Race Gannon

One of This Year's Best Albums

2008-06-14T10:32:00.000-04:00

Hear some of the other tracks here.

Young Hillary Clinton

2008-06-01T18:12:00.000-04:00

Tell a Friend

2008-05-26T19:59:00.002-04:00

[T]he president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

Cool

2008-02-03T14:07:00.001-05:00

Race Gannon Endorses John Edwards.

2008-01-01T19:28:00.000-05:00

Now back to your regular programming.

In Case You Didn't Already Know...

2007-12-01T11:35:00.000-05:00

...Republican strategists think you are stupid. In a NY Times article about Giuliani's inability to use a single accurate fact on the campaign trail, we get this:

Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who once worked for Mr. Giuliani, said he doubted that the issue would hurt him politically.

“When he talks about New York, people see it,” Mr. Luntz said of Mr. Giuliani, “and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them.”

In other words, if Giuliani exaggerates a number, or tells an outright lie, they don't think you care. That's right. According to Republican strategists, you don't care whether something is true or not, only whether it seems true. Explains alot, I guess.

Maybe I was just hoping Colbert was exaggerating..

This Gives Me A Bad Feeling

2007-11-23T18:23:00.001-05:00

Fran Townsend, who has resigned as Bush's Homeland Security Adviser, warns:

I think we have a particular obligation between the election and the inauguration to take steps to plan for contingencies that may occur...

Now why would that be?

Flashback to March 2003

2007-11-03T13:49:00.000-04:00

(The month we invaded Iraq)

Amen

2007-11-01T19:55:00.000-04:00

Tristero says:

I am prepared to accept whatever risk that goes along with living in a country that doesn't ever torture its enemies.

Lemme Get This Straight...

2007-05-21T17:06:00.000-04:00

The Justice Department is responsible for holding people to account if they run afoul of the law - even the President. So before the President could proceed with a wiretapping program that the administration knew was most likely illegal, they went to the DoJ to get clearance. To cover their asses, so to speak. The didn't think it would be a problem, since they had installed hard-core wingnut John Ashcroft at the helm of that department.

But, lo and behold, he refused to sign off on it, because he knew it was illegal. So now the administration is in a dilemma, they have to twist some arms at Justice or else take a chance on running with the program anyway - and potentially bringing criminal charges upon themselves later.

So they wait until Ashcroft is near catatonic, in the intensive care unit of the hospital, and they send the President's lawyer, and his Chief of Staff into the ICU to try and pressure the guy - under heavy sedation, mind you - to sign off on the program.

All of this is in James Comey's testimony to Congress.

In the end, they had to water down the program, so far as we know, because the one they wanted was clearly illegal.

Think about what happened next: Ashcroft resigns, and so the President installed his personal lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, to head the department. Thing is, Gonzales was the lawyer who went to the ICU that night to pressure the head of the Department of Justice. Now you know that whatever the Pres asks of Justice, he gets, no questions asked, and nobody even has to know about it.

So you wonder why the President won't ask for Gonzales's resignation, no matter how little confidence the Legislative Branch or the people of the United States have in him? Imagine how difficult it would be now for the President to get a patsy as big as this one through confirmation hearings. No, the President won't ask the AG to resign; he's probably begging him to stay.

Equivalence

2007-05-10T10:47:00.000-04:00

A wacko talk radio asshole called "Gunny" Bob Newman says:

"I want every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen to be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times. And the FBI and the NSA should monitor their phones and their emails, all communications -- electronic -- at all times, as well as bug their places of work and their residences. If they don't like the idea, or if they refuse, throw their asses out of this country."

The thing that got me was the "Muslim" thing. Do people actually have to state their religion when they immigrate to the States? Because this guy says the law should apply differently to someone based on their religion. That absurdity aside, don't you think if a malevolent group of people wanted to immigrate and cause harm, they'd just, I don't know, say they weren't Muslims?

Or, to the larger point, doesn't this guy, when he says "Muslim", actually mean "anyone from the Middle East"? But then, what about Morocco, the Sudan, etc.? To identify the bracelet-wearers upon entry, you'd have to expand the identification requirements to include every immigrant from the Middle East or Africa. While we're at it, why don't we just include all people who differ by any noticeable degree from those who look like "Gunny" Bob, or the people in his neighborhood in Colorado?

Now let's consider how this would work if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if there were a militant Christian group in the United States who decided to take it upon themselves to wage war against Muslims. Let's say they got together and hatched a plan to blow up a Mosque. The equivalent reaction would be for some reactionary Muslims to believe that ALL Christians (and then ALL Americans, and then ALL non-Muslim non-Middle Easterners) were responsible for the acts of this small militant group.

The reason the larger public has this reaction in this country is because we don't have any understanding of cultures outside the mini-mall. Not only that, lots of people in this country are proud of their isolationism and lack of understanding.

It's always true that the greatest fear is that of the unknown.

This Is How History Will Remember It

2007-04-26T19:51:00.000-04:00

I for one have been waiting for the moment that the historical narrative describing this disastrous period of American history would begin to solidify and emerge. That time is finally here, and Bill Moyers is on it. You should go and watch every part of this: "Buying the War".

One of the many things that are sad about this story is how such a strong feeling of national solidarity was so callously exploited by some really evil people. The side effect is that when the inevitable next event happens, people will begin in a cynical, skeptical mindframe. It didn't have to be this way.

Brooklyn in the House

2007-02-11T11:20:00.000-05:00

Represent Represent

...

2007-01-27T01:33:00.000-05:00

"What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?"
-- Ted Kennedy

28 Republicans think that we should get rid of the federal minimum wage altogether. What scumbags.

Whitey Needs a Hand-Up

2006-11-26T09:46:00.000-05:00

So these pricks at Boston University put their jackassery on display in the form of a whites-only scholarship. In the forefront is BU's College Republicans' president Joseph Mroszczyk, who fought his way up from humble beginnings in Danvers, MA - a city of 25,090 people, 24,638 of whom are white. I can see why this guy is sick of being hassled by the man.

Keeping Score

2006-11-06T00:29:00.000-05:00

Freedom

2006-11-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

The Good Old Days

2006-08-12T12:58:00.000-04:00

I was just reading the news:

The U.S. government imposed its tightest security ever Friday on airlines flying from several destinations in Europe and Africa after a raid on a suspected terrorist group...

Many of the measures have been kept secret for security reasons and will not be apparent to passengers, but officials said they included body checks, thorough inspection of all hand luggage and tighter scrutiny of checked luggage. Airlines were also told to scan gels, aerosols and liquids that could be explosives in disguise.

The world really changed on 9/11, didn't it? Only the story above came from an article in the International Herald Tribune from February of 1995. It's interesting to note that we weren't all encouraged to cower in fear of the terrorists then and to trust big brother government to protect us. They just did it without any fanfare. It's also interesting to note that the article mentions the arrest, extradition and trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

See how international justice and the rule of law used to work before the age of the neocon?

What Is That That In The Breeze Waves?

2006-05-06T15:41:00.000-04:00

Oh Sweet Jesus how some people are incensed. Apparently, some Hispanic people had the unfettered gall to wish to sing America's praises in their own language, without translating the words into American.

Well it's time we steal the National Anthem back from those rabblerousers. We have two tools for that:

The U.S. State Department was considerate enough to publish the Spanish version on their website.
Babelfish is a handy little tool that will help us to translate the words back into American (or "English" as they call it).

So, without further ado, here's the Star-Spangled Banner, freshly translated back into English after having been translated into Spanish:

National anthem - the Star Flag

Amanece: you do not see, to the light of the aurora,
Which as much we acclaimed the night when falling?
Their stars, their bars floated yesterday
In the fierce combat in victory signal,
Fulgor of rockets, pumps roar,
At night said: "!Se is defending"

Chorus:
!Oh, decid! It unfolds still his hermosura starred,
On land of free, the sagrada flag?

In the distant coast that as soon as it whitens,
Where the ferocious follower lies cloudy
On that precipice that elévase atrocious
Oh, decidme! What is that that in the breeze waves?
It is hidden and it flamed, in the dawn shining,
Reflected in the sea, where it is shining

Chorus

Oh thus is always, in loyalty we defend
Our native earth against the clumsy invader!
To God that gave peace, freedom and honor us,
it maintained nation to Us, with fervor we bless.
Our cause is the good, and for that reason we prevailed.
It was always our motto "In God we trusted"

Chorus

Oh by the way, this Spanish version was copywritten in 1919. So apparently this Hispanic insolence has been going on for quite a while...

In the Worst-Case-Scenario Department

2006-04-30T17:11:00.000-04:00

Arthur Silber writes:

...the only reason you aren't in a concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn't decided to send you to one -- yet.

Now, before you call me Chicken Little, think about something: Prior to the last few years, it would be easy to poo-poo the notion of U.S. concentration camps because our President doesn't have that much power. The Congress would have to be complicit in something so egregious. That's why we have our holy Separation of Powers - to avoid vesting too much power in one person, right? Now come back to 2006, when the news is passe that the President assumes he can violate well-established, easily understandable law because of his powers as Commander-in-Chief. When he has said that the law only applies to him if it doesn't conflict with his own interpretation of the Constitution.

The bottom line? The legal groundwork - the most difficult part - has already been laid to allow the President to do whatever the hell he wants, even the doomsday scenario of concentration camps. Hell, some of his pundit supporters already like the idea.

All they would need is, like, another Pearl Harbor. Or should we now start calling it "another 9/11"?

