The time has finally come, where the rubber meets the road. Fahrenheit 9/11 will be released this Friday, be sure to check with your local theatres to make sure they ARE NOT airing this anti-American propaganda. You can also check here to see if it is playing near you.I'd say their efforts are being noticed largely because they have failed. But I will probably go to the premiere to document any protests.
We need patriots like you to stand outside theatres to protest on June 25th and pledge to boycott those theatres that carry this vile film. Contact your local tv, radio and newspaper to let them know of your planned protests, invite others to join you. Visit and join Free Republic to find others in your locale to join your protest. Make a sign to carry, to alert possible movie-goers that they may be supporting an anti-American film and rewarding a known liar and war profiteer.
It's time for the silent majority to be silent no more. Let's stand up for America! This will be a big week for us and hopefully, a bad week for Michael Moore as he gets egg on his face, not in his big mouth.
Our efforts are being noticed as we fight to take back America from the America-haters in Hollywood. Help us get the word out!
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Take it to the streets!
From Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood comes this suggestion.
Suspect methodology!
And if that title doesn't get your toes a tapping, I don't know what will.
Bruce Bartlett's latest article is titled "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." It helps to have the writers opinions stated right there in the title.
Anyway he refers to a study by Tim Grosedose and Jeff Milyo that I imagine will get a lot of play over the next couple of weeks which suggests that the most unbiased sources of news are Fox News and the Drudge Report. However, as I subtly indicated above, I'm not sure about their methodology.
Here it is.
Step one is to divide all the Senators and Representatives into liberal and conservative camps based on their votes. I'm not sure how this is done, but as one person at Democratic Underground pointed out, Congress is somewhat dominated by conservatives right now. It's not hard to imagine this methodology moving the center a bit to the right.
Step two is to note which think tanks each side quotes from, and in this manner label said think tanks liberal or conservative. There doesn't seem to be any means of determining validity or partisan ship of these various think tanks. If a liberal senator quotes a non-partisan think tank, it becomes a liberal think tank. Which is par for the course; "liberal" think tanks are non-partisan, conservative think tanks are fiercely partisan. So it all balances out.
Step three is finding out how regularly news broadcasts quote from the same think tanks. If a news source quotes from a "liberal" source than it moves left on the scale. If a news source quotes from a conservative source than it moves right. Simple. And based on this methodology Fox News's "Special Report" and the Drudge Report are the closest to the middle of the road.
Grosedose and Milyo also regurgitate the statistic that only 7% of journalists voted for President George H. W. Bush in 1992, as opposed to 37% in the general populace. They out to go back and look at how editors and publishers vote, because that might tell a different story. And editors and publishers have a lot more control over what goes on the air than the reporters.
But remember, "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." So perhaps the answer is more important than the methodology used to get there.
Bruce Bartlett's latest article is titled "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." It helps to have the writers opinions stated right there in the title.
Anyway he refers to a study by Tim Grosedose and Jeff Milyo that I imagine will get a lot of play over the next couple of weeks which suggests that the most unbiased sources of news are Fox News and the Drudge Report. However, as I subtly indicated above, I'm not sure about their methodology.
Here it is.
Step one is to divide all the Senators and Representatives into liberal and conservative camps based on their votes. I'm not sure how this is done, but as one person at Democratic Underground pointed out, Congress is somewhat dominated by conservatives right now. It's not hard to imagine this methodology moving the center a bit to the right.
Step two is to note which think tanks each side quotes from, and in this manner label said think tanks liberal or conservative. There doesn't seem to be any means of determining validity or partisan ship of these various think tanks. If a liberal senator quotes a non-partisan think tank, it becomes a liberal think tank. Which is par for the course; "liberal" think tanks are non-partisan, conservative think tanks are fiercely partisan. So it all balances out.
Step three is finding out how regularly news broadcasts quote from the same think tanks. If a news source quotes from a "liberal" source than it moves left on the scale. If a news source quotes from a conservative source than it moves right. Simple. And based on this methodology Fox News's "Special Report" and the Drudge Report are the closest to the middle of the road.
Grosedose and Milyo also regurgitate the statistic that only 7% of journalists voted for President George H. W. Bush in 1992, as opposed to 37% in the general populace. They out to go back and look at how editors and publishers vote, because that might tell a different story. And editors and publishers have a lot more control over what goes on the air than the reporters.
But remember, "A little rightward tilt is a good thing." So perhaps the answer is more important than the methodology used to get there.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Somewhat Troubling
New article from Paul Krugman on Attorney General John Ashcroft starts out with the following paragraphs.
"In April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon - a cyanide bomb - big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.
Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world.
. . . it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist."
Kind of an interesting story about how ideological the Attorney General really is.
"In April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon - a cyanide bomb - big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.
Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world.
. . . it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist."
Kind of an interesting story about how ideological the Attorney General really is.
The Era of Declining Expectations
A little context. Before the war on Iraq, one of the reasons advanced for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and might hand over some of his Weapons of Mass Destruction to them. This was not taken as seriously as other charges (mainly that Saddam was dangerously unstable and that he had access to Weapons of Mass Destruction which he might use on the United States).
We now move to the present day. The Weapons of Mass Destruction argument has largely fallen apart. It's not off the charts, but the only person who believes that Saddam had large stocks of WMDs that threatened the US is Ann Coulter. Now we are supposed to content ourselves with the idea that instead of having Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.
So in light of that, pro-Bush commentators and administration officials are trying to find a new rationale for the war, and they've apparently found one in the theory that Iraq and al-Qaeda were collaborating. This revived tack, however, has a few built-in expectation diminishers.
I was listening to Fox News this morning on the way in to work (the local radio station plays the audio feed from Fox and Friends). As I drove along I listened to Stephen Hayes who has apparently wrote a book on the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Here's the game. Claim that future President John Kerry and other Democrats claimed that there was no link (of any kind) between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In so far as any Democrats said that it would have been a foolish statement. So now that you've got your strawman up, all you have to do is find links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. Simple.
But of course a more important question is were the links that Saddam Hussein had with al-Qaeda a direct threat to the United States (such that we had to invade by the spring of last year or else we would have been sunk)?
A second question, if these vague relationship links are enough to wipe out Saddam, what do we make of the links that al-Qaeda has with a half dozen other nations (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two allies)?
The trouble is that the Bush administration needs desperately to make the decision to invade Iraq unimpeachable. And that's not proving to be as easy as they'd like it to be.
We now move to the present day. The Weapons of Mass Destruction argument has largely fallen apart. It's not off the charts, but the only person who believes that Saddam had large stocks of WMDs that threatened the US is Ann Coulter. Now we are supposed to content ourselves with the idea that instead of having Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.
So in light of that, pro-Bush commentators and administration officials are trying to find a new rationale for the war, and they've apparently found one in the theory that Iraq and al-Qaeda were collaborating. This revived tack, however, has a few built-in expectation diminishers.
I was listening to Fox News this morning on the way in to work (the local radio station plays the audio feed from Fox and Friends). As I drove along I listened to Stephen Hayes who has apparently wrote a book on the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Here's the game. Claim that future President John Kerry and other Democrats claimed that there was no link (of any kind) between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In so far as any Democrats said that it would have been a foolish statement. So now that you've got your strawman up, all you have to do is find links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. Simple.
But of course a more important question is were the links that Saddam Hussein had with al-Qaeda a direct threat to the United States (such that we had to invade by the spring of last year or else we would have been sunk)?
A second question, if these vague relationship links are enough to wipe out Saddam, what do we make of the links that al-Qaeda has with a half dozen other nations (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two allies)?
The trouble is that the Bush administration needs desperately to make the decision to invade Iraq unimpeachable. And that's not proving to be as easy as they'd like it to be.
Monday, June 21, 2004
The Putin Connection
Zev Chafets writes an editorial for the New York daily News on Russian President Putin's statement that he had warned the United States of a potential terrorist by Saddam Hussein. Here's how Chafets puts it.
"President Bush got some very good news last week from one of the key 2004 battleground states: Russia. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confided that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 but before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist attacks on America and its interests abroad."
An AP story prints President Putin's words and gives some more shading to this story.
"Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.
He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.
"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.
Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.
"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said."
A little context.
Early last week Vice President Cheney commented on the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
On Thursday, if memory serves, the 9/11 commission issued a report that debunked said links.
On Friday Rush Limbaugh claimed that the report lent credence to the Prague Meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence when in fact the report stated the opposite. But that's neither here nor there.
Also on Friday, Mr. Putin made his statements. Mr. Putin had also stated, on an earlier occasion, "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same. It suffices to recall Yugoslavia."
So let's not have the illusion that Mr. Putin is a disinterested observer.
But let's look at the scope of his claim. First of all, it says nothing about any contacts that may have existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Vice President Cheney and President Bush claimed that such connection existed; the 9/11 report claimed that such connections didn't exist.
It's very very unspecific. We don't know the seriousness of these plans or how far they had advanced (if they had advanced at all). We do know how Russia acted during the run up to the Iraq war; they opposed our invasion. I'm not sure what to think of that. I mean if Iraq was planning serious terrorist activities on the same level as September 11th, why wouldn't they support President Bush's choice to take out Iraq? Did President Putin want us to suffer those casualties? It just seems somewhat conflicted.
Of course the other answer is that these supposed Iraqi terrorist plans didn't amount to much.
A few other points from Chafets article.
"One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush. But this explanation raises an uncomfortable question. One of Kerry's main themes has been that Bush can't get along with foreigners. But how does that square with the accusation that the president of Russia is actively campaigning on Bush's behalf?"
It's nice that President Bush is able to get President Putin to lie for him (following the logic of this paragraph). But words are extremely cheap, aren't they? I think I'd be more impressed if President Bush talked President Putin into sending troops into Iraq.
"But right now, I'd say that John Kerry is in big trouble. If he can't carry Russia, he's not going to win in November."
This statement is fascinating on so many levels. But unfortunately the election is unlikely to be held in Russia, but here in the United States. And I think President Bush is going to need more than vague statements by the Russian President.
"President Bush got some very good news last week from one of the key 2004 battleground states: Russia. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confided that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 but before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist attacks on America and its interests abroad."
An AP story prints President Putin's words and gives some more shading to this story.
"Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.
He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.
"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.
Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.
"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said."
A little context.
Early last week Vice President Cheney commented on the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
On Thursday, if memory serves, the 9/11 commission issued a report that debunked said links.
On Friday Rush Limbaugh claimed that the report lent credence to the Prague Meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence when in fact the report stated the opposite. But that's neither here nor there.
Also on Friday, Mr. Putin made his statements. Mr. Putin had also stated, on an earlier occasion, "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same. It suffices to recall Yugoslavia."
So let's not have the illusion that Mr. Putin is a disinterested observer.
But let's look at the scope of his claim. First of all, it says nothing about any contacts that may have existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Vice President Cheney and President Bush claimed that such connection existed; the 9/11 report claimed that such connections didn't exist.
It's very very unspecific. We don't know the seriousness of these plans or how far they had advanced (if they had advanced at all). We do know how Russia acted during the run up to the Iraq war; they opposed our invasion. I'm not sure what to think of that. I mean if Iraq was planning serious terrorist activities on the same level as September 11th, why wouldn't they support President Bush's choice to take out Iraq? Did President Putin want us to suffer those casualties? It just seems somewhat conflicted.
Of course the other answer is that these supposed Iraqi terrorist plans didn't amount to much.
A few other points from Chafets article.
"One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush. But this explanation raises an uncomfortable question. One of Kerry's main themes has been that Bush can't get along with foreigners. But how does that square with the accusation that the president of Russia is actively campaigning on Bush's behalf?"
It's nice that President Bush is able to get President Putin to lie for him (following the logic of this paragraph). But words are extremely cheap, aren't they? I think I'd be more impressed if President Bush talked President Putin into sending troops into Iraq.
"But right now, I'd say that John Kerry is in big trouble. If he can't carry Russia, he's not going to win in November."
This statement is fascinating on so many levels. But unfortunately the election is unlikely to be held in Russia, but here in the United States. And I think President Bush is going to need more than vague statements by the Russian President.
What Photos Should be Shown?
Diana West has an article today on the reporting on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and how it contrasts with reports on Saddam's torture chambers. I think the argument goes some like this.
1. Saddam's torture chambers were far worse than what we did.
2. The media has spent considerably more time on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal than they have reporting on recently released videos of Saddam's torture (which, apparently, included Saddam feading a prisoner to his dogs.
3. Therefore the Media is a bunch of traitorous hypocrites for which hanging is too good.
There are a few ways to puncture this argument.
1. This is a weak argument which is why it is up front, but it is a factual argument. You can't show pictures of a dog eating a man on TV. You can show pictures of a dog threatening a man on TV. This accounts for a percentage of it.
2. This is, in fact, old news. Those few who need to be reminded that Saddam Hussein was a monster probably aren't the sort to be convinced by these pictures ("You mean you actually believed that film was real? Look at teh watch on the third soldier over--see it's reflection? When you blow up that image it clearly shows a smiling Dick Cheney.")
3. More to the point, we aren't competing with Saddam Hussein. I don't hold the American government or the American Military to the standard of Saddam Hussein. I expect us to be better than him, and not just a little better. Instead I hold our government and military to the standard set by their past performance.
