Down With Vatican Drag
The Vatican’s recent desperate attempts to legitimize its existence by defining what is "high moral ground,” while being sued all over the planet for raping young children, just shows the irrelevance of the Vatican, whose pussy-men continue to dress in drag in this new millennium.
These twelve pages of drivel issued from the Vatican denouncing same-sex marriages, so filled with nonsense, only reveals these old, tired ladies’ lack of knowledge of nature, or God for that matter.
How arrogant and silly to claim to know God’s plan. Isn’t God supposed to be greater than us? How are we to know God’s plan? Did God tell the old ladies to wrestle naked with those eight-year-old alter boys? Well, then, keep your perverse God to yourself.
It’s time the old ladies disrobe and do some real work. But first, they must step down from that high moral ground before it caves in from lack of moral substance to hold it together.
Ignoranus: (n) A person who's both stupid and an asshole
Example: John Poindexter
You remember Poindexter, the "brains" behind the scheme to illegally sell weapons to Iran (to help them fight their war against Iraq, while Donald Rumsfeld legally supplied Hussein with weapons) and give the proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua.
He read a book called 1984 by George Orwell and decided to play the role of Big Brother so he could invade your right to privacy - for your own good, of course.
He's making news again with a new reality series called the "Policy Analysis Market", where contestants place bets on - not current events, but future events like terrorist strikes and assassinations and stuff.
"You may think early on that Prime Minister X is going to be assassinated. So you buy the futures contracts for 5 cents each. As more people begin to think the person's going to be assassinated, the cost of the contract could go up, to 50 cents. The payoff if he's assassinated is $1 per future. So if it comes to pass, and those who bought at 5 cents make 95 cents. Those who bought at 50 cents make 50 cents."
Apparently, this new game caught some attention because the administration couldn't figure out how to fix it so they would win every bet. Traders are anonymous, and terrorist groups might either place bets on their own plans, or place false bets as diversionary tactic.
Hey, it worked in Nigeria.
Example: John Poindexter
You remember Poindexter, the "brains" behind the scheme to illegally sell weapons to Iran (to help them fight their war against Iraq, while Donald Rumsfeld legally supplied Hussein with weapons) and give the proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua.
He read a book called 1984 by George Orwell and decided to play the role of Big Brother so he could invade your right to privacy - for your own good, of course.
He's making news again with a new reality series called the "Policy Analysis Market", where contestants place bets on - not current events, but future events like terrorist strikes and assassinations and stuff.
"You may think early on that Prime Minister X is going to be assassinated. So you buy the futures contracts for 5 cents each. As more people begin to think the person's going to be assassinated, the cost of the contract could go up, to 50 cents. The payoff if he's assassinated is $1 per future. So if it comes to pass, and those who bought at 5 cents make 95 cents. Those who bought at 50 cents make 50 cents."
Apparently, this new game caught some attention because the administration couldn't figure out how to fix it so they would win every bet. Traders are anonymous, and terrorist groups might either place bets on their own plans, or place false bets as diversionary tactic.
Hey, it worked in Nigeria.
States Attorneys General For Sale
Seems like wrongdoing in the Republican Party these days is not just limited to the White House - it extends throughout the party, from top to bottom. Whether it's Bush & Co lying about weapons of mass destruction and yellowcake uranium from Niger, or San Diego millionaire Darrel Issa hiring professional out-of-state signature-gatherers to bring a measure to recall elected Governor Gray Davis to the ballot in California, the Republicans are unafraid to do and say whatever it takes to get what they want. Lying, cheating, stealing - these seem to be the three foundations which the modern Republican Party is built on. (My apologies to the good Republicans out there, but why are you letting these crooks run your party?)
So why should I be surprised by this?:
Republican attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups that were subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents.
One of the documents mentions potential state actions against health maintenance organizations and suggests the attorneys general should "start targeting the HMO's" for fundraising.
It also cites a news article about consolidation and regulation of insurance firms and states that "this would be a natural area for us to focus on raising money."
All the attorneys general were members of the Washington-based Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). The companies they solicited included some of the nation's largest tobacco, pharmaceutical, computer, energy, banking, liquor, insurance and media concerns; many have been targeted in product liability lawsuits or regulations by state governments.
The documents describe direct calls the attorneys general made, for example, to representatives of Pfizer Inc., MasterCard Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos., Citigroup Inc., Amway Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., Nextel Communications Inc., General Motors Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Shell Oil Co., among others.
They also make clear that RAGA assigned attorneys general to make calls to companies with business and legal interests in their own states.
One of those soliciting funds between 1999 and 2001, according to the documents, was Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr., a pending nominee by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and a founder of the organization.
Sources said that a former RAGA employee recently turned some of the fundraising documents over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to vote today on his nomination. A source who asked not to be named provided the documents to the Washington Post.
Other attorneys general mentioned in the documents include then-Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley; Delaware Attorney General Jane Brady; then-South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon; then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who now represents Texas in the Senate, and then-Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery.
"This is incredibly tawdry," said Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public Integrity, an independent group that highlights the connection between money and politics.
"That famous statue of the lady of justice with the blindfold -- this kind of throws that out the window. There is an incredible mercenary element to this that implies that policy is bought and sold and not done . . . based on public interest and public need."
All funds collected by RAGA were passed to the Republican National Committee -- without any public link to the attorneys general who made the solicitations -- and then disbursed to campaigns by the attorneys general and other candidates around the country, according to the documents. The group does not file public financial disclosure statements.
The executive director of RAGA, Tim Barnes, said the actions described in the documents preceded his tenure with the group and that he was unfamiliar with them. But he said that "certain Republican attorney generals assist us in our fund-raising efforts."
Howard Dean Too Liberal?
That's the word coming from the mass media today, via the Democratic Leadership Council. Take a look at some of the headlines:
"Centrist Demos weigh Dean dilemma"
"Centrist Democrats: Don't Vote for Dean"
"Centrist Democrats plot strategy, continue to assail Dean"
"Centrist Democrats Reserved Toward Dean"
Is Dean really too liberal? No. These reports are based on Dean's position on a single issue: the US-led invasion of Iraq. (We'll discuss same-sex civil unions at a later date.) On a host of other issues, Howard Dean is justified in saying that he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Some liberals even consider his views on fiscal policy, the death penalty and gun rights to be somewhat right of center.
So the question is, will America support a presidential candidate who openly opposed the unilateral invasion of another country, which was eventually undertaken under false pretenses and without UN approval? I feel stupid for even asking.
Howard Dean Eats Turkey; Dick Cheney Eats Crow
That's the word coming from the mass media today, via the Democratic Leadership Council. Take a look at some of the headlines:
"Centrist Demos weigh Dean dilemma"
"Centrist Democrats: Don't Vote for Dean"
"Centrist Democrats plot strategy, continue to assail Dean"
"Centrist Democrats Reserved Toward Dean"
Is Dean really too liberal? No. These reports are based on Dean's position on a single issue: the US-led invasion of Iraq. (We'll discuss same-sex civil unions at a later date.) On a host of other issues, Howard Dean is justified in saying that he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Some liberals even consider his views on fiscal policy, the death penalty and gun rights to be somewhat right of center.
So the question is, will America support a presidential candidate who openly opposed the unilateral invasion of another country, which was eventually undertaken under false pretenses and without UN approval? I feel stupid for even asking.
Many members of the Democratic Leadership Council are convinced that Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq makes him too liberal for middle America, and they worry that if he wins the nomination it could undo years of work to persuade the country that the Democratic Party isn't controlled by its left wing.
"The Internet may be giving angry, protest-oriented activists the rope they need to hang the party," wrote Randolph Court in the DLC's bimonthly newsletter, The New Democrat Blueprint.
Still, few of the moderates assembled in Philadelphia thought that the Dean campaign or any campaign platform that includes a plank against the war in Iraq will survive once a broader audience begins paying attention to the race.
"People like his courage. They like the fact that he's been speaking out," said Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm. But, she added, "I think there are those who would say that it would be very difficult for someone who opposed the war to get elected in my state today."
New Hampshire state Rep. Peter Sullivan said that in his primary-crazy home state, Dean has made a splash in college towns and border communities that have attracted young, liberal voters transplanted from other states.
But in blue-collar cities such as Manchester, "it's like he's not even there," said Sullivan, who wore a Joe Lieberman button. This, he said, despite Dean's reputation in Vermont as a fiscal conservative who supported the death penalty and rights of gun owners.
"I think it's going to be tough for him to move past the 18 to 19 percent he's got right now, even though, when you take away his opposition to the war, he's probably as much a New Democrat as anyone here."
Howard Dean Eats Turkey; Dick Cheney Eats Crow
Some good news from the Howard Dean campaign today. Dick Cheney held a $2,000-a-plate luncheon in Columbia, SC today. Dean responded with a competing fundraiser. While Vice President Dick Cheney hobnobbed with those who could afford to shell out big bucks to have lunch with him, Gov. Dean ate a $3 turkey sandwich sitting at his desk in Burlington, VT. Just over 100 people showed up for Cheney's event, while more than 8,000 people made contributions to Dean's campaign over the weekend.
Dick Cheney raised about $300,000 today. Howard Dean has raised over $450,000, and the contributions are still coming in.
You can join the thousands of Americans who are showing the GOP that our government is not for sale by joining the campaign. Check it out for yourself at the official Howard Dean weblog.
Secret Service Questions Cartoonist
I have a few questions.