It's Not a Civil War

2006-03-26T11:36:00.000-05:00

Powerline defines "civil war" this way:

...the term "civil war" connotes a disaster of epic proportions, and certainly something qualitatively worse than internal violence that falls short of civil war.

See? It's not a civil war because civil war is defined as something much worse than something that's not as bad as a civil war. So as long as someone can characterize what's going on in Iraq as something slightly less bad as civil war, then, by definition, it's not a civil war. It won't be a civil war until it gets worse than that - worse than something less worse.

No problem.

Fascism By Any Other Name

2006-03-12T14:51:00.000-05:00

Russ Feingold is carrying out his Congressional oversight responsibilities by calling on Congress to censure Bush for his illegal wiretapping program. Frist responds by showing us what the GOP thinks of dissent:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re saying that censure resolution weakens America abroad?
FRIST: Yes. Well, I think it does because [... blah blah blah Terror blah blah 9/11 blah blah "Unprecedented" blah blah snip]. So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our Commander in Chief ... is wrong.

So he thinks in a Democratic society that it is unacceptable that there are people who disagree with the President "in any way".

Fascism: a political philosophy that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

Is that a fair description of Frist's worldview? Well, there are two key words here. The first is "autocratic":

Autocrat: one who has undisputed influence or power.

That's what Frist objects to: that someone can dispute with the President. The second key word is "dictatorial":

Dictator: a person granted absolute emergency power.

And this is what Frist is defending: the President's power to forego the law of the land due to our newly persistent state of emergency.

So we have a President who is on record defending his right to break the law, facing censure from the Congress and the lowest approval ratings of his presidency. Doesn't it make you wonder what he must have up his sleeve when you read things like this?:

...He has become so inured to outside criticism that he increasingly tunes it out. There is no sense of crisis.

I shudder to think.

Iran Is Heating Up

2006-03-08T20:07:00.000-05:00

But don't forget who's "managing" this situation for us: John "There Is No United Nations" Bolton.

A Failure of Democracy

2006-03-08T14:25:00.000-05:00

Well it's official. The Rule of Law has been rejected by the ruling party of a goverment that is in the midst of "spreading democracy" throughout the world at the business end of a gun. The power to enforce checks and balances has been taken away from the Judicial Branch and handed to the Legislative Branch that rejected the Rule of Law in the first place. Now, when the President wants to spy on someone, he doesn't have to convince any pesky judges, just his Republican congressional buddies. No problem.

There is no other conclusion to draw from this than that the Republican party believes that the President's power is ultimate and that if he breaks the law and justifies it in the name of "national security", then the Congress should not presume to second-guess him.

So, just to recap:

It's okay to invade defenseless countries that pose no threat to us.
It's okay for the military and the CIA to torture people as part of their regular duties.
It's okay for the President to break the law.

Welcome to the New Democracy. Brought to you by the Republican Party.

The Culture War Bears Fruit

2006-03-06T17:56:00.001-05:00

If by fruit, you mean innocent dead people. Pandagon reports:

According papers filed in court Thursday Snead had begun performing CPR by the side of the road when Bowman arrived and told Snead to stop because Green was HIV positive.

When Snead didn’t stop the CPR, Bowman grabbed Snead by the shoulders and physically barred Snead from continuing CPR at a critical point in Green’s resuscitation.

...Although the EMS workers ignored Bowman’s warnings and performed CPR on Green, he passed away shortly after arriving at the hospital. He did not have HIV. The court papers said that Bowman based his assumption that Green was HIV+ because he knew Green was gay.

Makes you wonder if the crazies would have rallied around Terry Schiavo if she had been gay... But I digress.

Welcome to the real first war of the 21st century - a "culture war" declared by fundamentalists against their fellow Americans.

The Press is, Like, a Total Downer

2006-03-06T17:21:00.000-05:00

The owner of a company called MZM testified in federal court that he gave $32,000 in illegal campaign donations to Florida Representative Katherine Harris. What's her response?

"There is nothing to it except for the press trying to be negative."

Um. What? The press? Because they reported on the testimony? A man testifies in federal court that he gave you illegal campaign contributions and this is somehow the press's fault? By reporting the facts, they are "trying to be negative"? What is this, high school?

Wasting Our Time and Money

2006-03-06T16:10:00.000-05:00

Joshua Holland makes good points about the ridiculous bill in Missouri that I mentioned earlier. As he points out, this law was not written for any reason other than to stir up the system in opposition to it. They know that, even if it passes, it is so obviously unconstitutional that it will be struck down in court. The law is so indefensible that they won't even talk about it. They know this. But they do it anyway because the results are:

They endear themselves to the really nutty part of their base.
They force national groups like the ACLU to come in and fight this absurdly unconstitutional law, which allows them to stir up the anti-ACLU sentiment they've worked so hard to create.
When the law is struck down, they claim victim status at the hands of an out-of-control judiciary (they only branch of government they can't force to submit to GOP policy).

My question is: How much money does all this cost? How many lawmakers spend how many hours drafting, debating, working on and voting on this silly law? How many taxpayer dollars are spent by the government on lawyers and judges to defend and decide it?

Maybe someone could calculate the costs of this after all is said and done. I would bet the costs easily run to the millions, considering all the man-hours involved. And how many times does shit like this happen every freakin year?

Fiscal conservatives my ass.

This is What They Believe

2006-03-05T11:18:00.000-05:00

John Lofton, he of the incest lyrics obsession, opines:

The precise purpose of civil government, including judges, is to show an "animus" against evil - in this case homosexuals and homosexuality - and punish it.

He's serious. This is what he believes is the purpose of civil government. How the hell does he define the word "civil"?

Now watch Ed Brayton tear him apart.

Reclaiming America From Whom?

2006-03-05T10:34:00.000-05:00

At least two elected officials (Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Florida Representative Katherine Harris) are speakers at a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference.

So they want to "reclaim" America for Christ. Who are they "reclaiming" our country from? From the people who don't believe that this country belongs to Jesus? People like those who wrote our Constitution? People like me?

After they "reclaim" my country, what happens to me? When the country belongs to Jesus, where do I belong? Where do the religious minorities of this country belong if these people are successful in planting Jesus' flag on this soil?

I believe this country belongs to all of us, whatever religion we belong to. Apparently these people disagree.

Demand an Investigation

2006-03-04T14:23:00.000-05:00

Sign Senator Byrd's petition demanding an investigation into the NSA spying scandal.

Frist Threatens to Change the Rules. Again.

2006-03-04T10:27:00.000-05:00

So even with a majority in Congress, the GOP can't do just anything it wants. Right? There are still some checks on the GOP, including the Judicial Branch and certain non-partisan committees, such as the Intelligence Committee.

Well, in their efforts to acquire even more power, Frist has threatened once again to change the rules to get his way.

The more time passes, the more they go from un-Democratic and un-American to anti-Democratic and anti-American.

November can't get here fast enough.

Missouri HCR 13

2006-03-03T15:54:00.000-05:00

In Missouri they are debating House Concurrent Resolution 13:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and
Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and
Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and
Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and
Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

God help us.

Liberalism

2006-02-27T12:04:00.000-05:00

Digby:

Contrary to christianism, with its unhealthy obsession on deadly punishment and diseased sex, liberalism is a world view that is life affirming. It posits that human beings have the ability and the will to construct a moral life, and a happy, prosperous one in a civil community regardless of our differences. That is what is meant, in a political context, by "all men are created equal." And liberalism has succeeded. It is in states where liberalism is in short supply that poverty reigns, and ignorance, and a great deal of crime.

Amen.

Balance of Power

2006-02-16T22:42:00.000-05:00

1. Congress creates a law.
2. President secretly breaks the law.
3. Press reveals the illegal activity.

What happens next? You guessed it:

4. Congress changes the law to suit the President.

How about that for the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built in to our little democracy? Senator Roberts (R-Kan.) had this little gem of wisdom to say:

"Whether or not an investigation is the right thing to do at this particular time, I am not sure."

So, Bush breaks the law (or, as the American Bar Association puts it, he "does not have legal authority to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"), and Senator Roberts "is not sure" whether there should even be an investigation.

Forced Birth

2006-02-07T21:09:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson says:

Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future.

Maybe that's why the fundies want to force people to have babies.

Fascism Du Jour

2006-02-07T13:25:00.000-05:00

From The Washington Times, no less:

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

Of course, only in the insanest district is an appearance by the thirty-nine percenter going to help with a candidates re-election prospects.

Bizarroworld

2006-02-06T18:15:00.000-05:00

[Update: Turns out, Mr. Dipshit never actually graduated.]

I've been reading posts throughout the blogosphere about this article in the New York Times. But I still can't really believe what I'm reading. According to the article, there's this 24-year-old journalism ~~grad~~ dropout who works on the Bush/Cheney campaign and then gets an appointment at NASA in public relations. Then this arrogant little fuck decides to write a letter to some NASA scientists. Repeat: a 24 year-old journalism ~~student~~ dropout is writing this to some of the world's top scientists:

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

What in the holy living fuck has this country come to? This is a public employee, a smart-ass kid, a journalism ~~student~~ dropout, for Christ's sake, on the public dime, telling NASA scientists to shut the fuck up if they're not going to preach about God as part of their official duties.

Mister Dipshit continues:

"This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

So, in addition to massively misunderstanding what a theory is (working at NASA), he also believes that it's NASA's job to argue the religious side to the drooling knuckledraggers in this country who believe that the Big Bang is a science vs. religion argument instead of a well-tested scientific theory.

