burnt to a crisp

Buh Bye

2007-01-03T12:39:00.000-05:00

go read some real blogs now.

The Year In Rearview

2006-12-18T21:52:00.000-05:00

What am I thinking of right now? I'm thinking that objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. We have moved past 2006. 2005, 2004... all the "Busch" years.

Now when the press speaks people go "Yeah, right". I'm thinking that a lot of people have now experienced what I experienced when the press conspired(?) to eliminate anti-war Howard Dean from the primaries. (You know, he really did himself in...) Well, the press lied about that moment. They created a negative from what might just as easily have been a positive and they drove it into the nation's consciousness.

So here we are, discussing a "way forward", which is total bullshit. Lots of people who know are declaring Iraq a disaster of epic proportions, yet the press is treating the issue as something in doubt, a war still "winable". The public has expressed their opinion on this- back in November. Still, the press cranks out the propaganda- resolutely, Busch seeks a way forward.

So this week's prayerful answer comes in the form of a "surge" of troops in Iraq. This "surge" of troops will somehow turn things around there, give us a "win" or at least a respectable way to exit. Oddly enough, the American people do not think that this is a viable answer to our problems there.

So, here is the relevant information from the latest (Dec. 15-17) CNN poll-

17. Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which one do you prefer-

withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately
withdraw all troops by December, 2007- that is, in 12 months time
withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis
send more troops to Iraq?

Immediately 21%
12 months' time 33%
As many years as needed 32%
Send more troops 11%
No opinion 3%

Yup, the only option with less support than sending more troops is "undecided"- which, at a mere 3%, represents the tiny little portion of the American people who live underground, in caves.

Yet, do the press cite these poll results in their coverage of the war? Nah! That might interfere with the great story of how we are winning the war in Iraq!

650,000 Dead Iraqis

2006-12-13T12:53:00.000-05:00

As in, real dead. That Lancet report got lost in the shuffle of the elections, didn't it? First its results were termed "ridiculous" (Con-Speak for "absolutely true"), called into question on numerous occasions, then forgotten. But hey, look, there was a little congressional hearing about this recently. Funny, I didn't hear anything about this in the news...

Oh... You Mean THAT Oil?

2006-12-08T16:50:00.000-05:00

Lots of discussion about the sham which is the Iraq Study Group report. It's essentially a stalling tactic- the latest in a series.

Bipartisian is the word used by our liberal media to describe this group. Vested interests might be a better one...

My Lord and Leige

2006-12-08T13:42:00.000-05:00

Here's some light Friday reading for you- What Is Conservatism, and What Is Wrong With It? by Phil Agre.

Shameful Withdrawal Starting Now

2006-12-06T15:15:00.000-05:00

CNN has an article asking what "we" think is the right approach on Iraq. The responses are pretty wild. Here's mine.

"The only valid thing to to is to immediately remove from power those who led us into this war. Once we have demonstrated our belief in justice and our sincere wish for peace in the region, we may begin to withdraw our troops and to compensate the people of Iraq for our invasion of their country. The Baker report is nothing but cover for our continued occupation of Iraq and for the continued exploitation of their resources. I don't expect to see any change in course."

I don't think they'll print this, for some reason.

Busch Administration? It's Corruptdillyitious!

2006-12-05T19:34:00.000-05:00

Over at the Muckraker they're makin' a list. My "deck of 52" included Republicans at all levels of government, but this list is a Federal case.

So Popular!

2006-12-03T21:27:00.000-05:00

In my last post I about bust out laughing when Busch claims that the Iraqis want us to help them be free, or something.

Here's the reason why- "The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year."

Did you know this already? Has this been reported on the news? I don't know, I don't watch network news.

But the fact is, there is not a shred of truth to the claim that the Iraqis want us in Iraq. We could leave within a year and they'd be perfectly happy. So what's the problem with ending the war?

"No Graceful Exit"

2006-11-30T12:58:00.000-05:00

No Graceful Exit. I think that this is an interesting choice of words. Here's the quote:

"We'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people,'' Bush said. "I know there is a lot of speculation that these reports mean that there is going to be some sort of graceful exit out of Iraq,'' he said, but leaving before the mission is complete "would dash the hopes of millions of people who want to live in a free society.'

After 6 years of Busch-speak, none of the false statements are very surprising. Implying that we are in Iraq at the behest of the free people of Iraq is enough to make me bust out laughing. Whatever. But then, poetically, he floats the "graceful exit" meme.

I hadn't heard one report mentioning a "graceful exit" from Iraq, but then, I don't watch much TV news. Mostly I've heard about helicopters-on-embassy-roof sorts of exits. The idea that there could somehow be a magical, graceful way out of Iraq is pure fantasy. And the side that talks about leaving is not the side that dwells in fantasy-land.

So here again is one of the bigger fabrications, a sort of fog of falsehood that Busch lays down around the sharp, pointy shards of deception. Typically, he began this speech with his "The American people need to unnerstand..." riff. Who does he keep talking to? No one I know.

Colorado- the New Bavaria?

2006-11-29T10:05:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend we had the story of a Colorado woman who was threatened with being fined for displaying a peace-sign Christmas wreath on her home.

Today, we have the fine representative from the 6th District of CO, Tom Tancredo, flaming Miami as having become "a third world country".

I wrote to congressman Tancredo, asking him to please stop.

"Dear Tom;

Concerning recent remarks you've made about Miami. The comparison you've made is hate speech, plain and simple. You are an embarassment to our country, our principles of freedom and equality, and the American way of life. Please stop now.

Thanks"

Feel free to write to Tom yourself and (respectfully) let him know how you feel about his remarks. You may want to remind him of the fate that met Mr. Santorum in PA, another right-wing "hate-speaker".

Ist you Ist or Ist You Ain't My Ism?

2006-11-28T11:58:00.000-05:00

Well.

Since last November 8, I've felt little urgency about this blogging thing. Whatever effect my posts may have had on the two or three people who read them have been dwarfed by the phenomenon of those elections.

There has been a tremendous change of some sort- that is to say, a lot of people have pulled the lever that says "stop". Stop what? That's where the pundits step in.

They've been trying to "explain" this for several weeks now, and one trend I notice is that many say that Democrats should be cautious about reading too much into their victory. Pundits warn against "populism".

Now, apparently, Populism is a very bad thing. Populism starts from the idea that the people know what's best for them. I don't see how that's a bad thing, but I do understand how that can go bad, particularly when political leaders use populist ideas to whip up hate.

But in this case, it seems, the people made a decision on their own. There wasn't one single issue, or one charismatic leader, to focus on this time. It seems to me that instead of that there was a string of failures and lies and examples of corruption stretching back for years. People are sick of it.

There's no need to work too hard to pin an "ism" on it. It's simply people expressing themselves with their votes. I hope someone is listening.

Waterloo For The Party Of Fear

2006-11-08T06:58:00.000-05:00

I don't expect the drumbeats to diminish. If anything, Busch will become even more shrill and defensive. "Terror, terror, terror!" Like that little kid repeating "REDRUM!".

And now, any negative thing that happens will be the fault of the Democrats. Our failure to elect Republicans has emboldened the terrorists.

There will be no accommodation, no compromise from this little tyrant.

Still, the good news is that the adults have at least got a hand on the wheel now. They can't smack the little monkey out of the way, but hopefully they will be able to ease the ol' Station Wagon of State back onto the freeway.

Well, There Ya Go

2006-11-07T09:42:00.000-05:00

People have begun voting already. Not only that, but reporters have begun filing articles with quotes from people who have voted. Here's a quote now-

"I voted straight Democrat," said Julie Cerf, a 49-year-old who works for a human rights group, after she voted at a firehouse being used as a polling station in Montclair, New Jersey. "This administration is a total disaster. They have bungled everything from the war in Iraq on down. It's time for a break."

Here's another one-

Charlene Apostol, 45, a graphic designer, said she voted Republican, complaining that her real estate taxes had quadrupled since her recent move to the East Coast from California

Yesterday afternoon NPR asked a couple of average citizens how they made up their minds who to vote for. One guy said he'd vote for the candidate that "felt right". Another guy gave an obviously bullshit response to cover for his real reason, which may have been racial. A common idea was that they'd somehow get an impression of the candidate's character from his appearances on TV and statements in the press.

Nowhere have I heard from a likely voter able to (or allowed to) express themselves in anything but talking points. It's all about how it feels. And if it isn't about "character", it's about "ideals" of some sort- "smaller government", "human rights".

A state political operative was on the radio last week saying that the average person spends about 5 minutes a month thinking about politics- and that those aren't consecutive minutes, either.

I wonder what sort of government we deserve?

Look, today's elections, if they follow the polls, may represent a small step away from the brink of disaster. They may, on the other hand, force the Busch administration to even greater acts of lunacy than we've already seen. It would be a big mistake to think that voting on your feelings is going to have any great affect on the direction this country has taken. No, it's precisely because of this feelings voting, this so-called character voting, that we're in this mess to begin with.

What's the answer to that? Well, pay attention. Read a few good blogs. Try to watch less TV news. You'll find that things aren't quite as rosey or as simple as you may like them to be, but next time you vote, you may feel better afterwards...

Fantasyland

2006-11-05T06:27:00.000-05:00

This is frightening. A neo-conservative, Joshua Muravchik, attempts to justify the movement's failures and shine a light forward.

That way forward involves bombing Iran.

propers to Weldon Berger at Betty the Crow, who breaks out the relevant portions nicely. Still, go have a look at the actual article in Foreign Policy magazine. It's unbelievable.

The Neo-Cons Fold

2006-11-04T05:39:00.000-05:00

Incredible. The mission to save the world, the New American Century, seems to have ended already. Why?

It was because this administration was incompetent.

The architects of this disaster are walking away frum the table. They've disowned their creation, their monster.

Now, they say, “the idea of using our power for moral good in the world” is dead, at least for a generation- ruined by the Busch administrations failures.

What a bunch of candy-assed cowards! They can't or won't own up the the fact that their idea of history and their understanding of the uses of power were completely wrong.

Don't believe a single word they say at this point. It will be tempting to join them in blaming "incompetence" for this disaster, but that's not the problem here. There never was a good way to overthrow the Hussain dictatorship and install something else. The idea itself was fundamentally flawed. Like trying to douse a fire with gasoline.

But don't blame Busch- he just needed an excuse to launch this country into the middle-east. I don't believe that finding a "good" way to do this was ever the issue for the Busch administration, and I'm still convinced that the only thing that matters to those in power is having control of the oil fields.

Have you seen Exxon's profits for last quarter?

Maybe There IS a God?

2006-11-03T07:11:00.000-05:00

I try to respect everyone's belief systems, but I don't like the preachy self rightious style of the evangelicals very much. I sometimes enjoy sitting down and talking to "witnesses", because I've been through all the emotional games in their deck and it's fun to play on Satan's team and plant a few jokers in their minds. Maybe something I say will save them someday, eh?

