I am a recent blogger. I started in the last six months. I have been reading blogs since they first started showing up. Before I started a blog, I responded to some (still do of course). But before I started blogging, I started writing to the editorial page on my local daily.
I am a private person. Completely introvert. On the Myers-Briggs scale I peg the INFP rating in the INP categories. The F cat being a sex influenced one I out F many if not most females (hint: I am male). So anyway – understand: me <> spotlight. You can look it up INFP
I started writing to the editor on a certain date. Don’t recall it offhand but I can tell you what got to me. It was Abu Graib. It wasn’t what specifically happened AT Abu Graib that did it. I was disgusted by it. At the time it was a hint that it was official policy to allow torture and that pushed me into the ozone. But I didn’t write.
No, what got me was the fact that a grunt came forward to report it. He had to fight his chain of command. To my consternation I can’t find the soldier’s name. HE DESERVES A FREAKIN’ MEDAL. As I recall the guy was being vilified by the Right Wing Noise Machine for being a rat. The Abu Graib shit wasn’t as bad as all that they said. Rush equated it to frat house hijinx. That got to me.
My first letter to the editor said that the guy was a hero. I never dreamed at the time that MY AMERICA would fall so low. It has become a country that condones torture despite its own laws (but then I guess that is true of most of our brethren torturing countries).
I got a call at home after that letter was printed commending me on writing it.
I rarely read the letters to the editor in a newspaper. That is still true. I was surprised that someone did and felt strongly enough to let me know.
Since that time I have written many letters. The Bush Administration provides a wealth of material that will grate on a citizen’s conscience enough to get him to write. I did and do.
You should too.
I sometimes get stopped and told by people how much they appreciate my letters. I have even been commended on my “courage” for writing them. And I guess that is my point.
We have come to a point in our history when it is thought that merely stating one’s opinion on an editorial page is an act of courage. That is sad. I can attest that it isn’t true but I can understand how the poison in our political climate can make it appear so. I don’t know what I would do if real police came for people who wrote letters to the editor (I mean real police not those sent by Bill O’Reilly ).
So, my point – blog if you want but write letters. That is where you live. You will get people who disagree with you but you will get if not more then at least some people that agree. You become the voice for the voiceless and maybe more importantly you add to the critical mass of opinion where it counts – locally. It is only where we live that we can really change anything and we have to win our own backyard before we can wing the nation back.
So write dammit. Ok?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
We write letters
Below is the text of my most recent letter to the editor of my local daily. Not to be sanctimonious but are you writing to your local paper too?
We can read and blog all we want but really the bogosphere is largely a closed universe. Sure it leaks into the real world - like in the Dan Rather dustup. But not always. Will anyone in the real world hear about the Washington Post blog fiasco in hiring a serial plagerist as a conservative balance to Dan Froomkin? I'll kill the suspense -no.
So anyway, what I'm saying is. if you want to change something, change Main Street. And still the only way to do that is to do it locally. OK end of sermon. I'll have more to say about it. Here's the letter:
Mr. President, Iraq is George Bush’s War. Make no mistake. Despite the various rationales for starting this war: The central front on the war on terror; The march of democracy in the world; WMD; Oil; 9/11 – all of which (except maybe for oil) have been shown to be pipedreams, lies, or hallucinations- this is your war of choice, George Bush’s war.
At your most recent news conference you said that getting troops out of Iraq was for “future presidents” to decide (I noted the plural - presidents).
No, Mr. President. No, Mr. Commander-In-Chief-Because-I-Said-So. No.
Iraq is your war. It is the war of choice that you decided to wage. It is the war for which you decided that no lie was too egregious, that no callousness in calling dissenters of your plans traitors was too extreme, that no manipulation of the bogus color coded “terrorist alert” index was too spurious, that no national security leak to get back at your critics was too damaging to actual national security.
You recall that you told us how important it is for you to make the hard decisions. Amidst all your lies about Iraq, your lie about preserving and protecting the Constitution, you may recall how you said you struggled to make the decisions that you make. “It’s hard work.” Yes, you told us.
Well Mr. President, you must struggle a bit more.
Iraq is your war.
Over two thousand American soldiers in Iraq have been killed in your name. Many more Americans have been maimed in your name. You have crushed the lives of thousands of American families beyond that in your perverse need to pursue a war of lies by using America’s part time soldiers for full time combat three times over.
And you are exactly one international crisis from destroying our armed services outright.
Mr. President, Iraq is your failure, a failure that is your legacy to the American people and to history as surely as the crushing deficit that you will leave to generations is.
It is not up to “future presidents” to get American soldiers out of Iraq. What makes you think future American presidents will want to be known as the President That Lost Iraq? No, it is up to one President George W. Bush to get the American soldiers out of Iraq.
I know that you don’t want to do it – to admit that you have visited a disaster upon our nation and the world. I know too that the Congress will not make you do it. The rubber-stamp House and Senate leadership is too corrupt and too busy helping you dismantle what remains of our Constitutional government after all. And the members in Congress in both parties who refuse to hold you to account are equally culpable in allowing you to continue your assault on our nation’s well being.
But, Mr. President, this cup cannot be taken from your hand. The Iraq War is your war. Only you can honorably bring our American soldiers home.
We can read and blog all we want but really the bogosphere is largely a closed universe. Sure it leaks into the real world - like in the Dan Rather dustup. But not always. Will anyone in the real world hear about the Washington Post blog fiasco in hiring a serial plagerist as a conservative balance to Dan Froomkin? I'll kill the suspense -no.
So anyway, what I'm saying is. if you want to change something, change Main Street. And still the only way to do that is to do it locally. OK end of sermon. I'll have more to say about it. Here's the letter:
Mr. President, Iraq is George Bush’s War. Make no mistake. Despite the various rationales for starting this war: The central front on the war on terror; The march of democracy in the world; WMD; Oil; 9/11 – all of which (except maybe for oil) have been shown to be pipedreams, lies, or hallucinations- this is your war of choice, George Bush’s war.
At your most recent news conference you said that getting troops out of Iraq was for “future presidents” to decide (I noted the plural - presidents).
No, Mr. President. No, Mr. Commander-In-Chief-Because-I-Said-So. No.
Iraq is your war. It is the war of choice that you decided to wage. It is the war for which you decided that no lie was too egregious, that no callousness in calling dissenters of your plans traitors was too extreme, that no manipulation of the bogus color coded “terrorist alert” index was too spurious, that no national security leak to get back at your critics was too damaging to actual national security.
You recall that you told us how important it is for you to make the hard decisions. Amidst all your lies about Iraq, your lie about preserving and protecting the Constitution, you may recall how you said you struggled to make the decisions that you make. “It’s hard work.” Yes, you told us.
Well Mr. President, you must struggle a bit more.
Iraq is your war.
Over two thousand American soldiers in Iraq have been killed in your name. Many more Americans have been maimed in your name. You have crushed the lives of thousands of American families beyond that in your perverse need to pursue a war of lies by using America’s part time soldiers for full time combat three times over.
And you are exactly one international crisis from destroying our armed services outright.
Mr. President, Iraq is your failure, a failure that is your legacy to the American people and to history as surely as the crushing deficit that you will leave to generations is.
It is not up to “future presidents” to get American soldiers out of Iraq. What makes you think future American presidents will want to be known as the President That Lost Iraq? No, it is up to one President George W. Bush to get the American soldiers out of Iraq.
I know that you don’t want to do it – to admit that you have visited a disaster upon our nation and the world. I know too that the Congress will not make you do it. The rubber-stamp House and Senate leadership is too corrupt and too busy helping you dismantle what remains of our Constitutional government after all. And the members in Congress in both parties who refuse to hold you to account are equally culpable in allowing you to continue your assault on our nation’s well being.
