If you look at the mess in Iraq, you cannot help but be struck by some very perplexing questions. The first is why did the United States and the United Kingdom, the democracies that won World War II and memorialized international law into the United Nations charter so blatantly disregard and trample all over international law and diplomacy? Why did these nations, supposedly committed to order and stability, engage in reckless unilateral actions that have destabilized the Middle East and brought chaos to the region? Again to quote Barbara Tuchman, it has become necessary "to see ourselves as the `bad guys' in the world's polarity."
I think I can cynically answer the two above with simple references to greed and ideology, but the one below has me completely stumped. After all, I understand the neo-conservative agenda and their perverse view of Middle East re-engineering. I also of course understand the harsh realities of Halliburton, Bechtel and no-bid contracts.
But what I do not understand is the role played by Tony Blair in this mess. Why did a dynamic, progressive Labour leader decide to become George Bush's pet poodle? I cannot figure that one out, because Blair, and certainly Britain, seems to have so little to gain and so very very much to lose.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
I Want to Know Who the Idiots Who Sent 600 Bucks Are!!
Bush plea for cash to rebuild Iraq raises $600
Mark Townsend in Houston
Sunday September 25, 2005 The Observer
An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.
The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.
This coincides with concern over the increasing cost of the war. More than $30 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction. Initially, America's overseas aid agency, USaid, expected it to cost taxpayers no more than $1.7bn, but it is now asking the public if they want to contribute even more.
It is understood to be the first time that a US government has made an appeal to taxpayers for foreign aid money. Contributors have no way of knowing who will receive their donations or even where they may go, after officials said details had be kept secret for security reasons.
USaid's Heather Layman denied it was disappointed with the meagre sum raised after a fortnight. 'Every little helps,' she said.
In the past 12 months, Americans raised some $250bn for charity, including other foreign causes such as the Asian tsunami victims. Layman said: 'There is no financial goal. People are looking for a way to help rebuild Iraq and this is a way to facilitate that.'
The fundraising comes amid concern that some US projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partly completed because of rising costs. Some officials fear that money may run out before key projects are completed.
Last week, the number of US troops killed in Iraq rose above 1,900.
Mark Townsend in Houston
Sunday September 25, 2005 The Observer
An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.
The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.
This coincides with concern over the increasing cost of the war. More than $30 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction. Initially, America's overseas aid agency, USaid, expected it to cost taxpayers no more than $1.7bn, but it is now asking the public if they want to contribute even more.
It is understood to be the first time that a US government has made an appeal to taxpayers for foreign aid money. Contributors have no way of knowing who will receive their donations or even where they may go, after officials said details had be kept secret for security reasons.
USaid's Heather Layman denied it was disappointed with the meagre sum raised after a fortnight. 'Every little helps,' she said.
In the past 12 months, Americans raised some $250bn for charity, including other foreign causes such as the Asian tsunami victims. Layman said: 'There is no financial goal. People are looking for a way to help rebuild Iraq and this is a way to facilitate that.'
The fundraising comes amid concern that some US projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partly completed because of rising costs. Some officials fear that money may run out before key projects are completed.
Last week, the number of US troops killed in Iraq rose above 1,900.
Serving Size
Nutritionists tell us that our average portion sizes are too large. They suggest that a serving of meat should be no larger than a woman's hand. I wholeheartedly agree--if that woman is Ann Coulter.
Let's eat!!!!
Let's eat!!!!
Marching Back to Folly
I have previously mentioned one of my favorite books, Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly. As I noted in an earlier post, she defines "folly" as the KNOWING pursuit by governments of policies contrary to self-interest. It is not enough that governments made bad decisions--governments are made up of fallible humans who make mistakes and bad choices. Folly requires the knowledge that the course taken is wrong AT THE TIME and involves not only a failure, but also a refusal, to learn from experience.
At the end of her chapter on Viet Nam, she summarizes the tragically flawed misadventure. “The follies that produced this result begin with continuous overreacting: in the invention of endangered `national security,' the invention of `vital interest,' the invention of a `commitment' which rapidly assumed a life of its own, casting a spell over the inventor.”
"A second folly was illusion of omnipotence…a third was wooden-headedness and `cognitive dissonance,’ a fourth was `working the levers’ as a substitute for thinking.”
“In the illusion of omnipotence, American policy-makers took it for granted that on a given aim…American will could be made to prevail. This assumption came from a can-do character of a self-created nation and from the sense of competence and superpower derived from World War II….it was failure to understand that problems and conflicts exist among other peoples that are not soluble by the application of American force or American techniques or even American goodwill.”
“Wooden-headedness, the `don’t confuse me with the facts’ habit, is a universal folly never more conspicuous than at upper levels of Washington.”
“A last folly was the absence of reflective thought about the nature of what we were doing, about effectiveness in relation to the object sought, about balance of possible gain as against loss and against harm both to the ally and to the United States. Absence of intelligent thinking in rulership is another of the universals, and raises the question whether in modern states there is something in political and bureaucratic life that subdues the functioning of intellect in favor of `working the levers’ without regard to rational expectations."
She concludes this section with a quote from William Pitt, reflecting on England’s 18th-century folly in its dealings with revolutionary America. He described a nation’s self-betrayal “by the arts of imposition, by its own credulity, through the means of false hope, false pride and promised advantages of the most romantic and improbable nature.”
In her final chapter, she states that “the question is whether or how a country can protect itself from protective stupidity in policy-making.”
“Aware of the controlling power of ambition, corruption and emotion, it may be that in the search for wiser government we should look for the test of character first. And that test should be moral courage."
"...the problem may be not so much a matter of educating officials for government as educating the electorate to recognize and reward integrity of character and to reject the ersatz."
She wrote this in 1984.
At the end of her chapter on Viet Nam, she summarizes the tragically flawed misadventure. “The follies that produced this result begin with continuous overreacting: in the invention of endangered `national security,' the invention of `vital interest,' the invention of a `commitment' which rapidly assumed a life of its own, casting a spell over the inventor.”
"A second folly was illusion of omnipotence…a third was wooden-headedness and `cognitive dissonance,’ a fourth was `working the levers’ as a substitute for thinking.”
“In the illusion of omnipotence, American policy-makers took it for granted that on a given aim…American will could be made to prevail. This assumption came from a can-do character of a self-created nation and from the sense of competence and superpower derived from World War II….it was failure to understand that problems and conflicts exist among other peoples that are not soluble by the application of American force or American techniques or even American goodwill.”
“Wooden-headedness, the `don’t confuse me with the facts’ habit, is a universal folly never more conspicuous than at upper levels of Washington.”
“A last folly was the absence of reflective thought about the nature of what we were doing, about effectiveness in relation to the object sought, about balance of possible gain as against loss and against harm both to the ally and to the United States. Absence of intelligent thinking in rulership is another of the universals, and raises the question whether in modern states there is something in political and bureaucratic life that subdues the functioning of intellect in favor of `working the levers’ without regard to rational expectations."
She concludes this section with a quote from William Pitt, reflecting on England’s 18th-century folly in its dealings with revolutionary America. He described a nation’s self-betrayal “by the arts of imposition, by its own credulity, through the means of false hope, false pride and promised advantages of the most romantic and improbable nature.”
In her final chapter, she states that “the question is whether or how a country can protect itself from protective stupidity in policy-making.”
“Aware of the controlling power of ambition, corruption and emotion, it may be that in the search for wiser government we should look for the test of character first. And that test should be moral courage."
"...the problem may be not so much a matter of educating officials for government as educating the electorate to recognize and reward integrity of character and to reject the ersatz."
She wrote this in 1984.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Question for ZuZu's Petals
Isn't the following picture sufficient to disqualify one from serving as a senator from Tennessee?
Low and inside
Republicans are of course no strangers to insider trading scandals. You have probably heard by now about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (the favorite senator of Zu Zu's Petals!) and his little problem with dumping his holdings in the family empire, HCA, just before it tanked.Well, if you will, "Harken" back a few years, when a Texas energy company brought a young man on board solely for his intellect and business acumen:
He too bailed out just in time when things looked bad, with nary a slap on the wrist from Poppy's SEC. Frist and Bubble Boy demonstrate with undeniable clarity the typical neocon attitude toward the regulation of business in the public interest:
He was never the Wizard, he was ALWAYS Professor Marvel!
One of the last free Op-Ed pieces from the Gray Lady, now that the New York Times has adopted its ill-conceived pay service for its columnists:
Message: I Care About the Black Folks
ONCE Toto parts the curtain, the Wizard of Oz can never be the wizard again. He is forever Professor Marvel, blowhard and snake-oil salesman. Hurricane Katrina, which is likely to endure in the American psyche as long as L. Frank Baum's mythic tornado, has similarly unmasked George W. Bush.
The worst storm in our history proved perfect for exposing this president [a question for Mr. Rich, though--WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?? Back to your regularly scheduled column] because in one big blast it illuminated all his failings: the rampant cronyism, the empty sloganeering of "compassionate conservatism," the lack of concern for the "underprivileged" his mother condescended to at the Astrodome, the reckless lack of planning for all government operations except tax cuts, the use of spin and photo-ops to camouflage failure and to substitute for action.
In the chaos unleashed by Katrina, these plot strands coalesced into a single tragic epic played out in real time on television. The narrative is just too powerful to be undone now by the administration's desperate recycling of its greatest hits: a return Sunshine Boys tour by the surrogate empathizers Clinton and Bush I, another round of prayers at the Washington National Cathedral, another ludicrously overhyped prime-time address flecked with speechwriters' "poetry" and framed by a picturesque backdrop. Reruns never eclipse a riveting new show.
Nor can the president's acceptance of "responsibility" for the disaster dislodge what came before. Mr. Bush didn't cough up his modified-limited mea culpa until he'd seen his whole administration flash before his eyes. His admission that some of the buck may stop with him (about a dime's worth, in Truman dollars) came two weeks after the levees burst and five years after he promised to usher in a new post-Clinton "culture of responsibility." It came only after the plan to heap all the blame on the indeed blameworthy local Democrats failed to lift Mr. Bush's own record-low poll numbers. It came only after America's highest-rated TV news anchor, Brian Williams, started talking about Katrina the way Walter Cronkite once did about Vietnam.
Taking responsibility, as opposed to paying lip service to doing so, is not in this administration's gene pool. It was particularly shameful that Laura Bush was sent among the storm's dispossessed to try to scapegoat the news media for her husband's ineptitude. When she complained of seeing "a lot of the same footage over and over that isn't necessarily representative of what really happened," the first lady sounded just like Donald Rumsfeld shirking responsibility for the looting of Baghdad. The defense secretary, too, griped about seeing the same picture "over and over" on television (a looter with a vase) to hide the reality that the Pentagon had no plan to secure Iraq, a catastrophic failure being paid for in Iraqi and American blood to this day.
This White House doesn't hate all pictures, of course. It loves those by Karl Rove's Imagineers, from the spectacularly lighted Statue of Liberty backdrop of Mr. Bush's first 9/11 anniversary speech to his "Top Gun" stunt to Thursday's laughably stagy stride across the lawn to his lectern in Jackson Square. (Message: I am a leader, not that vacationing slacker who first surveyed the hurricane damage from my presidential jet.)
The most odious image-mongering, however, has been Mr. Bush's repeated deployment of African-Americans as dress extras to advertise his "compassion." In 2000, the Republican convention filled the stage with break dancers and gospel singers, trying to dispel the memory of Mr. Bush's craven appearance at Bob Jones University when it forbade interracial dating. (The few blacks in the convention hall itself were positioned near celebrities so they'd show up in TV shots.) In 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign Web site had a page titled "Compassion" devoted mainly to photos of the president with black people, Colin Powell included.
Some of these poses are re-enacted in the "Hurricane Relief" photo gallery currently on display on the White House Web site. But this time the old magic isn't working. The "compassion" photos are outweighed by the cinéma vérité of poor people screaming for their lives. The government effort to keep body recovery efforts in New Orleans as invisible as the coffins from Iraq was abandoned when challenged in court by CNN.
But even now the administration's priority of image over substance is embedded like a cancer in the Katrina relief process. Brazenly enough, Mr. Rove has been officially put in charge of the reconstruction effort. The two top deputies at FEMA remaining after Michael Brown's departure, one of them a former local TV newsman, are not disaster relief specialists but experts in P.R., which they'd practiced as advance men for various Bush campaigns. Thus The Salt Lake Tribune discovered a week after the hurricane that some 1,000 firefighters from Utah and elsewhere were sent not to the Gulf Coast but to Atlanta, to be trained as "community relations officers for FEMA" rather than used as emergency workers to rescue the dying in New Orleans. When 50 of them were finally dispatched to Louisiana, the paper reported, their first assignment was "to stand beside President Bush" as he toured devastated areas.