I think it was tasteless, but I still find it strange that the Secret Service sought Pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez for questioning. Oddly enough, Ramirez, who works for the the Los Angelese Times, is a conservative, and intended his cartoon to show support for President Bush.
Republican Representative Christopher Cox has jumped to Ramirez's defense. I wonder if he would have done the same were Ramirez a liberal?
The Secret Service used "profoundly bad judgment" in seeking to question a Los Angeles Times cartoonist over a political cartoon depicting a man pointing a gun at President Bush, a senior House Republican said Tuesday.
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the Secret Service owed Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez an apology "and the public is owed an explanation both of how this happened and why it will not happen again."
The use of "federal power to attempt to influence the work of an editorial cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times," Cox said in a letter to U.S. Secret Service Director Ralph Basham, "reflects profoundly bad judgment."
The Times, in an article in its Tuesday edition, said a Secret Service agent visited the paper's Los Angeles office for what he said was a routine inquiry following the publication on Sunday of Ramirez' cartoon. The agent talked to a Times attorney but was told he could not speak to Ramirez.
The Secret Service is responsible for looking into any perceived threats against the president.
The cartoon is a takeoff of a chilling 1968 photograph from the Vietnam War showing Vietnamese police Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a man he said was a Viet Cong in the right temple on a Saigon street.
In the cartoon, the man pointing the gun at a caricature of the president has "politics" written across his back, and there's a sign on the street scene in the back reading "Iraq."
The Times quoted Ramirez as saying he was not advocating violence against Bush but trying to show that the president is the target of political assassination because of his State of the Union address when he used faulty intelligence to back up claims of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
I have a few questions.
- 1) This guy won a Pulitzer?
- 2) How does "POLITICS" serve in a metaphorically similar role as Gen. Nguyen does in the infamous Vietnam picture?
- 3) How is George Bush like the Viet Cong?
- 4) Is anyone surprised that the Secret Service misinterpreted this?
Bush Nominee Found Dead, Apparent Suicide
What could lead a man who served 15 years in the Marines, had lots of political experience, success in the oil business and close connections to the Bush family, to want to end his own life? As the Albuquerque Tribune noted, he was "seemingly at the pinnacle of his public service career."
There are so many questions around the Bush family and their two presidential administrations. This may be just another one that won't get answered any time soon.
Although news sources initially hesitated to call it a suicide, statements by the the medical investigator's spokesman lead me to wonder: Why would Colin McMillan, a Bush nominee for Secretary of the Navy, commit suicide ?
McMillan, 67, was found dead Thursday at his 55,000-acre ranch in southern New Mexico, near the White Sands Missile Range.
"The cause is a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. The manner is suicide," said Tim Stepetic, spokesman for the state medical investigator.
District Attorney Scot Key would not say whether McMillan left a suicide note. He said a handgun was found with the body.
McMillan "had a recurrence of cancer," but "everybody thought he was recovered, recuperating quite well," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Friday on the Senate floor. Domenici had said the Senate would have confirmed McMillan soon.
Family spokesman Bill Owen downplayed the cancer, saying McMillan had a growth removed from his mouth in the past weeks and the prognosis was for a complete recovery.
"Based on everything we know, Colin was doing well and was waiting like the rest of us for Senate confirmation (as Navy secretary)," Owen said. "Everything was on 'go,' but it's a time-consuming process."
President Bush nominated McMillan in May for the Navy post, which had been vacant since Gordon England left in January to become deputy secretary of the new Homeland Security Department.
The president said he and his wife were "saddened by the death of our good friend."
"Colin was a public servant and patriot," Bush said.
McMillan served in the Marine Corps from 1957 to 1972 and was assistant defense secretary in the early 1990s, during the first Bush administration.
McMillan ran Permian Exploration Corp. in Roswell. He was a member of the New Mexico House from 1971 to 1982 and ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, losing to Democratic incumbent Jeff Bingaman in a bitter and costly campaign.
Domenici called McMillan "someone who succeeded at everything he tried and everything he did, and yet he was about as humble as anyone you will ever meet."
What could lead a man who served 15 years in the Marines, had lots of political experience, success in the oil business and close connections to the Bush family, to want to end his own life? As the Albuquerque Tribune noted, he was "seemingly at the pinnacle of his public service career."
So why would he kill himself? Was he depressed? Doesn't sound like the type. Was he afraid of something? If so, then what? And why has foul play been ruled out as a possibility?
McMillan died around lunchtime Thursday, and his body was found at his Three Rivers Ranch in Otero County by two employees, said Roswell Mayor Bill Owen, a family spokesman and longtime McMillan employee.
"We will all find out someday . . . how this all happened. But in the meantime all we can say is that we miss him terribly," [U.S. Sen. Pete] Domenici said.
McMillan "really looked forward to becoming secretary of the Navy," Domenici told fellow senators.
"Colin was a public servant and patriot who served his country and state as a Marine, state legislator, assistant secretary of defense, community leader and successful businessman," [President] Bush said.
"That's how I'll always remember him, as a man who loved his beautiful wife and knew it was always family that mattered most," Jennings said. "They represented all the joy and good fortune that could come out our small corner of the state."
While his business interests centered on oil, the longtime politician shaped the future of ranching, farming, banking and water rights in southern New Mexico.
"As a Pecos River commissioner, he made sure that the integrity of the farming community of southern New Mexico remained in tact," said Sen. Rod Adair, a Roswell Republican. "We didn't always see eye to eye, but you can't deny the good things that he did for the people of our community."
McMillan loomed large in New Mexico politics during the past 30 years.
"Up until the day he died, he had a tremendous influence on the New Mexico Republican Party," said Sen. Ramsay Gorham, the state Republican Party chairwoman who considered McMillan a close friend. "We all respected him so much. He was a gentle giant known for his grace and humility."
McMillan handpicked the men and women he believed were the bright future of New Mexico politics, most recently leading John Sanchez's failed gubernatorial campaign against Bill Richardson last year.
"I first met him when he was on an Albuquerque campaign stop while running for (the U.S.) Senate in 1994," Sanchez said. "I didn't know much about his campaign, but he visited me at my (Albuquerque) business, and by the end of our conversation he had a check from me and a friend for life."
"He was always willing to make the tough decisions," Gorham said. "He would stand by what he believed in, even if it was unpopular and could hurt his career."
McMillan served in the state House of Representatives from 1971-82. McMillan was the architect of the 1981 plan that cut taxes statewide by about $200 million. The plan came to be called the "Big Mac" after McMillan.
Owen, the Roswell mayor, said McMillan fondly remembered his days as a Marine, becoming a platoon leader by age 22. When tapped by the president in May, McMillan was eager to take the reins as Navy secretary, Owen said.
McMillan was assistant U.S. defense secretary from 1990 to 1992 under former President Bush. He earned the Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the department's highest civilian award. He ran George W. Bush's 2000 campaign in New Mexico.
Despite his public prominence and political and business influence, McMillan remained a humble man, Owen said.
"He made so many anonymous contributions to charities throughout the state because he had made something of himself and wanted to help others," Owen said. "He was special and a real inspiration."
McMillan preached community service, working as a Sunday school teacher, Scout master, Little League coach and fund-raiser for community projects.
There are so many questions around the Bush family and their two presidential administrations. This may be just another one that won't get answered any time soon.
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television
by Jerry Mander
(Amazon link)
Television:
1. "Eliminates personal knowledge." Television filters experience and gives us the sense that we have experienced many things that we haven't. We respond like we have been there and seen it all first hand, but we haven't.
2. "Eliminates points of comparison." Television represents regular, everyday Americans in an affluent society, where everyone lives in mansions and has BMWs. The child in the ghetto watching this display has no basis for comparison, so she believes that most other Americans have fulfilled the American Dream of Materialism, and somehow her family was passed by or unfairly excluded.
3. "Separates people from each other." Television does this task effectively. People don't have to go out to be entertained. As the family watches TV they are not interacting. They are each having a separate experience, cut off from developing social skills and a sense of community that must be in the home before we can have it again on the streets of our neighborhoods.
4. "Centralizes knowledge and information." Television does this dirty deed better than most of us realize. We don't hear about many instances of corporate abuse of people, resources, or the environment. Why? Because we don't want to offend the sponsors. We don't hear about the mistakes and self-serving decisions of many politicians, because the news reporters don't want to lose access by reporting damaging information. Another example of this centralizing of knowledge is who owns and controls the networks. Rupert Murdoch, billionaire publisher and media magnate, already controls information spigots world-wide. If he is allowed to add to his conglomerate, most of the world would only see, read, or hear the news that Rupert Murdoch and his executives want us to receive.
by Jerry Mander
(Amazon link)
Television:
1. "Eliminates personal knowledge." Television filters experience and gives us the sense that we have experienced many things that we haven't. We respond like we have been there and seen it all first hand, but we haven't.
2. "Eliminates points of comparison." Television represents regular, everyday Americans in an affluent society, where everyone lives in mansions and has BMWs. The child in the ghetto watching this display has no basis for comparison, so she believes that most other Americans have fulfilled the American Dream of Materialism, and somehow her family was passed by or unfairly excluded.
3. "Separates people from each other." Television does this task effectively. People don't have to go out to be entertained. As the family watches TV they are not interacting. They are each having a separate experience, cut off from developing social skills and a sense of community that must be in the home before we can have it again on the streets of our neighborhoods.