4. The American people are responsible for Abu Ghraib; they are not responsible for Saddam's tortures. This argument can be taken to far, but we need to know what our governmental and military officials are doing because they represent us. Saddam Hussein does not.
So I think Abu Ghraib is a more important story than Saddam's torture chambers. But that's just me.
1. Saddam's torture chambers were far worse than what we did.
2. The media has spent considerably more time on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal than they have reporting on recently released videos of Saddam's torture (which, apparently, included Saddam feading a prisoner to his dogs.
3. Therefore the Media is a bunch of traitorous hypocrites for which hanging is too good.
There are a few ways to puncture this argument.
1. This is a weak argument which is why it is up front, but it is a factual argument. You can't show pictures of a dog eating a man on TV. You can show pictures of a dog threatening a man on TV. This accounts for a percentage of it.
2. This is, in fact, old news. Those few who need to be reminded that Saddam Hussein was a monster probably aren't the sort to be convinced by these pictures ("You mean you actually believed that film was real? Look at teh watch on the third soldier over--see it's reflection? When you blow up that image it clearly shows a smiling Dick Cheney.")
3. More to the point, we aren't competing with Saddam Hussein. I don't hold the American government or the American Military to the standard of Saddam Hussein. I expect us to be better than him, and not just a little better. Instead I hold our government and military to the standard set by their past performance.
4. The American people are responsible for Abu Ghraib; they are not responsible for Saddam's tortures. This argument can be taken to far, but we need to know what our governmental and military officials are doing because they represent us. Saddam Hussein does not.
So I think Abu Ghraib is a more important story than Saddam's torture chambers. But that's just me.
1-800-DOCTORB; the B is for Bargain
"Orthodox medicine has not found an answer to your complaint. However, luckily for you, I happen to be a quack." - Richter cartoon caption
Bob Herbert over at the New York Times has a story on Medical Malpractice. As we know from allegorical evidence the Medical and Medical insurance industries are a falling apart due to the costs imposed by Medical Malpractice. Well, actually that may not be the whole truth. Mr. Herbert reports that, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy;
"It may be hard to understand why `tort reform' is even on the national agenda at a time when insurance industry profits are booming, tort filings are declining, only 2 percent of injured people sue for compensation, punitive damages are rarely awarded, liability insurance costs for businesses are minuscule, medical malpractice insurance and claims are both less than 1 percent of all health care costs in America, and premium-gouging underwriting practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed."
Well, that's a bit of a different picture than the one usually painted isn't it? Hmmmmm. Herbert also exposes the standard, almost cartoonish disinterestedness of people in the medical industry (most notably the Doctor from South Carolina, who stated, referring to a woman that had had both of her breasts removed in a medical mix up, that "She did not lose her life, and with the plastic surgery she'll have breast reconstruction better than she had before." Mr. Herbert chooses not to give this dingbat a name, showing greater restraint than I would have).
Anyway the article is worth checking out. I stand by my long term policy of trusting the American people. I don't like laws which tell judges and juries that they are too dumb to figure out legal cases (but a bunch of Congressmen can figure out the appropriate responses to any case that might come down the pike).
Bob Herbert over at the New York Times has a story on Medical Malpractice. As we know from allegorical evidence the Medical and Medical insurance industries are a falling apart due to the costs imposed by Medical Malpractice. Well, actually that may not be the whole truth. Mr. Herbert reports that, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy;
"It may be hard to understand why `tort reform' is even on the national agenda at a time when insurance industry profits are booming, tort filings are declining, only 2 percent of injured people sue for compensation, punitive damages are rarely awarded, liability insurance costs for businesses are minuscule, medical malpractice insurance and claims are both less than 1 percent of all health care costs in America, and premium-gouging underwriting practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed."
Well, that's a bit of a different picture than the one usually painted isn't it? Hmmmmm. Herbert also exposes the standard, almost cartoonish disinterestedness of people in the medical industry (most notably the Doctor from South Carolina, who stated, referring to a woman that had had both of her breasts removed in a medical mix up, that "She did not lose her life, and with the plastic surgery she'll have breast reconstruction better than she had before." Mr. Herbert chooses not to give this dingbat a name, showing greater restraint than I would have).
Anyway the article is worth checking out. I stand by my long term policy of trusting the American people. I don't like laws which tell judges and juries that they are too dumb to figure out legal cases (but a bunch of Congressmen can figure out the appropriate responses to any case that might come down the pike).
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Your Weekly Rush; Fahrenheit 911
Rush Limbaugh echoes the PABAAH line about Fahrenheit 911. You should call your local theater and ask them not to show it. Or to put it in his own words . . .
"So what you should do, and it would probably be more effective, is to get as many people as you can to bombard a local theater in Omaha, if there is one that's going to screen the movie and say you don't think that this is right because this movie is not a movie. It's not a documentary. It's being misrepresented as to what it is. It's just nothing but propaganda and that you think a responsible theater owner wouldn't lend his screen to this purpose."
I am a bit stunned to find out Fahrenheit 911 isn't a movie. I guess it must be a Slide Show? An Interpretive Dance Performance? A Staged Reading of Haikus? I mean if it's not a movie, I guess Rush has a point. You show movies in a movie theater, so if Fahrenheit 911 isn't a movie, that wouldn't be the appropriate venue for it.
Oh, wait, apparently it is a movie. It's on film and everything.
As for it being propaganda, well Rush thinks that any presentation of the liberal position is propaganda (as opposed to what he does). Contrast his opinion on whether or not people should be able to go to the movie theater and see Mr. Moores movie vs. his opinion on whether or not his extremely conservative radio show should be balanced by something liberal on Armed Services Radio.
He also follows another aspect of the PABAAH line; we're guaranteed to fail, so it doesn't matter if we try. ". . . the odds are that we're not going to stop it. Nobody is going to able to stop it from being seen . . ."
So it's ok to try to censor a movie, so long as it doesn't seem likely that you will actually succeed. Not sure about the logic there, but what do I know. I'm just another liberal propogandist.
"So what you should do, and it would probably be more effective, is to get as many people as you can to bombard a local theater in Omaha, if there is one that's going to screen the movie and say you don't think that this is right because this movie is not a movie. It's not a documentary. It's being misrepresented as to what it is. It's just nothing but propaganda and that you think a responsible theater owner wouldn't lend his screen to this purpose."
I am a bit stunned to find out Fahrenheit 911 isn't a movie. I guess it must be a Slide Show? An Interpretive Dance Performance? A Staged Reading of Haikus? I mean if it's not a movie, I guess Rush has a point. You show movies in a movie theater, so if Fahrenheit 911 isn't a movie, that wouldn't be the appropriate venue for it.
Oh, wait, apparently it is a movie. It's on film and everything.
As for it being propaganda, well Rush thinks that any presentation of the liberal position is propaganda (as opposed to what he does). Contrast his opinion on whether or not people should be able to go to the movie theater and see Mr. Moores movie vs. his opinion on whether or not his extremely conservative radio show should be balanced by something liberal on Armed Services Radio.
He also follows another aspect of the PABAAH line; we're guaranteed to fail, so it doesn't matter if we try. ". . . the odds are that we're not going to stop it. Nobody is going to able to stop it from being seen . . ."
So it's ok to try to censor a movie, so long as it doesn't seem likely that you will actually succeed. Not sure about the logic there, but what do I know. I'm just another liberal propogandist.
Friday, June 18, 2004
A bit on Fahrenheit 911
1. The movie will be shown in my home town of Tallahassee, Florida. Thinking of going the night it opens to take pictures of the crowd and any disturbances that might arise, although I doubt there will be any.
2. Those liars at Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood told another lie (how's that for moderate sensible dialogue). Well it's not that bad; I mean it's hard to believe that anybody would believe the lie since they link to the article that has the truth.
Here's the Lie. Moore's latest film project, Fahrenheit 9/11, is being supported by...terrorists.
Here's the Truth. Apparently after the movie had been made, some groups affiliated with Hezbollah have offered to help in distributing the movie in the United Arab Emirates. The original article where those PABAAH liars got their information from appeared in the Guardian U.K. and gives no indication that anybody connected with Mr. Moore accepted said help.
Still I don't want to be too hard on those liars. I mean this is a tough time for them; they've failed. The movie is going to be released and many Americans are going to see it. This is a real defeat for PABAAH, so I would imagine they are feeling pretty sorrowful.
3. Finally here's an interesting discussion of the role of criticism and Fahrenheit 911 by Roger Ebert.
2. Those liars at Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood told another lie (how's that for moderate sensible dialogue). Well it's not that bad; I mean it's hard to believe that anybody would believe the lie since they link to the article that has the truth.
Here's the Lie. Moore's latest film project, Fahrenheit 9/11, is being supported by...terrorists.
Here's the Truth. Apparently after the movie had been made, some groups affiliated with Hezbollah have offered to help in distributing the movie in the United Arab Emirates. The original article where those PABAAH liars got their information from appeared in the Guardian U.K. and gives no indication that anybody connected with Mr. Moore accepted said help.
Still I don't want to be too hard on those liars. I mean this is a tough time for them; they've failed. The movie is going to be released and many Americans are going to see it. This is a real defeat for PABAAH, so I would imagine they are feeling pretty sorrowful.
3. Finally here's an interesting discussion of the role of criticism and Fahrenheit 911 by Roger Ebert.
Around the Horn; Part 34/37 The Day the World Turned Purple
Incidently that's part thirty-four thirty-sevenths, no part thirty four of thirty seven. Just in case it's not clear.
Words on a Page has a little article on fanatacisms. They're not just for Osama any more.
The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has the somewhat bone-chilling news that the Pentagon may be increasing its ability to spy within the United States.
Chris "Lefty" Brown has the scoop on Vice President Dick Cheneys true nature. Be prepared to be horrified and amused.
Speedkill has a missive on a recent poll taken among the Iraqi people that doesn't look that good.
Collective Sigh would appreciate it if you would not bring snakes around to any bars you might be going to.
And Then . . . has a great discussion of an article that appeared at Salon on the antipathy that many nations seem to feel for the United Statse.
Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a story on Signal Orange, an organization dedicated to raising American Awareness of those who have given their lives in President Bush's Iraq War.
The Fulcrum has a bit on Monty Python Alumnus Terry Jones and his reaction to the abuse / torture at Abu Ghraib Prison.
Rooks Rant has a somewhat redesigned web page and a piece on how we, the people, run the Government. So rather than complaining maybe we should make it better.
iddybud has a nice little humerous story; one filled with a bit of hope.
Anyway I'll be back later with a front page Wall Street Journal piece, so there's something to look forward too.
Words on a Page has a little article on fanatacisms. They're not just for Osama any more.
The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has the somewhat bone-chilling news that the Pentagon may be increasing its ability to spy within the United States.
Chris "Lefty" Brown has the scoop on Vice President Dick Cheneys true nature. Be prepared to be horrified and amused.
Speedkill has a missive on a recent poll taken among the Iraqi people that doesn't look that good.
Collective Sigh would appreciate it if you would not bring snakes around to any bars you might be going to.
And Then . . . has a great discussion of an article that appeared at Salon on the antipathy that many nations seem to feel for the United Statse.
Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a story on Signal Orange, an organization dedicated to raising American Awareness of those who have given their lives in President Bush's Iraq War.
The Fulcrum has a bit on Monty Python Alumnus Terry Jones and his reaction to the abuse / torture at Abu Ghraib Prison.
Rooks Rant has a somewhat redesigned web page and a piece on how we, the people, run the Government. So rather than complaining maybe we should make it better.
iddybud has a nice little humerous story; one filled with a bit of hope.
Anyway I'll be back later with a front page Wall Street Journal piece, so there's something to look forward too.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
If the President Says It, It Must be So!
The New York Times has a good article today on a recent embarrassment the administration suffered.
"Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection."
The Bush administration needs to figure out away to do what they've done with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Before the War they were claiming Hussein had WMD's that could threaten the United States at a moments notice, afterwards they claimed they had always been looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. That strategy has largely worked with the WMDs ("We're all actors in this I suppose."); they need to find a way to make it work with the Saddam/Al Qaeda link.
"Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection."
The Bush administration needs to figure out away to do what they've done with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Before the War they were claiming Hussein had WMD's that could threaten the United States at a moments notice, afterwards they claimed they had always been looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. That strategy has largely worked with the WMDs ("We're all actors in this I suppose."); they need to find a way to make it work with the Saddam/Al Qaeda link.
A Poem by Gil Scott-Heron
B-MovieGreat poem / song. I'm reading so many articles on Reagan. Some of them about how President Bush is just like Reagan. Some on how we Liberals hated Reagan and are now faking an admiration for him. And a few on stem cell research and how Reagan wouldn't have wanted it. Just made me think of this song, which I was first exposed to on Underworld's contribution to the Back to Mine Series (a darn good series by the way). So I posted the lyrics to it.
Well, the first thing I want to say is…”Mandate my ass!”
Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate – or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running.
