Average family health policy nears $11,000

As the average health insurance plan tops $10,000 dollars I wonder if a single-payer insurance program like they have in Canada isn't a better system after-all.

Why?

1. A lot of fear would be lifted from many American's lives, particularly the fear of not being able to care for a sick child. People that are afraid make bad decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities.

2. Our economy would get a boost if we put $10,000 dollars in every family's pocket. Furthermore, that money will be well spent.

3. American companies would be more competitive. For instance, Ford Motor Company claims $1,000 of the cost of every car is due to health insurance costs.

4. A lot more small businesses would be added to our economy, since a chief obstacle now is the burden of health insurance premiums.

5. A new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States. That is called a win-win scenario.

6. A high percentage of America's personal bankruptcies are fueled by health-care costs. A single-payer system would eliminate this strain on our financial system.

7. The last time I checked Canadian economic growth met or surpassed U.S. performance in seven of the past ten years.

8. There is a strong moral case to be made for caring for the sick.

9. Government should provide for the common good and any one of us can become sick or disabled. This, therefore, seems like a duty of a good government.

Hiding the Truth

Once again Republicans are putting party before country, even when it comes to matters of national defense:

Disloyalty to America


If it is true, as the Bible says, that "the Truth will set you free", then what does that make us in this moment?

Maybe memere was right

My grandmother believed that there was no need to worry about going to hell because we were already there. Her worry was staying in hell, that is to say being reincarnated here on Earth. Her idea of heaven seemed to be somewhere else.

I can't say I blame her. As a young girl she had to wait in bread lines during the great depression. She worked in a mill, but found love and married. After becoming pregnant her husband was drafted into WWII and sent overseas for four years.

Yet, my grandfather survived and life became somewhat normal until the Korean war, to be followed by the Vietnam war where three of her sons served.

So, she had a lot to worry about during her lifetime and I didn't blame her for feeling the way she did about Earth being hell. But, I didn't believe her until last night, when we learned that Karl Rove, a political assassin, is going to be in charge of the Katrina rebuilding effort.

Maybe memere was right?

Instead of being fired for exposing a CIA agent in time of war, or held in jail as a traitor (if intent were established), Karl Rove is going to be the face of compassion in the Bush administration! The man that defeated John McCain by insinuating he had an illegitimate black child is going to repair the President's image with the predominantly black Katrina refugees!

I'm sorry Jesus. I must have been terribly wicked to deserve this punishment, but I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

Mercy!

ADDENDUM: Here is a great post by Josh Marshall on this subject.

It's easy being green.

Here is an angry article which says Mike Brown was the result of Bush's type of affirmative action, that is preferential treatment for rich white men.

Old-boy network

That's a really good point that I hadn't thought of and perhaps a new way for Democrats to talk about race. Discrimination isn't just about black or brown people being held down, but also about those that are held up without merit.

However, I claim that class issues are more discriminatory than race issues today and think John Edwads really nails the issue with his "Two America's" theme.

Green, I feel, is the only color that power cares about, and Kermit the Frog was wrong. It's easy being green...

When you're green you have healthcare.

When you're green your children go to good schools.

When you're green your neighborhoods are safe.

When you're green your neighborhoods are quiet.

When you're green you can afford healthy food.

When you're green no predatory lenders call.

When you're green you can defend yourself like Michael Jackson or Ken Lay, or ensure any jail time is comfortable like it was for Martha Stewart.

Yes, when you're green, life is good.

When you're not green you are stranded on rooftops after a flood waiting for help that is slow to arrive.

When you're not green you lose your home because you want the hospital to save your daughter's life and have no other way to turn green.

When you're not green they find out you are innocent after they kill you on death row.

When you're not green the food on the grocery store shelves is rotten before you bring it home.

The reason that affirmative action is focused on economic opportunity is because the racism you experience is in inverse proportion to your green. When you're green, in other words, nobody cares if you're black. They also don't care if you're a moron.

12 Explosions in Iraq Kill at Least 152

It seems that billions of dollars of expense and years of patience has not allowed the US to secure Baghdad, let alone Iraq. So why is everybody in the Bush administration so confident of their course?

The captain of the Titanic, I am sure, was confident of his course. That didn't make him correct did it?

Bombs in Baghdad

It should not escape your attention that Al Qaida in Iraq took responsibility for the bombing. As was predicted before the war began Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, just like Afghanistan turned out to be for Russia.

People foresaw that icebergs were in northern waters too. Those that paid no heed and confidently stayed the course seem to have learned the hard way that they were mistaken.


ADDENDUM: Today there are fresh bombings.

Preying on Katrina

This article points out that the same corporations getting no-bid contracts to redestruct Iraq are now circling the Katrina devestation and licking their lips. They look with hunger to the President in hopes of a publicly-financed nest egg.

It's a small world afterall

One man's loss

Click photo for clarification by George Lakoff 

Pat Robertson is nutty

It seems that every time Pat Robertson opens his mouth these days it is to sputter hate-speech, paranoid delusions, or outright crazy-talk.

For example, he is currently blaming Hurricane Katrina on Ellen Degeneres, when we sane people know that God is really punishing Pat Robertson for recently calling for Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to be assassinated.

Paranoid Pat


Could Pat be trying to deflect attention from the log in his own eye?

To put it kindly

The soft bigotry of low expectations in action:

Praise for George

Refugees or Evacuees

I have never liked the politically "correct" movement, particularly it's penchant for controlling language (thought?).

Lately I have heard the thought police trying to enforce the notion that people should say evacuee, not refugee, when speaking of Katrina's displaced.

I am somewhat perplexed, since a refugee is essentially one that seeks refuge, and not to my knowledge a term of derision:

Full definition here

Perhaps some people can't stand the notion that we in America can have our own refugees and so their response is to sanitize the language, thereby comforting themselves with righteous indignation and a linguistic wall of obscurity.

I do know that I am going to continue to say refugee here because I believe it is a phrase that garners sympathy, and sympathy is the mother of giving. I also feel that the hardest-hit victims of Katrina were not evacuee's (that is to say people that were evacuated) and that was indeed a large part of their problem.

I smell a rat

The center for disease control has, since 1969, compiled abortion statistics. They have been unpolitical about it, which means they were one of the few sources of trustworthy objective analysis out there.

As you may know the abortion rate is tied closely to the poverty rate. This historic trend was reinforced during the Clinton years where 7 million families moved out of poverty and the abortion rate went down, down, down.

See for yourself


Given that historical trend I had to wonder, since George W. Bush has produced an economy with 4 straight years of families moving into poverty what was happening to the abortion rates.

CDC abortion statistics seem to have stopped being published in 2001.

My inquiries to the CDC on the subject have not been answered.

I suspect that Republicans have a dirty little secret that they want to hide from their base of religious supporters, namely that supporting Republican economics requires supporting an increase in the abortion rate.

I could be wrong, but I find it highly unlikely that Karl Rove would keep a decline in the abortion rate a secret from da base.

I smell a rat.

Here's an idea

I have an idea.

People now are talking about independent commissions to get to the bottom of the Katrina disaster.

I say a commission is a big fat whitewash independent or not, but at least an independent one has the potential to be less obvious.

Why not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the mess?

Those guys seem pretty thorough and we might actually learn something.

Of course, there must be a pretext of a crime I suppose....

Is there such a thing as criminal negligence?

That's A Dodge

I've just been watching a press briefing that you should see:

David vs Goliath


It clearly emphasizes the disconnect between the Bush administration and the American people right now. It looks to me like Scotty McClellan here is flustered, angry, (watch his color change), and confused. It's as if he doesn't realize that when there are thousands of AMERICAN dead bodies in the streets of one of our greatest cities it's time to produce answers. It's time for some accountability.

How I hope the era of a stagnant press politely allowing themselves to be marinated in B.S. is over. How I hope that next time this happens the next questioner takes up where the last one left off until an actual, factual, answer to a direct question is given. How I hope the objective Truth will stop being treated like a ball in a shell-game, elusive, blurred, and concealed.