4. "Centralizes knowledge and information." Television does this dirty deed better than most of us realize. We don't hear about many instances of corporate abuse of people, resources, or the environment. Why? Because we don't want to offend the sponsors. We don't hear about the mistakes and self-serving decisions of many politicians, because the news reporters don't want to lose access by reporting damaging information. Another example of this centralizing of knowledge is who owns and controls the networks. Rupert Murdoch, billionaire publisher and media magnate, already controls information spigots world-wide. If he is allowed to add to his conglomerate, most of the world would only see, read, or hear the news that Rupert Murdoch and his executives want us to receive.
Howard Dean Guests on Lessig's Blog
In a matter of months, Howard Dean has managed to create a new kind of political campaign, one that is dynamic, collaborative and interactive. I still wouldn't make too big a deal out of his campaign's use of the Internet. When the media does so, they miss the point. The Howard Dean campaign is succeeding and gaining strength simply because it's message-based, which is apparent in these personal blog entries. This is in stark contrast to the Bush White House, which is perhaps the most spin-doctored in history.
While Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig was away, Governor Howard Dean filled in on his blog. Here are a few excerpts:
[T]he Internet can help us restore active participation in our democracy. But in order to include everyone in the process, we need to expand net access to rural areas and to the inner city. Currently, too many minorities and rural residents are on the wrong side of the “digital divide.”...
Someone asked which parts of the Patriot Act I thought were unconstitutional. I have real problems authorizing the FBI to obtain library and bookstore and video store records simply by claiming the information is “sought for” an investigation against international terrorism. It’s also clearly unconstitutional to detain indivduals and deny them access to a lawyer.
One of you asked if there would be a White House blog. Why not?...
As a doctor, I’m trained to base my decisions on facts. This President never adequately laid out the facts for going to war with Iraq—perhaps, as it turns out, because the facts were not there. I opposed the war not because I’m a pacifist—I’m not—but because the evidence presented did not justify preemptive war. I opposed needle exchanges for drug addicts until I saw the empirical evidence that showed how such exchanges reduce the spread of disease. I changed my position, and I’m proud of that. Facts are a better basis for decisions than ideology.
No matter what the issues are that we as individuals care most about-- whether intellectual property, healthy care, the environment — I believe that the only way we are ever going to come to a real solution on any of these issues is if we all stand together against the special interests in Washington. There are now 33 lobbyists for every member of congress. How do we change that? By working together. One of the amazing things about this campaign is how the Internet has allowed people to meet and work together in common cause. Only by taking an active part in our democracy will we be able to restore a government of, by and for the people.
In a matter of months, Howard Dean has managed to create a new kind of political campaign, one that is dynamic, collaborative and interactive. I still wouldn't make too big a deal out of his campaign's use of the Internet. When the media does so, they miss the point. The Howard Dean campaign is succeeding and gaining strength simply because it's message-based, which is apparent in these personal blog entries. This is in stark contrast to the Bush White House, which is perhaps the most spin-doctored in history.
The quagmire in Iraq is all Clinton’s fault, which is why we should recall Gov. Davis
If you can take the time to read it, there is a fascinating report on the links among Enron, PNAC, the Baker Institute, and the White House. The pages are lengthy, and the links numerous. Here is a synopsis:
Enron - Lay
In 1994, Ken Lay testified at a Public Utility Commission hearing about holes in the California power market that could be exploited. Since Lay’s warnings were ignored, Enron exploited those very holes to manipulate California’s energy markets for fun and profit. In addition to serving on Bush's transition team, Lay was a member of Cheney’s Energy Task Force (despite his futile attempts to deny it). A two-page memo spells out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing any regulations to stabilize California’s electricity prices, which might affect Enron’s profits.
Since April 2001, Rep. Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, have been seeking information about the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney. This request for information was prompted by news reports that the task force had met privately with major campaign contributors to discuss energy policy. The Bush Administration has been unwilling to provide that information, even to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
James Baker
In 1993 Baker signed a joint consulting and investing agreement with Enron and began a lucrative career making joint global investments with Enron on natural gas projects. In April 2001, his Baker Institute published its Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century which mentions Iraq – “Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.“
This same report mentions California over 20 times – always in a negative light because of the “very serious energy crisis." In order to avoid similar crises throughout the country, America must gain control of the largest or second largest oil reserves in the world – Iraq.
PNAC (Project for a New American Century)
The PNAC has since its inception advocated preemptive military action and long-term occupation in and of the Middle East. All they needed was a “Pearl Harbor-like event” to serve as justification.
Conclusion
So, we kick out weapons inspectors, screw our intelligence agencies and dream up our own stories, lie to the world, invade Iraq against the will of the international community, spend billions to control Iraq’s oil to prevent an energy crisis like the one Enron profited from in California, and blame it all on Gray Davis.
If you can take the time to read it, there is a fascinating report on the links among Enron, PNAC, the Baker Institute, and the White House. The pages are lengthy, and the links numerous. Here is a synopsis:
Enron - Lay
In 1994, Ken Lay testified at a Public Utility Commission hearing about holes in the California power market that could be exploited. Since Lay’s warnings were ignored, Enron exploited those very holes to manipulate California’s energy markets for fun and profit. In addition to serving on Bush's transition team, Lay was a member of Cheney’s Energy Task Force (despite his futile attempts to deny it). A two-page memo spells out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing any regulations to stabilize California’s electricity prices, which might affect Enron’s profits.
James Baker
In 1993 Baker signed a joint consulting and investing agreement with Enron and began a lucrative career making joint global investments with Enron on natural gas projects. In April 2001, his Baker Institute published its Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century which mentions Iraq – “Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.“
This same report mentions California over 20 times – always in a negative light because of the “very serious energy crisis." In order to avoid similar crises throughout the country, America must gain control of the largest or second largest oil reserves in the world – Iraq.
PNAC (Project for a New American Century)
The PNAC has since its inception advocated preemptive military action and long-term occupation in and of the Middle East. All they needed was a “Pearl Harbor-like event” to serve as justification.
“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
Conclusion
So, we kick out weapons inspectors, screw our intelligence agencies and dream up our own stories, lie to the world, invade Iraq against the will of the international community, spend billions to control Iraq’s oil to prevent an energy crisis like the one Enron profited from in California, and blame it all on Gray Davis.
News in Brief
Could someone please explain to me why the federal government is bailing out the major US air carriers when Southwest Airlines continues to post record profits? What is Southwest doing that the big guys aren't?
Can someone tell me, was Dr. David Kelley the suicidal type? And doesn't slashing your wrists and taking painkillers seem a little excessive?
I recall Enron Vice Chairman Cliff Baxter resigning on May 2, 2001, only to be found in his car on January 25, 2002, with a bullet in his head, not long before he would testify to Congress. "Suicides" like Kelly's and Baxter's are awfully convenient when they eliminate the key witness's testimony.
Speaking of secrets and lies, BBC America is airing "War Spin: Jessica Lynch," a documentary which
If you're in an activist mood, contact your Representative and tell them you support House Resolution 2625, "To establish the Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq."
The always funny and thought-provoking Arianna Huffington weighs in on the Bush State of the Union Controversy:
When faced with using explosive but highly questionable charges in vital presentations leading up to a possible preemptive war, both Powell and Tenet gave the information they were handed a thorough going over before ultimately rejecting it. But not the commander in chief. Apparently, he just took whatever he was handed, and happily offered it up to the world. He was, therefore, little more than the guy in the presidential suit, mindlessly speaking the words that others had debated and polished and twisted and finally agreed he would say. And then when the uranium hit the fan, our stand-up-guy president decided that the buck actually stops with George Tenet.
Could someone please explain to me why the federal government is bailing out the major US air carriers when Southwest Airlines continues to post record profits? What is Southwest doing that the big guys aren't?
Southwest, the only major U.S. carrier to report consistent profits since the Sept. 11 attacks, said it would boost capacity by 6 percent to 7 percent next year and forecast a higher third-quarter profit than a year ago. Its larger rivals, meanwhile, are deferring aircraft deliveries and relying on U.S. government aid to offset huge losses.
Can someone tell me, was Dr. David Kelley the suicidal type? And doesn't slashing your wrists and taking painkillers seem a little excessive?
Dr Kelly, a Ministry of Defence expert who has been named by the BBC as the source for controversial reports concerning last September's dossier on Iraq, apparently committed suicide last week, two days after appearing before the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee.
Dr Kelly's body was found in woods near his Oxfordshire home on Friday. He had apparently committed suicide the previous day by slashing his wrists and taking powerful painkillers.
Lord Hutton described Dr Kelly's death as "tragic", saying it had "brought such great sorrow to his wife and children".
I recall Enron Vice Chairman Cliff Baxter resigning on May 2, 2001, only to be found in his car on January 25, 2002, with a bullet in his head, not long before he would testify to Congress. "Suicides" like Kelly's and Baxter's are awfully convenient when they eliminate the key witness's testimony.
Police won't talk while the case is open, so CBS News asked two experts - independent coroner Cyril Wecht and former homicide detective Bill Wagner - to review the reports. While suicide appears likely, both experts say the documents make it impossible to discount foul play.
Asked why he couldn't rule out murder, Wagner said, "because murder can be made to look like a suicide. ... Someone who is knowledgeable about forensics can very well have the ability to stage a murder, commit a murder and stage it to look as if it was a suicide, understanding what the police are going to be looking for."
The experts found several things highly unusual. First the peculiar ammunition: not regular bullets but something called "rat-shot".