The cashiering of "Brownie," whom Mr. Bush now purports to know as little as he did "Kenny Boy," changes nothing. The Knight Ridder newspapers found last week that it was the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, not Mr. Brown, who had the greater authority to order federal agencies into service without any request from state or local officials. Mr. Chertoff waited a crucial, unexplained 36 hours before declaring Katrina an "incident of national significance," the trigger needed for federal action. Like Mr. Brown, he was oblivious to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in the convention center, confessing his ignorance of conditions there to NPR on the same day that the FEMA chief famously did so to Ted Koppel. Yet Mr. Bush's "culture of responsibility" does not hold Mr. Chertoff accountable. Quite the contrary: on Thursday the president charged Homeland Security with reviewing "emergency plans in every major city in America." Mr. Chertoff will surely do a heck of a job.
WHEN there's money on the line, cronies always come first in this White House, no matter how great the human suffering. After Katrina, the FEMA Web site directing charitable contributions prominently listed Operation Blessing, a Pat Robertson kitty that, according to I.R.S. documents obtained by ABC News, has given more than half of its yearly cash donations to Mr. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. If FEMA is that cavalier about charitable donations, imagine what it's doing with the $62 billion (so far) of taxpayers' money sent its way for Katrina relief. Actually, you don't have to imagine: we already know some of it was immediately siphoned into no-bid contracts with a major Republican donor, the Fluor Corporation, as well as with a client of the consultant Joe Allbaugh, the Bush 2000 campaign manager who ran FEMA for this White House until Brownie, Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate, was installed in his place.
It was back in 2000 that Mr. Bush, in a debate with Al Gore, bragged about his gubernatorial prowess "on the front line of catastrophic situations," specifically citing a Texas flood, and paid the Clinton administration a rare compliment for putting a professional as effective as James Lee Witt in charge of FEMA. Exactly why Mr. Bush would staff that same agency months later with political hacks is one of many questions that must be answered by the independent investigation he and the Congressional majority are trying every which way to avoid. With or without a 9/11-style commission, the answers will come out. There are too many Americans who are angry and too many reporters who are on the case. (NBC and CNN are both opening full-time bureaus in New Orleans.) You know the world has changed when the widely despised news media have a far higher approval rating (77 percent) than the president (46 percent), as measured last week in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
Like his father before him, Mr. Bush has squandered the huge store of political capital he won in a war. His Thursday-night invocation of "armies of compassion" will prove as worthless as the "thousand points of light" that the first President Bush bestowed upon the poor from on high in New Orleans (at the Superdome, during the 1988 G.O.P. convention). It will be up to other Republicans in Washington to cut through the empty words and image-mongering to demand effective action from Mr. Bush on the Gulf Coast and in Iraq, if only because their own political lives are at stake. It's up to Democrats, though they show scant signs of realizing it, to step into the vacuum and propose an alternative to a fiscally disastrous conservatism that prizes pork over compassion. If the era of Great Society big government is over, the era of big government for special interests is proving a fiasco. Especially when it's presided over by a self-styled C.E.O. with a consistent three-decade record of running private and public enterprises alike into a ditch.
What comes next? Having turned the page on Mr. Bush, the country hungers for a vision that is something other than either liberal boilerplate or Rovian stagecraft. At this point, merely plain old competence, integrity and heart might do.
Friday, September 23, 2005
My Fellow Americans--Four Letter Countries
LIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:
Good evening. My fellow Americans, I wanted to talk to you tonight about a serious problem, a problem for America. As you know, before we saved the world from a murderous dictator with stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and gave Iraq a happy, peaceful democracy, I mentioned an "axis of evil."
I mentioned Iran and Iraq, because they hate our freedom, and I want to mention Cuba now, because they hate Jeb, and because I lost my wallet down there once when Neil and I snuck in using one of Poppy's planes in the '70s because we heard they had some kick-ass weed there, and anyway it was a bitch and a half getting out without my state ID because, you know, the cops had my driver's license to start with and Neil was doing the hooker thing, they were cheap down there even with the drinks, but anyway, since 9/11, you know, 9/11 and all that--anyway, where was I? Oh right, I decided something.
Look--Iran, Iraq, Cuba, what do you see? OK, murderous dictators or oppressive regimes, but I mean something more important. Look again, Iran, Iraq, Cuba--four letters! Iran, Iraq, Cuba, FOUR letters! Coincidence??
Therefore, I have tonight declared an "Axis of Countries with Four-Letter Names." These countries may be evil, they may not be, but hey, just saying Iran, Iraq and Cuba gives me reason to invade. And besides, there are other countries that may be way eviller that I could never come close to saying. Uzbekistan, Vanuatu or Turkmenistan? Hell, they could have yellowcake waffles every day for breakfast and damn if I'm going to mention them in a V.F.W. speech. Seychelles? She sells seashells down by the seashore for all I know! Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Karl, are these real countries? Hell, the only thing I know about grenadine is that's what you float on a Tequila Sunrise!
So tonight, my fellow Americans, I am making the hardest decision that an American president can make, after deciding between watching Japanese cartoons or that boxed set of "The O.C." I have decided that to keep America safe, we must preempt any threats posed by the four-letter countries. So now, Chad, we're coming for you. Peru, you gave me some wicked shit in college but look out for shock and awe. I took out half of Guam before Cheney told me they were actually part of us, but Fiji, you're either with us or against us. Condi said that Togo is a country, hell, I think it's a party! War, party, same thing, though, huh?
Rita and Bush
September 23, 2005
We Have Full Penetration
Filed under: Uncategorized — The Rough Ol' Boy @ 4:33 am
This is an actual map produced by the National Hurricane Center; I really don’t think any further commentary is necessary.
We Have Full Penetration
Filed under: Uncategorized — The Rough Ol' Boy @ 4:33 am
This is an actual map produced by the National Hurricane Center; I really don’t think any further commentary is necessary.
Look Out Tomorrow!!
Tomorrow Darth Cheney goes under the knife to repair an aneurysm in his knee, and during that time in his anesthesia slumber, he cedes power to Little Bootsy McCokespoon. We can only hope that aides have the latest versions of Dungeon Siege to keep the Kid occupied those few hours. Laura may not be able to keep Georgie from scarfing down a few Coors while "monitoring Rita" while in Colorado, but the chance to role play a couple archers, knights, magicians against evil sorcerers may keep him from using "the codes" on Trinidad.
Reality, Next Stop, the Next Station is Reality
Please see below for my narco-residue theory.
The president needs to get out more. Really. He has gone beyond being divorced from reality to having any previous relationship with reality annulled (Renee Zellwegger and Reality can both claim fraud as grounds for the annulment!)
Let's look at a couple of quick examples. From the "Fun with Bianca" press conference below:
"Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make. They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace."
Mr. President, please pick up a newspaper. The U.S. military, let alone the "Iraqi" military, is not in control. We can't even control the road to the airport!
"The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the security of the American people, that's not going to happen on my watch. We'll do our duty. We'll defeat our enemies in Iraq and other fronts in the war on terror."
Hi, me again. First of all, who knew you were watching?? And just who are the "enemies?" I hate to break it to you, but for the most part, they are the ones who wanted a SECULAR government in Iraq, remember? The Iraqi "government" you constantly refer to want to install a fundamentalist Shi'a republic!!
And the clincher:
"The international community is helping Afghanistan become a lasting democracy. There's still terrorists who seek to overthrow the young government. See, they want to return Afghanistan to what it was under the Taliban, a miserable place, a place where citizens have no rights, women are oppressed, and the terrorists have a safe haven to plan and plot attacks."
Well, it is still all of the above, plus add in the incredibly ramped-up heroin production. We backed the wrong horse, supporting the Northern Alliance under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," even though the NA is a minority coalition. If there was an honest election in Afghanistan, the people would probably vote for the Taliban, hold the crazy.
ATTENTION ALL PASSENGERS: THIS TRAIN WILL RUN EXPRESS TO THE END OF THE LINE AND WILL NOT STOP AT THE REALITY STATION. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. REGULARLY-SCHEDULED SERVICE TO REALITY IS EXPECTED TO RESUME IN JANUARY 2009. HAVE A NICE DAY.
The Madness of King George
George III of England, monarch during the American Revolution, exhibited increasingly bizarre behaviors later in life. It may have been madness, environmental toxins or a hereditary condition such as porphyria.
Our own King George has become similarly odd in recent days. In terms of inherited conditions, he certainly acquired the Bush family stupidity, dishonesty, cupidity, avarice, etc. Much also can be explained, however, from when George looked at himself in the mirror, a mirror with lines of white powder on it.
Jimmy Buffett sang in "We are the People Our Parents Warned Us About" that "I got a guitar, found a job in a bar, playin' acid rock til I was numb, tell me where are the flashbacks they all warned us would come." Well, Jimmy, they are right here being played out in the White House on a daily basis.
This from the most recent press conference:
PRESIDENT: Bianca? Nobody named Bianca? Well, sorry Bianca's not here. I'll be glad to answer her question.
[UNKNOWN REPORTER] I'll follow up.
THE PRESIDENT: No, that's fine. (Laughter.) Thank you though, appreciate it. Just trying to spread around the joy of asking a question.
[UNKNOWN REPORTER] How is the strategy outlined today by General Casey different from what the United States was doing in the past? What lessons would you say have been incorporated in it? And based on that, how much closer do you think we are to being able to turn over full control of the security situation?
THE PRESIDENT: It's going to be a while to turn over full control. Full control says that the Iraqis are capable of moving around the country and sharing intelligence and they got a command control system that works like ours, and that's going to be a while. Turning over some control to Iraqis is now taking place. As I told you, there are more Iraqis in the lead -- Iraqis are in the lead in this mission for the first time on a major operation.
What General Casey briefed us on was how our strategy of cleaning out the terrorists out of a city and being able to fill in behind, or leave behind Iraqi forces, is beginning to pay off. And what hadn't happened in the past was the capacity to fill that void with a capable force that would prevent the terrorists from coming back in.
[ANITA] Mr. President, could we talk more about --
THE PRESIDENT: Are you Bianca?
[ANITA] No, I'm not. Anita -- Fox News.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
[ANITA] Just a quick question --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I was looking for Bianca. I'm sorry.
Bianca???? Hmmm, is he flashing back to a drug-addled threesome with Mick and the Mrs? Perhaps an unhealthy obsession with Buddy Biancalana, a light-hitting shortstop for the Kansas City Royals in the mid-80s?
Or perhaps it was more innocent than my suspicions of delayed drug responses. Perhaps he was just looking for a stooge to lob a softball question now that America's favorite gay hooker has been banned from the press room.
Our own King George has become similarly odd in recent days. In terms of inherited conditions, he certainly acquired the Bush family stupidity, dishonesty, cupidity, avarice, etc. Much also can be explained, however, from when George looked at himself in the mirror, a mirror with lines of white powder on it.
Jimmy Buffett sang in "We are the People Our Parents Warned Us About" that "I got a guitar, found a job in a bar, playin' acid rock til I was numb, tell me where are the flashbacks they all warned us would come." Well, Jimmy, they are right here being played out in the White House on a daily basis.
This from the most recent press conference:
PRESIDENT: Bianca? Nobody named Bianca? Well, sorry Bianca's not here. I'll be glad to answer her question.
[UNKNOWN REPORTER] I'll follow up.
THE PRESIDENT: No, that's fine. (Laughter.) Thank you though, appreciate it. Just trying to spread around the joy of asking a question.
[UNKNOWN REPORTER] How is the strategy outlined today by General Casey different from what the United States was doing in the past? What lessons would you say have been incorporated in it? And based on that, how much closer do you think we are to being able to turn over full control of the security situation?
THE PRESIDENT: It's going to be a while to turn over full control. Full control says that the Iraqis are capable of moving around the country and sharing intelligence and they got a command control system that works like ours, and that's going to be a while. Turning over some control to Iraqis is now taking place. As I told you, there are more Iraqis in the lead -- Iraqis are in the lead in this mission for the first time on a major operation.
What General Casey briefed us on was how our strategy of cleaning out the terrorists out of a city and being able to fill in behind, or leave behind Iraqi forces, is beginning to pay off. And what hadn't happened in the past was the capacity to fill that void with a capable force that would prevent the terrorists from coming back in.
[ANITA] Mr. President, could we talk more about --
THE PRESIDENT: Are you Bianca?
[ANITA] No, I'm not. Anita -- Fox News.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
[ANITA] Just a quick question --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I was looking for Bianca. I'm sorry.
Bianca???? Hmmm, is he flashing back to a drug-addled threesome with Mick and the Mrs? Perhaps an unhealthy obsession with Buddy Biancalana, a light-hitting shortstop for the Kansas City Royals in the mid-80s?
Or perhaps it was more innocent than my suspicions of delayed drug responses. Perhaps he was just looking for a stooge to lob a softball question now that America's favorite gay hooker has been banned from the press room.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Should we try the English way?