But, Mr. President, this cup cannot be taken from your hand. The Iraq War is your war. Only you can honorably bring our American soldiers home.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger - for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger - for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger. It’s for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Implosion ain't pretty
Maybe it is just that it is spring. Maybe it is because we are now one quarter way into an election year. Maybe the American people have finally had enough of the Bush bullshit: malfeasance, incompetence, lies and his rubber stamp Congress.
Maybe it is none of those things but it seems Russ Feingold’s motion to censure the war criminal in chief is causing the collective head of the Washington wise guys to explode. It took a while. At first it was ignored, then the rubber stamp leadership in Congress brought out the blowtorches. Then we had the spectacle of the Democrats in the Senate surrendering before the battle was joined (so far it sounds like business as usual). But before the Democrats could round themselves up and send themselves to a re-education camp something extraordinary happened.
The polls that show that Americans are willing to consider censuring Bush over his illegal and unconstitutional habits (just as they are willing to consider impeachment for same) started to seep into the consciousness of the pros in Washington.
The seepage maybe was aided by Bush’s favorability ratings tanking yet again. But whatever. The meme is taking hold. Not that I expect that there will be a real up-or-down vote to censure Bush in the Senate. What it will do though is more effective if not as satisfying.
When the issue of warrantless domestic spying starts to fade, Feingold gives it new life. And he did it just as the Republican rubber stamp was crafting a bill to make the illegal activity legal – I guess you could call it the Bush exemption. And on top of that is the just breaking news that says that operatives didn’t just wiretap but may have in fact illegally physically searched not only those that were the “targets” (Peace Groups) but the target’s lawyers office’s. Shades of Watergate.
And now Republican Washington has a problem. Despite their rubber-stamping habits, the Republican Party needs desperately to distance itself from Bush. His numbers are falling faster than he does riding his bicycle. Americans have decided that they really don’t like this man. They don’t believe him. And after 3 years in Iraq (going on forever) and the Katrina disaster they wouldn’t trust him with the responsibility of feeding their gold fish without proper supervision. Republicans must start deserting the ship – and soon but they can’t completely look like rats doing it.
Then along comes Feingold whose motion to censure turns Bush into a tar baby. If you are a Republican up for re-election do you stand by the president the leader of your party who even your constituents use words like “idiot” and “incompetent” to describe him? Or do you run as fast as you can, knowing that the way this White House operates you are going to get hacked to pieces in the right wing noise machine.
As W. has said – It’s hard.
Meanwhile Bush has decided that a pre-emptive strike on his legacy is all that matters. Debt and an economy that is rending the nation into a two-class society (very very rich and everybody else), a health system that is collapsing almost as fast as Iraq and oh yes Iraq – not to mention a military that is likely broken for at least a decade, a foreign policy whose disarray would make a Pollack painting seem organized and a Constitution in shreds all need spinning so that he can tell historians what to think about the facts he is leaving behind.
And spin he has decided to do. In the name of drumming up support for his Iraq albatross he has actually taken questions from real people and real reporters in two consecutive days. That shows you how afraid he is that his presidential library fund may be in jeopardy. Because he has no intention of placing anything he might have heard into his own thinking (I use that term in its biological sense). And he has every intention of placing all the domestic blame on Congress (that would be the rubber stamp Republicans) and defer as much Iraq blame as possible.
Good old George. A slacker from the start. He knows how to get a passing grade from the prof when he is failing. He has no doubt had much practice. And now he is trying to do it again as his administration sinks into the scum that is the government he has created.
Maybe it is none of those things but it seems Russ Feingold’s motion to censure the war criminal in chief is causing the collective head of the Washington wise guys to explode. It took a while. At first it was ignored, then the rubber stamp leadership in Congress brought out the blowtorches. Then we had the spectacle of the Democrats in the Senate surrendering before the battle was joined (so far it sounds like business as usual). But before the Democrats could round themselves up and send themselves to a re-education camp something extraordinary happened.
The polls that show that Americans are willing to consider censuring Bush over his illegal and unconstitutional habits (just as they are willing to consider impeachment for same) started to seep into the consciousness of the pros in Washington.
The seepage maybe was aided by Bush’s favorability ratings tanking yet again. But whatever. The meme is taking hold. Not that I expect that there will be a real up-or-down vote to censure Bush in the Senate. What it will do though is more effective if not as satisfying.
When the issue of warrantless domestic spying starts to fade, Feingold gives it new life. And he did it just as the Republican rubber stamp was crafting a bill to make the illegal activity legal – I guess you could call it the Bush exemption. And on top of that is the just breaking news that says that operatives didn’t just wiretap but may have in fact illegally physically searched not only those that were the “targets” (Peace Groups) but the target’s lawyers office’s. Shades of Watergate.
And now Republican Washington has a problem. Despite their rubber-stamping habits, the Republican Party needs desperately to distance itself from Bush. His numbers are falling faster than he does riding his bicycle. Americans have decided that they really don’t like this man. They don’t believe him. And after 3 years in Iraq (going on forever) and the Katrina disaster they wouldn’t trust him with the responsibility of feeding their gold fish without proper supervision. Republicans must start deserting the ship – and soon but they can’t completely look like rats doing it.
Then along comes Feingold whose motion to censure turns Bush into a tar baby. If you are a Republican up for re-election do you stand by the president the leader of your party who even your constituents use words like “idiot” and “incompetent” to describe him? Or do you run as fast as you can, knowing that the way this White House operates you are going to get hacked to pieces in the right wing noise machine.
As W. has said – It’s hard.
Meanwhile Bush has decided that a pre-emptive strike on his legacy is all that matters. Debt and an economy that is rending the nation into a two-class society (very very rich and everybody else), a health system that is collapsing almost as fast as Iraq and oh yes Iraq – not to mention a military that is likely broken for at least a decade, a foreign policy whose disarray would make a Pollack painting seem organized and a Constitution in shreds all need spinning so that he can tell historians what to think about the facts he is leaving behind.
And spin he has decided to do. In the name of drumming up support for his Iraq albatross he has actually taken questions from real people and real reporters in two consecutive days. That shows you how afraid he is that his presidential library fund may be in jeopardy. Because he has no intention of placing anything he might have heard into his own thinking (I use that term in its biological sense). And he has every intention of placing all the domestic blame on Congress (that would be the rubber stamp Republicans) and defer as much Iraq blame as possible.
Good old George. A slacker from the start. He knows how to get a passing grade from the prof when he is failing. He has no doubt had much practice. And now he is trying to do it again as his administration sinks into the scum that is the government he has created.
Monday, March 06, 2006
no nuke race in south asia?
Sometimes I just have to wonder how much oxycontin W and friends are taking. That has to be the only explanation for this: US insists India nuclear deal will not spark arms race . Really what are they thinking? Are they thinking in any meaningful definition of that word?
Last year The Atlantic published a multipart series by the insanely anal William Langewiesche (I mean that in a good way. He is/was a pilot and like all the pilots I have known he shares an obsession with detail that despite how much air travel sucks makes me feel good that people like him are driving).
Langewiesche documents the rise of A. Q. Khan the Father of Pakistan's Nuke. That is not too much to say. Pakistan honors him as such. Like a George Washington of megatonnage.
Langewiesche's article produces this one quote which puts the lie to the Bush pollyanna insanity and points the way for the next two decades in South Asia. Here it is - sadly subscription required - go to the library and read it (The Wrath of Khan) if you must.
"Bhutto, who was then the foreign minister, uttered the now famous remark that Pakistanis would eat grass if necessary, but they would have their bomb."
Thanks to Khan, Pakistan has its bomb. Khan and Pakistan helped North Korea, Iran, and Libya in their pursuit of a nuke. Today Khan is under house detention. Off limits to not only the IAEA but to Musharef's allies in the War on Terror - the US.
And now George Bush has insanely given India - whose success in developing a nuke was the entire reason that Pakistan felt it too must have an "Islamic" (that's how Pakistan got the money for it) bomb - the green light to build as many bombs as it wishes.