But, oh yeah, I remember. In this year that we have now declared the year from Shogun to Reagan, I remember what I said about Reagan…meant it. Acted like an actor…Hollyweird. Acted like a liberal. Acted like General Franco when he acted like governor of California, then he acted like a republican. Then he acted like somebody was going to vote for him for president. And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate. We're all actors in this I suppose.
What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune…the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer – very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources we'll control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now.
The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can – even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment – someone always came to save America at the last moment – especially in “B” movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan – and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at – like a “B” movie.
Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous “B” movie. The producer underwritten by all the millionaires necessary will be Casper “The Defensive” Weinberger – no more animated choice is available. The director will be Attila the Haig, running around frantically declaring himself in control and in charge. The ultimate realization of the inmates taking over at the asylum. The screenplay will be adapted from the book called “Voodoo Economics” by George “Papa Doc” Bush. Music by the “Village People” the very military "Macho Man."
“Company!!!”
“Macho, macho man!”
“ Two-three-four.”
“ He likes to be – well, you get the point.”
“Huuut! Your left! Your left! Your left…right, left, right, left, right…!”
A theme song for saber-rallying and selling wars door-to-door. Remember, we're looking for the closest thing we can find to John Wayne. Clichés abound like kangaroos – courtesy of some spaced out Marlin Perkins, a Reagan contemporary. Clichés like, “itchy trigger finger” and “tall in the saddle” and “riding off or on into the sunset.” Clichés like, “Get off of my planet by sundown!” More so than clichés like, “he died with his boots on.” Marine tough the man is. Bogart tough the man is. Cagney tough the man is. Hollywood tough the man is. Cheap stick tough. And Bonzo's substantial. The ultimate in synthetic selling: A Madison Avenue masterpiece – a miracle – a cotton-candy politician…Presto! Macho!
“Macho, macho man!”
Put your orders in America. And quick as Kodak your leaders duplicate with the accent being on the dupes - cause all of a sudden we have fallen prey to selective amnesia - remembering what we want to remember and forgetting what we choose to forget. All of a sudden, the man who called for a blood bath on our college campuses is supposed to be Dudley “God-damn” Do-Right?
“You go give them liberals hell Ronnie.” That was the mandate. To the new “Captain Blighe” on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat – as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy – Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from “Bonzo” to Birch idol…born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights…it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it…first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom.
Nostalgia, that's what we want…the good ol' days…when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white – and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was – Crow.
Lon Chaney, our man of a thousand faces - no match for Ron. Doug Henning does the make-up - special effects from Grecian Formula 16 and Crazy Glue. Transportation furnished by the David Rockefeller of Remote Control Company. Their slogan is, “Why wait for 1984? You can panic now...and avoid the rush.”
So much for the good news…
As Wall Street goes, so goes the nation. And here's a look at the closing numbers – racism's up, human rights are down, peace is shaky, war items are hot - the House claims all ties. Jobs are down, money is scarce – and common sense is at an all-time low on heavy trading. Movies were looking better than ever and now no one is looking because, we're starring in a “B” movie. And we would rather had John Wayne…we would rather had John Wayne.
"You don't need to be in no hurry.
You ain't never really got to worry.
And you don't need to check on how you feel.
Just keep repeating that none of this is real.
And if you're sensing, that something's wrong,
Well just remember, that it won't be too long
Before the director cuts the scene…yea."
“This ain't really your life,
Ain't really your life,
Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie.”
One of the stories I find interesting is that apparently while President Reagan was President and obviously a political figure Senator Kerry made some staunch criticisms of Reagan. Now part of this is the whole shell game of "See Kerry's trying to claim the Reagan legacy, but really he didn't like Reagan's policy." Well I'm not sure Kerry is trying to claim the Reagan legacy. But it's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? I mean everybody I criticize is going to die someday.
What if Ann Coulter died tomorrow (and let me clarify that I hope she doesn't because frankly I need the material), I would probably say something about how she had a lot of passion and wrote reasonably well. Isn't that what people do? If someone dies you say nice things about them. But obviously that's not the whole story, is it?
Anyway reading all those articles made me want to post B-Movie.
Nice Moderate Discourse
Gary Aldrich chose to write his article this week on good old Hillary Clinton. Actually it's about the unveiling of the Presidential Portrait of President Clinton, but mostly it's about Hillary Clinton.
Apparently Hillary was wearing the following outfit.
Of all the indignities that women in our Society suffer, this is one that would drive me nuts. Basically Aldrich's article is an analysis of what Ms. Hillary Clinton is thinking based on what she is wearing. The assumption is that what a woman wears is automatically worth commenting on because it is a window into her soul.
Of course it's harder with men. "Here we see Dick Cheney wearing a dark suit and a white shirt with a tie, basically the same outfit every politician has worn since the turn of the century (not counting the brief cardigan dark ages). It looks like Mr. Cheney is a mindless conformist just wanting to do what everybody else does."
Nope it's just women that get to be analyzed based on what they wear. Fortunately, with Ms. Hillary Clinton it's a little easier, because Mr. Aldrich can assume a core of pure evil. Yep he already knows Hillary is evil (and, for good measure, a communist) so analyzing that blue dress isn't all that hard.
"I found it interesting that she came to the White House on Sunday dressed in a bright pastel - still a pantsuit - but one that would be suitable for a nationwide photo-op.
She was not disappointed. Saint Hillary's smiling puss graced the front page of the conservative Washington Times, in living color. Editors, perhaps attempting to shelter readers from too much exaggerated glee, tightly pulled facial muscles, and arched eyebrows over saucer-sized eyeballs, chose a colorful car bomb for the above fold."
Aldrich ends his article with these lines.
"The other day, I watched a cat stalk and torture a helpless mouse - just before she killed and ate it. I swear I saw her grinning. The lesson? The mouse should never drop his guard because the cat has no sense of mercy and the cat is always hungry."
Nice. Not much subtlety there, is there? Hillary is Evil with a capital E, apparently.
What was that that someone was saying about how mean spirited our national discourse was getting?
Apparently Hillary was wearing the following outfit.
Of all the indignities that women in our Society suffer, this is one that would drive me nuts. Basically Aldrich's article is an analysis of what Ms. Hillary Clinton is thinking based on what she is wearing. The assumption is that what a woman wears is automatically worth commenting on because it is a window into her soul.
Of course it's harder with men. "Here we see Dick Cheney wearing a dark suit and a white shirt with a tie, basically the same outfit every politician has worn since the turn of the century (not counting the brief cardigan dark ages). It looks like Mr. Cheney is a mindless conformist just wanting to do what everybody else does."
Nope it's just women that get to be analyzed based on what they wear. Fortunately, with Ms. Hillary Clinton it's a little easier, because Mr. Aldrich can assume a core of pure evil. Yep he already knows Hillary is evil (and, for good measure, a communist) so analyzing that blue dress isn't all that hard.
"I found it interesting that she came to the White House on Sunday dressed in a bright pastel - still a pantsuit - but one that would be suitable for a nationwide photo-op.
She was not disappointed. Saint Hillary's smiling puss graced the front page of the conservative Washington Times, in living color. Editors, perhaps attempting to shelter readers from too much exaggerated glee, tightly pulled facial muscles, and arched eyebrows over saucer-sized eyeballs, chose a colorful car bomb for the above fold."
Aldrich ends his article with these lines.
"The other day, I watched a cat stalk and torture a helpless mouse - just before she killed and ate it. I swear I saw her grinning. The lesson? The mouse should never drop his guard because the cat has no sense of mercy and the cat is always hungry."
Nice. Not much subtlety there, is there? Hillary is Evil with a capital E, apparently.
What was that that someone was saying about how mean spirited our national discourse was getting?
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Build a Better Light Bulb
Salon has a fascinating article on the efficiency (or lack there of) of the lightbulb today. The article is well written and easy to understand, plus it has a subject that seems dull until you read it.
The Part is not the Whole
Ben Shapiro's latest article is one that I have a hard time reacting to. It is basically an argument that Jews must support President Bush. He presents a lot of vague sounding statements about how the current anti-Semite members of congress are all liberals. Of course he's careful to throw Robert Byrd in there, due to his affiliation with the Klan of about 60 years ago or so. I know that in one or two instances he is quoting the Senator or Representative out of context.
Ben then makes the following hyperbolic statements;
"For all the Jews who fear American Christianity, the most tolerant and philosemitic ideology the world has ever seen . . .
President Bush and the American right have been the best friends to the Jewish community in the annals of modern history."
Kind of over the top statements. As for American Christianity being the most tolerant ideology the world has ever seen. Well, as an American Christian I'm not sure I agree with this.
Oh and Ben does repeat the historical distortion that Fascism is a left wing phenomenon. Fascism, for those who don't know, is a right wing phenomenon. That's not to say that President Bush is a fascist or anything like that; just that fascism sprang from the ideology of the right (in the same way that the horrors of Stalinism sprang from the left).
I'm also not show how I would react if a person of my faith were to write this article. Scratch that. I know how I'd react, and it would not be positively.
Ben then makes the following hyperbolic statements;
"For all the Jews who fear American Christianity, the most tolerant and philosemitic ideology the world has ever seen . . .
President Bush and the American right have been the best friends to the Jewish community in the annals of modern history."
Kind of over the top statements. As for American Christianity being the most tolerant ideology the world has ever seen. Well, as an American Christian I'm not sure I agree with this.
Oh and Ben does repeat the historical distortion that Fascism is a left wing phenomenon. Fascism, for those who don't know, is a right wing phenomenon. That's not to say that President Bush is a fascist or anything like that; just that fascism sprang from the ideology of the right (in the same way that the horrors of Stalinism sprang from the left).
I'm also not show how I would react if a person of my faith were to write this article. Scratch that. I know how I'd react, and it would not be positively.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Conservative Judges
Robert Sheer's latest article reveals that apparently the person who wrote the memo in defense of torture is now a judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals.
"Conservatives once were identified with protecting the rights of the individual against the unbridled power of government, but this is not your grandfather's conservatism. The current brand running things in D.C. holds that the commander in chief is above all law and that the ends always justify the means. This has paved the way for the increasingly well-documented and systematic use of torture in an ad hoc gulag archipelago for those detained anywhere in the world under the overly broad rubric of the "war on terror."
Kind of a tough situation. What we have is a memo at the beginning of this process that appears to be an intellectual justification for the administration to allow torture. We have the actual abuse / torture occurring in Abu Ghraib. It's hard not to believe there wasn't some sort of connection between the two. But I'd feel a little more comfortable seeing a flow chart of exactly how the decisions that led to torture were made.
But I understand that that is unlikely.
"Conservatives once were identified with protecting the rights of the individual against the unbridled power of government, but this is not your grandfather's conservatism. The current brand running things in D.C. holds that the commander in chief is above all law and that the ends always justify the means. This has paved the way for the increasingly well-documented and systematic use of torture in an ad hoc gulag archipelago for those detained anywhere in the world under the overly broad rubric of the "war on terror."
Kind of a tough situation. What we have is a memo at the beginning of this process that appears to be an intellectual justification for the administration to allow torture. We have the actual abuse / torture occurring in Abu Ghraib. It's hard not to believe there wasn't some sort of connection between the two. But I'd feel a little more comfortable seeing a flow chart of exactly how the decisions that led to torture were made.
But I understand that that is unlikely.
Let's see what happens
Well Cal Thomas has an article today reporting that the Southern Baptist convention is considering discussing an amendment that would suggest that all Southern Baptists take their kids out of public schools.
All Southern Baptists would either home school their kids or send them too a religious school.
". . . it has been the decision by too many parents to allow government to shape their children's worldview and values that is responsible for spiritual and intellectual disorder that now inhabits the souls and minds of too many offspring of Christian parents."
Tricky one that; how do you educate children of different religions and intellectual backgrounds without giving these poor Baptist kids some exposure to different philosophies and ideas? Of course later on in the article he talks about returning to intellectual standards, which one assumes means either corporal punishment or bible reading.
Of course in the long run this is just going to return Baptist Church Members to the days in which education was the privilage of those who could afford it. I mean if you are a poor Southern Baptist family who can't afford a religious school, you must teach your children at home. Fair enough; maybe with "Hooked on Phonics," poor Southern Baptist kids will learn how to read which would be a step up. A few might be educated even better than those kids in public education. But it seems excessively optimistic, even foolhardy, to assume that most parents possess the skills to teach their children effectively.
That is in fact why we have teachers, isn't it?
All Southern Baptists would either home school their kids or send them too a religious school.
". . . it has been the decision by too many parents to allow government to shape their children's worldview and values that is responsible for spiritual and intellectual disorder that now inhabits the souls and minds of too many offspring of Christian parents."
Tricky one that; how do you educate children of different religions and intellectual backgrounds without giving these poor Baptist kids some exposure to different philosophies and ideas? Of course later on in the article he talks about returning to intellectual standards, which one assumes means either corporal punishment or bible reading.
Of course in the long run this is just going to return Baptist Church Members to the days in which education was the privilage of those who could afford it. I mean if you are a poor Southern Baptist family who can't afford a religious school, you must teach your children at home. Fair enough; maybe with "Hooked on Phonics," poor Southern Baptist kids will learn how to read which would be a step up. A few might be educated even better than those kids in public education. But it seems excessively optimistic, even foolhardy, to assume that most parents possess the skills to teach their children effectively.
