« January 23, 2005 - January 29, 2005 | Main | February 06, 2005 - February 12, 2005 »

February 05, 2005

Bubble Boy in Arkansas

Mr. Bush was in Arkansas with his Travelling Medicine Show and encountered a heckler, which is weird because unfriendlies have been barred from Bush's fabricated town halls. The Washington Post:

A heckler in the Nebraska crowd wasn't buying it. "Quit lying ... you liar," he yelled.

"We love free speech in America," Bush replied and then continued his speech.

Even Bush's reply was a lie, given that the appearances are screened to only include supporters of the administration. The following Bush statement was also odd:

"Bring 'em on and we'll sit down and have a good discussion about how to get something done," he said.

Bring 'em on? Oh crap.

10:24 AM | Comments (5) | Posted By Bob Cesca

February 04, 2005

VIDEO: State of the Empire 2005

Several hours after the televised State of the Union, George W. Bush and Congress reconvened in secret for Bush's annual "State of the Empire" address. Reality Based Nation has attained exclusive video of that speech.

QUICKTIME (20mb)
WINDOWS MEDIA (17mb)

04:35 PM | Comments (13) | Posted By Bob Cesca

NY court rules in favor of gay marriage

See? All this Bush talk of freedom, liberty, and human rights is paying off. Oh wait. It's happening despite his lofty rhetoric. Never-the-less, it's good news in a dark era.

State Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

Full article at 365gay.com (and no, Republicans, you won't turn gay if you go there). Tip courtesy of Eschaton.

03:10 PM | Comments (3) | Posted By Bob Cesca

CNN economics reporter wrong on SS

CNN correspondent Kathleen Hays incorrectly claimed that Social Security benefits cannot be passed along to heirs. Wow! I'm no economics expert, but even I know this.

And how do I know this? Because once a year (like millions of Americans) I get a statement from the Social Security Administration informing me of what my benefits would be should I become physically incapacitated as well as what the projected monthly payment would be upon my retirement. In addition, this same, helpful, easy to understand document (started under the Clinton administration) also tells me how much money my heirs (surviving wife and children) would receive. And in almost every case, it is my FULL BENEFITS!

Obviously CNN's Kathleen Hays is incompetent - since her beat is economics, she should know this. But even more astounding, has she never read HER benefits package statement? What a moron!

Read more here.

03:00 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Jim Biederman

Bush's Travelling Medicine Show

Step right up! Step right up! Watch Bush lie to the American public about Social Security! Watch before your very eyes as he makes up numbers and the entire program disappear! Watch as he sends entire generations into poverty! Watch as he makes his friends on Wall Street richer!

Read more here.

02:01 PM | Comments (2) | Posted By Jim Biederman

Remember these names

VOTED TO CONFIRM:

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chafee (R-RI), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Salazar (D-CO), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

It's a sad day in America.

07:48 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

What's wrong with the Democrats?

Here's what's wrong with the Democrats: Senator Ken Salazar, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Bill Nelson.

All voted "yea" on Gonzales.

07:40 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

February 03, 2005

US Marine - "It's Fun To Shoot People!"

Um...err... Good story to have on the same day Gonzalez is confirmed.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and is slated to be portrayed by star actor Harrison Ford in an upcoming Hollywood movie, made the comments at a conference on Tuesday in San Diego, California.

"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," Mattis said.

Did someone not vett this guy? Here's the original story. Then a BBC News follow up.

06:26 PM | Comments (15) | Posted By Jim Biederman

Regarding that bit about asbestos lawsuits...

Mr. Bush last night:

Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.

Why would he single out asbestos lawsuits, and not, say, McDonalds weight gain lawsuits? Oh yeah! Bloomberg from January:

Halliburton Posts Loss of $201 Mln on Asbestos Costs

[Halliburton] Chief Executive David J. Lesar, 51, settled in the quarter $4.8 billion of asbestos-related health claims that were a legacy of acquisitions made by his predecessor, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

Indulge me on some swearing... WHAT THE MOTHERFUCK?!

04:47 PM | Comments (7) | Posted By Bob Cesca

SHUT UP ABOUT THE "SUCCESS" OF THE IRAQI ELECTION!