While I don't believe that god chooses sides, I am still delighted when god chooses to make those rough places plain, to bring the mighty low, and it seems that we're witnessing that right now in Colorado.

May Pastor Haggard serve as an example to us all- be humble.

Myth-Buster

2006-11-02T10:50:00.000-05:00

Is it possible for the Republicans to make a goal-line stand this coming Tuesday? Some claim that their superb "get out the vote" abilities can save the day for them.

Elsewhere I've read that at best, GOTV efforts can deliver 1% to 2% on election day- a healthy percentage in tight races, but this year, not enough to save the house.

Let the inquisition begin!

Elections? What Elections?

2006-11-01T20:40:00.000-05:00

The turnout for mid-term elections is typically 15% less than the previous presidential election. 2004 was a large turnout year, so this could be a large mid-term.

I was looking around to find these stats and came across the website run by Larry J. Sabato, director of the U. Va Center for Politics. They had some accurate predictions last time around- they are calling for substantial Democratic party gains this year.

This statement struck me:

"The "trick" up the GOP's sleeve in the last six years has largely been the coupling of a consistent, hard-driven national security message and a superior get-out-the-vote ground game. We know that at least the latter half will be in action this year. But as every party turnout strategist knows, at its most effective, a good field operation is worth only one or two points at the ballot box."

Get out there and vote next Tuesday! Vote like your freedom depended on it!

Rankin'

2006-10-30T15:45:00.000-05:00

You know, it isn't easy being blog #1,738,471.

Hopping Mad

2006-10-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

This isn't likely to help much, but here is an observation- some people don't have actual values, or opinions, or any sort of philosophy, really. They haven't actually thought about things much.

All they care about is feeling that they're right- or at least, feeling that they're normal.

The world is not conducive to this. In order to get along in this world, it's important that you accept a lot of things that are not normal, or OK.

Forgive me if I sound naive. I'm not, actually. I just feel that it's necessary to frame my thoughts this way for people who can actually believe that torture is acceptable. For people who think that there was some valid reason to invade Iraq. For people who are desperately seeking a way to justify that invasion.

And what happens, this election season, is that a lot of thinking people get hopping mad at other people who don't seem to be able to understand the problem with this. All I can say about this is- don't get so mad about it.

Yes, these are the people who have gotten us into this situation. Yes, these are the people who will not have any idea how to get us out again, and who will resist any of our attempts to get us out, and who will accuse us of being weak, of being failures, when we do finally pull this one out (which we will- i'm confident we will!)

So a lot of people are hopping mad at these people- I am too. But they really don't get it. They will never surrender their position, their beliefs, their convictions. It's almost admirable, and in fact, their constancy is what they are most proud of.

Headed right off a cliff, well...

Something Rotten in New Amsterdam

2006-10-25T10:23:00.000-04:00

Any political reporter or casual reader of the editorial columns, or couch potato watching the bobble-heads on Sundays, or kid with a weekly reader- anyone paying the least little bit of attention to politics in this country knows that Joe Lieberman has supported Busch's war policy for years.

Knowing this- knowing that independent senate candidate Joe Lieberman, who lost his Democratic party primary battle to Ned Lamont in large part because of his support for Busch's war policy- how on earth could the "paper of record", the New York Times, fail to find, in their own data base, a single instance of Leiberman declaring that we must "stay the course" in Iraq?

But "fail" they did, and reported that Joe Lieberman never, ever used those words.

Which, oddly enough, was untrue. Joe Lieberman did in fact use those very words, and use them many times in reference to the war, and was quoted using them in the very New York Times that "failed" to find any record of him using them.

This was no mistake.

As we near the mid-terms, we see all the classic election manuevers being put into play, and this is one of them. "Getting it out there" is the name of this one. It's the idea that simply injecting an idea or a rumor into the mainstream media muddies the waters enough to create doubt in the voter's mind. The Times can now print a correction, but someone's purpose has been served- a lot of people will only remember the false information that "Joe Lieberman was more often critical of President Bush".

So there you have it- a major "liberal" newspaper has openly lied to improve the chances of a Busch war policy supporter in an election. Who directs this stuff? Who is complicit? It pretty obviously goes right to the top, because any moron can see through this- it's not like some rogue editor is printing this stuff. But imagine being JENNIFER MEDINA and ANNE E. KORNBLUT who wrote this trash.

Must suck, at least until the vodka kicks in.

That Sinking Feeling

2006-10-24T11:00:00.000-04:00

Ride her down, Denny!

A Positive Alternative

2006-10-19T05:36:00.000-04:00

I haven't finished reading this report, but the next time some idiot suggests that no one has any ideas about "fixing" Iraq, I'll point them here.

It's a plan for a reduction in US troops in Iraq, an increase of troops in Afghanistan, and a strengthening of diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflicts within Iraq and throughout the region.

Is it a workable plan? I have no idea, but it's a place to begin a discussion about this vital issue- not brain-dead Baker's simplification of the options to "stay the course" versus "cut and run".

Bob Casey's Best Ad Man

2006-10-18T15:08:00.000-04:00

The other day I was trying to help someone decide who to vote for in the Senate race here in PA. This individual, like most, has paid very little attention to politics, so it was hard to know where to begin explaining where Rick Santorum is coming from.

Today, the junior senator hands me every reason I need to explain why he shouldn't be in the US Senate. Or in any position of responsibility, for that matter. Here's some choice Santorum:

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," he continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

It's that "evil eye". I wonder, who's "evil eye" that would be? Not that guy that the president says he's not concerned about anymore, right? I mean, the president wouldn't have dropped the ball on Lord Sauron, would he?

More-

"Santorum insisted the U.S. needed to take out Saddam Hussein because he "by all accounts had weapons of mass destruction ... he was fomenting terrorism, he was paying for terrorists to kill Israelis, and we has supporting terrorist objectives.""

I had forgotten that Santorum still promotes these lies- the very same lies that even his president has abandoned.

So there ya go- let the man tell you himself- he's a nutbag and shouldn't be allowed to have the keys to the car.

Not Leaving

2006-10-13T18:31:00.000-04:00

William S. Lind proposes that our troops will remain in Iraq for the next two years simply because Busch wants to dump the withdrawal on the next administration. I don't think he's been paying attention.

The American Empire needs to control certain parts of the globe. It's a different scenario than we've known in the past. The neocons believe that it must be done through force.

To believe that this is our future makes America something different than we've always believed it to be. In fact, America is something different than we've always believed it to be.

So no, we won't be leaving Iraq no matter who wins the election in 2008. If there were forces close enough to power which could have stopped America from pursuing this course, I believe they could have done so in 2004. No, this course of action has at least the complicity, in not the whole-hearted approval, of the majority of our leaders. Our "representatives".

We won't be leaving Iraq. No matter what the cost in lives, we'll be there till the money runs out.

A bleak prediction, I know. We'd all like to believe that the forces for good will prevail, that somehow we can make things right again for America. Well, that's up to us. It isn't going to happen by following the well-worn course of national politics. We have to think of something better.

He's the Fixer

2006-10-10T10:38:00.000-04:00

James Baker got us into this mess- let's see him get us out!

It was Baker, you may recall, who was sent down to FLA to fix the 2000 election results. Let's see what he can do with this nasty war.

My favorite lie (so far)... “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”

Try to remember this- the only people who suggested "cut and run" as an alternative were Republicans. So Baker is saying that there are alternatives between the miserable failure of policy we have now and the made-up policy that these miserable failures suggested as an alternative for their miserable failure of a policy.

Look for this brilliant strategist to suggest a "phased withdrawal" or a "draw-down" or some other such policy as an alternative to staying in Iraq forever. You know, we've heard this before.

We'd all like to believe that there is some magic formula for ending this war. There isn't. So remember who got you into this in the first place- are you going to trust them to get you out?

Mouthing Off to Power

2006-10-05T11:19:00.000-04:00

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there was this incident.

Is it possible that our VP once again found himself exposed to the public, and that the public used the opportunity to let him know exactly how they feel about him?

Some elements of the story seem far-fetched. What was Cheney doing in the parking lot of a mall in Denver? Was there a NASCAR related event and the politician in him just couldn't help pressing the flesh?

The other thing that's fishy about the story- no piano lesson lasts ten minutes. This sort of detail has the earmark of urban myth about it.

Easy enough to prove or disprove. If it's a true story, it's very bizarre.

Gun Runners?

2006-10-05T06:43:00.000-04:00

We hear time and time again that Iran is supplying weapons and technology to the Iraqis. Where's the evidence?

This Brit Lt. Col. doesn't believe there are any guns being run in his district. Is he a fool or a traitor or is he speaking the truth?

Naturally, there could be weapons and technology coming in somewhere else. It's worth asking where and how, and asking for convincing evidence from our leaders, who use this talking point to drum up support for future action against Iran.

I remember months ago, hearing a report about an I.E.D. which stated that the trigger mechanism was somehow tracable to Iran. I'd like to find this again, if anyone knows where.

ht Lennin's Tomb

Help! I'm Republican and I Can't Stop!

2006-10-03T07:13:00.000-04:00

Crooks and Liars has a good roundup of the Republican defense of this Foley guy. You can hear Matt Drudge calling page boys "beasts".

I was thinking of a Republican I work with who will probably buy into these arguments. There is nothing, not one thing, not even pedophilia, that could convince him that Republicans are not honest, pure, and virtuous. All Republicans, all the time.

I picture a tiny little voice inside him screaming "Help me!

That would be the voice of reason, pal.

I'd like to start an organization to help these recovering Republicans, but they don't believe in that shit. Nope, nothin' wrong with me! It was them page boys' fault!

A New Party

2006-09-30T06:43:00.000-04:00

I have a plan to create the most powerful political party in the nation- and we'll never have to get one candidate on the ballot. In fact, we will not have any candidates. We won't have conventions or fund-raising drives. The one thing we will have in common will be our antipathy toward the existing political process. Even so, we will decide the outcome of most elections.

How is this possible? Most elections are decided by as little as 1% of the vote, sometimes less. This makes the "swing" voter, the independant voter so important. It takes very little to change the outcome by 1%. A good smear campaign might do it. Intimidating rural or poor voters might do it. Stuffing a few ballot boxes might do it. Generating apathy in the voting public might do it.

It's that apathy that gives our new party the power. With less than half the eligible voters participating in the election process there is a huge well of disaffected potential voters. What might get them to show up on election day? Maybe the power to turn an election on their vote.

If we could interest 1% of these non-voters in voting as a block, we could turn many elections. A mere 5% voting together as a group could decide almost any contest in the country.

The key to sucess here is that these voters are not voting on issues, or for any particular person or political philosophy. Any sort of issue based voting will turn these people off. No, the key thing that will bring them to the polls is the power they will have. Call it the power to fuck with the man, call it a protest vote, but it would be a protest vote with teeth.

