Hard Truth

Best. Pizza. Ever.

2011-02-24T17:19:00.000-08:00

And not a single one anywhere nearby. Typical.

Seriously

2009-09-16T17:37:00.000-07:00

Would the world be any worse off if Glenn Beck decided to never again appear in public? Granted, his roundish noggin' becomes more seasonally approach as we approach Halloween, and he does pass for an authoritative news source among a disturbingly growing segment of the population. The truth, though, is that he represents nothing better than the worst of our instincts, and promotes them for nothing more noble than to line his own pockets at the cost of the patriotic values he pretends to honor. Plus he very well might have gay sex with underage heroin addicts in public restrooms, for all you know!

In the case of George Sodini

2009-08-06T17:31:00.000-07:00

Based on information from his online blog, and a cut 'n paste to Google Maps, the tragic life that ended in the tragic murder/suicide reported as the 'gym shooter' of Pittsburgh, hails from this tragic home, the address of George Sodini's mom. No excuses, but you can imagine the sadness, right?

A Pitcher's Worth...

2009-03-12T17:58:00.001-07:00

All credit to the super fine folks at Dogfish Head craft brewery - the fine, finer, finest beer crafters in the craftaverse

Rare Rationality

2009-02-26T16:31:00.000-08:00

Not only has a small gang of human rights abusers been rightfully arrested (including one remarkably narcissistic Joseph Buddenberg, author of this unashamedly self-glorifying whine), but the company hosting the sponsoring website of the enabling organization, stopcalvivisection, has had the good sense to pull all its content, posting this message instead:

Statement by the Owners of pixelexdesign.com
All information concerning UC Berkeley and those involved in animal research there has been removed by the owners of this website (pixelexdesign.com) because we do not approve of the use intimidatory home demonstrations as a tactic in the animal rights movement or the posting of personal information of researchers and others associated with UC Berkeley. Furthermore, we have changed the password to the website, therefore making sure that the activists in California who previously ran and updated the page do not have access and so no one else but the owners have access to pixelexdesign.com and any other folders or sections of the website. It was a lack of judgement that caused us to host the website for the protesters in the first place and the information would have been removed sooner, however we had forgotten about the website for awhile.

While we personally believe much of the work that the researchers conduct at UC Berkeley is reprehensible, we believe any sort of campaign or discussions with UC Berkeley concerning the research should be done legally and peacefully. We also would like to take this time to apologize to those whose names and personal information was on the website, including the contractors, builders, various firms associated with UC Berkeley and even the vivisectors. We are sorry for any issues that might have been caused because of the posting of the information.
-The Owners of pixelexdesign.com

A rare display of rationality and reason, even if it was months too late to head off the intimidation and harassment of people with no more nefarious aim than advancing science.

Editor's Note: In closely related news, is nothing sacred?

Sarah Fresh and Woodsy

2009-01-27T16:13:00.000-08:00

Get it while you can. Sarah Palin launched a political action committee today, including a website with two full pages of content. The best part has to be the logo superimposing an outline of the state of Alaska over the heartland of the country. Who knew Sarah was expert in such subtle symbolism.

In closely related news, a woman in California gave birth to octuplets (that's 8 babies, poor thing). For the time being they're named A through H, adopting the Palin's strategy of naming their offspring after random shit.

Greater things

2009-01-17T11:25:00.000-08:00

The economy sucks, awful shit continues in Gaza, Israel and elsewhere, and Bill O'FuckmepleaseO'Really still makes boatloads of money. But there are good things too, and one is that a new president is on track - literally - to occupy the White House. It could be that our vantage point from Baltimore is off the national mark, or that the nasty liberal media has cast its evil spell again, but there seems to be genuine excitement in the air. The kind of excitement that signals a shared commitment, a shared optimism, a shared renewal. Then again, maybe it's just NFL fever. Wouldn't that just be typical?

If you think Sarah Palin is wacked…

2009-01-09T19:15:00.000-08:00

...get a load of John Zeigler!

Much of late has been made of Palin’s poor treatment by the biased liberal media, at the hands of notoriously caustic, rabid partisans like Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, not to mention the latest representative of the radical left (who knew?), Tina Fey.

The weird and not-so-weird thing is that the claims derive most loudly from one patently bizarre psycho with a self-funded, ground-breaking documentary entitled, “How Obama Got Elected” (Google the link yourselves, you lazy bastards – you’ll get no free advertising for such trash here!). The film contains the first expansive, unscripted comments from former candidate Palin since the election, and let’s just say she ain’t exactly happy with the way she was treated.

Whether or not she has an honest axe to grind, what’s remarkable is that she elected to grind it with John Zeigler. Hear of him? Not many others have either, but despite a richly speckled employment history in talk radio, a penchant for paranoid delusion, and a delightfully witty bias against any and all who fail to recognize his genius, what really stands out is his perceived persecution as a conservative radio personality in that hotbed of liberalism, southern California talk radio. As it turns out, by Zeigler’s own accounting, much of his career failure has nothing to do with his own shortcomings (aside from his inability to compromise his moral and intellectual integrity), but is instead a result of a complex web of professional jealousy, lack of personal integrity, closeted homosexuality, and (by inference), poor personal hygiene among colleagues and co-workers at all levels.

Okay, so the guy’s a nut. But, Sarah Palin launches her comeback tour with this guy? This is supposed to convince folks she got a raw deal? The Obama-loving, liberal mainstream media consider this newsworthy? This kind of coverage will quash widely circulated speculation that she wanted to name her last kid ‘Trapezoid’, but it was too hard for the First Dude to spell?

Only 2012 will tell.

New Ann Coulter blockbuster: "SNAPPED"

2009-01-09T03:23:00.000-08:00

...how the Amish abandoned their religion and threaten America.

Rat Bastards!

2008-09-29T16:14:00.000-07:00

Let me get this straight. Democrats swallow hard and vote for Bush's bail-out plan by more than two to one over republicans. McCain is the one who manages the crisis as a national stage to display his leadership savvy and yet fails to muster anything other than a hasty retreat from his own caucus. And so naturally it's Nancy Pelosi and house democrats who are responsible for failure of the 'emergency economic stabilization' bill?!?

WTF? W T ever-loving F? Does anybody really buy this crap? Other than Sarah Palin, that is.

Most Important Truth...

2008-09-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

...from the Sunday Op-Eds (9/7/2008). And the winner is, the consistently incomparable Frank Rich of the venerable New York Times. Who else has stated this simple truth:

We still don’t know a lot about Palin except that... she defends her own pregnant daughter’s right to privacy even as she would have the government intrude to police the reproductive choices of all other women.

Rich indeed.

Willy Kristol - wtf?

2008-05-19T17:22:00.000-07:00

How can it be that anyone - let alone Republicans - still consider this fellow worth listening to? Least troubling is that his still new stint at the New York Times has been marked from the outset by a series of, um, unfortunate factual errors. Much more impressive is that as a pundit, for more than a decade Bill has been the cheerleadingest cheerleader of all that is neocon, all that is the new Republican mainstream, all that is BushCheney, with a side of Rummy. And remarkably, the man soldiers on, having led the party to their current demise, to offer yet more guidance.

God bless little Willy, for he shall lead the Democratic party to overwhelming gains in the fall.

Just what the country needs!

2008-05-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

Yet another flaming idiot conservative with a microphone! At least this one turned himself into mush before he could do much damage. Something tells me it's going to be a looooooong election season.

knock, knock

2008-02-24T10:47:00.000-08:00

- Who's there?

Ralph

- Ralph who?

Ralph Nader

- No, not again! Please, just go away.

Revealed: Bush Library Site

2008-02-22T16:41:00.000-08:00

I look forward to seeing what comprises the 'presidential papers' of this administration. I mean, they can't really count margin doodles during national security meetings and 'yo mama' jokes with Tony Blair, can they?

Bill Kristol: reason 439

2008-02-18T13:56:00.000-08:00

...he doesn't deserve a decent burial, let alone a position on the editorial staff of the New York Times. Objectively, empirically, not a single point expressed in the following passage from this piece is valid. More telling, each is clearly intended to misdirect, mislead and misguide. Bill sucks - no news there. Times were that the Times didn't enable such abject suckage.

The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush’s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn’t turn those failures around. Democrats were “against” the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
Bill "Living Large" Kristol
NYT, 2/18/2008

Legacy: Inspired or Desired?

2007-11-01T19:33:00.001-07:00

Happy Halloween

2007-10-30T18:12:00.000-07:00

Ghosts, goblins and stale bulk candy are one thing, but Podhorertz and Pipes as top foreign policy advisers to the leading Republican presidential contender? No, that's some truly scary shit. A more thoughtful analysis soon, but in honor of all things spooky, a few of their own scary words:

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

And because no one really knows, the only prudent--indeed, the only responsible--course is to assume that Ahmadinejad may not be bluffing, or may only be exaggerating a bit, and to strike at him as soon as it is logistically possible.

