By Michael J.W. Stickings
The European Union loves to regulate. And now -- it's all about vodka.
(I think I'm with the Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans on this one. But that's probably because I prefer Scandinavian and Eastern European vodka. Which is to say, I prefer vodka, not "vodka". I mean, there have to be clear standards, right?)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Three letters you can send
By Heraclitus
First, here's a link to a form letter you can send to Ban Ki-Moon, Kofi Anna's successor as head of the UN, urging him to make Darfur a top priority. Granted, a letter to the UN is not something about which one can be especially optimistic, and this particular one uses rather vague language, but it's better than nothing. This is a good time to link again to Daily Darfur, a blog dedicated to all the news about the genocide in Darfur.
Also, Chris Clarke, who's now writing at Pandagon, has this post up chronicling a fairl complicated story about coal mines and the use of an underground water supply on Native American lands by a coal company. Read Chris's story for the details of both the present dispute and the history behind it (which is a tale of duplicity and exploitation of Native Americans by the US government and corporations, if you can believe that). You can read more here, and if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, there's the email for the Office of Surface Mining. Just below that is a link to a sample letter that you can cut and paste into your email or just use as a guide (here's another link to the sample letter). The deadline is February 6th. As Chris says, "How often can you send an email that helps protect Native rights, clean water and clean air and wild landscapes, and helps people try to mitigate climate change?"
And then this absolutely staggered me. A woman in Florida was raped; when she went to the police, they arrested her for not paying a fine from a juvenile arrest -- although the outstanding fine appears to be an error in paperwork. So, the police arrested a woman who had just been raped, figuring that they really should try to traumatize her as much as possible (see Nezua on their tireless efforts to pretext you). Then, when she was in jail -- where she was kept over a weekend and not allowed to post bail because it was Sunday -- she was denied the emergency contraception she asked for because the medical supervisor at the jail refused to give it to her, because it was "against her religion." I am not making this shit up. Planned Parenthood has a page where you can write and send an email to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
First, here's a link to a form letter you can send to Ban Ki-Moon, Kofi Anna's successor as head of the UN, urging him to make Darfur a top priority. Granted, a letter to the UN is not something about which one can be especially optimistic, and this particular one uses rather vague language, but it's better than nothing. This is a good time to link again to Daily Darfur, a blog dedicated to all the news about the genocide in Darfur.
Also, Chris Clarke, who's now writing at Pandagon, has this post up chronicling a fairl complicated story about coal mines and the use of an underground water supply on Native American lands by a coal company. Read Chris's story for the details of both the present dispute and the history behind it (which is a tale of duplicity and exploitation of Native Americans by the US government and corporations, if you can believe that). You can read more here, and if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, there's the email for the Office of Surface Mining. Just below that is a link to a sample letter that you can cut and paste into your email or just use as a guide (here's another link to the sample letter). The deadline is February 6th. As Chris says, "How often can you send an email that helps protect Native rights, clean water and clean air and wild landscapes, and helps people try to mitigate climate change?"
And then this absolutely staggered me. A woman in Florida was raped; when she went to the police, they arrested her for not paying a fine from a juvenile arrest -- although the outstanding fine appears to be an error in paperwork. So, the police arrested a woman who had just been raped, figuring that they really should try to traumatize her as much as possible (see Nezua on their tireless efforts to pretext you). Then, when she was in jail -- where she was kept over a weekend and not allowed to post bail because it was Sunday -- she was denied the emergency contraception she asked for because the medical supervisor at the jail refused to give it to her, because it was "against her religion." I am not making this shit up. Planned Parenthood has a page where you can write and send an email to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
Joe Biden and his big mouth enter presidential race
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So Joe Biden is the latest Democrat to join the fray for '08. Fine. I don't always agree with him, but he's a straight shooter, in a wild, reckless sort of way, and I think his foreign policy experience will be a positive addition to the race. If nothing else -- and, let's face it, he has no real shot at the nomination -- he'll force the other candidates, the legitimate contenders, to address issues like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Darfur with something other than carefully crafted spin. The fact that he has no real shot at the nomination -- he may not know it now, but he will -- provides him a nothing-to-lose freedom, and that freedom will allow him to speak his mind freely.
But while his big mouth may prove to be of benefit to the race, and of service to the other candidates, his tendency to stick his foot in mouth with rhetorical blunder after embarrassing rhetorical blunder could prove to be a disservice both to himself and to his party. Consider what he said recently about Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
He's being hammered for that one. Although it's probable that he just didn't express his point clearly enough, the perception of ignorance and bias has fueled the 24/7 news machine. What did he say? What did he mean? It's all much ado about not much at all, but it takes but an inkling of scandal for speculation to explode. Did he say, did he mean, that other African-Americans in the mainstream are not articulate, not bright, not clean, and not nice-looking? Hmmm.
Anyway, I don't intend here to add any more fuel to the machine. He said what he said and shouldn't have said it. But I highly doubt that this was Biden's Michael Richards moment. We didn't witness the emergence of the real Joe Biden, the heretofore hidden bigot. Biden is a straight shooter, and at times he should think more before he speaks, but he isn't a racist.
All the explosive speculation, all the much ado, makes for some excitement at a time when fabricated excitement is all there is. Political junkies need something to talk about even when there's nothing going on.
So let's get back to the race, or whatever race there is -- and let's get past Biden's stupid remark.
Joy to the world.
So Joe Biden is the latest Democrat to join the fray for '08. Fine. I don't always agree with him, but he's a straight shooter, in a wild, reckless sort of way, and I think his foreign policy experience will be a positive addition to the race. If nothing else -- and, let's face it, he has no real shot at the nomination -- he'll force the other candidates, the legitimate contenders, to address issues like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Darfur with something other than carefully crafted spin. The fact that he has no real shot at the nomination -- he may not know it now, but he will -- provides him a nothing-to-lose freedom, and that freedom will allow him to speak his mind freely.
But while his big mouth may prove to be of benefit to the race, and of service to the other candidates, his tendency to stick his foot in mouth with rhetorical blunder after embarrassing rhetorical blunder could prove to be a disservice both to himself and to his party. Consider what he said recently about Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
He's being hammered for that one. Although it's probable that he just didn't express his point clearly enough, the perception of ignorance and bias has fueled the 24/7 news machine. What did he say? What did he mean? It's all much ado about not much at all, but it takes but an inkling of scandal for speculation to explode. Did he say, did he mean, that other African-Americans in the mainstream are not articulate, not bright, not clean, and not nice-looking? Hmmm.
Anyway, I don't intend here to add any more fuel to the machine. He said what he said and shouldn't have said it. But I highly doubt that this was Biden's Michael Richards moment. We didn't witness the emergence of the real Joe Biden, the heretofore hidden bigot. Biden is a straight shooter, and at times he should think more before he speaks, but he isn't a racist.
All the explosive speculation, all the much ado, makes for some excitement at a time when fabricated excitement is all there is. Political junkies need something to talk about even when there's nothing going on.
So let's get back to the race, or whatever race there is -- and let's get past Biden's stupid remark.
Joy to the world.
Fox and Fiends
By Capt. Fogg
I've been a closet theologian all my life, not that I’m religious. I’m very interested, however, in the evolution of religions, and I have devoted many a shining hour to studying the early history of Christianity and the first-century social and political milieu in which it originated. I think I have learned quite a bit about what Christianity was not, before it became the many other and different things it became, and I think that the one thing I have learned and believe most confidently is that religion, regardless of its origins, eventually becomes a system by which people sanctify what they are and what they want and what they hate by calling it worship.
That’s just the same sort of thing that Fox News thrives on. This morning’s edition of Fox and Fiends featured Doug Giles, a bombastic theohooligan and self-idolater who launched into a rant about how Jesus really doesn’t like nice guys and how our churches should be promoting the creation of little warriors to fight terrorism.
Jesus, at least according to the Giles exegesis, really doesn’t like women either, nor their “feminist agenda” and its influence on the warrior cult of the “rough and rowdy” Christ, who, as we know, was always looking for a fight. Last year, Giles wrote, or should I say excreted an essay, for Townhall.com called "Raising Boys Feminists will Hate," which would be high on my “not even if I was on a desert island” don’t-read list had I not had the misfortune already to have read it. My conclusion was that smug Doug Giles is a homosexual of the Brown Shirt variety who would have felt right at home in the SA with Ernst Röhm. He loves fights and he hates women and the men who love them, including Jesus.
As an agnostic, I can assure you that the pain of living in a world without hope that Doug Giles will spend eternity broiling on a spit is sometimes more than I can bear.
The Gleiwitz incident
By Capt. Fogg
False-flag terrorism is an old and effective way to justify acts of aggression that would be hard to justify otherwise. In our conspiracy-loving country, events such as the World Trade Center attack are often given as an example, the premise being that our administration staged it in order to justify a war against Iraq.
Famous examples are the Berlin Reichstag fire in 1933 that gave Hitler reason to demand emergency powers and the completely phony attack on the Gleiwitz radio station used to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland the following day. A corpse wearing a Polish uniform was arranged outside of a radio station in Silesia, anti-German messages were broadcast, and the public told that Poland had attacked.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone that there is speculation as to what exactly happened in Karbala on January 20th. The official story that the men wearing American uniforms who carried out the kidnapping and murder of American troops were just too good to be Iraqis or even members of al Qaeda is everywhere, but the source is hard to pin down.
Iran involvement suspected blares the headline on CNN. Unnamed "sources" say "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained." "People are looking at it seriously," says another "official" whose use of the "people say" trope reminds me so much of Fox News' favorite method of launching fabricated rumor. Just who is doing the suspecting here and why should we be convinced that it isn't propaganda?