Please someone anyone tell me what the fuck is George Bush thinking? How can this development lead to anything other than a more intensive nuke race between India and Pakistan? The arms race between these two countries has been ongoing since the partition of Pakistan from India. The nuke race was an organic outgrowth.
Now George Bush has told India it is ok for them to openly build nukes. But not Pakistan. What does any sentient being expect Pakistan's response to be? What would your response be? (The issue of how George Bush has the international authority to even grant such a right is an open question.)
I have political and philosophical difference with the Bush junta on every issue - but this one has me phlummoxed like no other.
Granted Bush desperately wants India as an economic partner (India was famously non-aligned during the cold war). For what reason Bush sees good things coming economically from India eludes me seeing that so far India seems to be absorbing U.S jobs like a sponge. And has no discernable market for America's all but phantom manufactured goods (nuclear technology excepted). But ok globalization is good. I can suspend my disbelief.
And I can understand the Bush wants India as a bulwark in Asia against China.
But Pakistan's dictator Musharef is a great friend of democracy - just not in Pakistan - and of the United States (kinda/sorta) in the war against terror. What meaningful sanctions are going to be placed on Pakistan when they seek parity with India? We can't even get Musharef to turn over Mullah Omar, nevermind Osama Bin Laden.
The next major catastrophic Asian conflict is not going to be in Asia proper. It is going to be in South Asia. India and Pakistan will once again skirmish. Both have nukes now. Soon, thanks to George Bush both will have more nukes and India has the green light to build them; Pakistan will be desperate to build them and they no longer have to steal the technology to do so.
I have said this before but now it is more pertinent than ever: God have mercy on George Bush's soul. He has condemned South Asia to a holocaust.
Last year The Atlantic published a multipart series by the insanely anal William Langewiesche (I mean that in a good way. He is/was a pilot and like all the pilots I have known he shares an obsession with detail that despite how much air travel sucks makes me feel good that people like him are driving).
Langewiesche documents the rise of A. Q. Khan the Father of Pakistan's Nuke. That is not too much to say. Pakistan honors him as such. Like a George Washington of megatonnage.
Langewiesche's article produces this one quote which puts the lie to the Bush pollyanna insanity and points the way for the next two decades in South Asia. Here it is - sadly subscription required - go to the library and read it (The Wrath of Khan) if you must.
"Bhutto, who was then the foreign minister, uttered the now famous remark that Pakistanis would eat grass if necessary, but they would have their bomb."
Thanks to Khan, Pakistan has its bomb. Khan and Pakistan helped North Korea, Iran, and Libya in their pursuit of a nuke. Today Khan is under house detention. Off limits to not only the IAEA but to Musharef's allies in the War on Terror - the US.
And now George Bush has insanely given India - whose success in developing a nuke was the entire reason that Pakistan felt it too must have an "Islamic" (that's how Pakistan got the money for it) bomb - the green light to build as many bombs as it wishes.
Please someone anyone tell me what the fuck is George Bush thinking? How can this development lead to anything other than a more intensive nuke race between India and Pakistan? The arms race between these two countries has been ongoing since the partition of Pakistan from India. The nuke race was an organic outgrowth.
Now George Bush has told India it is ok for them to openly build nukes. But not Pakistan. What does any sentient being expect Pakistan's response to be? What would your response be? (The issue of how George Bush has the international authority to even grant such a right is an open question.)
I have political and philosophical difference with the Bush junta on every issue - but this one has me phlummoxed like no other.
Granted Bush desperately wants India as an economic partner (India was famously non-aligned during the cold war). For what reason Bush sees good things coming economically from India eludes me seeing that so far India seems to be absorbing U.S jobs like a sponge. And has no discernable market for America's all but phantom manufactured goods (nuclear technology excepted). But ok globalization is good. I can suspend my disbelief.
And I can understand the Bush wants India as a bulwark in Asia against China.
But Pakistan's dictator Musharef is a great friend of democracy - just not in Pakistan - and of the United States (kinda/sorta) in the war against terror. What meaningful sanctions are going to be placed on Pakistan when they seek parity with India? We can't even get Musharef to turn over Mullah Omar, nevermind Osama Bin Laden.
The next major catastrophic Asian conflict is not going to be in Asia proper. It is going to be in South Asia. India and Pakistan will once again skirmish. Both have nukes now. Soon, thanks to George Bush both will have more nukes and India has the green light to build them; Pakistan will be desperate to build them and they no longer have to steal the technology to do so.
I have said this before but now it is more pertinent than ever: God have mercy on George Bush's soul. He has condemned South Asia to a holocaust.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
George Bush - failure in chief
Iraq is falling into the abyss that so many of those his machine has called traitors and un-American and terrorist coddlers said that it would. And whether their reasons were absolutist anti-war or pragmatic geo-political or straight ahead anti-Bush they are being proven right in their dissidence with each disaster.
And seemingly each day more and more of his architects ( here ) and willing executioners ( here ) are bailing out of the Bush disaster.
In a single week we have seen it once again and in its starkest turn to date. The bombing of the most sacred Shiite site in Iraq is a turning point for Iraq. The selling off of the (evidently 21 instead of the oft mentioned 6) ports in the United States to the UAE is just such a turning point in the United States.
It is a funny thing about history. There is no equivalence among various causes to their respective effects. Rome may fall and wipe out enlightened civilization for 1500 years and a butterfly may cause a hurricane. As Kurt Vonnegut famously said: "So it goes."
As dissimilar as those two events are coming as they do at this time in the Bush mal-administration indicates once more the failure that this man is capable of.
And so goes the Bush Administration. We are at last seeing the meltdown of yet another W failed-enterprise. Sadly the damage that he is doing to this nation that we love and the Constitution that we cherish-just as he has damaged Iraq-will take years to recover from.
Iraq may never again be a nation after what George Bush has done to it. America may never again be the nation it has always prided itself in being after George Bush.
For Iraq, my angst is a humanitarian one. The destruction of a society, albeit a dictatorship, condemning it to generations of civil war will cause a personal calamity for millions of people. People like us that are just trying to live their lives.
George Bush in his misguided and ultimately criminal acts has destroyed that. He thought that he could remove Saddam with a wave of the hand and everything would be all right. Despite the fact that nearly all of the responsible estimates said that was not possible.
Saddam is and was an evil prick. But to make him a trophy for a president whose only real goal was to establish for himself a Lincolnian status is criminal.
For our own nation, George Bush's intent was to achieve his Lincolnian status by solving one of modern history's big problems. Any problem would do as long as it involved war. That it would be the middle-east , we can thank Osama.
In the end George Bush shows that he has a monomaniacal desire to be called "great." For whatever reason: Oedipal syndrome; spoiled child syndrome, we may not know in our lifetime.
That he has not the intellectual tools to do the work of greatness matters not to him. Attaining those tools is not a thing that he considers necessary. He thought and still thinks that just because he has the seat of power, he has the wisdom and ability to use that power.
To George Bush the Presidency is like fairy dust. He sprinkled a bit of great president fairly dust on himself and thought he could fly among the greatest leaders that this nation has produced.
It is through George Bush's personal failings, for which he himself is ultimately criminally responsible that the American people once again (like George Bush himself) learn that greatness doesn't come with the job. Greatness begins with what you bring to the job.
It is for the American people ourselves to finally come to terms with our own hubris in allowing such a criminal as George Bush free rein to plunder in our name.
And seemingly each day more and more of his architects ( here ) and willing executioners ( here ) are bailing out of the Bush disaster.
In a single week we have seen it once again and in its starkest turn to date. The bombing of the most sacred Shiite site in Iraq is a turning point for Iraq. The selling off of the (evidently 21 instead of the oft mentioned 6) ports in the United States to the UAE is just such a turning point in the United States.
It is a funny thing about history. There is no equivalence among various causes to their respective effects. Rome may fall and wipe out enlightened civilization for 1500 years and a butterfly may cause a hurricane. As Kurt Vonnegut famously said: "So it goes."