Don't let them lull you back to sleep boys!

You're making me proud.

Thanks.

Race and Katrina

Here is a video that many of you may have missed, or seen in edited format. Rapper Kayne West speaks from the heart at a Red Cross fundraiser while sharing the stage with Mike Myers.

I disagree with Kayne and think the slow response to Katrina was not driven by racism but instead by really ineffective ideology in conjunction with nepotism. However, I am white and I am sure that I can't see racism through Kayne's eyes.

Maybe you agree with Kayne?

In any case I respect someone testifying from their heart (as opposed to a teleprompter). I have to admit the second time Kayne spoke I laughed like hell. I might not agree with his position, but I am really weary of B.S. and find candor refreshing.

Maybe it will become a trend?

The third world

Today I find myself wondering about that term the third world. I have heard it a lot lately in the aftermath of Katrina. People are saying that Biloxi, Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana look like the third world.

It is a rather curious turn of phrase.

What do we mean when we say it?

The history of the phrase, which you can get in full here is: "This expression originated in the mid-1900s, at first denoting those countries in Asia and Africa that were not aligned with either the Communist bloc nations or the non-Communist Western nations."

But I wouldn't say that it was used that way anymore.

I think that when we say it we think of, literally, another planet.

On this other planet there is a lot of suffering human beings, but what makes it special is that we don't care. It is somehow normal on this third world for people to starve, or be exploited as indentured servants, as long as they keep making our cheap sneakers.

I think that is a more modern, honest, and sober definition of the phrase third world don't you?

I suppose it could also be argued that the phrase third world is also a planet of predominantly dark-skinned people, which seems to be the case for those left behind in Katrina's wake.

What do they mean on the newscasts when they compare New Orleans, then to the third world? Are they trying to harden our hearts, or garner sympathy, as in these poor devils have it so bad they look like they are on the wrong planet.

I understand, now, those people who say One World as if it weren't an astute observation of the obvious. Their wish is to live on the planet where it is not OK to suffer, where someone will come to their aid, where the compassion is.

I think maybe I'll stop using the phrase. Maybe forgotten world would be better?

Pressure drop

I usually restrain myself from these kinds of things.

Today I don't feel like it.


Take another vacation
You lazy blockhead!
Take another vacation
while we tally our dead.

Go ride your bike with Lance Armstrong!
Go strum guitar and sing Nero's song.

Go back to your ranch.
Go back to your brush.
Go dine on pretzels.
Be a born-again lush.

What you gonna do
when they come with Voodoo?
Where can you hide
from eyes that have died?

America, I know,
can survive quite a blow.
America, I hope,
can survive such a dope.

FEMA Chief Waited Until After Storm Hit

President Bush doesn't really need another reason to fire the twin disasters Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff, but one has just been made public all the same.

It seems Mr. Brown waited until hours after Katrina struck before making a request to his boss to dispatch 1000 Homeland Security employees to the region, and gave them two days to arrive, and they were to serve in PR roles.

It also seems that Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Brown's boss, wasn't competent enough to send the people on his own, nor in a useful capacity.

President Bush tolerates failure in the performance of Donald Rumsfeld even as American GIs die and die and die, so I fully expect him to stand behind these twin pillars of fault as well while Americans die and die and die.

Accountability is about as far from the province of Mr. Bush as satisfaction with his performance is to Katrina's survivors.

You just can't make this stuff up

I fully expect the "leak" in this case to have been orchestrated by Mr. "loose-lips" Rove, but I don't care if the story is true. There is enough information to act already.

How much failure in such a critical role is too much?

How many people get to die for lack of competence before the President restores credibility?

What to do

I suppose I shouldn't simply berate the Bush administration for its faulty relief effort without offering a few suggestions. So, here goes.

First and foremost, I think, President Bush needs to steal a quiet moment and reflect upon what it means to lose everything. By everything I don't just mean possessions, I mean also family members, neighborhoods, places of employment, transportation systems, access to food and water, access to television and telephones, control over your own safety or that of your family's. I mean living in an environment that is unclean, unsafe, and laden with despair. I say this because I feel the President is out-of-touch with his compassion (perhaps it got lost to politics), and I feel that he needs it now so that he can rise up and be a beacon of hope, or at least stop saying incredibly stupid cold-hearted things.

Secondly, I'd say, reassign those twin disasters Michael Chertoff and Michael Brown. They have done enough damage and I'm sick of their excuse making. Marshall Whitman suggests a competent replacement would be Rudi Giuliani and I agree with him. I say this can't happen soon enough.

Thirdly, the world community is extending offers of help. Accept them with thanks. In fact accept any and all help. Refusing help at a time like this is as daft as it gets. This might even help you with your foreign policy as it will restore some old friendships the way nothing but tragedy can.

Fourthly, here is a guiding principal. If an idea decreases human suffering approve it immediately, if it increases it abandon it. So, if truckloads of water appear at a time when water is desperately needed you can approve of the idea immediately. If Canada wants to help with the rescue effort you can approve the idea immediately. If a FEMA middle-manager wants to obstruct relief efforts to show-off his authority you can fire him immediately (which upholds both principals).

Lastly, take your economic ideology and shove it. Be guided simply by what works. What works will be anything that fulfills the needs of those in trouble. If they need housing open a closed military base, bring in cruise ships, direct people to MoveOn. If they need food put New Orleans immense hospitality industry to work. If they feel abandoned give them hope. This is no time for high ideals but a time for lowly human compassion. In other words, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Harry Reid has a host of suggestions too. You can read them here.

President Bush people are desperate for help and to let them die expecting it is about as noble as leaving the fallen on the battlefield. You were in the Guard, you know what that means don't you?

Be the uniter we're overdue.
Bring on your compassion.

A forgiving nation awaits your redemption.

A little rhyme

Told the truth?
You're demoted!
Told a lie?
You're promoted!

Accountability rules and sincerity prevails?
Sincerity tales and nobody's fools!

Go back to your holes.
Go back to your pits.
Go lurk in the dark.
Stop giving me fits.

On second thought

When I'd first heard that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stopped three truckloads of water sent to New Orleans by Wal-Mart I was fit to be tied.

Details here...

"How could people be so stupid as to render vocabulary merciless to describe it?", I raged.

"How could anybody be so incompetent as to send away the needs of great despair?", I stormed.

"What kind of an idiot does it take to be so monstrously ineffective?", I howled.

But on second thought a deeper disgust dawned.

For years the President has been a promoter of privatization, and of smaller government (in words alone, not deeds). Here, unbidden, was an opportunity to score from third base on a solid single. A PR paradise ready for the plucking!

Wal-Mart, the best company in the world at getting goods to people efficiently, generously (it must be said) decided to respond to the Katrina disaster by sending desperately needed water. They were, in effect, a sterling example of a corporation taking the lead and filling holes left by receeding government services. "See?", the President could have said, "it is possible to privatize and to down-size government without pain!"

Instead, stupidly, Wal-Mart's generosity was turned away.

It seems this President can't even recognize a good idea when it pulls up in three trucks and honks its horn!

Bad plans produce bad results

Here is a timeline put together by Kevin Drum that clearly shows the polices of George W. Bush as contrasted against their shabby end-results for Katrina disaster victims:


The Washington Monthly


I think the most important point made is that a response to this type of disaster is nearly identical to, say, a terrorist attack on a major city; and there was a weeks warning with Katrina, and there have been years of preparation (at great expense) since 911. In other words the Bush administration excuse-making about structural re-adjustments that are terrorism related just don't add up (as Bugs Bunny liked to say).

One point I would like to add in light of the recent warning by Herr Chertoff of the H.S.S. (Homeland Security Services) to expect an "ugly scene" in the aftermath of Katrina is, "Yes, of course you idiots! Why do you think we've been impatient with your accursed foot-dragging?"