"This kind of ammunition cannot be easily or readily traced back to the gun from which it was fired," explained Wecht.
"It's not as frequently used by people for any reason. It's not the type of ammunition one finds in guns - it has a specific purpose: shooting at snakes and rodents in order to get a distribution pattern of the small pellets contained within the nose portion of the bullet. It's not something that a person is likely to have and to use if they intended to kill themselves," said Wecht.
Other unanswered questions include mysterious wounds on one hand and unexplained shards of glass in Baxter's shirt. All reasons to look deeper to rule out murder.
But Wagner says glaring police errors may make it harder to close the books on the Baxter case.
First, nobody wrapped the hands to preserve evidence.
"When the body did finally arrive for the autopsy, the hands hadn't even been bagged," said Wagner.
"I'm just amazed frankly that the hands were not bagged," Wecht said.
"From what I've seen looking at the vehicle, it doesn't appear they even fingerprinted it," continued Wagner.
"The police narrative is vague for this type of investigation. It's important to get a timeline of the events that took place through the course of investigation - that appears to be lacking in the original report from the crime scene. Without that, without being able to piece together what was done when, it's very difficult to understand the events that took place and how they unfolded from that report," said Wagner.
The gun and other evidence were moved before photos were taken. The body was moved as well. There's a puzzling mention of blood outside the car from someone laying Baxter on the ground.
Wagner says that only should have happened if rescuers pulled him out to revive him. But even that scenario doesn't add up - the body is back in the car when the funeral home arrives "and that's something that is not explained in the police reports," said Wagner.
"I think there were some very important things omitted from the original investigation report that should have been included in it. I would like to have known what were the first couple things the Fire Department did to treat the victim allegedly as he was sitting in the car and from that point how did they change the initial crime scene. What was moved? Did they remove the body from the vehicle? It's actually unclear how they treated the actual scene," Wagner said.
Incredibly, even though an autopsy is required by law, none was ordered. By the time that decision was reversed, Baxter's body was being processed at a funeral home.
Speaking of secrets and lies, BBC America is airing "War Spin: Jessica Lynch," a documentary which
accuses official Washington (including the White House) of deliberately twisting facts about events in Iraq. More than that, "War Spin: Jessica Lynch" -- which airs on the BBC America cable channel -- says most of the journalists who covered the ground war three months ago essentially aided the Pentagon's pro-war stance (as the Pentagon had hoped) because the journalists were so dependent on U.S. and British military sources.
If you're in an activist mood, contact your Representative and tell them you support House Resolution 2625, "To establish the Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq."
So this is what American politics has come to...
In sporting events, the referees usually eject both players in a fight.
CAPITOL HEAT
Partisan passions boil over as House session degenerates into name-calling--cops called, nation's work screeches to halt
Washington -- Years of partisan frustration brought the House of Representatives to a standstill Friday as agitated lawmakers put the nation's affairs aside to debate exactly why police had been summoned to a Ways and Means Committee's discussion of a pension bill.
Republicans said they called the police because Fremont Rep. Pete Stark, a bombastic Democrat and 30-year veteran of the House, exploded in a profanity- filled tirade, calling a Colorado Republican a "fruitcake" and challenging him to a fight.
Angry Democrats said the real reason Republicans called police was that Rep. Bill Thomas, the short-fused Republican chairman from Bakersfield, wanted Democrats thrown out of the committee's anteroom, where they had huddled to plot strategy.
For nearly three hours, lawmakers hurled invective, squabbled over parliamentary rules and debated the rights of the political minority. Democrats accused Republicans of "tyranny" and being "un-American."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who watched much of the debate from the House floor, growing redder and redder in the face, tried unsuccessfully to engineer a compromise whereby both Thomas and Stark would apologize.
No formal apologies were issued.
The details of the incident that prompted the debate remain in dispute.
Democrats said their frustrations began two minutes before midnight on Thursday, when they were handed a 90-page GOP substitute for a 400-plus page pension reform measure and were told they would be asked to vote on it Friday morning.
When the committee convened, Democrats called for the substitute to be read in its entirety to stall for time. Then they left Stark as their sole representative in the committee room and huddled in a room next door known as the library.
REQUEST TO VACATE
Within minutes, an aide to Thomas approached New York Rep. Charles Rangel, the top-ranking committee Democrat, and told him that the chairman wanted them out of the library. Rangel told him no. Moments later, a Capitol police officer arrived and ordered Rangel to leave. He refused. That prompted a call to the House sergeant at arms, who also failed to get Rangel and his Democratic colleagues to leave.
Meanwhile, in the committee room, Stark was raising doubts that the full text of the measure was actually being read.
"Its eloquence overwhelms me, Mr. Chairman," he told Thomas, "just like your intellect does."
The complaints prompted Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., to tell Stark to "shut up."
"Oh, you think you are big enough to make me," Stark responded, according to witnesses. "You little wimp. I said come over here and make me. I dare you. You are a little fruitcake. You are a little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."
Thomas then ordered the reading to be suspended, a common practice, asked whether there were objections and immediately dropped his gavel.
"I object," said Stark.
"Too late," Thomas responded, according to the transcript. One witness said Stark then leveled a string of obscenities at Thomas, which were not recorded in the transcript. Stark denied it, saying he had only called Thomas a "fascist."
Exactly when the Capitol police were summoned also was a matter of dispute. Stark said there was no question that they were called to clear Democrats out of the library and not because Republicans feared his outburst. His version was corroborated by one Republican who was in the room but was denied by the others.
"You'd have to visualize this," Stark said in an interview. "There were some 25 Republicans there . . . most of whom are at least 20 years younger than I am, and almost all of whom outweigh me by 100 pounds.
"The idea that I would have threatened them would be similar to my barking a command at the defensive line of the Oakland Raiders, and their calling the police because they were threatened by my statement."
"He's a former police officer and champion skier" Stark said of McInnis. "I still play tennis, but I don't play singles anymore, just doubles. I find that almost humorous."
AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Stark acknowledged that his comments were inappropriate but said his tactics to block the GOP pension bill were not.
Partisan squabbles and frayed tempers are common in the House. But Friday's contretemps reached a new level as Democrats, chafing under eight years of Republican rule, accused the majority of abusing its power.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco brought a resolution to the House floor to deplore Thomas' actions.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., likened Thomas to Bull Connor, the civil rights-era Birmingham, Ala., sheriff and staunch segregationist. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., held aloft a copy of Thomas Jefferson's manual for House rules and asserted: "This is not what Jefferson had in mind, nor I believe our founding fathers."
"It is clear from the debate today that the Republicans have a major problem with the democratic process," Pelosi said. "It is clear that the Republicans are in denial about their behavior, and it is clear that the Democrats must draw a line in the sand on the repression of our rights in this Congress."
Republicans acknowledged that they called the police, but most insisted it was because of Stark.
Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas said his first reaction upon hearing Stark's outburst was to look around the committee room "hoping that there were no young people who witnessed this tirade."
"I didn't know if this member could control his temper or his bodily function," Brady said.
That line drew a protest from Democrats, who demanded it be stricken from the record as outside the bounds of congressional appropriateness. After a five-minute pause, Brady took to the floor to apologize.
After hours of debate, Pelosi's resolution was tabled on a party-line vote.
Stark has a long history of insulting GOP colleagues, referring once to fellow committee member Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., as a "whore for the insurance industry."
He once nearly provoked a fistfight on the House floor with former GOP whip J.C. Watts, an African American and former football star. Watts had been advocating a Republican "fatherhood" initiative to promote marriage as a way to reduce welfare. Stark accused Watts of fathering several illegitimate children. One of Watts' children was born out of wedlock.
Thomas also is famous for his short temper and peremptory methods, which often have angered his fellow Republicans, some of whom have likened his outbursts to juvenile temper tantrums. Thomas seldom hesitates to use the full power of his chairmanship to thwart Democrats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
The meeting
At a House Ways and Means Committee meeting just before midnight Thursday, Democrats, angry about about a Republican effort to force a quick vote on a GOP plan for a pension reform, call for a full reading of the measure to stall for time.
The caucus
Democrats walk out and huddle in a committee anteroom known as the library to plot strategy, leaving Pete Stark of Fremont as their only representative in the committee meeting.
The police
Republicans call the Capitol police to have the Democrats removed from the library. The Democrats refuse to leave. It is eventually decided that this is a committee matter. No one is arrested.
The blowup
Meanwhile, back in the committee meeting, Stark raises objections. A shouting match ensues between Stark and Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo. Republican Chairman Bill Thomas halts the reading of the bill, and Stark, witnesses say, levels further invective at Thomas.
The debate
All parties move to the floor of the House, where they engage in three hours of rancorous debate in which each side accuses the other of debasing Congress. Attempts are made to engineer compromise and apologies. They fail.
In sporting events, the referees usually eject both players in a fight.
News In Brief
No one was surpised to learn yesterday that Bush's popularity is declining in California, but a CNN-Time poll shows that the tide may be moving east - yet another positive sign of a Bush defeat in 2004.
If I were a soldier in the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division in Iraq, I would keep my mouth shut.
Another slick move by the Bush White House. In the name of open democracy and accessibility, the White House just made it harder to send the President an email. What's next, a 1-900 number to call Bush on the phone?
And finally, a little fun from our friends at the Democratic National Committee: the George W. Bush Credibility Twister game.
Every spin produces more lies told by Bush & Co about weapons of mass destruction and the bogus Niger yellowcake intell. Give it a spin!