- Norman Podhoretz, writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, and current foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani

But Podhoretz - obviously a zombie for enforcing the Bush administration's policies with increased muscle going forward - is tame in comparison with Rudy's other hired intellectual squeeze, Daniel Pipes. Distinctly third tier in the over-populated cadre of quasi-academic policy wonks unable to find gainful compensation in an actual academic setting, Pipes is a prolific contributor to the media outlet of the modestly named David Horowitz Freedom Center, sponsored by none other than David Horowitz, where David Horowitz is the most frequent contributor to news, reviews and happenings that, coincidentally, very often involve David Horowitz and, of course, his brave fight for Freedom. And for the David Horowitz Freedom Center. And for Academic Freedom, sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Oddly enough (or maybe not), it turns out that the David Horowitz Freedom Center is, by any estimation, among the most popular of the xenophobic, hard right, hawkish publishers of hate-spin on the web. Taking advantage of that soapbox, Pipes has created an impressive documentary record of his 'thoughts' for anyone interested in understanding the mindset of the team Rudy has assembled for input. Pipes' perspective is summarized, for example, in the following quote from a much longer "interview" (aka a scripted email exchange) with crack Freedom Center journalist Jamie Glasov:

I see militant Islam as a true successor of the fascist and communist movements, not just in its totalitarian methods but also in its cosmic goals. There is no way to accommodate any of these ideologies; they will either destroy the civilized world or be destroyed by it. As Abraham Lincoln put it in 1838, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."

Ahhh. Now that's the kind of dessert we need after a satisfying main course of Bush presidency, isn't it? Go Rudy! Really, just take your zombies and go.

A Rude Welcome

2007-10-26T20:33:00.001-07:00

To those who have found their way here via the Rude Pundit (or anywhere else for that matter): a truly warm and heartfelt welcome!

By way of introduction, our notion here at Hard Truth was to toil away in oblivion, as the mood struck, on a whim mostly, and of course the logical assumption that the piercing brilliance of our insights would ultimately cleanse the unwashed masses. It seemed like such a simple plan. But it turns out - big surprise – nobody reads an obscure, rambling self-pitying blog. Who knew?!? Anyway, now that you’re here, massage our ego and stay for bit – enjoy – agitate – and most important, take a hint and do something, even if it's only taking a word of advice.

OH RABID SELF-HATRED

2007-10-24T17:08:00.000-07:00

Verily, thy name is Michelle Malkin.

Shame on Ben Stein!

2007-10-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

It's horrible enough that an intelligent guy like Ben Stein would appear at all with an idiot like Bill O'Reilly, but to willingly bend over and take the O'Reilly "creationistic" stick up the ass with glee and pleasure, all for the purpose of selling a few books?!? Shame Ben, shame!

Best of the New

2007-10-22T18:31:00.000-07:00

Or if not the best, at least worth looking at. Smart with a lower than average percentage of crap -- what more could you want? Well, of course there's all manner of nonsense you could want, but guess what? You're not getting any of it! So deal with it and try this instead.

And while you're in the mood to perform an important public service, please - oh sweet mother of mercy please - let Glen Beck know it's time to shut the fuck up.

Worth watching

2007-10-20T13:16:00.000-07:00

Wiser words were never spoken. Well, actually, many wiser words have been spoken, of course, but these are good too:

Horowitz Howls

2007-08-16T12:38:00.000-07:00

The opening line of You Don’t Know What Love Is, from the White Stripes terrific new CD, Icky Thump, goes something like, “In some respects I suspect that you’ve got a respectable side.” We’d like to think that’s true of most people, I suspect, but every now and then we’re reminded it just ain’t so.

Submitted as evidence: the featured video on the front page of our favorite right-wing hate site - hosted by the grotesquely misnamed “David Horowitz Freedom Center” - features none other than the grotesquely shameful host himself, David Horowitz. (Readers who haven’t stopped by Horowitz’s little corner of the information superhighway lately will be impressed that his crack IT team has discovered a way to post poorly TiVo’d video clips through an obscure site called “YouTube”, or some such).

Setting aside the ego issues raised by posting a video clip where 99% of the content is the poster speaking directly to the camera – no debate, no action, and certainly nothing that couldn’t be expressed in a short essay or transcript – the clip benefits substantially from the concise, but always insightful commentary of the ball-sweat mop-boy of the FOX news bullpen, Neil Cavuto. With the impish charm of a unrepentant pederast after the pews clear out, Cavuto’s entire input during the several-minute clip Horowitz posts consists of:

“David I don’t know if you heard a little of what she said, but essentially that we’re breeding these guys – in our midst”, and “who’s stopping it Dave?”

It’s frankly a little unclear exactly who “these guys” are that Cavuto refers to, but you just know they can’t be good, especially when Horowitz explains that 1,000 professors in the US signed some sort of statement supporting the radical terrorists that are trying to destroy our country and Israel. And in case your skeptical, Horowitz is now a “FOX News Contributor”, so you know everything he says has to be true.

Although I couldn’t put my finger on precisely what the hell Horowitz was yammering on about, what with his 1,000 traitorous professors and all, a related item did come to mind. On the Tuesday before the 2003 State of the Union address, weeks before the invasion of Iraq, forty-one Nobel laureates in science and economics signed a short statement reading, in part:

Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences…

Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world…

Smart-ass professors!

Steal This Image!

2007-08-11T17:20:00.000-07:00

This haunting image was shamelessly stolen from a favored blog, and to add insult to injury, I even suggested it might be a fake. That could be, but when considered in the context of this famous quote, its provenance hardly matters, now does it:

"I believe so strongly in the power of freedom. You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom."

- George W. Bush

Truth in Reporting

2007-08-10T19:46:00.000-07:00

Among mainstream news outlets none were more cautious, responsible and ultimately accurate in the run up to the Iraq war than Knight Ridder. This was no fluke. It was consistent with their long tradition - one that used to be the standard in investigative journalism - that held independence and healthy skepticism sacrosanct, on the assumption that the appropriate and central role of a free press was to question authority. All of this is well-documented.

In a series of pieces over the last few months - culminating with back to back headline articles just this week - the same news organization - now under the McClatchy umbrella - has reported on a serious debate in the Bush administration about the need for imminent military attacks against Iran. Once again, McClatchy is virtually alone among mainstream outlets covering this story.

What's that Bushism again: "Fool me once..."?

and it's one, two, three...

2007-08-07T09:22:00.000-07:00

This is what we're fighting for? So Shiite sects that we'll never understand - in areas of Iraq without Sunni populations, without Iranian encouragement, and without al-Qaeda - can bomb the ever loving shit out of each other? So that 'success stories' in places like Tall Afar can rise again as tales of horror and destruction?

Impeaching Bush-Cheney is starting to seem like a pretty modest move at this point.

This isn't funny anymore...

2007-08-06T17:16:00.000-07:00

Like a concert gone on too long, family that have overstayed their welcome, or the unending dregs of a summer cold, there comes a point where it's just not fun anymore. And then there are times when it turns seriously bad. Really really scary. Cold sweat scary. And that's when you start to know you have to do something.

Goodness...

2007-08-03T21:21:00.000-07:00

Where have I been?! Apparently this bit of bytes is quite widely read on the information super highway. What's surprising (or maybe not) is that almost every piece is entirely full of shit. In fact, the number of simple empirical errors, flaws in logic, and childish assertions of absolute crap is like a parent visit to a fifth grade class. Mid-year - before training for the state mandated testing is in full swing.

Enjoy! And by all means, call the motherfuckers on bullshit like this.

Corn Pops - Sweeeeeeet!

2007-07-19T18:19:00.000-07:00

This page recently noted an(other) offensively idiotic editorial from Bill Kristol, predicting that the policies and actions of the Bush II regime will, in the fullness of time, pass the muster of history with flying colors (presumably far FAR in the future and, we can only hope, in some distant galaxy, far FAR away). In contrast to our ad hominem attack, David Corn makes the case empirically, on the basis of Kristol's spectacularly bad track record as a shill for the administration's misdirection at virtually every meaningful turn.

Kudos to Corn. And world-class embarrassing pants dotted with urine shame - AGAIN - for little Willy Kristol, the boy with a quick wit and knack at turning a phrase, but who can't find his intellectual balls. With a flashlight.

Kristol Klear

2007-07-16T18:30:00.000-07:00

Arianna Huffington does have this one right: the Washington Post should be ashamed to print such raving horseshit. Indeed you could argue - and I'd be happy to - that Kristol has as much blood on his hands as anyone in this debacle, and that maybe he's not the most useful/accurate/objective/believable source of input at this point.

Bush, the Balless Decider

2007-07-03T05:20:00.000-07:00

It's true that the president could not take any action in the I. Scooter Libby case that wouldn't rankle the feathers of millions. That said, leave it to Bush to choose the most arrogant possible option, admitting the fundamental criminality of the acts committed, but overruling the entire court system by stepping in as the ultimate "decider" and dictating the appropriate punishment. Coming on the heels of the White House's elegantly simple contempt of Congress, the Bush Supreme Court's flip reversal of decades of hard fought legislative progress, not to mention the administration's novel take on the constitutional authority vested in the executive branch, impeachment is clearly not an effective remedy.

Bush/Cheney:
Criminal Charges in '09

Quick - your first reaction?

2007-06-25T17:04:00.000-07:00

Big surprise, I know, but this fellow's recent story is just terrible. And you can be sure there's an equally horrific story behind it, but that one's not reported.

What's your first reaction looking at the photo?

"Hey - you missed a spot! Seriously - right there on the tip of your nose."

fucking idiot (part 4,398)

2007-06-20T16:55:00.000-07:00

I particularly love this idiotic statement about the idiotic veto our idiotic president has just issued:

"The Congress has sent me legislation that would compel American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos"

As oppposed to compelling American taxpayers to support a war that's killing hundreds of thousands of actual people?

