Amazon.com Widgets

« April 2004 | Main | June 2004 »

May 31, 2004

Butt-Stupid

I recently posted the final frame from a very amusing Boondocks cartoon. The anal-philosopher in a personal attack against those he disagrees with made an ass of himself. He writes: By the way, boys, it's "buck-naked", not "butt-naked" and follows that with "This is a mistake only a nonreader could make." My post wasn't long but the dumb-shit didn't notice that I wrote "Butt-Nekkid" taking the spelling from the cartoon, not "butt-naked" as he claimed. His mistake was one only a nonreader could make. Perhaps even more amusing is the source Anal provides to support his case. Suggesting that perhaps butt-naked is better since buck-naked conjures up stereotypical images of naked “savages” or—worse—slaves laboring naked on plantations" stark-naked would also work. It's difficult to imagine how anyone could get it more wrong. Anal-Philosopher needs to get his head out of his ass for at least a few hours each day.

Unsurprisingly, Cheney Lied

"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September.

Agence France Presse reports, "A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President Dick Cheney coordinated a huge Halliburton government contract for Iraq, despite Cheney's denial of interest in the company he ran until 2000."

There will be a full article about this in the next issue of Time.

May 30, 2004

War Trophy

A handgun that Saddam Hussein was clutching when U.S. forces captured him in a hole in Iraq last December is now kept by President Bush at the White House, a spokesman confirmed on Sunday...

Bush shows Saddam's gun to select visitors, telling them it is unloaded, both now and when Saddam was captured, Time reported.

"He really liked showing it off," Time quoted a visitor as saying. "He was really proud of it."

Link
Perhaps when Saddam is executed, Dub will have him stuffed and mounted on the wall in the same room.

Butt-Nekkid

butt-nekkid.jpg

Boondocks rocks!

May 28, 2004

Duped

The choice of Iyad Allawi for Prime Minister has U.S. Dupe written all over it. The U.N. is surprised by the announcement, but okay with it ( translation we got blind-sided).Relationships with the CIA and British Intelligence. An exile. Time will tell but if I had to guess I'd say Bush fucked it up one more time. Hasn't he used up his nine tries at getting this right.

Update: Exiled Allawi was Responsible for 45-Minute WMD Claim
The choice of Iyad Allawi, closely linked to the CIA and formerly to MI6, as the Prime Minister of Iraq from 30 June will make it difficult for the US and Britain to persuade the rest of the world that he is capable of leading an independent government.

He is the person through whom the controversial claim was channeled that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be operational in 45 minutes.
[snip]
Dr Allawi was head of the security committee of the Iraqi Governing Council and was opposed to the dissolution of the army by Paul Bremer, the US viceroy in Iraq. He stepped down in protest as head of the committee during the US assault on Fallujah. But his reputation among Iraqis for working first with Saddam's intelligence agents and then with MI6 and the CIA may make it impossible for them to accept him as leader of an independent Iraq.

May 27, 2004

Kerry Outlines His National Security Strategy

John Kerry has started a series of speeches that outline his national security strategy. He argues that the Bush administration has moved away from Theodore Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt said, "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble." It is a good start but I believe it is only half a policy. It is too defense oriented. We need to proactively root out the hate that causes terrorism, not just treat the symptoms with a strong military and powerful friends.

Kerry says he will follow Roosevelt's time honored advice and has outlined a four part national security policy.

It’s time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

The first point is very welcome indeed. It will be a difficult task after what Bush has done to America's credibility. The second imperative is also a great idea. We have a military designed to fight large cold-war style battles. We have new enemies and this requires new military capabilities.

I will modernize our military to match its new missions. We must get the most out of new technologies. We must reform training and update the way we structure our armed forces -- for example, with special forces designed to strike terrorists in their sanctuaries, and with national guard and reserve units retooled to meet the requirements of homeland defense.

The third point is also important. It appears Kerry will actually hold the intelligence community accountable for its failures. Finally, a new energy policy is badly needed not just for national security, but also to protect the environment. Kerry plans to offer tax credits to consumers who use alternative energy sources.

These are all good ideas, but Kerry doesn't even mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our uneven treatment in favor of Israel is the root of hatred for the United States in the middle east. This hatred is the fuel for groups like Al Qaeda. Terrorism will never end if we cannot solve the conflicts that generate it. We may stop more terrorists with a properly equiped military and international cooperation, but there will always be a few that make it through our defenses. No defense is perfect. If we truly want to cure the world of terrorism, we have to treat the cause not just the symptoms. We need a security policy that focuses on ways to achieve peace, not just better ways to wage war.

May 26, 2004

A Few Bad Apples?

"Its just a few bad apples," say the Republicans about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. It comes as no surprise to me that this just is not the case. The New York Times reports that the torture is more widespread.

An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

Or maybe it is just a few bad apples...

bcr.jpg

Chain of Command

General Is Said To Have Urged Use of Dogs

According to the officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the idea came from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who at the time commanded the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was implemented under a policy approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top U.S. military official in Iraq.
[snip]
In a Feb. 11 written statement accompanying the transcript, Pappas shifted the responsibility elsewhere. He said "policies and procedures established by the [Abu Ghraib] Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center relative to detainee operations were enacted as a specific result of a visit" by Miller, who in turn has acknowledged being dispatched to Baghdad by Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone, after a conversation with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Chain of Command
President of the United States George Bush who assures us that Donald Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense we have ever had.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez
Col. Thomas Pappas
Dumbshits from Virginia and Maryland

It's Impeachment Time!

Experts on the laws of war have charged that using dogs to coerce prisoners into providing information, as was done at Abu Ghraib, constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions that protect civilians under the control of an occupying power, such as the Iraqi detainees.


"Threatening a prisoner with a ferocious guard dog is no different as a matter of law from pointing a gun at a prisoner's head and ordering him to talk," said James Ross, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. "That's a violation of the Geneva Conventions."


Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bars use of coercion against protected persons, and Common Article Three bars any "humiliating and degrading treatment," Ross said. Experts do not consider the presence in a prison of threatening dogs, by itself, to constitute torture, but a 1999 United Nations-approved manual lists the "arranging of conditions for attacks by animals such as dogs" as a "torture method."

[snip]

At least four photographs obtained by The Washington Post -- each apparently taken in late October or November -- show fearful prisoners near unmuzzled dogs.


One MP charged with abuses, Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, recalled for Army investigators an episode "when two dogs were brought into [cellblock] 1A to scare an inmate. He was naked against the wall, when they let the dogs corner him. They pulled them back enough, and the prisoner ran . . . straight across the floor. . . . The prisoner was cornered and the dog bit his leg. A couple seconds later, he started to move again, and the dog bit his other leg."

May 24, 2004

Apparently Not Anal Enough

Our favorite whipping boy is at it again. Keith Burgess-Jackson, AKA AnalPhilosopher has written a new bit of conservative drivel for Tech Central Station. His newest article relates to my post, Unequal Opportunity so it seems a good idea to continue the discussion here.

Burgess-Jackson sets up his discussion this way.