That is in fact why we have teachers, isn't it?
Monday, June 14, 2004
Confusion Beats
You might want to swing by the old Daily Howler website. Old man Daily Howler put up an item about them polecats of the press, particularly that old Grizzly Bear Russert. 'Cording to Old Man Daily Howler, Russerts claws might not be as sharp as they used to be. Or, it's possible Russert might not realize that there are 12 months in a year. Thankfully, Old Man Daily Howler is fighting for the 12 month year against them pesky varmits in the Bush Administration who prefer the 10 month and 1 week year.
Confusion Reigns
There is an interesting interview over at Salon which deals with the inter-agency squabbles over Iraq between the Department of Defense and the Central intelligence Agency. The subject of the interview is Thomas Powers, author of "Intelligence Wars; American Secret History from Hitler to Al-Qaeda." The interviewer is Mark Follman, who has done good interviews in the past. This one isn't bad, but it's clear that Follman is trying to take the interview a certain direction.
Anyway the focus of the interview and the book (apparently), as mentioned above, is the conflict between the CIA and the DOD. Near the end of the interview is this exchange.
Anyway the focus of the interview and the book (apparently), as mentioned above, is the conflict between the CIA and the DOD. Near the end of the interview is this exchange.
Is the war inside the U.S. intelligence system completely off the charts historically? Is there any precedent for this?It is a bit troubling, particularly after the Bush administration and their supporters have assured us repeatedly that "now the adults are in charge."
I can't think of any. It's not uncommon for the various secret branches of the U.S. government to be at odds with each other. The CIA quarreled with the Defense Department for years over Soviet missiles, but I don't remember anything like this. The CIA was present when that team of Iraqi police went in and ransacked Chalabi's compound. I mean, that's amazing. The only thing that would've made it more amazing was if it had happened in Washington.
In a way it reminds me of the "Night of the long knives" in 1934, the night when Hitler got rid of the Brown Shirts, the street fighting organization that had helped the Nazi Party come to power. It was a highly organized institution bitterly hated by the army. It was run by a bunch of people who were politically ambitious and were direct rivals of the group that came into power with Hitler. Literally in one night the offices and headquarters of this group were raided and many of them were killed in their beds. Immediately all kinds of propaganda came out about their low behavior and betrayal. It was an internal government bloodletting where one faction just simply swept the other off the scene.
What the CIA did to Chalabi isn't exactly the same, but it makes me worry even more about the level of covert fighting inside our own government.
Eliminating Confusion
After perusing Mike S. Adams latest article, we, the secret masters of everything have determined that it is just too difficult to distinguish between Arabs who are guilty of terrorist acts and Arabs who are not guilty of terrorist acts. So we are holding the entire Arab "race" responsible for the actions of any terrorist.
Now some of you are wondering, "What about people who aren't ethnically Arab, but are Muslim? And what about people who aren't ethnically Arab but look like Arabs?" Well, in the interest of further simplification, let's just say that all Muslims or people who look like Arabs are in fact Arabs and thus guilty for all the acts of terrorism committed against the United States.
This simplifies things considerably. Adam's skeptical attitude towards the Torture at the Abu Ghraib prison (he puts abuse in quotation marks, suggesting not only does he question whether it was torture or not, he's not sure it's even abuse) is excused because they were Arabs and clearly guilty of something. We can disregard the Red Cross Report which suggested that 70 to 90 percent of the population of Abu Ghraib was arrested by mistake.
Also the tortured logic to his article resolves it self. He claims to be writing an apology to the Arab World for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, and yet he includes such phrases as this.
"I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S.
Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites."
See the apparent conflict resolves itself; the Arab world is clearly Arab, therefore they are guilty for September 11th. So when Mr. Adams suggests dropping at least 100 Daisy Cutters on the Fallujah region, killing thousands of civilians, well, they are Arabs aren't they? Therefore they are guilty.
We, the secret masters of the world, hope this clears everything up. By the way you might be wondering why we choose to use an obscure website like this to announce these deep truths. Well it's cause the Author just made us up, and he didn't want to let us give free publicity to some other site.
Now some of you are wondering, "What about people who aren't ethnically Arab, but are Muslim? And what about people who aren't ethnically Arab but look like Arabs?" Well, in the interest of further simplification, let's just say that all Muslims or people who look like Arabs are in fact Arabs and thus guilty for all the acts of terrorism committed against the United States.
This simplifies things considerably. Adam's skeptical attitude towards the Torture at the Abu Ghraib prison (he puts abuse in quotation marks, suggesting not only does he question whether it was torture or not, he's not sure it's even abuse) is excused because they were Arabs and clearly guilty of something. We can disregard the Red Cross Report which suggested that 70 to 90 percent of the population of Abu Ghraib was arrested by mistake.
Also the tortured logic to his article resolves it self. He claims to be writing an apology to the Arab World for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, and yet he includes such phrases as this.
"I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S.
Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites."
See the apparent conflict resolves itself; the Arab world is clearly Arab, therefore they are guilty for September 11th. So when Mr. Adams suggests dropping at least 100 Daisy Cutters on the Fallujah region, killing thousands of civilians, well, they are Arabs aren't they? Therefore they are guilty.
We, the secret masters of the world, hope this clears everything up. By the way you might be wondering why we choose to use an obscure website like this to announce these deep truths. Well it's cause the Author just made us up, and he didn't want to let us give free publicity to some other site.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 4
Well yesterday was the costume contest; a nice little affair. Here's some of the costumes; according to a more constant attender of Games, costumes were not that incredible. They looked pretty good to me, but what do I know?
Also played a game of Deliria last night, and it was a lot of fun. Deliria is apparently a game of modern horror and fantasy, somewhat like Mage and Changeling if you are familiar with those games. Here's the website if it sounds interesting; I can tell you the rules were easy enough and the set up was interesting.
Also played a game of Deliria last night, and it was a lot of fun. Deliria is apparently a game of modern horror and fantasy, somewhat like Mage and Changeling if you are familiar with those games. Here's the website if it sounds interesting; I can tell you the rules were easy enough and the set up was interesting.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 3
Well I'm here at Dream Con still. Attended panels this morning without annoying any of the panel members. I'm losing my touch. But went to panel on H.P. Lovecraft which was not the most exciting. And walked past the line of people waiting to get autographs from Ron Perlman.
Those musicians to the left sounded pretty good actually. Soothing.
Anyway back at it.
Those musicians to the left sounded pretty good actually. Soothing.
Anyway back at it.
Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 2
Well yesterday was interesting. Went to a panal discussion with Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, which was a bit depressing. Like all writers they stood up and said "Well, nobody makes any money in the writing game (except us of course), so you might as well give up right now."
Interesting to note the dynamic between the two; Pournelle is obviously a bit more of a businessman than Larry Niven.
Then I went to a room on where comics are going where I got under the panelists skin by mentioning CrossGen. What are you going to do?
Then I played a five hour game of Vampire the Resurrection which was annoying. There was a lot of good stuff, but it turns out little annoying kids come to these science fiction conventions as well, and one of them played with us.
They are also having some sort of boating convention here in town. So I took a picture of a boat. Here it is.
Interesting to note the dynamic between the two; Pournelle is obviously a bit more of a businessman than Larry Niven.
Then I went to a room on where comics are going where I got under the panelists skin by mentioning CrossGen. What are you going to do?
Then I played a five hour game of Vampire the Resurrection which was annoying. There was a lot of good stuff, but it turns out little annoying kids come to these science fiction conventions as well, and one of them played with us.
They are also having some sort of boating convention here in town. So I took a picture of a boat. Here it is.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 1
Well I have arrived at Dream Con, got my room, parked (more difficult than it signs) signed in at the Dream Con, and now I'm up in my room writing to you, my loyal fans.
Also I've seen the truth, as emphasized by this sign.
In other news it's pretty quiet so far; although we have hopes that it will pick up. Caleb, who is providing libertarian commentary, stated, "As long as they are providing a service that people are willing to pay for, it will be a great event. I realize that's a stupid statement, but I had nothing."
Here's a picture of the creepy eye they make you walk past to get in.
More to come!
Also I've seen the truth, as emphasized by this sign.
In other news it's pretty quiet so far; although we have hopes that it will pick up. Caleb, who is providing libertarian commentary, stated, "As long as they are providing a service that people are willing to pay for, it will be a great event. I realize that's a stupid statement, but I had nothing."
Here's a picture of the creepy eye they make you walk past to get in.
More to come!
Around the Horn, Vol. XVI of XXVII; The Rise of the Hamburger
Quick blogaround today; for reasons I will explain at the end of my post.
Echidne of the Snakes has a very thought provoking article on the Mummy Wars and the expectations that are placed upon women.
It's Craptastic is doing a series on Medicare and Medicaid, of which the latest post is here. Interesting political ramifications.
Trish Wilson reveals that there are some sharp tacks out there who don't want women to have the vote.
Respectful of Otters has some typically well thought out comments on the memos which laid the "intellectual" ground work for Abu Ghraib.
musing's musings has a bit on a very scary bit of information coming out of the White House. Unsure how accurate this is, but it is definitely scary.
Bark Bark Wolf Wolf has a review of some recent poll numbers that look good for Kerry and bad for President Bush; although he also cautions against being to optimistic.
bloggg has a picture of a wombat. Not a very flattering picture.
Corrente has a section on President Bush's mental health. Such as it is.
Anyway I'm off. I am on the road to DreamCon which is a science fiction type convention. I will be doing reports from the convention, complete with pictures and additional commentary. Look forward to it. And yes, I am kind of a geek. Why do you ask?
Echidne of the Snakes has a very thought provoking article on the Mummy Wars and the expectations that are placed upon women.
It's Craptastic is doing a series on Medicare and Medicaid, of which the latest post is here. Interesting political ramifications.
Trish Wilson reveals that there are some sharp tacks out there who don't want women to have the vote.
Respectful of Otters has some typically well thought out comments on the memos which laid the "intellectual" ground work for Abu Ghraib.
musing's musings has a bit on a very scary bit of information coming out of the White House. Unsure how accurate this is, but it is definitely scary.
Bark Bark Wolf Wolf has a review of some recent poll numbers that look good for Kerry and bad for President Bush; although he also cautions against being to optimistic.
bloggg has a picture of a wombat. Not a very flattering picture.
Corrente has a section on President Bush's mental health. Such as it is.
Anyway I'm off. I am on the road to DreamCon which is a science fiction type convention. I will be doing reports from the convention, complete with pictures and additional commentary. Look forward to it. And yes, I am kind of a geek. Why do you ask?
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Meet Michael Badnarik
Apparently the Libertarian Party has selected their candidate in Michael Badnarik. According to the Economist (which I purchased this very day, and so can't link to), he was kind of a dark house candidate, but won over the convention.
Sounds like an interesting guy, and I wish them all the best.
Did he think al-Qaeda was behind the September 11th attacks? He was not sure; "I know I don't necessarily believe everything the federal government tells me." From a Libertarian's point of view, an excellent answer. Elsewhere Mr. Badnarik has promised, if elected, to wear his handgun during state-of-the-union addresses, blow up empty United Nations buildings and require violent criminals to lie in bed all day for the first month of their incarceration.
Sounds like an interesting guy, and I wish them all the best.
Does Torture Work?
One of the arguments in favor of torture is the practical one; if we need the information to save lives, why not torture to get it? Donald P. Gregg, Former National Security Advisor (to George H. W. Bush) and Ambassador to Korea has an interesting answer to that question.
"In 1951, as a young paramilitary officer trainee in the C.I.A., I heard my instructors say that to win the cold war, "fighting fire with fire" would be required. I remember asking, how, if we did that, we could maintain any distinction between what we stood for, and what our communist opponents represented. I was told to sit down and shut up.
But the agency, I am gratified to say, took a strong stand against the use of torture in Vietnam. Under William Colby's direction, interrogation centers were set up, under American control, and coercive techniques were forbidden. I learned from my experiences in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972 that by treating prisoners humanely we frequently (though not always) gained valuable intelligence from them. This was particularly true of battered prisoners who had held out against prolonged South Vietnamese torture, but responded to being treated with compassion by Americans."
Something to consider.
"In 1951, as a young paramilitary officer trainee in the C.I.A., I heard my instructors say that to win the cold war, "fighting fire with fire" would be required. I remember asking, how, if we did that, we could maintain any distinction between what we stood for, and what our communist opponents represented. I was told to sit down and shut up.
But the agency, I am gratified to say, took a strong stand against the use of torture in Vietnam. Under William Colby's direction, interrogation centers were set up, under American control, and coercive techniques were forbidden. I learned from my experiences in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972 that by treating prisoners humanely we frequently (though not always) gained valuable intelligence from them. This was particularly true of battered prisoners who had held out against prolonged South Vietnamese torture, but responded to being treated with compassion by Americans."
Something to consider.
President Reagan and President Bush
Interesting article by Arianna Huffington on the difference between the vision of America presented by President Reagan and the vision presented by President Bush.
"Reagan built his legacy on hope; Bush has built his on fear. And no matter how hard Karl Rove tries, he'll never be able to cloak Bush in Reagan's mantle. It just doesn't fit."