Am I wrong?

I Wrote Bush's War Words -- in 1965

Thanks to the Prissy Patriot for pointing out this article on her blog. It is an opinion piece written by Daniel Ellsberg in the L.A. Times.

Daniel compares President Bush's recent speech to those he advised in 1965 to keep us in Vietnam:

Learn some history

The question now seems to be, "How long will we stay the course? Will it be until 58,000 American GIs die to uphold the honor of a pack of liars?"

I, for one, hope not. It seems that Daniel makes two.

Another way to help

Hurricane Katrina has left a lot of people temporarily homeless. It is also a tragedy that is hard to face without help from neighbors.

So, MoveOn has put together a site which allows Americans with room to spare to put up survivors in need of somewhere to stay.

This allows one to reach out and make life better for at least one family in need.

It is also a place that those in need can turn for shelter.

In other words, it is neighbor helping neighbor, and what Americans have always been good at.

Details here

A Disaster for President Bush?

FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was heartily trimmed by the Bush administration and many argue that the Federal response to hurricane Katrina was hampered by this decision.

Here is an article published in Sept. 2004 which complains:

Bush administration policy changes and budget cuts, they say, are sapping FEMA's longterm ability to cushion the blow of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados, wildfires and other natural disasters.


Full details

If news like that got out it could be bad for the President's reputation.

Lord knows that ridiculous speech he gave yesterday isn't going to help.

Then there's this news. It is so bizarre and smacks of such incompetence that one has to wonder if the President is playing with 52 cards in his deck.

Krugman on Greenspan

Like Paul Krugman I cannot forgive Alan Greenspan for selling the Bush tax cuts while warning America about paying down the deficit too fast.

While I admit that the economic stewardship of President Bush has indeed been a competent solution to worries about a freedom from debt, and I further admit that the Presidential tax-cuts have been so effective that there is absolutely no danger at all now that the deficit will be paid down too fast, I argue that the debt will become an anchor around opportunity's neck, dragging students out of schools, services out of communities, and healthcare away from Americans.

My understanding is that the role of the central bank (aka "The Fed") is to maintain the debt levels as high as possible, but not so high that interest payments to the investors (such as the Rockefeller's and the Communist Chinese) cannot be made.

In light of this understanding, Mr. Greenspan's warnings and actions have made perfect sense, although he may have bit off more debt than America can eschew with his backing of Republican economics.

In light of this understanding, it also makes perfect sense why the mouthpieces for the mega-rich (aka Republicans) were railing against Greenspan when the debt was going down under Democrats, but are largely silent now that it has been brought to record-setting levels.

So, given my understanding, you may perhaps forgive me if I view Alan Greenspan as a traitor to America's young, a deliverer of debt, and a selfish human being.

Unlike me, Mr. Krugman maintains civility and here is what he has to say on Mr. Greenspan's career:

Greenspan and the Bubble

Do you know what it means, to miss New Orleans?

Not much needs to be said about the Katrina disaster to hit Louisiana and Mississippi and other points south, except that it should serve as a reminder to us all of how fortunate we are just to be alive in this hostile place we call Earth.

So, Click here for pictures that help give a sense of the catastrophe.

When I was done looking at them my heart ached.

What a catastrophe.

ADDENDUM

This photo of our useful President is too much. While the largest natural disaster to hit our nation is unfolding look at him playing around!

Is that leadership in a time of crisis?

A book and a cover

There are many reasons not to find merit in the theory of Intelligent Design, chief among them is following it to its logical conclusion.

Today I'd like to talk about another flaw, which is the implied Intelligence of the designer.

I ask you, if you had unlimited knowledge, unlimited talents, and unlimited time in which to create a world would it include:

The Ku Klux Klan?

Despotic tyrants?

Plagues?

The Khmer Rouge?

Starvation?

Forced child labor?

Tsunamis?

Volcanoes?

Or catastrophic floods?

If this world was designed, wasn't the creator more likely a Sadist than a being whose intentions were good?

On Guns and butter

Q: Does a sane country spend more than half it's money on killing other human beings so that it can cut food aid, school aid, medical aid, drought aid, and disaster aid?

A: No, but a country in which Republicans control the budget does.

Details

Hem Hem

"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price."

- George W. Bush -
Campaign 2000

Raise your hand if you remember either oil prices going down or President Bush talking tough to OPEC in 5 and a half years in office.

Going once....
Going twice...

Before It's Too Late in Iraq

General Wesley Clarke talks about Iraq in this Washington Post article.

I believe in listening to people's advice when they have a proven track-record of success. To break it down, he says:

Going into Iraq was a mistake.
Pulling out now would be a mistake.
Here's a plan to tame the mess.

I think he's a little too callous about saying that casualties are leading to calls for ending the quagmire. I think reason number one more Americans want us out of Iraq is they now realize every reason articulated for going into Iraq was a bald-faced lie. Number two, I think, is the fact that Iraq did not and does not now pose a threat to America except in Dick Cheney's wildest nightmares. Number three, I think, are the mounting casualties. Reason number four has to be that everyone can see the plan sucks and what staying the mistake will yield.

Americans fight like hell when the threat is real and nobody ought to make light of that fact.

So, on with the actual plan...

Before It's Too Late in Iraq

On Republicans watch

I ask again, why are moderate Republicans MIA on environmental issues?

Take a look at this story. The Bush administration is proposing rule changes to weaken the environment again, to this time...

"allow cellphone towers and low-flying tour planes and would liberalize rules that prohibited mining, according to Bill Wade, former superintendent at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia"

Republican Sewardship

Moderate Republicans if you do not want your children to go to a National Park and see mines, cell towers, and noisy low-flying aircraft then you must become an American first and a Republican second and oppose your President.

Do you think your hero and outdoorsman Ronald Reagan would pander to business the way George W. Bush does? Are you content with this "new order" of unimpeded robber baron rule?

Where are you?

Hello.

Anybody there?

Can you hear me now?

Put your faith in liberty 

Our friend Jon

Jon Stewart is a lot of fun and never any more fun than when someone hands him a hanging breaking ball over the plate. Pat Robertson's comments about assassinating the President of Venezuela was more like planting a ball on a tee in front of the Red Sox's Manny Ramirez.

Stewart knocks cover off Robertson

Enjoy!

Better primaries

I have heard the point raised many times that Democrats ought to use the True Majority Rule voting system during their primary campaigns so that the candidate with the broadest appeal is the winner of the nomination.

That sounds, every time, like a great idea to me.

It is also, according to Scientific American, the fairest voting system of them all.

Democrats might also use the primary process to implement electronic voting done right (see example here). Why not train legions of Americans that electronic voting can be done quickly, easily, and devoid of corruption? Why not use the most accurate, and therefore most democratic, method to choose the party front-runner?

Why not free voters from wrangling about harming candidate A (Kerry) by voting for candidate B (Nader), or harming candidate A (H.W. Bush) by voting for candidate B (Ross Perot)?

In other words, why not lead on the issue by showing faith in the idea that will produce the strongest candidates?

Seems indefensible

AIDS is deadly.

HIV can not get through latex or polyurethane condoms.

The Catholic Church is forbidding followers to wear condoms.

This seems like an indefensible moral position leading to needless human suffering.

I say again

And he is too cowardly to face us too, except in sanitized forums where every question is pre-approved.

Commander bawk-bawk-bawk chicken

Here's the PLAN

John Edwards, David Sirota, and Brian Schweitzer teaming up sounds like a hell of a good idea to me. That they would team up to form an organization whose purpose is to promote progressive politics at the state level sounds like an even better one.

Judging by the hot-headed comments from Republicans I'd say they think it threatens their rule.

Take a bow

Halliburton is America Hurtin'

Could it be that while America is fighting in a Face And Rear Saving Endeavor (or was that Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) that more of our patriotic pals at Halliburton are picking our pockets?

