Has he ever read it?

The president cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN. I wonder if he ever read it?

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

A vision

This morning, driving to work, I had a vision...

George Bush, high as a kite, hiding in a fort he made out of couch cushions (dull orange and yellow floral pattern), listening to "Life During Wartime", and pretending like he was actually fighting the war himself.

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines
I know that ain't allowed...

America's Greatest Speech--From Our Greatest American

Read this and appreciate him:

Matthew 25:37--40 The King George Version

Then George will answer Him, 'Lord, when did I see you naked, and clothe You with garments made by abused children laboring for pennies a day? When did I see You sick, and personally stop the research that could have cured your affliction? When were you in prison and I applied electrodes to your genitals and beat you into submission on a cold hard floor?' The King will answer and say to him, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' And George will answer 'Oh Jesus."

I also ran a quick check of the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are

1) the peacemakers
2) those that mourn
3) the meek
4) the poor in spirit
5) the merciful

and so on. I don't see anything about "blessed are the arrogant torturing warmongers."

Faith is a personal matter, and I do not wish to get into "competitive Christianity," but I have never seen a poorer reflection of the teachings of Jesus than from this man who claimed that he was his "favorite philosopher."

That was rude of me

I apologize. I questioned the president's expertise on sovereignty, when he obviously has mastered the subject:

Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a--you're a--uhh, you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Now, the federal government has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help. And health care. And it's a solemn duty. From this perspective, we must continue to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all is to help with economic development, and that means helping people understand what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging capital flows, but none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish and are strong. That's why I told you, we spent $1.1 billion in reconstruction of Native American schools.

My apologies.

A newly discovered clause in the Constitution

Article II, Section 5

In times of war, or if the People of the Several States are scared of any Danger, real or imagined, all powers enumerated in this Constitution, along with all powers deemed necessary at the time, are hereby granted to the Office of the President. During such times, the President shall not be questioned in his actions, and any such questioning shall be punishable by imprisonment without writ or trial, for as long as the conflict or Danger shall last. All judgments about the nature of the War or Danger shall reside with the Office of the President.

John, Yoo are one evil motherfucker

John Yoo, author of the infamous legal memo justifying Presidential powers to torture US captives around the world, couldn't escape torture victims (World Can't Wait activists) when he appeared in Chicago on Dec. 1, 2005. in a debate with Doug Cassel, long time human rights legal scholar and professor at Notre Dame.

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty
Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Keeping Us Safe - Amish Style

Those of us who spend any significant time online are well aware of the security risks - hackers, phishers, spammers, and the lot are trying to gain personal information that they can use to work towards their nefarious goals. And in our consistently more computer-dominated society, the amount of information available online, including information which could be used in a terrorist attack. As such, our government, ever vigilant and concerned for our safety, has devoted vast resources and appointed huge numbers of men and women to help keep us safe. An expert has been overlooking the nation's cybersecurity every minute since 9/11, just to make...Wait, I'm getting an update. Oh, yes. The Shrub's still in charge:

After year's delay, White House selects cybersecurity chief

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House has chosen an industry information security specialist as its cybersecurity chief, an official said Monday, filling a job that has had no permanent director for a year.

Greg Garcia will be nominated later this week as the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications, said a department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made. He will replace acting cybersecurity director Donald "Andy" Purdy Jr., who is a two-year contract employee on loan from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Garcia, vice president of the Information Technology Association of America, did not return calls seeking comment Monday.

Carnegie Mellon has received $19 million in contracts from Homeland Security's cybersecurity division this year under Purdy's oversight.

The cybersecurity job was created in July 2005, but department officials have struggled to find candidates willing to take significant pay cuts from industry jobs to fill it.

A test of mock Internet attacks concluded last week that government and industry officials were widely unable to fight back quickly and effectively against a series of simulated hackings that aimed to halt subways and trigger power outages.

Lost and FOUND

Another 34 bodies found in Iraq

(link) Iraqi security forces have recovered 34 more bodies dumped across the war-torn country, bringing to more than 180 the number of people believed killed in a wave of sectarian murders in the past five days, a security official said. Thirty-two of the bodies were found in Baghdad, while two were recovered from the town of Suweira, the official said, asking not to be identified.

Most of the victims had been shot dead. Since Tuesday, security forces have recovered more than 180 bodies, mostly from Baghdad and most of them killed execution-style, according to officials. The Iraqi capital is the epicentre of a conflict between the newly empowered Shiite majority and the ousted Sunni Arab elite that has left thousands dead since February.

Once in a while, he tells the truth

"But one thing that's for certain: It is very hard to have free societies if the citizens cannot read. Think about that. It's much harder for a society to realize the universal blessings of liberty if your citizens can't read the newspaper in order to be able to make informed choices and decisions about what may be taking place in a country. You can't realize the blessings of liberty if you can't read a ballot, or if you can't read what others are saying about the future of your country. "

Indeed. Look at what happened. America can't read, therefore we can't live in a free society. We get this instead:

The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend

The fact that key GOP senators are opposing President Torture does NOT mean they are making a principled stand for American values. If something may be somewhat better than its disgusting and appalling alternative, that does not make it good. Check out my pal Joshua Holland over at Gadflyer. He lays out the Senate meaure's obnoxious provision, and concludes:

This is, in short, a terrible bill. It's an improvement over the House bill favored by the administration, yes, but a terrible bill nonetheless. (The House bill, drafted by Duncan Hunter (R-CA), would allow evidence obtained by "coercive interrogations" to be admitted into military tribunals or "civilian status review commissions," and would deny defendants the right to challenge it if doing so impacted "national security.") Let's all just understand that both bills redefine war crimes under article three of the Geneva Conventions, both start us down a slippery slope towards something quite ugly and both will, in Colin Powell's words, cause the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

John Yoo: "We have never been to war with Oceana"

From Sunday's NYT: (Login Required)

The changes of the 1970’s occurred largely because we had no serious national security threats to United States soil, but plenty of paranoia in the wake of Richard Nixon’s use of national security agencies to spy on political opponents.

Once again, proving he has no humanity

From the Murderer-In-Chief's most recent press conference:

Q: Thank you very much, sir. What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings? And Senator McCain says your plan will put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"?