And there are people out there who will defend this dipshit. People who think it's okey-dokey for public employees to be out there preaching their religion (and requiring others to do so) as part of their official duties.

Party Above Country

2006-02-06T12:36:00.000-05:00

On lunch break I just watched Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) question Attorney General Gonzales about the domestic spying scandal and I'm really just blown away by the extent to which an elected representative of the people will intentionally put in the Congressional record statements which he knows to be intentionally misleading, incomplete, half-truths.

For example, he talked about the Hamdi case, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the government's right to detain an American citizen without charges or a trial. See? What's a little eavesdropping when the military can just come into your home in a time of war and whisk you away without charges? Here's the catch: Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, there are no similarities. Sessions knows this, but puts the analogy in the Congressional record anyway.

In another example, he cited the Clinton Justice Department authorizing physical searches without a warrant as being part of the President's Constitutional authority. Only he doesn't mention that, at the time, that may have been true. And that subsequently the FISA law was amended to include physical searches. Apples to oranges, yet again. He was so off base on this one that the Attorney General himself had to point out the sequence of events to him.

How do people take these guys seriously? I mean they were so obviously intent on filling the record with misleading statements and half-truths that the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee refused to swear Gonzales in, even after he volunteered to do so.

Oh well. The people who voted for these assholes deserve what they get.

Freedom of Speech and the Gummit

2006-02-05T19:08:00.000-05:00

One point of clarification on why it is unacceptable for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to write intimidating letters to the press: The people of this country have a freedom of speech based on the First Amendment to our Constitution; however, the government does not have this freedom. Think about that for a second.

This is why the righties (especially the fundamentalists) are so frustrated right now. They can't stand the judiciary because it keeps the rest of the gummit right by the law. They also can't stand the ACLU for the same reason: the ACLU fights government when its speech or actions overstep the boundaries that are set by the Constitution. To illustrate: The ACLU will never go after an individual for preaching Christianity; but they will go after the government if it tries to preach Christianity. People have more rights than the government, and isn't that how we all want it?

The fundies feel like they are entitled to more than our system of checks and balances allows. Luckily, our system has been designed to be robust enough to survive the attacks currently being launched against it in the form of radical lawmakers and partisan judicial nominees. Let's just hope the nation wakes up to what's really happening before the death of a thousand cuts.

Ah Yes, the Cartoons.

2006-02-05T16:12:00.000-05:00

So rioting mobs are burning down embassies and military leaders are writing letters over cartoons. Not the same cartoon, mind you, but different cartoons. The rioting mobs are angry about the depiction of Mohammed. The military leaders are angry about the depiction of an injured soldier.

In concept, it is interesting the similarities between the offended parties. Both feel that the content of the offending cartoon was serious enough to be a threat in some way. Both feel that this particular exercise in free speech was just a little over the line. But that's pretty much where the similarities end.

In the first case, the reason some Muslims are rioting is that it is against their religious law to have depictions of Mohammed created by human hands. This is a very serious issue for them. As a matter of fact (as Josh Marshall points out), the Manhattan Appellate Courthouse removed a statue of Mohammed in the 1950's in response to requests from some Muslim nations. So you can be sure that it is offensive to probably all Muslims, to some degree or other. But most Muslims are not rioting or burning down buildings. Now, is it enough of an offense to justify rioting and embassy-burning? No. And here's why: The people who created those cartoons are not Muslim. They are not bound by the laws of the Koran. It is okay to insist that the members of your religion be bound by your common code or be kicked out. But to insist that everyone in the world be bound by your religious code is a little much. That's not to say that the cartoons were not insensitive or even stupid. But that kind of thing tends to correct itself over time. Do you see any offensive racist cartoons against blacks or asians in the mainstream press? Not often. That kind of bigotry is reserved for gay people these days.

Now, onto the letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Washington Post. They actually said this in their letter:

We cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

You can't? Why not? I understand you may be offended, but please tell me which part of your job description requires you to answer a cartoon? You are the heads of the United States military. I do not expect you to police the free political speech of this country. I expect you to protect it from its foes. The fact that you believe that you are not allowed to let this cartoon go unanswered tells me two things:

You believe that your military responsibilities are greater than just protecting us from foreign threats; and/or
You believe this particular cartoonist, and/or the people who share his beliefs and/or use their free speech rights in a manner similar to the way he has, constitute a "foe" which much be confronted militarily.

You know, the letter was an official one, on military letterhead, personally signed by the heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and their joint chairman. It doesn't get any more official than that.

From the Department of "Duh"

2006-02-01T23:26:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports:

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

And why is that? Because prejudice is based on fear, as is this President's support.

Oh yeah, and if you add two to two, you get four.

Dems and National Security

2006-01-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

There's a great post here at AMERICABlog. The bulk of the post is just background info about your normal, run-of-the-mill Bush incompetence, this time with regard to cutting the size of the military in a time of war just to fudge the numbers. The money part, though, is the last paragraph.

Democrats there is a HUGE, ENORMOUS and MASSIVE opportunity for you here. A sustained campaign by the nation's Democratic Governors opposing the National Guard cuts paired with a plan in the House and Senate to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for the war in Iraq could reap you enormous political hay in the future. In one move you go from being a party on the defensive in national security to the offense. You don't get handed a whole lot of opportunities like that. Pick a spokesperson now - only ONE and get them on TV as THE point person on this issue - and get a sustained PR campaign plan ready that you can launch after Alito. It'd be the right next move. Filibusterer Alito through the State of the Union and then move on to this and pretty soon it will be Spring, right in time to begin the 2006 cycle with a weaker opponent...

We already know the GOP is going to run on national security again for the mid-terms. Now is the time to take the wind out of that sail. The only reason the GOP sounds better on national security is because of talk, talk, talk. The facts just don't bear out the myth.

For example, they constantly hammered Clinton, claiming he was cutting the post-Cold War military to the point of putting the country in danger. But did you notice what Bush is doing?

President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades

The lowest level in three decades. In thirty years. Since the seventies. Before Reagan. Three decades, that is. If the Dems don't jump on this, they really are missing out on a debate-framing opportunity, I think.

Theocons

2006-01-26T14:49:00.000-05:00

And they say Bin Laden gets his talking points from the left?

"The United States joined forces with Iran, Egypt, China, Zimbabwe and Cameroon to not only prevent [the International Lesbian and Gay Association and the Danish Association of Gays and Lesbians] from joining, but to prevent them from even getting a hearing on their application to join."

My country, actively pursuing a reputation for repression and fear.

No More Mister Nice Senator

2006-01-26T11:27:00.000-05:00

So will they or won't they?

Most people believe the Senate Democrats will not filibuster Alito. And why do they believe this? Because the Democrats are holding to their most self-destructive trait: Fear of the people. They believe that if they filibuster, the American public will somehow turn on them as fringe lunatics and boot them out of Washington at the next election. I believe they are wrong about this and I believe they should filibuster for the following two reasons:

Alito has shown his views to be outside the mainstream. Let's not kid ourselves: He will vote to overturn Roe if given the chance. Now, I know that Roe has become way too much of a touchstone issue for judicial appointments, but when 66% of the people believe something should be legal, and that legality has been upheld time after time by court after court, then going into this with an agenda to overturn it is outside the mainstream. This is not to mention his very dangerous notions about executive authority. The Executive branch already pretty much controls the Legislative branch. Do we want it controlling the Judicial branch as well? A filibuster would give the American public an opportunity to hear these types of issues debated in a highly dramatized manner. And drama is what it takes to get people's attention these days.
The response to the filibuster will be for the Republicans to change the rules in the middle of the game. The filibuster is a long-standing procedural tool for the minority party. The Democrats wouldn't be breaking the rules by using it. But the Republicans would be changing the rules by abolishing it. The drawback is that this would allow some fucking lunatics to be appointed to the bench over the next couple of years, at least, but Republican control of the government won't last forever (unless we let it). So the advantages would be an impression on the public that the Dems have finally sprouted some cojones and the creation of a useful talking point about crybaby Republicans who change the rules to get their way.

I really think it's the left that is eyeing this move more critically than the right. Have the grassroots convinced the establishment that what is needed is balls? Or will they persist in shying away from battles? We'll know soon enough.

Bush Endorses Bin Laden's Threats

2006-01-25T20:22:00.000-05:00

Junior:

"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it."

Now who's using whose talking points? Sounds to me like Bush is really leveraging Bin Laden's "fear factor" to the full. Now, do you think any of the talking heads will mention it?

...

2006-01-24T13:06:00.000-05:00

Keep Your Fingers Crossed...

2006-01-24T12:11:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

Liar

2006-01-23T16:30:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove:

President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.

Some important Democrats? Name one. Any one. Actually, name anyone, Democrat or Republican, important or not, who thinks it's not in our national security interest to listen in on Al Qaeda calls.

Rove is not stupid. He's just lying. He knows no one disagrees with that stupid fucking straw man. The issue is that the President broke the law. There are laws in place for monitoring Al Qaeda communication and George W. Bush broke them. Plain and simple.

Now if a Democrat tells an obvious lie like the one in the quote, Tim Russert will ask every single person on his show whether they agree with it, whether it was appropriate to say, whether he should apologize, etc.

Will anyone ask Republicans the question? Do you believe Karl Rove when he says that Democrats don't want to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda calls? Do you believe it is appropriate for Karl Rove to make statements like this? Do you believe Karl Rove should apologize for making accusations like this?

What bullshit.