Yep.

Glenn Allen Powell has pleaded guilty in U.S. District court in Rock Island, Illinois to taking 20% of a subcontract.


Frequent Fraud


Whatever happened to people's sense of duty?

Is money that good?

What I like about Cindy

Cindy Sheehan touched a nerve.

Not with George Bush, mind you, but with many decent Americans she did.

One day, amidst a lull in the apocalypse cheerleading the dust cleared just a little bit and people saw a Gold Star mother asking "Why?".

Only the most loathsome character, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter would demean someone in Cindy's shoes. But decent people know to respect a great sacrifice like Cindy's and to listen to what she has to say. After all, one can hardly Support the Troops and insult their mothers can they?

What this mother had to say is that her son is dead because the President lied to him. Her son is dead because he had enough faith in America to defend it with his life, and yet that trust was misled.

And she wants to look President Bush in the eye and ask him why he told those lies which cost her so much.

And he is too cowardly to face her.

And so she waits and draws attention to that fact.

And the nation waits wondering much the same thing as Cindy.

And he is too cowardly to face us too, except in sanitized forums where every question is pre-approved.

But Cindy is undeterred and that determination is what I like about her. That, and the fact that she says things like this:

How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."


Cindy Sheehan

If you decide that you want to stand up and speak out, then you should mark your calendars for this event on Saturday, September 24th:

Just say No

I'd consider it a job well done if all the Bush horses and all the Bush men could not put the Iraq lie back together again. So, if you need just a little push to get down off the fence, then perhaps this article by Ray McGovern will provide the Humpty Dumptian nudge necessary.

In closing I'd like to offer thanks to Cindy for awakening the conscience of a nation. The war supporters try so hard to maintain their ill-gotten war that it must seem daunting to stand in their way? To suffer the personal attacks? To be a Gold Star mother and get lectured about your patriotism from those drive-by ignoramuses?

Perhaps your vigil has turned a death into something that will save lives; not Casey's life, but perhaps the life of the child of a new friend (of which I'm guessing you now have many). Thank you for trying. It is honorable work.

Assassinate thine enemy?

Question:

How can a Christian leader promote assassination on-air and yet maintain his credentials as a Christian?

Choices:

A. When the people that follow him are gullible and uncritical.
B. When his followers have so little understanding of their faith that the words and works of Jesus are essentially meaningless to them.
C. When the compulsion to obey the pulpit overwhelms the helps that come from reason.
D. Those who covet violence are often willing to maintain their ignorance through self-deception and religious rhetoric.
E. All of the above.

Who would Jesus assassinate

Times are strange in America.

People seem to have forgotten that announcing you are Christian is a deed without a work.

Bush clearing

I think that President Bush likes clearing brush because (unlike Iraq) it is a problem whose solution he understands and can manage. He knows that if he keeps going back and forth, back and forth from the brush to the brush pile that the pile will get bigger and the brush will get thinned. If he then burns the pile it will be reduced to ashes and confront him no more.

I think maybe that is the type of problem the President is well suited for. I don't think he understands Iraq and why Iraqis have been able to confront him after Baghdad was burned. I don't think he understands that going back and forth, back and forth from hardened base to conflagration is not thinning the insurgents, but rather increasing their numbers.

I think that he doesn't know what to do. He shocked and awed them Iraqis according to plan but there were no candies. There were no flowers. His stature did not become Churchillian, but more like Jethro Bodine (although an unkind one).

So now he seems to put on the best show he can, all pomp and leers, all tirades and arm waving, all hat and no cattle. As America's problems escalate he bikes, and fishes, and naps, and clears brush because those are activities he can handle. Let us hope he remembers to chew his pretzels.

Frustration level at maximum.

I'm feeling a bit wound up this morning and so I think I'll pass along some great advice from Kevin Drum to Democrats.

See for yourself

Americans know the Iraq war is ill-gotten and unlikely to produce a shining beacon of democracy in gains. More likely it will produce an Iranian client-state if we're lucky, and a terrorist breeding ground ala Afghanistan if we are unlucky.

Climbing aboard a ship of fools is not a wise thing to do, yet the top Democrats sit on deck and complain about the tea service, without realizing that Republicans are making off quietly with the life boats.

Isn't it obvious?

Republicans are trying to cut-and-run without the appearance of cutting and running and Democrats are letting them.

It is time for the democratic leadership to wake up and get an exit strategy from the Bush administration now!

Here is a handy quote to use as ammo:

The only definition of Victory is Exit Strategy
George W. Bush 1999

Nobody will think you're tough for quibbling about structural changes and what-not. Demand a plan for victory. Get Republicans to define the parameters for victory. Don't waste a breath on pull-out dates. Get pull-out conditions.

If you don't lead at a time when it counts, when does it count if you lead?

Word play

I don't know if you've noticed a secret military unit called Able Danger in the news recently.

Apart from the fact that this means the US military is spying on American citizens, I became interested in the name chosen for the unit.

Able Danger?

Who thinks these names up?

It sounds like an anagram to me, but an anagram for what?

Here are some possibilities:

Banal Greed
Arab Legend
Bad General
Reagan Bled


Here are a bunch more anagrams

I guess that's nowhere near as good as realizing that the water Evian, spelled backwards, is naive, or that Evil spelled backwards is Live.

Cargo of a dove

Israel is vacating the Gaza settlements this week and it can expect little in return for this move, and particularly from the Palestinian Authority.

My opinions are conflicted on many points, for instance:

I am almost always against using troops on citizens, but a few citizens cannot be allowed to obstruct a democratic decision with violence.

I find Sharon's aggression part of the problem, particularly his quick rejection of Jimmy Carter's attempts to broker an agreement recently (I say Israel owes Jimmy more respect for the Camp David accord).

I find Israel's repeated spying on the US indefensible, particularly when we have sacrificed lives repeatedly on her behalf. It is, in short, no way to treat a friend and can only serve to weaken our alliance.

I find our moral position compromised by our own Westward expansion through nations of Native Americans and that little episode we had with slavery.

That said, though, Israel has decided it wants peace and is willing to sacrifice to get it. Perhaps the world community can recognize this as a step and applaud it and encourage one from Palestine, since Peace doesn't come through strength of arms but the approach of justice for all parties.

Will Palestine reciprocate or will it be violence and victimhood as usual?

On a related note, here is an article that I read which I enjoyed. It doesn't paint things in terms of right and wrong or black and white, but rather in terms of progress towards peace. You do what you can, the author seems to say, you do what you can:

Gush Katif

A healing balm

There may be a balm in Gilead to heal a sick, sick soul, but I know from experience that there is also an easily accessible balm at Comedy Central known as the Daily Show.

You may be aware that Iraq did NOT prepare it's constitution by August 15th as President Bush expected. To journalists this is a trifle that should be buried on page 15 between somebody's grandmother's tuna casserole recipe and an appeal for a lost cat.

To one that works in comedy, though, it is a chance to heal with laughter:

Thanks Jon

Enjoy!

Desecration

A Bush supporter drove a truck through a line of grave markers with the names of dead American soldiers inscribed on them.

I don't know if I have to say any more than that.

Details Here...

Click Picture for examples

Heaven Help Us !!!

To President Bush global warming is a myth, intelligent design is a science, and the Patriot Act is vital in the defense of freedom.

To President Bush Iraq attacked us on 911, Osama bin Laden is unimportant, and you respond to hard work with long vacations.

To President Bush "Victory is exit strategy" and we have no exit strategy for Iraq.

To President Bush our Mission is Accomplished and Donald Rumsfeld is a success.

To President Bush Iraq is evil and Saudi Arabia is an ally that needs to be coddled.

I'm getting really sick of President Bush.


Rant Inspiration

Republicans MIA

One of the most perplexing things to me about the last five years of uncontested Republican control of the US government is this: why are Republicans MIA on environmental issues?