When will the Republicans, Democrats, and alleged-journalists stop talking about how the "victory" of the elections in Iraq is a "symbol" of the success of the Iraq War?

First of all, it's not a success for the over 100,000 dead Iraqis. 100,000.

Second, is the U.S. occupation better than the Saddam occupation? Ask the 100,000 dead Iraqis, and, if they could talk, they would probably say "no." Here's a more CONTRASTING comparison: is the U.S. war/occupation better than the velvet revolution in Czechloslovakia? Because we COULD have backed a velvet revolution in Iraq.

Third, whether you agree with me about the above or not, you can't deny the parallels between these "victorious" elections and some elections held in Vietnam less than 40 years ago. Here are some tidbits from the NYT, circa 1967.

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting...A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

Sound familiar?

(1967 NYT tip courtesy of Mr. Wiggles.)

01:46 PM | Comments (5) | Posted By John Christian Plummer

The private accounts shell game

UPDATE: Bush last night:

And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

The Washington Post via AmericaBlog:

Even more curiously, a "senior administration official" who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria. Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new "personal" or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a "benefit offset." It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.

It's not going to cause a stir at all because the media will barely report it, and when they do, Mr. Bush will deny it.

09:09 AM | Comments (8) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Would someone please explain this to me?

I'm not much of a Social Security wonk, but I need to get this off my chest.

Would someone explain to me why we can't simply increase the wage cap from $90,000 to $120,000? And if it's increased to that level over several years, it's even more digestible. Then in another 20 years, we increase the wage cap again, and so on.

I'd really like to hear why this often discussed solution wouldn't work. If the Democrats are forced to play a hand in this ridiculous game (no crisis!), they can hit a home run by simply suggesting a wage cap increase, no?

01:21 AM | Comments (23) | Posted By Bob Cesca

New rules for future Democratic presidents

A note to future Democratic presidents. Based on Mr. Bush's performance tonight, the following is fair game without reprisal from Republicans in the media and Congress:

1. You wanna know what rocks? Using the parents of slain soldiers for political purposes. Especially if the soldier is killed in an unpopular, bloody, lie-based war. That's what rocks.

2. Never reveal proposals for anything in detail. Speak in vague platitudes and America will love you for it.

3. You can reference numbers and projections and when they turn out to be insanely wrong, you can, without shame, blame whomever gave you the incorrect information. Be it about war justifications or domestic reforms. (Example: To Senator Clinton -- when you're attacked in the '08 race for your attempted health care reforms of 1993, feel free to say you received misleading and incorrect "intelligence".)

4. Flip-flop all you want. What you say in your inaugural address can easily be "revised" in time for your State of the Union.

5. If you fail to gather enough support for some grand domestic reform and Congress ends up passing something totally different, declare a MASSIVE victory.

6. Even the most mediocre State of the Union addresses will be considered Reagan-esque*. Hell, read a Smithsonian gift shoppe Mad-Libs page -- and voila! -- Reagan-esque.

7. And finally, 49% approval is the new 85%.

*When David Dreier called Bush's address "Reagan-esque" on MSNBC's "After Hours", Reagan's corpse threw up in his mouth.

12:06 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

February 02, 2005

SOTU: Bring on the anti-divorce amendment

George:

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Look out Rush, Newt, Gramm, Neil Bush, George Will, Rudy Giuliani, George Allen, and Bob Barr. Mr. Bush is coming for you! Because he wants to protect marriage.

10:33 PM | Comments (3) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Hit the polls

Voice your disapproval:

CNN (bottom right)
MSNBC
CBS News (Social Security)

10:23 PM | Comments (5) | Posted By Bob Cesca

SOTU: Dems boo the president

The Democrats are booing Bush on Social Security. Give him hell!

09:08 PM | Comments (2) | Posted By Bob Cesca

SOTU: The purple finger rumors were true

There's really Republicans with purple fingers.

Oy.

09:00 PM | Comments (2) | Posted By Bob Cesca

State of the Union Cheat Sheet

The Raw Story has attained the administration talking points for the State of the Union. As you watch, cringe, and throw up in your mouth tonight, feel free to follow the bouncing ball:

State of the Union Message Points

The Speech

This is a unique year for the State of the Union address because it comes on the heels of the Inaugural address. The two speeches provide an important opportunity for the President to articulate his domestic and foreign policy goals for the next four years to the American people and to the world.