Wrong

2006-01-22T08:55:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove:

"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Now I know the administration has lost the map to reality, but I can't think of a single thing the Republicans have gotten right. From WMDs to troop levels to the Iraqi post-invasion plan to disaster response to Medicare prescription drug plans to Social Security reform to Terry Schiavo to Valerie Plame to Jack Abramoff to torture to warrantless wiretapping to law (vis-a-vis Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay) to anything else in the last five years. In every single instance, it seems, they've been consistently wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now maybe the Dems have been right part of the time and wrong part of the time, or maybe they've been right most of the time or all of the time. But what difference would it make, when they don't control any of the levers of power? In my biased view, most of the Dems have been on the right side of almost all the issues over the last five years. Hopefully someone will point this out during the campaign season in contrast to Mr. Rove's comments.

Administrivia

2006-01-11T12:15:00.000-05:00

Looking through my sitemeter reports, I found something interesting. Apparently, someone in India ended up on my site by Googling for "wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum".

Sure enough, if you Google "wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum" on Indian Google, my site is the first one to pop up.

So, apparently, through no effort of my own, I have become the Internet's go-to guy for wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum, if you are in India. If you have any questions about wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum or need further information about wa Dum Dum Da Di Da Dum, please poke around the site. Also, I suggest listening to some Chopin.

Carry on.

Now is the Time to Fight

2006-01-10T14:32:00.000-05:00

Greenwald nails it:

If Democrats are unwilling to fight for these principles, what are they willing to fight for? And if Democrats crawl away from this battle, meekly convincing themselves before even engaging it that they are destined to lose and therefore shouldn’t even bother to try, how can Democrats possibly object when they are perceived as being weak, irresolute, and afraid of taking a stand for their beliefs?

Bold mine.

He's Mister Short Term Memory

2006-01-07T13:11:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, from Reuters:

Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

February 2003, one month before the invasion, from the New York Times:

"We are ready to confront the United States," said Halima Nebi, 57, matriarch of a family forced by poverty to pack 21 people into one apartment in Saddam City. "We will use stones, bricks, guns, our own hands."

Incompetence

2006-01-05T14:18:00.000-05:00

As reported at TPM Cafe:

“Shortly before the war, when Administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, Administration spokesmen quickly distanced themselves from those numbers,” points out Professor Stiglitz. “But in retrospect, it appears that Lindsey’s numbers represented agross underestimate of the actual costs.”

Will the general public remember this when the elections roll around? Can the Democrats please help them remember?

Finally, A Domestic Spying Investigation. Oh Wait...

2005-12-30T12:39:00.000-05:00

They're not going to investigate the fact that the President deliberately broke the law, lied about it, and vowed to do it again. They're going to investigate who blew the whistle on the lawbreaking.

If the President has the right to ignore the law, and to detain people without trial for indefinite periods of time, and if the function of the Justice Department is to do his bidding and to go after those who foil his plans, then how is this not a dictatorship again?

Empire Burlesque hits the nail right on this head in this article. Go read it.

Fuck 2005

2005-12-24T18:28:00.000-05:00

In one of those postcard dispensers outside the restroom in a bar I was in I saw a postcard that said "Fuck 2005" and I think that pretty much sums it up. At the end of 2005, here we are:

Debating whether or not the President is bound by the laws of the nation.
Fighting a war we started against a third world country that posed no threat to us and having our patriotism called into question by the government for criticizing the fact.
Being spyed upon by the Executive Branch, without warrants or cause.
Running a series of secret prisons around the world. Detaining American persons without charge for indefinite periods of time.
Debating whether the American authorities should be permitted to torture people.
Being called Anti-Christian for wishing people "Happy Holidays". How sick.

On the other hand, 2005 has been somewhat of an eye-opener for many Americans to what we shrill left wingers have been complaining about for some time. We on the left know that the current Republican crew is corrupt to the core. We know that they are interested in one thing and one thing only: Power. We know they are incompetent and have totalitarian leanings. Only this year has this information begun to filter out to the greater masses, due to sporadic attempts by the cable news media to sprout some cojones in response to greater numbers of people getting their info and analysis from the web. I hope this is a trend that continues. I hope that justice is done. I hope people will remember the current state of affairs when the mid-terms roll around next year (we have frustratingly short memories, you know).

Next year this time I see us in one of two places: either we're celebrating electoral victories by the good guys and preparing the appropriate inquiries and hearings to start correcting the wrongs; or else we're further down this same road, perhaps witnessing our fellow bloggers being spyed upon and or detained. I pray the masses will remember what this country stands for and see clearly what a dangerous place we're in.

The Conservative Experiment

2005-12-21T11:42:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago I Googled myself silly trying to find a document I had read which seemed to me to be the seed that germinated into modern Conservatism. I came up blank, but luckily, I came across a mention of the memo in another blog a couple of days ago.

The document is called the "Powell Memo" and was written as a letter to the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from corporate lawyer Lewis F. Powell in August 1971, two months before Nixon nominated Powell to the Supreme Court. In it, Powell describes a looming threat against American Capitalism by sinister forces. In describing these sinister anti-American entities, Powell ropes in everyone from Fascists to "New Leftists", hardly drawing a line between goose-stepping armies and liberal-thinking college professors. It's spooky to read this memo and see the similarities to how Conservatives view the world today - us vs. them, black vs. white, evil vs. good, Free Enterprise vs. Totalitarian Communism. This kind of thinking is the reason why many people on the right cannot differentiate between social programs and socialism. One broad Conservative stroke covers them all. This is why the righties can equate liberalism with communism, even though, in theory, they have pretty much nothing in common (see the dictionary definitions linked above if you don't believe me).

Anyhow, the last few years have taught us a lot about what happens when this brand of Conservatism is put into practice. A couple of lessons:

A government guided by Conservative principles is not necessarily a smaller government. As a matter of fact, over the last few decades, we've learned that "Conservative" governments blow money like a drunk at the OTB.
A government guided by Conservative principles is not necessarily a more limited government. In order to get a majority of votes, Conservatives have had to pander to an electoral bloc that demands increasingly intrusive government - one that tells us what we should be reading, what we should be saying, and whether or not we're even entitled to any privacy in this country. They've gone so far as to imply that the President, at his own discretion, should not, in certain circumstances, be bound by the law of the land.

In other words, they tried it, and it failed. And where are we now? Well, the American public is now forced to debate whether or not torture is justified; whether or not it's okay to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat to us; whether or not we are obliged to follow the international treaties we signed; and finally, whether or not the President has to obey the law. A sad time indeed.

It's time for liberals to stop allowing ourselves to be labelled with this archaic rhetoric. We liberals represent the views of the vast majority of Americans, many of whom don't know it because the Conservatives have a thirty-year head start reshaping the vernacular and framing the debate. We have to stop assuming that the good guy naturally wins. The bad guys are determined, committed, well-funded, and in it for the long haul.

A New Contract

2005-12-21T07:43:00.000-05:00

The Rude Pundit has a great post here. If the apologists want to grant King George unlimited power, fine. Let them go on record saying so.

How to Create Terrorists

2005-12-18T13:56:00.000-05:00

From Jimmy Carter's new book (via Rebellious Peasant):

A report from Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, described a visit to an eleven year old detainee in the cell block that housed high risk prisoners. The general recalled that the child was weeping, and "he told me he was almost twelve," and that "he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother." Children like this eleven year old have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer, or anyone else, and were not told why they were detained. A Pentagon spokesman told Mr. Hersh that "age is not a determining factor in detention."

Unbelievable. Outrageous. My blood is boiling. Put yourself into that child's parents shoes and then tell me how this is helping America's "War on Terror".

The Rule of Law

2005-12-17T22:54:00.000-05:00

This exchange regarding the illegal domestic spying by the President just about says it all:

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.

This is an elected lawmaker, a representative of the people, saying - not just implying - that it's okay for the President to ignore the law. How much more fundamental does it get? These people are now in outspoken support of despotism.

Tag!

2005-12-16T10:38:00.000-05:00

I got tagged in an earlier post, and, according to the rules of the game, I'm supposed to tag seven people. Unfortunately, my internet-cognito alter ego has few internet friends, and I thought they all got tagged by Jesse. But, lo and behold, he forgot one, so here it is:

Aprildawn: I tag you seven times. What are your 49 favorite songs?

Donald E. Wildmon is Probably Gay

2005-12-15T17:07:00.000-05:00

He just said this:

“All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war"

And how did he want Ford to do this? By instituting a boycott against advertising in gay magazines. Now how the fuck is that "not choosing sides"?

So Wildmon pressured Ford into withdrawing all advertisements from gay magazines by threatening a boycott. Ford capitulated, which understandably angered a lot of people. Wisely, Ford reconsidered their decision and reinstated their common sense approach to advertising.

These psychos, with their rabid anti-gay hatred and their pretend "War on Christmas" are going to find that their actions are alienating a lot of people. These people make no bones about the fact that they've declared a "culture war" - a war whose enemies are fellow American citizens. Fortunately, in increasing numbers of instances, the forces of common sense are prevailing.

Rep. Dingell Kicks Ass

2005-12-15T17:04:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, I love Michigan.

I've Been Tagged

2005-12-15T15:18:00.000-05:00

And I don't mean that in the fratboy vernacular-sense of the word. One of my blog homies did it, and it means I gotta tell you which tunes I'm digging.