Republicans have traditionally defended our national park systems, protected hunting and fishing lands, and put partisanship aside to pass clean air and water laws.

What the hell has happened during the Bush reign?

Mercury laws have been weakened.

Energy bills have been passed encouraging coal use (the heat-source of cavemen).

Clean air laws have been weakened.

Our national parks are under assault with budget cuts, drilling plans, and privatization schemes.

Why aren't Republicans up-in-arms about fish too contaminated to eat?

Why aren't Republicans up-in-arms about oil drilling plans in Alaska?

Why aren't Republicans up-in-arms about global warming?

Why aren't Republicans up-in-arms about asthma levels among children in our cities?

Why aren't Republicans working with Democrats to defend the clean air and water acts?

Why aren't Republicans encouraging renewable energy generation?

Why, in other words, are environmentally concerned Republicans rolling over for Bush on environmental issues?

The only Republican I see consistently upholding their principles on the environment is John McCain.

I don't understand what has happened.

Protecting our parks for future generations is a virtue is it not?

Aren't Republican Christians concerned about proper stewardship of God's creation?

What is it that I am missing?

E.L. Doctorow on G.W. Bush

My writings about the mess Republicans have made for us in Iraq amount to a rather crude body of work, especially when compared to this statement by author E.L. Doctorow:

The Unfeeling President

Good writing can be stunning.

I am stunned.

Shameful

What does the schedule of a man too busy to spend any time talking with Cindy Sheehan, (the mom who lost a son in Iraq and wants to ask President Bush "Why?), look like?

In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading.

Source

Halliburton and Iran

Halliburton sold nuclear technology to Iran.

I don't think I need to say any more than that.

Story here

Many more dead than reported?

This website contends that:

U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have very rarely been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.

They have started a simple process to figure out the truth. They published the list of official Iraq casualties (here) and have asked family members to check the list for their fallen loved ones. If your family member died in the Iraq war and is not on the list you should contact the author of the study.

As of July 26th the author verified 52 more names of dead GIs which never made the official Pentagon list.

Even a skeptic like myself has a hard time believing the Whitehouse would be so monstrous to those that deserve honor and dignity for their service.

Hopefully it isn't true.

Click picture for more on Nero 

What rhymes with hypocrite?

I feel that Art's highest achievement is to make Truth captivating. Who could look away, for instance, from Nick Ut's famous "Napalm Girl" photograph without being changed forever? In that tradition perhaps, Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones have used their musical talents to take a roundhouse swipe at US neo-cons and I cannot wait to hear their new songs.

All too often these days censors are willing to remove songs of protest from the airwaves and from store shelves, but it will be hard for radio stations to ignore anything that the Stones do without incurring lots of listener blowback. That, I think, is what makes this album most significant.

A Bigger Bang

Texas oil cheats

The Economist has a story about Benon Sevan, the UN oil-for-food diplomat caught accepting bribes. It is a disheartening story, but quite unfair to cast him as the only culprit.

Corruption at the heart of the United Nations


You see, the company offering Mr. Sevan bribes to get at Saddam Hussein's oil was an American company, AMEP Oil, and it is run by a gaggle of Texas oil men. Take a look at their board of directors here:

Texas turds

At a time when Saddam Hussein was under an embargo an American company was bribing officials to get at Iraq's oil. And this, after we fought a war with Iraq!

Benon Sevan is a disgrace and a fraud and he should be ejected by the UN at once. However, people should save some indignation for the Texas oilmen of AMEP Oil for placing their interests ahead of America's security. Well, that and the fact that bribing officials is illegal in it's own right.

What are the chances that Texas oilmen weren't "negotiating" with the UN without a little "support" from the Bush administration?

Grieving mom frightens Bush

Mr. tough-talk, Mr. compassion, Mr. brush-clearing macho man continues to hide like a frightened child from Cindy Sheehan (a mother who lost a son to the Iraq war).

I say that if a parent of one of our fallen soldiers wants to meet the President (particularly while he is loafing on a 5-week vacation) then the President ought to meet them. You show respect to such people no matter how much brush requires clearing.

Is the President afraid to face the truth of his ideology and the cost of his lies?

Mr. President, There's Someone Waiting, and Waiting, to See You

Support our troops at 13 mpg

As I was leaving the grocery store I saw a curious sight. There was one of those gargantuan SUVs with one of those ubiquitous "Support Our Troops" flag/ribbon magnets on it. I thought to myself, that right there is a failure of Republican leadership to communicate with the American people that it is time to curb our appetite for fossil fuel.

People don't realize that the more gas we use the more money we put in Saudi Arabia's pockets, and that 17 of the 19 911 hijackers were Saudi!

People don't realize that the Islamo-fascists that attacked us adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam (Wahabi) that is bred, fed, and spread from Saudi Arabia!

For God sakes if you want to support the troops pedal a damn bicycle!

Then I got all riled up considering that Bush is gung-ho to go to Mars to see if there is life, when he should be more interested in seeing if he can save life on earth by combating global warming. Just imagine if we took that Mars-project money and used it to propagate wind-mills.

It all goes together in one vision. Put up windmills, solar, tidal power, and any other technologically advanced non-polluting, local power sources and you fight terrorism AND global warming.

Ride the bus to work and you fight terrorism.
Ride the subway and you fight terrorism.
Drive a Prius and you fight terrorism.

Drive a huge, gas-guzzling SUV in the city and you put money in our enemies hands.

It seems obvious, but perhaps more obvious is that Condi Rice had an oil tanker named after her and President Bush was in the Texas oil business himself.

Clicking my heels

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true

- Harold Arlen -

Has Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald handed out Grand Jury indictments to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former AG John Ashcroft, reporter Judith Miller, and Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin?

Has Karl Rove become the icing on the cake with an indictment for Perjury?

Is it time for bluebirds to sing?

The Watchmaker's Ancestors

Since when does the President of the United States dictate to schools how and what to teach?

If you ask me it is a rather Castro-esque thing to do.

If you ask me America's children have fallen far enough behind the Chinese in math and science without letting a man that can't pronounce "nuclear" set educational policy for tens of millions of children.

Furthermore, the "intelligent design" or "watchmaker" theory is plagiarized straight from the Bible (see Wisdom of Solomon) and masquerades as science among only the hopelessly uncritical. This religious teaching does not belong in a fact-based discipline like a science course, except to demonstrate the shortcomings of an ideologically driven approach to learning.

If people want religion taught in the schools why should it be at the expense of science?

If people want their children to be that dumb, why don't they just stick to inbreeding and/or home-schooling?

Bibleology?

Pining for Bill

I find myself missing former President Bill Clinton under whose leadership:

We had a 30 year low on unemployment
We had a 32 year low in welfare roles
We had a 27 year low in the crime rate
We had three years of surpluses in the budget for the first time in 70 years
We had the biggest increase in aid to university students in 50 years.
We had 22 million jobs created
We had 7 million families move out of poverty.
We had a drop in the number of abortions.

That's what happens when you shed ideas that don't work and embrace those that do.

The religious left

Reading this article about the religious left fighting back this morning made me think about how easily Americans are divided.


Are you left or right?

Are you red or blue?

Are you gay or straight?

Are you religious or secular?

Do you support or oppose the Iraq war wholeheartedly?

Are you an environmentalist or a defender of ecocide?

Are you for or against guns?

Are you for or against abortion?

Are you for or against unions?

Are you for or against corporations?

Are you with or against France?

And so on...

The trouble with this politics of divide-and-conquer is that people start looking at every issue in black and white terms, and that is moronic.

For instance you can be an environmentalist, as I consider myself, without being against logging. I am for logging because I would rather people use bio-degradable, renewable, all-natural building products and an outdoor career strikes me as enjoyable (at least on some levels). I am, however, against indiscriminate harvesting techniques which plunder the landscape murderously. I am against spraying thousands of acres of forest land with herbicides which poisons the landscape and the wildlife. I am for wind-power wherever it can be installed, and the quicker the better.