-----------------------

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Anyone who still supports this man is inhuman, unAmerican, and a murderer by proxy.

The classic Scooby Doo moment

You know how Scooby Doo twists his head around and makes that weird sound? Here goes:

PRESIDENT BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question.They were asking me about -- somebody report -- well, you know, your special forces here. Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought he might be who was asking me the question -- Pakistan's a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Amazing.

You're either for us or against us--unless you're Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, I guess.

An interview with Stephanie Miller

Stephanie Miller
By Matthew Rothschild
September 2006 Issue - The Progressive

My personal favorite poll number is the President’s 2 percent approval rating among blacks. Which is within the margin of error. Which leads to all sorts of mind-boggling possibilities, scientifically: Is it possible that more black people hate the President than are actually alive today?

Do you think black ghosts are coming back to hate him?

Do you think they can read black sonograms at this point?

Are doctors saying, “We don’t know if this is a boy or a girl, but we know this baby hates George W. Bush”?

Here is what's wrong with the Democrats---and the media

As written in the Chicago Tribune: "Reaching out to more moderate, churchgoing voters with misgivings about abortion, House Democrats plan to unveil legislation on Thursday that sets a public policy goal of reducing abortions in America."

Same article, Dem policy analyst: "From our perspective, it shows Democrats are changing the debate and making it a priority to reduce abortions in America while leaving personal liberties intact."

My points--first of all, the introductory paragraph suggests that the prior Democratic policy approach was "Abortions for all! Buy one, get one free!" The second is the notion that Democrats need to "reach out" to moderate churchgoers, (and implicitly, to fundamentally change the message to do so), as if the Pat-shake-drinking lunatic fringe had that group locked up (speaking as a not-too-far from moderate churchgoer).

And my second point is the Dem policy analysis who apparently seems to say "yup, that's right, we've been wrong," suggesting the need for change (and hinting at fear) rather than emphasizing

1) constitutional liberty
2) personal freedom and proper government roles
3) rationality--recognizing that faith-based initiatives+medieval attitudes toward sexuality=pregnant teenagers, and that abortion laws don't reduce abortions.
4) individual responsibility and educated choices

We're on the right side here. They aren't. Say so.

As long as we're being absurd

Jedi W

Mentally and morally superior to, what, exactly...

Because, you see, it makes no difference to the little men and women buzzing hysterically around giants like Bush and Blair, who are clearly mentally and morally superior in every way.

By the power vested in me

I hereby declare today to be

Happy Birthday to Me Day!

The White House issued a statement, saying that the president "couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of" my birthday.

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls.......

Two car bombs in Baghdad on Wednesday killed 28 people and wounded scores more as over 60 bodies were found. In the day's deadliest attack, 20 people died and 51 others were wounded in a car bomb attack against a police patrol in east Baghdad, interior ministry spokesman Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf told AFP (link).

Freedom's on the march, but it just keeps exploding for some reason.

No truer words...

Jon Stewart played this Monday night (reason enough for Tivo) in his montage of W since 9/11. This one came from that December:

"I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah."

Yeah, there's nothing like the re-dedication of the Temple and eight days of oil after a rebellion against the Seleucids to warm the cockles of a Wahhabist Muslim's heart.

Don't know much about history, redux

I have mentioned my history background many times. Although a history major isn't exactly career-focused for the 21st century, I believe a grounding in history is invaluable. You gain an appreciation for other cultures and societies, you develop a contextual structure to analyze and understand world events and are generally prepared to understand a complex modern world--with some glaring exceptions.



College
Yale University, bachelor's degree, history

My Final 9/11 Thought

And it's not even mine--but it's good.

Bill Maher's good too...

New Rule: Bad presidents happen to good people.

 

(9/8 Episode)

Amid all the 9/11 anniversary talk about what will keep us safe, let me suggest that, in a world turned hostile to America, the smartest message we can send to those beyond our shores is, "We're not with stupid."  

 

Therefore, I maintain that ridiculing this president is now the most patriotic thing you can possibly do.  Wait. Let the word go forth to our allies and our enemies alike. Let them know that there's a whole swath of Americans desperate to distance themselves from George Bush. And that's just Republicans running for re-election.  

 

Now, America is an easily misunderstood country these days. A lot of the time, it's hard to make out what we�re saying over the bombs we're dropping. But the world needs to know that most Americans don't think that putting a boot in your ass is the way to solve problems. Because even allowing that my foot lodged in your ass would feel good, which I don't, what then? Okay, my boot is in your ass, but I can't get it out, so I'm not happy. And it's in you, so you're not happy. There's no exit strategy.  

 

If I could - if I could explain one thing about George Bush to the rest of the world, it's this: we don't know what the fuck he's saying either!  Trust me, there's nothing lost in translation! It's just as incoherent in the original English. George Bush just turned out to be one of those things that's very popular for a few years, and then almost overnight becomes completely embarrassing. Like leg-warmers or white people going, "Oh, no, you di-n't."  Or invading Iraq.

 

Honestly, maybe the reason they haven't attacked us again is they figure we're already suffering enough. No, it pains me to say these things because I know, deep down, George Bush has something extra. A chromosome.  Wait, wait, wait. You see, wait. I did that on purpose. Was it cruel? Maybe. But it saved lives, dammit!

 

Because by doing the "extra chromosome" joke, I sent a message to a young Muslim somewhere in the world who is on a slow-burn about this country, and perhaps got him to think, "Huh, maybe the people of America aren't so bad. Maybe it's just that rodeo clown who leads them."  "Maybe the people get it!" We do, Ahmed, we do!!  

 

So, while honoring the anniversary of September, 2001, we must also never forget January, 2000. That's when then governor George Bush said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." The world changed on 9/11. He didn't. That's why we owe it to ourselves and to our children to never stop pointing out that George W. Bush is a gruesome boob.

 

Olbermann just does it better

From Crooks and Liars:

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me… this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft", or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
[snip]
Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
—
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said "we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground." So we won’t.
Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
—
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.
There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever "spin" 9/11.
—
[snip]
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight.
"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
—
When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…
When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.

In the first sentence

"Bush: Good evening. Five years ago, this date — September the 11th — was seared into America's memory."

From the decider's speech tonight.