I guess we'll never know whether David Kelley was in fact the source for the BBC. Dead men tell no tales.
Body matches description of British weapons adviser investigated over Iraq file
A body found Friday in central England has been tentatively identified as a missing Ministry of Defense adviser suspected as the source of allegations that the government doctored a report about Iraq's nuclear program.
[David] Kelly, a 59-year-old former U.N. weapons inspector, was at the center of a political storm over allegations that Blair's office altered intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs to support the decision to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The government denies the claim.
The Ministry of Defense said Kelly may have been the source for a British Broadcasting Corp. report that Blair aides gave undue prominence to a claim that Iraq could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.
No one was surpised to learn yesterday that Bush's popularity is declining in California, but a CNN-Time poll shows that the tide may be moving east - yet another positive sign of a Bush defeat in 2004.
President's approval rating sags over Iraq, economy
The public has grown increasingly uneasy with President Bush's handling of the economy and the situation in Iraq, a new poll suggests.
Bush's overall job approval dropped 8 points since May to 55 percent, according to a CNN-Time poll released Friday. A majority in this poll, 52 percent, said the president is doing a poor job of handling the economy, and just four in 10 say the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq has been a success. That's down from 52 percent who felt that way in late March.
If I were a soldier in the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division in Iraq, I would keep my mouth shut.
Pentagon may punish GIs who spoke out on TV
Morale is dipping pretty low among U.S. soldiers as they stew in Iraq's broiling heat, get shot at by an increasingly hostile population and get repeated orders to extend their tours of duty.
Ask any grunt standing guard on a 115-degree day what he or she thinks of the open-ended Iraq occupation, and you'll get an earful of colorful complaints.
But going public isn't always easy, as soldiers of the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division found out after "Good Morning America" aired their complaints.
The brigade's soldiers received word this week from the Pentagon that it was extending their stay, with a vague promise to send them home by September if the security situation allows. They've been away from home since September, and this week's announcement was the third time their mission has been extended.
On Wednesday morning, when the ABC news show reported from Fallujah, where the division is based, the troops gave the reporters an earful. One soldier said he felt like he'd been "kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Another demanded that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quit.
The retaliation from Washington was swift.
"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."
First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.
Only two days before the ABC show, similarly bitter sentiments -- with no names attached -- were voiced in an anonymous e-mail circulating around the Internet, allegedly from "the soldiers of the Second Brigade, Third ID."
"Our morale is not high or even low," the letter said. "Our morale is nonexistent. We have been told twice that we were going home, and twice we have received a 'stop.'
Another slick move by the Bush White House. In the name of open democracy and accessibility, the White House just made it harder to send the President an email. What's next, a 1-900 number to call Bush on the phone?
E-mail maze at White House
New system makes sending a message to Bush no simple task
Do you want to send an e-mail message to the White House?
Good luck.
In the past, to tell President Bush -- or at least those assigned to read his mail -- what was on your mind, it was only necessary to sit down at a personal computer connected to the Internet and dash off an e-mail note to president@whitehouse.gov.
But this week, Tom Matzzie, an online organizer with the AFL-CIO, discovered that communicating with the White House has become a bit more daunting. When he sent an e-mail protest against a Bush administration policy, the message was bounced back with an automated reply, saying that he had to send it again in a new way.
Under a system deployed on the White House Web site for the first time last week, those who want to send a message to Bush must now navigate as many as nine Web pages and fill out a detailed form that starts by asking whether the message sender supports White House policy or differs with it.
And finally, a little fun from our friends at the Democratic National Committee: the George W. Bush Credibility Twister game.
Every spin produces more lies told by Bush & Co about weapons of mass destruction and the bogus Niger yellowcake intell. Give it a spin!
Bush's Approval Down in California;
US Soon to Follow
The bad news is that Latinos in California generally support Bush.
Maybe California Latinos aren't getting the news about Bush's tax cuts for the rich or his lies about weapons of mass destructions?
US Soon to Follow
The good news is that support for Bush is waning in California, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. If this is a trend, you would expect it to start here.
While national polls still show Bush riding a wave of popularity, the sharp drop in California, which has 12 percent of the nation's population, is likely to start appearing elsewhere, said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director.
"If you're looking for cracks in support for a Republican president, you should look to California, since that's the first place they're likely to show up," he said.
The bad news is that Latinos in California generally support Bush.
Forty-seven percent of the state's Latinos believe Bush is doing a good job, compared with 35 percent who disagree. That backing for Bush could help pry Latino voters from their traditional support for Democrats in future elections.
Maybe California Latinos aren't getting the news about Bush's tax cuts for the rich or his lies about weapons of mass destructions?
Hmm... Acabo de tener una idea. (I just had an idea.)
You may know Ted Rall as a editorial cartoonist. (Check out a recent cartoon that suggests why the US might really want to send troops to Liberia.) Ted is also a writer and he's right about George Bush: his tax cuts for the rich and his invasion of Iraq are both failures.
This bizarro Administration does everything bass-ackwards. The recession is hardest on the poor and middle-class, so Bush gives tax cuts to the rich. When an overwhelming invasion force was needed to secure Afghanistan, Rumsfeld sent in a skeleton crew. Now that the citizens of those countries want us to go home, Gen. Tommy Franks has announced that our 148,000-man, $5 billion-a-month occupation army will get bigger and stick around until whenever.
What Rall also points out is that using the CIA's George Tenet as the patsy in Yellowcakegate amounts to a cover-up before there is even a scandal.
Considering the conventional wisdom that Bush's idiocy is mitigated by his brilliant cabinet, Bush opted for a weird defense: I'm not a liar--my staff is incompetent! And so the cover-up began.
In the most transparently brokered deal since Ford's pardon of Nixon, Tenet agreed to take the blame for the Niger imbroglio in exchange for not taking the fall. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," said Tenet in a prepared statement. "The president is pleased that the director of Central Intelligence acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged," said Ari Fleischer the next day. Bush got his patsy and Tenet kept his job. But career CIA staffers are furious at Bush for sticking them with the blame for a snafu they specifically tried to talk him out of. This is just beginning.
Lying about Niger yellowcake pales next to Bush's other evil chicanery: hobbling the U.S. economy with debt, feeding corporate corruption, opening concentration camps for Muslims and bombing thousands of people to death. But those acts are almost too monstrous to comprehend. Americans easily understand the myriad of little lies--the faked Jessica Lynch "rescue," the phony Saddam statue toppling and now the Niger uranium story--and how they add up to the character of a man unworthy of the office he holds.
Speaking of Jessica Lynch, she is scheduled to be released July 22 from Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
She is scheduled to make a brief press statement in Elizabeth, then travel via a military motorcade to her home in nearby Palestine, about 70 miles north of Charleston. She will not take questions from reporters, and will not address specifics of her capture and rescue, (family spokesman Randy) Coleman said.
This comes from FOXNews, which mentions nothing about the controversy behind Lynch's so-called "rescue." FOX does call Lynch a hero, which seems to be typical in the Southern press, i.e. Bush Country.
Interesting sidenote: More than 200 Google news items refer to Randy Coleman as the "family spokesman." As far as I can tell, only two cite his regular job title: Communications Director for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety. I wonder, who is paying his fees to work for the Lynch family?
Could it be that the story of the Jessica Lynch "rescue" has gone away? I doubt it. Her handlers can't keep her away from the press forever. This is a story that is bound to be told, and only Lynch can tell it.
Why Mr. Bush Went to Africa
The BBC Reports:
Bush had plenty of reasons for visiting Africa, and not just to take a vacation from the spate of recent negative press about his lying in his State of the Union address. Going to Africa was his chance to make good on his promise to give $15 billion to help Africa combat AIDS. But there are a few catches to Bush's empty promises:
- Repubs aren't willing to pay for the promises that Bush is making.
- Most African nations won't meet the strict guidelines being set for them to qualify for aid.
- Agricultural trade would help Africa much more than direct aid, if we only allowed it.
- The appointment of former Eli Lilly President Randall Tobias as the AIDS tsar signals the Bush's true goal - selling drugs.
The BBC Reports:
Mr Bush has just recently appointed his Global Aids administrator, a former pharmaceutical executive, Randall Tobias.
Jamie Drummond, executive director of Data, a pressure group set up to campaign for debt relief and African aid, said that the two new programmes together could represent a massive change in America's commitment to Africa, increasing US aid spending to that region from $1bn now to $5bn in 2006.
But he warned that the trip "was set up in quite a dramatic way to see if the president will see through on his promises".
Mr Drummond said it would be ironic that, while Mr Bush was in Africa, "the House foreign operations subcommittee was actually deciding to slash those promises, to break them if you like".
Aid experts say that it may be difficult for many African countries to meet the strict conditions that the US has set for receiving funds from the new Millennium Challenge Account, which requires nations to adhere to strict standards of openness and democracy.
It may be that as few as four or five African nations would qualify for the first wave of assistance under this programme.
Robert Shapiro of the Brookings Institution points out that while many African countries have a per capita income of $1 per day, in Europe the agricultural subsidy per cow is $2 per day.
Overall, subsidies by rich countries for agricultural amount to $300bn, compared to $50bn in foreign aid.
Mr Shapiro said that African income from exports of agricultural products could triple from $10bn to $30bn if subsidies were reduced.
But with trade talks between the US and the EU over agriculture deadlocked in the run-up to the crucial Cancun summit in September, there is little hope that Africa can develop its natural advantage in the near future.