No, I don't mean bangers and mash, lager and lime or God forbid, soccer, I mean the parliamentary system of government. Just think, for an administration to remain in power, they must retain the confidence of the majority of the people's representatives, a confidence that can disappear overnight.
The English system presupposes party discipline, that the selection of one's MP is governed more by party than individual positions or legislative effectiveness. Historically, U.S. political parties have been rather amorphous ill-defined entities in which "party discipline" has been an oxymoron.
But now, speaking of (oxy)morons, we see a profound and ultimately disastrous transformation in American politics. The Republican party has reshaped and re-invented itself English style, with discpline and positions dictated from the top, while the Democrats remain, as someone once said a paragraph before, an amorphous ill-defined entity in which "party discipline" IS STILL an oxymoron.
So we get the disadvantages of parliamentary government, with an ideologically-defined party more attuned to national objectives rather than local representation, coupled with an idiot on the job for three more years.
Well, the Brits certainly got this one right. See photo below.
The English system presupposes party discipline, that the selection of one's MP is governed more by party than individual positions or legislative effectiveness. Historically, U.S. political parties have been rather amorphous ill-defined entities in which "party discipline" has been an oxymoron.
But now, speaking of (oxy)morons, we see a profound and ultimately disastrous transformation in American politics. The Republican party has reshaped and re-invented itself English style, with discpline and positions dictated from the top, while the Democrats remain, as someone once said a paragraph before, an amorphous ill-defined entity in which "party discipline" IS STILL an oxymoron.
So we get the disadvantages of parliamentary government, with an ideologically-defined party more attuned to national objectives rather than local representation, coupled with an idiot on the job for three more years.
Well, the Brits certainly got this one right. See photo below.
A humble request
As you ponder these witticisms, please take a second and click on some of the ads to the right. We might actually make a couple of shekels some day!
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Guest Editorial-My Brothers and Sisters
Valuable thoughts from a dear friend from the Sonoran desert:
"Where Are My Brothers and Sisters?
If you recall, ten days after 9-11, the INS Commissioner, James Zigler announced the following:
'I want to personally urge the immigrant community to come forward and assure everyone that INS will not seek immigration status information provided to local authorities in the rescue and recovery efforts.'
And yet, today no one has come forward from either the Department of Homeland Security or the White House to encourage the immigrant community to come forward and utilize the available medical and social services without fear of being rounded-up and deported. Sadly, our governmental officials cannot bring themselves to "do the right thing" and yet, they continue to politely reach backwords to accept our taxpayer dollars as part of their monthly compensation as our national employees.
Shame indeed!"
Shame indeed!"
Stupidity should be painful
This is a personal memo to Tysen Anne Nowak. You have fairly been assessed a $90 stupidity tax.
Ms. Nowak attempted to bring her baby stroller to Soldier Field for a Bears game. She becomes irate when she cannot bring the stroller in and complains to the Chicago Tribune when the stroller is stolen.
Ms. Nowak, let me put this in proper perspective for you. Use these two phrases in a sentence together---"baby stroller" and "football stadium." The only logical sentence I can come up with is "A baby stroller does not belong in a football stadium!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Now to clarify, I have three children, all of whom started out as babies. We can argue about the wisdom of bringing a child that needs a stroller to a Bears game (actually, we can't, I was just being polite, it is a DUMB idea, the kid is miserable, everyone around you is miserable, if you can afford a Bear game you can afford a sitter). However, your idea that you could either bring a large bulky object into a stadium with long narrow aisles, steep rows and lots of people or have someone else happily watch it for you staggers the imagination. It is rudely presumptuous on your part to assume that the stadium would have a check service. Do you have a right to have others look after your property while you are amused? So what if the other teams in town, private businesses, choose to do so, does that entitle you in this case? Hardly.
I have sent this to the Tribune reporter that printed your laughable sob story in case you wish to respond. I will publish your response here in full, but I consider you duly taxed for stupidity.
Ms. Nowak attempted to bring her baby stroller to Soldier Field for a Bears game. She becomes irate when she cannot bring the stroller in and complains to the Chicago Tribune when the stroller is stolen.
Ms. Nowak, let me put this in proper perspective for you. Use these two phrases in a sentence together---"baby stroller" and "football stadium." The only logical sentence I can come up with is "A baby stroller does not belong in a football stadium!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Now to clarify, I have three children, all of whom started out as babies. We can argue about the wisdom of bringing a child that needs a stroller to a Bears game (actually, we can't, I was just being polite, it is a DUMB idea, the kid is miserable, everyone around you is miserable, if you can afford a Bear game you can afford a sitter). However, your idea that you could either bring a large bulky object into a stadium with long narrow aisles, steep rows and lots of people or have someone else happily watch it for you staggers the imagination. It is rudely presumptuous on your part to assume that the stadium would have a check service. Do you have a right to have others look after your property while you are amused? So what if the other teams in town, private businesses, choose to do so, does that entitle you in this case? Hardly.
I have sent this to the Tribune reporter that printed your laughable sob story in case you wish to respond. I will publish your response here in full, but I consider you duly taxed for stupidity.
And once again, back in Frostbite Falls...
Reuters reports that bomb blasts in Iraq have killed nine Americans, including a U.S. State Department security officer, since Monday.
Freedom is on the march.
Well, at least this is good for the economy of Batesville, Indiana (check and see why)
Freedom is on the march.
Well, at least this is good for the economy of Batesville, Indiana (check and see why)
A shout out to Mike Malloy fans
If you aren't familiar with the above -referenced radio host, this won't make any sense (not a first here, by any means!) but...
Mike Malloy, now on Air America, always referred to the neocons as the "flying monkey right." A great image, I wish I had come up with it!
But given that, what amuses me is the way cable news, MSNBC and Fox, caption their guests. For example:
FMR U.S. Congressman!
Mike Malloy, now on Air America, always referred to the neocons as the "flying monkey right." A great image, I wish I had come up with it!
But given that, what amuses me is the way cable news, MSNBC and Fox, caption their guests. For example:
FMR U.S. Congressman!
Lovely Rita, Hurricane
With apologies to the Beatles, just read below as Rita gives us a high five:
"Winds greater than 155 mph. Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required."
God help us.
Three, count 'em, three Cat 5 storms have made landfall in the U.S. since records were kept. Katrina was a Category 4+++ and then you turn around with another in less than a month? And as Schmidlap points out, we have three out in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic on-deck circle.
But climate change has NOTHING to do with this. Right.
"Winds greater than 155 mph. Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required."
God help us.
Three, count 'em, three Cat 5 storms have made landfall in the U.S. since records were kept. Katrina was a Category 4+++ and then you turn around with another in less than a month? And as Schmidlap points out, we have three out in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic on-deck circle.
But climate change has NOTHING to do with this. Right.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Well, I saw it in the want ads....
Look, we all know Blinky the Chimp is completely overmatched for the job he has now. While through hard work and clean living, I'm sure he has put a little away for a rainy day, but if he does the world a favor and steps down, he is going to need a job. I did some hunting in the local paper for some jobs he could handle. What do you think?
LABORER/CLEAN-UP: Local remodeling company looking for reliable laborer. Must have own transportation and good communication skills.
Oops, not that one. Reliable? Hardly. Good communication skills? Um, no.
LABORERS: Experienced Must have drivers license.
Scratch that one too, driving isn't his strong suit.
General Labor Conssession / Attendant Mature responsible person to work occasional weekdays & weekends.
Sorry, he isn't responsible for anything!
CHILD CARE ATTENDANT Do you enjoy working w/ children
Well....
No, I don't think so.
Wait, I've got it!
GENERAL LANDSCAPING. Knowledge of English not required.
BINGO!!!
LABORER/CLEAN-UP: Local remodeling company looking for reliable laborer. Must have own transportation and good communication skills.
Oops, not that one. Reliable? Hardly. Good communication skills? Um, no.
LABORERS: Experienced Must have drivers license.
Scratch that one too, driving isn't his strong suit.
General Labor Conssession / Attendant Mature responsible person to work occasional weekdays & weekends.
Sorry, he isn't responsible for anything!
CHILD CARE ATTENDANT Do you enjoy working w/ children
Well....
No, I don't think so.
Wait, I've got it!
GENERAL LANDSCAPING. Knowledge of English not required.
BINGO!!!
Jackson Square
We have here an image of a strong, decisive president who energetically led a nation through trying and divisive times.
(Oh, also in front of Andrew Jackson is some blinking idiot.)
(Oh, also in front of Andrew Jackson is some blinking idiot.)
Has anyone seen my keys?
I wanted to take a break from politics for just a minute to address something..hey look, bubble wrap! Now where was I? Oh, that's right, I was just about to, hang on, going to check ESPN for a minute, I'll be right back, hmm, I'm hungry, honey, I'll get to it soon, damn, has anyone seen my keys? Oh yes, I was about to address attention deficit disorder.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not pop psychology, this is a very real condition. It is far more than being flighty or disorganized. It is a neurological condition that profoundly affects the way the brain processes information.
For years my life was a tumultuous chaos of lost papers, missed deadlines, forgotten appointments, procrastination and as mentioned above, the ever-present "has anyone seen my keys?" While there is certainly some chaos, recognizing ADD as a problem and addressing it as such has made a tremendous difference.
I have opted for medication, unless Tom Cruise tells me not to, and it has been a godsend. Unlike Tom, however, I do not dare to assume that I have all the answers and I certainly have no expertise to assess treatment alternatives. There are medications with basic chemical differences, some stimulants, others not, and medication may not be right for all cases. All I'm saying is if you feel like you are trapped in a giant pinball machine with lights flashing and bells constantly ringing, or if you see your child struggle with the organizational demands of school. please talk to a professional. It is real, and it won't go away.
Has anyone seen my keys? Oh, wait, here they are.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not pop psychology, this is a very real condition. It is far more than being flighty or disorganized. It is a neurological condition that profoundly affects the way the brain processes information.
For years my life was a tumultuous chaos of lost papers, missed deadlines, forgotten appointments, procrastination and as mentioned above, the ever-present "has anyone seen my keys?" While there is certainly some chaos, recognizing ADD as a problem and addressing it as such has made a tremendous difference.
I have opted for medication, unless Tom Cruise tells me not to, and it has been a godsend. Unlike Tom, however, I do not dare to assume that I have all the answers and I certainly have no expertise to assess treatment alternatives. There are medications with basic chemical differences, some stimulants, others not, and medication may not be right for all cases. All I'm saying is if you feel like you are trapped in a giant pinball machine with lights flashing and bells constantly ringing, or if you see your child struggle with the organizational demands of school. please talk to a professional. It is real, and it won't go away.
Has anyone seen my keys? Oh, wait, here they are.
Monday, September 19, 2005
The hurrieder he goes, the behinder he gets
The Hurrieder President Bush Goes, The Behinder He Gets: 3 polling days after George W. Bush's prime-time speech to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans, a "can't win" dynamic is unfolding for the President, according to exclusive SurveyUSA data gathered Friday 9/16, Saturday 9/17 and Sunday 9/18. The number of Americans who now approve of the President's response to Hurricane Katrina is down: 40% today compared to 42% before he announced the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm.
The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. Consider, for example: the number of Whites who today say the Government is "not doing enough" for Katrina victims is statistically the same as the number of Whites who say the Government is doing "just the right amount." (41% "right amount"; 40% "not enough.")
The number of Blacks who today say the Government is "not doing enough" is 51 percentage points higher than the number of Blacks who say the Government is doing the "right amount" (70% "not enough"; 19% "right amount.") That's a 53-point disagreement between Whites and Blacks on this question. What other poll results point to the conclusion that the President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't? (titters) 41% of Americans today say that the city of New Orleans should be rebuilt with "private money," the highest that number
The number of Americans who disapprove of the President's response to Katrina is up: 56% today compared to 52% before the speech. Bush went from "Minus 10" on his Response to Katrina before the speech to "Minus 16" today. One way to make sense of these numbers is to look at the number of Americans who today say the Federal Government is doing "too much" for Katrina victims. That's up to 16% today, more than triple what the number has been on 7 of the 19 days that SurveyUSA has conducted daily tracking since the storm.
The more cash President Bush throws on the fire, as compensation for what some see as an inadequate initial response, the more it antagonizes his core supporters. Consider, for example: the number of Whites who today say the Government is "not doing enough" for Katrina victims is statistically the same as the number of Whites who say the Government is doing "just the right amount." (41% "right amount"; 40% "not enough.")
The number of Blacks who today say the Government is "not doing enough" is 51 percentage points higher than the number of Blacks who say the Government is doing the "right amount" (70% "not enough"; 19% "right amount.") That's a 53-point disagreement between Whites and Blacks on this question. What other poll results point to the conclusion that the President is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't? (titters) 41% of Americans today say that the city of New Orleans should be rebuilt with "private money," the highest that number
No more boat rides, Son...
Clinton on Bush
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bill Clinton made nice with George W. Bush. Those days seem to be over. Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton had a few words to say about the policies of his successor, and they weren't the kind designed to get him invited for another boat ride with the president's father.