I am both for and against guns, which some people call wishy-washy, but I consider practical. I am a gun owner and I hunt, however I see the folly of allowing guns in the hands of children, the insane, violent criminals, or urban settings (here I am speaking only of use, not ownership).

I am secular, but like most secular people (I think) I haven't convincingly disproved the notion of God to myself (i.e. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). I have only rejected the more popular religious views of God's benevolence. I guess you could say I look at organized religion like a community of the superstitious, but I feel no need to persecute them any more than people that are afraid of black cats crossing their paths. However, I do live an ethical life and try to treat others as I myself wish to be treated, not because I expect a Heaven exists, but because I believe that to love and to be loved is the only way to be happy.

When it comes to abortion I prefer to keep such a deeply personal decision out of the hands of government. In instances of rape, or when the well-being of the mother is in question I believe it is morally correct to allow for abortions. I view nothing so sadly as an unloved child (since I argue they turn out like neo-cons). Also, when a child will be born with a debilitating deformity (i.e. a hole in the brain or incurable painful conditions) then I also believe it is morally correct to allow for abortions. I believe the morning-after pill ought to be readily available, particularly to the young as they learn to cope with the most powerful of emotions. I argue that this does not "cheapen life" as many anti-abortionists charge, but rather allows prospective parents to choose to raise a family when they are prepared to act selflessly on behalf of their children, or in other words to cherish them. I also believe that most people are good people and do not treat the procedure of having an abortion lightly and that assertions to the contrary are propaganda.

When it comes to France, perhaps I am a clear-cut supporter. They are a free and open society that loves good food and good fun, they're cantankerous and argumentative and fantastic bakers. They sent us the statue of liberty. Their citizens resisted the Nazi's with more success than their army. They have a love/hate relationship with the British. And finally, when it comes to Iraq they did what a true-blue friend should, they told us we were wrong.

When it comes to unions I am mostly for them. My grandfather was an early union-man in the textile industry. When I asked him about it he said the mill wanted him to work seven days a week, with no overtime pay, when he was already working six days a week. Sunday, it should be pointed out, was an important day of worship to him and also the only day my grandfather had to spend with his family (8 children!). So, in response to corporate abuse (in my opinion) people joined and formed unions as a matter of self-defense (there is strength in numbers). My dad was also in a union, but he was a member as America's steel-industry went into decline (eventually he had to find a new career). In his case unions had already established the 40-hour workweek and a living wage, but had then started to fight for things uncompetitive like complicated seniority systems, over-zealous job protection (i.e. there was to be no picking-up-of-slack or cross-training). I also believe that in Poland unions turned a nation into a democracy, and that if we encouraged Iraqis organize into unions we'd be promoting deep democratic roots there.

I haven't touched on everything, but you see what I mean don't you? When presented with an either-or yes-no with-or-against choice you must reject the question.

14 US Marines killed in Western Iraq

14 US marines and a civilian interpreter were killed in Iraq today, bringing the death toll past 1800.

We will be welcomed as liberators.
Mission Accomplished!
We will be spoon fed by celebrators.
Democracy Accomplished!


Ooops.

Bush end-runs democracy

When I first heard that President Bush appointed John Bolton during a Congressional recess, then had the audacity to insinuate Mr. Bolton's nomination was being held up by partisanship I screamed "George W. Bush isn't fit to reside in a democracy, let alone lead one, since he is afraid to face the people when they call him on his hair-brained ideas!"

Then I paused for reflection.

What I realized when I did so was that the President has a whole lot more opposition from within the Republican party than I realized. Truthfully, partisanship can't hold up anything if he can manage to at least get the support of his own party. Republicans control the House, Senate, Judiciary, and the Presidency and there are no effective brakes on Republican power except in circumstances when there isn't partisainship.

The truth is John Bolton is as bad an appointment for UN ambassador imaginable and lots of Republicans know it and refuse to truck this kind of foolishness. John Bolton is an angry shoe-pounder-type that by most accounts is abusive as a manager and a devottee of self-promotion. Not only that, but he is a seasoned UN hater and seems to have lied about WMDs to please his boss (affectionately known as *ss-kissing, brown-nosing, or ring-kissing). His immoral conduct seems to have been greatly appreciated by said boss.

After reflection then, I became happy and hopeful for my country again. Sure, for a while we'll have an ogre at the UN that is brash, brown-nosed, and likely widely disrespected at a time we could use a few allies, but nothing underscores the President's pigheaded and marginal status like this appointment. It also illustrates his lying abilities quite clearly to the rest of the world. Remember that trip he made to Europe recently when he told everyone he was ready to work with the world community? One can now classify such sentiments as another pack of lies.

So, my anger turned to cheerfulness. The President, it seems, is a lame duck clinging to stubborness and stupidity like a life-raft. Let us hope the current carries him swiftly into the history books where he is likely to be remembered as an abject failure as a leader on international and domestic issues, kinda like Harding.


Bolton details

The worms crawl in...

It is all too easy to ignore the implication of the following two sentences as we hustle and bustle about our daily routines:

1. All human beings must die.
2. I am a human being.

No matter how good you eat or what diet you follow you will die.

No matter how much you exercise you will die.

No matter how much you attend church you will die.

No matter how carefully you monitor your blood pressure you will die.

No matter how dutifully you shun danger you will die.

No matter how much money you save you will die.

No matter how much insurance you have you will die.

So will everyone that you know.

So will everyone that they know.

And all of their collective pets too.

Death is inescapable and it is an uncomfortable fact that we hide from in many different ways. We dismiss it "it is nothing". We deny it "there is an afterlife". We use intellectual diversion in the form of paradox to address it without addressing it. We have complicated estate planning and burial rituals, but we don't spend time pondering what it really means to die.

What does my death mean to me? Should I expect the time-period after my death to be just like the time period before my birth? What is the experience of nothing like?

1,788 US soldiers have a concrete answer to this most philosophical of questions thanks to the war in Iraq, which came courtesy of Republican leadership.

You hear these numbers bandied about and you lose track of the fact that death for even one person is a momentous thing. It's a pity that so many young lives are being ended for such an unjust cause as the ill-gotten war in Iraq.

Imagine facing this greatest of all questions, "to be or not to be" at such a young age.

Republicans were once uniters

Josh Marshall in this excellent post suggests that, battling those responsible for the recent atrocity in London is made more difficult by our presence in Iraq. This paragraph illustrates the tone:

But with respect to the folks who want to lasso this into a pillar of support for a disastrous policy in Iraq, frankly, we already knew terrorism was real. Most people are sick to death of our bumbling in Iraq because it's distracted us from actually defending ourselves.

I would like to add to the discussion that it is time for we Americans to unite against our common enemies, both with each other and with the world community. Recognizing that Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland share the same threat ought to mean that we can all work together to fight religious fundamentalism wherever it takes hold (whether at home or abroad).

For five years now President Bush has been dividing Americans and uniting our enemies and this latest tragedy in London ought to be enough to make him call a truce and work with Harry Reid and John Kerry to make America stronger. As Abraham Lincoln once said, A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Spurning allies

I've always been puzzled by the Republican failure to reach out to liberals in the aftermath of 911. This is because liberals hate everything about the Jihadis and would make a natural ally against them.

Consider:

Liberals fight for freedom of speech through the courts, through street protests, and through exercising their rights. Islamic Jihadis aren't interested in free speech for anyone but themselves.

Liberals fight for gender equality. Islamic Jihadis want women to cover, cower, and conform.

Liberals fight for religious tolerance, yet Islamic Jihadis promote a totalitarian faith that murders non-subscribers.

Liberals believe in expansive personal freedom, and that these freedoms are America's strength. Islamic Jihadis are opposed to the very principle of a self-guided life that pursues happiness.