As dissimilar as those two events are coming as they do at this time in the Bush mal-administration indicates once more the failure that this man is capable of.
And so goes the Bush Administration. We are at last seeing the meltdown of yet another W failed-enterprise. Sadly the damage that he is doing to this nation that we love and the Constitution that we cherish-just as he has damaged Iraq-will take years to recover from.
Iraq may never again be a nation after what George Bush has done to it. America may never again be the nation it has always prided itself in being after George Bush.
For Iraq, my angst is a humanitarian one. The destruction of a society, albeit a dictatorship, condemning it to generations of civil war will cause a personal calamity for millions of people. People like us that are just trying to live their lives.
George Bush in his misguided and ultimately criminal acts has destroyed that. He thought that he could remove Saddam with a wave of the hand and everything would be all right. Despite the fact that nearly all of the responsible estimates said that was not possible.
Saddam is and was an evil prick. But to make him a trophy for a president whose only real goal was to establish for himself a Lincolnian status is criminal.
For our own nation, George Bush's intent was to achieve his Lincolnian status by solving one of modern history's big problems. Any problem would do as long as it involved war. That it would be the middle-east , we can thank Osama.
In the end George Bush shows that he has a monomaniacal desire to be called "great." For whatever reason: Oedipal syndrome; spoiled child syndrome, we may not know in our lifetime.
That he has not the intellectual tools to do the work of greatness matters not to him. Attaining those tools is not a thing that he considers necessary. He thought and still thinks that just because he has the seat of power, he has the wisdom and ability to use that power.
To George Bush the Presidency is like fairy dust. He sprinkled a bit of great president fairly dust on himself and thought he could fly among the greatest leaders that this nation has produced.
It is through George Bush's personal failings, for which he himself is ultimately criminally responsible that the American people once again (like George Bush himself) learn that greatness doesn't come with the job. Greatness begins with what you bring to the job.
It is for the American people ourselves to finally come to terms with our own hubris in allowing such a criminal as George Bush free rein to plunder in our name.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Cheney Consistency
The Vice President proves that he is as careful with a shotgun as he is with national security
Cheney Shoots Pal
Cheney Shoots Pal
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Vote for Tomorrow
Honor Roll
Bayh (D-IN) Nay
Biden (D-DE) Nay
Boxer (D-CA) Nay
Clinton (D-NY) Nay
Dayton (D-MN) Nay
Dodd (D-CT) Nay
Durbin (D-IL) Nay
Feingold (D-WI) Nay
Feinstein (D-CA) Nay
Jeffords (I-VT) Nay
Kennedy (D-MA) Nay
Kerry (D-MA) Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ) Nay
Leahy (D-VT) Nay
Levin (D-MI) Nay
Menendez (D-NJ) Nay
Mikulski (D-MD) Nay
Murray (D-WA) Nay
Obama (D-IL) Nay
Reed (D-RI) Nay
Reid (D-NV) Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD) Nay
Schumer (D-NY) Nay
Stabenow (D-MI) Nay
Wyden (D-OR) Nay
Wall of Shame
Akaka (D-HI) Yea
Alexander (R-TN) Yea
Allard (R-CO) Yea
Allen (R-VA) Yea
Baucus (D-MT) Yea
Bennett (R-UT) Yea
Bingaman (D-NM) Yea
Bond (R-MO) Yea
Brownback (R-KS) Yea
Bunning (R-KY) Yea
Burns (R-MT) Yea
Burr (R-NC) Yea
Byrd (D-WV) Yea
Cantwell (D-WA) Yea
Carper (D-DE) Yea
Chafee (R-RI) Yea
Chambliss (R-GA) Yea
Coburn (R-OK) Yea
Cochran (R-MS) Yea
Coleman (R-MN) Yea
Collins (R-ME) Yea
Conrad (D-ND) Yea
Cornyn (R-TX) Yea
Craig (R-ID) Yea
Crapo (R-ID) Yea
DeMint (R-SC) Yea
DeWine (R-OH) Yea
Dole (R-NC) Yea
Domenici (R-NM) Yea
Dorgan (D-ND) Yea
Enzi (R-WY) Yea
Frist (R-TN) Yea
Graham (R-SC) Yea
Grassley (R-IA) Yea
Gregg (R-NH) Yea
Hatch (R-UT) Yea
Hutchison (R-TX) Yea
Inhofe (R-OK) Yea
Inouye (D-HI) Yea
Isakson (R-GA) Yea
Johnson (D-SD) Yea
Kohl (D-WI) Yea
Kyl (R-AZ) Yea
Landrieu (D-LA) Yea
Lieberman (D-CT) Yea
Lincoln (D-AR) Yea
Lott (R-MS) Yea
Lugar (R-IN) Yea
Martinez (R-FL) Yea
McCain (R-AZ) Yea
McConnell (R-KY) Yea
Murkowski (R-AK) Yea
Nelson (D-FL) Yea
Nelson (D-NE) Yea
Pryor (D-AR) Yea
Roberts (R-KS) Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV) Yea
Salazar (D-CO) Yea
Santorum (R-PA) Yea
Sessions (R-AL) Yea
Shelby (R-AL) Yea
Smith (R-OR) Yea
Snowe (R-ME) Yea
Specter (R-PA) Yea
Stevens (R-AK) Yea
Sununu (R-NH) Yea
Talent (R-MO) Yea
Thomas (R-WY) Yea
Thune (R-SD) Yea
Vitter (R-LA) Yea
Voinovich (R-OH) Yea
Warner (R-VA) Yea
Hedge Hogs
Ensign (R-NV) Not Voting
Hagel (R-NE) Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA) Not Voting
Bayh (D-IN) Nay
Biden (D-DE) Nay
Boxer (D-CA) Nay
Clinton (D-NY) Nay
Dayton (D-MN) Nay
Dodd (D-CT) Nay
Durbin (D-IL) Nay
Feingold (D-WI) Nay
Feinstein (D-CA) Nay
Jeffords (I-VT) Nay
Kennedy (D-MA) Nay
Kerry (D-MA) Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ) Nay
Leahy (D-VT) Nay
Levin (D-MI) Nay
Menendez (D-NJ) Nay
Mikulski (D-MD) Nay
Murray (D-WA) Nay
Obama (D-IL) Nay
Reed (D-RI) Nay
Reid (D-NV) Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD) Nay
Schumer (D-NY) Nay
Stabenow (D-MI) Nay
Wyden (D-OR) Nay
Wall of Shame
Akaka (D-HI) Yea
Alexander (R-TN) Yea
Allard (R-CO) Yea
Allen (R-VA) Yea
Baucus (D-MT) Yea
Bennett (R-UT) Yea
Bingaman (D-NM) Yea
Bond (R-MO) Yea
Brownback (R-KS) Yea
Bunning (R-KY) Yea
Burns (R-MT) Yea
Burr (R-NC) Yea
Byrd (D-WV) Yea
Cantwell (D-WA) Yea
Carper (D-DE) Yea
Chafee (R-RI) Yea
Chambliss (R-GA) Yea
Coburn (R-OK) Yea
Cochran (R-MS) Yea
Coleman (R-MN) Yea
Collins (R-ME) Yea
Conrad (D-ND) Yea
Cornyn (R-TX) Yea
Craig (R-ID) Yea
Crapo (R-ID) Yea
DeMint (R-SC) Yea
DeWine (R-OH) Yea
Dole (R-NC) Yea
Domenici (R-NM) Yea
Dorgan (D-ND) Yea
Enzi (R-WY) Yea
Frist (R-TN) Yea
Graham (R-SC) Yea
Grassley (R-IA) Yea
Gregg (R-NH) Yea
Hatch (R-UT) Yea
Hutchison (R-TX) Yea
Inhofe (R-OK) Yea
Inouye (D-HI) Yea
Isakson (R-GA) Yea
Johnson (D-SD) Yea
Kohl (D-WI) Yea
Kyl (R-AZ) Yea
Landrieu (D-LA) Yea
Lieberman (D-CT) Yea
Lincoln (D-AR) Yea
Lott (R-MS) Yea
Lugar (R-IN) Yea
Martinez (R-FL) Yea
McCain (R-AZ) Yea
McConnell (R-KY) Yea
Murkowski (R-AK) Yea
Nelson (D-FL) Yea
Nelson (D-NE) Yea
Pryor (D-AR) Yea
Roberts (R-KS) Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV) Yea
Salazar (D-CO) Yea
Santorum (R-PA) Yea
Sessions (R-AL) Yea
Shelby (R-AL) Yea
Smith (R-OR) Yea
Snowe (R-ME) Yea
Specter (R-PA) Yea
Stevens (R-AK) Yea
Sununu (R-NH) Yea
Talent (R-MO) Yea
Thomas (R-WY) Yea
Thune (R-SD) Yea
Vitter (R-LA) Yea
Voinovich (R-OH) Yea
Warner (R-VA) Yea
Hedge Hogs
Ensign (R-NV) Not Voting
Hagel (R-NE) Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA) Not Voting
What is the state of the union?