EDITOR'S UPDATE: In rare instances it's perfectly okay to "judge a book by it's cover":Full photo credits to the Washington Post

Who could've imagined?!?

2007-05-15T11:14:00.000-07:00

Who in their wildest dreams could've possibly imagined that John Ashcroft, of all people, would turn out to be one of the more trustworthy members of the Bush administration? It's no surprise to learn that Alberto Gonzales was involved, but still - John Ashcroft resisting White House pressure? What's next? Karl Rove admitting the US attorney firings were entirely political?

Turns out it's true...

2007-03-04T08:29:00.000-08:00

...a picture really is worth a thousand words - at least when it concerns a buttfuck-crazy hate queen like Ann. Of course there's a story to go along with it, but really, the picture's all you need.

One Day, Just One Day

2007-03-03T16:44:00.000-08:00

Common wisdom holds that current events are best viewed in context, in relation to the broad sweep of history, with an understanding of antecedent causes, evolving alliances, and morphing conditions. It’s good advice, particularly for developing an analysis you hope to publish in Foreign Affairs or turn into a high-paying gig as an Assistant Professor in the history department at East Jesus State Teachers College. But we live in extraordinary times – an era when the flood of insult wrought by those in the highest positions of government comes at such a brilliantly blinding pace that only the superhuman and überwonky among us can absorb even a tiny fraction. The popular response, it seems, is to hole up in a cranny somewhere, watch the waters of erosion rush past, and hope that high tide peaks before we go under, gurgling.

But there’s an alternative, one that at once reveals the enormity of the gathering threat, and still narrows the scope sufficiently to begin to understand what is happening. Pick up a newspaper. BUT – and this is key - just one. Almost any paper will do, unless its your local PennySaver or the type that lands on your doorstep with front page headlines about the mailboxes that were knocked off their posts last Saturday night, or the new porch going up on the VFW next month. Those can be good too, but they’re not what we’re looking for here. No, the idea in this case is to read a small handful of actual news reports about current events in an actual (or virtual) newspaper – all the way through, every word. Just one newspaper. One day in history.

Take today’s Washington Post, for example. The screamer headline tips us off that the new Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates has had to let the secretary of the Army go in response to revelations about the squalid conditions and substandard care at the nation’s top military hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This from the administration – and a Vice President in particular – who’s central political strategy in Iraq is to claim that Democrats and Republicans opposed to the war hope our troops die a horrible death (or words to that effect). A bit further down the front page we learn that the White House approved the mass firing of US attorneys on the basis that they failed to implement the policies of the Bush administration quickly and aggressively as the administration would like, especially given that they only have a few years remaining in office and really need to move fast if they hope to cement a fully functional takeover of the country’s judicial system. Replacements have not yet been named, but they couldn’t possibly be the sort of judicial activists republicans and Team Bush so decry; the sort of judge that would interpret law with the aim of advancing a particular political agenda.

So these are the headlines, and they appear – repeatedly - in mutated form in every newspaper and broadcast around the country, until you’re sorely tempted to duck your head for cover, back into that spider hole. And that’s precisely why it’s so critically important to keep reading – keep reading the same newspaper to see what else is going on, what doesn’t make it to the front page, what else is being reported on this one day in history, by one outlet. There you’ll find that a small handful of peaceful dissenters were ejected from a taxpayer-funded Team Bush event on the grounds that they were “behaving suspiciously”, and the self-justifying assertion that the White House has a “policy of ejecting dissenters from the president's appearances”. You’ll learn that while repeating his promise of hope and restoration to the hurricane ravaged gulf coast, the president managed to squeeze in a republican fund raising campaign characterized as the biggest in Kentucky’s history, netting $2.1 million dollars for, among others, the never-wavering supporter of all things Bush, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

There’s more, of course. Much more, including the now-required fluff about the faith-based initiative to outfit older, book-loving dogs with bifocals, the current whereabouts of Anna’s body/baby/mother/fuckees etc., and the never-tiresome coverage of Idol (our money is on Lakisha, and if that annoying chick from Jersey isn’t booted real soon, somebody’s gonna pay!). But the point here is depth, not breadth.

Recapping news from this one day in history: the administration demonstrates its support for American troops wounded in combat is limited to campaign rhetoric; a not-so-covert campaign is underway to eliminate any and all roadblocks to judicial enforcement of executive policy; regulation of peaceful political dissent is now official policy, under the direct control of the executive branch; and the president and his pals show their suffering for the national embarrassment of the gulf coast by raising money for Mitch – ca-CHING!

One newspaper, one day.

Do something.

Anything.

Now.

Earlier Obama Endorsements!

2007-02-10T14:49:00.000-08:00

Obama - '08 - oh YEAH!

2007-02-10T11:11:00.000-08:00

THIS is truly great news!

In her own words...

2007-02-02T07:46:00.000-08:00

Molly Ivins - the final paragraph from her final column. May she rest in peace.

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we’re for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush’s proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, “Stop it, now!”

Four More Years!

2007-01-06T09:03:00.000-08:00

And this is what you get.

72 Hours and Counting

2006-11-04T19:47:00.000-08:00

Required Viewing

2006-11-04T06:50:00.000-08:00

As if any additional evidence was necessary, this article lays out in the starkest possible terms the utter failure of the Bush administration's foreign policies, and the very real damage visited on the country for decades to come. But if you don't have time to read the details, just look at the pictures - all from the great Annie Leibovitz.

A Non-Partisan Message to America

2006-11-01T19:32:00.000-08:00

VOTE - 11/7/2006

And Don't Be An Asshole

Vote Democrat

Iraq Reconstruction, Gulf Coast Style

2006-09-28T07:57:00.000-07:00

If there's any good news hidden deep within this deeply disturbing story, it is that the administration doesn't appear to be singling out the people of New Orleans for punishment. Turns out their incompetence and corruption shines brightly in every project they undertake.

Photo Credit: Washington Post, 2006

Sucking, with Gusto

2006-09-27T07:32:00.000-07:00

Chris Wallace may honestly believe he’s a reputable journalist, or he may recognize that he just plays one on TV. In either case, to hear nearly the entire stable of FOX News punditry tell it, Wallace is something akin to a Pope in the Church of Journalism - completely beyond reproach. Of course that opinion carries roughly the authority of Wal-Mart greeters’ views on China’s human right’s record, but whatever.

You know FOX is desperate to activate the heat shields when they dust off Tammy Bruce for support. A distinctly third-tier hate hag, Tammy’s unique blend of new-age babble, neoconservative howlings, and indecipherable writing is as compelling as marshmallow Fluff. On Wonder Bread. The only saving grace is that she’s openly gay, reasonably attractive, and that the much sought-after target audience of white, heterosexual men generally finds the idea of lesbian sex totally hot.

The general thrust of all of this heartfelt support is that, in his instantly famous interview with Bill Clinton, Chris Wallace posed a perfectly legitimate, probing question of the sort he would ask liberals and conservatives alike, and that the former President “went off”, became “crazed”, and otherwise threw an unbecoming hissy-fit. According to Wallace’s own reporting across multiple comments he’s made, the question that sparked this tirade was simple, “…it’s a legitimate issue, could he have done more during his eight years in office? And for some reason this became a conservative hit job”, and “…did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaeda…” (emphasis added).

In reality – and we’re talking about objective, verifiable reality here, not FOX’s impressionist version of reality – that’s not at all the question Wallace posed to the President. The question he did pose was, “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business?” (emphasis added).

Non-inflammatory? Legitimate journalism? Not a conservative hit job? At its root, this is a not-so-clever twist on “have you stopped beating your wife”, slathered with additional slime to ask, “Why haven’t you stopped beating your wife?” It’s a question that assumes as a premise the idea that the Clinton administration didn’t do what they could to put Al Qaeda out of business.

In other words, it was an attack. It was intentionally inflammatory. Chris Wallace sucks, with gusto, for lying about it. And Bill Clinton was right to call him on it.

Keith Rocks AGAIN, and Chris Wallace STILL Sucks

2006-09-26T19:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, so this one is a little sanctimonious. But it doesn't make it any less true. And in relation to our continuing coverage of the inspiring story, "Bill Grows an Elder Statesman-like Pair", it highlights that Keith Olbermann does truly rock. Corresponding coverage from the news division of the White House underscores the importance of the issue, demonstrating that Chris Wallace and FOX News don't have a pair between 'em.

GO BILL GO!

2006-09-24T08:02:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton rips the every-slimy Chris Wallace a new (and well-deserved) one on this morning's FOX "News" Sunday. Clinton was in outstanding form, gettin' it said, loud and clear. Video clips are being posted this very minute at the incomparable Crooks and Liars, and a transcript of much of the interview is here. In the follow-up with 'fair and balanced' commentators like Fred Barnes and Brit Hume (read administration outlets for Karl Rove's office), Wallace takes the low road we've come to expect from him, reading a quote from former Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II national security advisor, Richard Clarke, purportedly confirming his view that the Clinton administration failed to do what needed to be done. What Clarke's comment actually highlights is the poison Republican attack machine in place at the time made it impossible for Clinton to pursue bin Laden as aggressively as he would have liked. That and the fact that Chris Wallace is a dishonest shill, now with a newly ripped asshole - generously salted and stuffed with lemon wedges - courtesy of the former President of the United States.

GO BILL GO!