To be fair, liberals don't think that all is luck. They realize that effort, initiative, discipline, risk-taking, hard work, and sacrifice play a role in where individuals end up in the social hierarchy. But they think it's a small and insignificant role. By the same token, conservatives don't think that all is merit. They realize that luck plays a role in where individuals end up in the social hierarchy. But they think it's a small and insignificant role.

Matthew Yglesias and Julian Sanchez do an excellent job of demolishing Burgess-Jackson on a philosophical level. I highly recommend reading their brief comments which add force to the point I was making in my Unequal Opportunity post. Brad DeLong also has some interesting comments.

With Burgess-Jackson follows his introduction with question-begging arguments in favor of the conservative take. He then ponders what might cause someone to be liberal or conservative.

I wonder sometimes what explains whether a given individual is liberal or conservative. Actually, I want to focus on mature individuals, for I believe conservatism increases with age, as experience broadens and deepens. As we age, we see connections better.

He then goes on to expound his asinine theory. He argues that liberals come from rich families and don't understand that making money comes from hard work and discipline. He then argues that liberals feal guilty about this and their guilt motivates them to take the position they do.

If I'm right about this, then many liberals are guilty of projecting their own narrow and unrepresentative experience onto others. They're ignorant of the connection between (1) effort, initiative, discipline, risk-taking, hard work, and sacrifice and (2) wealth. They think money grows on trees, because they never had to work for it. They think everyone else had indulgent parents who catered to their every whim. They think everyone else had parents who bought them a car, sent them away on vacations, paid their way through college, lavished gifts on them, gave them a credit card, lent them money interest-free, provided housing for as long as they wanted it, and so forth.

I'm only speculating here, but perhaps guilt lies at the bottom of liberalism. Liberals feel guilty for having undeserved advantages. They expiate this guilt not by disposing of their wealth, as one might expect, but by insisting that everyone else's advantages are equally undeserved.

Burgess-Jackson has made two empirical claims here. One is that as people grow older and wiser they tend to become conservative. This is a common stereotype. The second claim is that people who grow up in wealthy families tend to be liberal. This goes contrary to the stereotype that it is conservatives who come from rich families. You would think that a scholar, especially one who describes himself as anal, might take two minutes to google up some statistics to support his claims. As it turns out, not surprisingly, they are utterly false. There is no clear correlation with age. The correlation between wealth and political predisposition is exactly opposite of what Burgess-Jackson claims. here are some exit poll stats from the 2000 election.

If you look at the "vote by age" category you will see mixed results and decidedly not a correlation between growing older and becoming more conservatives. Young people are no more liberal than there middle-age counter parts while people 65 and older tended to be more liberal rather than less.

If you look under the category "Vote by Income" You will see that of people in the $100,000+ bracket 54% voted for Bush while only 45% voted for Nader or Gore. Of the people in the under $15,000 57% voted for Gore and 37% voted for Bush. There is a clear correlation between being wealthy and conservative, not the other way around.

May 23, 2004

So Fuck You All So Very Much

fcc_song_banner.jpg
I've always been big fan of Monty Python so when I discovered this delightful little song (mirror for download here )by Eric Idle I was thrilled. Eric has a message for the FCC and Bush and Cheney too. And by my calculations it would cost a radio station a mere $70,000.00 each time it was played. Here is a Clip of the song ( 276K )

Here's a little number I wrote the other day while out duck hunting with a judge, QUACK

Fuck you very much the FCC
Fuck you very much for fining me
Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck
Thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me.
So fuck you very much the FCC
For proving that free speech just isn't free
Clear Channel's a dear channel
so Howard Stern must go
Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so
He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo
so Fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much dear Mr. Bush
for heroically sitting on your tush
For Halliburton, Enron, all the companies who fail
Lets send them a clear signal and stick Martha straight in jail
She's an uppity rich bitch, but at least she isn't male
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you dickhead Mr. Cheney too.
Fuck you and fuck everything you do.
Your pace maker must be fake
You haven't got a heart
As far as I'm concerned your just a pasty faced old fart
And as for Condolezza she an intellectual tart
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much the EPA
For giving all Alaska's oil away
It really is a bummer
When I can't fill my Hummer
The ozone a no go zone now that Arnold's here to say
The nuclear winter games are going to take place in LA
So fuck you all so very much

So what the planet fails
Lets save the great white males
And fuck you all so very much

QUACK

Britney And Dub Lip-syncing

Washington is abuzz, not since Ann Coulter was seen leaving the White House several months ago has there been this much excitment. This story is potentially even more damaging for the president than his escapades with the tawdry Miss Coulter. Singer Britney Spears has been seen leaving the White House on more than one occasion, and usually late in the evening. The president is known to retire early which has added to the speculation.

Scott McClellan in his opening remarks at Monday's briefing assured the press that sex was not involved, and besides she wasn't even there. There aren't any pictures, and even if there were you can't prove they are real, so there, he added.

The first question from the press got right to the point.

Q So what you're telling us Scott is that the President did not have sex with that woman.

MR. McClellan: Yes that's right. The President is a married man, and Laura has threatened to kick the crap out of him if he ever engages in such behavior again. She still hasn't gotten over his dalliance with Ann Coulter. So I'm pretty darn sure he didn't. We're fighting a war you know, George is the War President, there are accusations of torture, er I mean ponography, well let me just say unpleasant pictures, and these sorts of unsubstantiated charges are simply un-American.

Scott refused to answer any further questions about Britney, he did volunteer that the presidents fall from his bicycle was not an attempt to wrest the sympathy vote back from John Kerry who took a similar tumble a few weeks ago. We have learned that Britney has been a regular visitor to the White House. The details are not entirely clear but here is what we know so far. Several months ago, in a rare moment of insight George Bush admitted he needed help speaking properly. He was embarrassed by his performance at press conferences. He perceived that people were making fun of him, and being such a sensitive guy he was hurt by the remarks he heard and by the snickering. One day he was watching TV, eating pretzels, and enjoying Britney Spears singing. He observed that she never made mistakes, and he wondered how that could be. We know this because Jeb, the smarter brother, was overheard kidding George about it during a round of golf in Florida last week. "It's simple George she's lip syncing," Jeb said. Lip sinking said George. Is that what John Kerry was trying to fix with his Botox injections. No explained Jeb it's not the same thing, she is moving her lips but nothing is coming out. I have the same problem said George I move my lips and nothing comes out but mistakes. No says Jeb you don't understand there is a recording playing and she is just moving her mouth so it looks like she's singing. Oh, said George.
Karl Rove is reported to be excited. He thinks that lip syncing could be a real plus. " I've been under a lot of pressure the past four years. I give him good words but he just murders them. Unnamed sources inside the White House confirm that the president has really taken to the lip-syncing, and is making rapid progress. What began as private lessons between the President and Britney have now been expanded to include Dick Cheney, making it a threesome. Dick has been working on his Dubya impressions and believes he'll be able to provide coherent speech for the president to lip-sync too. This solves one of the last technical problems, namely where would the words come from in real time for George to use. There is some concern about what to do if the lip sync gets off. Britney is working even more closely with the president on lip sync adjustment techiniques. He's learning fast.