At some point during the State of the Union speech that president usually more of less explicitly declares what his opinion of the state of the union is.
In 1999 President Clinton said, “My fellow Americans, I stand before you to report that the state of our union is strong.”
In 2002 George W Bush said, “Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger.”
Of course whether the state of the union was strong in 1999 and indeed got stronger in the next 3 years, is a question for history to judge.
I wonder how the president in his fifth year is going to characterize the state of this union now in 2006. Is it stronger still? Is it strongest? Is it secure? Prosperous?
He could say any these things. He could say all of these things. And he would be lying. But then that never stopped him before.
How would you characterize it? And how do you think George Bush will?
In 1999 President Clinton said, “My fellow Americans, I stand before you to report that the state of our union is strong.”
In 2002 George W Bush said, “Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger.”
Of course whether the state of the union was strong in 1999 and indeed got stronger in the next 3 years, is a question for history to judge.
I wonder how the president in his fifth year is going to characterize the state of this union now in 2006. Is it stronger still? Is it strongest? Is it secure? Prosperous?
He could say any these things. He could say all of these things. And he would be lying. But then that never stopped him before.
How would you characterize it? And how do you think George Bush will?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The game that's fundi to play
The right wing wind machine has been working hard at forging the recent Osama tape into a weapon to bludgeon those of us on the side of truth and justice and (to be redundant) against the Bush junta.
The Bush-approved lexicon uses the word islamo-fascist to describe those of Osama’s ilk. Despite the fact that those right wingers are full of shit and know it when they accuse the left of wanting anything like Osama’s beliefs anywhere near this continent. But we still must deal with that awkward term islamo-fasctist. It isn’t that it isn’t fitting. Even though technically fascism is corporatism with a catchy name (according to the coiner Benito Mussolini), Hitler refined the concept and gave us the notion of fascism that we know today. So, in the vernacular sense islamo-fascist describes Osama pretty well.
But you know that term just doesn’t do it: Islamo-fascism. It sounds like stuff you want to get out of your mouth as quickly as possible despite the fact that you know that the thick white ooze that’s left on your chin will be wicked gross in the mirror.
So let’s instead look at what Osama believes and go from there.
For one thing he believes in the return of the Caliphate – a semi-mythical time in Islam when one person wielded both secular and religious power and spoke for God (or so he said).
And then there is Osama's belief that the Koran speaks for all situations and all times in its exact words. No interpretation. No changing with all the things God might not have mentioned because humanity didn’t know about it back in 600 A.D.
And there is his fundamental belief in the wickedness of humanity. Woman must be suppressed to control their wiles. Men are so weak they cannot be made responsible in the face of unrestrained women who are free to behave as equals with the weenie men.
So there is Osama and his followers and many others apparently in Islam who are less lethal but just as rabid in their fundamentalist beliefs. And also there is the word that best describes Osama’s approach to Islam: fundamentalist. So to abstract we have a fundamentalist fascist or to coin a term: a Fundi-fascist.
Unlike some who sling the term islamo-fascist around like so much hash, I am not anti-Islamic and the beauty of a term like Fundi-fascism is that it doesn’t describe any particular creed. What it describes is, 1: a belief in a golden age when everything was better because fundi-fascism was the defacto law of the land. 2: the scripture of the fundi-fascist’s choice is to be taken literally – more particularly that is, literally according to the fundi-fascist who is doing the interpreting, and 3: People are fundamentally (there’s that word again) weak and wicked and cannot be allowed to take responsibility for themselves.
So there we have an abstraction: fundi-fascism. For any good abstraction to be successful, it must be applicable to entities other than that which was used to derive the abstraction.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if there are other instances of this abstraction.
The Bush-approved lexicon uses the word islamo-fascist to describe those of Osama’s ilk. Despite the fact that those right wingers are full of shit and know it when they accuse the left of wanting anything like Osama’s beliefs anywhere near this continent. But we still must deal with that awkward term islamo-fasctist. It isn’t that it isn’t fitting. Even though technically fascism is corporatism with a catchy name (according to the coiner Benito Mussolini), Hitler refined the concept and gave us the notion of fascism that we know today. So, in the vernacular sense islamo-fascist describes Osama pretty well.
But you know that term just doesn’t do it: Islamo-fascism. It sounds like stuff you want to get out of your mouth as quickly as possible despite the fact that you know that the thick white ooze that’s left on your chin will be wicked gross in the mirror.
So let’s instead look at what Osama believes and go from there.
For one thing he believes in the return of the Caliphate – a semi-mythical time in Islam when one person wielded both secular and religious power and spoke for God (or so he said).
And then there is Osama's belief that the Koran speaks for all situations and all times in its exact words. No interpretation. No changing with all the things God might not have mentioned because humanity didn’t know about it back in 600 A.D.
And there is his fundamental belief in the wickedness of humanity. Woman must be suppressed to control their wiles. Men are so weak they cannot be made responsible in the face of unrestrained women who are free to behave as equals with the weenie men.
So there is Osama and his followers and many others apparently in Islam who are less lethal but just as rabid in their fundamentalist beliefs. And also there is the word that best describes Osama’s approach to Islam: fundamentalist. So to abstract we have a fundamentalist fascist or to coin a term: a Fundi-fascist.
Unlike some who sling the term islamo-fascist around like so much hash, I am not anti-Islamic and the beauty of a term like Fundi-fascism is that it doesn’t describe any particular creed. What it describes is, 1: a belief in a golden age when everything was better because fundi-fascism was the defacto law of the land. 2: the scripture of the fundi-fascist’s choice is to be taken literally – more particularly that is, literally according to the fundi-fascist who is doing the interpreting, and 3: People are fundamentally (there’s that word again) weak and wicked and cannot be allowed to take responsibility for themselves.
So there we have an abstraction: fundi-fascism. For any good abstraction to be successful, it must be applicable to entities other than that which was used to derive the abstraction.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if there are other instances of this abstraction.
Alito Vote: My Phone Message To My Senators
I live in Maine. My Senators are Snowe and Collins. Both of them are known as Republican moderates. Below is the voice mail I left with their offices. If you feel you might have any sway over your senator's vote please call (better) or email (still good) the senator's office. Feel free to use this script as a template. I spoke pretty fast because I didn't know what kind of cutoff on voicemail there would be. Both calls went through in entirety.
The message:
I am dismayed but not surprised that the Judiciary Committee has approved the Alito nomination for consideration by the full Senate.
I am asking you to oppose this nomination. I understand that it will be a difficult vote for you to oppose the combined force of your senate leadership and a president from your party.
I believe Judge Alito is the wrong person to elevate to the Cupreme Court on several counts.
One is his minimal belief in the individual rights of Americans. He eluded many questions during the hearings but his statements and decisions in the past make clear to me that he will be instrumental in rolling back our hard won liberties of the last half-century.