Anything is possible and of course it is also possible that the perpetrators were Iraqis or others looking to get the U.S. involved in an attack on Iran, and "people are saying" that it's entirely possible that U.S. interests directly or indirectly linked to the administration would love to use this as an excuse and were directly involved in facilitating or carrying out this attack.
False-flag terrorism or not, this speculative linking of Iran with an increasing number of incidents and unverifiable stories of sudden progress in the making of nuclear weapons looks a lot like the run up to the fake state of emergency that precipitated the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is possible that Iran is involved, if not in this incident at least in other incidents in Iraq, but we are dependent upon the testimony of proven liars for our information. Does the Bush administration have enough credibility to be able to convince us that we need another war on another front? Does George really care what we think anyway? People are talking.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
False-flag terrorism is an old and effective way to justify acts of aggression that would be hard to justify otherwise. In our conspiracy-loving country, events such as the World Trade Center attack are often given as an example, the premise being that our administration staged it in order to justify a war against Iraq.
Famous examples are the Berlin Reichstag fire in 1933 that gave Hitler reason to demand emergency powers and the completely phony attack on the Gleiwitz radio station used to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland the following day. A corpse wearing a Polish uniform was arranged outside of a radio station in Silesia, anti-German messages were broadcast, and the public told that Poland had attacked.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone that there is speculation as to what exactly happened in Karbala on January 20th. The official story that the men wearing American uniforms who carried out the kidnapping and murder of American troops were just too good to be Iraqis or even members of al Qaeda is everywhere, but the source is hard to pin down.
Iran involvement suspected blares the headline on CNN. Unnamed "sources" say "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained." "People are looking at it seriously," says another "official" whose use of the "people say" trope reminds me so much of Fox News' favorite method of launching fabricated rumor. Just who is doing the suspecting here and why should we be convinced that it isn't propaganda?
Anything is possible and of course it is also possible that the perpetrators were Iraqis or others looking to get the U.S. involved in an attack on Iran, and "people are saying" that it's entirely possible that U.S. interests directly or indirectly linked to the administration would love to use this as an excuse and were directly involved in facilitating or carrying out this attack.
False-flag terrorism or not, this speculative linking of Iran with an increasing number of incidents and unverifiable stories of sudden progress in the making of nuclear weapons looks a lot like the run up to the fake state of emergency that precipitated the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is possible that Iran is involved, if not in this incident at least in other incidents in Iraq, but we are dependent upon the testimony of proven liars for our information. Does the Bush administration have enough credibility to be able to convince us that we need another war on another front? Does George really care what we think anyway? People are talking.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Debating war powers: Democratic resolve, Republican hypocrisy
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It looks like things are getting serious in the Senate. Non-binding resolutions were all the rage, congressionally speaking, last week, but Democrats are now looking to block Bush's ridiculous surge strategy once and for all: "Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq."
Republican Arlen Specter may be on board. So may other Republican dissidents -- and their ranks are growing.
Democrat Russ Feingold, one of the Iraq War's most consistent and credible opponents, intends to go further: He "said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline."
Once again, if I may repeat myself: This is why it was so important for Democrats to take back Congress in November. Whatever comes of this, at least options other than the one pushed by Bush and his Republican rubber stampers in Congress are on the table. At least we're having this discussion.
At least Democrats are in a position to put an end to the madness.
**********
But the debate is more fundamental than Iraq, for it concerns constitutional war powers more generally. Make sure to read the Times article linked above for details. And also make sure to check out Glenn Greenwald, who reminds us that Republicans were fully in favour of congressional checks on presidential authority with respect to war when they were in the majority and Clinton was in the White House. In other words, they were in favour of congressional war powers before they were against them.
Hypocrisy? Of course. What else is new?
It looks like things are getting serious in the Senate. Non-binding resolutions were all the rage, congressionally speaking, last week, but Democrats are now looking to block Bush's ridiculous surge strategy once and for all: "Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq."
Republican Arlen Specter may be on board. So may other Republican dissidents -- and their ranks are growing.
Democrat Russ Feingold, one of the Iraq War's most consistent and credible opponents, intends to go further: He "said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline."
Once again, if I may repeat myself: This is why it was so important for Democrats to take back Congress in November. Whatever comes of this, at least options other than the one pushed by Bush and his Republican rubber stampers in Congress are on the table. At least we're having this discussion.
At least Democrats are in a position to put an end to the madness.
**********
But the debate is more fundamental than Iraq, for it concerns constitutional war powers more generally. Make sure to read the Times article linked above for details. And also make sure to check out Glenn Greenwald, who reminds us that Republicans were fully in favour of congressional checks on presidential authority with respect to war when they were in the majority and Clinton was in the White House. In other words, they were in favour of congressional war powers before they were against them.
Hypocrisy? Of course. What else is new?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
GOP jive talking
By Libby Spencer
If you had any doubts left that Co-dependent Joe Lieberman has joined the White House team, which seems unlikely what with all the warm and approving mentions by Bush and Cheney lately, the latest (leaked) GOP talking points memo should convince you. The steno sheet urges the party faithful to pimp Joe's recent remarks to the WSJ as proof positive of how nice and bi-partisan they've become since they got their asses whupped in the mid-terms. The GOPers love this line.
And Steve Hadley reinforces the meme in a WaPo op-ed.
And what is this miracle strategy again, that has this extraordinarily high hope of success? Throwing a pitiful 20 or 30 thousand soldiers into a snake pit of over 6 million people? We did that last summer and it completely failed so WTF is new about it?
New would be rolling in with thousands of troops and tanks and helicopters and air strikes and leveling the city to bring order. Oh wait -- we did that when invaded and broke the social order in the first place. Come to think of it, we did that in Fallujah too. That city is still not secure either. And forgive me if I mention that the latest bloody 24 hour battle with some mysterious new Shia cult took place 100 miles south of Baghdad. The insurgents, whoever they are, are violent, not stupid. They're not going to wait around Baghdad while we muster our troops. They've already left the city and are spreading out.
To use the words realistic and great potential for success in the same sentence as Bush's new plan would be laughable, if only he wasn't so deadly serious about going forward with a strategy that seems doomed to set us back again.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
If you had any doubts left that Co-dependent Joe Lieberman has joined the White House team, which seems unlikely what with all the warm and approving mentions by Bush and Cheney lately, the latest (leaked) GOP talking points memo should convince you. The steno sheet urges the party faithful to pimp Joe's recent remarks to the WSJ as proof positive of how nice and bi-partisan they've become since they got their asses whupped in the mid-terms. The GOPers love this line.
The people in Congress, and the public, were quite right in saying the president's got to come up with a different approach. And he did. It's better than any other plan I've seen because it holds the hope of success. Most of the other plans are effectively just giving up and walking away."
And Steve Hadley reinforces the meme in a WaPo op-ed.
"Ultimately, a strategy for success must present a realistic plan for bringing security to the people of Baghdad. This is a precondition to advancing other goals. President Bush's strategy offers such a plan -- and it is the only strategy that does."
And what is this miracle strategy again, that has this extraordinarily high hope of success? Throwing a pitiful 20 or 30 thousand soldiers into a snake pit of over 6 million people? We did that last summer and it completely failed so WTF is new about it?
New would be rolling in with thousands of troops and tanks and helicopters and air strikes and leveling the city to bring order. Oh wait -- we did that when invaded and broke the social order in the first place. Come to think of it, we did that in Fallujah too. That city is still not secure either. And forgive me if I mention that the latest bloody 24 hour battle with some mysterious new Shia cult took place 100 miles south of Baghdad. The insurgents, whoever they are, are violent, not stupid. They're not going to wait around Baghdad while we muster our troops. They've already left the city and are spreading out.
To use the words realistic and great potential for success in the same sentence as Bush's new plan would be laughable, if only he wasn't so deadly serious about going forward with a strategy that seems doomed to set us back again.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Krazy Kristol -- a new series
By Michael J.W. Stickings
One of our favourite targets here at The Reaction is neocon extraordinaire Bill Kristol, son of Irving. (Even though Heraclitus and I are just two degrees of separation away from him academically. But let's not go there.)
You can find our myriad posts on the K-man here, but, if I may, I would direct your attention specifically to this one by Heraclitus, this one by Libby, and this one by me.
Anyway, I'll turn this installment of Krazy Kristol -- surely a new and ongoing series here, now with a catchy name of its own -- over to Isaac Chotiner, who wrote this on Monday at The Plank under the transparently facetious title "Kristol's Wisdom":
One should not be surprised that the founder of a think tank pompously and self-aggrandizingly called the Project for the New American Century, as well as one of the Iraq War's most ardent cheerleaders, would have such a sizeable ego. Even being wrong so often isn't enough to deflate it.
One of our favourite targets here at The Reaction is neocon extraordinaire Bill Kristol, son of Irving. (Even though Heraclitus and I are just two degrees of separation away from him academically. But let's not go there.)
You can find our myriad posts on the K-man here, but, if I may, I would direct your attention specifically to this one by Heraclitus, this one by Libby, and this one by me.
Anyway, I'll turn this installment of Krazy Kristol -- surely a new and ongoing series here, now with a catchy name of its own -- over to Isaac Chotiner, who wrote this on Monday at The Plank under the transparently facetious title "Kristol's Wisdom":
Bill Kristol, who has lately been intent on proving you can make a lucrative career out of being right less often than a broken clock, valiantly defended Lewis Libby on Fox News Sunday yesterday. According to Kristol, Patrick Fitzgerald decided to go after "Scooter" instead of other members of the administration (like Ari Fleischer) because of the former aide's hawkish stance on Iraq. During the discussion Kristol made this remarkably inane point:Ari Fleischer is the president's personal press secretary. He's at the same level in the White House as Scooter Libby. They're both assistants to the president. Ari Fleischer, in some ways, is closer to the president than the vice president's chief of staff. I was a vice presidential chief of staff and I sure wasn't as close as Marlin Fitzwater was to President Bush.