May 21, 2004

Ana Gracey

Are you tired of all politics all the time? Yes, me too. Would you like to try something different. Well, how about a visit our good friends on the other side of the pond. What you've never met Nick Barrett at taliesin's log? I have, and he's always a great read. You can never sure what you might find there, but one thing is certain you'll never leave without a smile on your face, or a tear in your eye, or like I did on a recent visit discover Ana Gracy, a very talented singer.


Nick writes:

"When Ana Gracey has the misfortune (sorry, mixed fortune) to make the annals of a musical fame beyond fads, remember that you probably read it here first. Here's one "voice of a woman" giving me a hard time to find words for what it is that she does, particularly on the strength of gifts displayed in semi-"demo" shape.
Listening to 'The Unplugged Album', fleeting analogies in mind have been the vocal range and surprises a Kate Bush musters, the maturing I hear in Madonna's music before and after Alan Parker's multi-layered 'Evita' (1996; IMDb) and the voice training that went into that screen role, the great Ella F. being scatty, and the sweet-sour sadness of some of the Brit-folk renewal bands of the 1970s and early '80s.
All such passing comparisons, however, simply reflect facets of a young singer who has come into her own; the sense of listening to a lass maturing may also simply lie in the order in which I -- not Ana -- chose to compile the mp3s downloaded from her website (left to right and top to bottom for the 12 'Unplugged' tracks, followed by 'Rain You Down' (or 'You Rain Down'?) and 'Dream' (again) off the released 'Innocence' album."

and much more go read the rest of what he has to say and then like I did follow this link to Ana Gracey's site and download the Unplugged Album.

There is more on Ana and her parents in this post

What, you liked the music but still want to read something poltical well then go over to Lunaville and read this.

Our Nation's Founders Were Not Christian

The founders were not Christian. So right wingnuts, quit saying they were.

For the past few years a friend of mine in the Midwest has been engaged in a war of words in the columns of a local newspaper. Every so often someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that the United States is a Christian nation and that, as the formula goes, "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." In response, my friend writes a letter pointing out that the Founding Fathers tended to be deists, not Christians. They saw God as, essentially, a watchmaker. He created the universe, wound it up and then stood back to let it run. If Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Paine had a religion, it was a faith in reason, not in the Bible.

Read the rest here. In fact buy the book.

Leashes and Collars

hooded.jpg

George Bush gave the Republicans a pep talk today. Many are straying from the party line. Senators McCain and Graham aren't buying the move along nothing to see here line they want the truth about abuse wherever it leads. The Administration spins alone these days. Well, not entirely alone, Senator George Allen appearing on Hardball did his very best last night. He used the approved talking points, an aberration, isolated, but Chris Matthews pushed back. My favorite part is where the Senator suggests that they could have bought them at a store.

Chris Matthews: Senator, do you believe that individual people from Virginia from Maryland who have been accused here bought dog collars, bought leashes, bought hoods and brought them over to Iraq with them or do you think they were issued by the Military Intelligence people over there. I mean who's responsible for this whole line of questioning with these people the way they have been stripped and shackled. Are you saying a couple of country folk from Virginia and Western Maryland came up with these ideas and these implements of torture.

Senator Allen: I think that that its all being investigated who is culpable.

Chris Matthews: Does common sense tell you they brought the dog collars and the leashes with them.

Senator Allen: It wouldn't make common sense to me. No, I don't know where they got them I suppose they have stores there.

Audio only (276K) or Video (1.4MB) from the show

So what do you think did Mr. Matthews present a true dilemma either they brought them from home or military intelligence provided them or does Senator Allen's theory of shopping for supplies in Iraq provide a reasonable alternative explanation. Was the Senator imagining a conversation like this one took place?

"I had a dream," said Lynndie.

"Yes," said Charles.

I was dreaming about bondage.

Oh Lynndie

I thought we could spend the weekend in Tikrit

You're talking about stopping by Ali's Sex Toys again aren't you?

Right you are. I was thinking of some furry red handcuffs and perhaps a collar and a leash.

Great idea and it's not like we'd be wasting our money we'll be able to use them on the prisoners when we're finished.

May 20, 2004

A Few Rotten Apples

Calvin Trillin

ON THE ABUSE OF
PRISONERS IN IRAQ

We've told that the few rotten apples
Who brought on this sordid affair'll
Be punished. But what if those apples
Are right at the top of the barrel?

Victims Turning Perpetrators

The war in Iraq is immoral. You wouldn't shoot an innocent child in order to catch a bad guy would you? You wouldn't shoot an innocent child to get 5 bad guys right? In prosecuting the so-called "war on terrorism" we have done just that. We have killed thousands of innocents in order to get Saddam Hussein. We have killed thousands of innocents to get Osama bin Laden. George Soros tells it best.

It is not a popular thing to say, but the fact is that we are victims who have turned into perpetrators. The terrorist attacks on September 11 claimed nearly 3,000 innocent lives and the whole world felt sympathy for us as the victims of an atrocity. Then the President declared war on terrorism, and pursued it first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Since then, the war on terror has claimed more innocent victims than the terrorist attacks on September 11. This fact is not recognized at home because the victims of the war on terror are not Americans. But the rest of the world does not draw the same distinction and world opinion has turned against us. So, a tremendous gap in perceptions has opened up between us and the rest of the world. The majority of the American public does not realize that we have turned from victims into perpetrators. That is why those gruesome pictures were so shocking. Even today, most people don't recognize their full import.

Soros is also keyed in to something that I have warned about over and over on my previous blog. Soros said, "Declaring war on terrorism was understandable, perhaps even appropriate, as a figure of speech. But the President meant it literally and that is when things started going seriously wrong." Wars are between nation states. Terrorism is stateless. Terrorism is perpetrated by criminals, not nations. Terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not a military designed for battle with our old cold war enemies. Using the military to fight terrorism is like using a chainsaw to perform a heart transplant. A literal war on terrorism is a never-ending war.

By succumbing to fear, we are doing the terrorists' bidding: We are unleashing a vicious circle of violence. If we go on like this, we may find ourselves in a permanent state of war. The war on terror need never end because the terrorists are invisible, therefore they will never disappear. And if we are in a permanent state of war, we cannot remain an open society.

Soros also recognizes that it is not just Bush and his cronies who are responsible for this immoral war. The American people's ignorance is to blame as well.

I would dearly love to pin all the blame on President Bush and his team. But that would be too easy. It would ignore the fact that he was playing to a receptive audience and even today, after all that has happened, a majority of the electorate continues to have confidence in President Bush on national security matters. If this continues and President Bush gets reelected, we must ask ourselves the question: "What is wrong with us?"

Indeed, what is wrong with half of this country? What is wrong with Bush supporters?