EDITOR'S UPDATE: There's a longish video clip posted here, along with links to a full transcript.

EDITOR'S UPDATE: Aside from the gratuitous characterizations ("combative", "irked", "testy", etc.), some useful reporting on the interview here.

AND YET A FURTHER UPDATE: A most excellent commentary on the Clinton/Wallace interview posted here.

From a Disclosed Location: Vice President Richard Cheney

2006-09-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

First in a brazillion part analysis of Vice President Richard Cheney’s recent interview on Meet the Press. Let’s start at the end, shall we? Yes, we shall:

MR. RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn’t bring your shotgun in today?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re not in season.

Notice that the Vice President does not promise to avoid shooting Tim Russert sometime in the future. Nor does he make any commitment to oppose legislation establishing a hunting season for Tim Russert. Interesting.

Next, look for a razor-sharp dissection of Cheney’s use of the, “I don’t buy it... I disagree… I think that’s wrong…” defense.

Who are They?

2006-09-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

They are a confirmed nuclear power with the ability to threaten all neighbors in the region, and therefore, the world community.

They are a military dictatorship with an abysmal record on human rights. They were a major base of operation for nearly all of the 14 'worst of the worst' terrorists that President Bush recently ordered transferred from CIA black sites around the world to US detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (follow the links to "Transferred CIA Detainees"). They are home to the highest concentration of radical Islamic fundamentalists in the world. They are appeasers and providers of safe haven for terrorists, by the administration's definition, having recently signed a mutual non-aggression accord with Taliban representatives.

But they are not part of "the axis of evil".

"They" are our friends in the "war on terror"; Pakistan.

Does this mean we should be bombing Pakistan instead of Iraq and Afghanistan? Does it mean we should be seeking UN sanctions against Pakistan instead of Iran? Does it mean we should be rattling razor-edged sabers in Generalissimo Presidente Pervez Musharraf's face instead of that psycho Kim Jong-il's? Does it mean we should openly meddle in the internal politics of Pakistan as we're doing in Cuba?

Or does it just mean that the Bush administration is full of shit, again, and that even they recognize that overwhelming military force, threats of economic sanctions and empty cowboy rhetoric about spreading democracy isn't always the best way to go? Does it mean that even this administration recognizes that sometimes diplomacy and nuanced negotiation, even with unsavory players, can work in service of stability and peace?

And when do you think the hypocritical bastards will let the American people know about this facet of the "Bush doctrine"?

Keith Rocks

2006-09-06T10:05:00.000-07:00

Katrina: A Broken Limerick

2006-08-30T08:15:00.000-07:00

There once was a fellow named George
Neither alliance nor peace could he forge
Then came the flood
His response was a dud
So the people impeached his sorry ass along with the rest of the corrupt administration that is destroying this great country

Dogs in the News

2006-08-28T13:34:00.000-07:00

Aside from people who have had a traumatic, face-deforming encounter as a youngster, and those whose only experiences involve revolting toy varieties or breeds raised to terrorize, there's something deeply amiss in folks who take no pleasure in dogs. We're not talking about those who would volunteer to suckle a litter at their own nipple, nor would we exclude people who have never considered actually keeping their own dog.

We simply mean that puppies are cute, and dogs being dogs are sufficiently goofy that any psychologically balanced person should have the capacity to enjoy them for what they are. After all, if the first thing that comes to mind when you see a dog catch a Frisbee on a beach isn't, "Gee that dog did a good job of catching that Frisbee!", then there's something seriously wrong with you. So we don't come at the issue as a dog detractor, and in fact, Lord knows that in the unending debate over which is better, dogs or cats, we have unswervingly sided with the canine crowd (even while tolerating the presence of a kitty pet or two, as long as there are enough dogs snuffling around to balance out the mix).

It therefore pains us to point out that dogs and their funny antics are contributing to the zombie-like malaise of this great nation. Not a day goes by that an unprecedented example of executive power abuse or tragedy stemming from the administration's ill-conceived policies isn't followed up by a breaking story about a dog who found a lost child, a puppy born with three tails, or a pooch that enjoys Martinis and a good cigar. Just today CNN.com featured the heart-warming tale of a Pug who, gifted with a single young offspring, has opened her heart and taken on nursing seven hungry Husky pups - this just below a somewhat less appealing headline about the death of over 60 in the Iraq Shiite city of Diwaniya. Lest our comments be misconstrued, cats are at least as guilty. The same respected news venue recently headlined a heart-warming, if geekishly disturbing story, with video coverage, of a rare two-headed kitten, lovingly cared for by a young boy who, sensibly, expects the poor thing to die soon, since only one head seemed interested in eating.

"Off-beat" news provides a break from the grind, and in any case, a commitment to freedom of the press can easily be stretched to cover all manner of nonsense. But most of all, its a product. What sells is the news. Witness the rise of publications like USA Today - a paper devoted to delivering the information people want to hear - with no more actual coverage of ongoing events than is absolutely necessary to maintain the thinest patina of a news organization.

But that doesn't mean it has to be read. So the next time you come across a headline about a dog with nine testicles, who been successfully treated for his addiction to licking them, skip over it. At least until you finish reading the real news.

Unless the dog is really, really cute.

STEAL THIS POSTER

2006-08-27T07:41:00.000-07:00

Part of a continuing series. Courtesy of The General.

A Flood of Incompetence

2006-08-26T14:09:00.000-07:00

The President of the United States is increasingly viewed as an incurious man of modest talents and simplistic views who lacks the intellectual depth commensurate with the demands of the position he holds. Some made the point early on, and others came to the view later, only when forced by the weight of the Commander-in-Chief's many missteps in office. Regular readers (that would be the un-medicated loon from Poughkeepsie who sees deep meaning in the words of this blog, but only if they're read backwards, skipping every third noun, and the young woman from Ontario who is developing a 63 hour-long performance art presentation of our posts in sign language) will know we have struggled with the issue.

X-posted here and of course here

And the conclusion? Its like wasting time wondering which came first, the belly button or the lint. If you knew the answer, would it really make any difference? Of course there are many as-yet-to-be-written PhD theses in history, political science and other lofty fields that will contribute to an answer, and one suspects that we will ultimately arrive at a consensus on the question Joe Scarborough posed recently, "is Bush an idiot"? But in the interim, this aimless pondering is a waste of time, a distraction, a comforting sort of little puzzle that we can pretend is serious enough to justify ignoring a much more difficult problem.

Competence is the issue. Whether based on rank political calculation, innocent naïveté, or just good old-fashioned stupidity, the Bush administration has proven itself incompetent. Utterly. Disastrously. Dangerously. It may seem like semantics, but there's an all-important distinction between the "idiot" question and the "competence" question. The former centers on mental capacity, motivation, psychological variables, and other fluffy constructs that resist concrete definition and rigorous empirical measurement. In stark contrast, "competence" is a performance-based concept, something determined by outcomes, the kind of metric that conservatives generally prefer (except when it makes them look bad). A person succeeds in their assigned job, or they don't; a goal is achieved, or it isn't; a policy succeeds, or it fails. Competence is the sort of black and white, good versus evil, round versus flat world view that is the backbone of the administration's appeal to the American public. And by any reasonable assessment, the Bush administration has displayed an historic lack of competence.

A standard, horribly depressing way of framing the issue, is the laundry list approach: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Dafur, international relations, multilateral treaties, Social Security, homeland security, the environment, the economy, civil rights, gay rights, abortion rights, signing statements, state's rights, growth of government, constitutional amendments, voting rights, tort reform, malpractice insurance, executive power, biomedical research funding, worker protections, judicial appointments, federal spending - a record lack of accomplishment that the administration incredibly lays at the feet of the Democratic opposition, despite long-standing Republican control of all branches of government. The laundry list makes the point, but its too much. Too intimidating, the sort of crushing surge of inevitability that makes us retreat to more manageable distractions like, "is Bush an idiot"?

But there is another way, a way that is at once less intimidating in scope, and yet illustrates the incompetence of the Bush administration clearly enough to any fair audience that it should compel action. The funny/sad part is that you could pick any topic - throw a dart, roll some dice, flip a coin - and there is no doubt that it represents a case study of an administration over it's head, in deeply troubled waters, without a life preserver. The federal government's response to Katrina, and the missteps that enabled that disaster, is no exception.

The received wisdom is that the hapless Michael Brown is the distillation of the administration's incompetence in this instance, the expert on Arabian horse foreskins plucked to head the government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - an agency established by the Carter administration, and that by all accounts, operated most effectively under the direction of James Lee Witt, appointed by President Clinton. That Democratic pedigree alone was a death sentence, and it wasn't long after their anointment that Team Bush began dismantling, under-funding and `reorganizing' FEMA. Michael Brown was a convenient whipping boy in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and by all means, most everyone seemed happy to flail away - from the man on the street, up through the White House, and down again. After all, sucking oysters from the shell and pondering the great `sleeves up/sleeves down' debate by email doesn't play well in the midst of a natural disaster, especially if you have the personal bearing and gravitas of a camp counselor when testifying in front of a senate committee that's out for blood, and in desperate need of covering their own gaping butt holes.