Some highlights:
On rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for Katrina: "I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts. They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."
On the Republicans' responsibility for problems involving poverty and race: "If you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower-income working people and benefits to low-income people that helped them move from welfare to work, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works, and we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty, and they got rid of it. And they don't believe in it."
On whether the United States has a strategy for winning in Iraq: "Well, if we do, it's not working right now, at least ... A lot of good Americans have given their lives; thousands of others have been horribly wounded. So I have been in a position where I wanted the strategy to work. Whether it will or not, I don't know. But the only thing I would sacrifice it to is if I thought we were going to lose in Afghanistan. We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We cannot let the Taliban come back. We cannot let [Hamad] Karzai fail. We cannot relax our efforts to try to keep undermining al-Qaida, because that's still by far a bigger threat to our security."
-- T.G.
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bill Clinton made nice with George W. Bush. Those days seem to be over. Appearing Sunday on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton had a few words to say about the policies of his successor, and they weren't the kind designed to get him invited for another boat ride with the president's father.
Some highlights:
On rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for Katrina: "I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts. They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."
On the Republicans' responsibility for problems involving poverty and race: "If you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower-income working people and benefits to low-income people that helped them move from welfare to work, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works, and we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty, and they got rid of it. And they don't believe in it."
On whether the United States has a strategy for winning in Iraq: "Well, if we do, it's not working right now, at least ... A lot of good Americans have given their lives; thousands of others have been horribly wounded. So I have been in a position where I wanted the strategy to work. Whether it will or not, I don't know. But the only thing I would sacrifice it to is if I thought we were going to lose in Afghanistan. We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We cannot let the Taliban come back. We cannot let [Hamad] Karzai fail. We cannot relax our efforts to try to keep undermining al-Qaida, because that's still by far a bigger threat to our security."
-- T.G.
Playing Politics?
To answer the question above--YES!!!
I have heard the screech owls from the right object to "playing politics" (apparently this is a different game from the "Blame Game," should I check with Hoyle?) with this disaster. Should we “play politics?” Should we take advantage of a disaster? Should we “exploit” this tragedy?
The obvious response is YES!!!!
First of all, we have the oh so simplistic black pot and black kettle angle. Think about how the Republicans “exploited,” “played politics,” etc. with the attacks of September 11, 2001. They did so despite the whole “Bin Laden to attack in United States” memo, remember?
Honestly, I do not blame the administration for 9/11. Was there more they could have done? Certainly. Would it have been effective? Who knows, while well-planned, the attacks were fairly low-tech, a few guys you could fit in a phone booth and some box cutters. But in terms of playing politics? This administration parlayed a horrific attack and a national tragedy into an unrelated misbegotten war. And just think how they capitalized on that, from embedded reporters to questioning the patriotism of critics to Captain Codpiece and his Greatest American Hero flightsuit landing. They also played on that horrific image and the country’s fear of “terror” to “win” “re-election.” (Ohio and Florida, hello!)
But beyond the obvious pot and kettle stuff, there are legitimate reasons for running on this. First of all, it clearly demonstrates this party’s PRIORITIES. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, levees be damned!
Secondly, it deals with INTEGRITY. “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job?” This administration promoted a grotesquely incompetent man to a position of national importance based on cronyism? His superior had no experience in disaster management? Then factor in the lies and half-truths put forth by the administration to try and cover their failings and blame others.
But to my mind, the clincher as to why we not only can but MUST run on this is the question of COMPETENCE. This is a two-fold question. The first is an obvious attack on THIS administration, as they demonstrated their grotesque incompetence. Given that they ran on a platform of making us safer, it is absolutely fair to hold up their failings. Mismanagement, missed opportunities, lost lives and really bad air guitar!
I see, however, the incompetence not only of an administration but also that of an ideology. As Grover Norquist, an influential advisor of the president stated, their goal was to reduce the federal government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Well, they didn’t reduce the size of the federal government, as a quick look at the debt and deficit numbers will show. However, they did reduce its effectiveness, and when they dragged it into the bathroom, New Orleans drowned, and God only knows, that was no bathtub.
I have heard the screech owls from the right object to "playing politics" (apparently this is a different game from the "Blame Game," should I check with Hoyle?) with this disaster. Should we “play politics?” Should we take advantage of a disaster? Should we “exploit” this tragedy?
The obvious response is YES!!!!
First of all, we have the oh so simplistic black pot and black kettle angle. Think about how the Republicans “exploited,” “played politics,” etc. with the attacks of September 11, 2001. They did so despite the whole “Bin Laden to attack in United States” memo, remember?
Honestly, I do not blame the administration for 9/11. Was there more they could have done? Certainly. Would it have been effective? Who knows, while well-planned, the attacks were fairly low-tech, a few guys you could fit in a phone booth and some box cutters. But in terms of playing politics? This administration parlayed a horrific attack and a national tragedy into an unrelated misbegotten war. And just think how they capitalized on that, from embedded reporters to questioning the patriotism of critics to Captain Codpiece and his Greatest American Hero flightsuit landing. They also played on that horrific image and the country’s fear of “terror” to “win” “re-election.” (Ohio and Florida, hello!)
But beyond the obvious pot and kettle stuff, there are legitimate reasons for running on this. First of all, it clearly demonstrates this party’s PRIORITIES. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, levees be damned!
Secondly, it deals with INTEGRITY. “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job?” This administration promoted a grotesquely incompetent man to a position of national importance based on cronyism? His superior had no experience in disaster management? Then factor in the lies and half-truths put forth by the administration to try and cover their failings and blame others.
But to my mind, the clincher as to why we not only can but MUST run on this is the question of COMPETENCE. This is a two-fold question. The first is an obvious attack on THIS administration, as they demonstrated their grotesque incompetence. Given that they ran on a platform of making us safer, it is absolutely fair to hold up their failings. Mismanagement, missed opportunities, lost lives and really bad air guitar!
I see, however, the incompetence not only of an administration but also that of an ideology. As Grover Norquist, an influential advisor of the president stated, their goal was to reduce the federal government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Well, they didn’t reduce the size of the federal government, as a quick look at the debt and deficit numbers will show. However, they did reduce its effectiveness, and when they dragged it into the bathroom, New Orleans drowned, and God only knows, that was no bathtub.
Profiles in cowardice
John F. Kennedy described Edmund G. Ross in his Pulitzer Prize winning book as one of the Senate's Profiles in Courage. It is quite possible that JFK didn't write the book himself, and the esteemed Mr. Ross may well not have not been a paragon of virtue, but still, his case remains quite illustrative.
Edmund Ross was a Republican senator from Kansas. Despite much pressure from his own party, he cast the decisive vote to acquit Andrew Johnson in the president's Senate impeachment trial.
Fast-forward some seven generations, and the spotlight turns on David Vitter, freshman senator from Louisiana. At a time when a straight party-line vote by his fellow Republicans blocks an independent inquiry into the Katrina disaster, Sen. Vitter stands up and DOESN'T VOTE. hr refuses to challenge the party leadership and call for an independent investigation. He represents a state most in need of answers and he refuses to call for the questions to be asked. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a profile in cowardice.
Congratulations, Senator Vitter, you must be so proud.
Edmund Ross was a Republican senator from Kansas. Despite much pressure from his own party, he cast the decisive vote to acquit Andrew Johnson in the president's Senate impeachment trial.
Fast-forward some seven generations, and the spotlight turns on David Vitter, freshman senator from Louisiana. At a time when a straight party-line vote by his fellow Republicans blocks an independent inquiry into the Katrina disaster, Sen. Vitter stands up and DOESN'T VOTE. hr refuses to challenge the party leadership and call for an independent investigation. He represents a state most in need of answers and he refuses to call for the questions to be asked. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a profile in cowardice.
Congratulations, Senator Vitter, you must be so proud.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
A question for you to ponder....
This came up in church a couple of weeks ago. It is a very simple question, yes or no.
Would you leave this country and renounce your U.S. citizenship for $10 million?
Would you leave this country and renounce your U.S. citizenship for $10 million?
The hits (literally) just keep on comin'
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents assassinated a Kurdish member of parliament and police found 20 bodies shot to death and dumped in the Tigris River north of the capital, where there was no major violence Sunday for the first time in five days.
More at Yahoo news.
More at Yahoo news.
No doubt about it
"If I'm focusing on the hurricane, I've got the capacity to focus on foreign policy, and vice versa."
From the "Freedom is on the March" file
An observer in Iraq writes:
"The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad dramatically today. Five neighborhoods (hay) in Baghdad are controlled by insurgents, and they are Amiraya, Ghazilya, Shurta, Yarmouk and Doura. It is very bad. My guys there report that cars have come into these neighborhoods and blocked off the streets. Masked gunmen with AKs and other weapons are roaming these areas, announcing that people should stay home. One of my drivers in Amiraya reports that his neighborhood is shut down totally, and even those who need food or provisions are warned not to go out.
The government will respond feebly. It will go into a contested neighborhood, and then just like Fallujah, Ramadi, Tel Afar, the insurgents will flee to take over another area on another day. Bit by bit they are taking over the main parts of Baghdad. The only place we are sure they cannot control is Sadr City, unless of course they want to take on Jaish Mahdy [Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army], and that would be bloody.
A few minutes ago Jaafari came on television to tell everyone in Baghdad to stay home. Can't wait for his next bold move.
There are flyers in public areas of Baghdad warning people not to gather in large numbers because they will thereby become targets. I am trying to get a copy of the flyer.
Notwithstanding Al-Hayat's claim that Zarqawi and the Sunni resistance are not together, my street listeners claim otherwise. My folks are convinced that the two groups, broadly defined, are together, "100 percent" is the claim of certainty. It is hard to get a handle on this because people in Baghdad tend to lump all resistance groups, except for Zarqawi, into one large category.
More and more of even the most patriotic intelligentsia are departing. The situation is dire, and those with escape valves are using them. [Some organizations are]sending more of [their] staff to Arbil and Sulamaniyah and out of Baghdad. Until about March this year, [some] thought that there was a chance of returning to Baghdad. It is remarkable how incapable this government is. Its only success is that it exists at all.
In the meantime, the embassy people act as if nothing in Baghdad is wrong (except that they cannot walk in the Green Zone without body armor and they have to take precautions against kidnapping). Recently, a group from State and the military parachuted in from Washington [with fatuous advice] . . . It is a fantasy world."
www.juancole.com
"The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad dramatically today. Five neighborhoods (hay) in Baghdad are controlled by insurgents, and they are Amiraya, Ghazilya, Shurta, Yarmouk and Doura. It is very bad. My guys there report that cars have come into these neighborhoods and blocked off the streets. Masked gunmen with AKs and other weapons are roaming these areas, announcing that people should stay home. One of my drivers in Amiraya reports that his neighborhood is shut down totally, and even those who need food or provisions are warned not to go out.
The government will respond feebly. It will go into a contested neighborhood, and then just like Fallujah, Ramadi, Tel Afar, the insurgents will flee to take over another area on another day. Bit by bit they are taking over the main parts of Baghdad. The only place we are sure they cannot control is Sadr City, unless of course they want to take on Jaish Mahdy [Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army], and that would be bloody.
A few minutes ago Jaafari came on television to tell everyone in Baghdad to stay home. Can't wait for his next bold move.
There are flyers in public areas of Baghdad warning people not to gather in large numbers because they will thereby become targets. I am trying to get a copy of the flyer.
Notwithstanding Al-Hayat's claim that Zarqawi and the Sunni resistance are not together, my street listeners claim otherwise. My folks are convinced that the two groups, broadly defined, are together, "100 percent" is the claim of certainty. It is hard to get a handle on this because people in Baghdad tend to lump all resistance groups, except for Zarqawi, into one large category.
More and more of even the most patriotic intelligentsia are departing. The situation is dire, and those with escape valves are using them. [Some organizations are]sending more of [their] staff to Arbil and Sulamaniyah and out of Baghdad. Until about March this year, [some] thought that there was a chance of returning to Baghdad. It is remarkable how incapable this government is. Its only success is that it exists at all.
In the meantime, the embassy people act as if nothing in Baghdad is wrong (except that they cannot walk in the Green Zone without body armor and they have to take precautions against kidnapping). Recently, a group from State and the military parachuted in from Washington [with fatuous advice] . . . It is a fantasy world."
www.juancole.com
Saturday, September 17, 2005
And now for something completely different
The Chicago White Sox lost today to the Minnesota Twins and one of the best pitchers in MLB, Johan Santana. The loss shaves another half-game off a diminishing lead that looked unsurmountable four weeks ago.
As I mentioned in my profile, I grew up a Cub fan. Now here in greater Chicago, the general response of Cub fans is "Sox suck!" But au contraire, mon ami!