Campaign Promises

President Bush has changed his stump speech in recent weeks including domestic issues in addition to the war. Here is a portion of a recent speech in Ohio. I'm the Education president. Nationwide 70% of our nation's students are demonstrating that they have mastered the material to make them gooder citizens. There is work left to do. We must decide what to do with all the dumb shits that failed to pass. I'm not saying they should be left behind because then we'd have to change the name of the program. My idea is that we will simply outsource the losers to India. We have sent a number of American jobs to India, and now we can send them Americans to fill them. This plan will result in several benefits. The average intelligence of our student population will soar and it will help with unemployment, fewer new jobs will be needed. The program has proven so effective that I'm going to expand it. To insure that our students continue to make progress I'm calling for significant decreases in the size of classrooms. Something liberals claim is a good idea. We'll see. Current classrooms average 900 square feet, usually in a 30 foot by 30 foot configuration. My idea is to cut that by a third, in other words the smaller classes will be 600 square feet. This will allow teachers to work more closely with the students, and if I'm not misunderestimating, a significant improvement in our educational system. Now I know that there are many of you who are still concerned with Iraq. When we embarked on that crusade we were determined to succeed. Our sons and daughters have fought bravely and they have accomplished their mission. There are no WMD in Iraq today, and Saddam Huessin is out of his hole and into a cell. I call that a major success. I know that many of you are worried about leaving a vacuum in Iraq but Halliburton got us a good deal on some reconditioned Hoovers. They will distributed throughout Iraq on June 30th the same day we skedaddle. I'm certain the Iraqis will be able to clean up any remaining problems. God bless America and God bless the Republican Party.

May 19, 2004

A Nation of Bartlebys

Playing The Cover Your Ass Game

How do they keep getting away with secrecy, lies, abuse, torture -- even cold-blooded murder? The answer is painfully obvious. It's because we let them. We the Media, We the Congress and We the People. We are to blame for what is happening in Iraq. We can't say we didn't know, or there's nothing we can do about it now. We knew. And, if we continue to stand mute and to play by their rules, it is because -- like Melville's Bartleby -- we prefer not to take a stand. We cannot allow ourselves to be so shocked and horrified at the voracious creature we have become that we prefer to cringe before a blank wall rather than admit our complicity in the barbaric crusade we have unleashed upon the world.

You MIght As Well Be A Doughnut

Cold Turkey by Kurt Vonnegut | via Desultory Turgescence

Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.

Actually, this same sort of thing happened to the people of England generations ago, and Sir William Gilbert, of the radical team of Gilbert and Sullivan, wrote these words for a song about it back then:

I often think it’s comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.

Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life that you have to be one or the other? If you aren’t one or the other, you might as well be a doughnut.

United States Funds War Criminals

As long as there are people who are angry there will be terrorism. Military adventures, though at times justifiable, will never put an end to terrorism. More often than not, military intervention fuels it rather than pacifying it. The single most important step the United States could take is to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Independent reports

Israel was accused yesterday of committing a war crime by its destruction of more than 3,000 Palestinian homes in Israel and the occupied territories since the intifada began three and a half years ago.

The damning report from Amnesty International came as the Israeli army killed up to 19 Palestinians - children as well as militants - in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip where General Moshe Ya'alon, the army chief of staff, warned at the weekend that hundreds more homes could be destroyed.

The Israelis claim this destruction was necessary for there military efforts to defend themselves from terrorisms. Bush said he found this troubling, but "but told the powerful pro-Israel lobby group Aipac that Israel 'has every right to defend itself from terror'."

Amnesty challenges the military justification for the destruction, much of which it says is "inextricably linked" to its policy of land appropriation, not least for "establishing Israeli settlements in violation of international law". The report also points out that Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully" is a "grave breach and hence a war crime".

The United States needs to react to this sort of thing with more force than simply stating that it is "troubling". We should cut off aid. As long as our treatment of the Israelis is uneven with our treatment of the Palestinians, we will be contributing to the conflict and thus generating more terrorism.

May 18, 2004

Slick Wolfie

wolfie.jpg
Roger Ebert on Moore's Farenheit 9/11

Quite an interesting review go read it, and here is the teaser.

"Wait until you see Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz preparing for a TV interview. First he puts a pocket comb in his mouth to wet it and combs down his hair. Still not satisfied, he spits on his hand and wipes the hair into place."




Economy Still In The Tank

gasprices.jpg

May 17, 2004

They are Totally Fucked

Fahrenheit 9/11 could light fire under Bush

Charlotte Higgins, arts correspondent
Monday May 17, 2004
The Guardian

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is without doubt the most flaming-hot ticket at the Cannes film festival. And with good reason: Moore hopes that it will bring down the US government.

The American film-maker has hitherto kept a tight lid on the contents of the documentary, saying only that it includes evidence of alleged links between the Bush and Bin Laden families. However, in two appearances in Cannes at the weekend before its premiere today, he revealed that the movie contains shocking footage from Iraq.

Yesterday he said: "When you see the movie you will see things you have never seen before, you will learn things you have never known before. Half the movie is about Iraq - we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing that it was Michael Moore. They are totally fucked."

On Saturday he said: "The film is only partly to do with the Bin Ladens and Bush. I was able to send three different freelance film crews to Iraq. Soldiers had written to me to express their disillusionment with the war. It's a case of our own troops not being in support of their commander-in-chief."

He said that at the few low-key preview screenings that have already taken place in the midwest "the reactions were overwhelming. People who were on the fence - undecided voters - suddenly weren't on the fence any more."

Moore was unequivocal about his desire to do everything in his power to help oust President George Bush in this November's elections.

"We thought, 'We cannot leave this to the Democrats this time to fuck it up and lose.'" He wants, he said, to "inspire people to get up and vote in November."

There has already been a complicated saga over the distribution of the film. At the start of the month it became clear that Disney, the parent company of Miramax - which made Fahrenheit 9/11 - was refusing to distribute it in the US.

The film currently has distribution, according to Moore, in every other country except Taiwan.

After a baffling series of rumours and counter-rumours last week, it was revealed that Disney was allowing Bob and Harvey Weinstein, who run Miramax, to buy back their interest in the film so they could seek an alternative distributor. After a fortnight, none has yet been found.

The reasons for Disney's refusal, Moore claimed, were purely political, aimed at delaying the film's release and thus preventing Americans from seeing the explosive material it contains before the election.

"The past year we knew that Michael Eisner [CEO of Disney] was not happy about Miramax making the film but they kept on sending the money every month," Moore said on Saturday. "At the end of April they sent an executive to look at the film. They had a board meeting and five days later they decided not to distribute it, because of its political content."

Yesterday he said: "That's the reason for the blocking: so that Americans don't see it before the election."

He added: "I won't let that happen, and neither will Harvey [Weinstein]. People will see this film, by hook or by crook. I will get this out if it means breaking the law or committing an act of civil disobedience."

Eisner has previously denied that there was anything sinister about Disney's decision to block distribution. "We're such a nonpartisan company," he said. "[People] do not look for us to take sides."

The contract between Disney and Miramax states that Disney can refuse to distribute a film in certain cases, for instance if it has an NC-17 rating - the US equivalent of an 18 certificate. Under such circumstances Miramax has in the past found alternative distribution - for Dogma, a 1999 satire on the Catholic church, and Larry Clark's Kids, eventually released in 1995, which shocked many with its frank depiction of sex among teenagers.

Moore is clearly furious with the company. "I have a lot to say about Disney. It is very dangerous to give someone like me a peek behind the curtain. I will tell all as soon as the [distribution] negotiations have ended," he said on Saturday.