No, Michael Brown was not a great choice to head FEMA. But as Christopher Cooper and Robert Block outline in their new book, Disaster, the disaster was one of incompetence and cronyism in the White House. Brown advanced to the position on the advice of long-time Bush supporter and former FEMA Director, Joseph Allbaugh, the third tangent of the President's trusted Texas triangle that included the more widely known Karen Hughes and Karl Rove. But it turns out that, despite his utter lack of qualifications, Michael Brown actually took his new responsibilities seriously, and quickly recognized that the agency had been both systematically under-funded by the Bush administration, and made dysfunctional by virtue of unworkable changes in reporting structure. And more surprises - he had the testicles to confront the administration, at least quietly, about the problems. In their infinite wisdom, they put into place a buffer between the FEMA Director and the White House, appointing Brigadier General Matthew E. Broderick as the individual responsible for determining what potential crises, identified on the ground, were sufficiently serious to merit reporting to the highest levels of the administration. Broderick, whose resume prominently features directing the evacuation of Saigon, and management of our actions in Somalia, instituted the interesting idea that only those events known with 100% certainty should reach decision-making levels of the administration; a potentially defensible position in the context of military action, but clearly nonsensical in a proactive defense against an unstoppable natural disaster. Incompetence.

This is no defense of Michael Brown. But a reasonable argument can be made that, in cases like his, a goodly share of animosity is appropriately directed at the creators and perpetrators of The Simpsons. After all, who can honestly say that Homer's long-term position as safety engineer at Springfield's nuclear plant hasn't numbed us all to the importance of competence? That said, is Matt Groening really where the emphasis belongs as a first priority? Is "DOAH!" a reasonable defense?

Katrina, like every other significant event over the last five years in which they have played a part, illustrates, with crystal clarity, the utter, unforgivable, abject incompetence of the Bush administration. The President may be an idiot, he may be just a feckless doof, or he may be evil. At this point it doesn't matter. The administration is dangerous. By any performance metric imaginable, our government is failing. Miserably. To the detriment of all Americans and the rest of the world. For many months it was possible to comfort ourselves by looking toward 2008. That is no longer possible in the face of the objective evidence. The threat is gathering, here, imminent, and undeniable. The risk of waiting is too great to ignore. The founding Fathers did not see fit to allow for a simple recall. Impeach Bush.

Accomplishments of the Bush Administration

2006-08-24T11:48:00.000-07:00

Summarized in song, and wonderfully so.

Where There's a Will...

2006-08-20T12:37:00.000-07:00

...there's a Buckley, and a Scarborough.

Not that long ago conservative punditry seemed happy to slather lipstick on the pig of a policy mess the Bush administration has created. Enthusiasm for that little dress-up game seems to have crested as, one by one, stalwarts of the right rub the sleep from their baggy, bloodshot eyes and realize with horror that it is coming undone. The mullah of all things right and righter, Bill Buckley, was among the first to jump, concluding an editorial about how the Iraq war is going, published early this year by his dearly beloved National Review, with the stark assessment, "And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."

Pat Buchanan doesn't count as one of the enlightened, partly because his contact with sanity is tenuous, at best, but mostly because he opposed the war from the outset. George Will, on the other hand, has most certainly changed his tune, raising a glorious noise with the rest of the growing choir. In a scathing denouncement of the Bush sanctioned worldview, Will makes the point that John Kerry was right to suggest a law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that the administration's "... rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism...".

Less subtly, former Republican Congressman turned conservative talking head Joe Scarborough recently posed the question, "Is Bush an Idiot?". The question was followed by a detailed accounting, aided by liberal Lawrence O'Donnell, of the substantial evidence that indeed he is. Others, like the consistently unhinged rag American Spectator, have hedged, acknowledging that things aren't going exactly well in Iraq, but that we still have a chance to turn it around if Bush would just get tough and follow his divinely inspired neoconservative intuitions. Of course the uneducable and irredeemable are unmoved. Brit Hume, the Czar of `fair and balanced' at FOX News, for example, will undoubtedly see the coming conflagration in the broader Middle East as the afterbirth of democracy, or some other such metaphorical nonsense piped directly from FOX's anchor in the White House, Tony Snow. Fred Barnes, Norman Podhoretz and other zealots haven't lost faith either, and the whole crowd put together might still be big enough to eek out one more softball season.

But the writing's on the wall, the tea leaves are clear, and its sad as hell that Hunter S. Thompson isn't around to see the fun. So what's next? Short of growing a big `ole truckload of competence, what can Team Bush do to save their flabby yellow asses? Is it time to stoke the flames of the politics of fear? Will we let that trick work again?

A Bag of Assholes

2006-07-28T09:26:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you just have to wonder. A few days ago the American Bar Association (ABA) released the report of a task force convened to consider the use of presidential signing statements in relation to the separation of powers doctrine. The blue-ribbon panel comprised 10 of the top legal minds on constitutional law in the country, including conservatives and liberals, and Republicans and Democrats. According to ABA President Michael Greco, the panel's aim was to "...examine the changing role of presidential signing statements, in which U.S. presidents articulate their views of provisions in newly enacted laws, attaching statements to the new legislation before forwarding it to the Federal Register. The task force will also consider whether such statements conflict with express statutory language or congressional intent". The findings and recommendations of the panel were unanimous. A lengthy report, it concludes:

(X-posted here and here)

"...the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress"

Translated into non-legalistic parlance, the statement means the president shouldn't sign a bill into law and then attach a post-it saying, in effect, "fuck you, I'll do what I want". In order to curb that sort of unconstitutional power grab:

"...the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial review, to the extent constitutionally permissible, in any instance in which the President claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or interprets such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and urges Congress and the President to support a judicial resolution of the President's claim or interpretation."

In other words, having signed a bill into law, and attaching a note saying, "fuck you, I'll do what I want", there needs to be a check in the system to ensure the President can't also add, "P.S. there's not a damn thing you can do about it".

The report is careful to say that it considers the issue of presidential signing statements broadly, and should not be construed as focusing exclusively on the actions of the current president. Lawyers! The fact of the matter is that the report is most definitely about the cynical, constitution-busting shenanigans of the Bush administration, and remedies to prevent the next dictator from adopting the same tactics. As the panel notes, "To be sure, it was the number and nature of the current President's signing statements which generated the formation of the Task Force and compelled our recommendations". Summed across all administrations prior to Bush, presidents have used signing statements to question aspects of laws they signed fewer than 600 times. During his 5.5 year tenure, Bush has used this mechanism on more than 800 occasions, all before ever exercising his constitutional responsibility to veto legislation that he considers in violation of constitution.

Most alarming, the specific nature of these signing statements is qualitatively different - and demonstrably more damaging to our system of government - than in any era of history prior to Bush. Whereas earlier presidents have used signing statements to urge congress to consider aspects of bills that might be ambiguous, or to identify potential conflicts between executive and legislative authority, in only a small handful of cases have prior presidents (both Democrat and Republican) issued signing statements suggesting that circumstances could arise in which certain provisions of a bill might be unenforceable. In stark contrast, in hundreds of instances, Bush's signing statements express the intent to simply disregard the clear intent of congress, effectively saying "fuck you, I'll do what I want". Moreover, this administration has been uniquely aggressive in amending signing statements to bills that have the effect of blocking congressional access to the information it would need to determine if the administration's actions are legal. The exact same wording appears over and over again, indicating that congressional provisions calling for regular reports from the executive branch on matters like national security and domestic surveillance, ""would be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information, the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties." In other words, "fuck you, I'll do what I want, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it".

So you have to wonder. After an initial flurry of reporting, the ABA report has slipped below the radar, into the turgid backwash of mainstream media chatter. The President of the United States is knowingly, repeatedly and frequently usurping executive authority from other branches of government, tipping the delicate balance of powers that has served the republic well since it's inception. By any reasonable assessment the President has violated his central, primary responsibility to uphold the constitution. If we sit idly by knowing all this, you have to wonder, who's the bag of assholes here; the ABA, the Bush administration, or the American people? (And please, don't say Arlen Spector's on top of it!)

A Slippery, Slimy Slope

2006-07-25T18:32:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration has been an absolute disaster for science policy and funding in the US. From climate change to biomedical research, from evolution to sexual behavior, the Bush White House has repeatedly demonstrated it’s willingness to be guided by corporate interests, religious theology, and political calculation – anything and everything except actual science. Once the undisputed world leader in basic and applied research, and a beacon to the best minds on the planet, the nation’s scientific enterprise is rapidly losing ground to the EU, Japan, South Korea and many other countries we used to regard as competitive only on the soccer field.

(x-posted here and here)

The misguided, destructive agenda of the administration is perhaps most evident in the field of stem cell research. As a consequence of scientifically nonsensical and morally simplistic restrictions issued by executive fiat at the outset of the Bush presidency, we were already well behind the curve when the Senate’s collective testicles finally descended last week, resulting in a fully bipartisan resolution easing Bush’s restrictions, and calling for federal research support aimed at realizing the therapeutic promise of embryonic stem cells.

The response from the White House was a sickeningly cynical pageant that could have only been produced under the direction of the dark one, Karl Rove. Trotted on stage, gurgling cherubs born from “adopted” blastocysts surrounded Bush as he exercised the first veto of his presidency. The sincerity of the president’s beliefs aside, the raw political calculation is that this was a no-brainer for the administration, rallying the enthusiasm of his carnivorous base with minimal risk of pissing off anybody that isn’t already convinced the man is the Worst. President. Ever. The announcement of the veto was chocked full of inspirational platitudes, sentiments like, “boys and girls are not spare parts”, “effective medical science can be ethical”, and other completely irrelevant blather. Bush also gratefully acknowledged the support of Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, attending the ceremony as representatives of the powerful Neanderthal caucus of the Senate.