First of all, let me set the stage. I am old, very old (as of Wednesday, a painful 48). I grew up in Illinois' version of Appalachia, a town of 300 people, a high school of 137, where you were either a Cub or Cardinal fan. My kids (the oldest not a kid any more, a sophomore at DePauw University and a contributor to this blog) look at me like I have an axe in my head when I tell them I had two TV channels to watch growing up (hey, I didn't meet a Catholic until college or a Jewish person until law school). We had NBC's "Game of the Week" which was ALWAYS the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers, and then on Sundays, and the odd night game on the (WAY before cable) we would get the WGN Chicago Cubs Continental Broadcasting Network (Anyone from Champaign, Springfield, Des Moines, the Quad Cities, South Bend, etc. of a certain age knows what I mean) on one channel and the Cardinals on another.
And those folks like me generally didn't give much thought to the White Sox, because unfortunately UNTIL RECENTLY the Sox did not market properly and did not understand the power of television. But as a downstater moved up here, I want the White Sox to win every game they play except against the Cubs. I want playoff baseball in town. So my long-winded point is this...CHICAGO WHITE SOX, WIN THE %^^&**ing division!
p.s. Cardinals suck
As I mentioned in my profile, I grew up a Cub fan. Now here in greater Chicago, the general response of Cub fans is "Sox suck!" But au contraire, mon ami!
First of all, let me set the stage. I am old, very old (as of Wednesday, a painful 48). I grew up in Illinois' version of Appalachia, a town of 300 people, a high school of 137, where you were either a Cub or Cardinal fan. My kids (the oldest not a kid any more, a sophomore at DePauw University and a contributor to this blog) look at me like I have an axe in my head when I tell them I had two TV channels to watch growing up (hey, I didn't meet a Catholic until college or a Jewish person until law school). We had NBC's "Game of the Week" which was ALWAYS the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers, and then on Sundays, and the odd night game on the (WAY before cable) we would get the WGN Chicago Cubs Continental Broadcasting Network (Anyone from Champaign, Springfield, Des Moines, the Quad Cities, South Bend, etc. of a certain age knows what I mean) on one channel and the Cardinals on another.
And those folks like me generally didn't give much thought to the White Sox, because unfortunately UNTIL RECENTLY the Sox did not market properly and did not understand the power of television. But as a downstater moved up here, I want the White Sox to win every game they play except against the Cubs. I want playoff baseball in town. So my long-winded point is this...CHICAGO WHITE SOX, WIN THE %^^&**ing division!
p.s. Cardinals suck
The Wisdom of the Ages
Spoken in the great hall of government on the eve of a distant war:
Men are to be brought to this black business hoodwinked. They are to be drawn in by degrees, until they cannot retreat. We are breaking through all those sacred maxims of our forefathers, and giving the alarm to every wise man on the continent of America that all his rights depend on the will of men whose corruptions are notorious, who regard him as an enemy and who have no interest in his prosperity.
George Johnstone, House of Commons, October 1775
Men are to be brought to this black business hoodwinked. They are to be drawn in by degrees, until they cannot retreat. We are breaking through all those sacred maxims of our forefathers, and giving the alarm to every wise man on the continent of America that all his rights depend on the will of men whose corruptions are notorious, who regard him as an enemy and who have no interest in his prosperity.
George Johnstone, House of Commons, October 1775
George, George, Bo Beorge, Bonana, Fanna, Fo Feorge
George, George, Bo Beorge Bonana, Fanna, Fo Feorge Fee, Fy, Mo Meorge, George! The Blame Game!
Key military help for victims of Hurricane Katrina was delayed
By Drew Brown, Seth Borenstein and Alison Young
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Two days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, President Bush went on national television to announce a massive federal rescue and relief effort.
But orders to move didn't reach key active military units for another three days.
Once they received them, it took just eight hours for 3,600 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., to be on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi with vital search-and-rescue helicopters. Another 2,500 soon followed from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.
"If the 1st Cav and 82nd Airborne had gotten there on time, I think we would have saved some lives," said Gen. Julius Becton Jr., who was the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Reagan from 1985 to 1989. "We recognized we had to get people out, and they had helicopters to do that."
Federal officials have long known that the active-duty military is the only organization with the massive resources and effective command structure to handle a major catastrophe.
In a 1996 Pentagon report, the Department of Defense acknowledged its large role in major disasters. Between 1992 and 1996, the Pentagon provided support in 18 disasters and developed five training manuals on how to work with FEMA and civilians in natural disasters.
"In catastrophic disasters, DOD will likely provide Hurricane Andrew-levels of support and predominately operate in urban or suburban terrain," the report said. "This should be incorporated into planning assumptions."
The delay this time in tapping the troops, helicopters, trucks, generators, communications and other resources of the 1st Cavalry and the 82nd Airborne is the latest example of how the federal response to Katrina lacked organization and leadership. And it raises further questions about the government's ability to rapidly mobilize the active-duty military now that FEMA has been absorbed into the massive, terrorism-focused Department of Homeland Security.
Addressing the nation on Thursday night in a speech from New Orleans, Bush said the storm overwhelmed the disaster relief system. "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," he said.
Several emergency response experts, however, questioned whether Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff understood how much authority they had to tap all the resources of the federal government - including those of the Department of Defense.
"To say I've suddenly discovered the military needs to be involved is like saying wheels should be round instead of square," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor and the director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security.
During the last great hurricane - Andrew in 1992 - the failure to get food, water and shelter to Florida and to victims highlighted the importance of quickly engaging the Department of Defense.
"For such disasters, DOD is the only organization capable of providing, transporting and distributing sufficient quantities of items needed," the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, wrote in a 1993 report. It noted that the military has storehouses of food and temporary shelters, contingency planning skills, command capability - as well as the helicopters and other transportation needed to get them to a disaster scene fast.
Indeed, the new National Response Plan, the nation's blueprint for responding to disasters that was unveiled with much fanfare in January by Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, includes a section on responding to catastrophic events.
"Unless it can be credibly established that a mobilizing Federal resource ... is not needed at the catastrophic incident venue, that resource deploys," the plan says. The plan and a 2003 presidential directive put Chertoff, as Homeland Security secretary, in charge of coordinating the federal response.
Chertoff, who aides said has been engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina, went to Atlanta the day after the storm hit for a previously scheduled briefing on avian flu. Aides also concede that Washington officials were unable to confirm that the levees in New Orleans had failed until midday on Aug. 30. The breaches were first discovered in Louisiana some 32 hours earlier.
Greenberger, the Maryland homeland security expert, said he wonders whether Chertoff and other top federal officials understand the National Response Plan or even had read it before Katrina.
"Everything he did and everything he has said strongly suggests that that plan was never read," Greenberger said of Chertoff.
Chertoff was in Gulfport, Miss., on Friday to participate in the Harrison County National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. He took no questions from reporters. Homeland Security officials didn't return calls for comment.
Also on Friday, Bush said he thinks Congress should examine what role the military can and should play in natural disasters.
"It's important for us to learn from the storm what could have been done better," Bush said during a question-and-answer session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "This storm will give us an opportunity to review all different types of circumstances to make sure that, you know, the president has the capacity to react."
Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who served under President Clinton, believes that the Bush administration is mistaken if it thinks there are impediments to using the military for non-policing help in a disaster.
"When we were there and FEMA was intact, the military was a resource to us," said Witt. "We pulled them in very quickly. I don't know what rule he (Bush) talked about. ... We used military assets a lot."
Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration who also was a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said clear legal guidelines have been in place for using the military on U.S. soil since at least 1996, when the Justice Department was planning for the Olympic Games in Atlanta.
"It's not like people hadn't thought about this," Gorelick said. "This is not new. We've had riots. We've had floods. We've had the loss of police control over communities.
"I'm puzzled as to what happened here," she said.
Scott Silliman, a former judge advocate general who's now the executive director of Duke University Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security, said he was surprised that military forces weren't on the scene more quickly after Hurricane Katrina.
"I see no impediment in law or in policy to getting them there," Silliman said. "We could have sent in helicopters. We could have sent in forces to do search and rescue and to provide humanitarian aid. Everything but law enforcement."
He said someone failed to pull the trigger, but he added that an investigation is needed by an independent commission to determine who's to blame.
"They're trying to say that greater federal authority would have made a difference," said George Haddow, a former FEMA deputy chief of staff and the co-author of a textbook on emergency management. "The reality is that the feds are the ones that screwed up in the first place. It's not about authority. It's about leadership. ... They've got all the authority already."
Key military help for victims of Hurricane Katrina was delayed
By Drew Brown, Seth Borenstein and Alison Young
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Two days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, President Bush went on national television to announce a massive federal rescue and relief effort.
But orders to move didn't reach key active military units for another three days.
Once they received them, it took just eight hours for 3,600 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., to be on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi with vital search-and-rescue helicopters. Another 2,500 soon followed from the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.
"If the 1st Cav and 82nd Airborne had gotten there on time, I think we would have saved some lives," said Gen. Julius Becton Jr., who was the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Reagan from 1985 to 1989. "We recognized we had to get people out, and they had helicopters to do that."
Federal officials have long known that the active-duty military is the only organization with the massive resources and effective command structure to handle a major catastrophe.
In a 1996 Pentagon report, the Department of Defense acknowledged its large role in major disasters. Between 1992 and 1996, the Pentagon provided support in 18 disasters and developed five training manuals on how to work with FEMA and civilians in natural disasters.
"In catastrophic disasters, DOD will likely provide Hurricane Andrew-levels of support and predominately operate in urban or suburban terrain," the report said. "This should be incorporated into planning assumptions."
The delay this time in tapping the troops, helicopters, trucks, generators, communications and other resources of the 1st Cavalry and the 82nd Airborne is the latest example of how the federal response to Katrina lacked organization and leadership. And it raises further questions about the government's ability to rapidly mobilize the active-duty military now that FEMA has been absorbed into the massive, terrorism-focused Department of Homeland Security.
Addressing the nation on Thursday night in a speech from New Orleans, Bush said the storm overwhelmed the disaster relief system. "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice," he said.
Several emergency response experts, however, questioned whether Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff understood how much authority they had to tap all the resources of the federal government - including those of the Department of Defense.
"To say I've suddenly discovered the military needs to be involved is like saying wheels should be round instead of square," said Michael Greenberger, a law professor and the director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security.
During the last great hurricane - Andrew in 1992 - the failure to get food, water and shelter to Florida and to victims highlighted the importance of quickly engaging the Department of Defense.
"For such disasters, DOD is the only organization capable of providing, transporting and distributing sufficient quantities of items needed," the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, wrote in a 1993 report. It noted that the military has storehouses of food and temporary shelters, contingency planning skills, command capability - as well as the helicopters and other transportation needed to get them to a disaster scene fast.
Indeed, the new National Response Plan, the nation's blueprint for responding to disasters that was unveiled with much fanfare in January by Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, includes a section on responding to catastrophic events.
"Unless it can be credibly established that a mobilizing Federal resource ... is not needed at the catastrophic incident venue, that resource deploys," the plan says. The plan and a 2003 presidential directive put Chertoff, as Homeland Security secretary, in charge of coordinating the federal response.
Chertoff, who aides said has been engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina, went to Atlanta the day after the storm hit for a previously scheduled briefing on avian flu. Aides also concede that Washington officials were unable to confirm that the levees in New Orleans had failed until midday on Aug. 30. The breaches were first discovered in Louisiana some 32 hours earlier.
Greenberger, the Maryland homeland security expert, said he wonders whether Chertoff and other top federal officials understand the National Response Plan or even had read it before Katrina.
"Everything he did and everything he has said strongly suggests that that plan was never read," Greenberger said of Chertoff.
Chertoff was in Gulfport, Miss., on Friday to participate in the Harrison County National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. He took no questions from reporters. Homeland Security officials didn't return calls for comment.
Also on Friday, Bush said he thinks Congress should examine what role the military can and should play in natural disasters.
"It's important for us to learn from the storm what could have been done better," Bush said during a question-and-answer session with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "This storm will give us an opportunity to review all different types of circumstances to make sure that, you know, the president has the capacity to react."
Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who served under President Clinton, believes that the Bush administration is mistaken if it thinks there are impediments to using the military for non-policing help in a disaster.
"When we were there and FEMA was intact, the military was a resource to us," said Witt. "We pulled them in very quickly. I don't know what rule he (Bush) talked about. ... We used military assets a lot."
Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration who also was a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks, said clear legal guidelines have been in place for using the military on U.S. soil since at least 1996, when the Justice Department was planning for the Olympic Games in Atlanta.
"It's not like people hadn't thought about this," Gorelick said. "This is not new. We've had riots. We've had floods. We've had the loss of police control over communities.
"I'm puzzled as to what happened here," she said.
Scott Silliman, a former judge advocate general who's now the executive director of Duke University Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security, said he was surprised that military forces weren't on the scene more quickly after Hurricane Katrina.