'Tis a serious day, but one quick dumbass

From Roger W. Peck of Long Grove, Illinois:

When I read some of the letters to this paper I despair for the future of this country. A recent one indicated that terrorists have the right to confront their accusers, see the evidence against them and the right to a speedy trial all in accordance with the Constitution. What the writer fails to grasp is that those rights are guaranteed to all citizens, not suspected terrorists. So unless, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sneaks across the Mexican border, claims sanctuary in a Chicago church and that his mother is a U.S. citizen, he is entitled to none of the rights under our Constitution. It's sad when people are more concerned with the rights of terrorists than protecting this country from them.

I suggest that Roger should take a look at his constitution. The 4th amendment search and seizure provisions apply to "people," not "citizens." The 5th amendment due process/self-incrimination guarantees refer to "persons" as well, again, not "citizens" and the 6th, concerning confronting witnesses and rights to counsel, applies to ALL criminal prosecutions. Similarly, with regard to state action, the 14th also applies to "persons," not "citizens."

Roger, one quick suggestion:

Some ponderances

I wasn't going to write anything about today, but I find that the memories are still too fresh, too vivid, to be put away once they surface. I don't celebrate today, as the President does, and I'm not wearing a black armband or carrying candles. People of all generations have their own cultural watershed events, things which changed the world forever. To me, there are two which stand out above all others, one because of the euphoria and positive future which lay open before us - the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the other is September 11. I was in my dorm Lounge for the fall of the Berlin Wall, sitting on those nasty cubes that stuck together as furniture. I was roughly 1000 miles to the east on 9/11/01. This is not the anniversary of the only tragedy that befalls us, and there are many other horrors worth remembering. On the other hand, I'm not letting Liar McFuckwit and his band of merry murderers take away my memories with their wars and their hate and their lies. I've talked before about that point, so I won't belabor it here.

I was living in Poughkeepsie, NY that year, teaching some very over-pampered brats at Vassar College, and my girlfriend lived in Bloomfield, NJ, while doing an ER residency in Newark. That semester, I didn't have classes on Tuesday, and I had gone out to a movie the night before (The Others) and then crashed at her place, waiting for her to come home from work. The plan was that she would sleep a little while, and then we'd hang out that afternoon. Soon after she got home from work, I went out to the grocery store to get some food for breakfast. I turned on the car radio, which had been on ESPN the night before, and heard Tony Kornheiser talking about the attack on the Pentagon. It was somewhat garbled, and I didn't really get what he was talking about, so I turned on one of the news stations. They were talking about the planes that hit the World Trade Center. The towers had not yet collapsed, and I didn't really understand what was going on - someone was really confused, mixing up the Pentagon and the WTC - after all, both couldn't have been attacked at the same time, so I went into the store and shopped. No one was talking about what I'd heard on the radio, so I figured it must not have been that big of a story. Of course, what it really meant was that the news was too fresh for everyone to have gotten it.

Driving back in the car, I listened to the news some more, and got back in time to turn on the TV and see the first tower fall. I woke my girlfriend up, telling her what had happened. She thought I was kidding, since it was an absurdity, and I was just trying to prevent her from sleeping. Eventually, she came out to the living room and saw the TV, and immediately started getting ready to go back to work. The page to come in came minutes later, since everyone thought there would be lots and lots of injured, and the NYC hospitals would be overwhelmed, sending the overflow to New Jersey. No one knew that there wouldn't be injured. She left for work, and I got in my car to drive home.

I could see the smoke rising from lower Manhattan. The towers stood roughly 10 miles from Bloomfield, which seems far with traffic. It's less with smoke. I drove up to Poughkeepsie, listening to the radio, trying to process what had happened. By now, we knew of the fourth plane, but everything else was chaos. Once I got home, I couldn't stay home alone - this was something I needed to be around others for. Most people weren't in work that day - classes had been cancelled, and many of the people at Vassar had strong New York connections. So I went on the computer, and spent much of the day on a now-long gone message board by the name of Boufdot and on email, talking to everyone I could. The Red Cross started up websites for donations, and a friend of mine figured out how to grab the numbers from Amazon's page and output a graph of the total donations versus time. The generosity of the world was stunning that day, as was the unity that seemed to be everywhere - we had to reach out in all directions, because we all needed help. The next day in class, I was supposed to go over projectile motion, and I was using military examples - hitting targets wth missiles. Somehow that seemed wrong to me. Still does.

The fall of the Berlin Wall meant a major change in the world - for 40+ years, we'd lived under the threat, sometimes more real than at others, that those Russian bastards would nuke us in our beds. My students today know nothing of this, thinking (if at all) of nuclear war as something as ancient as Dr. Strangelove. The attacks on September 11 could have opened the door to a wonderful time, where we came together to attack the ills of society that lead to terrorism, rather than to start a war, where we focused on what connects us instead of what divides us. We have been led astray by fear and hate. By greed and lies. By the willingness to make others suffer so that a few could thrive. We sacrifice what makes us, in principle, a great country.

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change? And did you exchange
a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl,
year after year,
Running over the same old ground. What have we found?
The same old fears, wish you were here. - Roger Waters

As Predicted

You know, I just hate to say "I told you so."

But I told you so.

NBC: Eli vs. Peyton: 20.7 million viewers
ABC: Scaife vs. Clinton: 13 million viewers

Source.

Res ipsa loquitur.

One thought about today's date

I am not "commemorating" or observing this anniversary any more than I would note another orbit of the earth passing since any other high-profile crime, such as those perpetrated by the Jeffrey Dahmers and Timothy McVeighs of the world. I also think we are no more at war with "terror' than we are at war with skinhead bombers or drifter-eating psychopaths.

I did see one thing in passing that made my skin crawl, however. Granted, it is a Wiki thing, and as we all know, anyone can post to Wikipedia, but try this one on for size:

Patriot Day

In the United States, Patriot Day occurs on September 11 of each year, designated in memory of those who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, the name does not seem to have yet caught on in the American vernacular; most people still refer to the day as "September 11th", "9/11", or some variation thereof. U.S. House Joint Resolution 71 was approved by a vote of 407-0 on October 25, 2001. It requested that the President designate September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day." President George W. Bush signed the resolution into law on December 18, 2001 (as Public Law 107-89). It is a discretionary day of remembrance.....Some greeting card companies have released Patriot Day cards, causing controversy among some.