Underlying all this, beyond any heinous political calculus and Rovian maneuvering on behalf of the GOP, is the president’s seemingly genuine and astoundingly simple-minded notion that a frozen embryo is morally equivalent to any human life, only frozen. In some sort of suspended animation. And really, really tiny. With fewer cells than most people. It is the potential for life that Bush wants us to believe demands the full force of federal protection. It is the incipient life of these few cells that establishes the moral line Bush refuses to cross, no matter how many Democrats, staunchly conservative Republicans in congress, and those pesky science geeks and bioethicists feel otherwise. Ignore the reality that the majority of cells in question will be discarded. Ignore the potential treatment of disease and suffering that may ultimately result from rescuing these cells from the incinerator. It is the life potential that defines the critical moral decision and dictates how we must respond, as individuals, and as a nation. Thus spoke the president.

But here’s the thing: it turns out that without a few additional steps, all those little youngsters-in-waiting have zero life potential. The odds aren’t good for the frozen guys in the first place because (big surprise!) the blastocysts judged most viable are used for the intended purpose. Sadly, even the success rate for those isn’t great. The next step, of course, is to convince the individuals that contributed the required cells to allow someone else to “adopt” them. Big surprise again, some folks don’t want to do that, and even among the ones that do, there aren’t enough takers. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say you have a willing donor and an enthusiastic recipient. Next you have to prepare the temporary living quarters, which as it turns out, isn’t a simple matter, requiring considerable nest-building in the form of hormonal treatment to cozy up the would-be, non-biological womb. The actual squirting of the little frozen cell sack into it's new digs isn’t terrifically challenging on technical grounds, even if its not nearly as much fun as the more traditional method of conceiving, and (once again, big surprise) the prospects of actually planting, sprouting, and delivering a healthy human being under these conditions aren’t terrific. When it happens, its amazing. But there’s a lot that can go wrong along the way, and it often does.

So when you think about it – actually think about it – the life potential of a blastocyst, bubbling away in a chilly bath of liquid nitrogen, slated for disposal, isn’t all that great. Close to zero, actually. And certainly far less than the billions of sperm cells unceremoniously dumped into wads of tissue, and every other imaginable material, by men around the world every day (or multiple times per day, in the case of teens). After all, under the right conditions, each one of those brave little swimmers has the potential to become the next president of the United States, the next Albert Einstein, or the next insurance claims adjuster hoping for a stroke before he has to spend another day in the office with that fucking asshole Drew. And don’t think women escape responsibility in the equation. If they would only make themselves more readily available between the ages of 12 and 50, not only would the incidence of men murdering billions of their own life seeds decline drastically, but the tragic loss of the much rarer ova would drop like a rock.

You see, it really is a slippery slope. Don’t say you weren’t warned if Rick Santorum introduces a constitutional amendment banning masturbation, or if Sam Brownback sponsors a bill of tax incentives for women who remain continuously pregnant throughout their reproductive years, with extra credit for delivering a baby with Down syndrome.

Don’t be an asshole: Vote Democrat 2006 and 2008. Enough already.

American Monarchy

2006-06-28T08:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, convened by Arlen Specter (R-Pa), to discuss the use of the Presidential Signing Statement, a practice undertaken more frequently by the Bush administration than all previous presidents combined. An impressive panel of constitutional law experts provided testimony, including conservative scholar Bruce Fein, former Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan administration.

Fein’s assessment is that the President’s unprecedented use of Signing Statements represents a concerted effort to assume unlimited executive power, circumventing any meaningful system of checks and balance across the three branches of government, and that his actions clearly rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Whether or not Fein’s judgment is valid from the perspective of constitutional law, the evaluation is worth considering in a broader context. Over seventy years ago, the celebrated journalist Dorothy Thompson spoke these chilling words:

No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say "Heil" to him, nor will they call him "Führer" or "Duce." But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of "O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!"

Is it already too late? Under a fog of carefully crafted fear – fear of others, fear of seeming unpatriotic, fear of sacrifice – has the King already assumed the throne?

As Thompson also said, “Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live.”

EDITOR'S UPDATE: as reported by Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post:

"Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had 'staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He's said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President's reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world's a battlefield -- according to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It's got the sense of Louis XIV: 'I am the State.' "

STEAL THIS POSTER

2006-06-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

Credit: Hat tip to these fine folks

Casey to Bush: Troops Will Stand Down in Iraq (as U.S. Elections Near)

2006-06-25T10:18:00.000-07:00

This week’s Senate debate over the prosecution of the war in Iraq was heated and sharply divided along partisan lines. In the end, no substantive progress was achieved. As reported in the Christian Science Monitor:

The Senate handily defeated two Democratic resolutions on the Iraq war Thursday. One, offered by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, called for US withdrawal by July 2007. Another nonbinding resolution, by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, called for US troop redeployment to begin by the end of this year.

The rhetoric from the right consisted of predictably discursive slurs on the patriotism of dissenting opinion. House Republican leader John Boehner – a man lacking sufficient courage to admit his name is pronounced “Boner” – bravely declared, “retreat is not an option in Iraq” , neatly side-stepping the fact no one has actually called for retreat. Karl Rove, giddy at narrowly escaping federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges in the Plame case, took a similarly nuanced tact, explaining that:

Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running … They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles.

In a rare Washington example of speaking the simple truth, John Murtha of Pennsylvania was quick to point out that it was a sentiment easy for Rove to express, while sitting on his fat ass in an air-conditioned office, out of the line of fire, masturbating to his collection of Maggie Thatcher photos and press clippings whenever he feels like it (or words to that effect). But of course Murtha’s is a lone voice in a howling wind of rightwing chatter and was quickly drown.

The proposals of from Murtha, Kerry and others differ in specifics, but they share the common theme that it might be a good idea to have some sort of plan in mind for exiting Iraq, to let the Iraqis know that we recognize their sovereignty and have no intention of hanging around permanently. To let the American people know that we really do have a plan to bring this adventure to closure, and that our government recognizes that we can’t sustain the human and financial costs of this folly forever. And, of course, to let the world know that we’re not all a bunch of weekend cowboy frat-house dicks who don’t give a shit about what anybody else thinks. A plan. A direction forward. Something.

That modest notion was soundly defeated by large majorities over the last few weeks, including an overwhelming percentage of Republican representatives, apparently accepting leader Bill Frist’s view that any troop withdrawal from Iraq would be “dangerous, reckless and shameless”.

All of which makes you wonder if it came as something of a surprise when General George Casey, top American Commander in Iraq, gave a classified briefing at the Pentagon, laying out plans for a troop draw down not unlike those offered by congressional Democrats. Notwithstanding a recent flare-up or two in obscure places like “Baghdad”, it turns out that, in Casey’s estimation, things are looking sufficiently rosey that we can begin a significant troop reduction this year, probably by September. Even better, the outlook is that we’ll be able to reduce combat troop level by something on the order of seventy percent by early 2008! Now that is terrific news.

Only the most cynical Bush-weary observer would wonder, why the change in strategic outlook? Why the sudden openness to a scheduled troop withdrawal? Has our intelligence capability increased so much that, even though throughout the war we haven’t been able to anticipate what will happen next week, let alone next month, we suddenly have a clear projection for conditions on the ground early 2008?

In any case, there’s certainly no way that Casey’s plan is influenced by the political landscape, timed in coordination with the 2006 midterm elections, and the 2008 general election. There’s just no way the administration would allow decisions about vital issues of national security to be influenced by frank political calculus. No way.

Right?

T-riffic, Pow-Pow-Powerful

2006-06-23T20:26:00.000-07:00

A post on the state of affairs in Iraq that everyone should read. Maybe a couple of times. Concise and on point. Read it.

Did we mention that you should read it?

Why haven't you clicked yet? Did we not mention that you should read this?

A Long Road from Law to Justice*

2006-06-14T09:59:00.000-07:00

(or Notes on the Further Radicalization of a Formerly Moderate Democrat)

Yesterday Robert Luskin, attorney to Bush confidante and White House political operative, Karl Rove, announced that the Special Prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case, Patrick Fitzgerald, will not seek a criminal indictment against his client.

In mid-May, 1968, nine men and women removed draft files from the Selective Service office in Cantonsville, MD, and set them on fire in a parking lot, using a home-made batch of napalm, concocted from soap flakes and gasoline. The nine famously included two Catholic priests, and brothers, Daniel and Philip Berrigan. The Berrigans were not strangers to activism, with Daniel and historian Howard Zinn, traveling to Hanoi at the height of the Vietnam War to negotiate the release of three captured US pilots. Although FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover labeled Berrigan and Zinn traitors, and US planes bombed sites where the two were scheduled to visit, the mission was successful and the pilots were released unharmed. For a time the Berrigans, appeared on the FBI’s ‘most wanted’ list. Along with their co-defendants, they were sentenced to multi-year jail sentences for their protest in Catonsville and other acts of civil disobedience.

On a number of occasions over the last several years, President Bush pledged to determine who was involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity, and to fire anyone in the administration who participated. Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed the plain meaning of the president’s statement, that even in this White House, the word “fire”, really does mean to lose your job. The President’s further instructions were for his staff to cooperate fully and promptly with the investigation.