A little background: I bought this swell little non-proprietary audio gadget a while back because it means I can download unlimited tunes from a legitimate-but-unnamed online music source. Since then I can literally plug the little dude in in the morning and download just about any album I want, old or new, any genre. And yes, that includes many of the lesser known artists and labels, for your too-cool-for-school indie-emo-slowcore-hardstep-garage-techno-slappy-farting-mumbo-jumbo-genre-make-it-up-and-sell-some-records bands, even though I hate them just a little less than I hate their fans - I was a badly-dressed geek way back before it was cool. But, back in April I changed jobs and now have a very swift 30-minute door-to-door commute which involves about 10 minutes of walking and 20 minutes on the train. Since then, I've found it a bit tedious to drag around the little player, so most of my music-listening time is limited to evenings and weekends, when the little Race Gannons and Race Gannonettes are screaming and crawling all over my head. Oh and the occasional road trip. SO, I'm not listening to so much music lately, but I'll take a shot at this anyways.

Nina Simone. I know it's not a tune, but a broad. But I couldn't decide between my two favorites: Ne Me Quitte Pas and Wild is the Wind. I usually put the anthology on the player while I'm cooking dinner and it usually results in me and Mrs. Gannon dirty dancing to the horror of the little Gannons.
Difuntos by Tego Calderon. I don't speak Spanish. And I don't know what Reggaeton means. But when I play Tego Calderon, I turn into the toughest white guy you ever met. And for all you internet people know, I might not even be white. And that's badass.
The Whateverth Nocturne in Whatever Flat Major by Frédéric Chopin. It's just a phase, but I'm listening to a lot of this dude. But it gets my damn goat that they couldn't come up with actual names for songs back then. I'm never gonna remember all the names of these things - they're all numbers and musical notes. If you're looking for a good one, check out the one that goes: "Da dum, di di di dum dum, da da da do do DUM, da di di dum dum, da DUM, da di di da da DUM DUM, da dum, da di fart." [Update: Okay I've found the name of one of my favorites. It's Called "B minor, Opus 69, Number 2." I really think Chopin was just being an asshole. Here's a link to a record that has the track - it's number 9 on the first disc.]
Time for Me to Fly by REO Speedwagon. I'll just shortcut any of your comments by saying Fuck You.
10 Dollar by M.I.A. Her dad was a Tamil Tiger and she will shoot your ass. Oh and now they're using one of her songs in a Honda commercial or something.
Lovely Day by Bill Withers. I'm not ashamed to say I was turned onto this song by that new roller skating movie.
Sweeter by Julie Doiron and the Wooden Stars. My obligatory "indie" song. I know it fits in this category, because every time I listen to Julie Doiron, I want to slit my wrists, but in a happy way. That, and because the record is probably not on an independent label.

OK that's done. Next post will be back to my usual orneriness about politics, probably.

On Science

2005-12-14T17:23:00.000-05:00

Okay so I just finished reading this book called "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It's a history of the Big Bang theory starting from, well, the beginning of science. I read it in two weeks on the subway commute, which is good for me, a relatively slow reader, given that this dude is about 500 pages long. At the end, I was disappointed that it was over. What a great writer, this guy. I picked up the book because I had read one of his earlier ones ("Fermat's Enigma"), and I really liked his style.

So anyhow, parts of it brought to mind an earlier post dealing with the intersection of religion and science. The book spends some time discussing the relationship amongst and between religion, politics and science, and how they have influenced one another, for better or worse. Check this out:

"Vsevolod Frederiks and Matvei Bronstein, who were also supporters of the Big Bang model, received the harshest punishments of all. Frederiks was imprisoned in a series of camps and died after six years of hard labour, while Brostein was shot after being arrested on trumped-up charges of being a spy. By making examples of these and other scientists, the Soviets effectively gagged serious cosmological research and delivered a message that echoed on through the decades of Communism. The Russian astronomer V.E. Lov followed the party line by stating that the Big Bang model is a 'cancerous tumour that corrodes modern astronomical theory and is the main ideological enemy of materialist science'. And Boris Vorontsov-Vel'iaminov, on of Lov's colleagues, maintained solidarity by calling Gamow an 'Americanised apostate' because of his defection to the West, stating that he 'advances new theories only for the sake of sensation'."

Creepy, isn't it? That you can be shot just for believing something. And this wasn't the Dark Ages, this was just a few decades ago. Doesn't the "cancerous tumour" remark sound like something one of the right-wing talking heads would say about Darwin? Needless to say, throughout the history of science, these fields (religion and politics) have tried to unduly exert influence on the scientists of the day, merely because their theories and experiments revealed truths that disagreed with the common wisdom of the day, and thus threatened the power of those who stood to benefit from said wisdom.

But one of the biggest eye-openers for me was that, up until recently, the Big Bang theory was considered to be the pro-religion theory, since it implied a moment of "creation". The alternatives to the Big Bang theory were of a static, never-changing, eternal universe. In 1951, Pope Pius XII strongly endorsed the Big Bang theory because of the creation implications. Growing up around a Protestant-derivative religion, with a literal interpretation of the Bible, I was always under the impression that a belief in the Big Bang was a sort of heresy.

There are a lot of great quotes in this book. Take this one from Galileo's Dialogue:

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn."

So that's my book review. That and two bucks'll getcha on the subway.

Secret Laws

2005-12-11T16:09:00.000-05:00

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Law stands mute in the midst of arms." -- Cicero

"The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding." -- Albert Camus

I can see how Joe Public might perceive the left's protestations against the Patriot Act as shrill. After all, what effect do expanded library searches have on someone who rarely uses the library? But even for those Patriot Act-hater-haters, the concept of "Secret Law" has to be at least a little disturbing.

As a matter of fact, Joe Public would think I am some sort of whacked out conspiracy theorist, talking about "Secret Laws." Unfortunately, I am not. (A theorist, that is.)

Frist Thinks Americans Are Stupid

2005-12-11T12:05:00.000-05:00

Today he says this:

"Supreme Court justice nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and it would be absolutely wrong to deny him that."

Two words: Harriet Miers, asshole. Okay that's three words.

And you think Frist had nothing to do with the Mier's withdrawal? This from WaPo:

But a Senate source close to Frist said that the senator was much blunter and more negative, and that he suggested Miers withdraw because her chances of being confirmed were not good.

Yeah, good luck with that Presidential bid, jerk.

Fool Me Twice

2005-12-08T22:39:00.000-05:00

"I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster" -- Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, November, 2005

"A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists" -- Vice President Dick Cheney, November, 2005

"For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude." -- President Richard Nixon, November, 1969

Read this article. The similarities are real, documented, and irrefutable.

And if you run into the President, tell him that it's "Fool me twice, shame on me". Oh and tell him I said he's a half-wit asshole.

John Bolton: Ambassador, Comedian

2005-12-08T12:55:00.000-05:00

Bolton: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror..."

That "international civil servant" happens to be Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations. What is her job? Well, she has "the broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural." And what did she say? This:

"[the] absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terrorism'."

So John Bolton thinks that it is inappropriate for the person at the U.N. who is responsible for protecting human rights to actually comment about human rights.

I guess that makes sense coming from someone who believes it is inappropriate for a diplomat to employ diplomacy.

The War on Good Manners

2005-12-07T12:39:00.000-05:00

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Yikes. What happened? What did Bushie do that was so terrible? Who are these nefarious "elements in our culture" that are powerful enough to force the President to capitulate?

Why, they said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Horror of horrors.

And why did they say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Well, because there were 1.4 million of the cards sent out, and very likely some of them went to people who were maybe Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or, God forbid, Atheists. And saying Merry Christmas to a Jewish person is like saying Good Morning to someone when it's actually afternoon. Yeah, they get the drift of what you are saying, but it's just a little awkward.

(By the way, I have a lot of Jewish friends and coworkers. Do I say Merry Christmas to someone I know is Jewish? Obviously not. Is it because I'm afraid I will offend them? No. It's because I'm not a jackass.)

[Update: On his TV show, Bill O'Reilly pointedly wished a "Merry Christmas" to John Stewart, who is Jewish. Bill O'Reilly is a jackass.]

So some people are actually saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and it appears that the malevolent cause of this is because they want to be considerate. Damn them to hell. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Bill O'Reilly provides one of the most hilariously ironic points of this made up "War on Christmas". He actually said this on his show:

Does "Merry Christmas" offend Non-Christians? O'Reilly: "I don't believe most people who aren't Christian are offended by the words 'Merry Christmas.' I think those people are nuts."
Does "Happy Holidays" offend Christians? O'Reilly: "It absolutely does," he said. "And I know that for a fact."

Boy, Bill O'Reilly's Christians sure are easily offended. And apparently, according to O'Reilly, they are also 'nuts'. What a tool.

As an aside, think about this: How different are these people from fundamentalists like the Taliban if they really truly believe that saying "Happy Holidays" makes you a part of the "worst elements of our culture." I mean really.

Mental Giants

2005-12-06T18:18:00.000-05:00

In a December 5th post, the Powertools wax philosophical (I'm not providing links to their garbage anymore):

The CIA set up a system of rendition, whereby terrorist suspects are turned over to certain foreign governments. The CIA also established a network of secret detention centers in several countries, including some in Europe.

Having taken these prudent anti-terrorist measures, the CIA blah blah blah fart puke gag.

Rule of law? Pshaw. That's for nerds.

As I Was Saying...

2005-11-29T17:34:00.000-05:00

Here's a good thing to remember:

"When you first learn to use a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail."

I think Morton Downey, Jr. taught the right how to use a hammer and since then they've been using it against everything and everyone that disagrees with them - programs for the poor, social security, foreign policy, you name it.

Jean Schmidt took the hammer to the House floor and thankfully was shamed into recanting.