The film-maker is also unhappy with the way the controversy has been handled in the media.

"The press have said, 'Isn't it great for the movie?' But the last two times this happened - with Dogma and Kids - you only have to look at the box office to see that the controversy didn't help. No film-maker wants this to happen.

"I don't like the message this sends, which is, 'Don't even think of making a movie like [Fahrenheit 9/11] - it won't get distributed.' This is a chilling effect it will have. Five men and one woman [the Disney board] make a decision about what Americans can see. This is not a sign of an open and healthy society."

Moore's position has not met with universal sympathy. A piece in the Los Angeles Times last week accused his last film, Bowling for Columbine, of being "a torrent of partial truths, pointed omissions and deliberate misimpressions" and called him a "virtuoso of fictions".

But Moore has no plans to shut up shop just yet. He is planning films "on the Israelis and Palestinians, and the oil industry and lack of oil we are going to be faced with".

Unequal Opportunity

Have you ever heard the phrase "America is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome." I want to suggest to you that this is an absolute pipe dream. This is impossible in principle let alone practice. I don't want this post to be construed as an argument for equality of outcome. That is a discussion for another day. This post is to disabuse you of the myth that equality of opportunity is possible without there being equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity would mean that everyone has exactly the same chances when they are born. But this is simply not the case and could not be the case in principle. If you have disparate outcomes, this means that some children will be born into families with greater resources and connections than others. Even if you put a 100% tax on inheritance and you guaranteed government funding for as much schooling as any citizen might want to attend, opportunity would still not be equal. As they accomplish things, people generate connections. We all know how important it is to know the right people. Disparate accomplishment by parents means unequal opportunity for the next generation of children and this unequality would not be trivial.

A merit based model for the distribution of wealth is overwhelmingly popular. The fact that equality of opportunity is impossible should give us pause. What are we to make of this?

May 16, 2004

Fox News Fisticuffs

On Fox News today Juan Williams took on the Kristol-Hume tag team in what could best be described as verbal fisticuffs, although if you watched the video you wouldn't have been surprised if they had thrown some real punches. Look closely at the picture and you'll see that they have both turned their trembling hands into fists.

fisticuffs.jpg

It started when little Billy Kristol said, "We'll win the debate if the Democrats and the liberal media want to obsess about seven guys from Cumberland humiliating some Iraqi prisoners." To which Juan replied, "you want to make this into Liberals versus Conservatives."

Billy said, "Absolutely."

But perhaps even more interesting was when Brit Hume got involved. Bills right he said, and Williams interrupted.

... no standards at all. No standards. Do whatever you like. We're Americans, held to a higher standard and we represent something great in the world - we'll then you lose all that Brit. You lose your standing representing anything different from what the terrorists represent.

Brit Hume's response was absolutely amazing:

" ...War is a terrible thing and terrible things happen in wars on all sides. Something terrible happened in this war and it's being addressed and it is not being minimized. "

[ This is so typical of right-wing nutjobs. He's just said its not being minimized and in the following sentence he minimizes it. Unfucking believable]

It was way less terrible than the things that are happening to us in this war. The business at hand, the real business at hand is to get on with this war. To win it, and finish it. And that will eradicate all the rest of this and it won't matter in the end because the Iraqi people will be better off and so will we and so will the world

Juan: They want us out that's what I notice.

This is extremely entertaining:
Here is the video 4.4MB for a slower connection try this mp4 1.9 MB file

May 15, 2004

Should an Atheist Respect Religion?

The late Douglas Adams said the following in a speech, "Is there an Artificial God?" at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K.
September 1998.

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? ' because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says "I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday," you say, "I respect that."

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought, "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics," when I was making the other points. I just think, "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows ' but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

I was motivated to post this by a discussion with a friend of mine. We were discussing whether or not a person's religion or lack thereof should be an acceptable factor in choosing who to vote for in an election. The fact of the matter is that it is used all the time, but the question is should it be? We decided that it didn't constitute an unacceptable form of discrimination because religion or lack thereof is a choice and ethnic background and maybe homosexuality are not choices. I maintain, though it is acceptable, it is a lazy man's way that is frought with danger.

So should an Atheist respect religon? No. Should a religious person necessarily respect Atheism? No. They should conduct a careful analysis of the claims made and come to a rational conclusion, not one based on an emotional outburst.

May 14, 2004

A Character Flaw

From Comedy Central the Daily Show with John Stewart interviews Janeane Garofalo who says that "a vote for Bush is a character flaw" an apt description of those so blinded by the bullshit or simply to embarrassed to admit they're wrong. Janeane also calls Bush A Fundamentalist Christian that is " hi on god" and "cocky with christ"

Listen to the audio


getquicktime.gif

Heinous Hannity

Hannity aired an uncut audio version of Berg's beheading on his show. After doing so he immediately plugs his new book.

"It, this, it's unbelievable. Do you see what we're up against? How could anybody do that to another human being? How is that possible? And this is, I wrote this book, and I, I've not talked about my book purposefully, because I just think so many people just talk their book ad nauseum, and I did not want to do that. I'd love for you to read it. It's in bookstores everywhere and it's on Hannity.com."

via FAIR.org

I don't know what's worse, Hannity's reprehensible behavior or the fact that his little bitch Colmes never holds him accountable.

Dissembling

I heard this exchange on Public Radio on my way home from work. Later on I saw this clip of the exchange on MSNBC but something seemed to be missing. If you compare the clip to this transcript you'll observe some interesting editing by MSNBC. Although they capture the conflict between Senator Reed and Secretary Wolfowitz, the secretary doesn't look nearly as bad as he does in the transcript. A little bit of dissembling by MSNBC. I consider it unethical, am I being to harsh? You be the judge.

Democrat Senator Jack Reed keeps the heat on Wolfie.

JACK REED: Mr Secretary, do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Not naked, absolutely not.

JACK REED: So if he's dressed up, that's fine?

Let me put it this way. 72 hours without regular sleep, sensory deprivation which would be a bag over your head for 72 hours. Do you think that's humane? And that's what this says, a bag over your head for 72 hours. Is that humane?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Let me come back to what you said the work.

JACK REED: No, no. Answer the question, Secretary. Is that humane?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I don't know whether it means a bag over your head for 72 hours Senator. I don't know.

JACK REED: Mr Secretary, you're dissembling, non-responsive. Anybody would
say putting a bag over someone's head for 72 hours, which is
sensory deprivation.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: I believe it's not humane. It strikes me as not humane, Senator.

JACK REED: Thank you very much

Link - Wolfowitz fronts hostile Senate committee

May 13, 2004

Virtual Economics

I found a fascinating article about massively multi-player games online. Many of you might know that people auction their characters or treasure from the game for real money on ebay. In other words platinum pieces in a game like EverQuest have real value in American dollars.

Edward Castronova, an Economist, noticed this and did some interesting calculations.

He began calculating frantically. He gathered data on 616 auctions, observing how much each item sold for in U.S. dollars. When he averaged the results, he was stunned to discover that the EverQuest platinum piece was worth about one cent U.S. — higher than the Japanese yen or the Italian lira. With that information, he could figure out how fast the EverQuest economy was growing. Since players were killing monsters or skinning bunnies every day, they were, in effect, creating wealth. Crunching more numbers, Castronova found that the average player was generating 319 platinum pieces each hour he or she was in the game — the equivalent of $3.42 (U.S.) per hour. "That's higher than the minimum wage in most countries," he marvelled.

Then he performed one final analysis: The Gross National Product of EverQuest, measured by how much wealth all the players together created in a single year inside the game. It turned out to be $2,266 U.S. per capita. By World Bank rankings, that made EverQuest richer than India, Bulgaria, or China, and nearly as wealthy as Russia.

It was the seventy-seventh richest country in the world. And it didn't even exist.

Have a gander at the rest of the article. It touches on many interesting ways the online gaming world has potential as a research tool for sociology and economics.

Come One, Come All

TECHSPLOITATION: Masturbate Online!"

In the "we're not sure we're part of the United States" Bay Area, we like to enjoy a little masturbation with our free speech. Politics should feel good!
[snip]
Not only can masturbation in a public venue be erotic free speech, but it's also educational. It dispels myths, demonstrating that healthy sexuality includes solo acts as well as coupley ones. "People can see that everyone masturbates, and there are a diversity of ways to do it. This is really an event about not being alone, about sharing something that's taboo-breaking in a fun, safe way."

WMDs Found

ABU GHRAIB, Iraq — A year after "mission accomplished" Donald Rumsfeld arrived at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison to finish the job, his mission to take personal possession of the WMDs, Weapons of Mass Digital-photography. Weapons were found not only in Abu Agraid prison, but on every American base in Iraq. "It's more than a bit embarrassing," he said. "They were right under out noses. One day it just clicked, they had been there all the time. We never noticed. The only thing I regret is that the media discovered them before I had a chance to tell the president. Aw shucks."

Reading List

The following list is making the rounds, and since I'm a real sucker for a list I've joined the fun. The rules: highlight (or bold) everything in the list that you have read, and rejoice in the fact that there are so many good books left to read.


The list itself is below the fold so to speak, so click on continue reading if you're interested in what I've read and what I've left to read.

Beowulf
Achebe, Chinua - Things Fall Apart
Agee, James - A Death in the Family
Austen, Jane - Pride and Prejudice
Baldwin, James - Go Tell It on the Mountain
Beckett, Samuel - Waiting for Godot
Bellow, Saul - The Adventures of Augie March
Brontë, Charlotte - Jane Eyre
Brontë, Emily - Wuthering Heights
Camus, Albert - The Stranger
Cather, Willa - Death Comes for the Archbishop
Chaucer, Geoffrey - The Canterbury Tales
Chekhov, Anton - The Cherry Orchard
Chopin, Kate - The Awakening
Conrad, Joseph - Heart of Darkness
Cooper, James Fenimore - The Last of the Mohicans
Crane, Stephen - The Red Badge of Courage
Dante - Inferno
de Cervantes, Miguel - Don Quixote
Defoe, Daniel - Robinson Crusoe
Dickens, Charles - A Tale of Two Cities
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor - Crime and Punishment
Douglass, Frederick - Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
Dreiser, Theodore - An American Tragedy
Dumas, Alexandre - The Three Musketeers
Eliot, George - The Mill on the Floss
Ellison, Ralph - Invisible Man
Emerson, Ralph Waldo - Selected Essays
Faulkner, William - As I Lay Dying
Faulkner, William - The Sound and the Fury
Fielding, Henry - Tom Jones
Fitzgerald, F. Scott - The Great Gatsby
Flaubert, Gustave - Madame Bovary
Ford, Ford Madox - The Good Soldier
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von - Faust
Golding, William - Lord of the Flies
Hardy, Thomas - Tess of the d'Urbervilles
Hawthorne, Nathaniel - The Scarlet Letter
Heller, Joseph - Catch 22
Hemingway, Ernest - A Farewell to Arms
Homer - The Iliad
Homer - The Odyssey
Hugo, Victor - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hurston, Zora Neale - Their Eyes Were Watching God
Huxley, Aldous - Brave New World
Ibsen, Henrik - A Doll's House
James, Henry - The Portrait of a Lady
James, Henry - The Turn of the Screw
Joyce, James - A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Kafka, Franz - The Metamorphosis
Kingston, Maxine Hong - The Woman Warrior
Lee, Harper - To Kill a Mockingbird
Lewis, Sinclair - Babbitt
London, Jack - The Call of the Wild
Mann, Thomas - The Magic Mountain
Marquez, Gabriel García - One Hundred Years of Solitude
Melville, Herman - Bartleby the Scrivener
Melville, Herman - Moby Dick
Miller, Arthur - The Crucible
Morrison, Toni - Beloved
O'Connor, Flannery - A Good Man is Hard to Find
O'Neill, Eugene - Long Day's Journey into Night
Orwell, George - Animal Farm
Pasternak, Boris - Doctor Zhivago
Plath, Sylvia - The Bell Jar
Poe, Edgar Allan - Selected Tales
Proust, Marcel - Swann's Way
Pynchon, Thomas - The Crying of Lot 49
Remarque, Erich Maria - All Quiet on the Western Front
Rostand, Edmond - Cyrano de Bergerac
Roth, Henry - Call It Sleep
Salinger, J.D. - The Catcher in the Rye
Shakespeare, William - Hamlet
Shakespeare, William - Macbeth
Shakespeare, William - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Shakespeare, William - Romeo and Juliet
Shaw, George Bernard - Pygmalion
Shelley, Mary - Frankenstein
Silko, Leslie Marmon - Ceremony
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander - One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Sophocles - Antigone
Sophocles - Oedipus Rex
Steinbeck, John - The Grapes of Wrath
Stevenson, Robert Louis - Treasure Island
Stowe, Harriet Beecher - Uncle Tom's Cabin
Swift, Jonathan - Gulliver's Travels
Thackeray, William - Vanity Fair
Thoreau, Henry David - Walden
Tolstoy, Leo - War and Peace
Turgenev, Ivan - Fathers and Sons
Twain, Mark - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Voltaire - Candide
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. - Slaughterhouse-Five
Walker, Alice - The Color Purple
Wharton, Edith - The House of Mirth
Welty, Eudora - Collected Stories
Whitman, Walt - Leaves of Grass
Wilde, Oscar - The Picture of Dorian Gray
Williams, Tennessee - The Glass Menagerie
Woolf, Virginia - To the Lighthouse
Wright, Richard - Native Son

May 12, 2004

Proactive Peace

Peace is not something that just happens. We have to be proactive in order to attain it. It is nice to have a strong military to defend our nation, but that is only a half solution. We need a sister department to the department of defense. We need a department of peace.

The Dept. of Peace would establish nonviolence as an organizing principle of American society, providing the U.S. President with an array of peace-building policy options for domestic and international use. The Department would focus on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies which address issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, school and gang violence and other issues of cultural violence. Internationally, the Department would gather research, analyze foreign policy and make recommendations to the President on how to address the underlying causes of war and intervene before violence begins. The Department of Peace would systematically root out the underlying causes of violence by creating new and innovative programs, as well as vastly increasing support of the many existing programs around our nation and the world that are already having a positive impact.

Violence is like a disease. We can't just treat the symptoms with our military. We need to proactively remedy the causes. Only a Deparment of Peace can do that.

Read about reasons both conservatives and progressives should have for supporting Dennis Kucinich's Dept. of Peace legislation here.

Humanitarian Do Gooders

Foreign affairs analyst Rob Corddry on John Stewart's The Daily Show captured the president's view of the torture of Iraqi prisoners perfectly. He said, "just becuase torturing prisoners is something we did, doesn't mean its something we would do." Video available at Lisa Rein's Radar or at Comedy Central.

Senator Inhofe thinks it's much ado about nothing much.

At Senate hearings he took aim at "humanitarian do-gooders" "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment,"

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

John McCain then indirectly mocked Senator Inhofe and those that believe America really is better than that and not just in word but in action.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, referred ironically to "humanitarian do-gooders" as he asked a panel of military officials whether the United States should have signed the Geneva Convention governing war prisoners.

When the officials answered yes, McCain continued in a facetious vein: "Why do you think we should? Because ... this keeps us from getting information that may save American lives. This is a restraint by humanitarian do-gooders. Why don't we just throw them in the trash can and do whatever's necessary?"

McCain said he feared future U.S. prisoners of war could face "very serious consequences" if U.S. forces "somehow convey the impression that we've got to do whatever is necessary and humanitarian do-gooders have no place in this arena." 

Link

update: more from Digby on what dumb fuck Inhofe truly is.

May 11, 2004

Kucinich Targets National Convention

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports on Kucinich's efforts to change the direction of the Democratic Party.

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich, no longer claiming he can capture his party's presidential nomination, unveiled a strategy Monday he hopes will make him a force to be reckoned with at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston."

Hopefully he will be successful in his efforts. He will push for "a near-immediate pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq, establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, repeal of the Patriot Act, and creation of a universal, single-payer health care system."

Perhaps if Kucinich succeeds in pushing Kerry more to the left on these issues, progressives on the far left won't feel the need to defect to Independent Candidate Ralph Nader.

Chasing Booty

Calvin Trillin
NOT WOUNDED ENOUGH

Republicans say Kerry might have got
Some wounds, but not the kind that hurt a lot.
Their own man cannot ever be accused
Of claiming wounds when he was only bruised:
He might have gotten banged up in that summer he
Was skipping all those meetings in Montgomery,
But slipping on some beer while chasing booty,
Is not considered "in the line of duty"

May 10, 2004

U.S. Patients Spend More but Don't Get More, Study Finds

U.S. Patients Spend More but Don't Get More, Study Finds
Even in Advantaged Areas, Americans Often Receive Inadequate Health Care

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page A15

Although they spend more on health care than patients in any other industrialized nation, Americans receive the right treatment less than 60 percent of the time, resulting in unnecessary pain, expense and even death, according to a study released yesterday.

From preventive care such as flu shots to complicated surgery for heart conditions, patients are largely missing out on scientifically proven, lifesaving care regardless of where they live or whether they have health insurance, Rand Corp. researchers found in their analysis of 7,000 adults in 12 representative communities.

Although the researchers had previously documented a widespread pattern of uneven or poor quality care, the new analysis found that cities with higher income levels, fewer uninsured residents or more world-renowned medical institutions fared no better than communities with fewer advantages.

"It is somewhat outrageous that we spend $1.4 trillion on health care and get it right only half the time," said Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of Rand Health and a lead author of the study, published yesterday in the journal Health Affairs. "We're just spending a lot of money on health care that is not getting us what we need."

Rand, a respected, nonpartisan research firm, has produced a series of influential studies on quality and cost issues in health care.

"No matter where you live, you are at risk for poor care," said Eve A. Kerr, a co-author based at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Care System in Michigan.

The journal packaged the study with a second one reinforcing the finding that although Americans spend far more per capita on medicine, their health is not noticeably better than that of people in other countries. The five-year study by the Commonwealth Fund found wide gaps in how the United States and four other countries performed on such measures as breast cancer and leukemia deaths, asthma deaths, suicide rates and cancer screening.

"The United States should be particularly concerned about these results, given that we spend twice as much on health care as any other country. So spending more doesn't necessarily result in better outcomes," said Gerard Anderson of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In both studies, researchers concluded that the problem is not a shortage of innovative medical solutions, but rather the lack of systems to help doctors consistently administer the most effective treatments. Antiquated record-keeping, duplication, cultural biases toward pricey technology and a reimbursement system that rewards intervention rather than prevention are major contributors to the problem, the authors found.

"If a doctor or hospital delivers very good care, they don't get paid any differently than the doctor or hospital that does not give good care," McGlynn said. "The reality is we pay when it's not very good."

That encourages over-utilization but not better results, said Donald M. Berwick, head of the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Boston.

"We do more surgery, have more hospitalizations and prescribe more drugs," he said in an interview. "We have a love affair with technologies" and, as consumers, generally demand the "newest, most expensive" care even though in many cases simpler, cheaper treatments work better, he said.

The Rand study focused on 12 randomly selected communities of at least 200,000 people including Boston, Cleveland, Little Rock, Seattle and Syracuse, N.Y. It examined treatment of 30 of the most common acute and chronic conditions such as asthma, high blood pressure, pneumonia, heart disease, urinary tract infections and mental illness. Reviewing medical records over a two-year period, the researchers measured how often patients received the tests, medications, counseling and surgery known to deliver optimal results, called "best practices."

For example, they checked to see how often heart patients took an aspirin a day, a simple step that has been shown to reduce heart attacks by 15 percent. They tabulated how often blood pressure was checked in hypertensive patients and what drugs were given for mental illness.

Tracking wrong or unnecessary care, such as bypass surgery for minor heart disease, they also found that waste is a major expense.

"We could do a whole lot better with the same dollars if we made sure tests were not repeated or patients didn't get antibiotics when they didn't need them," McGlynn said.

In almost every community, the poorest care was for diabetes, although extensive evidence shows how to manage the disease and prevent its most serious complications.

Preventive care also fell short, the report found. Although most of the 12 communities provided basic screening, such as measuring blood pressure, more than 70 percent of the time, the numbers fell dramatically when it came to screening for cancer, substance abuse or sexually transmitted diseases.

The experts said many of the quality problems will continue to worsen unless the United States makes vast improvements in health care technology such as data collection and electronic records.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

The War Is Lost

The War is Lost
  By William Rivers Pitt
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective

  Monday 10 May 2004

  We have traveled a long, dark, strange road since the attacks of September 11. We have all suffered, we have all known fear and anger, and sometimes hatred. Many of us have felt - probably more than we are willing to admit it - at one time or another a desire for revenge, so deep was the wound inflicted upon us during that wretched, unforgettable Tuesday morning in September of 2001.

  But we have come now to the end of a week so awful, so terrible, so wrenching that the most basic moral fabric of that which we believe is good and great - the basic moral fabric of the United States of America - has been torn bitterly asunder.

  We are awash in photographs of Iraqi men - not terrorists, just people - lying in heaps on cold floors with leashes around their necks. We are awash in photographs of men chained so remorselessly that their backs are arched in agony, men forced to masturbate for cameras, men forced to pretend to have sex with one another for cameras, men forced to endure attacks from dogs, men with electrodes attached to them as they stand, hooded, in fear of their lives.

  The worst, amazingly, is yet to come. A new battery of photographs and videotapes, as yet unreleased, awaits over the horizon of our abused understanding. These photos and videos, also from the Abu Ghraib prison, are reported to show U.S. soldiers gang raping an Iraqi woman, U.S. soldiers beating an Iraqi man nearly to death, U.S. troops posing, smirks affixed, with decomposing Iraqi bodies, and Iraqi troops under U.S. command raping young boys.

  George W. Bush would have us believe these horrors were restricted to a sadistic few, and would have us believe these horrors happened only in Abu Ghraib. Yet reports are surfacing now of similar treatment at another U.S. detention center in Iraq called Camp Bucca. According to these reports, Iraqi prisoners in Camp Bucca were beaten, humiliated, hogtied, and had scorpions placed on their naked bodies.

 

 In the eyes of the world, this is America today. It cannot be dismissed as an anomaly because it went on and on and on in the Abu Ghraib prison, and because now we hear of Camp Bucca. According to the British press, there are some 30 other cases of torture and humiliation under investigation. The Bush administration went out of its way to cover up this disgrace, declaring secret the Army report on these atrocities. That, pointedly, is against the rules and against the law. You can’t call something classified just because it is embarrassing and disgusting. It was secret, but now it is out, and the whole world has been shown the dark, scabrous underbelly of our definition of freedom.

  The beginnings of actual political fallout began to find its way into the White House last week. Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the House Democrats’ most vocal defense hawk, joined Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to declare that the conflict is "unwinnable." Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, rocked the Democratic caucus when he said at a leader’s luncheon Tuesday that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq.

  "Unwinnable." Well, it only took about 14 months.

  Also last week, calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld became strident. Pelosi accused Rumsfeld of being "in denial about Iraq," and said U.S. soldiers "are suffering great casualties and injuries, and American taxpayers are paying an enormous price" because Rumsfeld "has done a poor job as secretary of defense." Representative Charlie Rangel, a leading critic of the Iraq invasion, has filed articles of impeachment against Rumsfeld.

  So there’s the heat. But let us consider the broader picture here in the context of that one huge word: "Unwinnable." Why did we do this in the first place? There have been several reasons offered over the last 16 months for why we needed to do this thing.

  It started, for real, in January 2003 when George W. Bush said in his State of the Union speech that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX, 30,000 munitions to deliver this stuff, and that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger to build nuclear bombs.

  That reason has been scratched off the list because, as has been made painfully clear now, there are no such weapons in Iraq. The Niger claim, in particular, has caused massive embarrassment for America because it was so farcical, and has led to a federal investigation of this White House because two administration officials took revenge upon Joseph Wilson’s wife for Wilson’’s exposure of the lie.

  Next on the list was September 11, and the oft-repeated accusation that Saddam Hussein must have been at least partially responsible. That one collapsed as well - Bush himself had to come out and say Saddam had nothing to do with it.

  Two reasons down, so the third must be freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people. Once again, however, facts interfere. America does not want a democratic Iraq, because a democratic Iraq would quickly become a Shi’ite fundamentalist Iraq allied with the Shi’ite fundamentalist nation of Iran, a strategic situation nobody with a brain wants to see come to pass. It has been made clear by Paul Bremer, the American administrator of Iraq, that whatever the new Iraqi government comes to look like, it will have no power to make any laws of any kind, it will have no control over the security of Iraq, and it will have no power over the foreign troops which occupy its soil. This is, perhaps, some bizarre new definition of democracy not yet in the dictionary, but it is not democracy by any currently accepted definition I have ever heard of.

  So...the reason to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction is destroyed. The reason to go to war because of connections to September 11 is destroyed. The reason to go to war in order to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq is destroyed.

  What is left? The one reason left has been unfailingly flapped around by defenders of this administration and supporters of this war: Saddam Hussein was a terrible, terrible man. He killed his own people. He tortured his own people. The Iraqis are better off without him, and so the war is justified.

  And here, now, is the final excuse destroyed. We have killed more than 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in this invasion, and maimed countless others. The photos from Abu Ghraib prison show that we, like Saddam Hussein, torture and humiliate the Iraqi people. Worst of all, we do this in the same prison Hussein used to do his torturing. The "rape rooms," often touted by Bush as justification for the invasion, are back. We are the killers now. We are the torturers now. We have achieved a moral equivalence with the Butcher of Baghdad.

  This war is lost. I mean not just the Iraq war, but George W. Bush's ridiculous "War on Terror" as a whole.

  I say ridiculous because this "War on Terror" was never, ever something we were going to win. What began on September 11 with the world wrapping us in its loving embrace has collapsed today in a literal orgy of shame and disgrace. This happened, simply, because of the complete failure of moral leadership at the highest levels.

  We saw a prime example of this during Friday’s farce of a Senate hearing into the Abu Ghraib disaster which starred Don Rumsfeld. From his bully pulpit spoke Senator Joe Lieberman, who parrots the worst of Bush’s war propaganda with unfailingly dreary regularity. Responding to the issue of whether or not Bush and Rumsfeld should apologize for Abu Ghraib, Lieberman stated that none of the terrorists had apologized for September 11.

  There it was, in a nutshell. There was the idea, oft promulgated by the administration, that September 11 made any barbarism, any extreme, any horror brought forth by the United States acceptable, and even desirable. There was the institutionalization of revenge as a basis for policy. Sure, Abu Ghraib was bad, Mr. Lieberman put forth. But September 11 happened, so all bets are off.

  Thus fails the "War on Terror." September 11 did not demand of us the lowest common denominator, did not demand of us that we become that which we despise and denounce. September 11 demanded that we be better, greater, more righteous than those who brought death to us. September 11 demanded that we be better, and in doing so, we would show the world that those who attacked us are far, far less than us. That would have been victory, with nary a shot being fired.

  Our leaders, however, took us in exactly the opposite direction.

  Every reason to go to Iraq has failed to retain even a semblance of credibility. Every bit of propaganda Osama bin Laden served up to the Muslim world for why America should be attacked and destroyed has been given credibility by what has taken place in Iraq. Victory in this "War on Terror," a propaganda war from the beginning, has been given to the September 11 attackers by the hand of George W. Bush, and by the hand of those who enabled his incomprehensible blundering.

  The war is lost.

May 9, 2004

Who Would You Trust?

smartmonkey.jpg bushpuzzled2.jpg

May 8, 2004

George Bush in Picture and Song


Mr. Bush is not the president of the world Sing it with me.

From a speech May 3 at Kansas State University by Republican Senator Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

Whether or not the United States views itself as an empire, it is obvious that for many foreigners and international critics, we look, walk and talk like one and they have responded accordingly.