The Inaugural address laid out the ideal toward which America will strive and the governing principles that will guide us. The State of the Union will lay out specific goals, immediate and long-term, for how and where we’ll lead America, and will present a blueprint for a second term.

This is an opportunity for the President to not only educate the American people, but also persuade Congress that the country is going in the right direction, but there is more work to be done.

The President will call on Congress to fulfill its obligation and achieve results for the American people rather than passing problems on to future Congresses and future generations.

The first half of the speech will focus on domestic topics; the second half will focus on foreign policy.

Domestic Policy

The President will speak directly to the American people and to Congress about Social Security and offer more details on how to move the debate forward. He will discuss why we need to permanently fix the Social Security system and why it’s necessary that we confront this problem today. He will express his willingness to work in a bipartisan manner and talk about why he believes personal retirement accounts are critical to helping future generations realize a secure retirement.

The President will talk about building on the economic momentum of the last few years, noting that 2.3 million jobs have been created in the last year.

The President will also talk about legal reform, tax reform, passing a comprehensive energy policy, and education and job training initiatives to make sure we have a skilled workforce to compete with anybody in the world. And he will discuss fiscal discipline and the fact that he will be putting forward a budget that reflects our times and meets our goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

Foreign Policy

This State of the Union comes during a time of war. The President will pay tribute to the men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure our freedom. He will speak to the importance of working to advance the spread of freedom and democracy. The President will also speak directly to those individuals who are fighting for freedom around the world; those who wear the uniform of the United States military, and the peoples of many countries that are fighting for their own freedom.

The President will speak specifically about the Middle East peace process and the renewed hope around the world for peace in the Middle East.

The President will reflect upon historic progress made in recent weeks, focusing on the elections in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.

The President will talk about our priorities and our plans moving forward, as well as our aims and goals to help the Iraqi people secure their country and continue on the path to democracy.

After The Speech

The President will embark on a five-state tour, beginning Thursday, to take his case for strengthening Social Security to the American people. He will visit Fargo, North Dakota, Great Falls, Montana, Omaha, Nebraska, Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tampa, Florida.

Mrs. Bush, the Vice President, and other members of the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet including Secretary Snow and Director Bolten will travel educating Americans and highlighting initiatives the President will be talking about in the State of the Union.

08:25 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

CBS, the new FOX!

The fallout continues from the over-hyped "memogate": CBS is bending over so far backwards it is biting its own ass. They are alone in the 3 networks in propping up the Bush-Social-Security lie by using the "personal accounts" lingo that the White House said "polled better." Media Matters has the full-story here, but here's a good excerpt:

On February 2, all three network morning shows reported on Social Security as an issue President Bush will likely target in his State of the Union address, but only CBS adopted the misleading White House-approved term "personal accounts" to describe the administration's plan to partially privatize Social Security. While NBC News' Norah O'Donnell discussed "private retirement accounts" on Today and ABC News' Terry Moran referred to "private accounts" on Good Morning America, CBS News' Bill Plante used "personal accounts" twice as a graphic reading "personal accounts" appeared on the screen.

Our own Jim Biederman saw this all coming last month. Read Jim's post here.

05:52 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By John Christian Plummer

Bad news risin' (for Bush)

The animal-haters in the Bush administration have been trying to take wolves OFF the endangered species list. But they just got smacked down by a judge (probably one of those "activist judges").

A U.S. District Court judge in Oregon on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's effort to remove wolves from endangered-species protections in the lower 48 states.

That means that anyone shooting a wolf that wanders into Colorado would face a $100,000 fine.

Poor Georgie! How will the Rapture come if we don't destroy the dang eco-system!?!

Read the rest here.

03:16 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By John Christian Plummer

Purple-fingered GOP tonight? Oh good Lord.

Rumor has it, from D.C. Inside Scoop via Eschaton, that Congressional Republicans will appear at the State of the Onion tonight sporting purple fingers.