Today you can't scan the television channels or the radio dial without running into Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, or someone like them. I'm too young to remember, were we this rude in our public debate before the eighties?

Another Indicator Bush is Losing It

2005-11-15T19:38:00.000-05:00

Lots of talk in blogtopia about Bush hitting the bottle and wheels coming off and so forth.

Funny, I was thinking about this while watching this clip from C&L. Check the chin at around 3:50 into it - in the little clip that starts with "It is courage that liberated blah blah blah". I could swear the little chin quiver betrays a man trying not to cry.

Political Compass

2005-11-10T17:31:00.000-05:00

I'm -5.50, -4.36.

How Much is Too Much?

2005-11-07T15:12:00.000-05:00

The government is threatening churches because they oppose unprovoked war.

The Executive Branch of our government is arguing that it should be okay to torture people.

The FBI is building a permanent detailed database of information on US citizens and disseminating it freely amongst federal agencies.

How much more of this can we take before impeachment will be called for on the grounds of self defense?

The Conservative Philosophy in Two Sentences

2005-10-31T16:23:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, one of the conservative gasbags will accidentally slip up and tell the honest truth about the conservative philosophy. Observe Powerline:

"Personally, if I had a choice between giving a dollar to an oil company and giving it to the government, I'd rather give it to the oil company. There's at least some chance they'll use it to drill for oil."

Sure, there's some chance they'll use it to drill for oil. On the other hand, there's at least some chance the government will spend that dollar on health insurance for the poor, student financial aid for rapidly increasing education costs, or levees to protect a vulnerable city, you myopic asshole.

A Tactical Victory for Harry Reid, Thanks to GWB

2005-10-27T09:52:00.000-04:00

The current administration has never been quick to see the irony of their actions. The first example that comes to mind is Cheney pushing for torture legislation and aides outing a CIA agent for political reasons, all the while the right wingers complaining that criticism of the administration gives aid to the enemy.

However, Bush himself shed light on the latest irony in his comments about the withdrawal of Mier's nomination:

"It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel."

Ironically, this is precisely the same situation Democratic Senators were complaining about during the Roberts confirmation process. Seems like the GOP is totally comfortable pushing a candidate through without much scrutiny if they are confident of his "conservative" position - to hell with the Democrats. But when questions arise about a nominee's "conservative" chops, why then the Senate just can't provide its advice and consent in good conscience without those papers.

Why is this potentially a tactical victory for Harry Reid? Because in all the hubbub about Mier's, he kept the Democratic Senators together, showing an even-keeled approach to the process. The Democrats stood by their principles, all the while letting the GOP eat itself from the inside. Now, the Pres has no choice but to nominate a radical right-wing psycho to the bench, and Reid can use that nominee as an opportunity to highlight the differences between the mainstream ideals of the Democrats and the freaking insane radicalism of the "Christian" right.

At This Rate, Bush Will Resign

2005-10-24T16:26:00.000-04:00

Okay, maybe it's just wishful thinking, but shit's going pear-shaped up at the Whizzy Hizzy. Personally? I think Junior was caught off guard by the whole Plame thing. I think the plan was hatched out of the Veep's office, closely connected to the gang that muscled the CIA into forging documents about Iraq. I think all along, Junior's been in over his head, and the Veep thug and his gang have been running the show. I think the Plame thing has broken up the Pres and the Veep and now, since Junior nominated his personal lawyer to the Supreme Fucking Court, Cheney just said, "Fuck it, kid, you're on your own."

Now, what has Junior traditionally done when he found himself temple-deep in his own poo-poo? Well, turned to daddy's friends for help, of course. He has a glorious history running companies into the ground and then being bailed out by daddy's connections. But if all the actual competent (if evil) people around him leave him to his own devices, what will happen? I don't think he can withstand another three years like this one has been.

Not to Generalize, but Conservatives are Fucking Idiots

2005-10-22T18:16:00.000-04:00

How hard is it to understand the mission of the ACLU? It stands for this:

The American Civil Liberties Union

"Civil Liberties" is defined thusly:

Main Entry: civil liberty
Function: noun
: freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the U.S. especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights -- usually used in plural
- civil libertarian noun or adjective

What that means is that each individual is explicitly permitted to have and/or express his or her opinion without government interference, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Government, on the other hand, is not allowed such a freedom.

You may already know this, but the word "liberty" comes from the Latin root "liber" which means "freedom". [Note: I don't necessarily think it's a coincidence that the Latin word also means "book".] The American Civil Liberties Union is primarily concerned with protecting the rights of the individual, something every single goddamned American should wholeheartedly support, and then some.

So when a freaky-looking psycho "conservative" attacks the ACLU and obviously can't comprehend the reasons for its actions, perhaps he just doesn't understand precisely what it is America stands for, namely LIBERTY.

</rant>

The End Game (?)

2005-10-22T10:39:00.000-04:00

Politics is often compared to a chess game, and Karl Rove has been credited with being able to see many moves ahead. We've seen evidence of this in his campaigning dirty tricks; in his calculated risks with the radical "Christian" right; in his somewhat behind-the-scenes media manipulation. That's why the preparatory victory laps currently happening throughout the lefty blogs make me a little nervous.

Let's look at the chess analogy a little more closely and how the Bushies have used chess-judo against the opposition in the past.

The advancing pawn. During the 2004 Presidential race, Kerry was in full campaign stride when the Swift Boat attacks hit. Many say his delayed reaction to the attacks was what deep-sixed his shot at the presidency. In chess, this was a pawn making a run for home. See, usually when you start advancing your pawn toward the eighth rank, it's not because you actually believe you will get that extra queen, it's because you know it will throw your opponent off his strategy. No matter what's going on in the game, if you can advance a pawn near the eighth rank, your opponent must stop what he's doing and halt the advance. It's a distraction technique. The Swift Boaters knew their claims were bullshit, but by the time Kerry reacted, they were already at the 6th or 7th rank.
The pin. Okay, I'll admit there are two or three degrees of conspiracy theory in this, but it's hard to believe that seemingly every blogger on the planet was able to demonstrate the Rathergate forgeries after the producers at CBS had gone to such lengths to generate attention for them. Common sense would say that said producers would have gone to great lengths to authenticate the documents before the segment aired. But lo-and-behold, the segment had barely ended before everyone in the blogosphere knew the documents had been created with Microsoft Word. Seriously, it was all over in a day or two. And guess what? Even though forging military documents is a felony, no one in goverment seems to give enough of a damn to investigate who created the documents and strategically forwarded them for publication far and wide. In chess, you are "pinned" when your opponent places an attacking piece on the far side of one of your lesser pieces. Now you can't move that pinned bishop without putting your queen in the line of attack of your opponent's rook. So your opponent has just dismantled the strong, multi-piece attack you just built up by taking one of your minor pieces out of action. After everyone in the world was convinced the Rather documents were forgeries, it didn't matter any other evidence out there that Bush was AWOL. You mention AWOL? They mention Rather. Conversation over. The documentation was a pinned bishop and the whole line of attack was rendered useless.
The discovered attack. Most of the blogosphere seemed to know that the uranium line in the State of the Union speech was probably bullshit the moment Gee-Dub uttered it on January 28th, 2003. But you know what? Most of America believed him and two months later we were at war with Iraq. See, much of America was curious but skeptical about the WMD claim, but when Bush pulled out that uranium claim, why there was the nail in the coffin. Now, not only was the Pres right, but this shit was urgent. In chess, you're playing your game and you're aware of that bishop sitting across the board, but he's really no threat to you. But then all of a sudden that bishop moves into an attacking position, and then you notice the queen sitting behind it. Now you are under attack from two directions. What seemed like no threat just a minute ago is now a deadly threat. The bishop was Bush's WMD claims and when he moved in for the kill, he revealed the attacking queen - the absolute proof that Iraq had recently purchased the final pieces to build the bomb. By the time all the true information started to fall into place that summer, the discovered attack had already been successful. Pres got the war he wanted. [It should be noted that most of us on the left watched for the discovered attack in the days leading up to the November 2004 election. We all heard the murmurings that Junior was gonna pull a Bin Laden out of the hat on the eve of the vote.]

So what have we seen happen lately? Well, to all appearances, the Dems have been playing their game beautifully. Many are just wild about Harry Reid and the game he's been playing. For example, they've limited GW's movement (Social Security); they've successfully removed some pretty important pieces from the board (Tom DeLay and potentially Bill Frist); and now they have the queen under attack (Rove).

But remember, these guys are dirty players, but they are good. And they've had a long time to think this through. We may be sitting at the cusp of a checkmate, but it may not be too smart to start talking trash until the game is actually done.

The Ox-Bow Incident

2005-10-18T13:10:00.000-04:00

The Ox-Bow Incident is about a bunch of cattle men in the wild west who track down and lynch three men for murder and cattle-rustlin', only to find out that the cattle weren't rustled and the murdered man ain't dead (warning: there was a spoiler in that last sentence). The book takes its own sweet time, letting the members of the lynch mob stew over their deed before the actual hanging takes place, then contemplates the effect of the ordeal on the consciences of the men involved - some of whom end up offing themselves because of it.

Walter Van Tilburg Clark wrote The Ox-Bow Incident in 1937/38, and when asked about it, said he was trying to expain that he "was most afraid ... not of the German Nazis, or even the Bund, but that ever-present element in any society which can always be led to act the same way, to use authoritarian methods to oppose authoritarian methods."