Good article all the way through; she also covers hedgehogs and fox's. I'm a fox who wants to pretend to be a hedgehog. But I'm really a fox.
"Reagan built his legacy on hope; Bush has built his on fear. And no matter how hard Karl Rove tries, he'll never be able to cloak Bush in Reagan's mantle. It just doesn't fit."
Good article all the way through; she also covers hedgehogs and fox's. I'm a fox who wants to pretend to be a hedgehog. But I'm really a fox.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
A Note
I'm kind of out of it for various reasons today; hopefully I'll be back up to full speed tomorrow.
A Poem by Emily Dickinson
’T WAS just this time last year I died.
I know I heard the corn,
When I was carried by the farms,—
It had the tassels on.
I thought how yellow it would look
When Richard went to mill;
And then I wanted to get out,
But something held my will.
I thought just how red apples wedged
The stubble’s joints between;
And carts went stooping round the fields
To take the pumpkins in.
I wondered which would miss me least,
And when Thanksgiving came,
If father ’d multiply the plates
To make an even sum.
And if my stocking hung too high,
Would it blur the Christmas glee,
That not a Santa Claus could reach
The altitude of me?
But this sort grieved myself, and so
I thought how it would be
When just this time, some perfect year,
Themselves should come to me.
- 1924
I know I heard the corn,
When I was carried by the farms,—
It had the tassels on.
I thought how yellow it would look
When Richard went to mill;
And then I wanted to get out,
But something held my will.
I thought just how red apples wedged
The stubble’s joints between;
And carts went stooping round the fields
To take the pumpkins in.
I wondered which would miss me least,
And when Thanksgiving came,
If father ’d multiply the plates
To make an even sum.
And if my stocking hung too high,
Would it blur the Christmas glee,
That not a Santa Claus could reach
The altitude of me?
But this sort grieved myself, and so
I thought how it would be
When just this time, some perfect year,
Themselves should come to me.
- 1924
Life and How to Live It
This is the rule I care about today. Do not buy puppies from a chain Pet Store without doing some research.
Most puppies in chain Pet Stores (PetSmart being an exception) come from what are called puppy mills. Here is PETA's description of a puppy mill.
"Recently, PETA found dogs at one puppy mill living on hard wire with no bedding, little protection from the searing hot summers or the frigid winters, and little to no veterinary care. Crusted, oozing eyes, raging ear infections, mange that turned skin into a mass of red scabs, abscessed feet from the unforgiving wire floors—all were ignored or inadequately treated. Some dogs injured their feet by catching them in the wire of their cages, and they hobbled painfully around their small space, trying to keep their balance. The collar on one Labrador retriever had not been adjusted as the dog grew and had become embedded in his flesh. Even though the gangrenous skin fell away as the collar was removed, his neck was treated with nothing but a worm-repellant spray.
Timid dogs were terrorized by their more aggressive cagemates, who often prevented them from eating and drinking. Sadly, many of the old mother dogs had gone mad from confinement and loneliness. They circled frantically in their small cages and paced ceaselessly back and forth—their only way of coping with their despair.
These conditions are typical at hundreds of puppy mills across the country. Laws offer little protection and are poorly enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
Since the government is apparently powerless to affect this situation; it is up to us as consumers to remove the demand for Puppy Mills. Instead of getting a puppy that way, why not contact your local vets or animal shelters. Consider adopting an older dog; I can speak from experience that they are often very good companions. PetSmart (who I am not affiliated with in anyway) has a program whereby you can adopt an older dog. I plan on availing myself of it in the next couple of weeks.
Anyway you all probably know this already; but I thought I would remind anybody who didn't know.
Most puppies in chain Pet Stores (PetSmart being an exception) come from what are called puppy mills. Here is PETA's description of a puppy mill.
"Recently, PETA found dogs at one puppy mill living on hard wire with no bedding, little protection from the searing hot summers or the frigid winters, and little to no veterinary care. Crusted, oozing eyes, raging ear infections, mange that turned skin into a mass of red scabs, abscessed feet from the unforgiving wire floors—all were ignored or inadequately treated. Some dogs injured their feet by catching them in the wire of their cages, and they hobbled painfully around their small space, trying to keep their balance. The collar on one Labrador retriever had not been adjusted as the dog grew and had become embedded in his flesh. Even though the gangrenous skin fell away as the collar was removed, his neck was treated with nothing but a worm-repellant spray.
Timid dogs were terrorized by their more aggressive cagemates, who often prevented them from eating and drinking. Sadly, many of the old mother dogs had gone mad from confinement and loneliness. They circled frantically in their small cages and paced ceaselessly back and forth—their only way of coping with their despair.
These conditions are typical at hundreds of puppy mills across the country. Laws offer little protection and are poorly enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
Since the government is apparently powerless to affect this situation; it is up to us as consumers to remove the demand for Puppy Mills. Instead of getting a puppy that way, why not contact your local vets or animal shelters. Consider adopting an older dog; I can speak from experience that they are often very good companions. PetSmart (who I am not affiliated with in anyway) has a program whereby you can adopt an older dog. I plan on availing myself of it in the next couple of weeks.
Anyway you all probably know this already; but I thought I would remind anybody who didn't know.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Danger! Danger!
There was an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on a new memo that has come forth in which the Bush Administration explored the legal jungle created by the administrations willingness to consider using torture as a tool in the war in terror. Bad enough already, but one part of the article is particularly frightening
You'll see this discussed around the blogosphere today. The phrase is pretty chilling, but thankfully, the Wall Street Journal buried it pretty deep in the article.
Still the implications are clear enough. The Bush administration, or parts of it, consider the President above the law.
Talking Points Memo (from which I lifted the quote, although I do have the paper and could have typed it out myself (if I weren't so darn lazy)) has a great discussion of this, tying it back to Jefferson.
The press needs to ask President Bush or his press secretary what this means and if the President himself believes it. I suspect the answer will be something like "I will do everything I can to protect the American people." Which is an answer, more or less. Still, the odds are, he'll never have to answer the question.
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
You'll see this discussed around the blogosphere today. The phrase is pretty chilling, but thankfully, the Wall Street Journal buried it pretty deep in the article.
Still the implications are clear enough. The Bush administration, or parts of it, consider the President above the law.
Talking Points Memo (from which I lifted the quote, although I do have the paper and could have typed it out myself (if I weren't so darn lazy)) has a great discussion of this, tying it back to Jefferson.
The press needs to ask President Bush or his press secretary what this means and if the President himself believes it. I suspect the answer will be something like "I will do everything I can to protect the American people." Which is an answer, more or less. Still, the odds are, he'll never have to answer the question.
Even Better than the Real Thing
Paul Krugman has an article today on Reagan (as does everybody else). In it he looks at the Mantra that Reagan lowered taxes and therefore we had an enormous boom. As it turns out the facts don't exactly bear that out, and the true story is a bit more complicated than that.
". . . Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.
The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts."
The world is almost always more complicated than it first appears. But I guess you knew that.
". . . Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.
The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts."
The world is almost always more complicated than it first appears. But I guess you knew that.
Monday, June 07, 2004
A Poem By E. E. Cummings
Had to make this a picture so as to get the spacing right. Plus makes it stand out. Enjoy.
Not that this wasn't Predictable
But Media Matters has a bit on how the right wing is trying desperately to connect Ronald Reagan and President Bush in our minds.
You can kind of see why; I mean I'd rather run on Reagan's record than President George W. Bush's. No Contest.
You can kind of see why; I mean I'd rather run on Reagan's record than President George W. Bush's. No Contest.
History
"History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity." - Cicero
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today." - Henry Ford
I just want to say that the true evaluation of Ronald Reagan's life will not happen for a couple of months at best, and more likely it will take a couple of years. A lot of people are going to try; some are even going to try hard. But right now there's too much emotion invested in his passing for anybody to think straight.
Right now a lot of the discussion is centered on a childish black and white level. Reagan was either totally great or terribly terrible. It should be obvious that those two options can't really contain the fullness of even a normal life, let along one like Reagans.
Plus you have politics thrown into the mix. If you thought that Democrats politicized the Paul Wellstone memorial, you haven't seen anything yet. For the Republican party and their media buddies (like, say, Fox News) this week is going to be about reminding us that President Reagan was one of the two great presidents of the 20th century and that President Bush is a lot like him. So watch for that.
The difference being, of course, that President Bush's and the media's enthusiasm for Reagan is genuine and heartfelt; what happened at the Wellstone Memorial was a cynically staged political rally (for a good dissection of this, check out "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken.
Anyway I guess I agree with John W. Gardner (as quoted by Bill Moyers).
"History never looks like history when you are living through it."
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today." - Henry Ford
I just want to say that the true evaluation of Ronald Reagan's life will not happen for a couple of months at best, and more likely it will take a couple of years. A lot of people are going to try; some are even going to try hard. But right now there's too much emotion invested in his passing for anybody to think straight.
Right now a lot of the discussion is centered on a childish black and white level. Reagan was either totally great or terribly terrible. It should be obvious that those two options can't really contain the fullness of even a normal life, let along one like Reagans.
Plus you have politics thrown into the mix. If you thought that Democrats politicized the Paul Wellstone memorial, you haven't seen anything yet. For the Republican party and their media buddies (like, say, Fox News) this week is going to be about reminding us that President Reagan was one of the two great presidents of the 20th century and that President Bush is a lot like him. So watch for that.
The difference being, of course, that President Bush's and the media's enthusiasm for Reagan is genuine and heartfelt; what happened at the Wellstone Memorial was a cynically staged political rally (for a good dissection of this, check out "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken.
Anyway I guess I agree with John W. Gardner (as quoted by Bill Moyers).
"History never looks like history when you are living through it."
Sunday, June 06, 2004
New Quote
For those who don't know, Ronald Reagan died yesterday. Should make for an interesting week. I am still collecting my thoughts on him. But in the meantime, this weaks quote is from him and, of course, there's a new Quotes Page.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
The Liberal Coalition
Also revising some things on the Liberal Coalition. I should have the cool owl picture there over my list. Here, check it out.
Of course something like this I can't help photoshopping a little, even if it is just to mess with the colors.
Or I could mess with the colors and make it a water color.
OK that's enough.
Of course something like this I can't help photoshopping a little, even if it is just to mess with the colors.
Or I could mess with the colors and make it a water color.
OK that's enough.
Continued Improvements
Making some changes to the website. In particular I am consolidating the Candidate Reviews. There will be a new webpage dedicated to John Kerry's statements, which will have links to the complete Candidate Reviews. Enjoy.
Your Weekly Rush
Rush chose to respond to a comment by Teresa Heinz Kerry on Friday. Rush began with this unusual statement. "Well, we haven't talked about Teresa Heinz Kerry recently. I've been trying to deal with this in a kid-glove, hands-off kind of way, you know? Because you're not supposed to "hit" the girl. You're not supposed to "attack" the girl, still no matter what the girl does, you can't."
I'm sure that will come as some comfort to Hillary Clinton. Rush goes on to use the old Conservative technique of making words mean whatever you want them to mean.
"Her most direct attack came on the subject of patriotism. 'One of the saddest things about this administration is its cynical attempt to equate patriotism with singing in the president's amen chorus,' she said. 'The Americans I have met are tired of being told it is unpatriotic to question this president and his administration's policies.'"
Teresa, nobody is saying that about them. It's their own guilt. It's their own guilt giving voice to that. Nobody is accusing them of that. You guys are trying to redefine "patriotism" so that's what it means. Let's be honest here. The left is trying to redefine "patriotism" as criticizing the president."
See? It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush saying that the goals of the Democratic Party and the goals of al-Qaeda are the same in the November Election. It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush suggesting that if I were a terrorist supporter I'd be doing exactly what I am doing.
But see that's the game we are playing, because pretty often Rush will preface one of these clear attacks on Democrats / Liberals patriotism by saying "Now I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism." See how that works?
See? But of course for grown-ups I have, in fact, questioned their patriotism. What is patriotism? According to Websters, some definitions might be "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country" Have I questioned Mr. Limbuaghs and President Bush's love of their country, or devotion to the welfare of the country? Clearly I have.
Reminds me of a Simpsons bit.
At any rate, Mr. Limbaugh, I know when my patriotism is being questioned. You can say black is white all day long if that's what you and your fans want, but I, and many others, know that it's black.
The sun's not yellow it's chicken.
I'm sure that will come as some comfort to Hillary Clinton. Rush goes on to use the old Conservative technique of making words mean whatever you want them to mean.
"Her most direct attack came on the subject of patriotism. 'One of the saddest things about this administration is its cynical attempt to equate patriotism with singing in the president's amen chorus,' she said. 'The Americans I have met are tired of being told it is unpatriotic to question this president and his administration's policies.'"
Teresa, nobody is saying that about them. It's their own guilt. It's their own guilt giving voice to that. Nobody is accusing them of that. You guys are trying to redefine "patriotism" so that's what it means. Let's be honest here. The left is trying to redefine "patriotism" as criticizing the president."
See? It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush saying that the goals of the Democratic Party and the goals of al-Qaeda are the same in the November Election. It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush suggesting that if I were a terrorist supporter I'd be doing exactly what I am doing.