This is how they show solidarity with the Iraqi people after killing 100,000 of them? Perhaps clean running water, electricity, and not torturing and murdering them would be a better display of support. Then again, maybe the Iraqi voters will appreciate being associated with millionaire white guys who (not so) secretly desire to pillage their homeland for the cause of oil and politics.

No word on whether the Republicans will have yellow ribbon magnets glued to their asses while applauding Bush's veterans benefits cuts.

10:39 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Torture memo authors respond in LA Times

The Justice Department lawyers, Robert J. Delahunty and John C. Yoo, who wrote the infamous 2002 torture memos have penned a quaint op-ed piece for the LA Times:

But the Geneva Convention makes little sense when applied to a terrorist group or a pseudo-state. If we must fight these kinds of enemies, we must create a new set of rules.

In this single sentence, they encapsulate what the administration has been up to. The White House does not write domestic or international law on the the level of Geneva, yet it made an attempt to do so in order to permit torture. Yoo and Delahunty are implying "we must create" to be in the future tense, yet the White House, DOJ, and the Pentagon have already written new sets of rules -- complete with loopholes larger than Mr. Bush's ubiquitous verbal pauses.

And this sentence is the first indication that the Nazi analogy is making its way up the ladders in Washington:

One writer on this page even went so far as to compare it to Nazi atrocities. Such absurd claims betray the real weaknesses in the position taken by Gonzales' critics.

It's not a weakness at all -- not when the people being accused of Nazi tactics need to defend themselves against those charges in a major newspaper editorial.

However this plays out historically, the very notion that with the Bush administration, the nation is ensconced in a debate about war crimes, atrocities, and torture at the hands of Americans, is in and of itself allowing these comparisons to be drawn.

08:21 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

February 01, 2005

What is torture? The GOP doesn't get it

The Senate floor debate on Al Gonzales is underway and Senator Specter (R-PA) just rattled off a series of quotes from Gonzales's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee: a laundry list of mea culpas from the attorney general designate like, "I condemn the use of torture," and, "We do not believe in torture."

Of course he condemns "torture"! His definition of torture. The administration's working definition is vastly different from the world's definition.

The Bybee Memorandum (pdf) established the White House's functional definition:

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g. lasting for months or even years."

Any torture (the world's definition) beyond that is fair game according to these criminals.

The Presidential Directive of February 2002, signed by Mr. Bush, forbids torture EXCEPT...

"...to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

This is a major loophole. No "torture" (White House definition) except when militarily necessary, is what this says. And "principles" of Geneva sounds like, "Use Geneva as a rule of thumb, but there's some wiggle room -- wink, wink."

It's unfathomable that the Republican senators can so easily turn a blind eye to the distinction between the White House's non-reality-based definition and the actual, real world definition.

An asterix needs to be added to the record next to every instance in which the Republicans use the word "torture". In the footnotes, the asterix would be clarified like so:

* Wink, wink.

05:16 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

The Democracy-for-Food Program?

Some Iraqis are now saying that in order to attain their food rations, they had to vote. Inter Press Service:

Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote."

If this was widespread, what's next? The Running-Water-for-Military-Service program?

03:33 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Gonzales Senate debate happening now

Hide from your boss and crank this up. Orrin Hatch is speaking now and is calling the anti-Gonzales faction "small but vocal". Sounds like Bush isn't the only one living in a bubble.

Watch on CSPAN 2.

12:19 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Bush unfamiliar with Voting Rights Act

It comes as no surprise that the man who stood before the nation on inauguration day and spoke in lofty terms of freedom and liberty knows nothing about the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Chicago Defender:

At the conclusion of yesterday's 40-minute meeting [with the Congression Black Caucus], Bush - who attended along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - was asked by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd) whether he would support the re-authorization of a portion of the Voting Rights Act that must be approved every 25 years (It will come up for consideration next year).

"I don't know anything about the 1965 Voting Rights Act," Jackson recalled the president saying in an interview with the Chicago Defender.

He said that a hurried Bush went on to say that "when the legislation comes before me, I'll take a look at it, but I don't know about it to comment any more than that, but we will look at it when it comes to us."

Even a child would've responded by saying something like, "Of course I will renew the legislation."