Imagine- one to five percent of the eligible voters turning out to vote as a block- voters who never bothered to vote before because they felt it didn't matter anyway. This group would be courted by the political parties like crazy. Or they would be, if they were a traditional block of voters like the fundies or the greens. But remember, these aren't issue voters. They don't believe in the system, and they aren't going to be persuaded by empty promises. So, how do they decide who to vote for?

Chance. Somewhere there will be a random number chosen. Odd votes Democratic, even votes Republican. Maybe it's the Pennsylvania Daily Number for election day. One number, one random chance determines the outcome of the election.

Imagine the sputtering outrage! Political parties spending all that money to persuade voters, only to have the results determined by the uninterested, the apathetic! At first the winners would think that it was wonderful, but after a few randomly determined elections, both parties would begin to see the light. If this block of voters should ever actually agree on one issue, and vote for a candidate based on that issue, rather than on random chance, there would be no stopping them.

What would we do with this power? The most useful thing might be to wrest control of campaign financing from the powers that be. Insist that elections be run fairly and clean. Or we might insist on a change in election procedures, from the winner-take-all system we now enjoy to an instant run-off system.

It would not be difficult to agree on black-and-white, common sense issues. Could 1% agree to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to pay off the national debt and reduce taxes for the rest of us? Could 1% agree that some form of universal health care be implemented in this country, along the lines of any number of countries where health care is better and costs less? Could 1% agree to end subsidies for the oil companies?

A new political party, one without a candidate or a platform- the Random vote party.

What Should Bush Do?

2006-09-29T21:38:00.000-04:00

I'm just proud enough of my responses to this post that I'm reposting them here. From our local paper's site;

(Amish Mystic asks:)
It is apparent that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war plan for Iraq is not living up to expectations. So, short of any of the three resigning, what can and should be done to move forward on Iraq? If you choose a quick withdrawal approach, provide some perspective as to what you expect when US troops withdraw and create a power vacuum. What should be done differently for the war on terror? And don't use sound bites. Provide details.

Good start. My first question is this- what were the expectations of our leaders when they launched this war? Like you, I find that none of the stated reasons make sense. I'm near to concluding that this war is, in fact, going OK for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Ask yourself- who profits from this prolonged war? Which companies posted record profits last year? What industry have our leaders been tight with? What type of ship was named after Condolezza Rice?

Looking to the future, and the inevitable decline in oil production to come. Who needs to control the Middle East in order to continue to profit? What price would our CEOs be willing to pay in order to maintain their control of the region? Would the tactical use of nuclear weapons be on or off the table?

You and I, we don't think big enough. For us, starting a war for base reasons, such as control of oil fields, would be unthinkable. For the monkeys upstairs, no big thing. They are rock stars. Their values are not our values.

To them, a civil war in Iraq might be a good thing. Easier to rule there, no organized, united opposition to occupation. The monkey rulers intend to be there for a long, long time. Why else are we building permanent bases in Iraq?

In Roman times, it might have been control of salt that was important- now it is oil. Our leaders are just as depraved as Roman Emperors. Once you get your mind around that, what they do makes sense.

(Amish Mystic asks:)
Even the most rabid Bush defender must see the gaping holes that are now appearing in his comments...

...Why aren't more people upset over this?

Sadly, the human brain is not a natural deductive engine. We're not Sherlocks. Brains must be trained to make and test connections- without training, we're just pattern-matchers, for whom blue sky/apple pie makes more sense than compound interest calculations.

Not to mention, it's more fun.

That said, there are those who have a vested interest in keeping us dumbed down. (Hint- they own the entertainment industries.)

So if it feels good, we'll buy it, and until we're starving in the streets, this Wonder Bread and that Cirque Du Soliel suit us just fine.

(later, I reply:)
So what should Bush do? I think he's pretty well doing it. He's representing his base, his class, his kind. He's doing great things for them- hell, he managed to get them a cool city to play with- washed all the poor people out.

The false premise is that somehow Bush is representing us- the middle classes, the masses. That was never true. We're good enough to fight his wars... but we won't be invited over for dinner.

The real question is what should we be doing about this whole ruling class? It's not democracy as we were taught. It's the rule of the richest.

Now, maybe that's not such a bad thing. I'm not fool enough to believe that a bunch of ignorant hillbillies like myself can make those really big decisions about oil and stuff. Maybe we need to have a ruling class of Harvard grads to guide us.

All I want is a debate on the real issues. Not abortion, not gun control, not gays. I want a debate about the things that really matter- how are we going to survive the coming century? What will global warming do to mankind? How can we relieve the suffering of the billions who live in poverty and dispair? How can I prevent hair loss!

(Keep smiling...)

All Viled Up!

2006-09-29T07:15:00.000-04:00

It must be the election season- I am reading more and more dirt. It is sad, and it may be relevant, when public servants are openly bigots or abusive to women or are sexually abnormal. It is sad to see many otherwise intelligent bloggers treating dirt like gold.

True, Republicans, following the example of Karl Rove, have won many elections using these techniques. Can you say "swift boaters"? Maybe progressives feel that it's time to fight fire with fire.

And many feel justified, because while most of the right's accusations are complete fabrications, it doesn't take much digging to find real biggotry, perversion, and criminal behaviour on the right side of the aisle. Can you say "Abramoff"?

I guess my point is that there are levels of corruption here that we should admit are real. A gambling addict or drug abuser has a problem, but it's a personal thing. Some of our most able leaders have had these sorts of problems- guess what? They're humans!

By concentrating on these human foibles, we tend to raise them to the level of the true corruption- the intentional large-scale deceptions, the cynicism and failure to serve that is characteristic of the Busch administration. Let's not let these little devils distract us too much.

20 Words or Less

2006-09-28T23:03:00.000-04:00

Good old Atrios sets up an interesting juxtaposition tonight. Trent Lott vs. Bill Clinton. Bill uses a few hundred well chosen words to explain where we are and what it's all about. Lott uses seven words to illustrate the same thing- "They all look the same to me."

What Ever Happened To...

2006-09-25T10:50:00.000-04:00

The latest report on the terror threat reminded me of an episode which played out while Colin Powell was still Sect of State. The State Department misstated the number of terrorist attacks in its yearly report on global terror, and Powell had to do some mighty twisting and turning to explain it away.

Whatever happened to those State Department reports on Global Terror anyway? I sort of forgot about those. Well, they sort of disappeared after the numbers for 2004 were withheld...

Are we winning yet?

Chris Wallace Is A Slimey Little Scumbag

2006-09-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

Clinton/Wallace. We play the tape, you decide.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

2006-09-24T09:34:00.000-04:00

Regarding last week's song and dance about the torture bill in congress- you remember, the one where three brave and true Republican senators stood up to Commander KooKoo Bananas and forced him, FORCED him, I tell ya, to compromise on his torture program?

Only, of course, there wasn't any compromise at all, and this has all been staged for popular consumption. The best analysis I've come across is this by Glenn Greenwald:

The one good thing about incidents of this sort is that they really shine a light on just how dysfunctional and sickly our political institutions are. The President has been torturing people in violation of the law. Republican Senators pretend to object to that but then end up enacting a law legalizing the President's conduct and giving him the power to torture. The media disseminates the patent falsehood (jointly emanating from the White House and GOP Senators, and unchallenged by Democrats) that the President "compromised" and everything Good was preserved. And Democratic Senators, in order to excuse their fear to take a position one way or the other, cheer the whole thing on after it's done, in the process obsequiously praising their political opponents seven weeks before a major national election.

In a nutshell, that, right there, is how our political system works. It is what accounts for most of what has happened for the last five years. What else do you need to know?

What else do you need to know? Well, it would be nice to know of some way to keep a positive attitude about all of this. It would be nice to know that our system of government was strong enough to recover from these horrors. The Democrats seem to be reaching that moment that John Kerry reached in the last election, when he looked right at America and said Dick Cheney's daughter was a LESBIAN! Oops, too bad, lost another one. Better luck next time.

It seems as though a whole lot of Americans are ready for a regime change in this country, and that a solid majority are in favor of at least putting the brakes on this administration by having an opposition party majority in Congress. Liberals and Conservatives and even those waffling Independents all agree that this executive has gone too far, that we are not "safer", that the country is on the wrong track. Still, the fix is in, and whoever those mysterious powers are that decide these things, our little adventure in the middle-east will stay the course.

To paraphrase that old saying, the torture will continue until morale improves.

I Looked Him In The Eyes, Ya Know?

2006-09-23T07:04:00.000-04:00

I think this is revealing. President Busch and Pakistani President Musharraf found themselves in a bit of a bind yesterday- Mushie having gone on record saying something true about American power.

Whether Dick Armitage actually used that exact phrase is irrelevant- in an interview on NPR yesterday he made it perfectly clear that, whatever words he actually used, the Pakistanis were told to toe the line in the days following 9/11. Armitage says the words he used were "you're either with us or you're against us", but that he never said anything about bombing.

I'm sure it wasn't necessary.

Now, in the little whisper down the wire thing that happened, Mushie hears the Americans saying that they'd bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if they didn't co-operate. The intended message was delivered. Only now, to everyone's embarassment, Mushie was tricked into revealing this truth in an interview.

So what, I ask? Why is this a big fat deal? We all know what the Busch position was, and is. It's all black and white- you're either with us or with the terrorists. That's been perfectly clear.

Unfortunately, reality isn't so clear-cut. Pakistan, in case you haven't noticed, is one of those gray areas. Pakistan is a country that we needed on our side for the invasion of Afghanistan, but Pakistan has a long history of enabling terrorists and rogue states. Oh, and, by the way, Pakistan has nukes.

So even though we could, if we really, really wanted to, bomb Pakistan back into the age of stone, we couldn't, you know, do so without taking some sort of a hit ourselves- probably indirectly, but nevertheless, I'll bet the wiley Paks have some sort of doomsday plan to deter us from casually flattening their country. Having nukes is like that, ya know? Use 'em or lose 'em.

Back to the drama from yesterday. So here we have our two good buddies, Mr. Busch and Mr. Muscharraf, arm in arm, seeing eye to eye about this terrorist threat, yet we keep hearing rumors that Mushie is secretly cutting deals with tribal leaders in the mountains and along the borders. And then he says the dumbest things, like that the US wouldn't be allowed to enter the region to hunt Bin-Laden, or this age of stone remark. Can we really trust this guy to be straight with us? We'll ask the President of the United States of America:

"When (Muscharraf) looks me in the eye and says the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanisation of the people and that there won't be a Taliban and there won't be al-Qaeda, I believe him," he said.

OK, now, there's a couple of three ways to understand this remark. First of all, anyone past the age of six understands that when people lie you can't just read it in their eyes, like magic. Reading someone's eyes- looking into their soul- is no way to make policy decisions if you're the leader of a nation.

But Busch insists this is how he operates. "I looked him in the eye- ya know?" He says this with his smirk and his amused tone of voice. It's all we need to know about the issue, the case is closed. Daddy Busch has taken the measure of the man and everything is A-OK. Does Busch believe what he's saying? Well, either he does or he doesn't.