Ah yes, Kristol's time as Dan Quayle's "brain" is a good analogy to Libby's role in the current White House. Quayle and Cheney had approximately the same influence with their respective presidents, after all.
One should not be surprised that the founder of a think tank pompously and self-aggrandizingly called the Project for the New American Century, as well as one of the Iraq War's most ardent cheerleaders, would have such a sizeable ego. Even being wrong so often isn't enough to deflate it.
Muddled meddling
By Libby Spencer
Richard Lugar appears to be searching for some middle ground in the muddle of the occupation. I don't know enough about football to understand his analogy, but he makes some sensible points. We do have to look outside of Baghdad and consider our strategy on a regional level. But whatever team our troops are supposed to be playing for right now, and I don't think that's at all clear, there's no mistaking whose side Lugar is taking:
Iran is perceived to be the winner? They are the winner because as Lugar rightly points out we installed a government that has strong ties to Tehran. Ahmadinejad would never have become such an obnoxious blowhard if he didn't perceive the strength of his position. And as to the White House talking point that he is meddling in Iran, I think Lugar should consult a dictionary. If anyone is meddling, I'm afraid it's us. We arrived without an invitation and made the regime change. Ahmadinejad has been invited in by the new Iraqi government we helped install.
Lugar's language is really loaded in that last sentence. He simultaneously bolsters Bush's case to get tough on Tehran while subtly chiding the European nations for not imposing stiffer economic sanctions. The trouble is, it's not that simple. The Europeans are resisting U.S. pressure to up the ante because it's their economies that are riding on the kitty. Easy for Bush to demand they play the game by his rules, but he's not the one who will face the consequences. He seems to forget that most leaders feel the need to answer to their people.
In any event, considering our current position, one can hardly blame the leaders of the free world for feeling a little skittish about allowing our Great Decider to be making decisions for them.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Richard Lugar appears to be searching for some middle ground in the muddle of the occupation. I don't know enough about football to understand his analogy, but he makes some sensible points. We do have to look outside of Baghdad and consider our strategy on a regional level. But whatever team our troops are supposed to be playing for right now, and I don't think that's at all clear, there's no mistaking whose side Lugar is taking:
At the center of this realignment is Iran, which is perceived to have emerged from our Iraq intervention as the big winner. We paved the way for a Shiite government in Iraq that is much friendlier to Iran than was Saddam Hussein. Bolstered by high oil revenue, Iran has meddled in Iraq, rigidly pursued a nuclear capability, and funded Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran is perceived to be the winner? They are the winner because as Lugar rightly points out we installed a government that has strong ties to Tehran. Ahmadinejad would never have become such an obnoxious blowhard if he didn't perceive the strength of his position. And as to the White House talking point that he is meddling in Iran, I think Lugar should consult a dictionary. If anyone is meddling, I'm afraid it's us. We arrived without an invitation and made the regime change. Ahmadinejad has been invited in by the new Iraqi government we helped install.
Lugar's language is really loaded in that last sentence. He simultaneously bolsters Bush's case to get tough on Tehran while subtly chiding the European nations for not imposing stiffer economic sanctions. The trouble is, it's not that simple. The Europeans are resisting U.S. pressure to up the ante because it's their economies that are riding on the kitty. Easy for Bush to demand they play the game by his rules, but he's not the one who will face the consequences. He seems to forget that most leaders feel the need to answer to their people.
In any event, considering our current position, one can hardly blame the leaders of the free world for feeling a little skittish about allowing our Great Decider to be making decisions for them.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Specter of brilliance
By Michael J.W. Stickings
President Bush, as you may know, has referred to himself as "the decider" with respect to Iraq. He will decide what to do, no one else. (He has more recently referred to himself as "the decision maker" -- see here.)
There is ample room for criticism (and humour) here, but let's give the floor to Republican Senator Arlen Specter, one of the few remaining moderates in the Republican camp: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
Well put -- you know, checks and balances and what not.
Although I would suggest disrespectfully, because no respect is deserved, that Bush is not only not "the sole decider" but that he's had his chance to decide and that his decisions, one after another after another, have led to failure.
The proof is Iraq.
President Bush, as you may know, has referred to himself as "the decider" with respect to Iraq. He will decide what to do, no one else. (He has more recently referred to himself as "the decision maker" -- see here.)
There is ample room for criticism (and humour) here, but let's give the floor to Republican Senator Arlen Specter, one of the few remaining moderates in the Republican camp: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."
Well put -- you know, checks and balances and what not.
Although I would suggest disrespectfully, because no respect is deserved, that Bush is not only not "the sole decider" but that he's had his chance to decide and that his decisions, one after another after another, have led to failure.
The proof is Iraq.
Exposing the lies: The Democratic Congress tackles global warming
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It's almost enough to think you're living in the Twilight Zone, even to think that the mass hysteria predicted by Dr. Venkman in the mayor's office is about to become a reality. You know, dogs and cats living together. That sort of thing. (Don't get it? Here.)
Pinch yourselves, friends. After years and years of irresponsible neglect and downright hostility under Republican leadership, Congress is finally getting around to addressing global warming, or what Al Gore refers to more broadly as the climate crisis. Of course, it's about time. And it may already be too late. But don't blame the Democrats. They just took over. At least now, in the majority, they can try to do something about the most pressing issue of our time, perhaps the defining problem of our entire civilization.
Some Republicans, like Senator James Inhofe, think it's all a hoax. And even if they don't, they haven't shown much interest in doing anything about it. And the White House -- well, as with so much else, it's in denial, conscious denial, willful avoidance, the suppression of truth:
And the Senate is at it, too: Clinton, Obama, even McCain. And it will be an issue addressed by all of the major Democratic candidates for president. Indeed, one of John Edwards' five key issues is this: "Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil."
Simply put, global warming can no longer be ignored, and certainly not by those who are most responsible for it. Bush broke ranks with the deniers and admitted the reality of global warming in his State of the Union address, but that's all he's done -- aside from supporting the suppression of the truth. And, to repeat, there's been nothing coming out of Congress. What action there's been has come from a select group of progressive states, including Schwarzenegger's California.
But now is the time for Congress to act. With Democrats prepared to lead the way, maybe something, finally, will get done. It's important to expose the lies, but substantive efforts must follow.
Pinch me again when that happens.
It's almost enough to think you're living in the Twilight Zone, even to think that the mass hysteria predicted by Dr. Venkman in the mayor's office is about to become a reality. You know, dogs and cats living together. That sort of thing. (Don't get it? Here.)
Pinch yourselves, friends. After years and years of irresponsible neglect and downright hostility under Republican leadership, Congress is finally getting around to addressing global warming, or what Al Gore refers to more broadly as the climate crisis. Of course, it's about time. And it may already be too late. But don't blame the Democrats. They just took over. At least now, in the majority, they can try to do something about the most pressing issue of our time, perhaps the defining problem of our entire civilization.
Some Republicans, like Senator James Inhofe, think it's all a hoax. And even if they don't, they haven't shown much interest in doing anything about it. And the White House -- well, as with so much else, it's in denial, conscious denial, willful avoidance, the suppression of truth:
Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.
The hearing focused on allegations that the White House for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.
"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.
And the Senate is at it, too: Clinton, Obama, even McCain. And it will be an issue addressed by all of the major Democratic candidates for president. Indeed, one of John Edwards' five key issues is this: "Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil."
Simply put, global warming can no longer be ignored, and certainly not by those who are most responsible for it. Bush broke ranks with the deniers and admitted the reality of global warming in his State of the Union address, but that's all he's done -- aside from supporting the suppression of the truth. And, to repeat, there's been nothing coming out of Congress. What action there's been has come from a select group of progressive states, including Schwarzenegger's California.
But now is the time for Congress to act. With Democrats prepared to lead the way, maybe something, finally, will get done. It's important to expose the lies, but substantive efforts must follow.
Pinch me again when that happens.
A half-glass-full battle
By Creature
On Sunday, in a highly publicized battle, the Iraqi forces in Najaf battled insurgents, or militias, or a cult, to the death. The details of the battle were sketchy and with whom the Iraqis were fighting was clearly in question. However, one aspect of the battle, a battle that reportedly killed between 150 and a gazillion people, was not in question: it was Iraqis who were in charge and GWB's policy was vindicated. Well, guess again.
The reality is clear, the Iraqi forces are not up to the job. The spin is even clearer, at every step of the way in GWB's latest publicity offensive (some might say publicity "surge") Iraqi successes will be trumpeted despite the reality on the ground. Call me cynical, I guess I don't have a "half-glass-full mentality," but haven't we been down this unrealistic road before?
The New York Times has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
On Sunday, in a highly publicized battle, the Iraqi forces in Najaf battled insurgents, or militias, or a cult, to the death. The details of the battle were sketchy and with whom the Iraqis were fighting was clearly in question. However, one aspect of the battle, a battle that reportedly killed between 150 and a gazillion people, was not in question: it was Iraqis who were in charge and GWB's policy was vindicated. Well, guess again.
Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.
They said American ground troops — and not just air support as reported Sunday — were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.
The reality is clear, the Iraqi forces are not up to the job. The spin is even clearer, at every step of the way in GWB's latest publicity offensive (some might say publicity "surge") Iraqi successes will be trumpeted despite the reality on the ground. Call me cynical, I guess I don't have a "half-glass-full mentality," but haven't we been down this unrealistic road before?
The New York Times has more.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Ahmadinejad's best friends
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Let's move away from American coverage of U.S.-Iranian relations and the ongoing problem of Iran's involvement in Iraq. (Articles up at The Washington Post right now include one on Bush saying he'll do "whatever it takes" (whatever that means -- go ahead and speculate) to repel Iranian engagement in Iraq; one on Iran's growing influence in Iraq (with Iraqi support); one on Arab states blaming the U.S. for Iranian ascendance in the Middle East; and another one on Bush's warnings to Iran. And so on.)