Now, as the Special Prosecutor’s work draws to a close, we know a few things. We know that the White House staff stonewalled the investigation at every possible turn. We know that the unfolding events were set into motion at the direct authorization of the Vice President of the United States, with the approval of the President. We know that Karl Rove was directly involved, that he served as reporter Matt Cooper’s second source, and that Rove failed to reveal that connection until it was irrefutably demonstrated by archived email records. We know that all of this information was available from the parties involved prior to the 2004 presidential election, but that the salient details were not divulged until Bush was re-elected.

Over a lifetime of activism on behalf of the poor and powerless, the Berrigans came to view direct action as a moral responsibility, an obligation to voice dissent against government policies they viewed as morally unconscionable. They offered and expected no legal validation, relying instead on the simpler defense that it was better to burn draft cards than the bodies of children. And in that spirit we accept Patrick Fitzgerald’s professional judgment that the actions of the President’s chief political advisor could not be proved illegal in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. What we do not accept is the suggestion that this assessment exonerates Karl Rove. Nor does it correct the wrongs of a President who lies to the American people by failing to honor his pledge of firing any member of his administration who had direct involvement in the Plame case. And it certainly does not absolve blame for an electorate sitting idly by while a cabal of corporate powerbrokers and neoconservative ideologues, in this case and so many others, dismantle the foundations of decency and democracy in this country. As the Berrigans recognized over three decades ago, it is indeed a long road from law to justice*.

From: “I Had No Right”, The Green World, Dar Williams

Burning Flags, Ann Coulter and Monogamous Butt-Fucking

2006-06-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

Word on the street is it that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a bad guy. A really bad guy. One who killed people, which by the way, pretty much everyone agrees is a bad thing, except under special circumstances - like in self-defense, or because they really really pissed you off. So a lot of folks would say it’s a good and righteous thing that we took him out with a few 500-pound bombs. Michael Berg – the father of Nick Berg, who Zarqawi reportedly beheaded in Iraq – doesn’t see it that way, but he’s a moral absolutist and pacifist, and we all know how they are. In the end, its probably best to leave weighty questions like the morality of killing in response to killing to philosophers, religious zealots and others with the time and inclination to devote to such matters.

For the rest of us, there are more practical issues requiring immediate attention. Like the gathering threat of flag burning. Set aside the reality that, chances are, you’ve never personally witnessed anyone actually burn a flag. Also ignore the fact that most American flags these days are made of some sort of synthetic material, probably manufactured in China, that doesn’t so much burn as melt. No, there’s simply no denying the fact that the threat of flag burning is an ever-present danger to our national security, and one that a responsible government can no longer ignore. Imagine the irresponsibility of kicking this one down the road, putting off until tomorrow what must be done today. Imagine, in some dark, dank version of the future, your own kids or grandchildren actually witnessing a flag being burned. Or melting. Is that the kind of future we want?

And then there are those gold-digging 9-11 whores, the ones who rushed into the streets while the Twin Towers were still smoldering to cry, “Boo-hoo, give me money!” Thank God for Ann Coulter. Most of us probably had a momentary pang of sympathy for these women when we thought about their loved ones being burned alive at the hands of maniacal, plane-wielding thugs. It took someone with a backbone and heart of steel like Ann to set us straight and point out that it’s the Jersey Girls who are the real enemy. The Jersey Girls who had the unmitigated gall to question our elected officials and demand accountability. The Jersey Girls who had the nerve to question the objectivity of the Commander-in-Chief’s first choice to head the 9-11 commission, Henry Kissinger. The Jersey Girls who have so shamelessly reveled in their husbands’ deaths for their own fame and fortune.

Thank you Ann – you are indeed a national treasure, just as David Horowitz says. Without you the truth might never have come out. We might still think Jack Murtha and Max Cleland were war heroes and true patriots instead of accident-prone traitors, that Bill Clinton was a devoted public servant instead of the serial rapist you proved him to be, and that people of true faith can be legitimately opposed to the war in Iraq when, in fact, they are obviously devil-worshipping pagans who drink baby’s blood for sustenance. There are those who will callously point out that it is you, Ann, who has profited so handsomely from the tragedy of 9-11 and the horrid deaths of your fellow Americans, and who has used all manner of human horror for self-aggrandizement and fame. But don’t listen to a word of it – not a single word – be strong and know that most real Americans recognize you for what you are, not the fetid sack of reeking shit you appear to be.

Burning flags and 9-11 sluts are bad enough, but they pale in comparison with the undisputed, number one threat to everything good and decent in this great land of ours – homosexual marriage. Imagine, if you will, a world where you and your spouse are constantly tempted by the irresistible draw of a legitimized gay lifestyle. No doubt you’ve enjoyed those years of healthy heterosexual sex when you didn’t know any better, but how long will it be before you begin to think, “damn, maybe I should drop the old lady and try butt-fucking the stud next door for a change”. And let’s face it, what’s hotter than two steaming chicks going down on each other?

Our President sees the threat, he “gets it”, and he won’t back down. Aside from prohibition – and we all know that that one wasn’t given a fair chance – the Constitution of the United States has generally been aimed at ensuring freedoms and liberties. So it is only fitting that the President would make a constitutional amendment freeing us from the temptation of homo marriage the signature initiative of his last few years in office. Current assessments are that the push has zero chance of moving beyond the bathroom stalls of Congress, let alone to the states for ratification. But let’s hope and pray they’ve misunderestimated The Decider yet again. Because if not, you can bet your bottom dollar that it won’t be long before we're treated to the sight of Bill O’Reilly sucking Pat Robertson’s dick while Ann Coulter does the cha-cha naked with a burning flag stuck up her ass. Is that the kind of America you want?

An observation

2006-05-26T16:42:00.000-07:00

Thanks to advances in wireless technology, its becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between folks having heated telephone conversations on the streets of Manhattan and unmedicated schizophrenics.

Maybe its the Weather

2006-05-21T15:22:00.000-07:00

Its spring in the upper mid-Atlantic and all is in bloom – truly one of the best times of year, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, in New York generally, but particularly in the metropolitan area. The subways aren’t yet reeking ovens of unwashed humanity, service unions have learned that strikes are more effective when the weather’s nasty, and the city won’t develop that unique nose of fetid urine, baked vomit and maggot drawing buffet of decomposing garbage for a few months yet. And so maybe it’s the pleasant weather that’s put us in a accommodating mood, or the increasingly frequent appearance of decreasingly clad woman on the streets of Manhattan, but we’re really starting to mellow out about this whole horrible Bush “Worst. President. Ever.” thing.

Don’t misunderstand: we were just as peeved as the next sentient creature to learn that, against all direct statements, hints and innuendo to the contrary, the government has engaged in a far broader program of domestic surveillance than envisioned by even the most conspiracy-minded civil libertarians. Our radar also registered the news that we do not now, nor did we ever have, any semblance of a plan to secure security in Iraq after toppling Saddam. The establishment of a standing Iraqi government is a hopeful sign, and it’ll be even more encouraging if they’re able to move beyond appointments to the ministry of fashion and hair design, and fill the second tier positions of interior and defense secretaries. The ride is a little bumpy here on the home-front as well: a rare attempt at nuanced, bipartisan appeal from the White House on immigration policy has met it’s most vitriolic hostility from the right; the administration’s energy “policy” is such an comical disaster that the President himself has downshifted to a born-again conservationist position; the latest economic indicators aren’t exactly rosy, prompting a record reality check in the stock market over the last few days; Gen. Michael Hayden seems to be flying through the confirmation process while Kyle ‘Dusty’ Foggo and Porter Goss slip into oblivion unexamined, after what, by all accounts, was a colorful stint at the CIA, etc., etc.

So why the rosy outlook? Maybe it’s the weather. Or the possibility that people are starting to pay attention.

Web Weirdness

2006-05-19T05:43:00.000-07:00

For those poor souls who share our unhealthy obsession with the lunatic doings at David Horowitz’s home on the web, there's a mildly amusing, totally insider exchange between a number of regular posters here. If you pay no attention to the forums at FrontPage (and good for you if you don't waste your time on such nonsense), the site will be meaningless. Its nearly meaningless in any case, but good for a mindless chuckle and disturbing insight into Horowitz's 'base'.

Sometimes you have to wonder if the net is such a good thing after all.

Has Karl Rove Been Indicted?

2006-05-13T19:23:00.000-07:00

If this is true, Jason Leopold and Truthout.org deserve seriously major credit for being out in front on an important story.

And if not? Well hell, it was a nice idea for a day or two.

McCain and Falwell

2006-05-13T15:17:00.000-07:00

Having reconciled their differences, John McCain and the Reverend Falwell agree to mutual denial of having cut the cheese.

Photo Credit: Josh Meltzer for the New York Times

Bush’s Failed Presidency: A Mathematical Proof

2006-04-29T12:45:00.000-07:00

We live in amazing times. Not so many years ago, analysis of a controversial presidency like Bush’s would have been the subject of decades-long debate, untold numbers of graduate dissertations, countless hours of research compilation and analysis, and of course, much subjective judgment and interpretation. And still the debate would rage on. But now, thanks to the power of the information superhighway (a well-deserved shoutout to Al Gore here), and statistically gifted members of the reality-based community like Stuart Eugene Thiel at DePaul University in Chicago, it takes nothing more than a quick surf across the net to fully explain the historic, abject failure – and yet surprising staying power – of George W. Bush.