Good God. What's next? Carols?

Happy holidays...happy holidays...may the merry bells be bringin' happy holidays to you!

Today's visit from Mr. Dictionary

Today's word---

Plan
–(noun) a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, developed in advance: battle plans; a specific project or definite purpose: plans for the future.

--(verb) to arrange a method or scheme beforehand for any work, enterprise, or proceeding; to formulate a scheme or program for the accomplishment, enactment, or attainment of: plan a campaign.

Iraq post-war plan muzzled
Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.

BY STEPHANIE HEINATZ

September 8, 2006 FORT EUSTIS -- Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday. In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.......

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said."I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today."He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

Gee, I wonder why?

"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
The Emperor, clothing optional

Why I Love Neil Young

If you have a few minutes to spare, take a quick trip to this link.

Turns out that Neil Young still has a little zip in his fastball.

This Might Surprise You

Let me offer another viewpoint on the "Path To 9/11" kerfuffle:

It's not a big deal.

Now, I'm not here to defend the veracity or quality of this thing; that's impossible because I haven't seen it. I have only second- and third-hand recaps. That said, all those who are busy debunking it and protesting loudly are people I respect, and they have their hearts in the right place. I'm sure this "movie" would make Goebbels proud. I am willing to stipulate that it is a thuggish right-wing hatchet job, unfair, inaccurate, and, worst of all, disrespectful to the memory of the many who died that day. OK? OK.

But it doesn't really matter. Here's why.

1. Not that many people are going to watch it. Far, far more people are going to watch Eli and Peyton Manning tonight, and even the lame games on ESPN tomorrow night will outrate this thing.
2. Those who will watch it are a lost cause already. This is a classic exercise in preaching to the choir. Some of the 30% hardcore wingnut base will watch it (those who aren't watching football), but they've already anointed Chimpoleon king for life in their hearts, and have been using Clinton bumwipe for 10 years. And I've seen a lot of earnest handwringing about how the stupid/ignorant out there who don't read books or newspapers will watch it, and be swayed to the GOP. Putting the shameful elitism of that sentiment aside for a moment, does anyone really think the dimwit crowd hasn't already been buffaloed by these yahoos? How can this make it worse, in real terms, at the polls?
3. It's bad. According to TV critics nationally, it's an amateurish pile of dung, and anyone who isn't drunk on kool-aid is likely to tune out after 30 minutes and not come back. Look, the presence of a talentless hack like Patricia Heaton is all you need to know. I can smell it from here. Conservatives have never been successful in the arts; try to name two. The most critical quality of an artist is empathy, some kind of understanding of the human condition. It follows trivially that Conservatives lack empathy and therefore cannot create good art. QED.
4. I believe ABC/Disney does have First Amendment protection here. Pete asked who the first wingnut would be to bring this up; I guess I'm a wingnut now. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't see where the First Amendment means you have to tell the truth. They can do this. Now, we can respond by boycotting Disney and all their properties (I've been looking for a good reason to quit watching "Lost"), and those who have standing can sue for defamation. From what I'm reading, Clinton and Albright might do exactly that. But I don't see where this violates the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" test. Tacky, stupid, evil, bad? Yes. Illegal? Not in my America, thanks. The solution to bad free speech must ALWAYS be more free speech, not less. I'm kind of a hardliner on this one.

Normally, I'd just keep my yapper shut and move on, but I'm worried about all the energy being spent on this when the most important midterm election since the Depression is only 9 weeks away. People are taking their eye off the ball. This is going to be completely forgotten in 5 days.

One last thought on this is that this is nowhere near the worst abuse by a TV network in recent memory. I call to your attention the evening of the 2000 election, when Jack Welch, CEO of GE (the parent of NBC) and an outright bitch of Chimpoleon, called the news desk and demanded that they call Florida for Bush, shifting the momentum to Bush and the burden of proof to Al Gore. How'd that work out for us? Read Henry Waxman's op-ed in the LA Times on the matter.

I humbly submit that that single act was infinitely more damaging to the long term health of our Republic than the airing of a badly made, revisionist made-for-TV movie.

Through the Looking Glass--with Condi

Rice on Face the Nation: "As far as we know," Saddam had no knowledge of or role in the September 11 plot BUT "if you think that 9/11 was just about al-Qaida and the hijackers, then there's no connection to Iraq. But if you believe, as the president does and as I believe, that the problem is this ideology of hatred that has taken root, extremist ideology that has taken root in the Middle East, and that you have to go to the source and do something about the politics of that region."

So if you think that 9/11 was only about what really happened on 9/11, and the source of extremist ideology was a secular nation that saw extremists as a threat to them......

"There was a book lying near Alice on the table, and while she sat watching the White King (for she was still a little anxious about him, and had the ink all ready to throw over :him, in case he fainted again), she turned over the leaves, to find some part that she could read," -- for it's all in some language I don't know, she said to herself--- [insert the above Bush-Speak here instead of Jabberwocky, although I think `'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe' read backwards makes more sense than George and Condi] She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. "Why, it's a looking-glass book of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again!"

"Bring out [some of] yer dead!"

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren't counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country's sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution. That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

Remarkable. If you don't reality--re-define it.

"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past."
George Orwell

Chief Illiniwek Quits in Disgust

Embarrassing Loss Prompts Move
Chief: "The hell with this, I'm taking that casino gig!"

(Local Fake Wires) Chief Illiniwek, embattled symbol of the University of Illinois, resigned unexpectedly Saturday afternoon. His departure, while expected at the end of the season due to NCAA pressure, was appararently prompted by the dismal performance of the team in Saturday's 33-0 loss. The chief stated, "you want me to dance in buckskins and bare feet in November when we can't even get the ball over midfield against [expletive deleted] Rutgers? RUTGERS? The hell with this, I'm taking that casino gig!"

Sources close to the chief report that he has agreed to a two-year contract to serve as a greeter at an undisclosed Native American casino in Wisconsin, and will offer a "Chief-ercize" dance class at the casino's hotel spa.