What's really going on in Iran? If President Ahmadinejad is the problem, or a big part of it, what is his future? What is Iran's future course more generally? Will it continue to influence events in Iraq as it seems to be doing now (although Bush and the warmongers are almost certainly exaggerating the problem)? Will it continue to develop its nuclear program (and, eventually, nuclear weapons) even in the face of widespread international condemnation? Will it continue to seek a greater role in the Middle East, to become a true regional power?
At The Guardian, Ali Ansari, the director of the Iranian Institute at the University of St. Andrews, notes that Ahmadinejad's popularity is in decline. And so is his support at the top. He has suffered "an unprecedented rebuke from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei -- reflecting growing concerns among the political elite, including many conservatives, who are increasingly anxious at Iran's worsening international situation." He has become "intoxicated with the prerogatives of his office, neglected his populist campaign platform, and "failed to consolidate and extend his political base". There's even been talk of impeachment!
Good news, then, right? Er, maybe not. What's keeping Ahmadinejad in power is the very international crisis of which he has been a major cause. As long as the U.S. talks tough and threatens Iran with "whatever it takes" rhetoric -- and not just to kick Iran out of Iraq but to destroy its nuclear program and perhaps even to pursue regime change -- Ahmadinejad is likely safe: "As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world."
Yes, "while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks [i.e., Bush, Cheney, and the neocons, inter alia] are his best friends".
Which means that Bush and Ahmadinejad, bitter enemies though they may seem to be, are actually reinforcing each other. While Bush is playing the Iran card, Ahmadinejad is playing the America card. Both are creating the impression that there is a greater threat than there actually is. Bush is doing it as he struggles for popularity; Ahmadinejad is doing it as he clings to power. Two sides of the same coin, both are playing the old political game of pumping up the enemy for personal gain.
Dare I mention that this is precisely what Hitler and Stalin did?
Let's move away from American coverage of U.S.-Iranian relations and the ongoing problem of Iran's involvement in Iraq. (Articles up at The Washington Post right now include one on Bush saying he'll do "whatever it takes" (whatever that means -- go ahead and speculate) to repel Iranian engagement in Iraq; one on Iran's growing influence in Iraq (with Iraqi support); one on Arab states blaming the U.S. for Iranian ascendance in the Middle East; and another one on Bush's warnings to Iran. And so on.)
What's really going on in Iran? If President Ahmadinejad is the problem, or a big part of it, what is his future? What is Iran's future course more generally? Will it continue to influence events in Iraq as it seems to be doing now (although Bush and the warmongers are almost certainly exaggerating the problem)? Will it continue to develop its nuclear program (and, eventually, nuclear weapons) even in the face of widespread international condemnation? Will it continue to seek a greater role in the Middle East, to become a true regional power?
At The Guardian, Ali Ansari, the director of the Iranian Institute at the University of St. Andrews, notes that Ahmadinejad's popularity is in decline. And so is his support at the top. He has suffered "an unprecedented rebuke from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei -- reflecting growing concerns among the political elite, including many conservatives, who are increasingly anxious at Iran's worsening international situation." He has become "intoxicated with the prerogatives of his office, neglected his populist campaign platform, and "failed to consolidate and extend his political base". There's even been talk of impeachment!
Good news, then, right? Er, maybe not. What's keeping Ahmadinejad in power is the very international crisis of which he has been a major cause. As long as the U.S. talks tough and threatens Iran with "whatever it takes" rhetoric -- and not just to kick Iran out of Iraq but to destroy its nuclear program and perhaps even to pursue regime change -- Ahmadinejad is likely safe: "As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world."
Yes, "while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks [i.e., Bush, Cheney, and the neocons, inter alia] are his best friends".
Which means that Bush and Ahmadinejad, bitter enemies though they may seem to be, are actually reinforcing each other. While Bush is playing the Iran card, Ahmadinejad is playing the America card. Both are creating the impression that there is a greater threat than there actually is. Bush is doing it as he struggles for popularity; Ahmadinejad is doing it as he clings to power. Two sides of the same coin, both are playing the old political game of pumping up the enemy for personal gain.
Dare I mention that this is precisely what Hitler and Stalin did?
Monday, January 29, 2007
The little duck that could
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Via Natalia Antonova, I've come across the truly amazing story of a little Floridean duck named Perky:
Wow. Read the whole article. It really is an incredible story.
**********
Three thoughts in response:
1) Have I mentioned recently that I'm looking forward to the time when the hunted become the hunters? Well, I am. And I mean it. If and when ducks shoot back, I'll be on the side of the ducks. Or the quails. Or the deer. Or...
2) This is why I'm moving -- slowly but determinedly -- to vegetarianism. Sure, I've had duck before. Many times. But no more. I just can't. And won't.
3) Anyone who isn't touched by this story, who doesn't feel for Perky, who doesn't wish her well, is, in my view, to put it politely, under-evolved. So are those who treat animals as commodities to be used and abused. Those who abuse animals deserve severe punishment. Period.
Via Natalia Antonova, I've come across the truly amazing story of a little Floridean duck named Perky:
A duck that survived being shot and spending two days in a refrigerator has now overcome major surgery -- despite briefly dying on the operating table.
Florida vets working to repair gunshot damage to Perky's wing panicked when the duck twice stopped breathing.
But they managed to resuscitate the bird, who leapt to fame when she was found alive in a hunter's fridge two days after being shot.
Perky now has a pin in her wing, but is expected to make a good recovery.
Wow. Read the whole article. It really is an incredible story.
**********
Three thoughts in response:
1) Have I mentioned recently that I'm looking forward to the time when the hunted become the hunters? Well, I am. And I mean it. If and when ducks shoot back, I'll be on the side of the ducks. Or the quails. Or the deer. Or...
2) This is why I'm moving -- slowly but determinedly -- to vegetarianism. Sure, I've had duck before. Many times. But no more. I just can't. And won't.
3) Anyone who isn't touched by this story, who doesn't feel for Perky, who doesn't wish her well, is, in my view, to put it politely, under-evolved. So are those who treat animals as commodities to be used and abused. Those who abuse animals deserve severe punishment. Period.
Hobbits are real
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(But Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli aren't. Sorry, LOTR fans.)
A new human species may have been discovered, according to the BBC:
Hobbits. Little humans. Tiny people. Fascinating stuff.
Peter Jackson, there's a movie here somewhere.
(But Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli aren't. Sorry, LOTR fans.)
A new human species may have been discovered, according to the BBC:
The tiny skeletal remains of human "Hobbits" found on an Indonesian island belong to a completely new branch of our family tree, a study has found.
The finds caused a sensation when they were announced to the world in 2004.
But some researchers argued the bones belonged to a modern human with a combination of small stature and a brain disorder called microcephaly.
That claim is rejected by the latest study, which compares the tiny people with modern microcephalics.
**********
The researchers believe the 1m-tall (3ft) people evolved from an unknown small-bodied, small-brained ancestor, which they think became small in stature to cope with the limited supply of food on the island.
The little humans are thought to have survived until about 12,000 years ago, when a volcanic eruption devastated the region.
Hobbits. Little humans. Tiny people. Fascinating stuff.
Peter Jackson, there's a movie here somewhere.
Hillary fumbles
By Creature
Hillary sings the anthem, tells a joke, and spins herself into hole. I think it's time to review the basics.* Hillary, class is in session.
Chapter One: A microphone is not your friend
[see - Howard Dean]
Chapter Two: Telling jokes should always be left to comedians
[see - John Kerry]
Chapter Three: When spinning yourself into a hole, stop spinning
[see - George Allen]
*In Hillary's defense she did know the words, and if she had let the joke stand on its own, it was a natural and funny moment.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Hillary sings the anthem, tells a joke, and spins herself into hole. I think it's time to review the basics.* Hillary, class is in session.
Politics 101
Chapter One: A microphone is not your friend
[see - Howard Dean]
Chapter Two: Telling jokes should always be left to comedians
[see - John Kerry]
Chapter Three: When spinning yourself into a hole, stop spinning
[see - George Allen]
*In Hillary's defense she did know the words, and if she had let the joke stand on its own, it was a natural and funny moment.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
BREAKING NEWS -- 13 percent of Americans are stupid ignoramuses
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Alright, that may be a tad harsh. Or... no. Is that overly generous? You decide.
According to a new 46-country survey, as reported by Reuters, "[t]hirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases".
My reaction to this report has come in two successive stages:
1) That's terrible. Americans are stupid. 13 percent is how many million? Their educational system sucks. The industry-funded propaganda, pushed on an ignorant public by media outlets that either believe the lies or avoid the liberal label by presenting two sides of the issue even when one side is a pack of lies and the scientific consensus is clear, is working.
2) Maybe that's not so terrible. Some Americans are stupid, perhaps many millions of them, but at least, if the survey results are to be believed, 87 percent of them have heard of global warming. That's not too bad. Considering an educational system that sucks and all that industry-funded propaganda and those irresponsible media outlets. Maybe the truth is getting out. Maybe there is hope yet that the world's worst polluter will reverse course and take positive steps to deal with the climate crisis. Sure, Bush is a know-nothing, do-nothing president, but some of the states are acting progressively, and there's always Arnold. California is where it's at, right? So, yeah, okay, not bad. For America.
Pardon my optimism. I may not be in my right mind this evening, but, well, I can't be negative all the time. Even on global warming.
Alright, that may be a tad harsh. Or... no. Is that overly generous? You decide.
According to a new 46-country survey, as reported by Reuters, "[t]hirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases".
My reaction to this report has come in two successive stages:
1) That's terrible. Americans are stupid. 13 percent is how many million? Their educational system sucks. The industry-funded propaganda, pushed on an ignorant public by media outlets that either believe the lies or avoid the liberal label by presenting two sides of the issue even when one side is a pack of lies and the scientific consensus is clear, is working.