By the way, Bush majored in American History in college, but perhaps the most important civil rights action in American history since the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendement wasn't covered... at Yale. Or maybe Bush was at cheerleading practice that day.

Would someone PLEASE buy this man a clue?

11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

January 31, 2005

Is it really about democracy in Iraq?

Those of you familiar with the neocon PNAC will know this letter. Those of you who aren't, here's a classic document which verifies that the Iraq invasion and occupation has NOTHING to do with 9/11 or (in terms of the last 48 hours) bringing democracy to the Iraqi people.

It's all about WMD and oil, but we know this. Thought you'd like to hear it in the neocons' own words. Note the signatures and note the number of times "democracy", "liberating", "voting", "liberty", "elections", and "freedom" is mentioned in the memo (hint: zero times).

Letter to President Clinton, January 26, 1998

06:36 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Trailer: "This Divided State"

Just a quick link to a trailer for an independent film about a red state battle that took place when Michael Moore was invited to speak at Utah Valley State College prior to the election.

Watch the trailer here.

Dissent, free speech, and free assembly are so endangered in this country. How did it come to this?

05:20 PM | Comments (2) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Global warming will destroy the Arctic

Saturday, CNN gave the following story about 2 minutes on their "lighter side" news show called "Next". Why this stuff isn't leading the headlines is beyond me. The Guardian is reporting that an impending 2 degree temperature increase will destroy much of the Arctic -- including the rare indigenous species who live there.

Many Arctic animals, including polar bears and some seal species, could be extinct within 20 years because of global warming, a conservation group said yesterday.

Traditional ways of life for many indigenous people in the Arctic would also become unsustainable unless the world "takes drastic action to reduce climate change", said the conservation organisation WWF.

We're guilty here of not talking about this as much as we should, but global warming and environment needs to become the most important issue of our time. The news from the last two weeks alone (here, here, and here) is enough to force massive policy change around the globe -- and especially in Washington.

So what needs to happen in order to get people to take this seriously? Maybe we could store frozen embryos in the Arctic snow. That might get Republicans moving. How about changing the name to "Earth Torture" or "Earth Abortion"? Better yet, America will thirst for news when we begin to call it "Scott Peterson's Global Warming".

04:46 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

David Corn: Bush lying or making it up?

David Corn has caught Bush either lying about or making up the existence of a gay-adoption study during his press conference last week. The bigger question is this: does Bush outright lie or is he just grossly mininformed on a great many things?

During a press conference on Thursday, Bush, replying to a question about gay adoption, said, "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman." Ignore the predictably irritating syntax and focus on his unequivocal assertion. Bush was stating as a fact that such studies exist.

Bush was wrong. He said these studies exist; they do not. So what happened? Did Bush have any reason to believe there are such studies? Had he received an erroneous briefing, say? Or did he just make something up that sounded good? If that is the case, would that not be a lie?

Without any hard empirical evidence, I would guess that the ratio is 60/20/20. 60% lies. 20% making it up. 20% misinformed by the Bubble Boy Good News Squad.

04:25 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

PBS joins Nazis, KKK in opposition to gays

PBS thinks lebsians are unacceptable role models for children. On an episode of the bunny-travelogue "Postcards from Buster," Buster goes to Vermont and learns about maple syrup from a couple of real-life kids and their real-life lesbian parents. That's them up there, on the right. The ones who look like human beings.

Child-hating Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings denounced this episode, and PBS PULLED IT OFF THE AIR. I just threw up in my mouth. The head teacher in America and the Public Broadcasting Corporation don't want children to see loving parents who are gay. This despite the fact that a majority of Americans think being gay is a-okay.

PBS C.O.O. and professional coward Wayne Goodwin said

The presence of a couple headed by two mothers would not be appropriate curricular purpose that PBS should provide.

But the federal funding-grant stipulates:

Diversity will be incorporated into the fabric of the series to help children understand and respect differences and learn to live in a multicultural society.

Write to Buster's bosses and tell them they are ruining PBS. Use the form here.

Read more about PBS anti-gay stance in the NYT. Read about PBS leaning right in this New Yorker article.