"I see no impediment in law or in policy to getting them there," Silliman said. "We could have sent in helicopters. We could have sent in forces to do search and rescue and to provide humanitarian aid. Everything but law enforcement."
He said someone failed to pull the trigger, but he added that an investigation is needed by an independent commission to determine who's to blame.
"They're trying to say that greater federal authority would have made a difference," said George Haddow, a former FEMA deputy chief of staff and the co-author of a textbook on emergency management. "The reality is that the feds are the ones that screwed up in the first place. It's not about authority. It's about leadership. ... They've got all the authority already."
The nuts don't far fall from the tree
"The youngest son of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested early Friday and charged with public intoxication and resisting arrest, law enforcement officials said.
John Ellis Bush, 21, was arrested by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission at 2:30 a.m. on a corner of Austin’s Sixth Street bar district, said commission spokesman Roger Wade."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9373195/
For further thoughts on this subject, see "The 100 Percent Estate Tax" below!
John Ellis Bush, 21, was arrested by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission at 2:30 a.m. on a corner of Austin’s Sixth Street bar district, said commission spokesman Roger Wade."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9373195/
For further thoughts on this subject, see "The 100 Percent Estate Tax" below!
Enough said....
"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort"
I rest my case.
Heading up the investigation:
Heading up the recovery effort:
Looking for the real killer:
I rest my case.
Heading up the investigation:
Heading up the recovery effort:
Looking for the real killer:
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Pat, Ellen, Urban Legends...and a school bus or 2000 or so
Even though I was just using it as a riff for tasteless humor, the Pat Robertson "quote" below is very telling concerning our instant gratification culture.
We have an Air America affiliate back now in Chicago, but they mix in other syndicated shows. I heard the "quote" in the car on the Ed Schultz show and the brain just started working. For those of you that know me, you know I have a weird observational sense of humor. A Google search pulls up the "quote" when I get home and I'm off and running.
Now even though the Robertson line was just an excuse to not be funny, I do feel a bit silly for posting a fake quote--and I am just sitting here typing nonsense into the ether that nobody reads. I am not a journalist charged with any professional responsibility for accuracy---even though I do try. But you do see how the "urban legend" spreads and the damage it can do.
I am not talking about Pat or Ellen now but something much more serious.
George Stephanopoulos, shamelessly trading off the Clinton connections, repeated a vicious "urban legend"/lie--when he said that "there were 2,000 buses under water" that the mayor of New Orleans could have ordered up and done a Dunkirk-like evacuation of the poor and helpless. It may have come from a column by Wesley Pruden in the Washington Times (insert your own joke here) that may have played off a number suggested in several sources that 2,000 buses would be NEEDED to evacuate (simple math, lots of people=lots of buses). New Orleans though owned about 250 functional buses (mediamatters.org).
The "rumor" quickly spread, from right-wing blogs to Hannity on Fox, and then all over the press. So there you see urban legends, truth and journalistic ethics.
We here at The Thinker though pledge to bring you the high quality content you expect from us! You get what you pay for!
We have an Air America affiliate back now in Chicago, but they mix in other syndicated shows. I heard the "quote" in the car on the Ed Schultz show and the brain just started working. For those of you that know me, you know I have a weird observational sense of humor. A Google search pulls up the "quote" when I get home and I'm off and running.
Now even though the Robertson line was just an excuse to not be funny, I do feel a bit silly for posting a fake quote--and I am just sitting here typing nonsense into the ether that nobody reads. I am not a journalist charged with any professional responsibility for accuracy---even though I do try. But you do see how the "urban legend" spreads and the damage it can do.
I am not talking about Pat or Ellen now but something much more serious.
George Stephanopoulos, shamelessly trading off the Clinton connections, repeated a vicious "urban legend"/lie--when he said that "there were 2,000 buses under water" that the mayor of New Orleans could have ordered up and done a Dunkirk-like evacuation of the poor and helpless. It may have come from a column by Wesley Pruden in the Washington Times (insert your own joke here) that may have played off a number suggested in several sources that 2,000 buses would be NEEDED to evacuate (simple math, lots of people=lots of buses). New Orleans though owned about 250 functional buses (mediamatters.org).
The "rumor" quickly spread, from right-wing blogs to Hannity on Fox, and then all over the press. So there you see urban legends, truth and journalistic ethics.
We here at The Thinker though pledge to bring you the high quality content you expect from us! You get what you pay for!
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
More fun with Pat
Note: It appears the Robertson quote was a parody piece (see snopes.com), but heck, I still think it's funny! The interview with God below is of course genuine!
Once again, everyone's favorite psycho-evangelist has graced us with his thoughts:
"By choosing an avowed lesbian for this national event, these Hollywood elites have clearly invited God's wrath," Pat Robertson said on "The 700 Club" on Sunday. "Is it any surprise that the Almighty chose to strike at Miss Degeneres' hometown?"
Now I bet you think this is going to be just another inane Robertson-bashing piece. Well, it is, but we here at The Thinker spare no expense to bring you the news you need. This is a blog exclusive, my interview with......God...
The Thinker: Well, thanks be to God for joining me tonight! The Lord be with me! By the way, how should I address you, the name too sacred to be spoken, the Lord most high?
God: Actually, you can call me Art.
The Thinker: Art?
God: Yeah, you know, "Our father who Art in heaven?"
The Thinker: Oh right...Art. OK, let's get right to it. Did you smite New Orleans with wind and water because of your rage at a lesbian hosting the Emmys?
God: Does anyone smite anything anymore? OK, first things first, up here, I get 1,256,356 digital channels in full high def plus Tivo, do you think I'm wasting my time watching CBS???? If I wanted to extract vengeance on a town because of what celebrities have done, I think I'd take out Boston first for giving us Ben Affleck. Did you see Gigli? Paycheck? Those were Me-damned awful!.
The Thinker: So Pat is completely off base?
God: Well, we all know that Pat's off his rocker and he really is annoying my kid. Dear Jesus this, dear Jesus that, over and over again. Nice turn by the youngster, though, Pat prays for a Supreme Court vacancy so we off Rehnquist instead! Nice touch, huh? But back to smiting. First of all, if I'm going to take someone out, I'm not using a hurricane. Jesus Christ (no not you, sorry, go back to watching the Notre Dame game), those things are impossible to control. Lightning, yeah, that's pretty easy, I can even zip off a tornado or two, but hurricanes? Wind one of those suckers up and you have no idea where they're going. I can aim it for New Orleans but it's like one of those old electronic vibrating football games, once you turn on the switch, it could end up anywhere. There's a real good chance that if I aim at Boubon Street that I wipe out most of Corpus Kiddo. And besides, you know that whole divine wrath thing? Way overblown. Look, I'm not as young as I used to be, I can't go getting that worked up about every little thing.
The Thinker: Well, I suppose I should let you get back to work. Thank God you were here! Is there anythink you would like to say before you go?
God: Well, I will leave you with this. First of all, on celibacy. Who in My name came up with that one? Please. And pants would be good, lose the robes, let's go with pants. The pointy hats can go too, ever sit behind one of them in a movie theater, Sweet Jesus, what a pain (no, not you! All right there sonny, watch the attitude, don't make me get cross with you!)
And the hymns, can we do a little better there? There are only so many times you can hear "Amazing Grace," how about some Stones or Van Morrison? Finally, yes, let me close with the fact there is a hell. I've been working on Pat's for a while, it is still a work in progress, but right now I'm at Harvey Fierstein, Jane Fonda and a couple of hamsters for starters. Good night! Me bless you, and may I be with you!
Once again, everyone's favorite psycho-evangelist has graced us with his thoughts:
"By choosing an avowed lesbian for this national event, these Hollywood elites have clearly invited God's wrath," Pat Robertson said on "The 700 Club" on Sunday. "Is it any surprise that the Almighty chose to strike at Miss Degeneres' hometown?"
Now I bet you think this is going to be just another inane Robertson-bashing piece. Well, it is, but we here at The Thinker spare no expense to bring you the news you need. This is a blog exclusive, my interview with......God...
The Thinker: Well, thanks be to God for joining me tonight! The Lord be with me! By the way, how should I address you, the name too sacred to be spoken, the Lord most high?
God: Actually, you can call me Art.
The Thinker: Art?
God: Yeah, you know, "Our father who Art in heaven?"
The Thinker: Oh right...Art. OK, let's get right to it. Did you smite New Orleans with wind and water because of your rage at a lesbian hosting the Emmys?
God: Does anyone smite anything anymore? OK, first things first, up here, I get 1,256,356 digital channels in full high def plus Tivo, do you think I'm wasting my time watching CBS???? If I wanted to extract vengeance on a town because of what celebrities have done, I think I'd take out Boston first for giving us Ben Affleck. Did you see Gigli? Paycheck? Those were Me-damned awful!.
The Thinker: So Pat is completely off base?
God: Well, we all know that Pat's off his rocker and he really is annoying my kid. Dear Jesus this, dear Jesus that, over and over again. Nice turn by the youngster, though, Pat prays for a Supreme Court vacancy so we off Rehnquist instead! Nice touch, huh? But back to smiting. First of all, if I'm going to take someone out, I'm not using a hurricane. Jesus Christ (no not you, sorry, go back to watching the Notre Dame game), those things are impossible to control. Lightning, yeah, that's pretty easy, I can even zip off a tornado or two, but hurricanes? Wind one of those suckers up and you have no idea where they're going. I can aim it for New Orleans but it's like one of those old electronic vibrating football games, once you turn on the switch, it could end up anywhere. There's a real good chance that if I aim at Boubon Street that I wipe out most of Corpus Kiddo. And besides, you know that whole divine wrath thing? Way overblown. Look, I'm not as young as I used to be, I can't go getting that worked up about every little thing.
The Thinker: Well, I suppose I should let you get back to work. Thank God you were here! Is there anythink you would like to say before you go?
God: Well, I will leave you with this. First of all, on celibacy. Who in My name came up with that one? Please. And pants would be good, lose the robes, let's go with pants. The pointy hats can go too, ever sit behind one of them in a movie theater, Sweet Jesus, what a pain (no, not you! All right there sonny, watch the attitude, don't make me get cross with you!)
And the hymns, can we do a little better there? There are only so many times you can hear "Amazing Grace," how about some Stones or Van Morrison? Finally, yes, let me close with the fact there is a hell. I've been working on Pat's for a while, it is still a work in progress, but right now I'm at Harvey Fierstein, Jane Fonda and a couple of hamsters for starters. Good night! Me bless you, and may I be with you!
Be afraid, be very very afraid...
Janice Rogers Brown stated in a speech that "the United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment...The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy...The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it's probably not incorporated."
Fourteenth amendment? Incorporation? Janice Rogers Brown? What could any of this mean?
Well, for starters, Janice Rogers Brown is someone you should know. She sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court is the bullpen for the Supreme Court, as many justices (including nominee John Roberts) have been elevated from this bench.
While Judge Brown may not be the choice to replace O'Connor on the high court, it wouldn't be surprising if it was someone of a similar judicial temperment.
We know all the usual suspects that the conservative judiciary have in their crosshairs, abortion, civil rights, gay rights, flag burning and on and on, but 14th amendment incorporation involves a fundamental transformation of the jurisprudential landscape.
The concept can be loaded down with jargon, but it is relatively simple. The Bill of Rights, as adopted, operated only against the federal government (Congress shall make no law....) As such, the states were not bound to respect these fundamental freedoms under the federal constitution. For example, Massachusetts had a state-supported church well into the early national period.
However, the Civil War and the 14th Amendment changed things. Unlike the original bill of rights, the 14th amendment acted directly on the states. States could not deny due process, equal protection or "privileges and immunities." The question became, though--just what does that mean? Over the years through a somewhat patchwork quilt of decisions, the Supreme Court has determined that many of the fundamental protections expressed in the first 10 amendments are "incorporated" against the states through the 14th. So with regard to the states, free speech and religious expression and rights such as search and seizure prohibitions fall under the 14th.
Janice Brown and like-minded judges object to the expansion of these fundamental guarantees. They want federal constitutional protections stripped away and want these most basic rights left up to state enforcement.
Be afraid, be very very afraid.
Fourteenth amendment? Incorporation? Janice Rogers Brown? What could any of this mean?
Well, for starters, Janice Rogers Brown is someone you should know. She sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court is the bullpen for the Supreme Court, as many justices (including nominee John Roberts) have been elevated from this bench.
While Judge Brown may not be the choice to replace O'Connor on the high court, it wouldn't be surprising if it was someone of a similar judicial temperment.
We know all the usual suspects that the conservative judiciary have in their crosshairs, abortion, civil rights, gay rights, flag burning and on and on, but 14th amendment incorporation involves a fundamental transformation of the jurisprudential landscape.
The concept can be loaded down with jargon, but it is relatively simple. The Bill of Rights, as adopted, operated only against the federal government (Congress shall make no law....) As such, the states were not bound to respect these fundamental freedoms under the federal constitution. For example, Massachusetts had a state-supported church well into the early national period.