2) Maybe that's not so terrible. Some Americans are stupid, perhaps many millions of them, but at least, if the survey results are to be believed, 87 percent of them have heard of global warming. That's not too bad. Considering an educational system that sucks and all that industry-funded propaganda and those irresponsible media outlets. Maybe the truth is getting out. Maybe there is hope yet that the world's worst polluter will reverse course and take positive steps to deal with the climate crisis. Sure, Bush is a know-nothing, do-nothing president, but some of the states are acting progressively, and there's always Arnold. California is where it's at, right? So, yeah, okay, not bad. For America.
Pardon my optimism. I may not be in my right mind this evening, but, well, I can't be negative all the time. Even on global warming.
Bush's Titanic
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The AJC's Mike Luckovich is really good:
Why I am no longer a conservative
By Heraclitus
No, not me. Lord knows I've dropped enough verbiage on your poor little heads this fine winter's morn. But here's an excellent account by one blogger of how the Iraq War changed the way she thought about contemporary conservatism and today's GOP.
Worth reading, both for the criticism of what passes for conservatism these days, and for the points about the larger problems with our approach to Iraq -- although one notices from reading her post that, while in Vietnam our blindness was national, in Iraq it's been narrowly ideological. Whatever the problems with our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq has been an occupation run by the Heritage Foundation, and you don't get much more irresponsible than that.
No, not me. Lord knows I've dropped enough verbiage on your poor little heads this fine winter's morn. But here's an excellent account by one blogger of how the Iraq War changed the way she thought about contemporary conservatism and today's GOP.
But you know, frankly?--They just used to make Republicans different. There wasn't always this slavish devotion to the Executive branch that there is now. Religious extremists were called, properly, religious extremists, and not "the base." People who boasted of their isolation and ignorance were called idiots, not "true patriots." And so on.
Worth reading, both for the criticism of what passes for conservatism these days, and for the points about the larger problems with our approach to Iraq -- although one notices from reading her post that, while in Vietnam our blindness was national, in Iraq it's been narrowly ideological. Whatever the problems with our involvement in Vietnam, Iraq has been an occupation run by the Heritage Foundation, and you don't get much more irresponsible than that.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
This is what a racist looks like
By Heraclitus
Some of you might remember my ridicule of a Townhall "columnist" named Burt Prelutsky, and in particular his assinine speculations on gender essentialism. Well, this time Burt has felt the need to unbossom himself of his hatred of ni**ers. No, seriously. But, as the kids say, wait for it.
Here's the first sentence of his latest masterpiece (it's actually about a week old now, but Burt's like a fart you just can't air out of a room -- thanks to Jill for making sure I smelled it).
Okay, first of all, "social engineering" is a noun, not an adjective. Today's wingnut is so ignorant and stupid he doesn't even know what part of speech his favorite obsessions are, despite constantly clutching at them like an infant at his blanket. And capitalizing "Socialists" means that you're referring to members of a specific political party with the title "Socialist," not to someone who has some loosely socialist or lefty ideas (seriously, Clownhall, hire a fucking copy editor). Who are these "Socialists"? The usual wingnut parade: George Soros, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy.
The great thing about ridiculing Burt, who resembles nothing so much as a syphilitic Jabba the Hutt, is that most of what he writes is such mindless twaddle that you can just ignore it completely. So, let's skip the general mind-numbing stupidity and jump straight to the egregiously racist stupidity.
Jabba begins his courageous disquisition on race by alluding to Mr. T. So, at least he's aware of the many and varied contributions Afro-Americans have made to the larger American culture, right? You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Hmmm...Burt's concerned about children being born out of wedlock, eh? So his solution must be better sex education and cheaper and more readily available birth control and abortion, right? In any case, he's against "government hand-outs" (yes, he really did say that), which are somehow being touted as a solution to the breakdown of the nuclear family among blacks. Who exactly is doing said touting, well, I don't know. Probably those "Socialists" we keep hearing so much about.
Let me just interrupt here, real quick like, with a cool breeze of reality courtesy of Amanda Marcotte, on this 70% thing:
But now, back to our little look at how badly awry the human mind can go.
Wow. Already Burt's hit ye olde "blacks are lazy and looking for a hand-out" mark twice. That's impressive, even for some douche writing at Clownhall. But is he just a one-trick Hutt? Nope: blacks are also scary. Whites are their "victims," and if Whitey don't make with the danish and coffee, things could get ugly.
But who are these "Aryan gangs"? Racism doesn't exist in Burt's world, so what could this mean? Also: the only drug white people use is meth. Interesting.
As a white dude, I have to say, pace Burt, that I've never felt "ashamed to be of the same race as these vicious cretins." Probably because I don't feel much pressure to define myself by my race. Being a member of a majority will do that. But probably also because you'd have to be really fucking stupid to judge a race by its criminal members. I mean, really fucking stupid. Like, Burt Prelutsky stupid.
Speaking of which...
Yep, no white kids have musical tastes running to the crude and lewd. And, truly, only black people like their music loud (my neighbor will no doubt be surprised to hear this). Actually, didn't the advent of gangsta rap coincide with rap becoming a cross-over phenomenon, popular to masses of would-be whitebred gangstas? Could it be that white kids are lapping up the crudeness and lewdness in "black music" just as eagerly as black kids? Could it be that there's "crude and lewd" music being produced and consumed by white people? Naaah.
Who, exactly, does this describe? Why would kids look up to crappy basketball players? Or are there popular basketball players who are really cranking out 28.9 kids a night? Well, it doesn't really matter. The point is that black men are sexually voracious and irresponsible. No racist history to this trope, no, sir.
That's right, folks, all blacks are drug dealers (but not all drug dealers are black -- recall the skinhead meth dealers). And no blacks go to church. Or school. Well, we've all heard those stats about how there are more black men of college age in jail than in college, right? And those must be true, right? Actually, wrong. More like, that's some serious bullshit (please view the YouTube clip on that page).
Yeah, just toss that word right out there, Burt. No reason us white folks should feel at all hesitant about using it. Actually, I'm starting to feel some of that shame at being white we talked about earlier. Funny how that works.
Remember, the only ostensible concern Burt has voiced so far with regard to African Americans is babies born out of wedlock. And I suppose it's possible, after all, that if you think abstinence-only sex-ed works, you might also think that "black kids" drooping their pants causes pregnancy (because, again, no white kids wear their pants like that). And black English, or African American Vernacular English, is actually an amazingly rich and flexible idiom, as anyone not blinded by race hate can see.
But the best part is "annoying people with their ear-splitting boom boxes." Yo, dipshit, they got this new thing called an iPod. Burt's picture of black people is straight out of an episode of the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. I mean, Stitch Jones gave us a more nuanced portrait of the average black man than this. Yesterday I linked to this excellent post by The Unapologetic Mexican (I think he's just unapologetic about being Mexican; I'm sure he's very polite in person). Please, go read that post. Just scroll down to the beginning of the frames, read Nezua's analysis, then scroll to the frames with the Latino gangbangers. These stock racist stereotypes, in our case the lazy but criminal and probably violent black youth with a "boom box," have very real power, and we can see that by the way they're trotted out here, to obediently perform their function of letting everyone know that blacks and only blacks are to blame for all their problems, and no one but Socialists like John Murtha think otherwise. In the post linked above, Nezua shows how ubiquitous, and often subtle and insidious, these racist stereotypes are, and how they can come to populate the mental world of some like the Burtster. The racist tropes he vomits at us have a purchase in our society beyond just the winguts enthusing over his little column like rats over a rotted piece of meat in the comments at Clownhall (and even if they didn't, wingnuts vote, etc.).
Burt puts up the necessary initial pretence of being concerned about the conditions of black people in America. But all of his criticisms are directed at the ways in which they don't conform to the arbitrary norms of mainstream white America -- he doesn't like the music they listen to, the way they dress, the way they talk. Meanwhile, and this is probably the most staggering thing about his column, he completely ignores or abstracts from the actual history of race relations in the US. At the end he dismisses racism by saying that slavery ended a long time ago and the Civil Rights Act was passed forty years ago, but he ignores the fact of racism, institutional and otherwise, as well as the massive fact that blacks were left brutally poor and uneducated after they were emancipated, and nothing was ever done to remedy this fact (unless you're counting the abortive stab at Reconstruction, which was, in any case, a horrendous failure). And, as it just so happens, these facts don't reflect too well on Whitey. Burt probably doesn't mention these things because, like most people calling themselves conservatives today, he's completely ignorant of American history, as he is of just about everything else. But this ignorance doesn't keep him from foghorning his imbecile and malign opinions, any more than wingnuts' total ignorance of the history and even the present-day political reality of the Middle Easy stops them from pontificating, usually with the unhinged vehemence that betrays ignorance (as well as a dysfunctional relationship with reality) on Iraq and related subjects.
The ignorance of history, willful or otherwise, and the attack on a minority group focused solely on the ways in which they are unlike the majority -- that, folks, is what a racist looks like.
Some of you might remember my ridicule of a Townhall "columnist" named Burt Prelutsky, and in particular his assinine speculations on gender essentialism. Well, this time Burt has felt the need to unbossom himself of his hatred of ni**ers. No, seriously. But, as the kids say, wait for it.
Here's the first sentence of his latest masterpiece (it's actually about a week old now, but Burt's like a fart you just can't air out of a room -- thanks to Jill for making sure I smelled it).
Whenever I start thinking about all the damage that’s been done to America by the social engineering Socialists, I have to remind myself that some of my best friends are left-wingers.
