Lord knows you can't go educating people while you're trying to scare the holy ghost crap outta them.
Here's a rule of thumb to get you through the day: when ever you hear these guys trot out the terms "World War," or "War" in general, remember they are trying to get us involved. War to these folks doesn't mean death and bloodshed and suffering, but denotes opportunities for exploitation and corruption. That's why they're so goosed about World War III--but deny that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. We've drained all we can outta there, and regardless of their tough talk about 'staying the course,' and 'cutting and running,' they would love to leave Iraq like a coyote ugly girl they picked up at a bar the previous night who's wearing their t-shirt, and cooking them breakfast the next morning.
Regardless folks, don't believe the hype. This isn't World War III; and, if you ask me, World War II should have been World War I. Their use of the WW label demeans and degrades what should be something of global importance. Hitler was the greatest challenge this planet ever faced and there is no doubt in my mind that should he have won every man, woman, and child on this planet would have been affected. No matter who wins in this minor scuffle in the Middle East our lives in America will not be directly changed. Just like the Iraq war has not profoundly changed the face of the US, nor the first Iraq war, or Granada, or Panama. Call it small thinking, call it tunnel vision, but this idea of Team America: World Police has worn out its welcome, and its time that we get back from fighting World Wars, and get back to improving our country that we have neglected for far too long.
Besides, we should really save that next World War tag from something real juicy; like in 2015 when we get invaded by aliens. TO SERVE MAN! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!!!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Torture: An American Tradition
I'll take you back about three years. I'm away on a trip, and when I come back I find my father cracked. I don't mean nuts or anything, but he's terrified. That kind of fright that makes you tremble uncontrolably. Arrested on a trumped up charge (the detectives who arrested him didn't even show up to the preliminary trial, and even his legal aid said "Sir, I don't even understand this!"), he was released after 5 hours of sheer terror. The kind that many of you only had a taste of on 9/11, if ever. Why? Because he's poor and black.
"Son, you don't understand. The last time I was in a precient they had thrown me down a flight of stairs. Then picked me up and tossed me down again. Over and over till my mom came and got me. He was about 19 at the time. Younger than me.
"I know folks who's gone in a cop house and come out in body bags. All black, all dead, and no questions asked. No news at eleven, no special report."
Think its an exaggeration? Think again.
According to special prosecutors in Chicago, nearly 150 black suspects during the 1970's and 80s were tortured.
“It is our judgment that the evidence in those cases would be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” [Prosecutors]Robert D. Boyle and Edward J. Egan wrote."
Of course the statute of limitations has lapsed, and so those accused of his horrendous crimes are beyond prosecution. Our bad, sorry about beating you, using electric shocks, and playing mock russian roulette with you...but you know, it's all in a day's work.
Looking back at me, with tears in his eyes and rage in his voice, my dad said, "People say that there's just a few bad apples, but can't they see that the whole fucking tree is rotten?"
I'm sorry dad. You see--it's not that they can't see it, they just won't.
"Son, you don't understand. The last time I was in a precient they had thrown me down a flight of stairs. Then picked me up and tossed me down again. Over and over till my mom came and got me. He was about 19 at the time. Younger than me.
"I know folks who's gone in a cop house and come out in body bags. All black, all dead, and no questions asked. No news at eleven, no special report."
Think its an exaggeration? Think again.
According to special prosecutors in Chicago, nearly 150 black suspects during the 1970's and 80s were tortured.
“It is our judgment that the evidence in those cases would be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” [Prosecutors]Robert D. Boyle and Edward J. Egan wrote."
Of course the statute of limitations has lapsed, and so those accused of his horrendous crimes are beyond prosecution. Our bad, sorry about beating you, using electric shocks, and playing mock russian roulette with you...but you know, it's all in a day's work.
Looking back at me, with tears in his eyes and rage in his voice, my dad said, "People say that there's just a few bad apples, but can't they see that the whole fucking tree is rotten?"
I'm sorry dad. You see--it's not that they can't see it, they just won't.
Bush vetoes stem cell bill...
In a rare flexing of executive power, President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have eased federal limitations on stem cell research, his first veto in 5 1/2 years. (And if you didn't get the joke in that statement then you might want to look at this, and this).
Standing with the so-called "snowflake families," fifteen men and women who have adopted frozen embryos which would have been destroyed or used for stem cell research, Bush claimed that:
"America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life...We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity, instead of the other way around."
Then he supported Israel's decision to blow the crap outta Lebanon, breaking step with the rest of Western nations who are attempting to negotiate an immediate cease-fire. Instead, Bush stands with Israel's demand that they conclude military operations before talking peace. So far the civilian death toll in Lebanon is over 300, with 1,000 wounded and 500,000 displaced.
President Bush is a very sick man. I don't know how else to explain a person who says one thing and does another. His actions are schizophrenic if they are unconscious, and sociopathic if not. On one hand he vetoes a bill that could save millions of peoples lives, and explains he does this for "morality, and an inherent right to life," and on the other he supports a war that is completely one sided, the brunt of its violence shouldered by the innocent. If you knew a man like this you'd tell him to get some help. Unfortunately, it is we who need the help the most.
Well, at least Americans evacuated from Lebanon won't be charged for their rescue.
Standing with the so-called "snowflake families," fifteen men and women who have adopted frozen embryos which would have been destroyed or used for stem cell research, Bush claimed that:
"America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life...We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity, instead of the other way around."
Then he supported Israel's decision to blow the crap outta Lebanon, breaking step with the rest of Western nations who are attempting to negotiate an immediate cease-fire. Instead, Bush stands with Israel's demand that they conclude military operations before talking peace. So far the civilian death toll in Lebanon is over 300, with 1,000 wounded and 500,000 displaced.
President Bush is a very sick man. I don't know how else to explain a person who says one thing and does another. His actions are schizophrenic if they are unconscious, and sociopathic if not. On one hand he vetoes a bill that could save millions of peoples lives, and explains he does this for "morality, and an inherent right to life," and on the other he supports a war that is completely one sided, the brunt of its violence shouldered by the innocent. If you knew a man like this you'd tell him to get some help. Unfortunately, it is we who need the help the most.
Well, at least Americans evacuated from Lebanon won't be charged for their rescue.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