About four years ago, you can bet there was a young Afghan man going about his business when the American tanks rolled through. In the wrong place at the wrong time, he got caught up in a huge net and shipped off across the sea to wait for his fate to be determined. Unlike the Ox-Bow Incident, this young man was not given the time or even the paper to jot down a quick note to his young wife and children, but handcuffed and blindfolded and herded into a plane and whisked away. Over the last few years, you can bet this young man has been treated pretty harshly in the hands of a country that defined an entirely new category of prisoner for the express purpose of lawyerly circumventing laws governing the humane treatment of prisoners; a country that routinely ships prisoners to torture-friendly countries, in effect outsourcing our torture services; a country whose leader makes blanket statements about good and evil and whose sense of justice allows him to say things like this about someone who has never been tried:

"There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt," Bush said. "We know he's guilty."

You can also bet that there's a young American man who was going about his business four years ago, doing his time in the National Guard to pay for his education. In the wrong place at the wrong time, he was rounded up with his buddies and shipped overseas to dispense justice, American-style. Over the last few years, this young man has seen and done things that, hitherto, he had not even experienced in his worst nightmares. But if it was done as part of his assigned role in a rigid chain of command, who was he to ask why? He may have been holding the leash of the dog as it growled and barked at the naked shell of the formerly proud Afghan man, but he wasn't the one running the show, he was just doing his job.

In the Ox-Bow Incident, the lynch mob's commander ended up falling on his sword out of shame. So did the young man, his son, who served as an unwitting and unwilling accomplice to the lynching (Oops, spoilers). The cruel irony in all this is that at the top of the chain of command, George Bush couldn't give two shits about the innocent Afghani "collateral damage." As a matter of fact, he's going to veto the entire military appropriations bill just because it says he can't treat American prisoners in the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" fashion he's become so comfortable with. Then he'll throw back a glass of whiskey and fall straight to sleep on his gilded pillows.

Meanwhile, a young American will scream himself to sleep into his pillow, unable to speak with his young wife about the horrors he has seen and/or committed. A young Afghan man will be unable to return to his home village today, tomorrow, or ever. Neither will ever be able to explain to their children how everything went so horribly so quickly.

Walter Van Tilburg Clark explained:

"What I wanted to say was, 'It can happen here. It has happened here, in minor but sufficiently indicative ways, a great many times.'"

I Can See the Emperor's Thingy

2005-10-13T17:43:00.000-04:00

It may just be a rush of schadenfreude to the liblogosphere's collective head, but things look pretty shitty for the Pres right about now. Seems he just can't get a goddamn thing right.

He sets up a photo op with Habitat for Humanity and Matt Lauer makes him dodge and weave.
Later on, David Letterman shows footage from that same photo op and says he hammers like a little girl.
He sets up a photo op with Iraqi soldiers and the media immediately reveals that the whole shebang was staged.
The latest polls show Bush's numbers in the tank. Especially noteworthy, only two percent of African Americans approve of his performance. There were only 807 people participating in that poll, total. I guess that means there was, like, one black dude who thought the President was doing a fine job.

He's pissed off the religious right with his Miers nomination, pissed off the conservatives with his Katrina spending.

The poor guy needs a drink. I swear to God I would buy the first round.

God 'n Money

2005-10-13T13:23:00.000-04:00

So it's been about 500 years since the Europeans stumbled onto the American continent. Quite a discovery, that, but back then it wasn't so easy to scrape together an existence on this wild continent. The terrain, the winters, the Injuns, made it a risky enterprise in the beginning to pack up shop and cross the pond. You had to have a really good reason (negative or positive) to do it. Primarily, the new world was settled at first by two groups: religious refugees and some of the first modern corporations.

God and Money don't have a lot in common, in principle. Jesus told Ceasar he could keep his shit, for all he cared. Religions mostly teach compassion for fellow man, adherence to some sort of moral code, charity and the like. Corporations are an every-man-for-himself getup. Churches want their leaders to be humble shepherds. Corporations want their leaders to be fierce competitors.

What do God and Money have in common? In a word: Power. It's the one thing religious leaders and corporate leaders all want. Don't believe me? Name one church or corporation that doesn't want to grow. More people, more money, more power.

Five hundred years is not really a very long time in the grand scheme of things. Much of the current American electorate was recently descended from people who came to the U.S. of A. for God or Money. However, as a voting bloc, neither the God crowd (who, at the extreme, seem to think the Constitution was written by Jesus), or the Money crowd (who think Government is nothing but an annoyance) can claim a majority of the electorate. Therein lies the genius of what's been happening over the last few decades. The Money crowd has convinced the God crowd that "Hey, we're with you, brethren." Historically, the God crowd's more mainstream interests have been more aligned with the Democratic Party's principles - that Government's role is to protect us and help out the most vulnerable among us. But now the God crowd is voting against the environment, against the policies that protect the weakest of us, against their own interests, in most cases.

Anyhow, I don't think this sham alliance can really last very long. And we're already starting to see the rift between the two factions of the GOP widen over the Harriet Miers nomination. The God people are already trying to assert their authority over the Money people.

My God Can Beat Up Your God

2005-10-12T19:32:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Constitution does not mention the word "God" or the word "Creator" or the word "Jesus" or the word "Christ". Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is a fairly technical document, really. It's like the Declaration of Independence is a letter written to break up with your former lover, and the Constitution is the marriage certificate for your current spouse. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is in Article 6, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

The first States were a little uncomfortable with the Constitution as it was ratified, and two years later, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights) became law. Why? Because the states were nervous that the Constitution didn't provide enough protection for basic rights of the individual. And what was priority number one in the Bill of Rights? This: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

See, many of the "Founding Fathers" were a little more enlightened than the bunch who run the show nowadays. They remembered the fact that some of the first settlers came to America not-too-long-ago to escape places where the rulers were a little too pushy about religion. They wanted to set up a government that represented all the people, regardless of religion. Kinda smart, right?

How many religions are there? Well how long is a piece of string? It's not just the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews. The Christians then have the Catholics and the Protestants. The Protestants have the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. When you get right down to it, no two people think alike - even in the most evangelical church, some people will believe in a woman's right to choose for herself medically. And this is not even to mention the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Pastafarians, etc. So the founding fathers said, "Let's leave all that mess in the church and leave the government to do the governin'." So far, this approach has mostly worked, but it's only been a couple of centuries.

When President Bush nominates a Supreme Court Justice based on her religion, that is a cause for concern. We know that his understanding of the concept of "job qualifications" is not exactly spot on, but I think the American people believe that the primary reason a person should be nominated to the Supreme Court is said nominee's understanding of, and experience with, oh, I don't know, Constitutional Law?

And if you think it was just an off-hand, or background, comment, then think about this: The Christian right is loudly proclaiming Harriett Miers' evangelical background. But the same Christian right said that John Roberts' (Catholic) religious background should have been off limits to the discussion. (Hannity: "I don't think it's any of these senators' business what his faith is.")

By the way, do you think this is a slippery slope logical fallacy? Let me just say that the people who want to put Ten Commandments monuments in all our courthouses better make a lot of room for them.

Update (10/13/2005 12:29): Interestingly, one of Harriett Miers' few experiences with Constitutional Law was to argue a case to try to get around the 12th Amendment. She won the case, convincing the judge that Dick Cheney was not a Texan, despite living in Texas, being registered to vote in Texas, having a Texas driver's license, and running a company based in Texas. In other words, Harriett Miers successfully won a lawsuit to bypass the Constitution which resulted in the bastardly Bush/Cheney ticket being allowed to move in to the White House.

"Must I repeat myself?" asked History.

2005-10-12T10:12:00.000-04:00

There's this great book called A History of Knowledge written by Charles Van Doren (that dude who cheated on that Quiz Show). Despite its bashful title, the book is actually filled with fascinating analysis by Van Doren into historical knowledge trends, from the origins of the major religions, to the birth of scientific concepts, etc. In it, Van Doren posits that there have been two major knowledge explosions in the history of mankind:

The first came from the Greeks and gave us Pythagoras' and Aristotle's attempts to explain natural phenomena through science; Plato's brainstorming on new types of government; Euclid's geometry (much of which is still taught today); Cicero's ruminations on the balance between freedom and security; and a bunch of other assorted crap like that.
The second knowledge explosion is what we call the Renaissance, which started in Europe sometime around the 15th century and continues today. This one has given us Newtonian and Einsteinian physics; the emergence of the bourgeoisie; the modern Democratic experiment; the Age of Enlightenment; the calculus; the threat of global nuclear annihilation; and pop music.

The question is, why were there two knowledge explosions instead of one continous knowledge explosion? What brought an end to the first one? Or should I say, what interrupted mankind's advancement in knowledge?

During the first of the two knowledge explosions, the Greeks passed the baton to the Romans, who carried it until roughly the time when the Western Empire collapsed. After seeing their proud empire destroyed by external invaders, internal revolt, and other factors beyond their control, the Romans, in their hopelessness, turned to God. Emperor Constantine had already turned the Western Roman Empire into a Christian outfit, so the people looked to the Christian church for advice, which Saint Augustine provided in the form of a book called The City of God. Augustine's book provided a kind-of "sour grapes" excuse for the Romans. "What good is all that fancy book-learnin'," it asked, "when you're all gonna meet your maker soon anyhow?" (I'm paraphrasing). The book encouraged the best and brightest of the population to give up their earthly pursuits (such as math, science, art, etc.), and focus all their energy on humiliating themselves before their god. This approach to life and learning was so smashingly successful that we lovingly refer to the ensuing period as the Dark Ages.

So basically, a bunch of religious men (well-meaning or not), effectively killed mankind's cultural advancement for about a thousand years by subjugating man's aspirations to their religious will.