Why Did We Decide to Attack Iraq?
Liberals and conservatives were happy to see the Taliban and Saddam Hussein removed from power. We had been told that they were behind the horrific attacks of 9/11. We also knew what went on in Afghanistan and Iraq before we invaded: mass executions, rape, torture, unthinkable evil. Whether we opposed or supported invading those countries without UN support, we all hoped that the ends might justify the means.
Bush's Africa trip was meant to deflect attention away from Iraq as much as it was meant to do anything else. It was just a photo op with an elephant, a chance to throw a bone to African American voters, another promise that wouldn't be financed by a Republican-led Congress. Despite his philanthropic claims to the contrary, Bush didn't visit Africa to show that he is "compassionate." Put simply, Africa has resources that Bush & Co. want: oil, diamonds, food, cheap labor.
The question now is whether Bush can get Iraq out of the news before it gets him out of office. Greider again:
Unfortunately for Bush, it's become exceedingly difficult to keep Iraq out of the news. Americans are being killed at the rate of 1.23 per day since May 2nd, the day after Bush's aircraft carrier publicity stunt. A total of 219 American servicemen and women have died since March 20th, not to mention British soldiers, journalists and Iraqi civilians. And the networks are showing an increased tolerance for depicting the bloody reality of war.
"Imperialist conquest is not a philanthropic enterprise... and this is the central contradiction in Bush's brave, new foreign policy."
--William Greider
Liberals and conservatives were happy to see the Taliban and Saddam Hussein removed from power. We had been told that they were behind the horrific attacks of 9/11. We also knew what went on in Afghanistan and Iraq before we invaded: mass executions, rape, torture, unthinkable evil. Whether we opposed or supported invading those countries without UN support, we all hoped that the ends might justify the means.
What we're only now starting to realize is that we were duped. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and Wolfowitz manipulated our opposing desires, one for vengeance, the other to ease suffering in the world. They continue to manipulate us to implement their long-term strategy of exercising US military power to control international trade and natural resources.
We're being led down the path of unilateral imperialism, justified by a noble cause, except that the cause isn't as noble as we were led to believe.
Bush & Co. have shown no qualms about sending American soldiers off to die in the desert, all to support their perverse views on American military supremacy. William Greider explains how Bush & Co. have been able to manipulate the American people, as well as why the lies will haunt them.
Many people feel personally injured -- and betrayed -- by what's happening in Iraq because they were led to support the war by a series of melodramatic lies. They became emotionally invested in what they were told to believe. The Iraqi dictator was to blame for 9/11. Saddam could wipe out London in 45 minutes (as the first poodle put it). Saddam has amassed killer toxins and nuclear weapons to supply the terrorists threatening our country. Saddam is a tyrannical killer and this will be a high-minded war of liberation, opening a democratic future for Iraq, nay, for all Arabs in the Middle East.
Bush's Africa trip was meant to deflect attention away from Iraq as much as it was meant to do anything else. It was just a photo op with an elephant, a chance to throw a bone to African American voters, another promise that wouldn't be financed by a Republican-led Congress. Despite his philanthropic claims to the contrary, Bush didn't visit Africa to show that he is "compassionate." Put simply, Africa has resources that Bush & Co. want: oil, diamonds, food, cheap labor.
The question now is whether Bush can get Iraq out of the news before it gets him out of office. Greider again:
Whatever unfolds in Iraq, Bush's political imperative is to get this story off the evening news, out of the main headlines, well before his reelection contest starts next year. He cannot do that by agitating popular taste for blood or by staging Israeli-style raids on Arab villages, satisfying though the assaults might be to some. The presidential dilemma is how to retreat artfully from what he started without diminishing the macho-man reputation. It is the classic dilemma colonialist powers often faced in hostile colonies. The empire can't stay, but it can't get out, not with it mighty honor intact.
Unfortunately for Bush, it's become exceedingly difficult to keep Iraq out of the news. Americans are being killed at the rate of 1.23 per day since May 2nd, the day after Bush's aircraft carrier publicity stunt. A total of 219 American servicemen and women have died since March 20th, not to mention British soldiers, journalists and Iraqi civilians. And the networks are showing an increased tolerance for depicting the bloody reality of war.
Gen. Wesley Clark (former NATO Supreme Allied Commander) spoke with Matt Lauer on "The Today Show" this morning. When asked whether the US did enough to prepare for the situation in postwar Iraq, Clark said, "I think the answer is clearly no."
He went on to say, although he was summarily interrupted by Lauer, that the "real issue is ... why precisely did we decide to attack Iraq?"
That's a question that Mr. Bush refuses to honestly answer.
Bush lied... but the CIA told him he could
Because Cheney told them to
The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery.
Because Cheney told them to
We do know the White House expressed an interest in those documents, that Vice President Cheney's office, in particular, had raised questions about them. The CIA then sent this special emissary, former ambassador to a number of countries in Africa, Joseph Wilson, who went over there, looked into it, came back and concluded that the documents were bogus, that there was no such purchases at all.
In March of 2002 the former ambassador briefed the CIA and told them that the intel was bogus and that the document that it came from was a forgery. The CIA followed up with another investigation and came to the same conclusion.
Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.
Administration officials said Mr. Cheney's views mirrored those of President Bush, and were part of an ongoing effort to convince the allies, Congress and the American public of the need for what the administration calls regime change in Iraq.
The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery.
CIA's Tenet Takes the Dive:
Diverts Attention from Larger White House Deception
What is not being reported, and is much more important, is that the White House decided it would go after Saddam Hussein immediately after the attacks of 9/11.
An interesting sidenote ... General Clark is considering a run for the Democratic Presidential nomination and had some strong criticism for Bush and his foreign policy this week in an interview with Newsweek. Here is a good line about Bush's aircraft carrier publicity stunt:
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), the media watchdog group, goes on to note that there is more evidence of a deliberate campaign to use 9/11 to invade Iraq, despite any damning evidence against Hussein.
FAIR is asking citizens to encourage media outlets to investigate this story. See FAIR's Media Contact list at: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html.
Diverts Attention from Larger White House Deception
The major papers are running with the Tenet mea culpa story today, advancing the White House's public relations campaign to deflect blame from President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al. Its become a worrisome pattern for Bush & Co to blame the CIA, the British government, the Democrats and anyone else, rather than taking responsibility for their own statements and actions.
What is being reported is that President Bush used bogus intelligence about Iraq's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
CIA officials "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we now know, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e., that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
Tenet made the statement hours after Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion of the charges in the president's speech on Jan. 28.
What is not being reported, and is much more important, is that the White House decided it would go after Saddam Hussein immediately after the attacks of 9/11.
General Wesley Clark told Tim Russert on June 15 that he was called on September 11 and asked to link Hussein to the attacks:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
An interesting sidenote ... General Clark is considering a run for the Democratic Presidential nomination and had some strong criticism for Bush and his foreign policy this week in an interview with Newsweek. Here is a good line about Bush's aircraft carrier publicity stunt:
NEWSWEEK: What do you think of President Bush’s using war imagery as a political tool, like when he recently flew onto an aircraft carrier?
CLARK: The world expects something more of an American president than to prance around on a flight deck dressed up like [a] pilot. He’s expected to be a leader. That’s my fundamental issue with it. It doesn’t reflect the gravitas of the office. Furthermore, it’s a little phony.
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), the media watchdog group, goes on to note that there is more evidence of a deliberate campaign to use 9/11 to invade Iraq, despite any damning evidence against Hussein.
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
FAIR is asking citizens to encourage media outlets to investigate this story. See FAIR's Media Contact list at: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html.
Bush Blames CIA's Tenet for Lies He Told
Based on comments he made today in Sun Valley, Idaho, CIA Director George Tenet seems all to willing to be the patsy, if need be.
Did Bush & Co. think they would be let off the hook by making a minor admission of fault and blaming the very agency that had warned them against invading Iraq? Or did they think that the press was too busy praising them for their historic trip to Africa to notice their subterfuge?
Earlier this week, the White House admitted that President Bush made false claims in his State of the Union, stating that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Its becoming readily apparent that this administration is willing to say anything to get what it wants, and this is just one example.
Howard Dean spoke with CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl today and said what is on a lot of people's minds:
KARL: The president and his national security adviser are saying that the CIA, and George Tenet specifically, cleared this speech and signed off on it. Does that get the president off the hook?
DEAN: We don't know that. The fact is that [former U.S.] Ambassador [to Niger Joseph] Wilson, in a public statement in The New York Times, has indicated that his report showing that there was no involvement between Niger and Iraq in terms of the uranium deal went to the office of the vice president, the secretary of state and the CIA. So I don't know what the president knew and when the president knew it, but I know that this intelligence-handling is a disaster for the administration at best, and either no one got to the secretary of defense or the president, or his own senior advisors withheld information.
So this is a serious credibility problem, and it's a lot deeper than just the Iraq-Niger deal, it has to do with assertions by the secretary of defense that he knew where weapons were that turned out not to be there, it has to do with assertions by the vice president there was a nuclear program that turned out not to exist, and assertions made by the president himself, not just about the acquisition of uranium, but also about the ability of [deposed Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] to use chemical weapons on the United States. We need a full-blown public investigation not held in Congress but by an outside bipartisan commission.
KARL: Condoleezza Rice specifically mentioned George Tenet, and now the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is specifically saying that George Tenet had a responsibility to tell the president about this but didn't.