As minimal as his beliefs are in the individual rights of Americans, his expansive belief in the power of the executive is frankly dangerous to our republic. His notion of the unitary executive if accepted as constitutionally valid will give the president seemingly unlimited authority to do whatever he pleases. In fact it is not too strong a statement to say that if the senate does vote to elevate Judge Alito to the Supreme Court you may as well all pack up and go home because you will have effectively voted to make the senate a superfluous body.
Please you must oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
The message:
I am dismayed but not surprised that the Judiciary Committee has approved the Alito nomination for consideration by the full Senate.
I am asking you to oppose this nomination. I understand that it will be a difficult vote for you to oppose the combined force of your senate leadership and a president from your party.
I believe Judge Alito is the wrong person to elevate to the Cupreme Court on several counts.
One is his minimal belief in the individual rights of Americans. He eluded many questions during the hearings but his statements and decisions in the past make clear to me that he will be instrumental in rolling back our hard won liberties of the last half-century.
As minimal as his beliefs are in the individual rights of Americans, his expansive belief in the power of the executive is frankly dangerous to our republic. His notion of the unitary executive if accepted as constitutionally valid will give the president seemingly unlimited authority to do whatever he pleases. In fact it is not too strong a statement to say that if the senate does vote to elevate Judge Alito to the Supreme Court you may as well all pack up and go home because you will have effectively voted to make the senate a superfluous body.
Please you must oppose Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Friday, January 13, 2006
juat another good day to go shopping
Am I despondent? No. Not quite. Am I distressed over what is going on? I guess that answers itself.
I look out over what our nation could be and what our nation has become and I am distressed.
Where did all those people come from who would sacrifice their very freedoms for the blatherings of politicians?
What is it that has made our Constitution so superfluous and apparently expendable that people at every turn are willing to give it up. That is even despite the fact that the very fabric of what they enjoy in life is made possible because of that same Constitution.
We shall soon have yet another judge on Supreme Court who believes that George Bush is a quasi-King. That makes six. It took five to get W there to begin with in 2000. No that plus Alito will (I was going to say can but no it is “will”) sanction the executive depriving Habeus Corpus. Whenever he fucking wants to. It will sanction his ability to play commander in chief of the universe to torture anyone he wants, to eavesdrop on anyone he pleases. It will let him do this without requiring him to tell you that you are even a target.
Where the fuck did America go? It seems like just yesterday we were debating the nature of expanding civil rights–of realizing the potential of minorities as first class American citizens. Now in 2006 we are debating our BASIC RIGHTS AS UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
And no on cares. Your Congress certainly doesn’t care. Your President is the problem. Your Judiciary is – starting from the top – more and more in the bag to the corruption that IS GEORGE BUSH.
We as a people, as a nation, as a beacon to the world, are well and truly fucked.
So the right wing wins – America loses. And we can all go shopping.
I look out over what our nation could be and what our nation has become and I am distressed.
Where did all those people come from who would sacrifice their very freedoms for the blatherings of politicians?
What is it that has made our Constitution so superfluous and apparently expendable that people at every turn are willing to give it up. That is even despite the fact that the very fabric of what they enjoy in life is made possible because of that same Constitution.
We shall soon have yet another judge on Supreme Court who believes that George Bush is a quasi-King. That makes six. It took five to get W there to begin with in 2000. No that plus Alito will (I was going to say can but no it is “will”) sanction the executive depriving Habeus Corpus. Whenever he fucking wants to. It will sanction his ability to play commander in chief of the universe to torture anyone he wants, to eavesdrop on anyone he pleases. It will let him do this without requiring him to tell you that you are even a target.
Where the fuck did America go? It seems like just yesterday we were debating the nature of expanding civil rights–of realizing the potential of minorities as first class American citizens. Now in 2006 we are debating our BASIC RIGHTS AS UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
And no on cares. Your Congress certainly doesn’t care. Your President is the problem. Your Judiciary is – starting from the top – more and more in the bag to the corruption that IS GEORGE BUSH.
We as a people, as a nation, as a beacon to the world, are well and truly fucked.
So the right wing wins – America loses. And we can all go shopping.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
The birds - the sequel
Maybe it is just the nature of tipping points.
I was close to despair thinking whether our nation could fix itself. The headlong rush into lawlessness that is Generalissimo George’s administration, his incompetence (by any measure it is almost breathtaking), his stupid, demeaning (for the United States) swagger that signals to the world that we are a paper tiger.
The abuse is rampant. The enablers in the media are relentless. The Generalissimo’s willing executioners in Congress seem in complete charge.
Then almost at a stroke, the chickens come home to roost. It is funny that it should be chickens that would be the epitome of retributive justice for an administration of swaggering bullies. But God works in mysterious ways. It created evolution after all. But I have to say this is starting to look like a chicken remake of The Birds as envisioned by Mel Brooks.
The Generalissimo’s regime got its first um, splatter when D.A. Ronnie Earle in Texas indicted Tom Delay for Delay’s successful money laundering scheme to fund the gerrymandering of the Texas legislature.
The next splat came when it was discovered that Jack Abramoff had the bad sense to get involved with business associates who might place the people they disagree with in the trunk of a car with a bullet to the head at the same time he was running a slush fund for Republican officeholders and committing fraud (The last is what he pled guilty to. The other two are under investigation–Abramoff has agreed to cooperate). If one wonders what government employees do all the time, for a good long time a flock of them are going to be investigating the House that Jack bought.
In between that we have the Chief of staff to the Vice President being indicted for obstruction of justice in a national security case that may also involve Karl Rove and possibly the big bird–Dick Cheney–himself.
And if that isn’t enough, we have the Generalissimo. Admitting to breaking the law to spy on Americans. Pretending that he can dictate the meaning of the law with his Crayola signing statements. And as always raising the bloody flag of 9/11 to keep his minions in line.
Iraq…2 to 3 trillion dollars. The Generalissimo impeached…priceless.
In the face of disasters spawned by his naming incompetent cronies to positions of authority (Iraq, Katrina, the Sago mine disaster) who do not care to do the job as it was intended to be done but rather to do it according to their peculiar ideological brain fever, the Generalissimo signs a slew of recess appointments that do nothing but keep the tradition of incompetence alive.
Even now, I can almost feel the push back as the chicken little Republican majority in Congress decides that if they want to keep their jobs they have to pretend to fly right and even stand up to the lame duck Generalissimo (I know that is a lot of metaphors to take in at one time).
So I am not happy as a lark but I am guardedly hopeful. I am hopeful that the Generalissimo and his willing executioners will finally feel the weight of the Laws of the United States upon their backs. Now I know that justice is never really done at the upper echelons of power. And until the Generalissimo is impeached he can pardon anyone he wants - just like dear old dad.
But little by little as each chicken comes to its nest (and there will be more) another obstacle blocks the Generalissimo’s plan to turn the Constitution into his personal birdcage liner.
I was close to despair thinking whether our nation could fix itself. The headlong rush into lawlessness that is Generalissimo George’s administration, his incompetence (by any measure it is almost breathtaking), his stupid, demeaning (for the United States) swagger that signals to the world that we are a paper tiger.
The abuse is rampant. The enablers in the media are relentless. The Generalissimo’s willing executioners in Congress seem in complete charge.
Then almost at a stroke, the chickens come home to roost. It is funny that it should be chickens that would be the epitome of retributive justice for an administration of swaggering bullies. But God works in mysterious ways. It created evolution after all. But I have to say this is starting to look like a chicken remake of The Birds as envisioned by Mel Brooks.
The Generalissimo’s regime got its first um, splatter when D.A. Ronnie Earle in Texas indicted Tom Delay for Delay’s successful money laundering scheme to fund the gerrymandering of the Texas legislature.