But see that's the game we are playing, because pretty often Rush will preface one of these clear attacks on Democrats / Liberals patriotism by saying "Now I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism." See how that works?
"Now I'm not questioning President Bush's Patriotism, but I think he puts the needs of big business over the needs of the country."
"Now I'm not questioning Rush Limbaugh's Patriotism, but I think he doesn't give a damn about the damage he's inflicting on this country and only cares about having his nice townhouse in New York City and his mansion in Palm Beach, FL."
See? But of course for grown-ups I have, in fact, questioned their patriotism. What is patriotism? According to Websters, some definitions might be "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country" Have I questioned Mr. Limbuaghs and President Bush's love of their country, or devotion to the welfare of the country? Clearly I have.
Reminds me of a Simpsons bit.
Lawyer: Will you tell the court your whereabouts at the time of the
carjacking?
Willie: I was alone in me Unabomber-style shack; I had nothing to do with
that carjacking.
Lawyer: Carjacking?! Who said anything about a carjacking?
[galley and jury murmurs]
Willie: But, didn't you just say--?
Lawyer: *I'll* ask the questions here, Carjacker Willie!
At any rate, Mr. Limbaugh, I know when my patriotism is being questioned. You can say black is white all day long if that's what you and your fans want, but I, and many others, know that it's black.
The sun's not yellow it's chicken.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Nader's Flirtation
Apparently Ralph Nader is not seeking to be the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2004. If, however, the party chooses to "endorse" him, he wouldn't say no.
Norman Solomon, a gentleman which with I don't entirely agree (although this article was perhaps a bit over the top), has the scoop.
Enjoy.
Norman Solomon, a gentleman which with I don't entirely agree (although this article was perhaps a bit over the top), has the scoop.
Enjoy.
Scenes from the Fall
Our response to the Tenet resignation was, in a word, a relief. At last, someone who should have been removed from office at the very outset of the George W. Bush administration will be departing. By so doing, we can not only hope to avoid perpetuating the sorts of intelligence mistakes for which this DCI bears ultimate responsibility.
. . . Going back to the early 1990s, the CIA's view was like that of its clients elsewhere in the Arab world: Democratizing Iraq was to be resisted at every turn. The Agency favored simply replacing Saddam Hussein with another tyrannical dictator, in the interest of promoting local and regional "stability." The virulent and ongoing effort to discredit Ahmed Chalabi springs forth from the systematic hostility George Tenet fostered, or at least tolerated, towards Free Iraq. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., It's About Time.
It's true that Mr. Tenet has always demonstrated intense dedication to the nation and his job, but he presided over some of the most astonishing and costly failures of American espionage in recent history.
On Mr. Tenet's watch, the American intelligence community failed to comprehend the domestic threat from Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. It either bungled or hyped its analysis of Iraq to spin fanciful threats from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, threats that President Bush used to justify the invasion. The C.I.A. itself apparently did not sign on to the more ludicrous visions offered by Mr. Rumsfeld's team, like the one of grateful Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers. But it utterly missed the dismal state Iraq was in and the strength of the insurgency that Americans would face after the fall of Baghdad. - New York Times Editorial.
"CIA Director George Tenet has resigned. Good. Can Congress and the media resign next?
Tenet stacked up an impressive number of failures during his tenure, but pinning America's atrophied intelligence capabilities on him is a little like blaming Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade for Denmark's weak defense. The problem is the national material with which both have had to work. Led by Congress and the media, the United States has hobbled its ability to conduct intelligence operations throughout the past three decades with its squeamishness and its gotcha political culture." - Rich Lowry, "Tenet and Us."
George Tenet's resignation as director of Central Intelligence has taken the political world of Washington by storm. And yet, it was an act that had been foreseen for some time.
Consider what made Tenet's tenure at the CIA untenable: the combined weight of the 9/11 intelligence failures, the absence of Iraqi WMD and the post-occupation fiasco, as well as the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, whether it be the leaking of the identity and the affiliation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife (a CIA covert operative) to the press, of Ahmed Chalabi's allegedly informing the Iranians (courtesy of a leak from the Pentagon) that the United States had broken Iran's diplomatic code.
But, in reflecting on his passing, one should never forget that his troubles were, for the most part, of his own making." - Scott Ritter, "Tenet leaves CIA's Reputation in Tatters."
"In Tenet’s defense, he inherited a weak organization seriously hampered by a shortage of spies, Justice Department rules which prohibited the CIA and U.S. law enforcement from sharing important information, and funding constraints. These issues developed primarily during the Carter and Clinton administrations – who mistakenly believed technology could replace human beings as the primary source of intelligence and protecting individual civil liberties was more important than preventing terror attacks. - Freedom Alliance, "Tenets Hard Work Should Not Be Lost in Speculation of Reasons Behind Resignation."
"There has certainly been loud rumbling about tension between the CIA on the one hand, and the Pentagon and White House on the other, over the Iraq intelligence mess. Tenet had already fallen on his sword over the controversy about Bush's mistaken claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in the African nation of Niger. Although the CIA had in fact warned Bush's national security council deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the information was false, in the end it was Tenet who accepted responsibility.
With the White House having thrown Tenet overboard once, there is little doubt it would do so again. But there is some question about whether he would take the fall a second time. And there are two possible sources of friction between Tenet and the White House that are heating up: the inquiry into who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the unfolding scandal over allegations that Pentagon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi passed sensitive U.S. intelligence to Iran." - Mary Jacoby, "Tenet's Choice."
No real commentary. Nice that both the right wing and the left wing are applauding his resignation.
. . . Going back to the early 1990s, the CIA's view was like that of its clients elsewhere in the Arab world: Democratizing Iraq was to be resisted at every turn. The Agency favored simply replacing Saddam Hussein with another tyrannical dictator, in the interest of promoting local and regional "stability." The virulent and ongoing effort to discredit Ahmed Chalabi springs forth from the systematic hostility George Tenet fostered, or at least tolerated, towards Free Iraq. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., It's About Time.
It's true that Mr. Tenet has always demonstrated intense dedication to the nation and his job, but he presided over some of the most astonishing and costly failures of American espionage in recent history.
On Mr. Tenet's watch, the American intelligence community failed to comprehend the domestic threat from Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. It either bungled or hyped its analysis of Iraq to spin fanciful threats from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, threats that President Bush used to justify the invasion. The C.I.A. itself apparently did not sign on to the more ludicrous visions offered by Mr. Rumsfeld's team, like the one of grateful Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers. But it utterly missed the dismal state Iraq was in and the strength of the insurgency that Americans would face after the fall of Baghdad. - New York Times Editorial.
"CIA Director George Tenet has resigned. Good. Can Congress and the media resign next?
Tenet stacked up an impressive number of failures during his tenure, but pinning America's atrophied intelligence capabilities on him is a little like blaming Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade for Denmark's weak defense. The problem is the national material with which both have had to work. Led by Congress and the media, the United States has hobbled its ability to conduct intelligence operations throughout the past three decades with its squeamishness and its gotcha political culture." - Rich Lowry, "Tenet and Us."
George Tenet's resignation as director of Central Intelligence has taken the political world of Washington by storm. And yet, it was an act that had been foreseen for some time.
Consider what made Tenet's tenure at the CIA untenable: the combined weight of the 9/11 intelligence failures, the absence of Iraqi WMD and the post-occupation fiasco, as well as the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, whether it be the leaking of the identity and the affiliation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife (a CIA covert operative) to the press, of Ahmed Chalabi's allegedly informing the Iranians (courtesy of a leak from the Pentagon) that the United States had broken Iran's diplomatic code.
But, in reflecting on his passing, one should never forget that his troubles were, for the most part, of his own making." - Scott Ritter, "Tenet leaves CIA's Reputation in Tatters."
"In Tenet’s defense, he inherited a weak organization seriously hampered by a shortage of spies, Justice Department rules which prohibited the CIA and U.S. law enforcement from sharing important information, and funding constraints. These issues developed primarily during the Carter and Clinton administrations – who mistakenly believed technology could replace human beings as the primary source of intelligence and protecting individual civil liberties was more important than preventing terror attacks. - Freedom Alliance, "Tenets Hard Work Should Not Be Lost in Speculation of Reasons Behind Resignation."
"There has certainly been loud rumbling about tension between the CIA on the one hand, and the Pentagon and White House on the other, over the Iraq intelligence mess. Tenet had already fallen on his sword over the controversy about Bush's mistaken claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in the African nation of Niger. Although the CIA had in fact warned Bush's national security council deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the information was false, in the end it was Tenet who accepted responsibility.
With the White House having thrown Tenet overboard once, there is little doubt it would do so again. But there is some question about whether he would take the fall a second time. And there are two possible sources of friction between Tenet and the White House that are heating up: the inquiry into who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the unfolding scandal over allegations that Pentagon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi passed sensitive U.S. intelligence to Iran." - Mary Jacoby, "Tenet's Choice."
No real commentary. Nice that both the right wing and the left wing are applauding his resignation.
Round the Horn Part 3.1223, This Ain't Really Life
Incidentally for those who are wondering, last weeks title for this feature ("Round the Horn Issue 15 - Lobsters Ate My Femur" was sort of a reference to the classic Frank Zappa album "Weasels Ripped my Flesh." This weeks title is a line from a song by Gil-Scott Heron ("B-Movie").
Let's start out with T-Rex's Guide to Life, which has a nice little review of some of the more interesting comments he's received.
Words on a Page has an exploration of some of the differences between President Bush and Former President Clinton.
The Gotham City 13 has the 411 on the person selected by America to run Iraq, Iyad Allawi.
Rubber Hose has an interesting anecdote about how reporters want to deal with environmental issues.
Good post over at archy on the contrast between Republican Rhetoric of a year ago and the realities today, in this instance referring to their dominance over the American Political system.
Congratulations are in order to Pen Elayne for becoming one of the top 100 most influential bloggers. Or should that be congratulations to the blogging community for realizing and recognizing that Pen Elayne is or should be one of the top 100 most influential bloggers.
The Invisible Library chronicles the existence of a giant mushroom in the Congo.
Dohiyi Mir has a really fascinating discussion on the use of the world imperial to describe our current President. He also quotes Lewis Carroll. Be sure to read the comments section down below as there is an interesting further discussion.
Corrente has a post on how the Bush administration is acknowledging the contributions of our soldiers (after being pushed into it).
New World Blogger has a provocative question on what poverty means. It is definitely something to think about.
And that's it for this session. Join us next time when we will have more obscure song lyrics and links to the brilliant writers of the Liberal Coalition. But, if you just can't wait for next week, you can go to the Liberal Coalition's blog roll along the left there and enjoy.
Let's start out with T-Rex's Guide to Life, which has a nice little review of some of the more interesting comments he's received.
Words on a Page has an exploration of some of the differences between President Bush and Former President Clinton.
The Gotham City 13 has the 411 on the person selected by America to run Iraq, Iyad Allawi.
Rubber Hose has an interesting anecdote about how reporters want to deal with environmental issues.
Good post over at archy on the contrast between Republican Rhetoric of a year ago and the realities today, in this instance referring to their dominance over the American Political system.
Congratulations are in order to Pen Elayne for becoming one of the top 100 most influential bloggers. Or should that be congratulations to the blogging community for realizing and recognizing that Pen Elayne is or should be one of the top 100 most influential bloggers.
The Invisible Library chronicles the existence of a giant mushroom in the Congo.
Dohiyi Mir has a really fascinating discussion on the use of the world imperial to describe our current President. He also quotes Lewis Carroll. Be sure to read the comments section down below as there is an interesting further discussion.
Corrente has a post on how the Bush administration is acknowledging the contributions of our soldiers (after being pushed into it).
New World Blogger has a provocative question on what poverty means. It is definitely something to think about.
And that's it for this session. Join us next time when we will have more obscure song lyrics and links to the brilliant writers of the Liberal Coalition. But, if you just can't wait for next week, you can go to the Liberal Coalition's blog roll along the left there and enjoy.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Party Out of Bounds
Apparently if you want to you can Party for the President. Organize a party in support of President Bush. Why President Bush and his cronies even have a suggestion on what to serve.
"Let them eat cake."
"Let them eat cake."
Analyzing Ann II
Yep, continuing our new feature (now that the lamps seem to have run their course) is our ongoing attempt to, in a more scientific way, analyze Ann Coulters Columns.
As you recall, last week Ms. Coulters article was 43 sentences long. 20 of those sentences were attacks, 13 were positive statements of her argument, and 10 were neutral (making percentages of 47%, 30%, and 23%, respectively).
Well, Ann's latest column, "This is History calling - quick, get me Rewrite!" has 37 statements. 23 of them are attacks (making a whopping 62% of the total), 9 are positive (making 24%) and 5 are neutral (making 14%). One thing to note, her last paragraph contained a lot of short sentences slamming into Al Gore. Had she left that off, her negative/positive balance would have been a lot closer to last weeks.
A further note on the title. Ann presumably doesn't believe that she is asking for a rewrite of history (although she is).