Consider again:

When Al Quaeda attacked London and New York it attacked two very liberal cities. They didn't attack, for instance, a southern city widely known for it's racism and cultural conservatism.

Reconsider that:

If Al Quaeda "can't stand freedom" and attacked New York and London it must be because they associate freedom with liberal politics.


I simply cannot understand why Republicans have spent so much of their time attacking liberals recently. They are dividing their allies at home as effectively as their allies abroad.

Wild speculation on the leak

One of the things that confuses me about the Valerie Plame affair is why Judith Miller of the New York Times went to jail and Matt Cooper of Time didn't.

Matt Cooper says that his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, which I believe. What I wonder is why didn't Judith's source release her from confidentiality.

Here are a few different explanations (all wildly speculative):

1. Judith's source is not the same as Matt's source, and hers is not someone that can be outed (like Vice President Cheney or Condi Rice) without great embarrassment.

2. Judith and her source discussed something more damning to the Bush administration than Matt's source (like everyone was lying about WMD).

3. "No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court".

4. Matt Cooper was scared and lying.

5. Matt Cooper's source seems to be Karl Rove. It could be that he has maintained enough principle not to send someone else to jail on his own behalf.

Isn't this fun?

Charles Evers, Republican.

Here is a fascinating perspective. Charles Evers is a black man from Mississippi that is in the Republican party. I don't know what to make of a man that loved Clinton but voted Republican anyway because he supported his party. It seems to me like that attitude puts America second.

But he is a very interesting person and his views deserve attention.

President Bush Doesn't Speak For Me

Ooops

Point:

"We will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators"

- Vice President Dick Cheney -

Counterpoint:

Ongoing terror in Iraq

New Clear Threat

Here is a report which might change your opinion of the effectiveness of the Bush administration when it comes to stemming the tide of WMD, that is if you hold the opinion that he is tough and competent:

Nook You Lar

Not again

The BBC is reporting that three small blasts went off in London, although there seems to be confusion about the severity of this recent attack:

Tube cleared after small blasts

It's enough to make you think the US should focus some attention on al Quaeda, rather than stirring up more trouble in Iraq.

Spooky

We all know what Republican spinsters think about the Valerie Plame leak (i.e. gutter politics trump national security). What we need to focus on, though, is what CIA people think of it.

Here is a letter written by 11 of them, and we should all thank Josh Marshall for providing this on his blog:

Leak is spooky


Luckily for American security, polls indicate Republicans are willing to buck the party line on this one. I have culled a few points for your perusal below, but I suggest you read the entire memo and let it sink in.

"we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation'’s security."

We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.

Here, too, is a recent article written by Ray McGovern of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

Rove or America?


Does it look to you like the folks at the CIA are as complacent about the Rove/Libby leak as all the President's men?

CIA agents literally die for our freedom and it disgusts me that anybody would defend the actions of Rove or Scooter Libby after what they have done. You do not share this type of information with anyone unauthorized to receive it EVER, and particularly not the press!

A friend of Valerie Plame

An associate of Valerie Plame blogs about her here:

What's Valerie like, anyway?

All the same to you?

In October 2001 who said,

"it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk."?

Answer here

In October of 2003, who said,

"If anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration."?

Answer here

Who now says they will

"fire any aid that committed a crime (in the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity)"?

Answer here

Is it all the same to you, or does it sound like the walk don't match the talk?


In related news, here is a poll which shows that only 25% of the respondents felt that the Bush administration was cooperating with the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.

You don't get those kinds of numbers without some solid bipartisan mistrust.

All work and no pay

I rarely shop at Walmart because I don't like the way they treat their employees. I consider my choice an opting-out of the process that is destroying the American dream for future generations.

Costco, though, has a different story. If you have one near you, shopping there will support this kind of business climate:

the Anti-Wal-Mart


Read those wall street analyst pieces of advice carefully. They sound closed-minded and ideologically driven to me. That is, when faced with facts contrary to their opinions their thinking ought to change, but they instead seem intent on sinking a rising ship.

No wonder hard-working people have such a hard time finding work that pays a living wage!

Good for Mr. Sinegal for rebuffing their efforts. I suppose he can feel vindicated with stock options that are worth $150 million dollars and managing a company whose sales went from zero to $3 billion in less than six years.

If you don't have one near you, then you can always shop on-line here: Costco

What kind of society do you want to live in, dog eat dog or neighbor helping neighbor?

The choices you make matter.

Beating about the Bush

One thing I like about Noam Chomsky is his use of language, which is hardly surprising since he is by trade an MIT linguist. Be that as it may, when he verbally assaults someone it is with direct blows to the face.

Take this article, for instance, called It's imperialism, stupid

However, in American journalistic circles they'd rather give voice to people like Mike Savage, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and their troupe.

Perhaps that is where blogs should come in? Perhaps blogs should amplify the voice of the qualified expert instead of the ignoble Savage?

That's my view anyway. Enjoy.

Anchors away!

I believe that fighting for justice ought to be the cause célèbre of democrats (whether social justice, Constitutional justice, individual justice, or fairness issues). As such it is absolutely essential that democrats attack Karl Rove and George W. Bush on the Valerie Plame leak. Not to do so is to become what voters consider bad democrats, that is, "one that doesn't stand for anything". What voters mean when they say that is a democrat that doesn't fight for justice.

Howard Dean is not that type of democrat. When he sees corruption (perhaps even treason in this case) he does the right thing and calls the Bush administration to task. Now, if he can use the language of justice (fairplay, common security, moral behavior, and so on) then he'd be cooking with gas:

Howard Dean agrees with George Bush (H.W. that is)

In Karl Rove's case I guarantee that many prominent Republicans will not defend him. When you burn as many bridges as Mr. Rove did, you find yourself stranded.

Load for bear, or perhaps even elephant Mr. Reid, and press, press, press this issue until the Bush administration has to talk about it.

And you, Mr. John Kerry, your very presence serves to remind people what a loathsome character Karl Rove is. Remind voters how he was not below maligning your service to America, or John McCain's either, then link that with his outing of a CIA agent. It's all well and good to target a politician, even one that was a prisoner of war and a hero by most peoples standards, but it is another thing entirely to expose a covert officers identity during wartime. That is politics taken too far. That is extremism.

It should be pointed out that this line of attack is perfect before the expected nomination of a radical judge.

The American people can understand this leak business and can see the depravity of the situation. What they need to see now is Democrats doing something about it.

In the words of James Carville, "If your opponent is drowning throw him an anchor".

Click for but one example 

Britain's brave Brits

Here is an article by John Simpson (a BBC world affairs editor) which illustrates the British approach to dealing with terrorist attacks. It requires extraordinary commitment to New Hampshire's motto "Live free or die":

London bombs need calm response

By contrast, American conservatives seem to believe that to defeat terrorism we need warfare, and one global in scope at that. I'm not sure upon what data they have drawn this conclusion, but it seems awful dear to them. That's too bad, because on Clinton's watch police action caught those responsible for bombing the world trade center without any privacy-invading Patriot act.

ADDENDUM: Here is a site which shows what British are made of.

What kind of man is Joseph Wilson?

While the tempest storms around Karl Rove, a man that smeared both John Kerry's and John McCain's service records, and a man that started a false whispering campaign about Anne Richards being a lesbian, it is important to realize that this is the type of person President Bush surrounds himself with.

The type of person that President Bush or his staff has punished is someone like Joseph Wilson.

What type of person is Joseph Wilson?

While ambassador of the US in Iraq in 1990 he was protecting Americans in the embassy there. Saddam Hussein told him that he needed to "register" the guests or face execution. Here is a description of his response in his own words

One of these briefings took place on September 20, 1990. The Iraqis had circulated a diplomatic note to all embassies directing them to register citizens in their care with the appropriate authorities. Capital punishment was threatened for those who failed to comply, the implication being that even diplomatic personnel could be subject to this decree. However, registration could be accomplished only by personal appearance at the appropriate office, and our experience had been that Americans appearing were taken hostage. It was clearly a way for the Iraqis to replenish their stock of hostages. The choice, theoretically, was either to turn over Americans or to defy the note and risk execution.