02:41 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By John Christian Plummer

Independent UK on the Iraq election

By way of further tempering the enthusiasm for the impact of yesterday's election, the Independent UK weighs in (via Free Press International):

The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be "allowed" to film. Close inspection of the list shows that four of the five are in Shi'ite Muslim areas - where the polling will probably be high - and one in an upmarket Sunni area, where it will be moderate.

More here.

01:40 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Will it have a bulge?

The worldwide "deserving-a-statue curve" has been permanently shot to hell:

The man replacing the mayor of Baghdad — who was assassinated for his pro-American loyalties — says he is not worried about his ties to Washington. In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.

"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom."

More in the NY Post.

I guess when the inevitable Iraqi civil war occurs, one of the sides will have something to topple.

01:14 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Crapture!

Bill Moyers is being villified by the neo-con/religious right, and Moyers is fighting back. He just wrote a fantastic piece here on how lunatics have taken control of government. To wit:

Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total and more since the election - are backed by the religious right.

Moyers' article covers Bush's willful destruction of the environment, the financial connection between West Bank settlers and Rapture-ites, and the rise of the non-reality based fundamentalist "Christian" right.

Finally, the piece is a call to action. There are so many reasons to give up hope now. But Moyers looks realistically at the situation, and counsels action. Read him yourself:

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

Read the whole thing. It's inspiring.

(Art courtesy of Filthy Hippy Speak.)

12:57 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By John Christian Plummer

The Iraqi election: In the long run...

Before we get back to discussing the current status of torture, propaganda, suppression of civil rights and liberties, the raping of the environment, and the lies of the Bush administration, I wanted to summarize some things about the election in Iraq yesterday.

First, it's shocking and disappointing how the (inconclusive) results of the election are being hyped in the media and other political or social circles. Sure it's a great thing for the Iraqi people to have had the opportunity to cast ballots in order to choose delegates who will choose their leadership for them and who will write their constitution (did you get all that?), but...

Haven't we been down this road before in Iraq?

"Mission Accomplished" being the most vivid event in comparison. The media and pro-war advocates couldn't laud that milestone fast enough, and it was almost a competition to see who could lavish more praise on Bush and his bulging unit. The penchant for repeating the same level of enthusiasm is staggering considering the stakes and what's come before. Every event, be it good news or bad, must be analysed for what it will mean in the long run.

In the long run, will the Iraqi people live in freedom or will the results of the election slowly usher in an era of bottomless civil war? Or worse, it's entirely possible that the leaders chosen will give birth to new forms of suppression in that country.

And we should never forget that our country continues to torture, kill, and abuse the very same Iraqi people who we're lauding as defying the insurgency. Are they really free people when they can be imprisoned and tortured in their new democratic state? For the record, many heinously tortured Abu Ghraib detainees were released when their innocence was determined.

In the long run, Bush will use the election as a means to continue the war far beyond any imaginable level of casualties or instability. He could, perhaps, use it as a giant gust of wind in his sails for an invasion of Iran, Syria, or North Korea (nevermind that his buddies the Saudis have an horrific human rights record). How many more lives will be lost in his bullish race to foster an America era of endless war? In the long run, how will our lives here in America be affected when Bush uses the election and whatever political capital he earns to pass his destructive agenda?

Are we willing to live under a Patriot Act II or a $2 trillion debt just because of a single election in which 5 million Iraqis voted for something most Americans can't even describe?

There is no doubt in my mind that the election will take center stage Wednesday night during the State of the Union. The applause will be the longest and most enthusiastic (compare it to the applause for the section on Social Security), and Bush's hands will achieve a new distance from his invisible six-shooters. How will he and his cronies interpret that kind of endorsement from Congress? I can guarantee this: his foreign and domestic policies WON'T become more humble, rational, or realistic, nor will his overall attitude.

We have to be very careful how high a pedestal this election should be placed. It could mean something significantly positive, or it's likely that it's a milestone to suppression of our rights here in America to say nothing of the rights of the Iraqi people or the people in other nations on Bush's list of undesirables.

And finally, dKos has this flashback item today which is worth reading for some perspective.