Okay, first of all, "social engineering" is a noun, not an adjective. Today's wingnut is so ignorant and stupid he doesn't even know what part of speech his favorite obsessions are, despite constantly clutching at them like an infant at his blanket. And capitalizing "Socialists" means that you're referring to members of a specific political party with the title "Socialist," not to someone who has some loosely socialist or lefty ideas (seriously, Clownhall, hire a fucking copy editor). Who are these "Socialists"? The usual wingnut parade: George Soros, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy.
The great thing about ridiculing Burt, who resembles nothing so much as a syphilitic Jabba the Hutt, is that most of what he writes is such mindless twaddle that you can just ignore it completely. So, let's skip the general mind-numbing stupidity and jump straight to the egregiously racist stupidity.
The whole question of race is a dicey one. Pity the poor fool who wades into those troubled waters. Well, here goes.
Jabba begins his courageous disquisition on race by alluding to Mr. T. So, at least he's aware of the many and varied contributions Afro-Americans have made to the larger American culture, right? You'd think so, wouldn't you?
If a black person tells the truth -- namely, that in 2007, 99% of black problems are self-inflicted -- he is, like Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell, dismissed as an Uncle Tom. If a white person tells the truth -- namely, that with a 70% illegitimacy rate, no amount of government hand-outs will do anything but provide the cancer victim with a very expensive band-aid -- he’s condemned as a racist.
Hmmm...Burt's concerned about children being born out of wedlock, eh? So his solution must be better sex education and cheaper and more readily available birth control and abortion, right? In any case, he's against "government hand-outs" (yes, he really did say that), which are somehow being touted as a solution to the breakdown of the nuclear family among blacks. Who exactly is doing said touting, well, I don't know. Probably those "Socialists" we keep hearing so much about.
Let me just interrupt here, real quick like, with a cool breeze of reality courtesy of Amanda Marcotte, on this 70% thing:
This rant from conservatives about black out-of-wedlock births is so common that it’s basically autopilot at this point. There are many assumptions you have to hold and carefully refrain from questioning in order to fall for this line, not the least of which being that there’s a causal relationship between having a baby while not being married and poverty, when it could be correlative or, since she [some other wingnut--you how it is, they all look the same -- H] references race and not class, it might not even be as correlative as she implies.
But now, back to our little look at how badly awry the human mind can go.
When blacks say they wish to have a dialogue with whites, it only means that they want a forum at which to bash whites, while their victims provide a Greek chorus of mea culpas, provide the coffee and Danish, and drop a little something in the collection plate on their way out.
Wow. Already Burt's hit ye olde "blacks are lazy and looking for a hand-out" mark twice. That's impressive, even for some douche writing at Clownhall. But is he just a one-trick Hutt? Nope: blacks are also scary. Whites are their "victims," and if Whitey don't make with the danish and coffee, things could get ugly.
There is such a thing as white prejudice. No doubt about it. But it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with character, culture and values. What blacks refuse to acknowledge is that whites are intolerant of crime and the creeps who commit it, be they black thugs or white trash. The latter are those lowlifes who form Aryan gangs; tattoo themselves with skulls and swastikas; and produce, distribute and use methamphetamines. I don’t know a single white person who isn’t ashamed to be of the same race as these vicious cretins.Hmm. Okay, so there is such a thing as white prejudice, but it's only prejudice against bad character, which no white people have, since it's a white prejudice to dislike bad character. But actually, lots of white people have bad character, and other white people hate them. But then hating bad character can't be a distinctively "white" prejudice. In any case, we know all blacks are the same; Burt hasn't distinguished among any of them yet, except Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell, who must not be black, because they don't act like "blacks" do, according to Burt. Shit, that doesn't make any sense. Um...blacks are lazy and want your money!!!
But who are these "Aryan gangs"? Racism doesn't exist in Burt's world, so what could this mean? Also: the only drug white people use is meth. Interesting.
As a white dude, I have to say, pace Burt, that I've never felt "ashamed to be of the same race as these vicious cretins." Probably because I don't feel much pressure to define myself by my race. Being a member of a majority will do that. But probably also because you'd have to be really fucking stupid to judge a race by its criminal members. I mean, really fucking stupid. Like, Burt Prelutsky stupid.
Speaking of which...
But if a person such as Bill Cosby says he’s ashamed of the promiscuity, drug use and illiteracy, that plague the black underclass, he’s called names. The real shame should be that millions of black kids are fatherless; that their taste in music is for anything that’s crude, lewd and loud;
Yep, no white kids have musical tastes running to the crude and lewd. And, truly, only black people like their music loud (my neighbor will no doubt be surprised to hear this). Actually, didn't the advent of gangsta rap coincide with rap becoming a cross-over phenomenon, popular to masses of would-be whitebred gangstas? Could it be that white kids are lapping up the crudeness and lewdness in "black music" just as eagerly as black kids? Could it be that there's "crude and lewd" music being produced and consumed by white people? Naaah.
that their role models are too often basketball players who make more babies than baskets;
Who, exactly, does this describe? Why would kids look up to crappy basketball players? Or are there popular basketball players who are really cranking out 28.9 kids a night? Well, it doesn't really matter. The point is that black men are sexually voracious and irresponsible. No racist history to this trope, no, sir.
whose language skills are embarrassingly abysmal;Now, as we've seen, Burt really isn't the person to be criticizing anyone else'e facility with the English language. But, beyond that, let me say that I've been lucky enough to teach at good universities and colleges so far in my career. I've seen bright white kids from good neighborhoods and schools who have trouble writing proper English. Right now, the most obviously privileged student I have is also the one who has the most trouble writing functional sentences; from my elitist point of view, I'd say he's illiterate. And, again, these are the better students in the country. When can we expect columns to start appearing at Townhall about how the vulgarity of white America means their children leave high school unable to write a satisfactory English sentence? And, hell, we've all seen how we rank internationally in science and math. When are we going to start putting the blame where it belongs, on the vulgarity, laziness and ignorance of white America? My guess is "never" (and I'm serious that that's where the blame belongs -- not on whites as whites, but on the general vulgarity and materialism of our society).
and that, although most of the street punks are peddling drugs for roughly the minimum wage, they regard it as a worthier, more manly pursuit than working at a 7/11 or, God forbid, going to church, school or a library.
That's right, folks, all blacks are drug dealers (but not all drug dealers are black -- recall the skinhead meth dealers). And no blacks go to church. Or school. Well, we've all heard those stats about how there are more black men of college age in jail than in college, right? And those must be true, right? Actually, wrong. More like, that's some serious bullshit (please view the YouTube clip on that page).
Most whites in this country are not racist. In their heart, they agree with black comedian Chris Rock when he says, “I love black people, but I hate niggers,” even if they themselves are not allowed to make such an honest declaration.
Yeah, just toss that word right out there, Burt. No reason us white folks should feel at all hesitant about using it. Actually, I'm starting to feel some of that shame at being white we talked about earlier. Funny how that works.
Actually, what most whites are is cowardly. When we see black kids with the top of their baggy pants drooping somewhere south of their butts, annoying people with their ear-splitting boom boxes, saying “they be” when they mean “they are,” and we pretend that theirs is a different, but equally fine culture as our own, we’re no better than those enablers who give money to drug addicts or booze to alcoholics.
Remember, the only ostensible concern Burt has voiced so far with regard to African Americans is babies born out of wedlock. And I suppose it's possible, after all, that if you think abstinence-only sex-ed works, you might also think that "black kids" drooping their pants causes pregnancy (because, again, no white kids wear their pants like that). And black English, or African American Vernacular English, is actually an amazingly rich and flexible idiom, as anyone not blinded by race hate can see.
But the best part is "annoying people with their ear-splitting boom boxes." Yo, dipshit, they got this new thing called an iPod. Burt's picture of black people is straight out of an episode of the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. I mean, Stitch Jones gave us a more nuanced portrait of the average black man than this. Yesterday I linked to this excellent post by The Unapologetic Mexican (I think he's just unapologetic about being Mexican; I'm sure he's very polite in person). Please, go read that post. Just scroll down to the beginning of the frames, read Nezua's analysis, then scroll to the frames with the Latino gangbangers. These stock racist stereotypes, in our case the lazy but criminal and probably violent black youth with a "boom box," have very real power, and we can see that by the way they're trotted out here, to obediently perform their function of letting everyone know that blacks and only blacks are to blame for all their problems, and no one but Socialists like John Murtha think otherwise. In the post linked above, Nezua shows how ubiquitous, and often subtle and insidious, these racist stereotypes are, and how they can come to populate the mental world of some like the Burtster. The racist tropes he vomits at us have a purchase in our society beyond just the winguts enthusing over his little column like rats over a rotted piece of meat in the comments at Clownhall (and even if they didn't, wingnuts vote, etc.).
Burt puts up the necessary initial pretence of being concerned about the conditions of black people in America. But all of his criticisms are directed at the ways in which they don't conform to the arbitrary norms of mainstream white America -- he doesn't like the music they listen to, the way they dress, the way they talk. Meanwhile, and this is probably the most staggering thing about his column, he completely ignores or abstracts from the actual history of race relations in the US. At the end he dismisses racism by saying that slavery ended a long time ago and the Civil Rights Act was passed forty years ago, but he ignores the fact of racism, institutional and otherwise, as well as the massive fact that blacks were left brutally poor and uneducated after they were emancipated, and nothing was ever done to remedy this fact (unless you're counting the abortive stab at Reconstruction, which was, in any case, a horrendous failure). And, as it just so happens, these facts don't reflect too well on Whitey. Burt probably doesn't mention these things because, like most people calling themselves conservatives today, he's completely ignorant of American history, as he is of just about everything else. But this ignorance doesn't keep him from foghorning his imbecile and malign opinions, any more than wingnuts' total ignorance of the history and even the present-day political reality of the Middle Easy stops them from pontificating, usually with the unhinged vehemence that betrays ignorance (as well as a dysfunctional relationship with reality) on Iraq and related subjects.