DEAN: It's beginning to sound a little like Watergate. They start throwing people over the side. The deeper you go, the more interesting it will be. It's very clear that it may be George Tenet's responsibility, but that information also existed in the State Department and it also existed in the vice president's office, so they will not get away with simply throwing George Tenet over the side.
Based on comments he made today in Sun Valley, Idaho, CIA Director George Tenet seems all to willing to be the patsy, if need be.
"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said.
The CIA director also said, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."
Did Bush & Co. think they would be let off the hook by making a minor admission of fault and blaming the very agency that had warned them against invading Iraq? Or did they think that the press was too busy praising them for their historic trip to Africa to notice their subterfuge?
Speaking of Africa, who is Randall Tobias, former CEO of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly? And what qualifies him to be the US "AIDS tsar," besides the fact that he gave large sums of cash to help elect Bush and his former employer stands to make millions if it can keep generic equivalents out of the African markets?
Brace Yourself, Effie!
If the boogie man comes tonight, you can't say we didn't warn you.
With increasing attention coming to bear on the LIES used by the administration to justify going to war (http://www.democrats.org/truth), isn't it about time for a fresh distraction?
"Tom, you wouldn't want another one of those "letters", now, would you?"
Cheney warned Democrats not to play politics with any congressional inquiry into the pre-September 11 warnings Thursday night and hinted another attack could be being planned.
U.S. WARNS FUTURE TERRORIST ATTACKS "INEVITABLE"
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
The Bush Knew Index
If the boogie man comes tonight, you can't say we didn't warn you.
With increasing attention coming to bear on the LIES used by the administration to justify going to war (http://www.democrats.org/truth), isn't it about time for a fresh distraction?
"Tom, you wouldn't want another one of those "letters", now, would you?"
Cheney warned Democrats not to play politics with any congressional inquiry into the pre-September 11 warnings Thursday night and hinted another attack could be being planned.
U.S. WARNS FUTURE TERRORIST ATTACKS "INEVITABLE"
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
The Bush Knew Index
Why is Bush Visiting Africa?
But not all Africans are greeting Bush with open arms ...
Paul Vallely, of the New Zealand Herald, gives a thought-provoking analysis of Bush's motives for visiting Africa, unlike anything you'll find in the American press.
Could it be to demonstrate that he is truly a "compassionate conservative," or is it a public relations campaign meant to deflect attention away from a struggling domestic economy and a growing postwar crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
He told President Mogae that his five-day trip to Africa was meant to demonstrate “that we’re not only a powerful nation, but a compassionate nation”.Some commentators have accused Mr Bush of travelling to Africa for domestic electoral advantage, but the President said that the average American “cares deeply about the fact that people are dying in record numbers because of HIV-Aids. That’s really the story that I want the people of Africa to hear, and I want the people of America to know that I’m willing to take that story to this continent.”
But not all Africans are greeting Bush with open arms ...
President Bush received a cool reception Wednesday in the capital of Africa's largest economic power [Pretoria, South Africa], as opinion leaders here and across the continent complained about his policies on Iraq, AIDS and the International Criminal Court.Bush has come to this long-struggling region with the promise of billions of dollars for development, disease-fighting and counterterrorism efforts, and he carries the prestige of making only the third sub-Saharan Africa tour by a U.S. president. But Africans have responded with anti-Bush protests, diplomatic snubs and critical media coverage.
In South Africa, the country's revered former president, Nelson Mandela, who sharply criticized Bush on Iraq and once said Bush "cannot think properly, " arranged to be out of the country while he is here.
Bush had intended to go to a South African military base, but that was dropped in favor of a visit to the Ford plant. The Star, a South African newspaper, quoted South African government sources as saying the Americans were too embarrassed to proceed with the visit, because in recent days the administration cut military aid to South Africa and other countries that did not agree to exempt U.S. citizens from prosecution before an International Criminal Court.
An administration official said Bush "simply decided he wanted to go to the Ford plant." Senegal and Botswana agreed to the exemptions, provoking some grumbling in South Africa that Bush bought their support with military aid and a presidential visit.
Paul Vallely, of the New Zealand Herald, gives a thought-provoking analysis of Bush's motives for visiting Africa, unlike anything you'll find in the American press.
So why am I suspicious? In part because even with the increases, America is still the world's stingiest donor, giving only 0.12 per cent of its national income to aid - less than a third of the EU's percentage.
The whole of Africa still gets less American aid than Israel and Egypt.
Much of the money has to be spent on American goods and services, and aid is contingent on "eligibility criteria" which promote democracy, human rights, anti-corruption action and the private sector - and require recipients to "do nothing to undermine US interests".
But there is more. To curry favour with the Republican Party's growing African-American constituency, Bush begins his tour today on the island of Goree off the coast of Senegal, which was once a centre of the slave trade.
The bitter irony is that in many ways nothing has changed. The relationship between the United States and Africa is still characterised by unrestrained power, deep injustice and unequal exchange.
But now, the slavery is economic, not physical, and passes under the euphemism of "trade".
Bush will this week no doubt be much on his soapbox to lecture Africans on the virtues of open markets and fair trade. He will brag about America's Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Under it, African garment and textile exporters are given duty-free access to US markets.
The trouble is that most of the products in which Africa has an advantage are excluded. Take peanuts. Senegalese farmers face tariffs of more than 150 per cent to export to the US. And African textile-makers have to use US yarns and fabric.
The International Monetary Fund says these protectionist loopholes cost African exporters about US$500 million a year.
There are other strings. The "concession" is given only if African Governments open their markets to US investors, enforce US intellectual property claims and lower their trade barriers to US goods. This is unequal trade at its most insidious.
All of these so-called concessions and all the increases in aid - are wiped out by Bush's double standards in subsidising US producers by US$200 billion a year.
Last year, America's 25,000 corporate cotton farms reaped a harvest of US$4 billion in Government subsidies, three times the total amount of US aid to Africa.
In West Africa, you see the consequences. There, US subsidies cheated 11 million small cotton farmers of US$200 billion in lost income in 2001.
In effect, some of the globe's poorest people are competing against the world's richest treasury.
The answer, as ever these days, is September 11, 2001. On the one hand, the "failed states" of Africa are seen as a potential breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. On the other, there is oil.
US petroleum production is decreasing and its consumption is rising. African oil is of the "sweet" low-sulphur variety which is good for cars.
By 2005, it is estimated that between 15 and 25 per cent of US oil will come from Africa - close to the proportion now coming from the Middle East. And, apart from Nigeria, the Africans are not members of the nasty Opec cartel.
So pay no attention to that recent Christian Aid report which showed how oil concentrates power in the hands of elites, encourages irresponsible spending, chokes other economic activity, fuels poverty, impedes democracy and makes conflict more likely.
2004 Presidential Election: Bush v. Dean
Although John Edwards and John Kerry lead in fundraising totals, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is looking more and more like the Democratic Presidential frontrunner. Conservatives, like William F. Buckley Jr. and Dennis Miller, and the corporate media are certainly treating Dean like the man to beat. Rush Limbaugh said last week that some Republicans are furtively raising money for Dean - they'd love to see a Bush vs. Dean contest. George Will and Bill O'Reilly have gone so far as to say that nominating Dean would be political suicide, like choosing McGovern in '72, and that the Democrats would be better off with Gephardt or Lieberman as their (losing) candidate.
Too bad many Democrats aren't helping their cause, either by seriously and uncritically accepting such conservative "wisdom," or worse, by writing off the 2004 presidential election, and the candidates, as a lost cause.
A good friend in the beltway typifies the current defeatism in the Democratic Party. While he is impressed with Dean's recent "spurt," he believes that the "important states are Midwest and Florida. Dean's a nobody there." He "read that during a 4th parade up North, Rove was cheering Dean and was overheard saying, 'He's the guy we want.' (They know they can beat him)." He adds that he'll "vote for any Democrat at this point," but nonetheless predicts: "Dubya in a landslide."
If things [in Iraq] go "badly" in the traditional sense, I don't think the public will be convinced things have gone badly until we're into his second term. By then they'll be naming government buildings and aircraft carriers after Dubya. If things "go well", Iraq will fade to the back of the front page with Afghanistan. It's not even the economy, stupid, anymore. Four reductions in the interest rate have done nothing to help.The unemployment rate just went to 6.4%, the deficit is $400B, Clinton said last week that the tax cut killed the Education Bill of '02 and the "100,000 Police" program of his administration. Still, Dubya's at 70+ approval. Maybe I don't learn from lessons - his father won a war and had an even higher rating before losing - but I think the GOP has. They won't let what happened to his father happen again. They'll continue to push initiatives that won't work, but will get passed - like the new Medicare plan - and tout themselves as the only ones who can get anything done in DC. They'll prey on our fears over terrorism - and continue to defy history that says a bad economy and foreign entanglements bring down administrations. . .
Personally, I think that George Bush's popularity can't hold - there is just too much wrong with his presidency, and two unfinished wars in the Middle East are only symptomatic of a term characterized by botched foreign policy, unprecedented secrecy, attacks on civil rights, oil-friendly environmental policy, rising unemployment, handouts to the wealthy, concessions to corporate lobbyists, etc. By November 2004, if not sooner, Americans will be more than ready for an alternative to four more years of Bush the Younger.
New Internet Favorite
GIA - Government Information Awareness
http://opengov.media.mit.edu/
Mission
To empower citizens by providing a single, comprehensive, easy-to-use repository of information on individuals, organizations, and corporations related to the government of the United States of America.