However, the Civil War and the 14th Amendment changed things. Unlike the original bill of rights, the 14th amendment acted directly on the states. States could not deny due process, equal protection or "privileges and immunities." The question became, though--just what does that mean? Over the years through a somewhat patchwork quilt of decisions, the Supreme Court has determined that many of the fundamental protections expressed in the first 10 amendments are "incorporated" against the states through the 14th. So with regard to the states, free speech and religious expression and rights such as search and seizure prohibitions fall under the 14th.
Janice Brown and like-minded judges object to the expansion of these fundamental guarantees. They want federal constitutional protections stripped away and want these most basic rights left up to state enforcement.
Be afraid, be very very afraid.
And lest we forget...
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
juancole.com
Black Wednesday's Death Toll rises to 150
The death toll in Wednesday's eight bombings in Baghdad rose to 150, with one bomb in Kadhimiyah accounting for about 114. I can only imagine that hundreds were wounded. It is the second biggest one-day toll in guerrilla violence since the fall of Saddam (only March 2, 2004, was worse). Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Monotheism and Holy War, announced a "war" on Iraq's Shiites by radical Sunni Salafis. The operation was apparently in part revenge for the US/Iraqi government attack on the largely Sunni Turkmen city of Tal Afar in the north.
Although Iraqi government officials tried to put the best face on the disaster, saying that it demonstrated that the Tal Afar operation had in fact deeply threatened the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement, I fear I would draw the opposite conclusion. The guerrillas in Tal Afar cleverly slipped away, and the US troops never even fought a major battle with them. The use of Kurdish troops and Shiite informers leant an ethnic cast to the campaign. Most people in Tal Afar just left the city, for all the world like New Orleans refugees in Texas and Mississippi. So as an operation, it did not amount to much, though it displaced a lot of innocent civilians. And while the US and Kurdish troops were chasing down empty streets in Tal Afar, the guerrillas blew up Baghdad.
If you don't control your capital, you control nothing. If the events of Black Wednesday were not so very tragic (those poor Shiite laborers! and their families), the situation would be absurd in a surrealist sense. The US military off in a small desert town with nothing to do but play fight club amongst themselves, while hundreds of innocent Iraqi Shiites in Kadhimiyah are massacred at will.
And the guerrillas' ability at this late date to mount such a shatteringly effective operation in the capital itself is why the pitiful and arrogant Project for a New American Century fantasy of just crushing the Sunni Arabs of Iraq is a K Street wet dream generated by intellectual adolescents, not a realistic policy. (And of course the same thing could be said of virtually everything the PNAC has ever said).
juancole.com
Black Wednesday's Death Toll rises to 150
The death toll in Wednesday's eight bombings in Baghdad rose to 150, with one bomb in Kadhimiyah accounting for about 114. I can only imagine that hundreds were wounded. It is the second biggest one-day toll in guerrilla violence since the fall of Saddam (only March 2, 2004, was worse). Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Monotheism and Holy War, announced a "war" on Iraq's Shiites by radical Sunni Salafis. The operation was apparently in part revenge for the US/Iraqi government attack on the largely Sunni Turkmen city of Tal Afar in the north.
Although Iraqi government officials tried to put the best face on the disaster, saying that it demonstrated that the Tal Afar operation had in fact deeply threatened the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement, I fear I would draw the opposite conclusion. The guerrillas in Tal Afar cleverly slipped away, and the US troops never even fought a major battle with them. The use of Kurdish troops and Shiite informers leant an ethnic cast to the campaign. Most people in Tal Afar just left the city, for all the world like New Orleans refugees in Texas and Mississippi. So as an operation, it did not amount to much, though it displaced a lot of innocent civilians. And while the US and Kurdish troops were chasing down empty streets in Tal Afar, the guerrillas blew up Baghdad.
If you don't control your capital, you control nothing. If the events of Black Wednesday were not so very tragic (those poor Shiite laborers! and their families), the situation would be absurd in a surrealist sense. The US military off in a small desert town with nothing to do but play fight club amongst themselves, while hundreds of innocent Iraqi Shiites in Kadhimiyah are massacred at will.
And the guerrillas' ability at this late date to mount such a shatteringly effective operation in the capital itself is why the pitiful and arrogant Project for a New American Century fantasy of just crushing the Sunni Arabs of Iraq is a K Street wet dream generated by intellectual adolescents, not a realistic policy. (And of course the same thing could be said of virtually everything the PNAC has ever said).
Really. Seriously. No kidding.
U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York.
That Toddlin' Town
Chicago, Chicago.....
Great city, beautiful lakefront, wonderful architecture, vibrant neighborhoods and one screwed-up city government!
Now I'm not talking about the large-scale mess, from hired trucks to ghost payrolling scandals. I am talking about city government incompetence as it effects me, because of course, it's all about me.
I came home to find a serious-looking certified letter from the city's Department of Streets and Sanitation. The contents were shocking. My car had been seized by the city because illegal drugs were found in it.
Before you jump to any conclusions about me--we have not owned this car since we donated it to charity in December 2004. We have all the paperwork, the Secretary of State-DMV shows that we no longer own it, all the pieces are in place, as a former Bears coach once stated.
Even though it is CLEARLY a city error, I can't just ignore it. If I did, I could get hit with a default judgment for a $1,000 penalty plus towing and storage charges. So what it boils down to is I have to file an application for a hearing, take a day off work and sit in some gawdawful waiting room forever just to show that I haven't owned a car for 9 months.
My kind of town, Chicago is....
Great city, beautiful lakefront, wonderful architecture, vibrant neighborhoods and one screwed-up city government!
Now I'm not talking about the large-scale mess, from hired trucks to ghost payrolling scandals. I am talking about city government incompetence as it effects me, because of course, it's all about me.
I came home to find a serious-looking certified letter from the city's Department of Streets and Sanitation. The contents were shocking. My car had been seized by the city because illegal drugs were found in it.
Before you jump to any conclusions about me--we have not owned this car since we donated it to charity in December 2004. We have all the paperwork, the Secretary of State-DMV shows that we no longer own it, all the pieces are in place, as a former Bears coach once stated.
Even though it is CLEARLY a city error, I can't just ignore it. If I did, I could get hit with a default judgment for a $1,000 penalty plus towing and storage charges. So what it boils down to is I have to file an application for a hearing, take a day off work and sit in some gawdawful waiting room forever just to show that I haven't owned a car for 9 months.
My kind of town, Chicago is....
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
From the "Things I Already Knew" File
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post lets us in on big secret. Chimpy may not be “the commanding, decisive, jovial president you've been hearing about for years in so much of the mainstream press.”
Wow, Dan, there’s a stunner. How long did Annie Sullivan have to hold your hand under the running water for that one to sink in, Helen Keller?
He continues, “it turns out that Bush is in fact fidgety, cold and snappish in private, he yells at those who dare give him bad news and is therefore not surprisingly surrounded by an echo chamber of terrified sycophants. He is slow to comprehend concepts that don't emerge from his gut. He is uncomprehending of the speeches that he is given to read. And oh yes, one of his most significant legacies -- the immense post-Sept. 11 reorganization of the federal government which created the Homeland Security Department -- has failed a big test.”
“Waaa….waaaah,” young Helen, or young Dan Froomkin, as the case may be, cries!
He then adds the clincher, when he states that “for whatever reason, critical observations and insights that for so long have been zealously guarded by mainstream journalists, and only doled out in teaspoons if at all, now seem to be flooding into the public sphere. An emperor-has-no-clothes moment seems upon us.”
Dan, this man has been parading around buck naked since his charming mother bore him. Why are you just noticing this now? According to my watch, it is 2005.
To steal from a great writer, Paul Waldman, who wrote an outstanding book you should buy NOW called Fraud, there is a recipe for building and selling a fraud to the American people:
1) portray son of one of America’s most influential families
as a down-home Texan;
2) berate media as “liberal” until they stop asking tough questions;
3) take advantage of reporters’ tendency not to check facts;
4) mask reactionary policies in compassionate words and pictures;
5) push false stories from the right-wing media into the mainstream media;
6) extol the virtues of workers while systematically pushing
an anti-labor agenda;
7) propose a series of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, but sell
them as a boon to ordinary Americans;
8) disguise destructive initiatives with friendly-sounding names;
9) BEFRIEND MEDIA WITH “GENUINE GUY” ROUTINE;
10) keep the public from accessing information;
11) maintain message discipline at all time;
12) question patriotism of anyone who disagrees and
13) repeat above until it all seems true.
Wow, Dan, there’s a stunner. How long did Annie Sullivan have to hold your hand under the running water for that one to sink in, Helen Keller?
He continues, “it turns out that Bush is in fact fidgety, cold and snappish in private, he yells at those who dare give him bad news and is therefore not surprisingly surrounded by an echo chamber of terrified sycophants. He is slow to comprehend concepts that don't emerge from his gut. He is uncomprehending of the speeches that he is given to read. And oh yes, one of his most significant legacies -- the immense post-Sept. 11 reorganization of the federal government which created the Homeland Security Department -- has failed a big test.”
“Waaa….waaaah,” young Helen, or young Dan Froomkin, as the case may be, cries!
He then adds the clincher, when he states that “for whatever reason, critical observations and insights that for so long have been zealously guarded by mainstream journalists, and only doled out in teaspoons if at all, now seem to be flooding into the public sphere. An emperor-has-no-clothes moment seems upon us.”
Dan, this man has been parading around buck naked since his charming mother bore him. Why are you just noticing this now? According to my watch, it is 2005.
To steal from a great writer, Paul Waldman, who wrote an outstanding book you should buy NOW called Fraud, there is a recipe for building and selling a fraud to the American people:
1) portray son of one of America’s most influential families
as a down-home Texan;
2) berate media as “liberal” until they stop asking tough questions;
3) take advantage of reporters’ tendency not to check facts;
4) mask reactionary policies in compassionate words and pictures;
5) push false stories from the right-wing media into the mainstream media;
6) extol the virtues of workers while systematically pushing
an anti-labor agenda;
7) propose a series of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, but sell
them as a boon to ordinary Americans;
8) disguise destructive initiatives with friendly-sounding names;
9) BEFRIEND MEDIA WITH “GENUINE GUY” ROUTINE;
10) keep the public from accessing information;
11) maintain message discipline at all time;
12) question patriotism of anyone who disagrees and
13) repeat above until it all seems true.
From Bill Maher
Bill Maher's closing thoughts:
Now, I kid, but seriously, Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you anymore. There's no more money to spend. You used up all of that. You can't start another war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.
Yeah, listen to your mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit card's maxed out, and no one is speaking to you: mission accomplished! Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service. And the oil company. And the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or spaceman?!
Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that there's so many other things that you, as president, could involve yourself in...Please don't. I know, I know, there's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela, and eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote. But, sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man.
Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire metropolis to rising water and snakes. On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two Trade Centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans...Maybe you're just not lucky!
I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you, and what he's saying is, "Take a hint!"
Now, I kid, but seriously, Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you anymore. There's no more money to spend. You used up all of that. You can't start another war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.
Yeah, listen to your mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit card's maxed out, and no one is speaking to you: mission accomplished! Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service. And the oil company. And the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or spaceman?!
Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that there's so many other things that you, as president, could involve yourself in...Please don't. I know, I know, there's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela, and eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote. But, sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man.
Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire metropolis to rising water and snakes. On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two Trade Centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans...Maybe you're just not lucky!
I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you, and what he's saying is, "Take a hint!"
The 100 Percent Estate Tax
I would hereby like to propose the 100 percent estate tax. That's right, 100 percent, every last dime. Oh, we'll carve out an exemption for the support of minor children, but basically, all of Poppy's cash goes away and every adult starts life from the same line. Just think if Paris Hilton had to survive on her own "talents." I'm seeing her as the kind of slutty but not unappealing cashier at the car repair shop, smelling slightly of cheap perfume and cigarettes.
And oh yes, the Bush boys. What if GHWB couldn't have banked the millions old Prescott made financing the Nazis or the cash from the Walker side? This man has no discernible skills and cannot utter a coherent sentence.
And oh his poor bastard son. What if W had neither been rich nor the offspring of a president? I'm thinking line cook at the Outback Steak House. "Hey, Janie, call the manager, George has his head caught in the blooming onion maker again!"
And oh yes, the Bush boys. What if GHWB couldn't have banked the millions old Prescott made financing the Nazis or the cash from the Walker side? This man has no discernible skills and cannot utter a coherent sentence.
And oh his poor bastard son. What if W had neither been rich nor the offspring of a president? I'm thinking line cook at the Outback Steak House. "Hey, Janie, call the manager, George has his head caught in the blooming onion maker again!"
Monday, September 12, 2005
The Impeachment Trifecta
Below, I posted an article from the far right calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush, and a response/call to arms from a great friend of this site.