The ignorance of history, willful or otherwise, and the attack on a minority group focused solely on the ways in which they are unlike the majority -- that, folks, is what a racist looks like.
Oskar Moll: Snow Lanscape with Red Bridge (1942)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
After a fairly mild fall, winter has hit Toronto hard over the past couple of weeks. It's snowed quite a bit and it's been very, very cold. Right now, late at night, it's -12 celsius, and the wind chill, as usual, is brutal.
In selecting a winter-related painting to post tonight, I considered various works by the likes of the Japanese Utagawa Hiroshige (1797-1858) and the Canadian Tom Thomson (1877-1917), famous artists both, and justifiably so. But this work by the relatively unknown Austrian Oskar Moll (1875-1947), at the MoMA in New York, seems to capture the essence of winter, the blanket of snow and ice and cold that has enveloped us.
Wherever you are, be safe. And if it's winter where you are, stay warm. We'll be back with the political blogging shortly.
After a fairly mild fall, winter has hit Toronto hard over the past couple of weeks. It's snowed quite a bit and it's been very, very cold. Right now, late at night, it's -12 celsius, and the wind chill, as usual, is brutal.In selecting a winter-related painting to post tonight, I considered various works by the likes of the Japanese Utagawa Hiroshige (1797-1858) and the Canadian Tom Thomson (1877-1917), famous artists both, and justifiably so. But this work by the relatively unknown Austrian Oskar Moll (1875-1947), at the MoMA in New York, seems to capture the essence of winter, the blanket of snow and ice and cold that has enveloped us.
Wherever you are, be safe. And if it's winter where you are, stay warm. We'll be back with the political blogging shortly.
The Temple of Bush
By Capt. Fogg
I just can’t read the papers any more. What’s the point of life if you can’t spend Sunday morning by the pool with the paper and a cup of coffee without being enraged, depressed, and nauseated before the second bite of that toasted bagel?
The A section of today’s Palm Beach Post hit the recycle bin after the first paragraph of the first front-page article which announced to us that the rising incidence of drive-by shootings in the really bad neighborhoods of Palm Beach County result not from gangs and poverty and inadequate enforcement but from cheap (at $750) readily obtainable (after a background check with the sheriff and a three day wait) replicas of AK-47’s that look like real AK-47’s but are not any more “deadly” than grandpa’s hunting rifle. Guns are only “designed to maim and kill” screams the article, although, somehow, liberalized gun laws have accompanied lower crime rates in nearly every other part of the state. Maybe a shot of Bailey’s would do nicely with that coffee.
So let’s get down to the good old Sunday Comics. I usually turn to Doonesbury to start with, but no, it’s about that half a billion dollars (think about how many scholarships that could provide) that will be wasted on building the George W. Bush Fake Presidential Library. If it were a real presidential library, it would contain the papers of a real president, not just the selected documents deemed likely not to be embarrassing or proof of felonious misuse of presidential powers by someone who got into office using rigged elections. But of course this half-billion-dollar shrine will be protected from housing dirty laundry since the Bastard Prince signed Executive Order 13233 back in 2001 that allows a president to block the release of anything he wants from the reign of Reagan forward and has successfully kept “activist Judges” from doing anything about it.
Half a billion dollars to build a propaganda shrine -- just the sort of thing you’d expect from some European dictator from the middle of the last century. But he’s the decision maker and he’s decided that even though the law once mandated that presidential papers belonged to the American People, the American People were no longer worthy and the presidential “library” is the president’s property and the names of the donors secret and that’s that.
Maybe a valium or two with that coffee wouldn’t hurt and, wouldn’t you know, it looks like it’s going to rain. The hell with it. I’m going back to bed until it all blows over.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Excellent movie analysis
By Heraclitus
The Unapologetic Mexican has an extremely careful and insightful (and also rather long) post analyzing the movie Falling Down. Nezua uncovers or highlights all of the racist, misogynist, and homophobic elements of the film, most of which are presented rather subtly. It's of interest not only because of its excellent analysis of this particular movie but, of course, because of how it begins to alert you to the subtle social and political messages in movies, especially mainstream movies, where there are plenty of little reactionary digs and prompts slipped in quickly.
The Unapologetic Mexican has an extremely careful and insightful (and also rather long) post analyzing the movie Falling Down. Nezua uncovers or highlights all of the racist, misogynist, and homophobic elements of the film, most of which are presented rather subtly. It's of interest not only because of its excellent analysis of this particular movie but, of course, because of how it begins to alert you to the subtle social and political messages in movies, especially mainstream movies, where there are plenty of little reactionary digs and prompts slipped in quickly.
Maher Arar and a tale of two countries
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Maher Arar, you'll remember, is the Syrian-born Canadian citizen who in 2002 was detained by the U.S. at JFK airport in New York and "rendered" extraordinarily to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured before being released a year later. A formal inquiry initiated by the Canadian government and headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor fully exonerated him and recommended compensation. A detailed chronology of his story, which you should all read, is here.
And this brings us to the two very different responses from Canada and the U.S.:
Canada
United States
Can you blame him? At least -- at the very least -- he has found justice in Canada, even as the U.S. continues to punish him and to threaten him, an innocent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was the victim of American paranoia and cruelty.
Prime Minister Harper would do well to keep up the pressure on the U.S. to have Arar removed from its watch list, but don't expect the U.S. to budge. Not with a president who so willfully disregards habeas corpus as he wages his endless war against whomever he defines as America's enemies.
(Our previous posts on the Arar case are here, here, and here.)
Maher Arar, you'll remember, is the Syrian-born Canadian citizen who in 2002 was detained by the U.S. at JFK airport in New York and "rendered" extraordinarily to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured before being released a year later. A formal inquiry initiated by the Canadian government and headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor fully exonerated him and recommended compensation. A detailed chronology of his story, which you should all read, is here.
And this brings us to the two very different responses from Canada and the U.S.:
Canada
Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized Friday to Maher Arar for the torture he suffered in a Syrian prison and said the government would pay him and his family $10.5-million, plus legal fees, to compensate them for the "terrible ordeal."
"On behalf of the government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you... and your family for any role that Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002-2003," Mr. Harper said in a letter to Mr. Arar.
The Prime Minister promised to do everything possible to ensure that the issues raised in the report of a judicial inquiry into the Arar case are addressed.
The government cannot change what is past, he told a news conference in Ottawa...
"But we can make changes to... [reduce the chances] that something like this will ever happen again."
United States
Flights south of the border were once a frequent fact of Maher Arar's professional life. Today, the 36-year-old computer engineer is fearful when the plane that takes him to Toronto or Ottawa from his home in British Columbia strays into U.S. air space.
The Americans continue to keep the Canadian man, whom they branded a terror suspect and sent to Syria in 2002, on their watch list. His name has not been removed despite his exoneration in this country and the apology he received Friday for the role Canadian officials played in his 10-month ordeal in a Syrian prison.
That means Mr. Arar and his family cannot travel to the United States. The U.S. ban is also taken into consideration by about 30 per cent of world, his lawyer said, thus depriving Mr. Arar of freedom of movement on a wide scale. For example, the family cannot make the pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia that is a requirement of their Muslim faith.
And, although U.S. authorities say they are not concerned when people on the watch list merely fly through U.S. air pace on their way from one Canadian destination to another, the occasional airborne foray across the border makes Mr. Arar queasy.
“As of today I feel a little bit reluctant to go anywhere else except domestically,” he told a news conference Friday afternoon.
Can you blame him? At least -- at the very least -- he has found justice in Canada, even as the U.S. continues to punish him and to threaten him, an innocent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was the victim of American paranoia and cruelty.
Prime Minister Harper would do well to keep up the pressure on the U.S. to have Arar removed from its watch list, but don't expect the U.S. to budge. Not with a president who so willfully disregards habeas corpus as he wages his endless war against whomever he defines as America's enemies.
(Our previous posts on the Arar case are here, here, and here.)
Pity poor Aitch Dubya
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So:
As usual, it's all the media's fault. In this, Aitch Dubya is just like any other right-winger on the rampage for a scapegoat. The so-called "hostility" surely can't have anything to do with anything his beloved son has done, right? Those approval ratings and poll numbers must also be a media fabrication, right?. Can it really be that so many Americans want this presidency over and done with? Can it? Get your head out of your ass, Aitch Dubya. You know full well what's going on.
Poor man. He cries over Jeb and now, as if protesting too much, he lashes out at the media. It must really suck when your child fails so miserably in the highest office in the land.
So:
President George W. Bush's father accused the news media of "personal animosity" toward his son and said he found the criticism so unrelenting he sometimes talked back to his television set.
"It's one thing to have an adversarial... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.
As usual, it's all the media's fault. In this, Aitch Dubya is just like any other right-winger on the rampage for a scapegoat. The so-called "hostility" surely can't have anything to do with anything his beloved son has done, right? Those approval ratings and poll numbers must also be a media fabrication, right?. Can it really be that so many Americans want this presidency over and done with? Can it? Get your head out of your ass, Aitch Dubya. You know full well what's going on.
Poor man. He cries over Jeb and now, as if protesting too much, he lashes out at the media. It must really suck when your child fails so miserably in the highest office in the land.
Wishing it was simply over
By Creature
Wish the Bush presidency was over? You're not alone. New numbers from Newsweek:
Numbers like those above used to give me cause to happy-dance. They reflected a growing awareness of the American public to the disaster that is GWB. Today, with the tide thoroughly turned against the boy-president and his evil Dick of a sidekick, the reality of two more years just depresses the fuck out of me.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Wish the Bush presidency was over? You're not alone. New numbers from Newsweek:
The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans.