If Busch is sincere then we have a great big problem. If Busch sincerely believes half of the things he says, then he is the moron (or delusional dry drunk) some say he is. And if that's true, then what we really have is Dick Cheney running the country, or some other combination of puppetmasters, because, as Saint Reagan has shown us, some adult has to pick up the reins when the figurehead can't remember what year it is.

If, on the other hand, Busch doesn't really believe what he says about that eyeball-to-eyeball stuff, then what we have is an actor. Better even than Reagan. Yup, if Busch isn't really that ranch-hand he comes off as, and if he knows it, then he's using that act to cover his intentions. And what might those intentions be?

Well, there's a couple of options here, and because they aren't mutually exclusive, it's murky, to say the least. It's possible to take a hard stance on either side of this and make a good case for each. Suppose he's really working for the good of the country, and must use this act to deal with the heavy burdens of the job? This cowboy personna is useful to him, the true-hearted idiot act allows him to say things to put an end to discussions before they bog down in details. From this point of view, the smirk and the chuckle are all about how out of control the government has gotten, and how reasonable people like ourselves should just cut the crap and git 'er done.

The opposite stance would be that Busch is working for the good of himself and his elite circle. In this case, the wink and the smirk are just another layer of play-acting, while the real truth is that this actor is smirking all the way to the bank.

So there are your choices- he either really believes that stuff, or it's an act. If it's an act, it's either for the good of the country or for the good of G.W.B. Or maybe he believes that what's good for one is good for the other. What do you think?

Worse Than We Thought

2006-09-22T08:59:00.000-04:00

Tristaro writing over at Hullabaloo expresses what I feel better than I could- outrage that our Republican masters have "compromised" on a law that will allow torture and absolve anyone committing torture for our government of any crime.

Naturally, the facts that torture is morally repulsive, that it doesn't produce reliable results, and that innocent people have and will continue to be tortured by our government never entered into the discussion. No, the "compromise" was about defining some legal terms- is "severe" worse or less bad than "serious" pain?

These Republicans absolutely disgust me. What this is really about is the idea that they can now threaten to torture anyone they please. It isn't about protecting us from terrorists- it's about our own government being licensed to commit terror. It's about the exercise of brute force. They are thugs.

Extortion on a World Scale

2006-09-15T07:13:00.000-04:00

I don't know- maybe that's what's going on here. That playful little neck massage thing from a few weeks back- what a way to let the leader of Germany know that we'll do just whatever we please, and you'll like it.

I'm about half convinced that the famous Busch incompetance is an act anyway. If things like the destruction of New Orleans happen, it's not because the higher ups couldn't have done a better job- it's because they don't give a shit.

They may be too busy figuring out a way to stick it to the Sultan of Brunai.

How it Works

2006-09-14T07:55:00.000-04:00

Some say that bloggers are raving lunetics, and that nothing you read on the internets can be trusted.

Well, some of us do rave sometimes, and there is a lot of b.s. on the internets, but it doesn't take a highly developed sense for truth to ferret this sort of thing out.

This here post at Eschaton is an example of why I still have some hope for the future. It does the very simple thing that the net does so well- place two statements side by side and let you to make up your mind as to what it means.

Lieberman burned through any credibility he had years ago. There's some of the proof, right there.

The Jesus Industry

2006-09-11T12:48:00.000-04:00

I don't know why it should bother me now more than usual, but the extra-special treatment churches and religions get from all of us is pretty remarkable.

Jesus' kingdom may be in heaven, but on earth he's not doing so badly. First of all, he's got the longest continuously operated bureaucracy on the planet- the RC Church. This outfit held a monopoly in the West for hundreds of years, but eventually spawned thousands of franchises, smaller operations with modified services. Specialization continues, yet somehow they all claim allegiance to the same cross.

Secondly, the Jesus followers have saturated Western culture with their memes. You needn't believe in Christ to know all about heaven and hell and the afterlife- concepts completely unknown throughout most of history, yet widely accepted today. The primative idea of god as a personage, possessing will, forming judgements and having children has been advanced as somehow superior to pantheism, a much less contrived belief system.

And third, the Jesus Industry has suceeded in setting up religion as a special case of man's activity, one which cannot be regulated or judged by anyone on the outside. Churches claim a deep understanding of things which they admit are mysteries, and if anyone has troubling questions, the answer is simple faith. Oh, to run a casino on these principles!

Anyway, I'm not going to put down anyone's belief- as the saying goes, I'll fight to defend your right to believe whatever you want. But what I don't accept as a part of the natural order is the imposition of anyone else's beliefs on me. This includes the general as well as the specific, meaning that if certain social norms are essentially based on Christian superstitions, I don't want to feel compelled to respect them.

But that's not a big deal. I've never worried much about appearances. What does bother me is that our culture as a whole has been perverted by the Jesus Industry. Scientists must waste time and effort defending their work against ridiculous claims. Innocent children are terrorised by threats of eternal damnation for committing unknown sins. Rascists and bigots and preachers of hate are treated with great respect, their ability to manipulate through fear and deception amplified by mass media. And this is all accepted as normal.

I don't accept these things. I believe we can do a hell of a lot better than this. The Jesus Industry won't give up easily, and alone I'll never make a dent in its armor, but I will never stop questioning its conclusions and challenging its arrogence, its righteousness, and its claim on truth.

Why We're So Fucked Up

2006-09-06T22:21:00.000-04:00

See, this church has a website where people can "confess" to their "sins".

Read through some of these sad confessions. Ask yourself what sort of organization would tell these people they were dirty, that they were shunned by God, for these "sins". Here's a typical one-

"I masterbate often. Not every night but, often. I don't know why. I just do it for the sake of doing it. I never really think about God when I do. I also talk to other people online and cyber with them, males and females.I just can't help it sometimes.I need help. I keep wanting to go back to being a lesbian. My ex-girl frined and I still talk but, now that she's going to church with me, she doesn't want me back but I still want her. Only sometimes, when she's close. Pray for me please."

There's many, many more of these. Some seem to be just imaginary, but many seem real, and the pain and suffering these people are living with is real.

We're so fucked up because the institutions we are expected to "look up to" make people feel terrible for normal feelings. Can we please just drop this pretention of godliness, and get on with it? We'd all feel a whole lot better.

Valerie Plame

2006-09-06T06:51:00.000-04:00

Sometimes what seem like paranoid delusions turn out to be glimpses behind the curtains.

Anyone remember 'ol Valerie Plame? She was a CIA operative who was outed by the Busch administration, supposedly in retaliation for some unpleasant truths about weapons of mass destruction her Ambassador husband had printed in the New York Times. I say "supposedly" in retaliation, because that was the only explaination that could have made any sense at the time. They destroyed her career, and they caused harm to covert operations she was involved with by exposing her role as an agent.

That's treason, folks, but since our leaders are true and good and would never do such a thing, the history writers all decided that this couldn't have happened. She wasn't really an active CIA agent, she was just some sort of desk jockey, no big deal, why, everyone in Washington knew about it. Yawn.

I had heard that her actual role involved tracking the movement of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union- something that seemed of vital importance to me! But no one was outraged about this, the story seemed to fade away when no charges specifically about her outing were filed by the Special Prosecuter investigating the matter.

Now, according to this book, we learn that Valerie Plame was not just some pencil-pusher deep within the depths of the bureaucracy of the agency- she was in charge of a task force "trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger". Not exactly the minor role we'd been led to believe (by the very people who outed her).

What does this mean? I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but it doesn't look very patriotic to me when the administration reveals the identity of a CIA agent working on matters vital to the defense of our nation.

Thanks to Digby for the link to this article-

Who You Trust

2006-09-04T07:44:00.000-04:00

Lots of folks I know- "groundhogs" I call 'em, and I should know, because I've been one- place their trust in the higher powers. Once, during a political discussion, an in-law looked me right in the eye and said "You don't believe our President would lie to us, do you?" I couldn't answer that one- I mean, where do you start?

Well, OK, yes, I do believe our president would lie to us. People in positions of power almost always lie to us, because the truth of how things are is at odds with our acceptance of their authority.

I thought of this once again because I read about how during the Vietnam war our government thought it would be a good idea to defoliate large areas of South Vietnam in an attempt to "deprive the enemy of cover", and also to drive villagers living in those communist controlled areas into areas controlled by friendlies. The defoliant used was something popularly called "Agent Orange".

The stuff causes birth defects and nerve damage, but the authorities were desperate to find ways to win that war. Did defoliating large areas of the countryside actually help? In the end, no. All I can think of is the thousands of people affected by this policy and how little their faith in authority was justified.

My point is that you should always question authority (unless, as in the military, you agree to suspend your right to do so under certain prescribed circumstances). The belief that "they know more than we do about it" is usually true, but it's not an excuse to give authorities your trust. It's all the more reason to ask questions.

Because time and time again, those in power abuse power.

Strait Talker

2006-09-01T15:42:00.000-04:00

I have no idea what that thing is hanging from McCain's neck- I imagine it's something he picked up in 'Nam.

If I were him, I'd keep that jacket buttoned...

Why Plan B Must Die!

2006-08-25T10:32:00.000-04:00

We are dealing with some very ookie-spookie stuff these days. What possible reason could someone have for opposing the use of a product which prevents a pregnancy from occuring after having sex?

Not "aborts" a pregnancy. Prevents it from happening. The same idea as putting a barrier between sperm and egg. You know- prevention?

Some people are wild to stop this product from being made available to women. Is it the idea that a woman might sometimes enjoy having sex without having to worry too much about the consequences? Or is it something more ookie-spookie, like Chad, a commenter over at Hullabaloo, implies?

"J.C Watts, like the anti abortion crowd he represents, apparently believes fervently that when a male ejaculates human life is created. That awesome power to create life with one's penis is why males are the superior gender. Indeed,it may be the only reason. But reason enough. Women, after all, are merely the flower pot in which the seed is placed until he is able to survive on his own. This is not a notion to be taken lightly. After all it has been the prevailing philosophical view since antiquity until the unfortunate discovery of the ovum in the early 19th century.

-Chad"

By Jove, I think he's got it! It's the Majik Dick of Power! Let nothing interfere with its mighty creative force!

Historian, Revise Thyself!

2006-08-24T22:45:00.000-04:00

I'm so confused. Back when it was all happening, I had the distinct impression that the word from the intel community was that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I had the impression that the Busch admin didn't want to accept that answer, and so they formed little "intel gathering groups" to massage the evidence, to create the necessary connections, to pump things up.

This is all in the record, folks, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Just sayin'.

Then the nineeleven commission delivered the pre-agreed-upon finding that the intel community screwed the pooch. "Slam-Dunk! Slam-Dunk!"

And that was the official story.

Here's the new official story:

"Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States."

That's just like complaining that your stinkin' rotten doctor doesn't know shit about medical diagnosin'. That's like telling your mechanic that he should check the battery when it's obviously the timing belt.

What is wrong with these people? Haven't we been down this road once before, with totally disasterous results? And the freakin New York Times prints this trash- "Some say the moon made of cheese".