The next splat came when it was discovered that Jack Abramoff had the bad sense to get involved with business associates who might place the people they disagree with in the trunk of a car with a bullet to the head at the same time he was running a slush fund for Republican officeholders and committing fraud (The last is what he pled guilty to. The other two are under investigation–Abramoff has agreed to cooperate). If one wonders what government employees do all the time, for a good long time a flock of them are going to be investigating the House that Jack bought.
In between that we have the Chief of staff to the Vice President being indicted for obstruction of justice in a national security case that may also involve Karl Rove and possibly the big bird–Dick Cheney–himself.
And if that isn’t enough, we have the Generalissimo. Admitting to breaking the law to spy on Americans. Pretending that he can dictate the meaning of the law with his Crayola signing statements. And as always raising the bloody flag of 9/11 to keep his minions in line.
Iraq…2 to 3 trillion dollars. The Generalissimo impeached…priceless.
In the face of disasters spawned by his naming incompetent cronies to positions of authority (Iraq, Katrina, the Sago mine disaster) who do not care to do the job as it was intended to be done but rather to do it according to their peculiar ideological brain fever, the Generalissimo signs a slew of recess appointments that do nothing but keep the tradition of incompetence alive.
Even now, I can almost feel the push back as the chicken little Republican majority in Congress decides that if they want to keep their jobs they have to pretend to fly right and even stand up to the lame duck Generalissimo (I know that is a lot of metaphors to take in at one time).
So I am not happy as a lark but I am guardedly hopeful. I am hopeful that the Generalissimo and his willing executioners will finally feel the weight of the Laws of the United States upon their backs. Now I know that justice is never really done at the upper echelons of power. And until the Generalissimo is impeached he can pardon anyone he wants - just like dear old dad.
But little by little as each chicken comes to its nest (and there will be more) another obstacle blocks the Generalissimo’s plan to turn the Constitution into his personal birdcage liner.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Generalissimo George Bush
Generalissimo George Bush has just made recess appointments for nearly 20 appointees to various positions in his administration. That is within his power to do as a technicality in the law. In fact Generalissimo George Bush is using it to once again circumvent the Constitutional command that the Senate “advise and consent” to these positions. Like the John Bolton elevation to the Ambassador to the U.N., I can understand that Generalissimo George Bush would be piqued that his anointed candidate would be held up by something as trivial as the United States Constitution. After all he is the Commander in Chief of everything and stuff so he can do whatever he wants. Even Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito has said so. So hey, it has to be right.
What I notice though is that some of these appointments were never placed before the Senate for confirmation. Well they must be pretty important to require the unusual prerogative of a recess appointment. Right?
So important in fact that they cannot wait for Constitutionally proscribed procedure, which would begin when Congress reconvenes in February. (stop me if this rush sounds like the unconstitutional FISA violating wiretaps). Let’s see.
We have two people appointed to the FEC. That is the Federal Election Commission. Very important in this time of war. Can’t wait there for proper advice and consent.
Then there are those who have had issues raised on their appointment. One is the Assistant Secretary of State of Refugees, population, and migration. There were actual senators that had questions about her credentials for the job. Can’t wait to resolve that.
Not least is the appointment to the Homeland Security Department's office of state and local preparedness that even Joe Lieberman had reservations about. You’re doing a heckuva job Joey- but hey I am the Generalissimo around here.
Are recess appointments in the President’s power? Yes. Is judicious (and relatively rare) use both a tradition and a requisite for using that power? Yes. Does Generalissimo George Bush believe in anything that our Constitution stands for? In my most humble opinion the answer is no.
In 2002, Bush said, “There’s nothing wrong with a dictatorship, as long as I am the dictator."At least for once Generalissimo George Bush has told the truth. In 2006, Generalissimo George Bush appears to be aiming to prove it.
What I notice though is that some of these appointments were never placed before the Senate for confirmation. Well they must be pretty important to require the unusual prerogative of a recess appointment. Right?
So important in fact that they cannot wait for Constitutionally proscribed procedure, which would begin when Congress reconvenes in February. (stop me if this rush sounds like the unconstitutional FISA violating wiretaps). Let’s see.
We have two people appointed to the FEC. That is the Federal Election Commission. Very important in this time of war. Can’t wait there for proper advice and consent.
Then there are those who have had issues raised on their appointment. One is the Assistant Secretary of State of Refugees, population, and migration. There were actual senators that had questions about her credentials for the job. Can’t wait to resolve that.
Not least is the appointment to the Homeland Security Department's office of state and local preparedness that even Joe Lieberman had reservations about. You’re doing a heckuva job Joey- but hey I am the Generalissimo around here.
Are recess appointments in the President’s power? Yes. Is judicious (and relatively rare) use both a tradition and a requisite for using that power? Yes. Does Generalissimo George Bush believe in anything that our Constitution stands for? In my most humble opinion the answer is no.
In 2002, Bush said, “There’s nothing wrong with a dictatorship, as long as I am the dictator."At least for once Generalissimo George Bush has told the truth. In 2006, Generalissimo George Bush appears to be aiming to prove it.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
2006 - new year prediction?
Put on your tinfoil hats kids. Or make new ones if you have already worn out the old one 5 years into the creeping coup that is the Bush administration. Now I am not claiming that George Bush is attempting a coup against the Constitutional government that is the United States. No. We all know that he is not almost anything enough to be able to pull that off. But Cheney is.
Here’s the deal. Cheney was named by Bush to find a VP when candidate Bush was heading to the Republican nomination in 2000. Cheney looks across the length and breadth of this great continental nation and lo he finds the one person, the best person, the person uniquely capable of being Vice President in a George W Bush administration–Dick Cheney.
Actually what Cheney found was George Bush the tool. George Bush is the perfect potemkin president. He lacks curiosity. He lacks intellectual capacity and more importantly he lacks interest in developing his capacity. He is a spoiled, brash scion of privilege and wealth that throws tantrums and swaggers and is a bully. In short a good straw-leader.
So, Cheney becomes the shadow president. Not so much to rule behind the scene but to effect the erosion of Constitutional government. I won’t venture that Cheney had something to do with 9/11. For that one would need a cap made of stronger stuff than tinfoil but he did take ample advantage of that singular event.
Suddenly throughout government very extreme ideas become mainstream. Justice officials determine that torture is ok. U.N. rules against it are outdated. They determine that the president can do whatever the fuck he wants. Oversight by the Congress is a burden and an abridgement of executive prerogative. War making power rests in the hands of something that the executive branch calls the Commander-in-Chief, a position with powers that to normal Americans appears to be something very different from what we understand that position to entail.
The media over time is inured to the breach each time because the creeping coupists have hitched themselves to a very successful political machine in the national Republican party. This isn’t to say that the RNC is a co-conspirator in this creeping coup. Instead the Republican party instead is merely a willing executioner. I mean how much really did George Bush have to do with the Republican party? He was a behind the scenes guy for his dad’s campaign. Texas state politics is really an ecosystem unto itself and being governor of Texas is like being manager of a very large Burger King–all the real decisions are made somewhere else. The RNC can be nothing other than an instrument of convenience in this plot.
So what comes next? George Bush should watch his health. Does that sound extreme? Maybe but consider this: George Bush has an accident (he has had several wounding injuries including choking on a pretzel in his own home in the last five years). The usual suspects are rounded up, meaning everyone the NSA has tapped. And of course it is a national emergency so everything–not just what remains of habeus corpus-but everything gets suspended. We already see that according to the president’s “consent decree” when he signed the McCain amendment that he could ignore it (and consequently any law he wishes to circumvent) at his will. So what is to stop the next president–the newly sworn in President Cheney from just carrying on. You know, to protect the American People.
So there it is. I am not claiming that this is in fact what is happening. I have no idea. But there are a lot of dots and when you connect them just right… well I’m just saying.
Here’s the deal. Cheney was named by Bush to find a VP when candidate Bush was heading to the Republican nomination in 2000. Cheney looks across the length and breadth of this great continental nation and lo he finds the one person, the best person, the person uniquely capable of being Vice President in a George W Bush administration–Dick Cheney.