Ann's central thesis (beyond the standard "Liberals are Hateful Morons") is that a story from New York Times Magazine, in which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the invasion of Iraq, was the Rosetta stone to understanding what would happen when we invaded. Incidently it remains the Rosetta stone despite having been penned by Bill Keller, now editor in chief at the "Seditionist Rag," by which Ann means the New York Times. If only the New York Times were as unbiased as Coulter herself, but apparently we can trust it in this instance.
Among other things, Wolfowitz apparently stated to Keller that Saddam probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program. So you see that proves what hypocrites we Liberals are. Here was the Secretary of Defense patiently explaining to us liberals that Saddam probably didn't even have a nuclear program running, certainly not one that was near completion, and we just weren't listening.
I guess these other guys were talking so much it was hard to pay attention to Wolfowitz.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"QUESTION: So Saddam's more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think so because of his past practice and because we believe that he is a danger, a fundamental danger, not only for the region but potentially the United States, as well. And I say, a lot of that is based on the evidence that's now available, that he is working actively to improve his . . . nuclear weapons program." - Vice President Richard Cheney, Meet the Press, September 8, 2002
"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses it, and that's a little late." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 8, 2002
Got these quotes from a site I mentioned last week, "Iraq on the Record." There were 30 such references between September 1st and October 15th according to "Iraq on the Record."
Ann's slams on Gore are typically mean-spirited, but just as typically somewhat difficult to prove. And of course there's this gem. "He grew a beard - just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims."
But the most problematic part of Ann's essay comes in the first couple of lines.
"The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations - certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions - hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences - have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war."
There are no real problems in Iraq, and anybody who says that there are problems in Iraq is a Liberal Liar (and presumably a Bush-Hater). What kind of life does Ann Lead that she's comfortable saying that? I mean part of this is shifting the terrain. The problems that Liberals are pointing out now aren't problems with the invasion itself, but problems with our plans to occupy Iraq. But there seems to be a willful decision on Ann's part to believe that the war in Iraq is going great.
Providing yet more proof for my thesis that Reality itself is Partisan.
As you recall, last week Ms. Coulters article was 43 sentences long. 20 of those sentences were attacks, 13 were positive statements of her argument, and 10 were neutral (making percentages of 47%, 30%, and 23%, respectively).
Well, Ann's latest column, "This is History calling - quick, get me Rewrite!" has 37 statements. 23 of them are attacks (making a whopping 62% of the total), 9 are positive (making 24%) and 5 are neutral (making 14%). One thing to note, her last paragraph contained a lot of short sentences slamming into Al Gore. Had she left that off, her negative/positive balance would have been a lot closer to last weeks.
A further note on the title. Ann presumably doesn't believe that she is asking for a rewrite of history (although she is).
Ann's central thesis (beyond the standard "Liberals are Hateful Morons") is that a story from New York Times Magazine, in which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the invasion of Iraq, was the Rosetta stone to understanding what would happen when we invaded. Incidently it remains the Rosetta stone despite having been penned by Bill Keller, now editor in chief at the "Seditionist Rag," by which Ann means the New York Times. If only the New York Times were as unbiased as Coulter herself, but apparently we can trust it in this instance.
Among other things, Wolfowitz apparently stated to Keller that Saddam probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program. So you see that proves what hypocrites we Liberals are. Here was the Secretary of Defense patiently explaining to us liberals that Saddam probably didn't even have a nuclear program running, certainly not one that was near completion, and we just weren't listening.
I guess these other guys were talking so much it was hard to pay attention to Wolfowitz.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"QUESTION: So Saddam's more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think so because of his past practice and because we believe that he is a danger, a fundamental danger, not only for the region but potentially the United States, as well. And I say, a lot of that is based on the evidence that's now available, that he is working actively to improve his . . . nuclear weapons program." - Vice President Richard Cheney, Meet the Press, September 8, 2002
"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses it, and that's a little late." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 8, 2002
Got these quotes from a site I mentioned last week, "Iraq on the Record." There were 30 such references between September 1st and October 15th according to "Iraq on the Record."
Ann's slams on Gore are typically mean-spirited, but just as typically somewhat difficult to prove. And of course there's this gem. "He grew a beard - just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims."
But the most problematic part of Ann's essay comes in the first couple of lines.
"The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations - certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions - hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences - have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war."
There are no real problems in Iraq, and anybody who says that there are problems in Iraq is a Liberal Liar (and presumably a Bush-Hater). What kind of life does Ann Lead that she's comfortable saying that? I mean part of this is shifting the terrain. The problems that Liberals are pointing out now aren't problems with the invasion itself, but problems with our plans to occupy Iraq. But there seems to be a willful decision on Ann's part to believe that the war in Iraq is going great.
Providing yet more proof for my thesis that Reality itself is Partisan.
Saving Private Chalabi
Joel Mowbray seems to be on a mission to rehabilitate Ahmed Chalabi. His latest article pins the blame for Ahmed Chalabi's downfall squarely where it belongs; on the State Department and the CIA.
He makes fun of the idea that Ahmed Chalabi passed on diplomatic codes to the Iranians. Apparently Mr. Mowbray has a hard time believing that the Iranian spy service would send a message in the broken code. Gosh that does sound a little suspicious.
Reporting by the New York Times, however, makes it clear that the Iranians didn't necessarily believe Mr. Chalabi initially. "According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code." They article goes on to report that they sent a dummy message to see if the American's would respond.
But of course, the issue here isn't what Mr. Chalabi may or may not have done. The issue is how the CIA and State Department betrayed him. After all, when the CIA was casting doubts on reports of Saddams weapons of mass destruction, Ahmed Chalabi was one of those promoting them. When the State Department was suggesting that holding Iraq might prove more difficult than we initially realized, Ahmed Chalabi was out there saying that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and it would be smooth sailing.
So naturally we must place the blame where it belongs; on the CIA and State Department. They, by there lack of faith in our bold plan have caused it to fail.
By the way, if you didn't catch This Modern World this week, you might want to.
He makes fun of the idea that Ahmed Chalabi passed on diplomatic codes to the Iranians. Apparently Mr. Mowbray has a hard time believing that the Iranian spy service would send a message in the broken code. Gosh that does sound a little suspicious.
Reporting by the New York Times, however, makes it clear that the Iranians didn't necessarily believe Mr. Chalabi initially. "According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code." They article goes on to report that they sent a dummy message to see if the American's would respond.
But of course, the issue here isn't what Mr. Chalabi may or may not have done. The issue is how the CIA and State Department betrayed him. After all, when the CIA was casting doubts on reports of Saddams weapons of mass destruction, Ahmed Chalabi was one of those promoting them. When the State Department was suggesting that holding Iraq might prove more difficult than we initially realized, Ahmed Chalabi was out there saying that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and it would be smooth sailing.
So naturally we must place the blame where it belongs; on the CIA and State Department. They, by there lack of faith in our bold plan have caused it to fail.
By the way, if you didn't catch This Modern World this week, you might want to.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Alexandra Polier
If you are interested in the story of Alexandra Polier, the intern whom Matt Drudge acccused of of having an affair with John Kerry you might want to check out this article.
Nice to know what Drudge and the others who promoted this story are made of. Of course, it's also know to meet, in a literary sense, Ms. Alexandra Polier who stikes me as a good writer and a very human person.
Here's a touching bit.
"One reporter had a little girl call up, assuming I wouldn’t hang up on a child. They even made her say, “Can I talk to Alex?” And when I said, “Yes, it’s me,” a reporter jumped on the line. CNN’s Zain Verjee wrote beseeching notes, slipping them under the front gate. It was like a horror movie where the zombies are on the other side of the door and then an arm comes through the window."
By touching, I, of course, meant stomach cramp inducing. Still she was a Democrat and a Kerry supporter, so presumably most Limbaugh Conservatives are happy with this kind of thing.
Nice to know what Drudge and the others who promoted this story are made of. Of course, it's also know to meet, in a literary sense, Ms. Alexandra Polier who stikes me as a good writer and a very human person.
Here's a touching bit.
"One reporter had a little girl call up, assuming I wouldn’t hang up on a child. They even made her say, “Can I talk to Alex?” And when I said, “Yes, it’s me,” a reporter jumped on the line. CNN’s Zain Verjee wrote beseeching notes, slipping them under the front gate. It was like a horror movie where the zombies are on the other side of the door and then an arm comes through the window."
By touching, I, of course, meant stomach cramp inducing. Still she was a Democrat and a Kerry supporter, so presumably most Limbaugh Conservatives are happy with this kind of thing.
The Trials of Conservatism
E. J. Dionne, Jr. has an article today about the fractures in the conservative movement. He begins his article with the following sentences.
"Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure.
In politics, this means that if a leader is seen as doing well, his side in the debate holds together and suppresses disagreements that are quite real but don't seem worth pursuing if they get in the way of winning.
It also means that if a leader is perceived as doing badly, those quite real disagreements are seen as much more important. Parts of the leader's political coalition try to disengage themselves from the perceived failure and differentiate themselves from those whom they see as incompetent and thus representing something other than the true faith."
While I agree with the upshot of Mr. Dionne's analysis, I would argue that there is a countervailing pressure. Political movements expect more out of their leaders when they are in power. They also feel less vulnerable to whatever bad stuff they think the other side is going to do. That's why in 2000, many Nader Voters, I believe, were willing to vote for him because they believed that after 8 years of Clinton things were on a bit of an even keel. They felt comfortable. It's not that they liked Candidate Bush, but they weren't afraid of him.
I'm not sure that in this election we can count on Republican dissatisfaction with President Bush's failures to cause much of an exodus. I think they still fear "President Kerry" enough to vote for President Bush. Of course that's assuming no serious third party candidate shows up (none so far) and that they vote at all. Some Republicans, maybe many Republicans will stay home on election day, which could only help Kerry.
"Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure.
In politics, this means that if a leader is seen as doing well, his side in the debate holds together and suppresses disagreements that are quite real but don't seem worth pursuing if they get in the way of winning.
It also means that if a leader is perceived as doing badly, those quite real disagreements are seen as much more important. Parts of the leader's political coalition try to disengage themselves from the perceived failure and differentiate themselves from those whom they see as incompetent and thus representing something other than the true faith."
While I agree with the upshot of Mr. Dionne's analysis, I would argue that there is a countervailing pressure. Political movements expect more out of their leaders when they are in power. They also feel less vulnerable to whatever bad stuff they think the other side is going to do. That's why in 2000, many Nader Voters, I believe, were willing to vote for him because they believed that after 8 years of Clinton things were on a bit of an even keel. They felt comfortable. It's not that they liked Candidate Bush, but they weren't afraid of him.
I'm not sure that in this election we can count on Republican dissatisfaction with President Bush's failures to cause much of an exodus. I think they still fear "President Kerry" enough to vote for President Bush. Of course that's assuming no serious third party candidate shows up (none so far) and that they vote at all. Some Republicans, maybe many Republicans will stay home on election day, which could only help Kerry.
Somedays I Just Wish I Could Stay In Bed
I don't really know what to do with this. But when the same argument pops up in two separate articles, it's probably going somewhere.
"The United Nations is an enabling institution. It enables John Kerry to babble mindlessly about the situation in Iraq. It enables President Bush to assure Americans that our troops will not remain in Iraq forever. The United Nations also enables terrorists in the Middle East to kill with impunity."
- Ben Shapiro, "The United Nations International Terrorism Organization."
"The United Nations and Red Cross have been providing cover for terrorists -- literally. And American taxpayers are footing some of the bill."
- Michelle Malkin, "The ambulances-for-terrorists scandal."
Both articles reference an incident last month in which "Arab Terrorists" (according to Ms. Malkin and Mr. Shapiro) used an ambulance in a raid on this Israeli Military. Young Ben also references an incident a number of years ago in which members of Hezbollah used UN Uniforms to lure Israeli soldiers into a trap. According to Ben there is some possibility that the Indian UN Peacekeepers were bribed into letting Hezbollah use their stuff.
In both articles the point is the same; the United Nations is a bad organization and we shouldn't support it.
The problem is that it is hard to judge the veracity of these reports and it's hard to gauge the involvement of United Nations forces in this. My personal inclination would be to suspect that the United Nations are victims in this scenario, although obviously not to the extent of the Israelis. I seriously doubt that some UN Ambulance Driver threw the keys to some terrorist and said "Just make sure you fill it up before bringing it back."
I also notice there's one player missing in both of these accounts. I mean we have the innocent Israeli Civilians. We have the brave Israeli Soldiers. We have the evil Palestinian terrorists (and lest anybody get any contrary ideas, Palestinian terrorists are pretty evil). But we don't have innocent or even innocent but a bit grimy Palestinian civilians. They don't come into the picture. And I can see why they wouldn't, since both young Ben and Ms. Malkin are asking for a cessation of medical aid to the Palestinians.
At any rate, I wish I were still in bed. And stories like these don't inspire me to change my mind.
"The United Nations is an enabling institution. It enables John Kerry to babble mindlessly about the situation in Iraq. It enables President Bush to assure Americans that our troops will not remain in Iraq forever. The United Nations also enables terrorists in the Middle East to kill with impunity."
- Ben Shapiro, "The United Nations International Terrorism Organization."
"The United Nations and Red Cross have been providing cover for terrorists -- literally. And American taxpayers are footing some of the bill."