Better...

2006-08-12T22:36:00.000-04:00

This graphic works better for me.

Rather than that tired old Teutonic mailed fist holding lightning bolts (and the olive branch), let's get at least into the twentieth century.

Now yer talkin!

Gee Wiz!

2006-08-12T21:15:00.000-04:00

It's hard to believe this, but some people still haven't seen Dr. Strangelove... or if they have, they haven't figured out what it means.

Graphics like this one-

-associated with the control of weapons that have the power to destroy all human life just make me go hmmm.

Any sane person would immediately destroy the weapons and make sure that no one ever builds any more of them.

I mean, it's like giving 13 year old boys a keg of gunpowder and a pack of matches and telling them to be careful.

So those 13 year-old boys come up with all this secret code stuff and double-keyed trigger mechanisms to make sure that no accidents ever happen- but they still gotta have those weapons!

The Bottom Line

2006-08-12T20:52:00.000-04:00

All of those pretty words about freedom and democracy! Those words have very specific meanings these days, and they may not mean what you think they mean.

I found this graphic in an official document for the old US Space Command. Please note the ultimate purpose of all that military might.

Yup, "Protection of Commerce". Gotta kill them pesky redskins so's the railroad can go through and open up the West. Thar's gold in them thar hills!

You an I may not think much about it because we don't deal with these things on a daily basis, but when the president says "national interests", he's referring to some very specific interests.

So what? Is what's good for Wal-Mart good for you? Is this what your country is all about?

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

2006-08-10T08:48:00.000-04:00

These clowns. I'm entirely in support of efforts to fight terrorism- but this seems like another attempt by our side to strike fear into our own people.

The Story

A terrorist plot to cause "mass murder on an unimaginable scale". Unimaginable. Like, bigger than the Holocaust? Bigger than Uganda? Bigger than Rwanda? More terrible than the Ukraine, 1933? These are things we can not only imagine, we can know quite a lot about them because they actually happened.

Oh, and many of these mass murders were perpetrated by governments. Kinda makes ya think, doesn't it?

It wasn't the airplanes- it was Beauty Killed the Beast!

2006-08-09T07:16:00.000-04:00

See this Time magazine article? It claims that the "netroots" (whatever that is) defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman. Bullshit.

Ned Lamont (whose name doesn't appear until a third of the way into the article, even though HE WON THE PRIMARY) defeated Joe Lieberman. This was a really good example of how to win elections.

See, every time Lamont appeared in public and went on record as saying something, it was something that most people agree with.

And every time Lieberman appeared in public and went on record as saying something, it was something most people were embarrassed by.

"Netroots", as a force, if it did anything, did what I just did here- it pointed out the obvious. What Lamont says is more in line with the views of the voters.

What is really amazing about this is that Lamont was a relatively unknown person back when he threw his hat in. He must be pretty good at the politics game, (or Lieberman is pretty bad at it), because he managed to not be destroyed by the press. In essence, I believe that Lamont's message won this election, and that Lamont was smart enough to let that message win it for him.

Any Dems running for congress this fall? If you don't take this lesson, you don't deserve to be elected.

Cease Fire!

2006-07-28T11:35:00.000-04:00

Maybe the only thing more astonishing than the Israeli attack on Lebanon and the unspoken but obvious Busch administration approval of that attack is the almost total lack of questions about these actions in the media. Even the supposedly liberally-biased NPR supports the inane "new middle east" talking point promoted by C. Rice this week.

What you probably haven't heard is that Dennis Kucinich has introduced a resolution in the US House calling on the administration to appeal to all sides for an immediate cease fire in Lebanon. This rational response to the crisis there receives almost no coverage in the mainstream press, except for this appearance of Kucinich on Fox News in the role of a traitorous Democrat who supports terrorists.

Here's a link to a more balanced interview.

Vile

2006-07-28T06:44:00.000-04:00

I need to point out that Condi Rice is a vile human being. She lies, and her lies cause death.

The press attempts to make her human. She may be human, but it's not the sort of human you'd want to have any contact with.

Someone who can say ``We, of course, also urgently want to end the violence.'', while supporting (by her statements, encouraging) the extreme violence against Lebanese civilians by the Israeli army, is a lothesome human being.

Oh America! What has become of you? You do not support the "emerging democracy in Lebanon" by bombing them back into the stone age.

Losing the Thread

2006-07-25T12:56:00.000-04:00

There's a big orange tabbycat that lives with us, and he's a big baby. He likes to do his "paw thing", where he scrunches his paws up against anything or anybody soft and warm enough. He can purr and scrunch his paws for quite a while.

He really likes to do this with one particular blanket, or throw, in our house. It's got tassels all around the edges, and he gets into scrunching the tassels. What ends up happening is that he gets them all tangled up and knotted together. It's a mess!

Last winter I discovered something. I found out that I enjoy untangling these tassels. I had this throw over my shoulders and I began picking and tugging at the tangled threads. There's a certain knack to doing it. Sometimes you have to pull hard, and sometimes the threads break. You try to avoid that, because it's bad form to have little bits of yarn all around your feet.

I did pretty well- I got the tassles untangled in a couple of weeks. It was something I'd do while surfing the net, reading blogs, or watching movies. It's mostly done by feel, unless there's a wild thread from the second tassle over and you have to try to figure out which end is connected. When I was done I gave the blanket back to the cat so I'll have something to do next year.

This untangling thing is fun to do in the world of politics, too. You can find one loose end and tug on it to see where it goes. If it disappears into a knot of threads, you have to start teasing the knot apart, and this may lead you to follow other threads. It's very satisfying to pull the one thread that was holding the knot together and allow several threads to come free at the same time.

Sadly, in politics most of us can't choose which threads to pull- which questions to ask. We have to rely on the muddled messages that leaders choose to present to us, and the equally muddled questions that the press raises about those messages. Often neither the message nor the questions make sense, and then a new thread emerges, a thread that might explain how this can be possible.

Right about here this analogy breaks down. The blanket has an overall design, and the object of untangling those threads is clear at the beginning. In politics, the only ones who believe in a design are the conspiricy theorists. Reality dictates that there is not one grand design but many designs- many threads. The pattern they make is formed from the bottom up by the actions of many different weavers.

Even so, it should be possible to get an idea of what any particular weaver is aiming for if you unravel their thread from the others. What principles could be guiding our current foreign policy, for instance?

Battling Billionaires!

2006-07-22T06:54:00.000-04:00

Well, if not billionaires, at least millionaires. To you and me, what's the diff?

Lieberman, it seems, has played it too clever by half, angling for the position of claiming to be a Democrat while walking and talking like a Republican. It sorta works for his state, because the Repubs there are a more or less permanant minority, and this sort of behavior makes them happy to support him.

But Democrats everywhere were tired of Lieberman's whining and his droopy-dawg face. Ned Lamont, former Republican (and millionaire), saw the opening and is making the correct noises to gain support from the Democratic party base.

And so the battle for the primary was joined. Why should we care? It's just another millionaire shouldering his way to the trough, right?

Probably so, but what I love about it is that Lamont wasn't following the correct form. He didn't ask permission, and he didn't wait quietly in the wings for his call. No one is supposed to challange a sitting Senator in the primary. He's been opposed by the power base- but they have miscalculated. He seems able to capture the nomination.

Ain't it fun watching the sparks fly?

Bush Haters

2006-07-21T19:42:00.000-04:00

I haven't heard of the Bush Haters for a while. Bush Haters, Bush Bashers, whatever. It seems as if these expressions have lost their effectiveness (whatever effectiveness they ever had) now that the pres is obviously down to his hard-core followers.

Something like 34% of the American public think he's doing a good job as president. He's been stuck at this sort of approval rating for a while now, and it's obvious that nothing, not anything he's capable of doing, is going to improve that.

And you know what? He doesn't care.

Now all the Bush Bashers out there are thinking "What an idiot!" As if a good approval rating was what mattered. I won't say that Bush is not an idiot, but I will say that the people who actually run this country are not idiots. And very few of them are very upset at the way things are going.

Which says to me that they've mulled this over and decided, Democrats and Republicans alike, that the American Empire needs bases in the middle east. They've decided that it's alright for Israel to destroy the infrastructure of a sovereign nation, and kill civilians in the process. They've decided that permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% aren't so bad after all.

They have not yet agreed that they can shift the burden of social security to the private sector, but they're workin' on it. They won big on health care.

Who are these people, anyway? Well, where have you been? Under a rock? They're the people with money. They're the only ones whose votes count in this democracy.

So go ahead, bash some Bush, watch him smirk and act as if he doesn't give a shit because- he's rich! He doesn't give a shit!

Historic Repeat

2006-07-20T07:07:00.000-04:00

Who is this guy, and why does he hate America? He beat the drum for war in Iraq, now he's calling for military strikes against Iran.

"William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

Before starting The Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration and to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Reagan. Before coming to Washington in 1985, Mr. Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."

All I can say is, he's smokin' Dutch cleanser!

Alpha Male

2006-07-19T10:46:00.000-04:00

"You'd better damn well be paying attention to me when I come in!"

Basic monkey behavior here. Lucky he didn't mount her.

That's News

2006-07-18T13:45:00.000-04:00

The Attorney General testified today that President Bush personally blocked a probe of NSA wiretapping by refusing to permit the investigators to have the security clearance necessary.

I remember thinking that this was pretty flaky when it happened. They folded their tents and went home. No investigation resulted.

Now, where it gets really twisted is that AG Gonzales revealed this fact under questioning by Arlen Specter, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This would be the same Arlen Specter who is trying to slip a provision into a new law which would pardon anyone involved with the NSA wiretapping of any illegal conduct- in other words, rewriting the law to make what happened not a crime anymore.

So, mind-bending as this may be, let's see where we are. We have a government program which is plainly illegal (warrentless wiretapping). We have a committee chair (Specter) who says that anyone who thinks this practice is legal must be "smoking Dutch cleanser". We have a president and an AG (and lots of other folks) who claim that it was legal due to special wartime rights the president has. We have a supreme court ruling on another case with claims to special wartime powers that, no the president does not have these special powers. We have the committee chair who repeatedly points out the illegality of this program helpfully drafting a bill that would retroactively make whatever happened legal, (which in itself may be illegal activity), while at the same time forcing the AG to reveal that the president himself blocked a probe into that government program.

Man, this has it all! Criminal activity at the highest levels of government, attempts to cover up that activity, attempts to redefine that activity as being legal, and...

...and nobody gives a rip. What did the president have for dinner, that's what we want to know!

Back to sleep, groundhogs...

Aiming the Pitch

2006-07-12T06:47:00.000-04:00

Politics is selling. That is, this form of democracy we have in America is about selling. Every couple of years the pitchmen come out with their spiel and try to convince us that this time their product will really, really work.

The question is, where do they aim their pitch? Busch isn't doing so well targeting the kindergarden set. But for Busch it doesn't matter anymore. He convinced enough suckers to vote for him last go round, and it's all gravy from here on out.