Will our second "knowledge explosion" be also interrupted? Sometimes it seems like there are people trying to move in that direction.

On Busting My Hump

2005-10-11T18:45:00.000-04:00

When I got my first job flipping pizzas for the man, my old man co-signed a loan for my first automobile, a 1973 Volkswagen Beetle. The loan was for $500, an amount my 15-year-old mind could barely wrap itself around. As I slaved away at my $3.10 per hour job, that loan stood over my shoulder and breathed down my neck. "That's right, boy," it said, "You're working for me, now." I fortunately made it through the debtors' prison nightmares and eventually paid that loan off, and as a good American consumer, moved on to more expensive cars and larger and larger loans.

Now that I make millions and millions of dollars, that $500 loan seems quite amusing. Nowadays, I'll easily blow $500 in a weekend on bar tips and cigars down at the Copacabana. Because see, when you make three thousand dollars a year before taxes, a five hundred dollar loan is about twenty percent of your net income. If I make, say, a million dollars a year, I'd have to take out a $160,000 loan to be under the same debt strain.

The point is, it ain't the amount of debt you have, it's how much your debt is in relation to your income.

Take, for example, our national debt. The numbers are always staggering, but we have to look at them in comparison to the gross domestic product (GDP), which is like our national salary. Our debt amount could be increasing, but if we are keeping it in check with the growth of our GDP, then the debt strain is not increasing.

So take a wild guess who manages to consistently run up our national debt strain when in office. Surely it has to be those mad, free-spending liberals, right?

(P.S. The Bill Gates Wealth Index is a great illustration of the relative cost of things when income is factored in.)

BOO! Just kiddin'... BOO!

2005-10-11T14:05:00.000-04:00

Imagine I came up to you and said this:

"I have received uncorroborated reports that lightning is expected in your neighborhood tonight and there is some probability that you will be struck by lightning sometime over the next few hours. I encourage you to be diligent, but not to worry. Go about your business as usual. I'm not going to let the threat of lightning deter me from my everyday affairs."

Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I was talking about? You can tell by looking out the window that there may be lightning. You don't need my nosy ass coming around telling you what to do about it. You deal with thunderstorms all the time.

If you really thought about it, what purpose could I have in telling you something like this? It's not to warn you about the threat. You can tell yourself that there may be lightning. It's not to affect your affairs - I explicitly told you not to alter your plans. Maybe the reason I made this announcement to you is to highten your anticipatory anxiety a bit, and to demonstrate to you that I'm looking out for you. Maybe while I'm cranking up your fear a notch, I'm setting in sharp relief my steely resolve, my courage in the face of the threat.

But then why would I do that? It's not like I'm running for office or anything.

As it turns out, the NYC subway threat was a hoax. As it turns out, the threat was suspect from the beginning, being uncorroborated and far from worrisome to any federal officials. As it turns out, New Yorkers are keenly aware of the threats to their environment every day because of our country's foreign policy decisions, even if you don't go to the trouble of holding a press conference to tell them. As it turns out, none of this will stop a campaigning Mayor Bloomberg from broadcasting the threat from the rooftops.

See how you should be afraid? See how Mike's looking out for you? See how courageous he is?

Science Shmience

2005-10-10T17:50:00.000-04:00

What the hell is science? Well here's what it is:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Now, for all I know, God threw this whole Cosmos thing together in a few days and then got to restin'. That's all fine and dandy, but if you want to teach that in a science class, then doesn't it have to be somehow related to the subject at hand? Sure, you can say that creationism (or Designer Intelligence, or whatever the kids are calling it these days) explains the beginning of life, but if you can't submit that to experimental investigation, then what the hell does it have to do with science?

And do you really want to submit your religious beliefs to experimental investigation? Okay, then, here's the experiment: Put together 100 hardcore Christians to pray that I win the Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes. I'll enter the contest every day for the next month. If I don't win, then there's some pretty clear evidence that prayin' ain't scientifically proven to work. If that doesn't satisfy you, pick another dude to test the experiment again next month. After a while, you will have a scientifically quantifiable answer to whether or not God is listening to and/or answering prayers. See what I mean? You may not get what you want by subjecting your faith to the scientific method.

Another way to test your beliefs, and one that is more preferable to me, is what I will refer to as the real-life experiment of Schrodinger's Christian. But we won't get into that now.

(P.S. If I do win the sweepstakes that first month, that doesn't necessarily mean I'll be singin' hymns with you the next week. I still plan on blowing the money on booze and whores.)

Add Hominy

2005-10-10T17:13:00.000-04:00

The Ad Hominem logical fallacy must be in bold print on page one of the GOP talking points generation manual.

Terry Schiavo case? Attack Husband Michael Schiavo. Attack the judges who decided the case.
Bush was AWOL? Attack News Anchor Dan Rather.
DeLay indicted? Attack District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
The latest (and probably most absurd): Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame's name? Attack U.S. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Their antics would be funny if they weren't so disturbing. With the current state of "journalism" in America requiring the airing of opposing viewpoints, no matter how absurd, these attacks many times successfully distract attention from the issue at hand.

Let me just say that I believe the system should be trusted - whether it's the justice system or the court of public opinion - whenever someone is accused of unethical behavior. The truth will out. No one seriously defends Bill Clinton's actions in the Lewinsky scandal. No one should defend Karl Rove's mishandling of classified information. Instead of attacking the messenger, can't we just concentrate on the facts of the case? I'm sure it's in everyone's interest that no one is above the law, left or right.

Why We Went to War: A Theory

2005-10-10T14:49:00.000-04:00

We all know by now that the WMD claim has turned out to be bullshit. Not that certain people at certain times didn't wholeheartedly believe the argument, but given the lack of true, substantiated, on-the-ground evidence since the invasion, the bulk of the argument was invented out of whole cloth (probably at the insistence the Veep's office in the halls of Langley). So why did we go?

There are a number of arguments that make sense, but individually don't seem to carry enough weight to be convincing enough to bring us to war:

We were threatened by WMDs. Even just months prior to the war, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were debunking this one.
"Saddam threatened my daddy." Yes, Saddam allegedly tried to assassinate Bush Sr. And yes, GWB has that manly swagger that probably betrays inadequacies elsewhere. But I really doubt GWB, using only his authority and charm, was able to convince the people who run the USA to wage war based on an old grudge.
We are trying to spread Democracy in the Middle East. Come on, people. This post-invasion canard doesn't jive with logic or history. You ever hear any Republicans criticize the humanitarian devastation caused by the ten years of sanctions? When did we suddenly get this altruistic change of heart?
[Insert fringe conspiracy theory here.] I don't think we invaded to try and steal their oil. Or because of some Russian or Iranian or French weapons-trading conspiracy.
Some combination of the above. None of the reasons above stand on their own merits. Even in combination, I don't believe they are reason enough to go to war.

So here's why I think we did it. The U.S. has had a long standing interest in keeping the Middle East stable, primarily due to the vast amount of oil under the sand. Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, however, the U.S. couldn't get its feet on the ground in the Middle East other than in Israel. Since the 1967 war, especially, the situation in Israel had become increasingly tense, and consequently, our alliance with Israel more and more of a cause for concern. Well prior to 1990, we realized that we had all our Middle East eggs in one basket, so to speak. So when Iraq's tensions with Kuwait began to grow, the U.S. gave a wink and a nod to Hussein to go ahead with his invasion. That invasion gave us the pretense of going in and defending the small nation of Kuwait under an ostensibly altruistic cause. Because of this, the Saudis gave us unprecedented permission to set up bases on holy Muslim soil. Thus our footprint in the Middle East grew. And thus, the Bin Laden grudge was born.

Prior to September 11th, Osama Bin Laden's big gripe with the U.S. was those Saudi bases. According to Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia is holy soil and having infidels on the land violates Islamic principles. September 11th (a disgusting and reprehensible act, no doubt) convinced the world that he was serious. It also convinced the administration that our Saudi Arabian military footprint was quite a liability. We couldn't just withdraw from Saudi Arabia, however. For one thing, we'd be starting back at square one with all those eggs and that one basket. Secondly, the last thing Bush wanted to do was to follow his father's "wuss" legacy and bow to the demands of this shady character. The answer? Hey, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years now. We could convince the world that the threat from Iraq has escalated, bomb the shit out of them, and then quietly move our bases to a country the size of California that just happens to be dead in the heart of the Middle East. Problem solved. We increase our footprint, take away the Bin Laden grievance, and as a side benefit, we get rid of Saddam Hussein and set up a U.S.-friendly government in Iraq.

Of course, things didn't go as planned. The rest, as they say, is history.

The GOP Mafia

2005-10-10T14:33:00.000-04:00

I'm only an amateur conspiracy theorist, but the more I read about the Plame case and the DeLay/Abramoff scandal(s), the more it appears that everything in the GOP world is connected, from the media to the lobbyists to the "Christian" "conservative" base to the elected officials. So far, no group within the conservative sphere has been left unimplicated. The officials include the very leadership of two branches of our government. Abramoff runs what appears to be a complicated web of money-cleaning mechanisms. The religious right is represented by Ralph Reed, the former director of the "Christian" Coalition [Update (10/10/2005 15:43): the Oregon branch of the Christian Coalition is in the news today], now part of Abramoff's network.

The question is, if the GOP machine is like an organized crime family (which it appears to be), then who is the Don?

Another Loony Left Blog

2005-10-10T14:32:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Race Gannon's blog. Your source for more useless leftie analysis. Enjoy.