12:24 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Kids will say the darndest things

The Knight Foundation (press release here) issued the results of a poll today regarding high school students and their views on civil liberties here. The two most scary results:

-Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.

-More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted. (emphasis added)

In order to graduate into the ninth grade, it should be a requirement to memorize the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (at least). Oh but wait! We don't want our nation's youth to have an understanding of their basic rights as Americans. That would arm them with the knowledge that they're free to question their government. We can't have that. Constitution -- bah!

12:02 PM | Comments (3) | Posted By Bob Cesca

January 30, 2005

Republicans? Civil Rights? Funny!

The Republicans are maneuvering to make themselves the party of civil rights. LA Times.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Republicans are so rarely the funny ones, but this is precious. Such cards, they are.

And if it's true, maybe Ken Mehlman and David Dreier will finally come out. You know, because the GOP will now fight for their civil rights and liberties.

And the Lincoln comparison is rich. Anyone who's taken the most basic of government classes knows the Republican party of Lincoln was ideologically much more similar to the Democrats of today. But we all know that. Anyone want to break it to the Republicans and Georgie? I know he fancies himself quite the Lincoln even though Bush is barely a Pierce and makes us long for the Polk administration.

08:27 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Report: 9 Billion Unaccounted for in Iraq

According to a report released today by the Special Inspector General for the Reconstruction of Iraq - the Coaliton Provisional Authority (AKA, the US) - cannot account for 9 billion dollars that it dispensed to Iraqi government agencies between October 2003 and June 2004. The report concludes that the C.P.A.,

did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractural controls.

The Pentagon's response is what is becoming a classic Bushism:

"We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided less than adequate controls," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Please remember this is OUR money. The same money that should be used for fixing Social Security, stabilizing Medicare, and paying down the deficit. And Bush has recently requested 80 billion more!?!

Amazing. Utterly amazing.

07:47 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Jim Biederman

Of cable news, neocons, and the election

By way of a follow-up to my previous thoughts (here and here) about the Iraqi election, the media coverage, and how the Bushies are reacting, this article from James Wolcott caught my eye:

Yesterday on one of the Fox financial shows, James Rogers, author of Investment Biker, commodities guru, and neighbor-down-the-block (an utterly irrelevant detail I thought I'd toss in to make this blog sound more "personal"), was asked by Fox News whether the elections in Iraq would be successful. Rogers said, "They'll be successful because the media will say they're successful," adding impishly, "Fox News probably already has the results."

More from Wolcott.

03:24 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca

Elections and Bush: does it matter?

Does it matter that voter turnout in central Iraq was light at best? Does it matter that voter turnout in the north and south was strong? Does is matter that an Iraqi election official is claiming 72% voter turnout even though that number is extremely exaggerated? Does it matter that dozens of people were killed at polling places?

None of it matters. Even if there had been 0% voter turnout, the Bush administration would still use the simple notion of an "election" to claim a grand political victory, which they'll exploit at every opportunity. As you see pictures of Bush and his baby-toothed grin today remember that he's fabricating his own reality. What they claim and what is real are two separate things.

Millions of voters or no voters at all, things will continue in Iraq much as they have so far -- if not much worse. And the Bush administration will continue to function without a strategy.

Proof of democracy in Iraq can't be determined simply declaring "Elections!" any more than someone becoming a millionaire by walking into a bank and declaring "I have a million dollars!"

09:53 AM | Comments (6) | Posted By Bob Cesca

The AP has a time machine?

It's now only 75 minutes into the Iraq election and the AP has written an item which sounds as if the polls are closed and Sunday has ended in Iraq. Does Hamza Hendawi of the AP have a time machine?

Iraqis voted Sunday in their country's first free election in a half-century, defying threats of violence from insurgents determined to sabotage the balloting.

It's 75 minutes into the vote -- how has anyone "defied threats of violence" when the whole thing just started.

Another weirdly time-specific sentence:

Voters nationwide began trickling past police guards and heavy security fortifications into schools and other buildings converted into polling centers.

The article was posted and filed at 8:56pm PST (11:56pm EST and 7:56am Iraq time) -- only 56 minutes into the election and that doesn't account for the time it took to write the item.

Read the item at SF Gate here.

12:12 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca