Amazon.com Widgets

« May 2004 | Main | July 2004 »

June 30, 2004

Medieval

"More than 4,000 scientists have signed a petition accusing George Bush of twisting their work to further his political agenda." link

Its four thousand this time, including 20 Nobel prize winners. This isn't a case of religion just influencing ethical judgements or values. This is a case of Bush's religious convictions distorting well confirmed empirical results. Let's get this medieval fuck out of office. It's not John Kerry that has the religion problem, its Bush that has the religion problem.

Cheney Doll

cheneydoll.jpg

June 29, 2004

Nuts

nuts.jpg

"In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts" harkens back to the 1964 Goldwater campaign, a parody on his " In Your Heart You Know He's Right" , slogan. A phrase I repeated numerous times as a supporter of Mr. Goldwater. Fortunately I was only 18 at the time and didn't have a vote. I've since repented for such youthful indiscretions.

via Gamers Nook and Bartcop

This must be we love our president day. I suspect Frank of rummaging through the trash at the RNC where he found this .

June 28, 2004

Why I Changed My Voter Registration Today

Norman Solomon of FAIR explains why he obtained a voter registration form in order to change his party affiliation from "decline to state" to the Green Party.

If strategic thinking prevails, the possibility exists that the Green Party in 2004 will strengthen itself from the bottom up while also providing tangible solidarity in the national effort to defeat Bush. If the Green Party proves equal to this momentous task, it could open up new possibilities for the years and decades ahead.

Solomon is impressed, as I am, with Green Party nominee David Cobb's safe-state campaign strategy. I encourage all progressives to follow Soloman's example and change your party registration to the Green Party. Do this even if you are in a swing state and intend to vote for Kerry.

June 27, 2004

Pretty Well Confirmed

A potty mouth and a liar!

prettywellconfirmed.jpg

Click on Picture for 1.5M Quicktime Video or
Click here for 500K Quicktime Video

Is this one of those times Mr. Vice President when you say "Go Fuck Yourself"

Thanks Lisa

June 26, 2004

The Underworld

bushundies.jpg

Click on picture for Quicktime Video 380K
Bush filmed in underwear from the BBC


Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President

MILWAUKEE, Wis. (Reuters) - The Green Party on Saturday refused to back Ralph Nader in his independent run for the White House, a move that could reduce his chances of being a factor in this year's election.

Delegates to the half-million-member party's presidential convention voted to nominate party activist David Cobb, a California lawyer who led the delegate count going into the meeting.


link

David Cobb will run a "smart growth" campaign. He will avoid swing states and focus on states that are not in contention in order to build the Green Party. The Green Party understands that this is an exceptional year. The Green Party understands that George W. Bush is a threat to everything it stands for and it did the right thing by not backing Nader. As I live in a state that is not a swing state I will vote for Cobb. I encourage those of you who live in swing states to hold your nose and vote for Kerry in order to get Bush out.

June 24, 2004

Michael VoldeMoore

White House Memo:
June 24th 2004

To: All Departments, All staff members

As you may have heard there is a movie out called Fahrenheit 9/11 "You Know What" by Michael VoldeMoore You Know Who, about the Iraq Debacle Operation Iraqi Freedom. You are strongly (hint hint wink wink) advised not to see this movie. Please initial your copy of the memo acknowledging that you WILL NOT be attending and return it to your immediate supervisor by the end of the day.

W..

cc: John Ashcroft
cc: Patriot Act Enforcement Dudes
cc: Government Employee Separation Center
cc: Guantanamo Bay Induction Center

Harball MSNBC June 23, 2004
Guest Host Campbell Brown
Guest Christopher Hitchens

Campbell Brown "Given how the Bush Administration is reacting to the 9/11 film. Banning their staff from going to see it or anybody"
Christopher Hitchens: "What?"
Campbell Brown " I know, is is that the right approach?"

Quicktime Video of Brown and Hitchens Small


David Cobb for President

Ralph Nader has pissed off a lot of Democrats with his independent Candidacy this year. He has also pissed off many Green party supporters, including myself. David Cobb is seeking the Green party nomination this weekend at the Green Party National Convention. Cobb wants to build a non-corporate third party. I thought that was what Nader was all about, but running as an independent does nothing to help third parties. Cobb also believes there is a more responsible way to build the Green Party without risking throwing the election to Bush. There is an excellent interview with David Cobb on Salon. Here are some important excerpts.

Salon: Would running a safe-states strategy -- one where the Greens wouldn't campaign heavily in states where they might cost Kerry the election -- be a wise and intelligent use of the Greens' strength?

David Cobb: First of all, I'd never call my strategy a "safe-states strategy." It's a smart-growth strategy. Smart growth means focusing resources where we are more likely to build the Green Party -- the 40 states where the Electoral College votes are not going to be genuinely contested.

John Kerry is no progressive, and the message for the Green Party in those states can be "progressives, don't waste your vote, invest your vote." A progressive voting for Kerry in an uncontested state cannot help unelect Bush. All voting for Kerry will do is say that you support his corporatist, militarist policies. Let's remember John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for No Child Left Behind. He voted for the PATRIOT Act. He voted for NAFTA. He's on the record supporting the war on drugs, the prison-industrial complex, he's on the record opposing universal healthcare and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

Salon: It seems like the reason for avoiding swing states is as much to prevent an erosion of the Democratic base as it is because you'll have an easier time party-building elsewhere. If it's worth showing mercy on the Democrats in swing states, why not go one step further and ask Greens in swing states to vote for Kerry?

David Cobb: Because my goal is to grow and build the Green Party, not to acquiesce to Democratic Party leadership. I don't believe that John Kerry is going to solve any of the fundamental problems facing this country.

I'm going to tell people to vote their conscience. But if people are so terrified that they're going to [vote for Kerry], I'm saying, "Then do what you need to do, but join with us in the Green Party, register for the Green Party, and vote for Green Party people down ballot." Ultimately those people, I believe, are going to have enough confidence, and courage, and vision, to stop "holding their nose" -- but if they can't do it in this election cycle, I'm patient with them.

I acknowledge that I'm articulating a very nuanced approach, and that it is not black-and-white. But that reflects my understanding of where we are.

As I live in an uncontested state, I will definitely vote for David Cobb if he wins the Green Party nomination this Saturday. I believe it would be a big mistake for Greens to endorse Nader instead.

Ah Boo Boo Gah Gah

In a joint press conference with the Hungarian Prime Minister. George had a chance to demonstrate how his on the job training was going. How he had practiced and how he could say Abu Gharaib without choking or sputtering or ... Here's how he did Quicktime Video or Audio 156K mp3

Here is the Real Player link to the entire news conference.

Thanks to Robert

Front Row Joe

It looks like if you're going to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend you may find yourself on the front row.

Director Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played. [snip] A spokesman for Lions Gate Films said the company debuted the movie in the two theaters to help build good word-of-mouth -- friend telling friend -- publicity ahead of the wide debut Friday when it plays in 868 theaters in all 50 states. [snip] Online ticket service Fandango.com reported Wednesday that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was making up 48 percent of advance ticket sales for the weekend ahead, compared to 11 percent for "Dodgeball" and 9 percent for next week's "Spider-Man 2."

Link

And

Let it never be said that Joe Scarborough shirks his duty as a right-wing shill. Last night on his show discussing Clenis he had fun demonstrating how well he's learned to quote out of context. To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. For this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote. Joe you've been bad you've been very very bad.

Bill Clinton was on the Today Show with Katie Couric talking about his book and of course the topic of Monica Lewinski came up. She asked him if he war sorry he said he was, but Joe Scarborough wasn't satisfied letting the record speak for itself. He decided to quote Clinton out of context. Here is what he said One is left with quite a different impression if he had allowed him to finish the sentence. Here is the quote with a little more context Listen.

Clinton: “I feel sorry because, as she said herself, she was betrayed by her friend, and then she got caught up in this big media and Starr imbroglio. "Here is where Joe stopped and this is what followed "And none of it would have happened if I hadn't done anything wrong. So, I feel terrible about it."

Oh and then there was this amazing disclosure on Harball. Campbell Brown Guest Host, and Christopher Hitchens are discussing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Listen to this. Is this possible? Would the administration really tell the staffers not to watch Michael Moore's Film. What the fuck?

June 23, 2004

God's Number is Up

Among a heap of books claiming that science proves God's existence emerges The Probability of God (Crown Forum, 2003), by Stephen D. Unwin that computes a probability of 67 percent.

People often try to give claims the appearance of scientific credibility by couching them in terms of mathematics. A good bullshit detecting technique is to find out how the person making the claim came up with the numbers that enter into the equation. When done properly Math is internally consistent. However, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Michael Shermer takes out the trash in the following article.

Scientific American: God's Number Is Up

Clinton Interview

clinton.jpg

Clinton in a recent BBC interview with Dimbleby took offense to the number of questions about Ms. Lewinski and blasted said Dimbleby. Whether you think the questions were unfair or not the passion our former president exhibited was refreshing. Overall I thought the tone of the interview was about right, but more important I learned a thing or two and didn't have to read one page of Clinton's Book, though I did pick up a copy yesterday. Here is a link to the audio (592K) of heart of the exchange over Lewinski Click on continue reading for the text of the interview.

BBC TELEVISION
THE CLINTON INTERVIEW: A PANORAMA
SPECIAL
BBC1 TUESDAY 22ND JUNE 2004 1035pm
45’18”


For eight years, Bill Clinton was the most powerful
man on earth. As President of the United States, he
led his country beyond the Cold War and into the
21st century.

Clinton spent his time at the White House trying to
reconcile what he calls parallel lives: affairs of state
at odds with a turbulent private life.

Tonight he speaks frankly to Panorama about his
time in office and his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
And he displays his anger at those who pursued him.

CLINTON: One of the reasons he got away with it is
because people like you only ask people like me the
questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any
abuse they wanted to do, they indicted all these little
people from Arkansas, what did you care about them,
they’re not famous, who cares that their lives were
trampled. Who cares if their children were humiliated?

CLINTON: The fact that I was sleeping on the couch
and they were still in the same house with me meant that
Hilary and Chelsea hadn’t given up on me. I figured
that, as I said, I was getting a whipping at home where I
should have gotten it.


TITLE PAGE: CLINTON – THE INTERVIEW

DIMBLEBY: Mr President it’s interesting that you
describe yourself as leading two parallel lives. What
do you mean by that?

CLINTON: Well in my book I talk about my childhood
which was marked by living in an alcoholic home where
there was sporadic, arbitrary and sometimes quite
frightening violence and how I saw from my mother’s
example, you know we not only didn’t go around
talking about it, we went on with our lives and we found
something to enjoy about every day. So it occurred to
me as I thought about it that we lived for years with a
kind of an outer life outside our home that we loved,
that we loved living it, we lived it well, I did, my
mother did, then we had this other life that was often a
source of pain, and agony.

DIMBLEBY: But many people have a sort of private
side of their life that they keep private, but you
actually describe it as two different lives and I
wonder whether it’s possible to lead two different
lives and …

A: No it’s not

DIMBLEBY: And whether you end up not living
either?

CLINTON: Well I don’t think it’s possible to lead two
different lives, I think eventually they intersect, and
sometimes they clash and crash, and on occasion that
happened to me and I describe that with some candour
in the book.

DIMBLEBY: You also talk of anger, of a kind of
anger. You say at one point you had a constant
anger which you kept locked away. You don’t seem
to be an angry man; what made you angry?

CLINTON: Well by na, by nature I’m not an angry
person. I wasn’t as a child. And I’m in a different
place in my life now. I’ve worked through a lot of this.
But I was angry because I was living in the face of
arbitrary abusive power, and I always hated it. But it
always er …

DIMBLEBY: From your stepfather.

CLINTON: Yeah.

DIMBLEBY: You also said in a slightly different
context, again about anger that there were moments
when you were so angry that it did you harm. What
harm were you done by your anger?

CLINTON: Well I think whenever you’re, the, the
Greeks said once, Those whom the gods would destroy
they first make angry. If you go round mad you can’t,
you don’t think very well, and you wind up doing things
that you shouldn’t do. And I think there are numerous
points in my life, where I really was angry and I, it
bothered me. I also think a lot of anger is quite healthy
and I’ve bent over backwards because I tried to be a
peace maker in my home; I bent over backwards not to
be angry, and never to show anger and I think there’s a
price for that as well.

DIMBLEBY: But what was the harm that it did
you. Where did you harm yourself or harm others by
it?

CLINTON: Well I don’t think there’s any question
that a lot of the personal mistakes I made in my life I
made when I was angry.

DIMBLEBY: You scourge yourself don’t you really
in this book. You talk also about selfishness. You
said, in this essay you mention when you were a
child, you detested selfishness, but you saw it every
day in the mirror. Has selfishness been a constant
part of your career, which obviously demands
ambition and …

CLINTON: (interrupts) It, if, when you live … my life
has been both selfish and selfless. I mean if you live the
kind of life I live, I’ve lived, you’re running for office –
it’s almost impossible, as I say in this book, I may be
the only person who got elected President ever, because
of the loyalty, support and determination of his personal
friends, who just wouldn’t let my campaign die. It’s
seemed to me often that from the beginning, I was
always taking more from people than I could give back.

I mean I learned very early in life, that we’re all a
mixture of selflessness and selfishness. That we’re all a
mixture of, of love and anger. That we all have these
elements in us, and life is a constant struggle to let the
good outweigh the bad.

ROUND-UP SECTION CLINTON
Despite Bill Clinton’s foreign and domestic
achievements, his time in office was also marred by
scandal.

Whitewater – a property deal gone wrong that
Clinton and his wife Hillary were involved in – led to
an inquiry by independent prosecutor Kenneth
Starr, who had unlimited powers of investigation.

Although the Clintons were found innocent, Starr
controversially broadened his inquiry to examine the
President’s private life and allegations of sexual
harassment –he also investigated many of Clinton’s
friends and colleagues, some of whom were jailed.

In 1998 it was revealed Clinton had had an affair
with a young woman at the White House. But for
eight months, Bill Clinton lied about this infidelity to
his wife and to the country.

CLIP CLINTON :
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky.

Clinton became the first US president in over a
century to be impeached – and for a time both his
presidency and marriage were at risk.

DIMBLEBY: When you decided to run for the
Presidency, you were told by your Republican
opponents that they would in effect stop at nothing
to destroy you. And it’s interesting that you knew
that, you were forewarned that they were going to
try and destroy you, and yet you accepted the
challenge.

CLINTON: Well it’s – when I was threatened, it
proved to me all the more that it was time to make a
change. Because I don’t think the purpose of politics is
simply to get power and hold on to it.

DIMBLEBY: But it’s a rough game in Washington.

CLINTON: It’s a rough game. (interjects) It’s a rough
game, but the other side had been in for twelve years;
we had tried it their way. And first I was shocked that
they, they made me think I might have a chance to win
because I was told that they were confident that they
could beat everybody but me and I didn’t think that you
know, at the time, no one else thought I could win so if
they thought I could win, maybe it meant I had a
chance.

DIMBLEBY: But you can’t have had any grounds
for complaint when the Press did go at you when you
became President.

CLINTON: No.

DIMBLEBY: Because you knew it was going to
happen, you brought it on yourself in a sense by
running for it.

CLINTON: Yeah, but I, I don’t like that because that
exonerates everybody else of responsibility for the
decisions that they make. The New Right that
controlled the Republican Party in Washington and the
political press had the same interests. They thought it
was all about power, I thought it was about how power
was used. I was interested, to me, the way I kept score
in my Presidency was, Did more people have jobs or
not? Did more people move out of poverty or not?
Did the crime rate go down or not? Were more kids
breathing clean air and fewer getting asthma? What
was our record in the world? Did we advance peace
and prosperity and security or not? That’s how I kept
score.

Others kept score in a totally different way. You know,
are we hurting the other side or not? Have we got a
good story today that is about personal destruction?
So, yes I knew that, and yes I did it and no, I don’t
complain but I don’t have to agree with it. I still think
American politics works better when the fight is over
who’s right and who’s wrong, rather than who’s good
and who’s bad.

Who’s good and who’s bad maybe a good little flashy
story for today, but it doesn’t have much to do with how
the American people are going to living, ten, twenty,
thirty years from now, and how the world will work.

DIMBLEBY: But if you knew you had enemies like
that, you offered them a gift with the Monica
Lewinsky affair didn’t you.

CLINTON: Of course I did, and was it rational? No.
So I do my very best to explain why I think it happened.
But you know when people ask me this question, well
how could you do something so stupid, when you knew
they were after you. Well of course, if I’d been
thinking straight, I wouldn’t have done it. If – but I
hope that you and everyone else who asks me this
question, never has to know what it’s like to have
somebody who despises you be given unaccountable
legal power, to indict the innocent, because they will not
lie and to exonerate the guilty because they will, and
then to be treated as a totally legitimate person in the
press, as if obviously you must have done something
wrong or why are they doing all this? And you know,
it’s hard to think straight when that’s going on.

And nothing I say is by way of explanation in my
account of my life should be taken as an excuse. I
don’t make any excuses for myself, you’ve already said
I’m pretty tough on myself and I try to be. I don’t
believe anyone who reaches the age of accountability
can take an explanation for his mistakes as an excuse; so
there’s a big difference.

But I frankly think Washington went a little haywire
you know just, ever since Watergate there was this idea
that you know, we treat all our politicians as if they
were basically crooks, and we just keep looking till we
find something. And that’s the way the press kept
score, and that’s the way the Republican right kept
score; that thank God, is not the way the American
people kept score. Let me remind you in all of this
thing, we always had the support of two thirds of the
American people staying with us, so I was gratified that
more people saw the world the way I did, and believed
politics actually mattered. I think – these decisions
affect people’s lives.

DIMBLEBY: But given that you, as you say, hated
the inquiry in to White Water and all this.

CLINTON: Well it was not legitimate. I hated it
(overlaps), I asked for it.

DIMBLEBY: You say, then along came the
Lewinsky affair and you offered it to them on a plate
in effect. How did you come to do that?

CLINTON: Well I, I tried to explain that. I, it, it
happened under circumstances in which people who had
lived parallel lives become quite vulnerable. It
happened at a time when I was angry, I was under
stress, I was afraid I was going to lose my fight with the
Republican Congress. As I said, I was in this titanic
fight for the future of the country and an inevitable fight
with my old demons; so I won the public fight and lost
the private one. And then, Starr turned the private one
in to a legal, constitutional and public one.

DIMBLEBY: You think he … (interjects) was
wrong to do that?

CLINTON: Of course.

DIMBLEBY: Did you think it was dangerous at the
time?

CLINTON: What they were doing.

DIMBLEBY: What you were doing. Did you
think it was risky?

CLINTON: I don’t know that I, I don’t – I can’t answer
that. I don’t know what I thought about it. (interjects)
It didn’t last very long and … and the accounts are not
entirely accurate of what did happen; so I don’t want to
talk about that. I’ve said, all I have to say about that in
the book. I’m not saying any more about that.

DIMBLEBY: There is a curious aspect of it that
you said to Starr, you implied that you expected it to
become public knowledge. You said you expected it
to come out at some point.

GUEST: I didn’t in the beginning but subsequent
things happened which made me think that.

DIMBLEBY: You’ve explained the background to
it and how you felt that this was really a private
matter and was wrongly exposed publicly, but one
thing people were puzzled by, which was when you
said you hadn’t had a sexual relationship with
Lewinsky, did you seriously, when you said that, not
consider oral sex to be a sexual relationship.

CLINTON: First of all I never discuss what did or
didn’t happen; so you only have one side of what
happened. I don’t believe in discussing it and won’t.
Secondly, did you read the instructions I was given?

DIMBLEBY: Which instructions?

CLINTON: Well, keep in mind we were, I testified
very differently to the Grand Jury, than I did in the civil
deposition. I was given the most bizarre definition of
sexual definition – er, relations, which the lawyers said
for, the Republican lawyers that were going after me, said
they did to spare me embarrassment. Then, my lawyer,
and then I personally, I personally asked those lawyers if
they wanted to ask me a specific question and they said
‘No’. And then, they claimed that I had lied in the
deposition, because I had answered no to this contorted
definition they gave me, which to this day, I still believe
is the right answer.

DIMBLEBY: So you’ve never said you had oral
sex, or she did oral sex on you. That’s what …

CLINTON: (overlaps) I’ve never answered that one way
or the other.

DIMBLEBY: Right.

CLINTON: I answered questions in the grand jury
about what I thought the definition meant. But you
know, I wasn’t, keep in mind, at the time I went through
that deposition, I wasn’t in the business of helping them,
and I wasn’t supposed to help them, because they knew
the law suit - that gave them the power to ask me these
questions - was a total fraud. They knew it. And the judge
threw it out. They knew that the theory on which they
were asking me these questions was a total fraud. They
knew there had never been any sexual harassment, and
they knew something I didn’t know, which is that they
had gotten Kenneth Starr involved in the case, for total
political reasons.

Now, maybe you know, given the import of your
question, maybe you think all this is perfectly legitimate
and every person in the world should be treated this way;
I don’t, I think it was wrong. I think it was done by people
who craved power, who wanted to concentrate wealth and
power in my country. Who wanted to radically revise my
country’s future, and move it to the right, and who
resented the fact that two thirds of the American people
supported what I was doing. Now does that excuse what I
did? No. But what they did was a threat to the
Constitution and the fabric of life in America and the
future of the country. And I think when they get in power
they do things that I don’t agree with. So, I fought them,
and I’m glad I did.

DIMBLEBY: You say we’re not to know what you
did and that’s obviously your affair, but your wife, in
her book clearly sets out that you did lie to her.

CLINTON: I did do that and…
BOTH TOGETHER
DIMBLEBY: … you lied to her about your
relationship with …

BOTH TOGETHER

CLINTON: And I said I did, and I acknowledge that in
my book.

DIMBLEBY: So, it is true that you lied.

CLINTON: Ab – is it true that I didn’t tell her the
truth, I didn’t tell anybody the truth. When it broke
publicly, and it was obvious to me that I’d been set up and
when I asked … specifically to ask me these questions,
they declined to do so. And that they had manoeuvred,
that Starr had manoeuvred himself in to the case, I
decided that the most important thing that I should do is
not to compound my personal error by letting these people
win and that in the meantime I shouldn’t expose anybody
until the thing calmed down a little bit because we had a
mad prosecutor on the loose who was dying to indict
anybody.

Let me remind you, in violation of the Justice
Department guidelines, he compelled Monica Lewinsky’s
mother to testify. You know, if this had been a normal
thing where I had been found to have done wrong
personally, and I’d been asked about it, I would have
simply dealt with it in an appropriate way, with my family
and everybody else. Said here’s the evidence, you did
wrong, talk about it. That was not the environment in
which I lived.

DIMBLEBY: You were fighting for your
presidency and you were fighting as you saw it against
political enemies.

CLINTON: Absolutely.

BOTH TOGETHER

DIMBLEBY: Right through ..and that was what it
was about?

CLINTON: Wasn’t as I saw it sir, we had several years
of evidence. We had several years of evidence. Kenneth
Starr would not be allowed to be prosecutor against me as
a defendant in any decent court in the land.

DIMBLEBY: You obviously …

CLINTON: And, and let me just say this. One of the
reasons he got away with it is because people like you
only ask people like me the questions. You gave him a
complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do, they
indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did
you care about them, they’re not famous, who cares that
their life were trampled. Who cares that their children
are humiliated. Who cares if Starr sends FBI agents to
their school, and rip them out of their school to humiliate
them, and try to force their parents to lie about me. Who
cares if he sends a woman like Susan McDougal in to
Hannibal Lector like cell and makes her wear a uniform
worn only by murderers and child molesters. Nobody in
your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why,
because he was helping their story.

And that’s the difference in me and the people that were
after me. I actually cared about what happened to those
people, and I wanted to be President to help those people.
And that’s what the fight was about. Now that doesn’t
justify any mistake I made, but look how much time you
spent asking me these questions, and this time you’ve had
… that’s cos what you care about, cos that’s what you
think helps you and helps this interview. I care about what
happened to the people that I fought for.

And that’s why people like you always help the Far
Right cos you like to hurt people, and you like to talk
about how bad people are and all their personal failings,
and (David interjects) and that’s why you. Look, just –
you made a decision to allocate your time in a certain
way. You should take responsibility for that. You should
say yes, I care much more about this than whether the
Bosnian people were saved, and whether he bought a
million people home from Kosovo, than whether twenty
seven million people had jobs at the end, and whether we
moved a hundred times as many people out of poverty as
Regan and Bush. This is what I care about.

DIMBLEBY: I will come to those things, and I
don’t intend to avoid them and I don’t intend to talk
endlessly about Monica Lewinsky.

CLINTON: Well me when we, when this is over ..

BOTH TOGETHER

DIMBLEBY: Your book goes in to this.

CLINTON: It does.

DIMBLEBY: It gives a very interesting insight in
to something that is just as important as your
achievements, which is the nature of the Presidency,
and the power of the President.

CLINTON: I agree with that.

DIMBLEBY: And let me move on to the next point
which I was going to make. You talk about parallel
lives. At the point when the Lewinsky affair was
happening, you were also dealing with a terrible crisis
over Al Qaeda.

CLINTON: U-hum..

DIMBLEBY: The bombing of the two embassies in
East Africa and day by day, I mean to quote you, you
say, I alternated between begging forgiveness with
your wife ..

CLINTON: That’s true.

DIMBLEBY: And planning strikes on Al Qaeda.

CLINTON: That’s true.

DIMBLEBY: Did it do damage to your power of
concentration and decision making as President?

CLINTON: No. I really don’t think so. And I believe
interestingly enough, when I..I don’t want to jump the gun
on the Nine Eleven Commission at home, you know this
by bi parties commission thing. But I think I can say this
because I believe it’s already been made public. The
Commission told me when I met with them for four hours
that they had actually made a finding that none of my
personal challenges or the impeachment thing had any
impact on the decisions that I made or didn’t make as
President, which I was gratified by.

DIMBLEBY: Do you yourself feel that?

CLINTON: Absolutely. But I tell you this is quite
interesting and when I talk about the parallel lives thing
when I was, you know, as a child and you pointed out
that.. some of the problems with having parallel lives and
I agree with you which I tried to be candid about. The flip
side of that is it stood me in very good stead when I had to
go through the whole struggle with the Congress and
Starr and the impeachment thing because I had been doing
that all my life. I worried far more about the people who
were working with me, who had never been subject to
personal attacks who never had to face the problems in
their own lives than I did myself because it’s something I
knew how to do. I’d been doing that since I was a boy.

And we organised the White House so that we could
answer questions likes these questions on the
impeachment or the…the whole deposition, all of that.
We were organised there. And when they needed me I
spent a few minutes and answered their questions so they
briefed me and for the rest of the time we worked on the
Presidency and it sounds crazy to someone who’s never
been through it but I knew how to do that. And I’d had a
lot of practice in the ninety two campaign in the first term
but, basically, it went back to my childhood for learning
to live with big pot of problems. When my mother wrote
her memoirs she talked about the same thing.

DIMBLEBY: And you, as you describe, were
kicked out the marital bed and living on the couch..

CLINTON: I was..(laughs)

DIMBLEBY: While you were doing all this…?

CLINTON: I laugh about it now but it’s true, it’s..it’s
true.

DIMBLEBY: Was it horrifying?

CLINTON: Oh actually I thought it was healthy, I
thought that in a funny way I thought the fact that I was
sleeping on the couch and they were still in the same
house with me meant that Hilary and Chelsea hadn’t
given on me. I figured that, as I said, I was getting a
whipping at home where I should have gotten it. I thought
whatever they wanted to say or do to me, Hilary and
Chelsea, they had an absolute right to do so the fact that I
was still able to stay under the same roof does.. even
though I was.. I thought that was progress (laughs) so I.. I
was just glad to be among the living there at home
but..and frankly eh, perhaps I shouldn’t acknowledge this
but it was a relief to have to go to work and concentrate
on something else cos otherwise I would have nothing to
think about all day long but what a bad fella I’d been.

DIMBLEBY: Your critics say that you gave the
action against terrorism and against Al Qaeda a low
priority I know the 9/11 Commission is sitting on this,
if you had known what we now know about terrorism
and nine eleven, would you have acted more toughly
than you did?

CLINTON: Well first of all it’s not fair to say I gave it
a low priority. I…I had a piece of sweeping anti terrorism
legislation for the Congress in nineteen ninety four. After
Oklahoma City, after the Oklahoma City bombing I
strengthened it and we took another year to pass it in the
congress.

If you go all the way back to nineteen ninety three you
will see we were bringing terrorists back home, we were
preventing terrorist attacks, we prevented terrorist attacks
in the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the UN
Building, the Los Angeles airport. We thwarted terrorist
attacks over the Millennium that were planned on
America in the Middle East. We broke up twenty Al
Qaeda cells. I came closer to getting Osama Bin Laden
with that air action in nineteen ninety eight that anybody
has since, apparently. Erm, I think the…the question is
could we have invaded Afghanistan based on the African
Embassy bombings? I don’t think so.

DIMBLEBY: Why not?

CLINTON: Well because, I mean in theory we could
have but we would have been all alone everybody would
have thought we were crazy based on that. And then could
I have.. would I have done more after the USS Cole in
October two thousand. And could I have if, that’s one big
if. If the government intelligence agencies in this case the
FBI and the CIA had agreed with me even though my
term was almost over and had told me that they agreed for
sure that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for
the USS Cole, a finding they did not make until after I had
left office, I would have done more then.

Would it have succeeded in getting Bin Laden, would it
have prevented 9/11, I don’t know. I mean, we’ve got..
look how long we’ve been in Afghanistan and we still
haven’t succeeded in that. And believe me, I have asked a
lot of these questions myself

DIMBLEBY: Do you expect the 9/11 Commission to
be critical of what you did as President about
terrorism?

I think the 9/11 Commission can make up its own mind
whether on both the attacks on Al Qaeda and the strategy
we adopted, and on the question of homeland defence, I
did enough. I’ll leave that to others to judge. But all I
can tell you, it was a big priority with me, I never lost my
concentration on it, and I worked on it for my first term.
And I think the record will show that we did a heck of a
lot.

I made lots of decisions as President; it’s inconceivable
that they were all right. They couldn’t have all been
right, and if they can find something they think I should
have done differently, then I want them to tell the
American people, because I think what – we’re in for a
long struggle here against terror, and none of us need to
be too defensive. We need to say, in the end, we want
freedom to triumph over terror, and we need to keep
learning and keep getting better and we will.

DIMBLEBY: There’s a striking difference between
your attitude towards Saddam Hussein and Iraq and
that of your successor, the present President. Am I
right in thinking that you thought that containment
was the most effective way of restraining Saddam?

CLINTON: Well, that was the policy of the previous
Bush administration.

DIMBLEBY: And yours.

CLINTON: Yes. For most of the time I was there, the
idea was that his military is less than half the strength it
was in the first Gulf War, which is factually true. We had
these inspections going on and we were making progress
and we were getting the chemical and biological agents
and the laboratory capacity out of there and while he’s not
a good man he’s getting older and eh, as long as we don’t
lift the sanctions and let him rebuild his military power,
that eventually we’ll get a change there.

Then in ninety eight when Saddam kicked the inspectors
out to try to force us to lift the sanctions. Prime Minister
Blair and I bombed him for four days and we bombed the
sites where thought the chemical and biological materials
would be. Because we didn’t get the inspectors back in
we had no idea if we destroyed all of it, half of it, ten per
cent of it, none of it.

So then when President Bush went back to the UN, after
9/11, to demand that the inspectors be let in, I strongly
supported that.

When President Bush asked for authority for the Senate to
use force if Saddam didn’t cooperate with the UN, I
strongly supported that. My only difference and.. and.. I
adopted, in ninety eight, after we kicked the inspectors
out, a policy of regime change. I thought, well, we’re
never going to be ever to do any consistent business with
this guy. That’s different from invading him. You know, I
said we ought to support the opposition elements and just
keep working until we get a new leader.

So, I didn’t have any profound difference with the policy
until it was decided to invade Iraq before the UN
Weapons Inspection process was finished because Hans
Blix I have a very high regard for, he was very tough on
Saddam. He was very explicit when they weren’t fully
cooperating and I thought we should get a chance to
finish.

I also always felt that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a far,
far bigger threat and in the early days I worried about
whether we had enough troops in Afghanistan and
whether we wouldn’t weaken our ability to stabilise
President Karzai’s regime, prevent the Taliban and some
of the opium growing warlords from resorting their,
restoring their power. So that’s kind of where I differed.

DIMBLEBY: So what you’re saying is you were
opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

CLINTON: What I am saying is I believe that we
should have led the.. I would have supported the invasion
of Iraq, whether or not we’d had UN opposition, if the UN
inspectors had finished their job and Han Blix had said
they won’t cooperate.

The point is we were there under the authority of the UN
resolution that was about the weapons inspections so I
believe that we should have let them finish. Now we are
where we are, an Amer.. you know, I’m an American first
and the minute the President wants the investigation I was
for the troops and the mission and I did believe that when
it was over we should have immediately moved to
internationalise it, finally that has been done. We’re
moving to give the sovereignty back to the Iraqis and that
we have a new UN resolution for internationalising it, I
think that they’re moving er, in the right direction now.
We still got a lot of tough days ahead, I mean, you know,
but I think basically we’re moving in the right direction
now.

DIMBLEBY: It’s reported that you went privately to
Chequers to see Tony Blair before the invasion. Is that
true and presumably if it is true you didn’t urge him
to support President Bush?

CLINTON: Well I have sa.. I don’t.. you’re asking me
a question and I’m not sure exactly when I was at
Chequers, vis a vis the Iraq date. I’ve been there several
times since I left office. Tony Blair and I are friends. Mrs
Blair and Hillary and all, we’re all friends and I stayed in
touch with him and I urged him to try to work with the,
with the incoming Bush administration because I think the
partnership for the British and the Americans is important
it should transcend party politics and personal differences.

DIMBLEBY: But did you share your doubts about the
wisdom of invading…

CLINTON: Well I…

DIMBLEBY: …without a UN backing.

CLINTON: But here’s the problem Tony Blair faced.
Blair had a problem unique in Europe and that’s why I
went to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool and
defended him …he had a problem unique in Europe.

Britain, the UK, had been the bridge between the US in
Europe but when America moved to the right after the
2000 election there was nobody to be the bridge between
the US and Europe but the UK. Blair also believed as I
did that we had to open Iraq to inspections, which all the
rest of Europe agreed to after 9/11. They agreed with that.
And that if Saddam Hussein blocked the inspections and
didn’t finish, we should be prepared to attack. I agreed
with that.
So in other words I basically had the same position that
Prime Minister Blair did. That is, not where the Bush
administration was which is we want to attack anyway,
whether there’s weapons or not there and not where the
Europeans were, which is even if there are weapons there
or even if he won’t let the inspections proceed, he’s too
weak to do any harm. We’re helping America and the
world in Afghanistan, let’s don’t fight regardless.

So here was Blair stuck in the middle, same place I was.
And the ground that he wanted to stake out was
represented in the last gasp UN Resolution, if you
remember, that failed, it said let’s give him six more
weeks, or however much time it was, and it collapsed.
So Prime Minister Blair was left in an unenviable
position. He either had to go with the American position,
which he didn’t entirely agree with or go with the
European position, which he didn’t entirely agree with.

And in the end I believed he thought that there was still
some risk that Saddam had the weapons, that if he stayed
involved, he could have an impact on the post-Saddam
Iraq. But if he stayed involved, he could keep America
and Europe, closer together than they otherwise would
have been, and so he made the decision he did. I can’t
quarrel with that; he was in a very difficult position.

DIMBLEBY: But had it been you there, in the White
House or Al Gore there in the White House, this
wouldn’t have arisen, there wouldn’t have been an
invasion of Iraq on these terms.

CLINTON: No. But we might have had to invade
anyway. It would just depend on what happened – with
the wea, weapons inspection. But keep in mind, I had no
problem with that. I never liked Saddam Hussein, we
bombed him several times but I just didn’t think he was as
big a threat as Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and I was
more concerned with diverting and dividing our resources
until we had finished that job.

DIMBLEBY: But you back in the ‘60s over Vietnam
endorsed what your mentor at the time, Senator
Fulbright, said about American power. That ‘Nations
get in to trouble when they’re arrogant in use of power
and pursue a foreign policy rooted in missionary zeal’.
Did you wonder, do you wonder whether that’s what’s
happened with the use of American power in Iraq?

CLINTON: I think that all Americans felt a certain
missionary zeal after 9/11 and I think we can be forgiven
for feeling a little bit of that. But, my view is that we live
interdependent world, where lots of good and bad things
happen and that most of the problems of that world do not
readily lend themselves to unilateral solutions.

That is, if you are in an environment where you have
actual and potential adversaries, and you don’t want any
help in dealing with them, and you’d like to do whatever
you want to do. The first question you have to ask
yourself is a practical one. Is it possible for me to kill,
occupy or jail all these people. If the answer to that is no,
which it clearly is with the terrorist threat, then you need
two things. You need allies and you need politics. You
need in other words, a process for making war with more
partners than if you were a terrorist.

So that’s why I would, tilt more towards the multilateral
solutions and I don’t think it’s right to get rid of the
conflicts of test ban treaty or the climate change accord,
or the international criminal court or you know, all those
things where I am on a different, I have a different
analysis of this than most of the Republicans do.

DIMBLEBY: Towards the end of your period as
President, you came in your description, close to
achieving a peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Some people say you were rushing it a bit, others say
it’s an intractable position.

CLINTON: I’m convinced that if Rabin had not been
killed in late 1995, that by 1998 we would have had a
conference of agreement in the Middle East. On the other
hand, to be fair to all the other parties, the process, not the
product, the product in vision in the Middle East peace in
’93, was a Palestinian State that was predominantly but
not exclusively Arab Muslim and an Israel that was
predominantly but not exclusively Jewish. And the
process said look, we’ve been fighting all these years so
we’re going to take baby steps for a few years and then
when we get to the end we’ll take the big steps.

What happened was that all the baby steps, given the
changes and the challenges that both sides were facing,
almost made it harder to get to the big steps because Israel
had more and more immigrants coming in from the
former Soviet Union and North Africa, more and more
people in the settlements, so the compromises became
more difficult.

The Palestinians had more and more competition for the
hearts and minds, the PLO did, of the Palestinian people,
from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad. So one of the
things that by 1998 the Conservatives in Israel, the Likud
people, began to talk about is whether we should truncate
this step-by-step process and go right to the end and try
and get to the big issues.

DIMBLEBY: And at that point you seem to blame
Yasser Arafat for not being willing to make the leap.

CLINTON: (overlaps) Well I, I do believe he made a
terrible mistake and I think he admitted that by – within a
year or so after I left the White House, Yasser Arafat said
he wanted a peace agreement based on the parameters I
set out in late 2000. But by then, he had an Israeli public
who not longer trusted him and an Israeli government
who wouldn’t give it to him. So you’ve had all these
other peace agreements, peace efforts like this Geneva
Accord, you know where the Palestinians and the Israelis
met in Switzerland and there was another effort or two,
where they were just trying to fill in the blanks. There are
clearly, Israelis and Palestinians who want to make peace.

I think Arafat made a historical error, and I think he’s
acknowledged it, and now just the question is can we get
both sides back in to place where they can do what they
know what they have to do.

DIMBLEBY: But given the current hostility towards
the United States in the Middle East because of Iraq,
because of America’s support for Israel, do you think
that America can any longer act as a broker of that
peace?

CLINTON: Well, for one thing… The answer to that is
yes. For one simple reason; because Israel knows that
whether we have a Democrat or a Republican President,
that no matter what other things we fight about at home
and abroad, America is firmly, politically, and
emotionally committed to the survival of the State of
Israel. And no government can make a better deal for the
Palestinians who have been oppressed and abused and
ignored by everybody, including a lot of their Arab
brothers.

There is no deal to be made there by America or any other
country unless Israel believes the interlocutor has as a
bottom line condition the continued survival of the State
of Israel; so yes, I do, I think President Bush can make
some progress. I think after the next election, whoever
wins will be able to make some progress but I think that
also we have to fight for the legitimate aspirations of the
Palestinians.

I think the trick is to do both and you can do both as long
as the Israelis believe you’re going to be there for their
survival. I mean look at all the things I ask them to accept,
you know, the de facto 97% of the West Bank as a state,
all of the, the Temple Mount and the East Jerusalem and
half the old city as Al Quds, the Palestinian capital.

DIMBLEBY: The role of the President is to define
during his watch, America’s place in the world and
you have talked about crises coming at you all the
time. Would you agree that America’s response to
crises was very uneven, sent out an uncertain signal.
For instance you were prepared to use bombing raids
to save Kosovo, you weren’t prepared to lift a finger
for Rwanda, where eight hundred thousand people
were massacred in a genocide.

CLINTON: Well, I would agree to some extent that the
response was uneven, but I would not agree with the
characterisation of it. Let me try to give a serious answer
to that. It was predictably uneven because at the end of
the Cold War, we no longer had a bi-polar world. We
had to figure out how we were going to do what I thought
we should do. What I wanted America to do was to be the
world’s leading force for peace and freedom and security
and prosperity. Helping to integrate this interdependent
world in to a more effective global community.

At the same time, we had obligations that we had inherited
from before and we had limits on what we could do. We
didn’t go in to Bosnia as quickly as I wanted to, but that was
mostly because of initial European reluctance, so I was
trying to do two things; I was trying to end the slaughter of
the Bosnian War, but to do it in a way that would increase
European integration, and increase the trans-Atlantic
partnership and it took a couple of years to get that done and
a lot of people died in the mean time, but the major, the
death rate went way down in Bosnia, even before we started
bombing for the peace talks started. Cos we tried to do it in
a way that would put things together.

In Kosovo, all of the European allies were ready from the
beginning. I can’t say enough about them, it wasn’t just
an American operation. Everybody was ready to go, they
know what Milosevic was, they knew what he’d do, and
they went immediately. And that was, led to the end of
Milosevic.

In Northern Ireland what I did was controversial in Great
Britain in the beginning, but in the end, everybody knew
that I didn’t want to end the special relationship with the
UK, I wanted to use the Irish Diaspora in America to
leverage legitimate peace.

In Rwanda, it, as I say over and over again, it’s one of my
greatest regrets. But we look at it backwards and say, well
I had to know that seven or eight hundred thousand
people could be killed with machetes in ninety days, and
as far as I know, there’s no precedent for that in the
history of the world.

DIMBLEBY: But the Red Cross was warning that
this was happening at the time.

CLINTON: The Red Cross was warning, and that’s right.
And that’s right. And I acknowledge that I think perhaps
the greatest failure was - we did – none of us paid
sufficient attention to it. It is one of my greatest regrets
and I went to Rwanda and told them so. Eventually we
got in to the camps and we saved a lot of lives, but we
could have saved probably even with the delay it takes to
go there, we could have saved a couple of hundred
thousand more if we’d moved more quickly. I agree with
that.

I tried to never make that mistake in Africa again. There
is no question that I could have saved lives if I had
unilaterally gone in there, and we didn’t. I think partly
it was the bad experience of Somalia, partly it was the
preoccupation with Bosnia at the time. Partly it was the
preoccupation with Haiti at the time, where there was a lot
of mass slaughter going on, and we were trying to get in
there.

DIMBLEBY: One last thing, you talk about your
policies and how they’ve been altered and your
domestic policies, which we haven’t talked about, have
clearly been changed. Do you now look to a Kerry
victory to restore the domestic policies that you
introduced or will we have to wait for a second Clinton
presidency, in the form of President Hillary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, first of all I support John Kerry. He’s
a good man, he’s a good senator and I believe he’d be
quite a good President.

DIMBLEBY: Quite?

CLINTON: Very very good President. Quite a good
President, you don’t say that? I think he will, I think
he’d be an excellent President. I’ve got confidence not
only in his views but in the psychological strengths and
the experience he brings to the office; so I think that
would help. But the point I try to make in my book is
that no specific programmatic or policy decisions of any
administration are permanent.

What tends to endure are two things. One on an
individual level, were people’s lives improved or not, and
if so how. And secondly, in a directional level, did I take
the right direction toward the future because while this
period of debate is going on, there may be reversals of the
specific policies, but I’m still, I still believe that we have
no choice, but to move to an integrated world. We’ll have
to do it, and so I feel comfortable that I did what I could
for my country, and in the meanwhile, the way I always
kept score which is how are the little guys doing, I really
like to think about that. So I feel good about it.

DIMBLEBY: And President Hilary Clinton?

CLINTON: I don’t know, because we’ve – Hillary and I
have been in this business long enough to know you can’t
look to far down the road . Right now we’re focused on
this election and trying to help our guy. I can say this;
she has been a fabulous Senator, and if she ever had the
chance to serve, she’d be great. She’s – I’ve never known
anybody abler than her in public life, including me, ever.
She’s something truly special and I’m glad she’s in the
Senate and I hope she gets a chance to stay in public life.

DIMBLEBY: And they’d be getting two for the price
of one.

CLINTON: Yeah, we tried that before and it didn’t work
out so well. I think I’ll just pour tea. (Laughs)

DIMBLEBY: Mr President thank you.

CLINTON: Thanks. Actually, it did work out very well
for the country.

June 22, 2004

Fahrenhype

moorebush.jpg

Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!
The right wing is going all out to stop "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but it's not working
Damn but that's a great picture!
I think this is premium Salon. You can get a day pass to view it. This is a great read, dont' miss it. The right-wing is causing themselves more harm than good. If the article is correct the movie will be opening in 888 theaters. The initial figures I saw were 550-1000 then I saw some as low as 450. Even that would have been remarkable Columbine at its height was only showing on 200+ screens, but now in spite of or thanks to their efforts interest is growing .

Short is Tall and Tal was Short

Well the FIDE World Chess Championship is underway. We have an early upset. English Super-Grandmaster Nigel Short was upset by Polish Grandmaster Michal Krasenkow. I was watching Short play this morning on ICC. The members bantered about the game as it was played. Usually their comments are pretty stupid, but occasionally they are amusing.

Member 1: Hey, does anybody know how tall Short is?
Member 2: He is quite tall. Short is tall.
Member 3: Anyone know how short Tal is?
Member 2: Tal was short.
Member 1: So, Short is tall and Tal was short! Ha ha ha!

June 20, 2004

George Bush Knight-Errant Sans Generosity

An important principle of effective rational discussion is the principle of charity. Framing your opponents arguments and motives in the most positive light you can. So for the moment lets assume that George's motives are pure that he believes the reasons he gave for his adventure. That he has the best interests of all Americans at heart. That he believed that removing Saddam from power when and how he did was the right decision. The facts, contrary to the version we're hearing from the White House, is that all is not well. The Washington Post is currently running an excellent series on the subject. Mistakes Loom Large as Handover Nears. In reading the article I was reminded of Cervantes' Don Quixote. The Knight-Errant who travels the countryside righting wrongs in the name of God. Two incidents from his story come to mind when discussing the War on Terror and Iraq. At one point Don Quixote attacks a group of monks accompanying a corpse. He believes the corpse is that of a knight whose death he must avenge. He charges at the monks breaking the leg of one young man. Quixote introduces himself as a knight whose "occupation and profession" is to "wander the world righting wrongs and rectifying injuries" The young man points out to Don Quixote that he is mistaken, as he was just fine until Don Quixote came along and broke his leg. The leg will be "injured for the rest of my life; it was a great misadventure for me to run across a man who is seeking adventures", he said. A view, I believe a majority of Iraqis are sympathetic too. In an earlier incident, Don Quixote comes across Andres a boy who is being whipped by his master. Don Quixote fulfilling his "duty" sends the master on his way. Later Andres turns up again and informs Don Quixote that everything turned out "very differently from what your grace imagines" The master returned, he explained, and flogged him all the harder telling the boy what a fool he was making of Don Quixote. Andres leaves Don Quixote with some words of wisdom, that should he ever come upon him again, even if he's being beaten "don't help me and don't come to my rescue." This is the Quixote pattern, and this it seems is the George Bush pattern. He acts from what he believes are righteous motives, but in the end causes more harm than good. At the end of Cervantes story Don Quixote returns home to retire, to become a shepard. He denounces "all the profane histories of knight errantry..." In the end Quixote calls for Sancho Panza and asks for forgiveness for "making you fall into the error into which I fell, thinking that there were and are knights errant in the world" Sancho pleads with him not to die. Quixote lives a few more days and then gives up the ghost. I don't wish George Bush ill, but I would pray for an early return to the Crawford Ranch. He could return to become a shepherd as Quixote did or just chop wood. The world would be a safer place.

note: the idea for this piece was spawned by a chapter on Don Quixote in James Wood's book " The Irresponsible Self - On Laughter and the Novel"

June 19, 2004

Hypocrisy

Charley Reese's latest is about hypocrisy, ours, and he is spot on.


The biggest single problem the federal government has is its hypocrisy. It talks one way and acts another. It talks of spreading democracy while supporting dictators; it blathers about human rights while violating them; and it claims to promote the rule of law while scoffing at laws it considers inconvenient.
[snip]
This example is really funny. Who are our closest allies in the Islamic world? Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There's not a democracy in the bunch. The insanity of the neoconservative scheme to impose democracy on the Middle East is obvious. If today there were truly free elections in every Middle Eastern country, every one of them would elect an anti-American government.
[snip]
To put it plainly, our federal government does not live up to American ideals. Americans citizens, rather than acting like sheep, should vigorously insist that it do so. We must replace an unjust policy with a just policy and substitute sincerity for hypocrisy and propaganda.


That is the only way to make America secure. That is the only way to win the war against terrorists. Terrorists have never attacked us out of the blue for no rational reason. [emphasis mine]

Link

Fahrenheit 9/11 Interview

Here is a link to the David Letterman, Michael Moore interview (mp3 2.4MB approximately 11 minutes) June 18, 2004 about his Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary. Turn up the volume on your computer for the video or you may not be able to hear the sound.
update: There is a little dispute going on over at BlueB as to exactly what was said in one portion of the interview. Here is a link to a Quicktime Video of the disputed section, and here is the audio only of the same section

A Deer In The Headlights

You're at a photo op, reading a book with schoolchildren and an aide suddenly whispers that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center. "America is under attack."

Washington Post Staff Writer asks, "You're the president of the United States. What do you do?"

Presidential historian Robert Dallek of Boston University thinks Bush focused too much on appearances, rather than leaping into action.

"It speaks volumes about the preoccupation these politicians have about manipulating image," Dallek said yesterday. Bush should have immediately excused himself and started figuring out what was happening and what he could do. "The way to project calm and strength is to take care of business."

Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans, concurs: "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't. Minutes are an eternity in that sort of situation. . . . A quick presidential decision may save lives."

Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes. "It's made a little more complex by being in the presence of little kids," Greenstein said. "It certainly wouldn't present the right message if he turned white, rushed out, and kids started crying."

I think Mr. Dallek and Douglas Brinkley are closer to the truth than is Fred Greenstein. The most serious problem with Mr. Greenstein's view is that he presents a false dichotomy. The choices aren't between turning white, rushing out, and having the kids cry and sitting there for seven minutes. He could have quite easily just excused himself. There are any number of lines short of "holy shit we're under attack, we're under attack, its the fucking end of the world", he could have used that wouldn't have frightened the children. I suppose Dalek's view that it was a matter of manipulating image, and he could have made better choices is plausible. I personally believe it has to do with his leadership qualities under stress. One need only watch a George Bush press conference to know that he performs poorly when forced to rely on his own resources. Bad reactions to this particular crises would have been running out of the room screaming it's the end of the world, the end of the world, and what he did, sitting frozen, like a deer caught in the headlights of history.

A $12.00 Bottle of Wine

for everything else

Thanks Scott

June 18, 2004

Show Us The Proof

The New York Times calls Bush, Cheney and Company on their lies. Show us the proof they say. This is certain to generate a whole new round of lies, the Sunday talk shows ought to be entertaining


When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.


Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that "an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.

update: Specifically to Cheney put up or shut up

Bush Is A Post Turtle

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 70-year-old Texas rancher (whose hand had caught in a gate while working cattle), a doctor and the old man were talking about George W. Bush being in the White House.


The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'.


Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.


The old man said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."


The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued. "You know-- he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor bastard get down."

I think November 2nd should be declared national help the 'post turtle' ." day.

via Brian Leiter

June 17, 2004

Bush Vacations

Fahrenheit 9/11 another clip 1.2MB Quicktime from the movie showing George Bush on vacation. He spent a lot of time on vacation. It looks like he's having fun. Come November we can send him on vacation permanently.

Torture, This Won't Hurt Much

Once again we must thank the Monty Python crew for putting everything in perspective. First it was Eric Idle with the delightful FCC Song "Fuck You All So Very Much" and now Terry Jones puts are misgivings about torture in a proper perspective. Thanks guys.

For some time now, I've been trying to find out where my son goes after choir practice. He simply refuses to tell me. He says it's no business of mine where he goes after choir practice and it's a free country.

Now it may be a free country, but if people start going just anywhere they like after choir practice, goodness knows whether we'll have a country left to be free. I mean, he might be going to anarchist meetings or Islamic study groups. How do I know?

The thing is, if people don't say where they're going after choir practice, this country is at risk. So I have been applying a certain amount of pressure on my son to tell me where he's going. To begin with I simply put a bag over his head and chained him to a radiator. But did that persuade him? Does the Pope eat kosher?

My wife had the gall to suggest that I might be going a bit too far. So I put a bag over her head and chained her to the radiator. But I still couldn't persuade my son to tell me where he goes after choir practice.

I tried starving him, serving him only cold meals and shaving his facial hair off, keeping him in stress positions, not turning his light off, playing loud music outside his cell door - all the usual stuff that any concerned parent will do to find out where their child is going after choir practice. But it was all to no avail.

I hesitated to gravitate to harsher interrogation methods because, after all, he is my son. Then Donald Rumsfeld came to my rescue.

I read in the New York Times last week that a memo had been prepared for the defence secretary on March 6 2003. It laid down the strictest guidelines as to what is and what is not torture. Because, let's face it, none of us want to actually torture our children, in case the police get to hear about it.

The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith".

What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only "torture" if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else - such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice - then it is not torture.

Mr Rumsfeld's memo goes on: "a defendant" (by which he means a concerned parent) "is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control".

Couldn't be clearer. If your intention is to extract information, you cannot be accused of torture.

In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent "has a good-faith belief [that] his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture". So all you've got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn't think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy!


I currently have a lot of my son's friends locked up in the garage, and I'm applying electrical charges to their genitals and sexually humiliating them in order to get them to tell me where my son goes after choir practice.

Dick Cheney's counsel, David S Addington, says that's just fine. William J Haynes, the US defence department's general counsel, agrees it's just fine. And so does the US air force general counsel, Mary Walker.

In fact, practically everybody in the US administration seems to think it's just fine, except for the state department lawyer, William H Taft IV, who perversely claims that I might be opening the door to people applying electrical charges to my genitals and sexually humiliating me.

So I'm going to round up all the children in the neighbourhood, chain them and set dogs on them. I might accidentally kill one or two - but I won't have intended to - and perhaps I'll take some photos of my wife standing on the dead bodies, and then I'll show the photos to the other kids, and finally, perhaps, I might get to find out where my son goes after choir practice. After all, I'll only be doing what the US administration has been condoning since 9/11.

· Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python

link

Granny D for Senate!

Remember Doris "Granny D" Haddock. She was the 94-year-old woman who walked 3200 miles across America to promote campaign finance reform in 1999 and 2000. She is now running for the Senate in New Hampshire! John Nichols has more details here.

June 16, 2004

The Fight of Our Lives

The Fight of Our Lives is a superb speech by Bill Moyers. It is quite long, but well worth reading. Here is one gem among many from the article. Speeking about the influence of money on our democracy he said this:

It's why we're losing the balance between wealth and the commonwealth. It's why we can't put things right. And it is the single most destructive force tearing at the soul of democracy. Hear the great justice Learned Hand on this: "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: 'Thou shalt not ration justice.' " Learned Hand was a prophet of democracy. The rich have the right to buy more homes than anyone else. They have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more gizmos than anyone else, more clothes and vacations than anyone else. But they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else.

Good Cop, Bad Cop

There have been several articles in the press speculating about John McCain joining Kerry on a Unity ticket. McCain has been pretty clear that he does not want to do this and I don't think it will happen. But the thought of it makes me sick. It makes Ralph Nader's criticism that there is little difference between the two major parties look prescient. In fact, a Kerry/McCain ticket would remove any illusion we might have that there are two seperate parties. John Stauber has written an important article about this prospect that provides a warning to progressives not to let there guard down if Kerry wins the election.

Anyone who believes that the Republican far-right's ascendancy to power is going to fade away should Bush manage to lose in November is over-medicated. The powerful right-wing juggernaut constructed over the decades is just hitting its prime, politically. Sure, the Republicans are far to the right of most Americans on key issues such as tax fairness, health care, abortion rights and the environment. But that was true during the Reagan regime, too, and we've just had a non-stop, week-long, media love-in reminding us how little it mattered then or now that Reagan was way out of touch on policies, since his tough-love patriotic cowboy image still sells so well.

Bush may very well lose in November given his foreign policy disasters and growing questions over why 9/11 was not prevented. But there is very little indication that even a Bush defeat would be much of a speed bump for the Republican right's growing power. Until progressives in America roll up their sleeves and work to create real political power on the left in the sort of disciplined, long-term, visionary and well-funded way that worked for the Right, desperate ploys will accomplish nothing in the long term. Kerry/McCain anyone?

One thing that has mobilized the left more than anything is the Iraq War. I believe Bush and Cheney should be impeached for their lies. However, what will actually change when it comes to Iraq if Kerry is elected. Practically nothing. This is not to say that people in battleground states shouldn't vote for Kerry, it is just a warning to progressives not to let their guard down if Kerry should win the election. Republicans and Democrats play good cop, bad cop with the American people. If given a choice I will certainly take the good cop over the bad cop, but we must realize that they are both still on the side of their corporate paymasters.

UPDATE: I just came across this, this, and let's not forget that Kerry said, "I am not a redistribution Democrat." I am warning you now, don't be surprised or upset when Kerry's presidency (should he win) pisses you off. Then maybe we can get support for a real progressive party.

June 15, 2004

Mr Peepers Meets Godzilla

Mr. Peepers Meets Godzilla

What comes to mind when someone says Hannity and Colmes "Fair And Balanced" or the Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. Hardball's Chris Matthews and Al Franken have all the answers. 1.2MB requires Quicktime Here is an audio only link 275K
Here is an mp3 of the entire interview. 15 minutes 5.1MB

Click on continue reading for the transcript, but I'm telling you it is more fun listening to it.

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Here‘s more of my interview with Al Franken.  I began by asking Al why he believes talk radio is mostly more conservative. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANKEN:  Well, I think there‘s a couple of reasons for it.  But one of which is, to their credit, they did it.  And Rush did it.  And Rush did it about, what is it, 12, 13 years ago. 

And, you know, music was all going to FM.  And the AM spectrum was more abundant.  He...

MATTHEWS:  That‘s a weaker signal, isn‘t it, AM?  Why was it sitting there? 

FRANKEN:  I think it just—the music sounds better on FM.  So everyone is going to FM.  And he just created this thing, which is, you know...

MATTHEWS:  No guests, just him, for three hours, incredible power. 

FRANKEN:  Yes.  Unbelievable.  His format in radio is called non-guested confrontation. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

FRANKEN:  Literally.  That‘s the name of it. 

MATTHEWS:  Do you know why he has no guests?  He told me once.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN:  He doesn‘t like people? 

MATTHEWS:  No.  He was doing guests for years and not making it in the business.  He finally went up to Sacramento and he couldn‘t get any guests up there, because they all go to San Francisco.  They‘re doing the book tour.  They go to San Francisco. 

FRANKEN:  Right. 

MATTHEWS:  So he made the best of a bad thing.  He said, you know what?  If I‘m not going to get any guests, I‘m going to write the show, because guests distract me. 

FRANKEN:  Right. 

MATTHEWS:  They just want to sell books, push causes.  I want to tell people what I think is in the news.  And it‘s pretty smart, how he handled this.

FRANKEN:  There‘s something to be said for that, but we have a lot of guests.  I can‘t do what he does. 

MATTHEWS:  You can‘t talk for three hours straight. 

FRANKEN:  I haven‘t tried it yet.  I don‘t think I—I also don‘t—

I‘m not a bloviator in the way that he is. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

FRANKEN:  I also—I do think that he distorts the truth and says offensive things and lies a lot. 

MATTHEWS:  But other than that, he‘s a talented man.

FRANKEN:  But—yes, yes.

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you this about this.  My theory—and let me run this by you. 

FRANKEN:  Yes. 

MATTHEWS:  Because you‘re on the air and you‘ve learned this.

My theory is the people that are listening to radio during the day—not in drive time.  Everybody is drive time. 

FRANKEN:  Right. 

MATTHEWS:  But, during the day, they tend to be salespeople.  They tend to be people that have to make sales budgets.  They have to work out there.  They‘re out there all by themselves.  They‘re lonely a little bit.  There‘s nobody really with them, except the boss calling up once in a while, have you made your quota?

The wife and kids don‘t really respect what they do.  They don‘t get it, how much hard work they put in. 

FRANKEN:  So you‘re making a case, this is...

MATTHEWS:  And I make the case that he supports them.  He talks about feminazis.  He talks about the enemy.  He always builds up basically the working guy, the Willy Loman in the car, the guy trying to make his quota.  He says, you‘re the good guy.  You‘re the guy pulling the train out there.

And that‘s why they like him.  He‘s a support group.

FRANKEN:  I think that‘s a theory that sounds good. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, what is it?  Well what do you think? 

FRANKEN:  I know from our audience, and, as I‘m saying this is—I don‘t know the radio business yet as well as I should. 

But from what I can tell from the people who are blogging in and calling, that we‘re actually getting a different audience than the normal talk radio audience.  We‘re getting a younger audience. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Are they turning you on in their home? 

FRANKEN:  No.  They‘re at the office.  There are a lot of people streaming at the office. 

MATTHEWS:  What, are they screwing around?  Why are they listening to the radio instead of working? 

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN:  They can do both. 

MATTHEWS:  You‘re like that guy that Kevin Spacey played in “American Beauty,” just sitting around, screwing around, wasting time. 

FRANKEN:  Some people do it at the office.  But I think there are some people who have the kinds of tasks that you can listen to the radio. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes, I realize.  If you‘re running a diner, for example, you like a little stimulation, conversation.

FRANKEN:  Yes.  If you‘re a craftsman. 

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

FRANKEN:  We have an incredible number of craftsmen. 

MATTHEWS:  If you work in auto body shop, it wouldn‘t hurt to have some intellectual stuff coming in your head.

FRANKEN:  No.  No.  And they‘re very liberal, auto body shops. 

MATTHEWS:  Really? 

FRANKEN:  No.  I don‘t know. 

MATTHEWS:  But office workers, it would seem you have to have your head trained on the paper in front of you, the screen in front of you. 

FRANKEN:  You would think. 

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS:  You‘re draining off that value added, that marginal utility of the working force.  You‘re lowering their efficiency.

FRANKEN:  Yes.  Productivity is going down every day. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Every day your market goes up, every day your rating goes up, a little less production.

FRANKEN:  No.  We have people—we had a guy today call in from Tennessee.  And we heard roosters.  So he was at home.  He was retired. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

FRANKEN:  And he was a veteran.  And I said, is that a rooster?  And he said, yes.  And his name was Billy Bob.  So we have the Billy Bobs. 

MATTHEWS:  Are you getting that rural audience? 

FRANKEN:  We‘re getting people from all over the place.  And I guess it‘s from streaming.  And streaming is getting it on the Internet.  I know that you‘re...

MATTHEWS:  I don‘t know that

(CROSSTALK)  

FRANKEN:  Yes, I know that you‘re...

MATTHEWS:  Cable.

FRANKEN:  Yes, you just—you don‘t know anything about it.  The Internet is this big thing.  It‘s a huge thing. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Here‘s my knock on radio.  All day long, basically, you get one point of view.  It‘s basically ditto-heads.  Look, I get along.  I understand this stuff.  But it‘s basically one point of view.

FRANKEN:  Well, that‘s why we‘re on. 

MATTHEWS:  But suppose you had a real debate show and it was you against Rush for like two or three hours.  Would that work?  And would it get an audience for it, an honest debate of two smart people going at each other?  Would that work on radio?  And why doesn‘t it get tried, so you hear both sides all day long?  Do people not want both sides? 

FRANKEN:  I don‘t know.  That would be an interesting show.  And I don‘t know if anyone is doing it.  I think that there are little shows that do that. 

MATTHEWS:  Remember the old days, like Gore Vidal fighting it out, duking it out with Bill Buckley? 

FRANKEN:  Well, remember, we used to also have—we had a law saying that you had to...

MATTHEWS:  Equal time. 

FRANKEN:  Give equal time.

MATTHEWS:  The fairness doctrine, yes. 

FRANKEN:  Yes, the fairness doctrine.  And then that went away.  And that opened it up obviously for Rush, too.  Once the fairness doctrine went away, you didn‘t have to offer equal time. 

MATTHEWS:  But remember Nicholas Von Hoffman fighting it out with James J. Kilpatrick on “60 Minutes”?  There was great debates in the old days. 

FRANKEN:  Yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  I just wonder if it would work.  I‘m not sure would it work, because I think some people want to hear it from one side.

FRANKEN:  They have “Hannity & Colmes.”

MATTHEWS:  Yes, I don‘t count that among the...

FRANKEN:  Yes, I don‘t either.  But there‘s a couple reasons for that and maybe I won‘t go into them.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  No, actually, it‘s almost like the old—what do you call it? 

FRANKEN:  Harlem Globetrotters?

MATTHEWS:  No, it‘s the Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. 

The Washington Generals are supposed to stay within 15 and always lose. 

FRANKEN:  Yes. 

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN:  I mean, actually, this is something I‘ve learned about their format is that they‘re not allowed to argue with each other. 

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN:  No, really.

MATTHEWS:  Is that right?

FRANKEN:  Yes.  Yes.  I‘m talking to Alan about this, because I say, why don‘t you—and he said, well, that‘s not our format.  We‘re not allowed to argue with each other. 

MATTHEWS:  The format is, you lose? 

FRANKEN:  No, the format is, they have a right-wing-movement conservative who is willing to lie, Sean, and a kind of reasonable Milquetoasty, middle-of-the-road, moderately liberal guy. 

MATTHEWS:  What, Mr. Peepers meets Godzilla?  That‘s the format?

FRANKEN:  Well, it‘s a guy who—it‘s the oddest combination.  And then they call it fair and balanced. 

And, also, Alan is forced to read things like, what is Kerry up to and why are people mad at him about it?  We‘ll be checking in.  I‘m the liberal. 

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS:  Hey, that‘s great

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  We love you.  Anyway, thank you. 

FRANKEN:  Thank you. 

MATTHEWS:  Al Franken, you will take on anybody.  Thank you very much, Al Franken.  Good luck with more success.

FRANKEN:  Thank you.

MSNBC Transcript

No More Than Dogs

Iraq Abuse Torture 'Ordered From the Top'
BBC

In the America I know, no humans are like dogs. No, this is not the America I know, but it is George Bush's America.

He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them.
-- General Karpinski


    The US commander at the centre of the Iraqi prisoner scandal says she was told to treat detainees like dogs.

    Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others.

    Top US commander for Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez, should be asked what he knew about the abuse, she told BBC Radio 4's On The Ropes programme. It's my understanding that it will only be available on the BBC for one week, and is only available with Real Player. Thanks to Nick at taliesin's log for the heads up on this excellent interview.

Goethe

"No one is more a slave than the one who thinks he is free without being free."
— Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Lichtenberg and the Little Flower Girl

Lichtenberg and the Little Flower Girl by Gert Hofmann translated by Michael Hofmann. You really ought to read this book. It is the best fiction I've read in a very long time.
"Lichtenberg laid his book on his middle table. He pushed it around this way and that, until it was lying comfortably.."

Eighteen

Mary-Kate and Ashely Turn 18 by Josh Abraham

mk.jpgash.jpg Happy birthday, Mary-Kate!

: I’m Ashley, you stupid head.
: Wait, I thought I was Ashley!
: You dyed your hair brown to tell us apart.
: Oh yeah, I forgot! See, when I look at you, I can’t see my hair, so that’s why I mix us up...

Oh I almost forgot there is an appearance by Deadwood's Al Swearengen.
al.jpg

I'm just guessing here but I'll bet ninety percent of you follow the link.

June 14, 2004

Cowardly Court Fails to Decide Merits of Pledge Case

The US Supreme Court has allowed the unconstitutional pledge to continue without actually ruling on the merits of the case. The case was dismissed on a technicality. Read about it here. I suspect that the court was happy to find this technicality. Pledge defenders don't have an argumentative leg to stand on, but removing "under god" from the pledge is too scary a proposition for the conservative members of the court. Cowards.

George Fucking Bush

I'm beginning to believe that it is George F. Bush not George W. Bush. Our president is loved all over the world. I'm constantly finding new songs about him. Here is one I recently discovered from Sweden. George Fucking Bush by Dasse This is a low bit rate mp3 (912K) a higher bit rate version is available here

June 13, 2004

26 More Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

"A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November."

link

We Must Lift the Barriers that Stand in the Way of Science

Kerry calls for lifting the ban on federal funding for stem cell research.

"The medical discoveries that come from stem cell are crucial next steps in humanity’s uphill climb," Kerry closed. "And part of this nation’s greatness lies in the fact that we have led the world in great medical discoveries, with our breakthroughs and our beliefs going hand-in-hand. If we pursue the limitless potential of our science – and trust that we can use it wisely – we will save millions of lives and earn the gratitude of future generations."

link

We're Still in Charge

Calvin Trillin
THE UNITED STATES
DESCRIBES THE WONDERS
OF SOVEREIGNTY TO
THE IRAQI PEOPLE

You'll have a government real soon.
You'll see democracy writ large.
We promised sovereignty. It's yours.
And worry not: We're still in charge

June 12, 2004

George Bush's America

General Granted Latitude At Prison
Abu Ghraib Used Aggressive Tactics
Aggressive tactics(torture), latitude(have fun), I can't believe the headline the Washington Post used. These are serious violation of the Geneva Convention. The words they need are torture, horrific, outrageous and last but not least criminal . This gets uglier by the day. Will Sanchez be the sacrificial lamb? The entire fucking Bush Administration should resign. This is not the America I know, but it is George W. Bush's America.

abu.ghraib.jpg

More here: Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'"

Another good reason not to torture: Link

Not A Mandate

Ron, I believe, for George W. Bush in his eulogy of his father.

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.
ron.jpg


Continue reading for the transcript of his remarks.

Ron Reagan Jr.'s remarks at the funeral of Ronald Reagan

June 12, 2004  |  Text of remarks by Ron Reagan Jr. at Friday's burial service for former President Reagan, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:


RON REAGAN JR.: He is home now. He is free. In his final letter to the American people, Dad wrote, "I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life." This evening, he has arrived.


History will record his worth as a leader. We here have long since measured his worth as a man. Honest, compassionate, graceful, brave. He was the most plainly decent man you could ever hope to meet.


He used to say, "A gentleman always does the kind thing." And he was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. A gentle man.


Big as he was, he never tried to make anyone feel small. Powerful as he became, he never took advantage of those who were weaker. Strength, he believed, was never more admirable than when it was applied with restraint. Shopkeeper, doorman, king or queen, it made no difference, Dad treated everyone with the same unfailing courtesy. Acknowledging the innate dignity in us all.


The idea that all people are created equal was more than mere words on a page, it was how he lived his life. And he lived a good, long life. The kind of life good men lead. But I guess I'm just telling you things you already know.


Here's something you may not know, a little Ronald Reagan trivia for you, his entire life, Dad had an inordinate fondness for earlobes. Even as a boy, back in Dixon, Ill., hanging out on a street corner with his friends, they knew that if they were standing next to Dutch, sooner or later, he was going to reach over and grab hold of their lobe, give it a workout there. Sitting on his lap watching TV as a kid, same story. He would have hold of my ear lobe. I'm surprised I have any lobes left after all of that.


And you didn't have to be a kid to enjoy that sort of treatment. Serving in the Screen Actors Guild with his great friend William Holden, the actor, best man at his wedding, Bill got used to it. They would be there at the meetings, and Dad would have hold of his earlobe. There they'd be, some tense labor negotiation, two big Hollywood movie stars, hand in earlobe.


He was, as you know, a famously optimistic man. Sometimes such optimism leads you to see the world as you wish it were as opposed to how it really is. At a certain point in his presidency, Dad decided he was going to revive the thumbs-up gesture. So he went all over the country, of course, giving everybody the thumbs up.


Doria (Ron Reagan Jr.'s wife) and I found ourselves in the presidential limousine one day returning from some big event. My mother was there and Dad was, of course, thumbs-upping the crowd along the way, and suddenly, looming in the window on his side of the car, was this snarling face. This fellow was reviving an entirely different hand gesture. And hoisted an entirely different digit in our direction. Dad saw this and without missing a beat turned to us and said, "You see? I think it's catching on."


Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.


Humble as he was, he never would have assumed a free pass to heaven. But in his heart of hearts, I suspect he felt he would be welcome there. And so he is home. He is free.


Those of us who knew him well will have no trouble imagining his paradise. Golden fields will spread beneath a blue dome of a western sky. Live oaks will shadow the rolling hillsides. And someplace, flowing from years long past, a river will wind toward the sea. Across those fields, he will ride a gray mare he calls Nancy D. They will sail over jumps he has built with his own hands. He will, at the river, carry him over the shining stones. He will rest in the shade of the trees.


Our cares are no longer his. We meet him now only in memory. But we will join him soon enough. All of us. When we are home. When we are free.

June 11, 2004

Blair Next, Ready For Bush Slime

Michael Moore: Blair, you're next

"I personally hold Blair more responsible for this war in Iraq than I do George Bush, and the reason is Blair knows better. Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around
this guy?" Moore told Reuters in an interview.

He likened Blair to an older sibling of Bush's and said that, as a parent, when two children get in trouble, the parent usually questions the older one as to how he or she could let such a problem occur.
Meanwhile, Moore said he has steeled himself for efforts by Bush supporters to discredit his film, which he said is already happening with attacks on his website and in newspapers amid the current campaign for the White House.

[snip]

To counteract efforts challenging "Fahrenheit 9/11," he has hired Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani, two former political advisers to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, to establish a "war room" that will immediately support any claims made in the movie that come under attack.


The group, he said, will be staffed by six to seven people and will operate 24 hours a day, monitoring newscasts and scanning newspapers, magazines and other publications for
statements made discrediting the movie.


"You come at me with anything, we come back with the truth," Moore said.

Moore, who said he is registered as an independent voter, has yet to throw his support behind presumed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

He said the movie is not an effort to support Kerry's White House bid, and said that if Kerry were elected, "I'd keep my eye on him, too."

Democratic National Convention

Why post a link to the Democratic National Convention I'll let Kos explain it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Movie Poster

fahrenheit_911_poster.jpg

Rorty Reviews Wolin

Link
review
Philosophical Convictions
by Richard Rorty

Philosophers get attention only when they appear to be doing something sinister--corrupting the youth, undermining the foundations of civilization, sneering at all we hold dear. The rest of the time everybody assumes that they are hard at work somewhere down in the sub-basement, keeping those foundations in good repair. Nobody much cares what brand of intellectual duct tape is being used.

The public becomes incensed, however, when rogue philosophers come upstairs, buttonhole the tenants and tell them that there really are no foundations--that their industrious colleagues are just providing "bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct" (F.H. Bradley's description of metaphysics). Every anti-foundationalist movement within philosophy produces a spate of books by nonphilosophers denouncing "the treason of the intellectuals" (the title of Julien Benda's 1927 attack on the pernicious influence of thinkers such as Henri Bergson and William James).

Books about this sort of treason have proliferated in the United States and Britain in the past decade. This is because post-Nietzschean European philosophy has become increasingly popular in the English-speaking world. No graduate student in literature, history or political theory in an American or British university can afford to be ignorant of Foucault. For a time, deconstructing texts--that is, trying to sound as much like Derrida as possible while not actually engaging with any philosophical issues--was all the rage in the literature departments. Deconstruction is no longer in fashion, but Derrida is still, deservedly, admired.

These two original and influential French thinkers agree that Nietzsche was right to reject Plato's attempt to demonstrate rationally that some moral and political values are better grounded in the nature of things than others. When Derrida and Foucault were students, they assimilated and accepted Martin Heidegger's story about how Western philosophy began with Plato and ended with Nietzsche. They were convinced by Heidegger's books that we should stop trying to "ground" Western institutions in something august and ahistorical. They regretted both the "superman" passages in Nietzsche--the ones that the Nazis made such good use of--and Heidegger's admiration for Hitler. But these regrets did not diminish their admiration for the two men's philosophical achievements.

Richard Wolin thinks that it is not as easy as all that to separate the conduct of a philosopher from the utility of his ideas, or his moral character from his teachings. A distinguished intellectual historian who teaches at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Wolin believes that the prevalence of "slack postmodernist relativism" is very dangerous. "The postmodern left," he says, "risks depriving democracy of valuable normative resources at an hour of extreme historical need." His book seeks to demonstrate that "at a certain point postmodernism's hostility towards 'reason' and 'truth' is intellectually untenable and politically debilitating." Many of the essays that make up the book focus on the dubious--and sometimes appalling--political stances adopted by eminent post-Nietzschean thinkers. Wolin argues that their political attitudes are closely bound up with their anti-foundationalist philosophical views.


Wolin has an easy time showing that fans of Nietzsche and Heidegger have said stupid and irresponsible things about democracy. But he does not do much to show that the stupidities follow from their philosophies, nor that those philosophies are untenable. To do the latter, he would have to argue in defense of specific philosophical claims--those that constitute what he thinks of as democracy's "normative resources." He leaves it pretty vague what a "normative resource" might be, and how such resources are put to use in political deliberation.

Postmodernism, Wolin says, is "the rejection of the intellectual and cultural assumptions of modernity in the name of 'will to power' (Nietzsche), 'sovereignty' (Bataille), an 'other beginning' (Heidegger), 'différance' (Derrida) or a 'different economy of bodies and pleasures' (Foucault)." So one expects him to enumerate "the intellectual and cultural assumptions of modernity" and show why they should not be rejected. But Wolin seems to assume that his readers already know what these assumptions are, and are disposed to take rejection of them as a reductio ad absurdum of a philosopher's outlook.

Sometimes, however, he goes out on a philosophical limb, as when he says that Derrida's "criticism of the modern natural law tradition--the normative basis of the contemporary democratic societies"--leaves us with a "'political existentialism,' in which, given the 'groundless' nature of moral and political choice, one political 'decision' seems almost as good as another." In such passages as these, Wolin endorses the old Platonic argument to the effect that if there is nothing "out there" (the Platonic forms, the will of God, natural law) that makes our moral judgments true, there is no point in forming such judgments at all.

Plato argued along the following lines: Truth is a matter of correspondence to reality. Propositions are made true by things that are as they are, independent of human desires and decisions. This goes for propositions like "Kindness is better than cruelty" as much as for those like "Annapurna is west of Everest." Relations of moral preferability are no more up to us to decide than are spatial relations between mountains. The claim about kindness is as obviously true as the one about Annapurna, and so there must be something out there (something metaphysical, something that philosophers know more about than most people) that makes it true. If you deny that there is anything like that, the Platonist argument goes, you are denying that there is a rational way to choose between Athens and Sparta (or, as we moderns would say, between Social Democrats and Nazis). To agree with Protagoras and Nietzsche that "man is the measure of all things" is, Wolin thinks, to reduce the choice of democracy over fascism to a matter of taste.

The most dubious premise in this argument is the one that says that truth is correspondence to reality. As everybody who has ever taken a philosophy class knows, it is hard to specify what the correspondence relation is supposed to be. What, for example, does "There are no unicorns" correspond to? What entities make "There are infinitely many transfinite cardinal numbers" true? If you do not believe in the mysterious things that Plato called "the Forms," what exactly is it that you think moral truths are made true by? And anyway, why are claims about the existence of truth-makers such as the Forms, or "natural law," supposed to be more evidently true than the intuitive moral judgments they are used to ground? Could we ever become more convinced of the truth of a metaphysical theory than we already are of the truth of those judgments?

Most students emerge from the philosophy courses in which such questions as these are debated with their instinctive Platonism intact, just as most Christians retain their religious convictions after having read Hume's Dialogues on natural religion. But those who have been plunged into doubt frequently turn to Nietzsche or Heidegger, hoping to find out how things look after you give up the correspondence theory of truth. They could accomplish the same purpose by turning to William James or John Dewey. But the American pragmatists lack pizazz. Strident and scornful anti-Platonists like Nietzsche attract more readers than jocular and easygoing ones like James. Heidegger's apocalyptic-sounding announcements of "the end of philosophy" sound more impressive than Dewey's mild-mannered suggestions that philosophy should be less ambitious and less pretentious than in the past.

Nietzsche and Heidegger thought that once one rejected the Platonic claim to provide rational foundations for moral truth, all things would need to be made new. Culture would have to be reshaped. James and Dewey, by contrast, did not think that giving up the correspondence theory of truth was all that big a deal. They wanted to debunk it, and so help get rid of Platonist rationalism, but they did not think that doing so would make that much difference to our self-image or to our social practices. The superstructure, they thought, would still be in good shape even after we stopped worrying about the state of the foundations. Democracy could be adequately defended by empirical, nonmetaphysical arguments of the sort Churchill offered when he said that it was "the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It did not need "normative resources."

Wolin does not discuss whether James and Dewey might have been right when they urged that democracy and modernity could get along nicely without any philosophical foundations, and that the thing to do with metaphysics was to mock it, rather than refurbish or refute it. Wolin views Enlightenment politics as inseparable from Enlightenment rationalism, whereas James and Dewey did their best to keep the one while discarding the other.

Wolin is at his best when he deals with the proponents of anti-foundationalist arguments rather than with the arguments themselves. He is more interested in what kinds of people they were, and in which political movements made use of them, than in what they said in defense of their paradoxical-sounding claims about reason and truth. Much of his book tell us of the bad behavior of such men as Carl Jung, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Maurice Blanchot and Georges Bataille. He frequently says such things as that "Gadamer's wartime conduct cannot help but raise critical questions about his philosophy and its relationship to its times." But he rarely follows through by explaining just why one cannot peel off a certain philosopher's conduct from his opinions. He seems to think that any thinker who has displayed either hypocrisy or self-deception is unlikely to have any ideas worth adopting.

Wolin is very good at digging up the dirt on famous European thinkers. He does a fine job of describing how their doctrines were put to use by different bad guys at different times--how, for example, "a critique of reason, democracy and humanism that originated on the German Right during the 1920s was internalized by the French Left." That is an admirable summary of one of the strangest turns in twentieth-century European intellectual life. But, though he protests that his book is "not an exercise in guilt-by-association," that description is actually pretty close to the mark. Wolin neglects the question of why the figures he discusses held the views they did in favor of an account of the uses to which they were put.

Wolin thinks, rightly, that if you understand the sociopolitical contexts in which a philosophical view was formulated, and the factors that account for its reception, you will be in a better position to decide whether to adopt it. Still, the best sort of intellectual history is the kind that pays equal attention to the company a philosophical doctrine keeps and to the arguments deployed in its defense. One book that does just that, and that treats of the same figures as Wolin's, is Jürgen Habermas's magisterial The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Wolin's polemic against postmodernism is spirited and informative, and his heart is in the right place. But though Habermas shares Wolin's doubts about postmodernism and his sympathies with traditional rationalism, his book does something Wolin's does not: It helps one understand why most of the important philosophers of the twentieth century grew skeptical about foundation-building and foundation-repairing projects. Readers who are stimulated, but puzzled, by Wolin's account of the matter would do well to go on to Habermas's.

June 10, 2004

You Do This For Shock Value

hannityralls.jpg
Click here

World of Crap called it The Psycho Pot From Hell's Tirade Against the Kettle and wrote:

You are mean. You are cruel. You are thoughtless, and you are a hateful human being. You don't have a soul. And you don't care about anybody but yourself.


And you do this for shock value so that your name could be noticed. You're a slob. You're an absolutely -- you're a hateful human being to do this to families that are suffering.


There's no excuse for it. There's no rationale for what you're doing. You're mean, cruel and thoughtless.


-- Sean Hannity offering some constructive criticism of Ted Rall's mean-spirited piece about Ronald Reagan.

Ted's reply: "Well, there you go again, Sean."

Some Evidence of Discrimination Against Atheists

The lack of studies on this matter makes it difficult to establish what I believe to be true. However, Margaret Downey presents some evidence in this article. She says she has compiled hundreds of incidence reports describing descrimination. Here is an example.

Gray, Tennessee: Carletta Sims joined a financial firm in June 2001. Shortly afterward, two Baptist coworkers took offense upon learning that Sims was an atheist. Management granted the coworkers’ request to be assigned workspaces further from Sims. When Sims complained about a picture of Jesus left on her computer, management discharged her. Sims filed suit, seeking $250,000; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hull ruled that “religious discrimination (or preferential treatment of Christians) can be inferred.” In January 2004, the major bank that had since acquired the firm settled with Sims for an undisclosed amount.

Downey lists several other incidencts of this sort in the article.

The Nation in Jeopardy

duh.jpg
What is, duh

June 9, 2004

Jelly Beans

Don't miss Mark Fiore's latest
reaganesque.jpg
Click here or the picture

Status

Should a plumber be paid as much as a university professor? Perhaps he should. Julian Baginni helps us cure our obsession with status.

Americans Are Fucking Nuts

I explain American insanity by a gene pool fouled with the heavy, early migration of Puritans, mentally disturbed fanatics if we accept the rather detailed historical record in Europe, plus the immense stresses of a society run along strict principles of Social Darwinism. An almost unqualified admiration for greed now dominates American culture.

Its actions in the world too often resemble those of an ugly drunk pushing his way into your living room and puking all over the carpet.


By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

(YellowTimes.org) -- It's always satisfying to have a pet theory supported by new data. A large and authoritative study, just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, confirms a favorite hypothesis of mine that there is more mental illness and insanity, far more, in America than you find in other advanced societies.

The study, led by a Harvard Medical School researcher, found evidence of mental problems in 26.4% of people in the United States, versus, for example, 8.2% of people in Italy. The researchers were concerned with matters such as lack of access to treatment and under-treatment, but for those concerned about a safe and decent world, I think the salient finding is simply America's high percentage. The world is being led by a nation where more than one-quarter of the people have genuine mental problems.

The finding is strangely both comforting and disturbing.

It is comforting because it helps explain why Americans continue supporting a man proven wrong every time he opens his mouth, a man who has de-stabilized parts of the world in the name of creating stability, a man claiming sound business principles who has pitched the United States into deficit free-fall, and a man who arouses suspicion and fear throughout the world.

The study is comforting, too, because it helps explain an opposition candidate like John Kerry. How can liberals generate excitement over this stale, fly-buzzed doughnut of a candidate? I suppose the same way they get excited every time Bush's polls dip by something little more than statistical noise. Perhaps the same way a man like Michael Moore -- who makes gobs of money playing to the suspicions and prejudices of the paranoid segment of America's great political market -- could so eagerly embrace a crypto-Nazi like General Wesley Clark as "his candidate"?