Numbers like those above used to give me cause to happy-dance. They reflected a growing awareness of the American public to the disaster that is GWB. Today, with the tide thoroughly turned against the boy-president and his evil Dick of a sidekick, the reality of two more years just depresses the fuck out of me.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Komodo baby
By Michael J.W. Stickings
A komodo dragon hatches at Chester Zoo in England. Flora, the immaculate conceiver, is now a mother. Congratulations from all of us at The Reaction.
A komodo dragon hatches at Chester Zoo in England. Flora, the immaculate conceiver, is now a mother. Congratulations from all of us at The Reaction.
(Photo from The Globe and Mail.)
Friday, January 26, 2007
Just another day in the life and death of Iraq XXXVI
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From the AP: "In perhaps the boldest and most sophisticated attack in four years of warfare, gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week at the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and then shot them to death."
What a nightmare Bush's war has become.
From the AP: "In perhaps the boldest and most sophisticated attack in four years of warfare, gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week at the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and then shot them to death."
What a nightmare Bush's war has become.
"I'm the decision maker"
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So said Bush yesterday, snubbing Congress. For more, see this good overview article on the current state of the debate over Iraq in The Washington Post.
If Bush insists on referring to himself as "the decision maker," that's fine with me, just as long as he takes responsibility for his decisions -- which, of course, he hasn't. He shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
His decisions have brought about disaster. And they will continue to do so unless the new Congress, rubber stampers reduced to the minority in both houses, prevent him from making further decisions unchecked.
Libby has more here.
So said Bush yesterday, snubbing Congress. For more, see this good overview article on the current state of the debate over Iraq in The Washington Post.
If Bush insists on referring to himself as "the decision maker," that's fine with me, just as long as he takes responsibility for his decisions -- which, of course, he hasn't. He shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
His decisions have brought about disaster. And they will continue to do so unless the new Congress, rubber stampers reduced to the minority in both houses, prevent him from making further decisions unchecked.
Libby has more here.
Canada and the climate crisis
By Michael J.W. Stickings
What do Canadians care about? With another federal election coming up this spring, in all likelihood, what issue do we place above all others? The climate crisis, according to a new poll:
The Liberals, currently the official opposition in the House of Commons, are in good position on this issue, not least because their new leader, Stéphane Dion, is a committed environmentalist. Although Dion didn't have the celebrity status of a Michael Ignatieff or a Bob Rae at the leadership convention, the Liberals may have been unwittingly prescient in selecting Dion. They picked the candidate who can best address Canadians' chief concern, whether they knew it at the time or not.
No wonder, then, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservatives have turned environmentalist on us -- or at least want us to believe they have. They've been against Kyoto and they've hardly been environmentally progressive. But they can read the polls. They know what Canadians care about. And they know they need to respond if they are to stand any chance of winning the next election.
Of course, other issues, not least our military commitment in Afghanistan, will be debated before we head to the polls. But it says something about this country -- something extremely positive, I believe -- that we are turning our attention, our political attention, to the foremost challenge of our time.
What do Canadians care about? With another federal election coming up this spring, in all likelihood, what issue do we place above all others? The climate crisis, according to a new poll:
Anxiety about environmental change has climbed so quickly within Canadians' consciousness that it now overwhelms terrorism, crime and health care as society's greatest threat, says a poll that kicks off a major Globe and Mail examination of the issue.
The Globe and Mail/CTV News survey delivers a number of messages for politicians, including a warning that the government not abandon Kyoto and a desire that Canada make a significant contribution to resolving global warming.
But the overarching finding is the speed with which Canadians have accepted that global warming is a large problem. The issue will also have a profound effect on the next election, as voters decide which party has the best plan to fix the problem.
The Liberals, currently the official opposition in the House of Commons, are in good position on this issue, not least because their new leader, Stéphane Dion, is a committed environmentalist. Although Dion didn't have the celebrity status of a Michael Ignatieff or a Bob Rae at the leadership convention, the Liberals may have been unwittingly prescient in selecting Dion. They picked the candidate who can best address Canadians' chief concern, whether they knew it at the time or not.
No wonder, then, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservatives have turned environmentalist on us -- or at least want us to believe they have. They've been against Kyoto and they've hardly been environmentally progressive. But they can read the polls. They know what Canadians care about. And they know they need to respond if they are to stand any chance of winning the next election.
Of course, other issues, not least our military commitment in Afghanistan, will be debated before we head to the polls. But it says something about this country -- something extremely positive, I believe -- that we are turning our attention, our political attention, to the foremost challenge of our time.
Libby Trial -- opening witness sings on spinning leaks
By Libby Spencer
Since I got off to a slow start as a co-blogger here, I'm going to beg Michael's and the rest of the team's indulgence and double-post this afternoon. In general, I don't plan to write a lot about this case. If you want perspective on the legal issues of the Scooter Libby trial, go to Firedoglake, a blog originally built on this matter, and, if you still can't get enough of the legalese, stop by TalkLeft. But yesterday's revelations from Cathie Martin, former Cheney communications director, are too delicious to leave unmentioned. Ms. Martin sheds some much-needed light on exactly how the White House spin machine works.
Just as we suspected, Tim Russert's Meet the Press is a fave of the administration because it can count on softball questions to "control the message," or, as we like to call it at The Impolitic, pushing the propaganda. Cathie notes it "was a tactic we often used." She goes on to reveal the administration's copious and deliberate use of the Friday news dump. In a moment of unmitigated candor, she told the court that bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.
She described at length how she and Steve Hadley worked long hours with George Tenet helping him draft the political suicide note in which he faked responsibility for the erroneous mention of yellowcake uranium in the President's SOTU speech that year. And she confirmed that "the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others. To deal with the Wilson controversy, she hastily arranged a Cheney lunch with conservative commentators."
But probably her most damaging testimony, backed up with written notes, clearly indicates that the "no leak" White House routinely used leaks to White House-friendly reporters in order to advance its false story lines.
Even if nothing else happens in this trial and Scooter gets off, these revelations proving the odious duplicity of the White House are worth every penny we're spending on it.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Since I got off to a slow start as a co-blogger here, I'm going to beg Michael's and the rest of the team's indulgence and double-post this afternoon. In general, I don't plan to write a lot about this case. If you want perspective on the legal issues of the Scooter Libby trial, go to Firedoglake, a blog originally built on this matter, and, if you still can't get enough of the legalese, stop by TalkLeft. But yesterday's revelations from Cathie Martin, former Cheney communications director, are too delicious to leave unmentioned. Ms. Martin sheds some much-needed light on exactly how the White House spin machine works.
Just as we suspected, Tim Russert's Meet the Press is a fave of the administration because it can count on softball questions to "control the message," or, as we like to call it at The Impolitic, pushing the propaganda. Cathie notes it "was a tactic we often used." She goes on to reveal the administration's copious and deliberate use of the Friday news dump. In a moment of unmitigated candor, she told the court that bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.
She described at length how she and Steve Hadley worked long hours with George Tenet helping him draft the political suicide note in which he faked responsibility for the erroneous mention of yellowcake uranium in the President's SOTU speech that year. And she confirmed that "the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others. To deal with the Wilson controversy, she hastily arranged a Cheney lunch with conservative commentators."
But probably her most damaging testimony, backed up with written notes, clearly indicates that the "no leak" White House routinely used leaks to White House-friendly reporters in order to advance its false story lines.
Even if nothing else happens in this trial and Scooter gets off, these revelations proving the odious duplicity of the White House are worth every penny we're spending on it.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Bush plays "Blue Game Matrix"
By Libby Spencer
This can't be good. Bush decided, last fall, to issue shoot to kill orders against Iranian operatives in Iraq. There are a couple of problems with this order. First, since the order is supposed to exclude civilians and diplomats, who determines whether an Iranian citizen is an operative? Considering the recent raids on Iranian diplomatic facilities, I'd say there's some amount of confusion on that score already.
Second, Iran is a Shia-friendly country. Why would they be arming the Sunni insurgents against their own people? Iran has been training and equipping the Shia militias, which are closely associated with the government we installed ourselves in Iraq, which continues to make overtures to Tehran in order to foster a close and cooperative relationship.
I'd say more on this but Chris Floyd sums it up perfectly in an excellent post that should be read in full.
Indeed. How is possible to feel anything but pure disgust over such self-serving thuggery being perpetrated in our name?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
This can't be good. Bush decided, last fall, to issue shoot to kill orders against Iranian operatives in Iraq. There are a couple of problems with this order. First, since the order is supposed to exclude civilians and diplomats, who determines whether an Iranian citizen is an operative? Considering the recent raids on Iranian diplomatic facilities, I'd say there's some amount of confusion on that score already.
Second, Iran is a Shia-friendly country. Why would they be arming the Sunni insurgents against their own people? Iran has been training and equipping the Shia militias, which are closely associated with the government we installed ourselves in Iraq, which continues to make overtures to Tehran in order to foster a close and cooperative relationship.
I'd say more on this but Chris Floyd sums it up perfectly in an excellent post that should be read in full.
So again, let's be clear. If Iran is not arming their bloodsworn enemies, the Sunni insurgents, and if any Shiite group they are assisting is an integral part of the "sovereign" Iraqi government backed by the Bush Administration, then what on earth can be the purpose of a direct presidential order to the troops to kill Iranians in Iraq? The answer is simple: the purpose of the order is to provoke Iran into some action that can be trumpeted as a casus belli for the Bush Faction's long-planned war against Iran.
What Bush has done with this order is to turn the American military into his own private death squad. It is an act of breathtaking dishonor, of unspeakable moral filth. That this pathetic little man and the jumped-up thugs around him – especially the hulking, smirking, lying coward Dick Cheney – are allowed to show their faces among civilized people, much less exercise power over a mighty nation, remains an unfathomable mystery...and a source of deep shame for all Americans.
Indeed. How is possible to feel anything but pure disgust over such self-serving thuggery being perpetrated in our name?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