- Michelle Malkin, "The ambulances-for-terrorists scandal."
Both articles reference an incident last month in which "Arab Terrorists" (according to Ms. Malkin and Mr. Shapiro) used an ambulance in a raid on this Israeli Military. Young Ben also references an incident a number of years ago in which members of Hezbollah used UN Uniforms to lure Israeli soldiers into a trap. According to Ben there is some possibility that the Indian UN Peacekeepers were bribed into letting Hezbollah use their stuff.
In both articles the point is the same; the United Nations is a bad organization and we shouldn't support it.
The problem is that it is hard to judge the veracity of these reports and it's hard to gauge the involvement of United Nations forces in this. My personal inclination would be to suspect that the United Nations are victims in this scenario, although obviously not to the extent of the Israelis. I seriously doubt that some UN Ambulance Driver threw the keys to some terrorist and said "Just make sure you fill it up before bringing it back."
I also notice there's one player missing in both of these accounts. I mean we have the innocent Israeli Civilians. We have the brave Israeli Soldiers. We have the evil Palestinian terrorists (and lest anybody get any contrary ideas, Palestinian terrorists are pretty evil). But we don't have innocent or even innocent but a bit grimy Palestinian civilians. They don't come into the picture. And I can see why they wouldn't, since both young Ben and Ms. Malkin are asking for a cessation of medical aid to the Palestinians.
At any rate, I wish I were still in bed. And stories like these don't inspire me to change my mind.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
A Little Information about Brunei Darussalam
First of it's on the same island as Malaysia. Although I think Malaysia is a string of Islands, and Brunei Darussalam looks like it's only on one island. According to the CIA Worldbook, it is slightly smaller than Delaware.
According to the webpage of the Brunei government, it was part of the British Empire up into the 80s. It is currently ruled by Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, whose title is Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam.
Here's a picture of the Empire Hotel and Country Club, which is the best picture I could find--I did see a really cool palace looking thing, but the caption was in Japanese, so I wasn't sure if it was really in Brunei Darussalam or not.
The national philosophy of Brunei Darussalam is called Melayu Islam Beraja, and according to the countries webpage, it is "a blend of Malay language, culture and Malay customs, the teaching of Islamic laws and values and the monarchy system which must be esteemed and practiced by all. Islam is tolerant of all religions so the MIB philosophy cannot be viewed as a force which stifles the practice of other religions. Rather it is a vehicle by which other religions can carry on as usual their religious practices and rites with the respects and peace they deserve." Interesting. I wonder how that works in practice.
According to the CIA Worldbook, the country is about 67% Muslim, 13% Buddhist, 10% Christian, and about 10% indigineous beliefs and others. Amnesty International doesn't seem to think they are all that bad, although certainly not perfect. "Six members of a banned religious group were reportedly detained without charge or trial. Criminal suspects were sentenced to caning." On the plus side (from Amnesty International's point of view), the Government of Brunei Darussalam haven't carried out any executions since 1957.
Unsurprisingly the food of Brunei Darussalam is somewhat similar to the rest of Malaysian food. Here's a site that gives several recipes you might eat if you were to eat in Brunei Darussalam.
Anyway it's always nice to learn more about other parts of the world.
According to the webpage of the Brunei government, it was part of the British Empire up into the 80s. It is currently ruled by Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, whose title is Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam.
Here's a picture of the Empire Hotel and Country Club, which is the best picture I could find--I did see a really cool palace looking thing, but the caption was in Japanese, so I wasn't sure if it was really in Brunei Darussalam or not.
The national philosophy of Brunei Darussalam is called Melayu Islam Beraja, and according to the countries webpage, it is "a blend of Malay language, culture and Malay customs, the teaching of Islamic laws and values and the monarchy system which must be esteemed and practiced by all. Islam is tolerant of all religions so the MIB philosophy cannot be viewed as a force which stifles the practice of other religions. Rather it is a vehicle by which other religions can carry on as usual their religious practices and rites with the respects and peace they deserve." Interesting. I wonder how that works in practice.
According to the CIA Worldbook, the country is about 67% Muslim, 13% Buddhist, 10% Christian, and about 10% indigineous beliefs and others. Amnesty International doesn't seem to think they are all that bad, although certainly not perfect. "Six members of a banned religious group were reportedly detained without charge or trial. Criminal suspects were sentenced to caning." On the plus side (from Amnesty International's point of view), the Government of Brunei Darussalam haven't carried out any executions since 1957.
Unsurprisingly the food of Brunei Darussalam is somewhat similar to the rest of Malaysian food. Here's a site that gives several recipes you might eat if you were to eat in Brunei Darussalam.
Anyway it's always nice to learn more about other parts of the world.
Diverse Readership
I am using www.Webstat.com to obsessively track how many visitors I have, and they work pretty well. As I've previously reported, it provides states on what countries my readers come from. Well, I'm pleased to note that May was my most diverse month yet, with 36 separate countries representated among my readership (compared to 20 for March, and 22 for April).
Here's the break down.
Number one was the United States of America, with 1,317 hits.
Number two was Canada with 35 hits. Kind of a jump there.
Number three was the United Kingdom with 21 hits.
Number four was Australia with 20 hits.
Number five was Germany with 8 hits.
Number six was Norway with 6 hits.
Number seven was France with 5 hits.
Number eight was Lebanon with 4 hits.
Number nine was a tie between Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan with 3 hits.
Number ten was a tie between Algeria, India, Austria, and Brunai Darussalam (which place I have never heard of) with 2 hits.
Number eleven, with 1 hit, was a tie between Taiwan, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Argentina, Coratia (Hrvatska), Switzerland, Hong Kong, Mexico, Israel, Finland, Gibralter, Belgium, Singapore, Peurto Rico, South Africa, Italy, New Zealand, Korea (South), Morocco, and Nigeria.
Come back later when I'll have some information on Brunai Darussalam, unless I forget.
Here's the break down.
Number one was the United States of America, with 1,317 hits.
Number two was Canada with 35 hits. Kind of a jump there.
Number three was the United Kingdom with 21 hits.
Number four was Australia with 20 hits.
Number five was Germany with 8 hits.
Number six was Norway with 6 hits.
Number seven was France with 5 hits.
Number eight was Lebanon with 4 hits.
Number nine was a tie between Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan with 3 hits.
Number ten was a tie between Algeria, India, Austria, and Brunai Darussalam (which place I have never heard of) with 2 hits.
Number eleven, with 1 hit, was a tie between Taiwan, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Argentina, Coratia (Hrvatska), Switzerland, Hong Kong, Mexico, Israel, Finland, Gibralter, Belgium, Singapore, Peurto Rico, South Africa, Italy, New Zealand, Korea (South), Morocco, and Nigeria.
Come back later when I'll have some information on Brunai Darussalam, unless I forget.
The Wages of Sin
Here's a story you should look it. God knows we can't allow dissident opinions or dissident art in America now, and thank goodness these brave citizens took it upon themselves to show Ms. Lori Haigh the errors of her way. Next stop the New York Times.
This Modern World pointed this out this morning.
This Modern World pointed this out this morning.
Speaking for the Microphones
Paul Krugman has a typically sharp article today on the financial necessities of President Bush's policies.
"Last week The Washington Post got hold of an Office of Management and Budget memo that directed federal agencies to prepare for post-election cuts in programs that George Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. These include nutrition for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeland security. The numbers match those on a computer printout leaked earlier this year - one that administration officials claimed did not reflect policy.
Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.
It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election."
Of course to many Republicans this has long been a valid theory. Cut off revenue, drain the Countries Purse, and then force massive cuts in programs the Conservatives don't like anyway. A case can be made that cutting these government programs is a smart move. Not a case I would agree with, of course, but at least I understand that other people think this way.
As with Iraq, however, this Administration is unwilling to trust the American people to support their plans. Instead of flatly telling the American people "Hey, if you elect us for a second term, expect to get cuts in most social programs because we believe you don't need them and that they have a negative effect on the country."
That wouldn't sound very good on the campaign trail, though. So they are stuck with the bait and switch of pretending one thing and delivering another.
"Last week The Washington Post got hold of an Office of Management and Budget memo that directed federal agencies to prepare for post-election cuts in programs that George Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. These include nutrition for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeland security. The numbers match those on a computer printout leaked earlier this year - one that administration officials claimed did not reflect policy.
Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.
It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election."
Of course to many Republicans this has long been a valid theory. Cut off revenue, drain the Countries Purse, and then force massive cuts in programs the Conservatives don't like anyway. A case can be made that cutting these government programs is a smart move. Not a case I would agree with, of course, but at least I understand that other people think this way.
As with Iraq, however, this Administration is unwilling to trust the American people to support their plans. Instead of flatly telling the American people "Hey, if you elect us for a second term, expect to get cuts in most social programs because we believe you don't need them and that they have a negative effect on the country."
That wouldn't sound very good on the campaign trail, though. So they are stuck with the bait and switch of pretending one thing and delivering another.
An Interview with Robot Men From Mars
I recently had the opportunity to sit down with the Robot Men from Mars (well, their designated spokesperson, X12-4 (also known as Chad)). The discussion centered around a recent article by Mike S. Adams, entitled "An Interview with David Horowitz."
MMAC!!! - So tell me, Robot Man from Mars X12-4, why have you chosen to reveal yourself and give an interview at this time?
X12-4 - Well, I was looking at some of the articles at Townhall.Com this morning, and I noticed something I found disturbing. I decided that I needed to speak out against it.
MMAC!!! - And what was that?
X12-4 - There was an article by Dr. Mike S. Adams, entitled "An interview with David Horowitz." But it wasn't an interview with David Horowitz. It was an interview with Mike S. Adams, conducted by Jamie Glazov, an associate of David Horowitz. The only participation Mr. Horowitz apparently had in this process is that he talked with Mr. Adams right before participating in the interview.
MMAC!!! - Holy Moley! That does sound a bit disingenuous on Mr. Adam's part.
X12-4 - You bet, Mr. Make me a Commentator!!! There were some other minor problems with the interview as well, which centered on Academic Freedom or the lack thereof.
MMAC!!! - Can you give us an example, Robot Man from Mars?
X12-4 - Well one particularly troubling passage concerns Dr. Cornell West. Dr. Adams apparently feels that West (who appeared in the movie Matrix Reloaded) must be a racist because he has "ties" with Khalid Muhammad. Of course Mr. Adams leaves the nature of those ties somewhat vague. Were they friends? Political Allies? Dinner Guests?
MMAC!!! - That is a bit suspicious, isn't it?
X12-4 - Yes, it is. And to make matters worse he engages in a bit of vaguely racist characterization in describing West. Allow me to quote from the relevant passage. "I wish that West would stop scratching his beard, whispering, and rocking back and forth like a heroin addict in an all-night jazz bar and just answer some simple questions. Are you an anti-Semite? If not, why do so many of your friends seem to hate Jews?" Of course Dr. Adams only cites one friend and leaves their connection vague, so it is hard for us to judge how many of Cornell's friends are anti-Semitic.
MMAC!!! - Wow. That is interesting. But I'm afraid we are out of time. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Is there anything else you'd like to say?
X12-4 - No not really. Need to get back to finish preparations to invade Venus.
MMAC!!! - So tell me, Robot Man from Mars X12-4, why have you chosen to reveal yourself and give an interview at this time?
X12-4 - Well, I was looking at some of the articles at Townhall.Com this morning, and I noticed something I found disturbing. I decided that I needed to speak out against it.
MMAC!!! - And what was that?
X12-4 - There was an article by Dr. Mike S. Adams, entitled "An interview with David Horowitz." But it wasn't an interview with David Horowitz. It was an interview with Mike S. Adams, conducted by Jamie Glazov, an associate of David Horowitz. The only participation Mr. Horowitz apparently had in this process is that he talked with Mr. Adams right before participating in the interview.
MMAC!!! - Holy Moley! That does sound a bit disingenuous on Mr. Adam's part.
X12-4 - You bet, Mr. Make me a Commentator!!! There were some other minor problems with the interview as well, which centered on Academic Freedom or the lack thereof.
MMAC!!! - Can you give us an example, Robot Man from Mars?
X12-4 - Well one particularly troubling passage concerns Dr. Cornell West. Dr. Adams apparently feels that West (who appeared in the movie Matrix Reloaded) must be a racist because he has "ties" with Khalid Muhammad. Of course Mr. Adams leaves the nature of those ties somewhat vague. Were they friends? Political Allies? Dinner Guests?
MMAC!!! - That is a bit suspicious, isn't it?
X12-4 - Yes, it is. And to make matters worse he engages in a bit of vaguely racist characterization in describing West. Allow me to quote from the relevant passage. "I wish that West would stop scratching his beard, whispering, and rocking back and forth like a heroin addict in an all-night jazz bar and just answer some simple questions. Are you an anti-Semite? If not, why do so many of your friends seem to hate Jews?" Of course Dr. Adams only cites one friend and leaves their connection vague, so it is hard for us to judge how many of Cornell's friends are anti-Semitic.
MMAC!!! - Wow. That is interesting. But I'm afraid we are out of time. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Is there anything else you'd like to say?
X12-4 - No not really. Need to get back to finish preparations to invade Venus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)