Chief Illiniwek, in Happier Times

Another Victory for Mockudrama

On the cover of the Chicago Tribune's "TV WEEK" is found a free advertisment for the abortion that will be "The Path to 9/11." The cover copy reads:

ABC airs factual mini-series that points fingers and names names.

------------------------------------------------

The accompanying article, written by Zap2it's journalistic heavyweight Jacqueline Cutler, never mentions the controversy surrounding the project, and IMO NOT because of the early deadline necessitated for Sunday inserts (as Internet and print sources have been clamoring about this for weeks - not days). This piece is designed to be read by Idiot America - the sheep who never read the Perspective or Op/Ed pages, who grow weary of "controversy." They need their faux history spoon-fed to them. These are the same lemmings who get their "world travel" fix by visiting paper-mache recreations of Lake Como, Venice, Paris, NY, and Rio...

I had high hopes for a Democratic takeover of the legislative branch of the government, but those hopes are fading fast in the face of the mainstream media's efforts to support the status quo. The nuance of what ACTUALLY happened in the months and years of build-up to 9/11 has no chance when put up against "intrepid FBI agent John O'Neill" (a fictional character played by Harvey Keitel) "who since the first bombing of the Twin Towers was determined to nab Osama bin Laden."

The Press is on

Cheney on MTP

Condi on Face the Nation

Sigh.

Should I have a shot of conspiracy?

I know what I'm doing on Monday--I have a deadline to get the updated edition of one of my page-turning books off (I think I want Brad Pitt to play "Audit Committee"). Even if I wasn't under an editorial deadline, though, I would have no desire to wade through all the crap that day will produce on the glowing box.

I have not yet come to my conspiracy theory conclusion. There are many unanswered questions--why weren't fighters scrambled? (they were when Payne Stewart's plane became the deep freeze?) Why are there no pictures of a plane about to hit THE PENTAGON--one of the most secure buildings on the planet? And, excuse me for asking--where are the planes?

But when I return to rationality, I recall that this is the most incompetent bunch of bungling boobs to ever take up residence on that end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Everything they have touched has turned to crap, disaster after disaster. There is no way these ham-handed buffoons could have pulled this off--right? Right?

Damn tough to argue with that one

From Matt Taibbi over on Alternet. He is pointing out how Democrats feel comfortable attacking Rummy but cannot find their voice on the war in general:

A typical comment will be one like Chuck Schumer's of last week: "There are growing doubts about how competently he's conducted the war." (How do you competently invade the wrong country?)

Good point, Matt.

Don't know much about history

You know how I find humor in the letters to the editor. Today, I was just angered. It is this kind of idiocy and the fact that Retard America reads at a 7th-grade level that has allowed the muck we see around us today to happen. Today's genius, Bill McCabe of Arlington Heights, gives us this gem:

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman’s recent assertion is that comparisons between Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein are basically foolish. I disagree. There are many parallels between the two.

Rewind to the 1930s. Hitler’s Third Reich was already well positioned for "success." Back here in the States, the position of the U.S. people was exactly the way it was against Hussein three years ago. In a nutshell, we felt, "Yes, he’s a crazy, brutal dictator who brutalizes innocent people, but he’s halfway around the world and he’s not our problem."

Sound familiar? Meanwhile, while going ignored by the superpower U.S. and forging very strong alliances with nations with powerful armies, he slowly but surely started to absorb France, Austria, Poland, etc. By the time the U.S. got involved, we had a real mess on our hands that cost tens of thousands of U.S. lives.

Fast forward to the ’80s and ’90s and we see Hussein attacking countries that border Iraq. No he wasn’t as successful initially as Hitler at growing his empire, but with the war on terror growing, so were his supporters. Even the man in charge of Iraq’s weapons program noted it was only a matter of time before a large arsenal of globally dangerous weapons would have been created. Chapman shouldn’t be so shortsighted as to assume that there aren’t any valid comparisons between Hussein and Hitler. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Mr. McCabe's ignorance of history is appalling.

There is no comparison between pre-World War II and the runup to this disaster in Iraq.

Germany was an industrial power that was arming at a time when much of the rest of the world was both retreating from militarization after the horrors of World War I and crippled by depression. Iraq had fought Iran with our full encouragement and in response to the Iranian regime's support of Iraqi Shi'a uprisings, and invaded Kuwait again with our misguided blessing. While by no means justified, Iraq's action against Kuwait was understandable--Kuwait was pulling from Iraqi oil fields and was overproducing, driving crude prices down at a time when Iraq needed oil revenues to recover from the costs of the Iran war.

At the end of the 1st gulf war, and then through sanctions, Iraq's military was gutted and its economy in shambles. The U.S. and Britain flew daily missions over much of the country, with extensive satellite surveillance. On the eve of World War II, Germany was a fully industrialized, armed and expansionistic state. Iraq was crippled and ruled by a tinhorn dictator who, no matter how oppressive to his people, posed no threat to the United States.

That was what those of us who opposed war knew then--the fact that he was "halfway around the world" played no part. Mr. McCabe, those who misunderstand history are condemned to screw it up completely.

Apparently, some of the movie is accurate

From the Sun Times' review of "The Path to 9/11" (that notoriously liberal leftist rag):

Key scenes draw flak as false or misleading

More than 25,000 people have written to ABC to complain about "The Path to 9/11," penned by Cyrus Nowrasteh, whom Rush Limbaugh calls a friend. On Thursday, Bill Clinton's office called for ABC to "fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely."

James Bamford, an author who writes about national security agencies, told MSNBC an FBI agent hired as an adviser on "Path" quit halfway through production "because he thought they were making things up."

ABC's defense: "The movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Most of the furor concerns a few key scenes.

Scene: The CIA and Northern Alliance come within killing distance of Osama bin Laden, but former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is portrayed saying they don't have the presidential authority to kill. ABC reportedly has toned down this scene in recent days.

Reaction: None of that happened, according to the film's senior adviser, Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 Commission. He admits the scene is a "composite," as are some agents in the film.

"It's utterly invented," President Bush's former terrorism czar Richard Clarke said this week.

"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," Berger wrote to ABC. "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or U.S. military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al-Qaida."

...

Scene: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush officials are shown taking no action at pivotal moments when terrorists may have been stopped.

Reaction: Bush officials have not complained to ABC.