The Republicans have their work cut out for them this fall. They've got to somehow distract us from the disasters they've created- from the Holy War in Iraq right on down. They'll have the help of the media, who have been been spinning like mad to make Republican failures a problem, somehow, for Democrats.

My little blog here, and the multiple others that I read, also have to pitch their spiel. Some aim high and some aim low. That's a good reason to read a bunch of them right there. Not all messages are created equal.

There have been some terrific, longish posts lately by some really good writers- Billmon and Glenn Greenwald come to mind- and they aim high. Billmon, in particular, is hard to understand unless you've followed him for a while. And that's great. We need high-caliber stuff.

Some commentors have been complaining lately about Bob Somerby, saying that he's boring or too picky. I think it's just a matter of where he's aiming his pitch. He's throwing strikes, sorry if that's boring!

Here at BTAC I'm nowhere near as good a writer, and have none of the depth of these other people. What I feel that I can do- sometimes- is state in plain language the gist of the too many blogs that I read. You may not believe that there is such a thing as direction in this diverse and contentious blogosphere, but I'm sure there must be.

Right now it seems that the direction is positive. Just remember to look beyond the pitch and cast your vote based on the record this fall.

Dumber than a Sack of Hammers

2006-07-09T22:53:00.000-04:00

What a great expression! I think that might be my entire post right there. Just savor it!

Dumber than a Sack of Hammers.

What makes this expression so wonderful, and even transcendent, is the unliklihood of you or me ever encountering such a thing as a "sack of hammers". The expression "dumb as sticks" is good... actually, very good... but we know about sticks. A sack of hammers? We have to use our imaginations there.

So, what's got me so excited about this? It's the very idea that the "internets" (you have to know that our president refers to the internet as if it consists of many internets, and also, you have to know that everyone who reads too many blogs will refer to the internet as the internets just because... well, just because it reminds us of how some people talk about the internets when they really aren't qualified to have an opinion about them) are seen as a political force. Anyone who believes this is, well, dumber than a sack of hammers.

Nim, Hamhock of Liberty has responded to this charge in the specific case of the People VS Lieberman. There are some who believe that a concerted effort has been made to attack Joe Lieberman, Senator from wherever, and that the blogs are behind it. That's just like accusing the Three Stooges of being silly. (not my expression, but I can't remember where it came from)

Look, here's how it is, hammers. A guy on the national stage- say, a senator- makes statements and behaves like a perfect ass. He may have an OK voting record, and his heart may really be in the right place, but he makes everyone cringe. He is so very not the person we'd like the public to think of when they think of the political party we most closely identify with. He's an embarrassment.

To make things worse, this particular senator then chides those who point out to him that he's being an embarrassment, and even appears to go running to the other side for encouragement. Doing this, he embodies every trait that the other side accuses our side of possessing. Now, how long do we have to put up with this?

No one has to make a big attack on this guy- it's obvious how wrong he is. He's uncool, and, given multiple opportunities to redeem himself, he just continues to screw up.

Here's a clue, hammers. The internets, the bloggers, aren't interested in slogans. They aren't going to believe something unless you can back it up. We know about framing, we know that you are trying to paint us as fascists obeying some sort of leader, but that isn't true. We may have illusions, but they aren't the kind you're selling.

Congratulations, Blogofascists!

2006-07-03T21:51:00.000-04:00

Ah, sweet victory...

A certain toady senator, avowed Democrat (but leaning more generally in favor of the ruling junta), is "running" scared- admitting that he will probably lose his party's primary election for senate.

It's almost unheard of- that a sitting senator should fail to gain his party endorsement to run for another term. Ah, so it goes, when you've received the kiss of Busch. There are some things that simply cannot be forgiven.

Over at Eschaton, the Atriots are whooping it up! They feel that the blogosphere has had a major impact on these events, keeping the pressure on Joe while endorsing his primary opponent. If the online world has any impact on the real one at all, this may be true. For example, when the S.O.D.s (Supplicants Of Duncan) are commanded to vote in an online poll, they unerringly know what to do. Blogo-faschism has delivered the verdict- as of 8:34 PM, 94% of the respondants chose the challenger. Whoo! Whoo!

How do I know this? I voted, too, and of course, I voted for the challenger, Lamont. Hey, why not- I don't like Lieberman at ALL, and it's fun. Joe says he will run as an independant if he fails to win the primary, which raises the question- does this hand the seat to the Republi-can'ts?

I don't know and I don't care- Lieberman, with his "let's be reasonable people" routine, has provided cover for the Busch team time and time again. Let's get our cards on the table and vote our conscious, OK Joe?

Right-Wing Nutcase Journalism

2006-07-03T08:10:00.000-04:00

Ha ha. And everything this little nutcase cartoon character says has actually been said on mainstream news programs. And treated like it was worthy of consideration. Ha ha.

Happy Independance Day!

Attack Lambs

2006-06-27T12:51:00.000-04:00

After posting about the belittlement of Kos by the mighty columnist Brooks over the weekend, it occurred to me that they have failed to use their usual technique to eliminate this upstart.

Normally they would welcome someone like Kos into the fold, and then stick the knives in. I wonder why that approach wasn't used this time around?

Could it be that Brooks is jealous of Kos? After all, there's no "Yearly Brooks" convention in Las Vegas, and even though he's got a swell job in a swanky town, there's probably more people who respect and admire Kos than respect and admire David Brooks. Probably a lot more.

Oh, and that being able to sleep at night thing is probably not bad, either...

War Porn

2006-06-27T12:47:00.000-04:00

No, not the killing. The name of the offensive action- "Operation Mountain Thrust".

We won't pull out prematurely.

Who's That Squeaking?

2006-06-26T17:05:00.000-04:00

Mighty Funny.

That's funny as in peculiar. I've learned that some 400 left or progressive bloggers and or writers have been keeping in touch via something called the Townhouse list.

What a terrible name for a cabal. I wonder if there are any Keebler elves involved?

Josh Trevino writes:
"It must be emphasized that Townhouse is, by all appearances, the internal brain trust of the big-time online left."

Ya see, the idea is that Kos of the Daily Kos is the kingpin of an organization that raises large sums of money via online advertising on blogs and exerts a huge political influence.

This is sorta-kinda true, in as much as Kos is about the most famous progressive blogger, and in as much as his site is one of a few that get enough page views to actually make money from advertising. As for political influence, well... Kos does try to have an influence, politically, and I'm sure that he has more than I do. But he's no kingmaker.

There is another charge leveled at Kos- that he's used his influence, via Townhouse, to quash a story about a one-time partner and friend. This also seems sorta-kinda true, but it's a total who cares? I can use whatever influence I have on you right now to ask you not to discuss the fact that I know somebody who once might have smoked pot, and guess what? It would be no big deal.

Here comes the funny part. Jason Zengerle, a writer for ~~The National Review~~ the New Republic (oops!), thought there was enough in this Kos/Townhouse business to make it an issue. Zengerle seems to have pursued this story in an effort to discredit Kos and the "blogosphere" in general, but sadly, one of the e-mails he submitted as "evidence" of this cabal was a fake.

Now that's funny peculiar. In fact the whole thing strikes me in a funny, John-Kerry-looks-right-at-the-camera-and-says-lesbian sort of way. Why would you do it? It doesn't make any sense. He could have easily checked his sources, or omitted this questionable e-mail and still made his somewhat dubious argument.

Oddly enough, in a "you got no right to be talking about my lesbian daughter" sort of exaggeration, one of the country's leading columnists has seen fit to bring this obscure incident to the attention of the world. David Brooks took this opportunity to belittle Kos in the New York Times: "The Keyboard Kingpin, aka Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, sits at his computer, fires up his Web site, Daily Kos, and commands his followers, who come across like squadrons of rabid lambs, to unleash their venom on those who stand in the way," writes Brooks. "And in this way the Kingpin has made himself a mighty force in his own mind, and every knee shall bow."

That's the pay-off, folks- a big, big column in the paper of record. But the pay-off doesn't make any sense. If we were to believe Brooks, Kos and his imaginary legions are pathetically insignificant. But if Kos and his "squadrons of rabid lambs" were really so inconsequential, why would Brooks bother writing about them?

What he's actually done is to bring Kos up to his level in the national discourse. Which may not be such an honor, given the fact that Brooks is quite a story-teller. But he has set Kos on the national stage, stating that "...this time the squeaking fury of the Kossacks could be heard (to those capable of discerning high frequencies) far and wide."

Thanks to Brooks, much farther and wider than before.

(update 6/27- some guy called Billmon covers this ground here, but adds his own unique take on it.)

One Percent Chance of Getting This Through Thick Skulls

2006-06-21T09:42:00.000-04:00

According to a new book released yesterday, the vice president of the US, Dick Cheney, has set a policy whereby our government is to respond to a potential threat to our nation's safety, even if it has only a 1 percent chance of being a real threat, as if it were a real threat.

On the surface it sounds great- it sounds as if we're being super tough, and this should make us super-safe. In some fantasy world this may work. In the real world, we have limited resources, and we are required to assess threats based on their real probability of actually happening, and to measure our responses accordingly.

We have directly observed the effects of this crazy policy. We have sent the military might of the nation on a misguided quest to "build democracy" in a nation that presented about a 1% threat to our safety. Then we suddenly realised that we had little or nothing left to throw at the next threat.

These guys in the Whitehouse are batshit crazy loons. Thanks for voting for them last time around- make sure to support their party this coming fall.

(there's more on this at the excellent Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Applying the "One Percent Doctrine" in a Vacuum)

The New Fall Lineup

2006-06-18T08:47:00.000-04:00

OK, this would be fun to watch (if it weren't so damned depressing).

In case you didn't know it, we are having what they call a "mid-term" election this fall. That means that it's an election that falls half-way through the president's term. Since everything revolves around the President, the term is "mid-term" even though it's actually the regular end of term for the congresspeople running.

We've had some famous mid-term elections in the past. Usually they go against the incumbant president's party. In the famous one in 1994, Newt Gingrich led the Republican party to its first congressional majority in 40 years while Clinton (a democrat) was president.

The news media is pumping up a story this year about the possibility of a similar Democratic party surge in congress. Face it, the president is plenty unpopular right now, only about a third of the country supports his policies. He's had some huge failures like 9-11 and the failure to respond to hurricane Katrina on his watch and he got us into that Iraq war which is going to last forever.

By all rights, the Democrats should win, and win big this fall, but that's not the story. No, the story is about how scattered and unfocused the Democratic party is. The story is about how they're going to blow it.

There's one thing for sure- the Republicans don't know crap about running a government, but they sure know how to win elections. I'll be watching with morbid fascination as the country once again votes in approval of these thieves and liars.

How will they do it? That's the morbidly fascinating part. One of the biggest tools at their disposal is uncertainty. If they are able to create uncertainty in the voter's mind, then they have a chance to get their message across. So, for example, if when you read that I hold the Republicans responsible for the failures surrounding the 9-11 attacks, the destruction of New Orleans, and the senseless war in Iraq, if when you read those things you immediately thought of reasons why those things couldn't be the Republican's fault, or the president's fault, then they've gotten to you. It's morbidly fascinating.