The Open Government Information Awareness suite of software tools acts as a framework for US citizens to construct and analyze a comprehensive database on our government. Modeled on recent government programs designed to consolidate information on individuals into massive databases, our system does the opposite, allowing you to scrutinize those in government.
Rationale
In the United States, there is a widening gap between a citizen's ability to monitor his or her government and the government's ability to monitor a citizen. Average citizens have limited access to important government records, while available information is often illegible. Meanwhile, the government's eagerness and means to oversee a citizen's personal activity is rapidly increasing.
Check it out
GIA - Government Information Awareness
http://opengov.media.mit.edu/
Mission
To empower citizens by providing a single, comprehensive, easy-to-use repository of information on individuals, organizations, and corporations related to the government of the United States of America.
The Open Government Information Awareness suite of software tools acts as a framework for US citizens to construct and analyze a comprehensive database on our government. Modeled on recent government programs designed to consolidate information on individuals into massive databases, our system does the opposite, allowing you to scrutinize those in government.
Rationale
In the United States, there is a widening gap between a citizen's ability to monitor his or her government and the government's ability to monitor a citizen. Average citizens have limited access to important government records, while available information is often illegible. Meanwhile, the government's eagerness and means to oversee a citizen's personal activity is rapidly increasing.
Check it out
A BuzzFlash Declaration of Independence for 2003
You can add your signature to a new Declaration of Independence.
Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
View the well written original here
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States, And such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former System of Government. The history of the present President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
The page goes on to list these injuries and usurpations.
You may add your signature by following the links at the bottom of the page.
You can add your signature to a new Declaration of Independence.
Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
View the well written original here
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States, And such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former System of Government. The history of the present President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
The page goes on to list these injuries and usurpations.
You may add your signature by following the links at the bottom of the page.
We Should Know Better
The informed public is considerably less hawkish about war with Iraq than the public as a whole. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraq situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Saddam from power or to disarm Iraq.
Democracy is a word that has been so abused that it's now difficult to give it a concrete meaning. But note that the belief reflected in its original definition — that political power should be exercised by the people as a whole— must be undermined by so much evidence that the people as a whole are aggressively clueless. If the average American has become as ignorant as a 17th century Russian peasant, doesn't it make more sense to put important decisions in the hands of the czar? Pious patriots will reply that this is why we have government by representation, rather than direct democracy. In which case we can only hope our government isn't too representative of its people.
Widespread ignorance of our history and principles of government is a serious problem, one that reverberates through every civic institution in America. If young people cannot construct a meaningful narrative of American history, then there is little hope that the nation can live up to the highest task of a pluralistic liberal democracy: forging a common strength of purpose out of disparate and sometimes alien parts. If they don't know what made George Washington or Jane Addams or Martin Luther King, Jr. great, they won't know how to find greatness in themselves and in their fellow citizens. If they don't understand why we should commemorate Independence Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving and other national holidays, great and small, they won't understand the events, great and small, that shape their present and future.
USA TODAY/CNN Gallup Poll results
Poll: 70% say things going well in Iraq - The findings suggest that the public is less concerned about the messiness of the Iraq situation than many critics of the Bush administration. Seven in 10 people in a poll said the Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. And a majority, 52%, said they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
Stupid ---
1. Wanting in understanding; in a state of stupor; stupefied.
2. Sluggish in understanding; slow-witted; crassly foolish.
3. Resulting from, or showing mental dullness; foolish; witless.
Ignorant ---
1. Destitute of knowledge or education.
2. Lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.
3. Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.
And for you "truly stupid" idiots out there (who comprise at least 90% of the population) who cannot or will not see that anything at all is wrong with this "great country of ours", may Our Lord bless your moronic souls. Ignorance is not bliss!!
Disprove the myths of ignorance
The Great American Civics Quiz tests your knowledge of the foundation and fundamentals of our government. We firmly believe it is your responsibility to be knowledgeable about the government that offers you the greatest opportunity in the world for freedom and individual success.
Retro Poll was established in 2002 to investigate, expose, and challenge bias in corporate media polling. Retro Poll moves beyond critical analysis of poll methodology to re-work poll questions, background information, and methods and then actually perform new polls on the same issues. We do not claim the capability of pure objectivity.
The informed public is considerably less hawkish about war with Iraq than the public as a whole. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraq situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Saddam from power or to disarm Iraq.
Democracy is a word that has been so abused that it's now difficult to give it a concrete meaning. But note that the belief reflected in its original definition — that political power should be exercised by the people as a whole— must be undermined by so much evidence that the people as a whole are aggressively clueless. If the average American has become as ignorant as a 17th century Russian peasant, doesn't it make more sense to put important decisions in the hands of the czar? Pious patriots will reply that this is why we have government by representation, rather than direct democracy. In which case we can only hope our government isn't too representative of its people.
Widespread ignorance of our history and principles of government is a serious problem, one that reverberates through every civic institution in America. If young people cannot construct a meaningful narrative of American history, then there is little hope that the nation can live up to the highest task of a pluralistic liberal democracy: forging a common strength of purpose out of disparate and sometimes alien parts. If they don't know what made George Washington or Jane Addams or Martin Luther King, Jr. great, they won't know how to find greatness in themselves and in their fellow citizens. If they don't understand why we should commemorate Independence Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving and other national holidays, great and small, they won't understand the events, great and small, that shape their present and future.
USA TODAY/CNN Gallup Poll results
Poll: 70% say things going well in Iraq - The findings suggest that the public is less concerned about the messiness of the Iraq situation than many critics of the Bush administration. Seven in 10 people in a poll said the Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. And a majority, 52%, said they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
Stupid ---
1. Wanting in understanding; in a state of stupor; stupefied.
2. Sluggish in understanding; slow-witted; crassly foolish.
3. Resulting from, or showing mental dullness; foolish; witless.
Ignorant ---
1. Destitute of knowledge or education.
2. Lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.
3. Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.
And for you "truly stupid" idiots out there (who comprise at least 90% of the population) who cannot or will not see that anything at all is wrong with this "great country of ours", may Our Lord bless your moronic souls. Ignorance is not bliss!!
Disprove the myths of ignorance
The Great American Civics Quiz tests your knowledge of the foundation and fundamentals of our government. We firmly believe it is your responsibility to be knowledgeable about the government that offers you the greatest opportunity in the world for freedom and individual success.
Retro Poll was established in 2002 to investigate, expose, and challenge bias in corporate media polling. Retro Poll moves beyond critical analysis of poll methodology to re-work poll questions, background information, and methods and then actually perform new polls on the same issues. We do not claim the capability of pure objectivity.
Global Warming:
What We Can Look Forward To
William Schlesinger of Duke University has similarly blunt words about global warming's effect on the environment:
Fortunately, global warming isn't a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans, except the Bushies who just can't resist oil dollars, have an obvious interest in a sustainable environment. Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) is leading the charge from the right to hold Bush accountable for his reckless pursuit of policies which benefit no one but energy producers.
What We Can Look Forward To
And now for the juicy details on what a warmer planet means to you and me: decimation of species, disease, fires and, uh, disease. Sounds like a fun-filled future!
Maybe the rising sea levels will expand the habitats of porcelain crabs? Uh, no, I guess that isn't likely. Then again, porcelain crabs won't be the only things we lose if the world climate warms by 4 to 6 degrees - think of all the world's cities that are located on coasts.
West Nile virus isn't the only disease that will spread on a warmer planet. Thank god we'll have universal health care to take care of us! Oh, right, never mind.
Extreme weather will be fun. When it rains, it will flood. When it's dry, there will be drought. And forests will burn, bringing respiratory disease. If the Bush administration just accepted the reality of global warming, then maybe they could use it as justification for their Healthy Forests Initiative! Too bad scientists like Dr. Paul Epstein from Harvard Medical School would rain on that parade:
"Global warming or climate change is associated with more extreme weather.
The rise of U.S. wildfires is turning global warming into a real and direct health threat for American adults and children. The chief concern has to be that global warming, if left unchecked, will mean more intense weather extremes, including drought. The resulting -- and worsening -- wildfire problems in the United States could well mean a steadily increasing toll in the related health problems."
William Schlesinger of Duke University has similarly blunt words about global warming's effect on the environment:
"We are altering the climate of the earth to a point that we've never experienced before in human society. And this has consequences for sea level rise, for the frequency of fire and for drought that could very well impact the occurrence of fire.
The most important thing for the public to understand about this is that our nation needs to curb its emissions of carbon dioxide. We are altering the climate of the planet to a point never before seen ... Limiting the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and release into the world's atmosphere through fossil-fuel burning cars, along with coal and oil energy, would greatly assist in slowing down our unstable and abruptly changing ecosystem ... There will be no relief from the drought that fuels the wildfires until our nation's leaders get serious about curbs on CO2 emissions."
Fortunately, global warming isn't a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans, except the Bushies who just can't resist oil dollars, have an obvious interest in a sustainable environment. Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) is leading the charge from the right to hold Bush accountable for his reckless pursuit of policies which benefit no one but energy producers.
REP America President Martha Marks said, "First, the administration watered down language about global warming in EPA's recent state of the environment report. Then, the administration dismissed federal scientists' concerns in declaring that Yellowstone National Park is in no danger. Now, we see that senators were not given vital information about cleaning up unhealthy power plant emissions."
"The administration should treat the American people and their Congressional representatives like adults and give them the unvarnished truth about the environment," she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)