Inspired by a comment here

Honest, your honor - I'm not lying. What I said was a just enhanced for dramatic impact. It was a docufact factudrama.

How long will it take?

The blogosphere is rife with rumors that ABC is considering damage control and pulling its mock-umentary. What is the over/under for how long it takes a right-wing radio host/TV newsbot to say "I thought you libs supported free speech?"

Ballotting

I was looking at the Champaign County ballot for the November 7 election (60 days away), and I ran across two referenda that we will be voting on. I don't know if they're statewide, or what meaning they have, but I'll sure as hell support them:

Proposition That The United States Withdraw Military Personnel And Bases From Iraq

In order to halt the continuing loss of human life and resources necessary to meet human needs at home, shall the United States commence a[n] humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel and bases from Iraq?

Proposition To Request The House Of Representatives To Impeach George W. Bush

Shall our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives be asked to support the impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from office for misleading our nation to war with Iraq, for permitting the illegal use of torture, and for conducting domestic spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

Extra! Extra!

Senate report finds no Hussein, al Qaeda link. Wow, who'd have thought that? And it only took them 3+ years. I hear the intelligence committee has also confirmed that the earth is round and the Pope is Catholic. Those guys are GOOD.

An open letter to Senator Mitchell, Chairman of Disney

Dear Senator Mitchell:

It is highly unlikely that there has been a more poignant event in recent American memory than the events which took place on September 11, 2001. Undoubtedly, it is safe to say that for those who were alive and aware of the events on that day, everyone will be able to remember where they were when it happened and the numbing feeling that surrounded the whole event. The outpouring of emotion and sympathy on the global stage was unprecedented

While things that happen day-to-day may be caught up in winds of partisanship, what must be kept cold and objective is history and the lens through which we view it. To distort history is to do a disservice to those who remember the past and those who teach it in the present. How can we expect to teach future generations about the past if the lessons they are presented are distorted and inaccurate? Worse, after sufficient time passes and such fallacies are propagated, who will remain to refute them? Furthermore, who will even care for their refutation as we move further away?

The Walt Disney Company, through its ABC subsidiary, is scheduled to air the two-part series “The Path to 9/11” this weekend as we approach the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001. Anniversaries are certainly causes for remembrances, but those of milestone nature (first, and, I would give you, subsequent ones which occur in the future on multiples of the fifth or tenth occasion) have a greater buzz and interest.

It has been made clear through the media that this project is fraught with historical inaccuracies and appears to have been challenged as such from the start.

• While allegedly having been based on the 9/11 Commission’s report, it appears that the writer, who has a long and distinguished history in conservative circles, manipulated elements to paint the previous administration in a poor and false light and promote a view of the current events in Iraq that is not in step with the truth.
• It has been reported that an FBI consultant quit midway through the filming because of the deviation that the project was taking from the true historical account.
• The project has gone from being a “documentary” to a “docudrama” to one in which ABC management has acknowledged that production liberties were taken.
• The selective releasing of advanced copies for screening and review to only those outlets who eschew a negative view of President Clinton’s administration and, quite frankly, the more liberal elements of the population, have added fuel to the fire.
• Disclaimers aside, it is very difficult to produce a ‘historical account’ when fiction is applied.

Senator Mitchell, mine is likely not the only voice which has been raised in protest. With a little over forty-eight hours until the program is to begin, it is unlikely that the necessary wholesale changes which must be made to this production to bring it in line with the 9/11 Commission’s Report can be made. Yes, it causes a tremendous gap in your programming in two, key primetime slots during day being billed as momentous in its remembrance by anyone with a microphone or camera.

But isn’t insuring that it is done right more important than putting forth something that could damage the reputations of a host of household brands? ABC News lost one the greatest and most respected broadcasters of our time, Peter Jennings, not very long along. Bob Woodruff was critically injured visiting a war in a country that never should have taken place. What kind of news event would it be when someone reported about the deliberate misrepresentation of such a key part of our nation’s history?

Please do the right thing. Please make this go away.

Sincerely,

And for no additional fee, they'll poke a sharp stick in your eye

While everyone's focused on the debacle that is ABC, CNN.com has come up with it's own wonderful way to commemorate 9/11 on Monday. Starting at 7:30 am central time, they're going to stream their coverage from the day of the attacks. Relive every wonderful minute! It'll be just like it was on that happy, glorious day!

Rumors are that they're also starting up services where your former romantic partners will call you and remind you why they dumped you, former employers will show up at your house and fire you again, and funeral directors will disinter the remains of loved ones and plop them on your couch.

An Inconvenient Untruth

I'm sure most of you have heard about ABC's 9/11 "mock-udrama" that paints Bill Clinton as a close seond in villainy to Osama bin Laden in bringing about the attacks. I wrote to the local ABC affiliate, and got this form crap back:

"The Path to 9/11 is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews. The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

Bullshit. Dramatization? Fine. Nobody cared if Titanic got the history wrong in its breathless "dramatization" ("Jack..Rose..Jack..Rose...Jack...Rose"). Nobody really cares if you make crap up for the People Magazine crowd (cut to a blushing Lady Diana Spencer, "whatever will the queen think?")

But damn it, we DO care when your "mock-umentary" fictionalizes real, painful and important events in very recent history for partisan advantage, and attempts to fraudulently re-write history. Or at least I care, and I hope you do too. But then again, America will probably watch--and believe (see below)

Birds of a feather....

Pollster Pleads Guilty to Fraud (link)

The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President Bush, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results.

Tracy Costin pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Costin, 46, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when she is sentenced Nov. 30.

As part of her plea agreement, Costin agreed to repay $82,732 to the unidentified clients for 11 jobs between June 2002 and May 2004. DataUSA is now known as Viewpoint USA.

According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys......

A Tale of Two Georges

Yesterday, a federal judge sentenced former Illinois governor George Ryan to a 6 1/2 year prison term for various aspects of fraud and graft (for reasons unknown to this humble correspondent, federal prison terms are phrased in months--"I was expecting 10 years, but I got off easy, only 120 months!). Also yesterday, President Bush admitted to illegal and morally shocking conduct--torture and secret prisons.