The simple fact is that all these things happened while Republicans held power. Watch in morbid fascination as the American people reward them, once again, for their failures.

Things Look Gloomy for the Insurgents

2006-06-16T10:53:00.000-04:00

There is a claim floating around that a "huge treasure" of secret Al Qaeda in Iraq documents has been discovered and translated into English. For example:

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

I wonder- what exactly does it mean to tighten a financial outlet? What is a financial outlet, anyway? That would seem to mean some sort of pathway for spending money. Or spending credit? Have we somehow tightened our policy on extending credit to insurgents?

Well, well, we all know what this document means, even if we don't understand what or why it says what it says. Things get lost in translation sometimes. The document means that we're beating them down, they're feeling gloomy.

I seem to remember a while back there were some more of these "Al Qaeda interoffice memoranda" that surfaced, and they were saying pretty much the same thing. These guys are pretty stupid, I guess, to keep sending out these demoralising memos and to be letting them fall into our hands.

Stupid, stupid militants. They'll be all washed up in 6 months.

I Want Fafblog- NOW!

2006-06-16T06:56:00.000-04:00

Thank goodness they're back.

Here's last week's forgotten news (with so much absurdity in the world, we blow past these atrocities so quickly...)

"a noose is just a suicide bomb with a very small blast radius"

"I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Which is the real quote from Gitmo head coach Rear Adm Harry Harris?

The True Meaning of Christmas

2006-06-15T05:32:00.000-04:00

There's a lot of talk about the political significance of blogs. And lately, not only on blogs.

That's mostly because a bunch of people who frequent The Daily Kos went and had a convention in Los Vegas last weekend. What could be more "ain't that America" than a convention?

Some major league journalists showed up to cover the blogger's convention, which was billed as the Yearly Kos. Articles were written, and pundits discussed the event on TV.

So, what's the story? Well, everyone seems to want to talk about how blogs will effect politics and the media. I think that the way most writers and pundits view blogs is wide of the mark.

Blogs are not a political force like a labor union. They're not about gathering and directing power. And they don't function like broadcast media. The best blogs are not mere conduits for talking points.

It's actually a simple thing, but it doesn't make for a very exciting story. The most significant blogs are mainly sources of credible information. The commenting and linking features of blogs make fact-checking easy and self enforcing. Post bullshit on a blog where the readers care and you will get called on it.

Certainly blogs have bias. Blogs reflect the blogger's world view, and their regular readers reinforce that world view. But there are a lot of blogs...

...and it's possible to play one off the other, checking sources and reading opinions, and come up with a solid, testable version of the truth.

This is the great strength of this thing called blogging. In the best cases it requires active participation. Once you've posted a comment, seen your words and ideas in print, and had them examined (or ignored) by other people whose opinions you value, you can never settle for doing nothing more than reading the papers and watching TV.

That is political power of a sort, and it is what the "new media" is about. It is not a powerful voting bloc which will directly effect elections, but the ideas and facts spread by blogs filter out into the real world and do have an effect. It is not so much a new propaganda tool (although there are sites which exist merely as outlets for spin) as it is an anti-propaganda tool.

The political and social effects of blogs cannot easily be measured or evaluated because they are not directed by authority- they are user directed and diffuse. But if you believe that a better informed society will make better decisions politically and socially, you will find that blogs are a cause for hope in the long run. And that is the true meaning of Christmas!

Billmon on Bases

2006-06-14T06:55:00.000-04:00

Mystery blogger Billmon has been posting a lot lately, after a fairly long absence.

He can make a convincing argument for his point of view, but possibly what he does best is this: set up a chain of quotations to reveal the true dimensions of a specific issue.

In this case, it's about permanent US bases in Iraq. Most of us have suspected for years that a permanent military presence in the M.E. was the primary goal of this administration. Why hasn't this been brought up for public debate? Do you think we should maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq? Do you think this is the real reason for our invasion of that sovereign nation, a nation which posed no threat, real or implied, to the US?

Have a look, and then try to understand what our country has become. In the interests of... the American people?

President Fife

2006-06-05T15:13:00.000-04:00

I can hear Busch in that scardie-cat voice sayin' "Gay Marriage! Gotta nip it! Nip it in the bud!"

Pick of the Week

2006-06-03T12:09:00.000-04:00

Media Matters is on a roll here lately. This is going to be the real story from now until November (elections?).

We will take notes as the media attempts to frame the election in terms that reflect badly on the Democrats. It won't matter if there's nothing there, they will create stories out of thin air.

The truth is, if the Republicans do not get their clocks thoroughly cleaned this fall for their lying, thievery, and incompetance, it will be due to the lying, thievery and incompetance of the media.

It's Teh Media

2006-05-27T23:17:00.000-04:00

I got nothing to add to this take-down. I'll tell you what. I do have something.

Way, way back in 2003, when there was some sort of political campaigning going on, I was misrepresented by the press. Newsweek. I had written a comment on a blog which was taken out of context and used to deride a candidate who I supported. In print.

It pissed me off.

They had a story that they wanted to go with, and it didn't matter what the truth was, they were going to run their story.

This post by Media Matters is something you should read and believe, because it's true.

Bush to Congress: All Your Base are Belong To Us

2006-05-24T07:10:00.000-04:00

This little tale of corruption should be nothing more than a footnote in the larger scheme of corruption that winds through the Republican party. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about, Duke-ster.

But there it is. A Democratic legislator was taking bribes as well. He got caught in a pretty little sting operation- you know, where they found the marked bills in his freezer? Trouble with these sting operations is, they are sometimes entrapment.

Not that I'm sayin' the dude didn't take the money, or that he should be given a break because he's a Democrat. But on the one heand there is a pattern of corruption and wide-spread deception occurring over many years, with ties to the highest levels of the executive branch of government, and on the other hand, you've got one legislator possibly accepting a big wad of money. It's apples and oranges.

But it seems that this is the case that the Republicans will make the centeriece of the fall elections this year. How? By inflating its importance with a questionable FBI raid on the congressman's office.

Follow the link and read the posts at The Moderate Voice- it's a good one.

The Trippi Factor

2006-05-16T23:28:00.000-04:00

I have no idea if this is a real thing or not, but I followed the online campaign of Howard Dean pretty closely, and when it was all done and over with, it seemed like this Joe Trippi guy was claiming a lot of credit for whatever sucess Dean enjoyed.

Other people were saying this as well. So I read the Joe Trippi blog for a while and got bored. Joe, you ain't Howard Dean.

Now, I don't really know. Maybe Trippi had some mojo thing going on- maybe it was his idea for the baseball bat thing. Maybe I never would have heard of Howard Dean if it hadn't been for Joe Trippi- I don't know. All I know is that I believe that what it was about was Howard Dean and his ideas, not Joe Trippi and his.

Here's where it jells- I was reading tonight the blog of a James Boyce, who is going to do profiles on various bloggers. A good idea, I say- people need to know a bit about these bloggers. James starts out talking about himself.

It seems that he's had a brilliant career in advertising. Then he gave that up to work on the Kerry campaign. So he's been inside the political process. More than me, for sure. I'm willing to listen.

Then I get thinking- he's spent his life so far delivering propaganda- hell, he won a Clio, which is given out to the best advertising campaigns.

All I'm asking is- what is it, exactly, that draws James Boyce to propaganda? And why, exactly, should we believe whatever this clever man writes?

Take the 4th

2006-05-14T15:56:00.000-04:00

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's a beautiful thing, isn't it? It's intended to prevent fishing expeditions and harrassment. It's intended to prevent the abuse of power.

While I'm no fan of NSA bulk data collection in general, I do believe that most opponents of this practice are barking up the wrong tree when they focus in on "probable cause". It's possible that privacy rights are being respected at the level of raw data collection.

I don't know how the law has defined this information. Maybe it hasn't been tested. This raw data may exist in the realm of public knowledge, and it seems possible to devise a computer program that could detect patterns of phone calls that would indicate conspiratorial behavior which might be the product of terrorist cell communications.

It's also possible that such patterns could be generated by perfectly innocent behavior, like a group of friends trying to arrange a party.

If there could be a program that would reasonably be able to distinguish between terrorist and innocent patterns of phone calls, I'd be all for this. But as any layperson interested in artificial intelligence can tell you, programs that promise this level of "understanding" have been promised for years. We ain't even close.

So there would be a certain number of failures- both failure to detect conspiratorial patterns of calls, and false positive detections. And any time there would be a positive, this would mean there would have to be further disclosures of information in order to find out if this was real. There's the rub!

Under that beautiful forth amendment, the government must make a reasonable assumption of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant. It may be that the data the NSA has been collecting falls outside the sort of personal information intended to be protected, but can we say that the results of their analysis of that data are reasonable?

I doubt it. Maybe on the day when the military's anti-missile systems can hit what they're aiming at I'll believe it.

Fox Attempts to Outshine Colbert

2006-05-14T10:34:00.000-04:00

Funniest thing I've seen all month-

"RUDER: Many thought this was the week the Dow would hit an all-time high. We seemed well on our way and looked like Thursday could be the day. Well guess what? Then came the headlines in yesterday’s papers. A leak about national security. The president saying the country is less safe and stocks sell off big-time. A coincidence?"

And The Wheels Go Flyin' Off The Cart

2006-05-11T23:02:00.000-04:00

But you know what? It doesn't matter.

These guys can turn around tomorrow and declare martial law, just because.

If you are one of the sorry suckers that voted for these clowns, you'd better be ready to take matters into your own hands. Your nation depends on you.

Tax Shift

2006-05-11T16:51:00.000-04:00

I like this as a way of describing the thing that our "coingress" just passed- not a tax cut, but a tax shift.

Same as it ever was.

Fox Heart Hillary

2006-05-11T09:46:00.000-04:00

Some Good Ideas

2006-05-10T22:14:00.000-04:00

Here's talk about promoting liberal ideas at Hullabaloo. The best part is in the comments- reasonable ideas nicely listed.

Not to mention the notion of nationalising the oil companies- now there's an idea that will get some votes this fall!

It Seems Like Only Yesterday

2006-05-09T11:12:00.000-04:00

There we were- the president was announcing his choice to head the CIA after Tenet left in disgrace...

"Porter Goss is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and the fight against terrorism," Bush said with Goss at his side. "He knows the CIA inside and out. He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history. The work of the CIA is vital to our security."

Yes, things would be set to right at the Agency. No longer would terrorist threats pass unnoticed by our slumbering intelligence service!

But suddenly last week, Mr. Goss resigned. And now:

"Bush sought to brush back congressional critics, citing Hayden's extensive experience in a series of national security assignments, and declaring him "the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation's history.""

Why do I get the feeling they just dusted off the old nomination speech here?

Howl With Delight!

2006-05-08T11:08:00.000-04:00

Beating up on your opponents is a lot of fun- like pro wrestling, when our guys are scoring points we often yell "Hit 'em with the chair!".

Yeah, it feels good to know that "they" are vile, lying, incompetent, crooked, baby eating monsters. We're so superior!

Then along comes Bob Somerby, who mentions that we're guilty of using misleading political tactics, and the cries go up about how the guy has lost it.

Take this post from last Friday for example. You may remember, a guy got up last week and asked Donald Rumsfeld why he lied. Well, that guy got to be a hero for some people, but I don't find that sort of attack particularly useful. It makes the choir feel good, but Rhummy just batted those accusations away.

Over at the Daily Howler, Bob gives us some insight as to where we should be looking while the magician's hands are waving around. Magicians of any persuasion...

Hookers

2006-05-05T16:19:00.000-04:00

Hookers.

Republicans.

Hookers.

Hookers.

hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookershookershookershookershookers
hookershookershookershookers...

hookers.

OK, it's not a Kennedy, but it is about hookers.

Misty Eyed Patriots

2006-05-04T22:19:00.000-04:00

I'm sick to death of these misty-eyed patriots, these people who insist that we respect the president because, you know, he's the president.

The man has done not one thing to earn my respect, and I've given him the benefit...

It's a shame, too, because I do respect the feelings of these misty-eyed patriots. They ARE good people. I'm happy to have them in my corner- they keep their promises and they understand what it means to be true. It's just that, how the hell can I tell them that they're wrong about this president?

How do you tell them that Busch is laughing at them? That he thinks they're suckers?

All of this blogger angst directed against the "fighting 101st keyboarders" and the obvious wankers in right blog-o-stan ignores the much bigger group of misty-eyed patriots who just want America to be OK. You know what I mean?

Ignore them at your peril.

The Lunatic Fringe

2006-05-02T18:42:00.000-04:00

Guy in the Wall Street Journal says that we should carpet bomb Iraq. Kill indiscriminately, civilians and insurgents alike. Get 'er done!

Not sure what he thinks this would accomplish- after all, we support the current government and are trying to improve the country, not destroy it.

Glenn Greenwald is all over this one- basically he says it's a good thing that these lunatics vent these feelings, rather than pretend that they want to assist the Iraqi people or something. Judging from the positive responses on conservative sites there's lots of like-minded loony tunes out there.

I just wanted to add this comment, found on the Reader Responses page at the Journal's site. After five letters of support for this crazy idea, some sanity-

"Where Are You From?
Ara Yeretsian - Munster, Ind.

The author of this article has just landed from another planet. He does not live on Earth."

thank you, Ara.

Miffed

2006-05-02T13:00:00.000-04:00

Well maybe I was wrong about that Colbert thing earlier. It seems that Busch actually was funnier than him.

I'm not sure how I missed that.

Say, you don't suppose that Colbert would do a better job as president of the united states, do you?

Anyway, it seems that some were miffed.

"33"

2006-05-01T21:22:00.000-04:00

I read too many blogs- like it says.

So I know about Holden and how he once asked for a pony if Busch's approval rating dropped below (I think it was) 45%.

Since then he's gotten many, many ponies, via Atrios. But today's a special pony, I think, for us PA bloggers, and I'm suprised Atrios missed this one- that's right, it's the magical number 33, and that deserves a little green "pony"...

Humor Best Left to the Professionals

2006-04-30T08:47:00.000-04:00

No, no, I'm not talking about my own lame attempts at humor... I'm talking about our president.

See, they have this banquet every year- the White House Correspondent Dinner. Pretty ritzy- George Clooney was there. And Skunk Baxter (in a kilt).

Busch got up and did a comedy skit with a double. He allowed some good-natured poking fun at Cheney, but it was more of that "Where are those pesky WMD's at anyways?" sort of stuff. It was supposed to be funny, and everybody laughed.

But then that Colbert guy got up and did his thing. Now, flippin' off Judge Scalia? That's funny!

I suspect that Busch was hoping that his lame stunt was going to be the talk of the town today- nope, sorry, no saxophone. Colbert cleaned his clock.

The link goes to Crooks and Liars, who have the last half of Colbert's routine available for streaming- throw them some love for the bandwidth.

I've Got a Secret

2006-04-26T15:03:00.000-04:00

According to a recent investigation, the CIA made thousands of un-reported flights over Europe since 9/11. It was "a widespread regular practice". The question is, why?

It is believed that on some of these flights terror suspects were shuttled between secret prisons. What legitimate reason is there for keeping these flights a secret?

I don't mean that the daily operations of the CIA need to be broadcast on the evening news- but what purpose is served by keeping the very existance of these flights a secret? Oh, wait, I know. Sometimes the terrorists "forget" that they are being actively pursued if they are not reminded.

It's like that phone tapping thing.

Not all the flights were about secretly transporting terror suspects and innocent bystanders. A bunch of them were for secretly transporting the director of the CIA, Porter Goss.

I guess he was just checking up on his employees- nothing like dropping in on your German bureau unannounced to keep them on their toes!

Still other flights were made for unknown purposes. Golfing junkets, probably. Job training?

My favorite part about this whole affair is that these flights were logged by plane-spotters. That's right, a bunch of people whose hobby is to watch planes take off and land. If the flights had been registered, probably nobody would have noticed anything unusual about them.

First rule of secrecy- act normal. I wonder if the CIA knows about this?

Cherry Picking

2006-04-26T07:10:00.000-04:00

The Busch administration has appointed a new press secretary. If you're not a political junkie, you may not know what that is- it's the person who must deliver the official spin to the White House press corpse daily. So when the man falls off his bicycle, the press secretary explains that the trail was muddy- got it?

Well, their old press secretary finally burned out and they are screwing in a new one. Only, whereas press secretaries are generally glib salesmen types who are able to shape-shift themselves to fit any occasion, this new guy has had his opinions in print.

Why would the administration appoint a guy as their press secretary who once wrote that “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment”? There's plenty more similar remarks here.

Now, after you go read them and have a good chuckle, follow the links to some of the original articles that these quotes were pulled from. You'll see that Mr. Snow is a true believer after all!

Think Progress does a fine job of "cherry picking" on this one. Let's get these quotes out into the blog-o-sphere and see if we can embarrass Mr. Snow into resigning in his first week on the job!

(Americans- teh stupid)

Why???

2006-04-23T22:07:00.000-04:00

Today I fixed a leaking faucet. It was a Delta faucet. More parts in them than seems necessary for flow control, but I guess they know what they're doing.

So I turned off the water, took the faucet apart, looked up the brand and such on the net, and put the parts in a bag and scurried on over to the Lowes.

I thought they might have a "kit" with all the parts in one thing. Well, I couldn't find one- just a lot of different parts for faucets. But then some salesman came over and after he was done helping someone I asked him- aren't there kits for these faucets?

He knew right where it was. He was real sure of himself. Then I saw that there wasn't one of those ball things with the holes in it in there- so I asked him about that. (I didn't know if I needed that or not- maybe they wear out?)

They make different kinds- some are plastic, some are chrome, some are brass. The little holes are different shapes. What I know about plumbing isn't much, so when he said that some people use the brass ones, some people use the chrome ones, it doesn't matter, I took him at his word. I bought a brass one to go with my "kit".

Got home, cleaned everything up real good, installed the kit parts and the new brass thing, turned the water back on and- nothing. Now, I've worked with plumbing before, and when the water comes back on, I expect there to be water- usually too much in the wrong places. Not "no water at all".

After a bit the water sort of dribbled out sometimes. It wasn't good. So my spouse, who had been along on the store run, came up with a good answer- "Put the old plastic ball thing back in." I did it. It worked.

Leak fixed (due to the kit parts) and now I'm trying to draw a lesson from all of this. Spouse is mad at the guy at the store- "He didn't know what he was talking about!" As a guy myself, I'm more willing to cut him some slack- what he said was true, maybe he just didn't know any better. Spouse says "So why's he working in the plumbing department then?" To which I reply...

"No openings in brain surgery?"

(Customer assistance is needed in brain surgery. Customer assistance is needed in brain surgery.)

Gas War

2006-04-23T21:54:00.000-04:00

By now you've gotten the e-mail. "Don't buy your gas from Exxon until they bring prices down!"

Great. It's so stupid that it just might work- and we'll invade 7 new countries so we can get the crude cheap enough to make it happen.

How about this "gas war", idiot America? How about "Use 1 less gallon of gas every week until they come up with something better to power cars with!"

No, that might mean making a sacrifice.

How about "Eat a pound of chocolate every week until you die!" That one is easy! It doesn't have anything to do with gasoline, but who said it had to?

War!

2006-04-20T08:55:00.000-04:00

Glenn Greenwald is rapidly becoming a daily read- here he attacks the foggy issue of "are we at war?" and once you clear that up a bit it's easy to see how far beyond the limits some people have taken things...

Warrentless Wiretaps

2006-04-19T10:35:00.000-04:00

Ever hear of the American Bar Association? Yeah, I thought maybe you did- it's that outfit lawyers belong to.

It's a pretty big outfit, too- 400,000 members or so. It's the ABA that rates judges and stuff- you know, they try to police the ranks of the legal profession. They're pretty conservative people. Not the ACLU by any means.

It's interesting what the ABA has to say about warrentless wiretaps. They really seem to think that there should be an investigation into this. Oh, remember warrentless wiretapping by the National Security Agency?

So last month...

Let's Hear It!

2006-04-18T17:01:00.000-04:00

Oooh, that crazed Busch-hater Bernstein! Does he have a book coming out or something?

Discovering Iran

2006-04-17T16:54:00.000-04:00

Well, we're somewhere deep in the woods now. I could not understand how supposedly rational people could have voted for Busch back in 2004, knowing what I believed they must have known about how the Iraq war was started.

I learned then that for a lot of Americans it simply doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if they're the ones that have to go die in a senseless war- they'll support it anyway.

Busch knows that too. And now he knows that no one is able to rein him in. Outrage isn't going to affect him, not popular opinion, not even the criticism of his own generals. Congress certainly will not hold him accountable.

What Busch meant when he said he had political capitol to spend after the last election wasn't that he thought he had a mandate- it was that he was back in power and there was no stopping him.

Is Iraq the disaster we believe it is? Not from the perspective of power. Saddam is out and our troops are on the ground- they won't be dislodged. Permanant bases are being built. Is there a civil war? It doesn't matter as long as we remain- in fact, civil war is best from our perspective.

That same spirit of letting them fight each other while we take acceptable losses is probably Busch's objective for Iran as well. We won't need to occupy that country, just destabilize it. Any excuse will serve to destroy their air defenses.

Will a nuclear first strike be made? Busch doesn't really care about loose nukes, and anyway, the Iranians will never build a bomb. Way before that happens random air strikes will serve to disrupt Iranian society until a friendly "democracy" or a new Shah can be installed. The nucular strike issue is a distraction, a feint, something to get liberals wound up.