The finding is comforting in explaining all those Americans shocked and appalled over The New York Times' recent apology for its drum-beating, pre-invasion coverage of Iraq's non-existent weapons. Here is a newspaper that, more often than not, comes down on the wrong side of human rights, always protects Establishment interests, always ignores abuses until they can no longer be ignored, and yet it somehow retains a reputation in America as guardian of treasured values and as the nation's newspaper of record.

Well, the "record" part is easily explained, since The Times often takes one position before an event and another after, adjusting its emphasis according to shifts in public opinion or facts discovered by someone else. With that kind of coverage, you surely do qualify as some kind of paper of record.

But nothing could be a bigger nonsense than The Times' reputation as guardian of values in a free society. Just ask Wen Ho Lee, or Richard Jewell, or the woman who accused a Kennedy of rape, or all the people who died unnecessarily at the Bay of Pigs. Go back and examine The Times at key points in the communist witch hunts or at the outbreak of the Korean War. Go back and examine its views and emphasis when President Johnson offered his Hitler-like lies about the Gulf of Tonkin. Go back and see how often The Times has done any real investigative journalism -- when it mattered, not in retrospect -- about subjects as vital as the FBI's huge abuse of power during the 1960s or the shameful backgrounds of many of the country's leading politicians. Just examine the statements of the paper's signature columnist, Thomas Friedman, who sounds like Henry Ford condemned to bizarre re-incarnation as one of the Jews he so hated.

But the finding also is quite disturbing. America, for many years to come, will dominate world affairs. The world will continue to be treated as though it were the backyard sandbox of the Bushes, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Liebermans, Kerrys, Albrights and other privileged, selfish, and not particularly well-informed American Establishment figures.

I explain American insanity by a gene pool fouled with the heavy, early migration of Puritans, mentally disturbed fanatics if we accept the rather detailed historical record in Europe, plus the immense stresses of a society run along strict principles of Social Darwinism. An almost unqualified admiration for greed now dominates American culture. Yes, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" involved self-interest, but go back and read that thoughtful and compassionate philosopher and compare what he says to the chimpanzee screams we hear from America.

As to the stresses in American society, I refer not only to the struggle of individuals to survive there, but to the fact that the whole story of America has been one of unremitting aggression. It is the story of "a pounding fist," as Tennessee Williams' Big Daddy described himself.

Had America somehow come to be in Europe, its story would most closely parallel that of Germany and its long, belligerent effort to dominate the continent. It is only because so much of America's aggression has been against what seemed lightly settled places -- the Ohio Valley, the Great Plains, Canada, Mexico, and Hawaii -- that people think any differently about it. Other places were not so lightly settled, and opposition in places like the Philippines was crushed with great bloodshed.

My criticism of the United States is not concerned with how it wishes to order its own society, but about how its activities spill over into the rest of the world. Its actions in the world too often resemble those of an ugly drunk pushing his way into your living room and puking all over the carpet.

Iraq provides a textbook example. The net effect of the invasion of Iraq is a badly de-stabilized country, now full of people who resent Americans for their brutality and arrogance, where once there were undoubtedly many who dreamily admired America at a distance. Saudi Arabia also has been de-stabilized, as many warned Bush that it would be before he set his crusaders marching. Many old friends and allies, like France or Canada, have been stupidly abused for offering sound advice and declining to join the march to hell. Tony Blair's pathetic rag of a government hangs by threads after working against the clear wishes of the British people, and Blair has found the voice he thought he had earned in the councils of war arrogantly dismissed by Bush and his fanatics. Israel's state-terror in the West Bank and Gaza, cheerily accepted by Bush (and Kerry), has risen to nightmarish levels, and if you think that has no connection with all the hatred for America in the world, you are either foolish or qualify as part of the more than one-quarter of Americans who need professional help.

Oil prices are high and unstable, as are American deficits. International security arrangements, those things so loved by police-mentalities but which have never been known to stop real bad guys, are becoming stupidly cumbersome and heavy-handed. Yet America still supports Bush, no matter what its small tribe of liberals chooses to believe. Knowing America's record on small tribes, I suppose it's healthy self-interest to pretend enthusiasm for tiny dips in Bush's polls and for an alternative as insipid and meaningless as John Kerry.

While I am glad for the confirmation of my hypothesis, I can't help feeling, as with so many studies, this one does little more than confirm the painfully obvious.

[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the government embarked on the murder of millions of Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

John Chuckman encourages your comments: chuckman@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated

June 8, 2004

Three Must Reads

You really don't want to miss any of these posts.

Why Did the Chicken cross the Road? Juan Cole via a friend in Baghdad.

The Price is Right scroll down a bit for a piece of Americana

The Wolves of Yellowstone Fascinating only begins to describe it.

The Republicans want to link George and Ronny this cartoon from Steve Bell suggests a way I could support.

Democracy Bush Style

US bans cleric from Iraq elections

Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, signed an order stating that, with immediate effect, members of illegal militias "will be barred from holding political office for three years after leaving their illegal organisation".

Even if Mr Sadr disbanded his Mahdi Army in the next few weeks it would be too late for him to join Iraq's political process and contest the elections, due in January.

Just when you think the administration is getting its act together they dispel any illusions you may have. How fucking stupid are they? They simply refuse to give up the goal of Iraq as client state of the United States with predictable results.

Juan Cole puts it well:

Bremer's action in excluding the Sadrists from parliament is one final piece of stupidity to cap all the other moronic things he has done in Iraq. The whole beauty of parliamentary governance is that it can hope to draw off the energies of groups like the Sadrists. Look at how parliamentary bargaining moderated the Shiite AMAL party in Lebanon, which had a phase as a terrorist group in the 1980s but gradually outgrew it. AMAL is now a pillar of the Lebanese establishment and a big supporter of a separation of religion and state. The only hope for dealing with the Sadrists nonviolently was to entice them into civil politics, as well. Now that they have been excluded from the political process and made outlaws in the near to medium term, we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq.

Juan Cole puts it well:

Bremer's action in excluding the Sadrists from parliament is one final piece of stupidity to cap all the other moronic things he has done in Iraq. The whole beauty of parliamentary governance is that it can hope to draw off the energies of groups like the Sadrists. Look at how parliamentary bargaining moderated the Shiite AMAL party in Lebanon, which had a phase as a terrorist group in the 1980s but gradually outgrew it. AMAL is now a pillar of the Lebanese establishment and a big supporter of a separation of religion and state. The only hope for dealing with the Sadrists nonviolently was to entice them into civil politics, as well. Now that they have been excluded from the political process and made outlaws in the near to medium term, we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq.

via Blah3

The Crowd Went Wild

Ah, tis a polarized world we live in these days. The Morrissey statements quoted below are in bad taste. So why am I posting a link to the story. Because I really do love watching the right-wing nuts go ballistic. If spreading the story accomplishes that I will have done my good deed for the day.

Bush should have died, not Reagan': Morrissey

MANCHESTER music legend Morrissey sparked controversy when he announced Ronald Reagan's death live on stage during a concert - and then declared he wished it was George Bush who had died instead.

Thousands of fans at Dublin Castle, in Ireland, cheered when the ex-Smiths frontman made the announcement that the former American president, who had battled with Alzheimer's Disease, had passed away.

And an even bigger cheer followed when Morrissey - who is no stranger to controversy - then said he wished it had been the current President, George W Bush, who had died.

Fan Tony Murray said: "He commented about the death of Ronald Reagan and when he wished that it was George W instead the crowd went wild."

Christopher Hitchens doesn't seem too sad about Reagan's demise. Not Even a HedgeHog The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan.

Not Theology

"Politics is not religion and we should govern on the basis of evidence, not theology"— Bill Clinton

A Modern Short Story

Today's entry at Yankee Pot Roast Fiction is A Modern Short Story by Steve Himmer our good friend at OnePotMeal Yankee Pot Roast is new to me and quite a find. Poetry by Karl Malone and the Lyrics to Bolero A wonderful respite from all things Reagan, thanks Steve.

Lessons of History

"We must never forget that without a compass, without remaining faithful to the lessons of history, there can be no future. We have also a duty of vigilance, also a duty to fight ruthlessly all these upsurges and seedbeds of hatred that feed on ignorance on obscurantism and on intolerance. And we have a duty of remaining faithful to our values so that our generation may build and pass on to our children a world of progress and freedom, as is indeed their birthright -- to build that society which bears the hallmark of respect and dialogue, of tolerance and solidarity that was the very quintessence of the struggle we are commemorating today, to keep alive for all time the spirit of hope."— Jacque Chirac June 6, 2004

Cowardice and Corruption

Moral cowardice and intellectual corruption are the natural concomitants of unchallenged privilege.
    - Noam Chomsky

June 7, 2004

The Truth About the Gipper

William Rivers Pitt has written an excellent article about Reagan's death. It strikes the right balance between compassion that a human being with a family has died and telling the truth about the nature of his presidency.

June 5, 2004

Vexed

CALVIN TRILLIN

ON THE RUPTURE OF
RELATIONS BETWEEN
AHMAD CHALABI AND THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The learned Wolfowitz and Perle, it seems,
Made Chalabi the hero of their dreams.
Yes, all the Sissy Hawks were glad to sup
On cockamamie tales that he served up.
In triumph back in Baghdad he would pose—
A Charles de Gaulle, with more expensive clothes.
He thought he'd turn against us to survive.
We trashed his house, and now the man is vexed.
Pray tell: Will Wolfowitz's house be next?

Tolerance

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. . . . I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end—where all men and all churches are treated as equal—where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice—where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Who spoke these words? It was John F. Kennedy in 1960, when many were concerned that he would take orders from the Pope. Now it seems John F. Kerry is being told he should take orders from the Pope. The only candidate for president who takes his marching orders from religion is George W. Bush.

link. I found this via Brian Leiter.

Bush Erratic, Aides Say

This article is a gem. Have a look at the following to get the flavor of it.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

I guess Bush wasn't kidding when he joked things would be easier if we lived in a dictatorship. Take a look a this one.

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration

This man is fucking nuts. Take a look at the rest of the article.

DISCLAIMER: This article isn't from the best of sources.

Revisionist History

bushchalabi.jpg
Straight from the liars mouth 590K Quicktime
Atrios nailed the Liar in Chief several days ago and now the mainstream press has finally picked up the story. Here is the lowdown from Keith Oberman on MSNBC's Countdown the longer version (3MB Quicktime)

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly—

A: Chalabi?

Q: Yes, with Chalabi.

A: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.

—President Bush, in a Rose Garden exchange with reporters, June 1, 2004.

Q: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

A: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

—President Bush, in an Oval Office interview with NBC's Tim Russert aired Feb. 8, 2004

June 4, 2004

Leave Me Alone

leavemealone.jpg

Try this instead. Of course you'll need a Mac to run it.

Books

The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it.
-- Anthony Burgess

June 3, 2004

More Troubles With Meritocracy

I have made several posts about the problems involved in trying to create a society based on merit. Have a look at The Injustices of Merit by Chris Horner in Think. He does an excellent job.

It's the Middle-Class Stupid

Andrea Batista Schlesinger suggests progressives pay more attention to the middle-class.

When we start looking at the financial pressures on middle-class families, it's easy to see why the President's approval ratings are down on economic leadership. Though employment is on the increase, so are college tuition, property taxes, gas, milk and oil prices, the cost of health insurance and childcare, credit card debt and bankruptcy filings. Owning your own home and a station wagon, knowing you could send your kids to college, feeling secure about a retirement that awaited you; that's what it used to mean to be middle class in America. Today, it's a different story. And when the American dream doesn't work for the middle class, it also denies poor and low-income Americans access to the ladder of economic mobility. This new reality is both an obligation and an opportunity for progressives – if we dare to step out of our comfort zone.

Bye Bye

Tenet resigns. Its about time. Or as Gore would say. One down five to go.

My Base

And you thought the "Christian Right" was Dub's base&mdash from Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer the truth is revealed and the truth will set you free.
340K Quicktime

June 2, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11

Moore Releases "Fahrenheit 9/11' Trailer

"Fahrenheit 9/11" debuts in theaters June 25.

Here is the link to the trailer

alternative link to the trailer

Here is an additional clip of the movie Bush on Vacation

June 1, 2004

Lying From A to Z

Have a look.

Navigation

Support This Site






powells.gif


advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads



MarsEdit: Powerful Blog Authoring Made Simple.

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png
Get WidgetThe Body CountJenny McCarthy Body Count

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2010 Norman Jenson