I thought this was a tailor-made opportunity to confront the authorities over their increasingly draconian measures. I decided to give copies of the note to the press attending the briefing that morning, and then, to underscore the threat of execution, I asked the Marine security guard to fashion a hangman’s noose for me to wear. I wanted to make the point that faced with the choice of sacrificing Americans under my protection or suffering capital punishment, my response to Saddam was if he wants to execute me for keeping Americans from being taken hostage, I will bring my own f---ing rope, as I told the reporters that morning.

Excerpted from "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity," by Joseph Wilson.

Which type of person would you rather have bending the President's ear, Rove or Wilson?

Which person is more loyal to America, one that would die to protect Americans, or one that would endager an American CIA operative?

Any cattle with that hat Mr. President?

Scott McClellan, speaking for the Whitehouse on October 6, 2003 said, "If anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration."

You can watch President Bush and Scott McClellan both talk tough here: tah-dah

Will there be some tough action to back up the tough talking, or will the President lie to the American people again on matters of national security?

If you want to add your name to a call to fire Karl Rove then all you have to do is click this link Fire Rove.

Plame-leaker on ropes?

George HW Bush once called the type of person that exposed an under-cover CIA agent "the lowest form of traitor". His strong conviction led him to lobby for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Now, it appears that Karl Rove is involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame:

Traitor Rove?


While the press wonders if Karl Rove will have to "step down", he could be in for a lot more hot water than that (if George HW Bush has his way?), since the leak was made during a time of war.

See the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

This is serious stuff and I'm more than normally glad my name isn't Karl Rove this morning.

Also one wonders why a person like Rove even had knowledge of CIA affairs to begin with. Isn't the person that told Rove about this guilty of dispensing classified information about the identity of an undercover agent?

And finally, if Rove is guilty and charged it couldn't happen to a more deserving character. I don't expect too many people to go out on a limb for him.

ADDENDUM:

I think the media is beginning to tire of being played for patsies by the Bush administration and this story coalesces their ire directed Rove's way. My favorite quote is this one:

Under the best case scenario, if Rove's conversations about Joseph Wilson's wife were not technically illegal, we still have the president's top political aide covering up a White House lie by smearing an opponent, going after his wife, and in the process 'accidentally' exposing an undercover CIA agent. For the White House, that's the best case scenario.


Full article

Curiously the article ends far off course and winds up with a GOP slam of Hillary Clinton, so there is something for everyone here. I suppose Howard Kurtz considers it fair-and-balanced to repeat Hillary-bashing because Karl Rove was caught with his pants down. I don't. I consider it an attempt to equate treason with joking that the president acts like Alfred E. Newman, or to paint Democrats concern that there is a traitor in the White House as somehow partisan.

But hey, why quibble when the press is starting to do an adult job of it's job, which is to question authority for the people.

ADDENDUM 2

My favorite quote regarding Mr. Rove has already been usurped by the Bull Moose blogger (Marshall Whitman). It is this:

Short of a criminal indictment, Rove will remain in place. For Bush to get rid of Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.

In worse shape

Time magazine has a new article called:

Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe

I think that when enough of our troops die that Americans will begin to realize they've been bamboozled by Bush into giving up their children for an ill-gotten war that made them less safe, but until then it is a perverse wait.

On one side of the scale there is the steady, bald-faced lying campaign waged by the Bush administration that is ever-more defensive. Also there are the constant distractions provided by T.V. like shark attacks, hurricanes, celebrity exploits, and "reality" programs.

On the other side of the scale there are dead Iraqi and American GI bodies piling up. Also the number of global terrorist attacks are increasing. Our debt, mostly funded by communist China, is piling up.

Sooner or later miss Justice's scale is going to tip against the Bush administration and all that is required is to wait, but like I said it is a perverse wait.

Here's an idea

I am not really ready to write about the London bombings yet. An event like that needs to seep into my mind before I can send anything out.

However, while watching the Harry Potter euphoria bubble inflate it struck me that J.K. Rowling ought to release The Half Blood Prince in London this week.

They've had a bad week in London and this could be just the thing (a fairytale!) to help them through a rough time.

It would be a small gesture, really, but wouldn't it be a nice treat for the children of the Union Jack?

Iraq and Iran team up

Iraq and Iran have signed a military agreement:

Details here...

Is this according to plan, or is it an end result of poor judgement?

I guess the latter.

Egyptian diplomat murdered

One June 22nd US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said she hoped "Arab nations would send ambassadors to Baghdad and generally upgrade their diplomatic missions to show support for the Shiite-dominated government."

Source

On July 7th, 2005 the Egyptian foregin ministry confirmed that Egypt's top envoy to Iraq has been executed:

Story

I wonder if Ihab el-Sherif's presence in Iraq had anything to do with Ms. Rice's request?

Bombs explode in London

Bombs are most likely the cause for explosions that damaged at least one of London's iconic double-decker buses and an Underground subway:

Breaking news...

London police caution that it is too early to tell what/who is responsible for the blasts.

ADDENDUM

DEBKAfile reports that Al Quaeda is responsible for the explosions:

Story here...

Paul flippin' Harvey

I grew up hearing the voice of Paul Harvey on the radio. He'd make observations kind of the way Andy Rooney does on 60 minutes and was sandwiched between radio auctions and ballroom music. His signature line is, "and now, the rest of the story..."

Well, recently Mr. Harvey surprised listeners by sounding more like Anne Coulter and calling for more American brutality in our foreign policy.

Here's what he said

I find it troubling whenever anyone apes for more violence, more nukes, and more biological warfare, or else equates petulance with good foreign policy. This Cain-inspired, fear-motivated, apocalypse cheerleading is extraordinarily harmful to humanity.

Must we perish together as fools?

Click picture to learn more 

Live 8

After posting about the association between Democrats and Justice I came across this quote from Bono at the Live 8 concert in London. While Bono is not to my knowledge a Democrat his language exemplifies what a Democrat should sound like:

"So this is our moment. This is our time. This is our chance to stand up for what's right. We're not looking for charity, we're looking for justice. We cannot fix every problem, but the ones we can, we must."

- Bono -

Wouldn't you rather hear this simple, hopeful, inspiring language from Democrats?

Democrats in a word

A popular Conservative view holds that liberal politics is the result of the guilt of privilege. Thinking about this for a while allowed me to see that there is a sliver of truth in that notion, but that it really misses the mark. Furthermore, the mark is important because it allows Democrats to see who they are and why they are here.

The guilt, you see, stems from a longing for justice, and in the case of privileged Democrats the longing is for economic justice. There is nothing to be ashamed of there, unless you consider the teachings of Jesus Christ unethical.

Then, the big picture started to hit me:

Black people support Democrats because they are interested in social justice.

Unions seek economic justice ala the rich Democrats but from the vantage point of the bottom of the barrel.

Trial Lawyers are looking for criminal justice.

What Democrats stand for, then, is breathed in a word: Justice.

So, get out there and start talking about social justice, and criminal justice, and economic justice, and level playing fields, and equal protection under the law, since that is speaking from the heart of a Democrat.

Stay the mistakes?

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when we execute the 21-year-old cousin of Iraq's ambassador to the UN?

Smile on your brother

Is a traitor about to be exposed?

How ironic would it be if a law promoted by George HW Bush, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was used to prosecute a member of Jr's administration for exposing Valerie Plame as a covert intelligence agent?

That possibility may be closer to reality as TIME Inc. has decided to release confidential sources in the case:

Norman Pearlstine says...

Of course TIME wouldn't be in this position if Jr. had the ethics to demand the name of the leaker from his cabinet, but the President likes to take toughness only so far as talk.