Actually what Cheney found was George Bush the tool. George Bush is the perfect potemkin president. He lacks curiosity. He lacks intellectual capacity and more importantly he lacks interest in developing his capacity. He is a spoiled, brash scion of privilege and wealth that throws tantrums and swaggers and is a bully. In short a good straw-leader.
So, Cheney becomes the shadow president. Not so much to rule behind the scene but to effect the erosion of Constitutional government. I won’t venture that Cheney had something to do with 9/11. For that one would need a cap made of stronger stuff than tinfoil but he did take ample advantage of that singular event.
Suddenly throughout government very extreme ideas become mainstream. Justice officials determine that torture is ok. U.N. rules against it are outdated. They determine that the president can do whatever the fuck he wants. Oversight by the Congress is a burden and an abridgement of executive prerogative. War making power rests in the hands of something that the executive branch calls the Commander-in-Chief, a position with powers that to normal Americans appears to be something very different from what we understand that position to entail.
The media over time is inured to the breach each time because the creeping coupists have hitched themselves to a very successful political machine in the national Republican party. This isn’t to say that the RNC is a co-conspirator in this creeping coup. Instead the Republican party instead is merely a willing executioner. I mean how much really did George Bush have to do with the Republican party? He was a behind the scenes guy for his dad’s campaign. Texas state politics is really an ecosystem unto itself and being governor of Texas is like being manager of a very large Burger King–all the real decisions are made somewhere else. The RNC can be nothing other than an instrument of convenience in this plot.
So what comes next? George Bush should watch his health. Does that sound extreme? Maybe but consider this: George Bush has an accident (he has had several wounding injuries including choking on a pretzel in his own home in the last five years). The usual suspects are rounded up, meaning everyone the NSA has tapped. And of course it is a national emergency so everything–not just what remains of habeus corpus-but everything gets suspended. We already see that according to the president’s “consent decree” when he signed the McCain amendment that he could ignore it (and consequently any law he wishes to circumvent) at his will. So what is to stop the next president–the newly sworn in President Cheney from just carrying on. You know, to protect the American People.
So there it is. I am not claiming that this is in fact what is happening. I have no idea. But there are a lot of dots and when you connect them just right… well I’m just saying.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
what will the new year bring?
Well Happy New Year in what may prove to be the last year of the Republic. Oh I suppose like ancient Rome the nominal republic may go on for years or even decades. But we have seen in the elections of the last several cycles, that money buys power, influence to a degree that hasn’t been equaled since Rome. And now we are seeing that that same money and power buys immunity from the very Constitution that elected officials are sworn to uphold.
Just as Caesar was immune to law because he was Caesar and ultimately named Dictator for Life, we are seeing George Bush (is it even meaningful to call him “president” anymore?) step all over the Constitution in the name of his WOT. A war whose parameters only he can define and whose end only he can declare and which gives him ultimate power to do anything he damn well pleases. At least Caesar had to be named Dictator for Life by the Senate–a formality admittedly because he had become that in fact anyway. Our Constitution gives the President the title of Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States (Article II section 2). That stipulating phrase at the end of the title seems to be a nicety that C-I-C Bush thinks is unnecessary citing as he has his authority as C-I-C to do everything from drilling for oil in Alaska to tapping domestic phone calls and even possibly monitoring Quaker meetings.
Although it took Caesar to tip the Roman Republic into dictatorship and finally empire, he was just the final enabling catalyst. The polity that was the Roman Republic was almost republic in name only before Caesar. It happened because the monied, aristocratic class wanted to be an oligarchy. To call Rome a democracy would do injury to the word but it did offer rights and protections for all non-slave classes. The oligarchs eroded that and ultimately Rome’s politics became a turf war among the powerful and the connected–a turf war that ultimately brought Caesar to power. I suppose without Caesar there would have been another thug to step up to the task of fully dismantling the Republic, but that is academic for there was Caesar himself to do the job. By the time of his assassination that task was mostly complete.
In the power vacuum his murder left came civil war then Octavius who would become Augustus. And with him the transformation was complete. Rome became an Empire. Although even Augustus viewed himself merely as “First Citizen.”
Now we see C-I-C Bush admit to breaking the Constitution and boasting that he would continue to do it. at the same time we see that the likelihood that he will be held to account for his illegal and unconstitutional actions to be distant. Like Caesar I guess it didn’t require George Bush to destroy the American Republic, as I said it has been going on for a while. But we do have George Bush. And we have our oligarchs in the majority party that like the Senate in Rome thought they could control the beast that they were bringing to life. Of course they can’t. Oligarchy is a very unstable form of government and ultimately devolves into dictatorship.
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from this fate. Perhaps the institutions have not been destroyed to the point where their resilience has been totally compromised. Perhaps the oligarchs will realize that they are no more precious to the all powerful executive than the fawning masses he would use to populate his preening appearances. Already we have seen that he completely disregarded the oligarchs in his plan to illegally wiretap Americans. Perhaps the American people and the Press will realize that times are critical and will stand up against a marauding executive, and demand that he be held to account like all citizens–whether First or last.
Our Constitution is a powerful document but it is merely parchment without the backbone of the people and those sworn to uphold it to ensure that the law of our nation is upheld and that this nation shall endure.
Happy 2006
Just as Caesar was immune to law because he was Caesar and ultimately named Dictator for Life, we are seeing George Bush (is it even meaningful to call him “president” anymore?) step all over the Constitution in the name of his WOT. A war whose parameters only he can define and whose end only he can declare and which gives him ultimate power to do anything he damn well pleases. At least Caesar had to be named Dictator for Life by the Senate–a formality admittedly because he had become that in fact anyway. Our Constitution gives the President the title of Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States (Article II section 2). That stipulating phrase at the end of the title seems to be a nicety that C-I-C Bush thinks is unnecessary citing as he has his authority as C-I-C to do everything from drilling for oil in Alaska to tapping domestic phone calls and even possibly monitoring Quaker meetings.
Although it took Caesar to tip the Roman Republic into dictatorship and finally empire, he was just the final enabling catalyst. The polity that was the Roman Republic was almost republic in name only before Caesar. It happened because the monied, aristocratic class wanted to be an oligarchy. To call Rome a democracy would do injury to the word but it did offer rights and protections for all non-slave classes. The oligarchs eroded that and ultimately Rome’s politics became a turf war among the powerful and the connected–a turf war that ultimately brought Caesar to power. I suppose without Caesar there would have been another thug to step up to the task of fully dismantling the Republic, but that is academic for there was Caesar himself to do the job. By the time of his assassination that task was mostly complete.
In the power vacuum his murder left came civil war then Octavius who would become Augustus. And with him the transformation was complete. Rome became an Empire. Although even Augustus viewed himself merely as “First Citizen.”
Now we see C-I-C Bush admit to breaking the Constitution and boasting that he would continue to do it. at the same time we see that the likelihood that he will be held to account for his illegal and unconstitutional actions to be distant. Like Caesar I guess it didn’t require George Bush to destroy the American Republic, as I said it has been going on for a while. But we do have George Bush. And we have our oligarchs in the majority party that like the Senate in Rome thought they could control the beast that they were bringing to life. Of course they can’t. Oligarchy is a very unstable form of government and ultimately devolves into dictatorship.
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from this fate. Perhaps the institutions have not been destroyed to the point where their resilience has been totally compromised. Perhaps the oligarchs will realize that they are no more precious to the all powerful executive than the fawning masses he would use to populate his preening appearances. Already we have seen that he completely disregarded the oligarchs in his plan to illegally wiretap Americans. Perhaps the American people and the Press will realize that times are critical and will stand up against a marauding executive, and demand that he be held to account like all citizens–whether First or last.
Our Constitution is a powerful document but it is merely parchment without the backbone of the people and those sworn to uphold it to ensure that the law of our nation is upheld and that this nation shall endure.
Happy 2006
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)