In this morning's Chicago Tribune, the editorial page pilloried Ryan. The editorial called him a "blustery denier" and pointed out that "[b]ad things happened on his watch. The piece asked "without genuine contrition, is compassion what a criminal deserves?"

Yet, in the same section, in a piece labeled as "analysis," the Tribune's Michael Tackett applauds the president's "air of defiance" and says how his justifications "had an air of authority." He concludes that Bush "showed he still has a sense of the bold."

I am not apologizing for George Ryan--he engaged in graft all too typical of Illinois politics, and the conduct of the Secretary of State's office endangered Illinois drivers. The editorial, however, attributes 9 deaths to George Ryan. The other George can claim tens or hundreds of thousands of dead, while promising, or threatening, to "stay the course."

Who really is the "blustery denier?"

It's not all beer and skittles....

No, no, not THOSE skittles--I mean the old phrase deriving from an English bowling game popular in the pubs. It means that life isn't all laughter and good cheer, such as...below (one day's reporting from Reuters):

BAGHDAD - Two people were killed and eight wounded when a bomb exploded near a funeral tent in Amel area in southwestern Baghdad. People had gathered there to mark the death of a supporter of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the Interior Ministry said.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed eight people and wounded 38 in northern Baghdad's Qahira district, police said. An Interior Ministry source who quoted hospital tallies said six people were killed in the bomb blast and 46 wounded.

BAGHDAD - Police found the bodies of 19 people across Baghdad on Tuesday, an Interior Ministry source said. Some of them had been bound and blindfolded.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi police found a further 15 bodies throughout Baghdad on Wednesday, most were bound, blindfold with some showing signs of torture, police said.

SINJAR - A car bomb killed six members of Iraq's border police and wounded six others in the northern town of Sinjar, close to the Syrian border, police said.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed two people from the Yezidi religious minority in the northern city of Mosul, police said. It was not clear whether they were targeted because of their beliefs.

MAHMUDIYA - Mortars killed two people and wounded six when they landed on a main road in the violent town of Mahmudiya, just south of Baghdad, police said.

Woo-hoo!

We handed over control of the Iraqi military to the puppet show Iraqi government! Woo-hoo! We're makin' progress! Hard work, stay the course, makin' progress!

Oh wait--it appears that we can't turn over control of the death squads Iraqi Army quite yet, but never fear! The puppet show Iraqi government is now in complete control of the Iraqi navy:


and the air force:


Progress...hard work...stay the course...

Another one for the woodchipper

I am a creature of habit. Every day I take the same route to work and several times a year I take the family up to northern Michigan, using the same route over and over again. So nearly every day of the year I see the same memorials. Crosses that have been erected, I suppose, to mark the death site. Aside from musing as to why I never see stars of David or crescents at these memorial sites (neither Jews nor Muslims ever die along these routes??) I have wondered at the motivation behind constructing and maintaining these memorials (some have been in place for at least 15 years). Often, there were flowers at these sites, and by and by they died, and I found the image of dead flowers both sad and apropos. One memorial had prayer votives burning for weeks, while another featured a color picture of a young man, posing in his 8th grade graduation gown. But our weather beat it up and someone (or some force) removed it. Now there's just a weatherbeaten cross to mark the spot.

The wife and I have speculated as to the original intent of these memorials, and we have agreed that it was clearly part of a grieving process. We also agree that this original purpose over time has been superseded by the cautionary impact of these memorials. Someone (or in a few cases, two or three people) died here, perhaps because of a drunk driver, perhaps because conditions were bad, perhaps, because of careless or reckless behavior. So, while I doubt I'd ever construct such a memorial myself, I can rationalize a positive effect.

Last week a house fire snuffed out the lives of six children on the far north side of Chicago. Those of us who live here in the area have endured saturation coverage of this horrific event, and as the father of smallish children, I have refocused my attention to details like smoke detector batteries, home escape routes, keeping open flames to a minimum and flammable materials out of their reach. And of course, there is the inevitable memorial at the site of the fire. Tuesday's (9/5) Chicago Tribune featured a large full color photograph (registration required) of the memorial and I was struck immediately by the utter stupidity of at least one human being. There suspended on a wrought iron fence, hovering above the flowers and the potted plants was the single most disgusting and senseless contribution I've seen since Willie "Flukey" Stokes was buried in a Cadillac coffin -- a helium filled Tweety Bird.

Yes, that's right - Tweety Bird.

Now, I've seen teddy bears and other stuffed animals at these sites, and while I find them tacky, I can see them having a future existence in a pediatric hospital unit or perhaps kept by other family members as a reminder of a loved one.

But Tweety Bird?

I showed the photo to the wife and she immediately asked whose birthday was being celebrated. When I showed her the caption, she cringed.

"That's just awful."

We speculated that perhaps it was purchased by a child, and this could be forgiven, as children don't process death as adults do. But then I realized that an adult had to be involved in the process - had to accompany the child to the store to buy Tweety, bring the child to the site, tie Tweety to the fence. It affected me even more viscerally than reading the words of the woman who thought to senselessly rationalize the deaths of a Naperville, IL woman, her two infant sons and her mother because "God had a higher purpose for them in Heaven."

Six young lives lost in an inferno, a family shattered, a mother and father grieving, and the best this supposed adult can do is tie a celebratory cartoon character to wrought iron fence? Please, please, please - whoever you are - go straight to the woodchipper.

Thomas Jefferson, Colonio-fascist

Jefferson: "...for the preservation of our liberties being with one mind we are resolved to die free rather than live slaves."

Osama bin Laden (via Preznit Chimpy) "death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."


[note to Preznit Chimpy--bin Laden was referring to FOREIGN TROOPS on ISLAMIC lands, not you in Crawford doing...whatever.]

We've finally figured out W's thought process

If we don't let the terrorists win, then the terrorists win.

Keeping an eye on the important things

Hat-tip to the Daily Kos:

The Transportation Security Administration has a webpage where they list what sorts of things you can bring on an airplane, what needs to be checked, what can go in a carry-on, etc.

They have a section for Makeup & Personal Items.

Everything in the list is permissible in checked luggage, but there are distinctions for carry-ons. For example, you cannot put mouthwash, toothpaste, Blistex, Neosporin, shampoo, or bottles of saline solution larger than 4 oz in your carry-on bags. You can bring nail clippers, though, which is a relief. Oh, and one more thing.