Now it is my plan to bore you to tears with a discussion of the law of impeachment.
The founding fathers, gotta love ‘em. We had that whole ugly 3/5ths compromise thing, and let’s face it folks, they weren’t really into specifics when they crafted some of those wonderful phrases. The whole “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” could have been fleshed out a bit, and my high school grammar teacher will NEVER forgive them for “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Dependent clause, independent clause, who knows?
But anyway, that is another story for another time.
My focus is on that awkward bit of phrasing in Article Two, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Hmm, “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Thanks for the help there, guys!
We can probably trace that back to James Madison and George Mason (isn’t he the guy that usually loses by 50 to Duke in the first round of the NCAA tournament?). The records indicate that while Madison was fine with treason and bribery terms, he thought that didn’t go far enough. This constitution, unlike the English parliamentary system, established a government for a set number of years, one that was not subject to votes of no confidence. So therefore, something beyond treason and bribery was necessary.
It appears that Madison crafted “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thanks for that, Jim-really. OK, so you knew what it meant then? Could you have left us a cheat sheet?
The term “High crimes” appears to mean just that, SERIOUS criminal offenses, while the term “misdemeanors” does not refer to what a misdemeanor is today (taking a leak on someone’s yard in Wrigleyville). It refers to a serious breach of the expected level of behavior, such as negligence well beyond being just bad in the performance of official duties or official corruption.
The impeachment power granted by the constitution has been applied twice against a sitting president, and to my mind misapplied both times. Once was against a sad, sorry president, Andrew Johnson, who had no business being where he was and the other the shameless political attack against Bill Clinton because of his libido and because people liked him! Richard Nixon would have been impeached, for very legitimate reasons, had he not resigned.
While there is no agreed-upon standard, scholars generally break down the reasons for impeachment into 1) serious criminal violations, 2) abuses of authority and 3) the most problematic, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 65, a "violation of public trust."
I am a strong Hamiltonian on this one. Can one imagine a greater violation of the “public trust” than waging war on false pretenses? But anyway, back to the boring stuff.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee stated that impeachment was not limited criminal law violations. The committee used an old English definition of “an injury to the state or system of government” and invoked the legendary Justice Story's use of "offenses of a political character."
Have we not seen, if not high crimes (Iraq?) then certainly “misdemeanors” from this administration? This president stood by and WATCHED A CITY DIE. Think about that, the head of our “federal union” did NOTHING while New Orleans, where Benjamin Butler had “Our Federal Union, It Must Be Preserved” carved into the base of Andrew Jackson’s statue during the Civil War, died.
A misdemeanor? If I could, I would ask 18th-century CONSERVATIVE Edmund Burke about this administration, as he once said that the official should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality."
Hmmm..principles of morality…..
Now it is my plan to bore you to tears with a discussion of the law of impeachment.
The founding fathers, gotta love ‘em. We had that whole ugly 3/5ths compromise thing, and let’s face it folks, they weren’t really into specifics when they crafted some of those wonderful phrases. The whole “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” could have been fleshed out a bit, and my high school grammar teacher will NEVER forgive them for “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Dependent clause, independent clause, who knows?
But anyway, that is another story for another time.
My focus is on that awkward bit of phrasing in Article Two, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Hmm, “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Thanks for the help there, guys!
We can probably trace that back to James Madison and George Mason (isn’t he the guy that usually loses by 50 to Duke in the first round of the NCAA tournament?). The records indicate that while Madison was fine with treason and bribery terms, he thought that didn’t go far enough. This constitution, unlike the English parliamentary system, established a government for a set number of years, one that was not subject to votes of no confidence. So therefore, something beyond treason and bribery was necessary.
It appears that Madison crafted “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thanks for that, Jim-really. OK, so you knew what it meant then? Could you have left us a cheat sheet?
The term “High crimes” appears to mean just that, SERIOUS criminal offenses, while the term “misdemeanors” does not refer to what a misdemeanor is today (taking a leak on someone’s yard in Wrigleyville). It refers to a serious breach of the expected level of behavior, such as negligence well beyond being just bad in the performance of official duties or official corruption.
The impeachment power granted by the constitution has been applied twice against a sitting president, and to my mind misapplied both times. Once was against a sad, sorry president, Andrew Johnson, who had no business being where he was and the other the shameless political attack against Bill Clinton because of his libido and because people liked him! Richard Nixon would have been impeached, for very legitimate reasons, had he not resigned.
While there is no agreed-upon standard, scholars generally break down the reasons for impeachment into 1) serious criminal violations, 2) abuses of authority and 3) the most problematic, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 65, a "violation of public trust."
I am a strong Hamiltonian on this one. Can one imagine a greater violation of the “public trust” than waging war on false pretenses? But anyway, back to the boring stuff.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee stated that impeachment was not limited criminal law violations. The committee used an old English definition of “an injury to the state or system of government” and invoked the legendary Justice Story's use of "offenses of a political character."
Have we not seen, if not high crimes (Iraq?) then certainly “misdemeanors” from this administration? This president stood by and WATCHED A CITY DIE. Think about that, the head of our “federal union” did NOTHING while New Orleans, where Benjamin Butler had “Our Federal Union, It Must Be Preserved” carved into the base of Andrew Jackson’s statue during the Civil War, died.
A misdemeanor? If I could, I would ask 18th-century CONSERVATIVE Edmund Burke about this administration, as he once said that the official should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality."
Hmmm..principles of morality…..
Impeachment Redux
In a comment to the post below, valued contributor Schmidlap noted:
15 seats....we need to pick up 15 seats in the House in '06 to make Articles of Impeachment a reality.
He could eat a live baby on TV and the current House would do nothing about it, so there's no point dreaming right now.
15 seats. The question for us is: where will we volunteer? Who will we support? If the race in our home district is safe, are we willing to travel?
Life or death. 15 seats.
Worthy of the front page.
15 seats....we need to pick up 15 seats in the House in '06 to make Articles of Impeachment a reality.
He could eat a live baby on TV and the current House would do nothing about it, so there's no point dreaming right now.
15 seats. The question for us is: where will we volunteer? Who will we support? If the race in our home district is safe, are we willing to travel?
Life or death. 15 seats.
Worthy of the front page.
George and the Giant ImPEACHment
I just read a column from the Creators.com website that was entitled "Impeach Bush Now." OK, no big deal, given that Creators syndicates Molly Ivins and a couple of other justifiably angry lefties. But no, this comes from Paul Craig Roberts, a man with impeccable right-wing credentials.
Check out the bio. When you see an Olin Fellowship, Townhall.com and the Hoover Institution on the resume, you know this man's conservative bona fides cannot be questioned. Add in that he was an assistant secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan years, and that one clinches that, but wait, it gets better. Mr. Roberts was an editor with the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
For those of you that happen to be unfamiliar with the Wall Street Journal, the paper comes in two major parts (three on Fridays). The first part is an indispensable news source for everything business (the second, on Fridays, is a pretty cool weekend journal with wine, the arts, etc.) and then you have the editorial page. That page is run by people who are clinically as crazy as a bag of weasels. The "Chinese Wall" between the editorial page and the real paper is so high that I don't think they even invite the nutballs from editorial to the Christmas party or to play on the softball team. I don't think they even tell the editorial people where the real paper is, so for someone from the wrong side of that wall to write this is very significant.
He writes:
"The destruction of New Orleans is the responsibility of the most incompetent government in American history and perhaps in all history. Americans are rapidly learning that they were deceived by the superpower hubris. The powerful U.S. military cannot successfully occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport-and this against an insurgency based in only 20 percent of the Iraqi population. Bush's pointless war has left Washington so pressed for money that the federal government abandoned New Orleans to catastrophe.
The Bush administration is damned by its gross incompetence. Bush has squandered the lives and health of thousands of people. He has run through hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. He has lost America's reputation and its allies. With barbaric torture and destruction of our civil liberty, he has stripped America of its inherent goodness and morality. And now Bush has lost America's largest port and 25 percent of its oil supply.
Why? Because Bush started a gratuitous war egged on by a claque of crazy neoconservatives who have sacrificed America's interests to their insane agenda. The neoconservatives have brought these disasters to all Americans, Democrat and Republican alike. Now, they must be held accountable. Bush and his neoconservatives are guilty of criminal negligence and must be prosecuted.
What will it take for Americans to re-establish accountability in their government? Bush has gotten away with lies and an illegal war of aggression, with outing CIA agents, with war crimes against Iraqi civilians, with the horrors of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture centers, and now with the destruction of New Orleans.
What disaster will next spring from Bush's incompetence?"
Well said, Dr. Roberts, thank you.
Check out the bio. When you see an Olin Fellowship, Townhall.com and the Hoover Institution on the resume, you know this man's conservative bona fides cannot be questioned. Add in that he was an assistant secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan years, and that one clinches that, but wait, it gets better. Mr. Roberts was an editor with the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
For those of you that happen to be unfamiliar with the Wall Street Journal, the paper comes in two major parts (three on Fridays). The first part is an indispensable news source for everything business (the second, on Fridays, is a pretty cool weekend journal with wine, the arts, etc.) and then you have the editorial page. That page is run by people who are clinically as crazy as a bag of weasels. The "Chinese Wall" between the editorial page and the real paper is so high that I don't think they even invite the nutballs from editorial to the Christmas party or to play on the softball team. I don't think they even tell the editorial people where the real paper is, so for someone from the wrong side of that wall to write this is very significant.
He writes:
"The destruction of New Orleans is the responsibility of the most incompetent government in American history and perhaps in all history. Americans are rapidly learning that they were deceived by the superpower hubris. The powerful U.S. military cannot successfully occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport-and this against an insurgency based in only 20 percent of the Iraqi population. Bush's pointless war has left Washington so pressed for money that the federal government abandoned New Orleans to catastrophe.
The Bush administration is damned by its gross incompetence. Bush has squandered the lives and health of thousands of people. He has run through hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. He has lost America's reputation and its allies. With barbaric torture and destruction of our civil liberty, he has stripped America of its inherent goodness and morality. And now Bush has lost America's largest port and 25 percent of its oil supply.
Why? Because Bush started a gratuitous war egged on by a claque of crazy neoconservatives who have sacrificed America's interests to their insane agenda. The neoconservatives have brought these disasters to all Americans, Democrat and Republican alike. Now, they must be held accountable. Bush and his neoconservatives are guilty of criminal negligence and must be prosecuted.
What will it take for Americans to re-establish accountability in their government? Bush has gotten away with lies and an illegal war of aggression, with outing CIA agents, with war crimes against Iraqi civilians, with the horrors of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture centers, and now with the destruction of New Orleans.
What disaster will next spring from Bush's incompetence?"
Well said, Dr. Roberts, thank you.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
On the horns of a dilemma.....
The dilemma is the nomination of John Roberts to sit as Chief Justice of the United States. Despite the fact that my father considers me a Trotskyite, I tend to veer well toward the center on the question of nominees to the federal bench. It has long been my view that the president, by virtue of winning the election, gets a fairly free hand in appointing members of the federal bench.
What I have always asked for is competence. That is where we blew it on Clarence Thomas. We became so involved in misguided affections and dirty movies and pubic hairs on Coke cans that we forgot to even look at the grotesquely obvious fact that this man had no business being named to the Supreme Court.
Fast forward to John Roberts. OK, it is quite arguable whether or not Bush "won" the election and whether that deference is still due, but yet--John Roberts looks like the ultimate "qualified" candidate at first glance. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (I was an editor of the law review, but somehow, Champaign just doesn't have the same panache as Cambridge) and unlike Justice Affirmative Action Thomas, he had a real legal career.
My thinking though has changed. It has changed from the willingness of this president to use judicial appointments as a sledgehammer to implement a radical agenda. It has changed as federal appeals courts restrict the protection of the constitution to those embraced by the president. It has changed because the powers that be have no use for our constitution.
The charge is yours, Senators. Do what the constitution charges you to do. Advise, yes, and only if appropriate, give your consent!
What I have always asked for is competence. That is where we blew it on Clarence Thomas. We became so involved in misguided affections and dirty movies and pubic hairs on Coke cans that we forgot to even look at the grotesquely obvious fact that this man had no business being named to the Supreme Court.
Fast forward to John Roberts. OK, it is quite arguable whether or not Bush "won" the election and whether that deference is still due, but yet--John Roberts looks like the ultimate "qualified" candidate at first glance. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (I was an editor of the law review, but somehow, Champaign just doesn't have the same panache as Cambridge) and unlike Justice Affirmative Action Thomas, he had a real legal career.
My thinking though has changed. It has changed from the willingness of this president to use judicial appointments as a sledgehammer to implement a radical agenda. It has changed as federal appeals courts restrict the protection of the constitution to those embraced by the president. It has changed because the powers that be have no use for our constitution.
The charge is yours, Senators. Do what the constitution charges you to do. Advise, yes, and only if appropriate, give your consent!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