Personal lubricants (up to 4 oz) can be put in a carry on bag.

So, remember, if you're flying somewhere for that long-distance booty call, you have to check the toothbrush and Blistex, but the KY Jelly can go right in your pocket for easy access.

I feel safer already.

The great ideological struggle of the 21st century

The epic struggle is a few loose-screw religious leaders playing off disaffected, alienated 20-somethings who would be playing video games--if they had electricity??
I am so tired of this nonsense. It is historically inaccurate, sociologically offensive and it is INSULTING. Yes, it is insulting to suggest that the nation which stared down the Soviet Union should feel a pervasive fear of kids who here would be hanging around the 7-11 parking lot. It is cowardly and despicable.

I don't want to minimize the real threat of acts of terror--crime is everywhere. But as Doc Magoo said below, I'm not afraid. There are many clashes of ideology to come--free versus fair trade, environmentalism and consumerism, wealth and poverty--but some guys in a basement with some wire and cleaning supplies aren't it.

For two excellent pieces, read this one from Joshua Holland and this one from tompaine.com.

How football leads to global warming

Well, not directly. I was reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, written by Gregg Easterbrook, and he posted a link to an article he wrote for the Brookings Institution:

"Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.

This brief will address the three points above and, in an appendix, offer non-jargon explanations of the most important recent findings of greenhouse science. But the pressing point of this briefing is not so much scientific as it is practical—that action against artificial global warming may not prove nearly as expensive or daunting as commonly believed. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected. This gives cause to hope that artificial greenhouse gases can be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. And if there is a chance of an economical approach to greenhouse-gas reduction, then what are we waiting for? Let's start now."

An Inadvertant Truth

On the transition page from the U.S. House website to the National Archives' record of the Constitution:

"Neither the House office whose site contains the above link, nor the U.S. House of Representatives is responsible for the content of the non-House site you are about to access."

Neoconservatism and Fear

Pete points out in one of his recent posts that Sean Hannity is afraid of what will happen if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House. Not worried, not concerned, not uneasy, but afraid. When I heard that the other day, it got me thinking about the number of things that neocons are afraid of - Nancy Pelosi, gay marriage, brown people, terrorism, losing, fair elections - and I began feeling sorry for them, that they go through their lives with this much fear. As a liberal, I know that the only thing I have to fear is fear itself, and so while there are legitimate dangers in the world - terrorism, a repeal of the 22nd amendment, global warming - I know that it's better to focus on solutions to these problems than to run around being afraid all the time. How horrible that must be, to be scared of everything, to live in a world where you don't feel protected unless everything that scares you is secreted away, hidden behind a wall, or just put out of existence. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and all the rest, bluster because they, for whatever reason, are scared all the time - they can't bear to think about what happens if people with different values are accepted in society. They're too scared about losing their comforts to try to limit the damage that humanity is doing to the planet. They're terrified of everyone else, and the only sure way to be safe is to get rid of everyone else.

Not sharing their fear makes my life better each and every day.

From the "mind" of Sean Hannity

This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of them is.............. (drum roll)

"MAKING SURE NANCY PELOSI DOESN'T BECOME THE SPEAKER."

The results of the mid-term elections are worth KILLING and DYING for? Nancy Pelosi inspires sufficient fear for Sean to urge taking up arms? (for others, I'm sure, not him)

Wow. Cue "Battle Hym of the Morons."

Alex, may I have "Bad Analogies" for $100?

Enough with the historical analogies, please. We have fascism and totalitarianism tossed around by people who either don't know or don't care what those terms mean, and now Condi compares leaving Iraq with leaving slavery intact in the South. What's next, is GWB a 21st-century Alexander Nevsky fighting off the Teutonic Knights at the Battle on the Ice to save Novgorod? Maybe somewhere in this mess is an apt reference to the War of Jenkins' Ear, who knows?

Condi said that "I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold." Rice added that "I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'"

Yes, there were many pacifists who wanted to let the "erring sisters" depart in peace. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Union states, including one Abraham Lincoln, would have been quite satisfied to " take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves" through mid-1862, if that "peace" included restoration of the union. Emancipation was not a war objective at the outset, Lincoln very clearly stated that his only goal was to preserve and maintain the union. Lincoln, who had strong personal feelings on the matter, seized on emancipation as federal policy as a war measure intended to weaken the southern states in a variety of ways.

This experience is hardly comparable to occupying a sovereign country invaded on pretense while propping up a puppet "government" with no claim to legitimacy or sovereignty. But look on the bright side, at least she mentioned "civil war!"

Exactly what is a ...

"Tola-tera-tera-to-totalitarian?"

I don't know either, but the president says they're BAD!

I'm not making the above up, that is from his recent wordsmithing on "turr."

A Visit with Mr. Dictionary Man

Good evening, boys and girls. Here are two new words from the dictionary. The first is:

VICTORY (vic-to-ry)
–noun, plural -ries.

1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war; 2. an engagement ending in such triumph; 3) the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest:

Isn't that a happy word? Success and triumph, how fun! And it works well in rhymes and cheers! Peppy cheerleaders can yell "V-I-C-T-O-R-Y, that's the [insert anthropomorhic team nickname here] battle cry!"

Our second word for tonight is:

OCCUPATION (oc-cu-pa-tion)
-noun

1) the act of occupying; 2) the state of being occupied; 3) the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory; 4) the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces; 5) invasion, conquest and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces: 6) the military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

Oooh. boys and girls, that is not a nice word. There is no success, no triumph, and you can't use it in a cheer. So from now on, boys and girls, we'll just forget about that nasty old "occupation" and always use our friend "VICTORY!"

That's our lesson for tonight. Mr. Dictionary Man will be back tomorrow and we will learn all about "fascists," "appeasement" and "freedom." Sleep tight!

One talking point to go, please

One thing we've known for a while is that the Republicans are much better at framing the debate than those of us on the left side of the aisle. For example, one thing you hear all the time on right-wing talk is that "Democrats have no ideas." Take a look this morning at a piece by a Tribune reporter (NOT an editorial) where she writes " Democrats have managed to gain on Republicans even without an overarching message." Ideological talking point one day, mainstream news the next--how convenient.