As it turns out, a full understanding requires a macro view, a view from 30,000 feet, a gestalt that takes into account large volumes of data, any individual bit of which might be dissected, debated and quarreled with ad nauseam, but that, taken together, supports the twin, rock-solid, unassailable conclusions that George Bush has been abject utter failure as President, and the limited success he has achieved in popularity is based entirely on some seriously bad mojo for America.

Consider Thiel’s illuminating graphic. Note: those of you who are averse to numbers, mathematics and the like, fear not – all you need to do is squint your eyes and let the shape of the data wash over you – think of it as art instead of statistics. The graph is simple. It represents Bush’s approval rating over the course of his regime, as assessed by multiple public opinion polls. Up is good, down is bad. Easy. Don’t worry about the zillions of individual symbols – all you need is a sense of the overall trends, the spikes, the troughs, the ups and downs.

From that perspective, everything becomes crystal clear. At the outset, from the very beginning of his administration, Bush was a divider, not a uniter, scoring approval from just over half of the public. It makes sense, right? Take into consideration the contested 2000 election results, throw in a margin from the goodwill of the American people for an incoming president, and you’re there.

Then, 9-11. A national tragedy, one of the worst in our history, and Bush scores. Big time. No surprise – we rally behind the guy in charge at times like this. Its one of our good traits, not to mention simple human nature.

Beyond 9-11? A straight, uncomplicated linear decline in Bush’s approval rating, as his agenda becomes clear, and the veneer of a national disaster slowly fades. Americans don’t approve of Bush’s policy agenda, and his approval ratings by early 2003, despite an arguably successful war effort in Afghanistan, are precisely where they were when he took office. In other words, not a single action of the Bush administration, aside from the response to 9-11, had any positive influence as judged by the electorate.

The 9-11 attacks worked to Bush’s benefit, and so did the invasion of Afghanistan, if only temporarily. Peering down still from 30,000 feet (not unlike Bush’s initial assessment of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans), you might think subsequent fluctuations in public perception would relate to the unfolding landscape of policy-making and implementation, i.e., the bread ‘n butter efforts of any presidency. But, despite the overheated rhetoric that one could find about a wide variety of issues during the time, you would be wrong. What did move public opinion in 2003 was the invasion of Iraq. The account, again, is simple: we rally behind the guy in charge at times like this. Not as many people rallied as after 9-11, and they didn’t rally as enthusiastically, but still, we rallied. Once again, Bush scores, this time on the heels of some seriously bad shit cooked up by some seriously bad folks - Bush’s folks.

The mojo from that one wore off quickly, and within a matter of months of the invasion, Bush’s approval rating were, once again, precisely at the ‘divider not uniter’ level they were when he took office.

But the most compelling evidence of Bush’s utter and complete failure as a leader doesn’t come from these dramatic rises and falls prompted by national crises. Take a look at Thiel’s graph for the period from the summer of 2004, through January, 2005 – the hotly contested general election season. Combining the administration’s first-term policy “achievements”, the benefits of incumbency, the value of sitting as Commander-in-Chief during two ongoing wars (self-created, in one case), tens of millions of dollars in RNC campaign/propaganda efforts, the enthusiastic assistance of groups like the Swiftboat Veterans for Slandering John Kerry, Falwell/Dobson/Robertson Christians for Lynching Gays, Lesbians and Muslims, and like-minded types, Bush’s approval rose less then ten percent, just enough to provide a “mandate” of a one percent edge in the popular vote for his second term.

Since then, of course, we have seen a further, nearly linear decline in all measures of the nation’s confidence in this administration. What is disturbing from the bird’s eye view Thiel presents is, that on the basis of these historical trends, some seriously bad Bush shit – the only thing that has ever boosted his administration – is overdue. Long overdue. Compounding the concern, the primary issue after the fall election has to be Bush’s legacy.

Is anyone else thinking, Iran?

Biopsy Results: Presidential Cancer Malignant

2006-04-28T08:57:00.000-07:00

The incomparable Amy Goodman conducted an historic, joint interview with Daniel Ellsberg, famed source of the Pentagon Papers, and John Dean, counsel to President Nixon, yesterday on DemocracyNow.org (transcript, video and podcast available). It is an illuminating exchange at many levels, and although the aging Ellsberg comes off a bit loopy at times, it is well worth a listen, if only to hear his uncanny, spot-on imitation of Nixon’s unique speaking style. Aside from sheer entertainment value, the more substantive message that emerges over the course of the discussion centers on the striking parallel between the culture of the current administration and the corruption, abuse of power and insular self-delusion that lead to Nixon’s downfall.

Ellsberg and Dean’s assessment is that both Nixon and Bush genuinely viewed the excesses of their administrations as fully justified and necessary on the basis of national security interests. In reference to Nixon’s famous ‘enemies list’, and plans aimed at “incapacitating” Ellsberg:

DANIEL ELLSBERG: … Nixon thought that the attacks on me had the color of national security. That's what he said. … and I think he was sincere about that. Of course, it looked pretty much like a domestic crime, beating somebody up on the steps of the Capitol.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, “the color of national security”?

…

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, it had a flavor of national security to it. I’ll explain that.

JOHN DEAN: Dan, it’s more direct. [Nixon] literally prohibited me from testifying -- it’s on one of the tapes -- saying, “John, you can't testify about that. These are national security matters.”

In the same vein:

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Now, this applies very much to what's going on. Egil Krogh, who was in charge of the Plumbers, so-called Plumbers unit under John Ehrlichman, who later pled guilty … explained to the judge in his guilty statement, he said, “You know, I saw this as national security. To me and to everybody around me, freeing the President to do -- giving him the freedom to do what he thought best in national security interests, for national policy, was the essence of national security.” And I was getting in the way, by my truth telling or my exposing of what the President wanted to do, because what he wanted to do was crazy and illegal and dangerous. So he had to be secret. And to keep it other than secret, I was obstructing that. So getting rid of me was freeing the President to act like the President.

That perspective should sound at least vaguely familiar, since it is essentially the same rationale the Bush administration has used to justify all manner of legally suspect policies, from the detention and treatment of “enemy combatants”, to domestic surveillance, and to the selective, cherry-picked leaking of information from the National Intelligence Estimate. From NPR reporting on Vice President Cheney’s perspective, for example:

Did the administration really have the right to pursue domestic surveillance without a warrant? Cheney provided a history lesson -- much of which he could say he learned first hand.

He complained that the 1973 War Powers Act, which put restrictions on the president's authority to launch military action without congressional approval, was "an infringement upon the authority of the president." The law, Cheney said, may be "unconstitutional."

…

…Cheney summed up by saying that, especially in the area of national security, "the President of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."

He added that he and President Bush have worked hard in their five years in office to make sure those powers are unimpaired, and that he believes they've had some success.

…

"I do think that to some extent now, we've been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency," Cheney said.

The “legitimate authority” Cheney speaks of is presumably what President Nixon had in mind when, in a 1977 interview with David Frost, he asserted, “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” Indeed Nixon’s further comments in the same interview would hardly be surprising coming from the current White House:

If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Do the parallels extend beyond the power-hungry obsessions of the Nixon and Bush administrations, and are the effects of their over-reaching comparable? John Dean’s summary view on that issue?

Nobody died as a result of the so-called abuses of power during Watergate. … in the classic litany of Watergate activities, nobody died. … But today, people are dying as a result of the abuses of power.

In other news, today we learn that the number of terrorist attacks and fatalities more than doubled in 2005 over the previous year.

The prognosis for this recurrence of cancer on the presidency is unclear.

(Editor Update: more fallout from the abuse of power and historic incompetence here - all in the name of national security)

Welcoming Tony Snow

2006-04-27T05:46:00.000-07:00

By now everyone knows that, going forward, Tony Snow will be reporting directly from the White House studios of Fox News. Other than formalizing an unseemly relationship that's existed since Bush took office, having the American public signing Tony's paycheck, and the temporary reduction in his pay, the significance of the change in reporting venues is minimal. In fact, there are a number of reasons to celebrate.

Scott McClellan functioned as a tuber, a tap root, an entity whose single purpose was to feed the vegetation flowering above. He may well be an entirely decent human being in other respects, but its difficult to see how a yam positioned at the podium would have performed much differently as a White House Press Secretary.

Tony Snow is not a yam. Score! (Set aside the obvious irony that having a Press Secretary who is not a yam counts as a "score" - its precisely that kind of cynicism that gives liberals a bad reputation.)

Tony Snow actually has something to lose by treating people in the White House press corps like useless sacks of shit. Going out on a limb here, but our brave, "you heard it here first" prediction is that, rarely, on occasion, Snow may accidentally convey useful information about the people's business.

And really, isn't anyone else looking forward to the sheer entertainment value of a reasonably media-savvy fellow trying to slather make-up on the administration's pig of a policy mess?

Nuclear Strikes: “Wild speculation” or National Policy?

2006-04-22T17:53:00.000-07:00

Brian Lehrer of WNYC recently conducted a interview with retired Air Force Colonel and War College lecturer Sam Gardiner, and Seymour Hersh, author of the provocative New Yorker article concerning the Bush administration’s planning for military strikes against Iran. It was sobering and informed conversation among individuals with complimentary expertise and broad historical perspectives, making the central point that, not only is the Bush administration capable of pursuing the insane policy of military intervention in an effort to force disarmament and regime change, but that operational planning in support of this policy is already well-advanced.

The administration’s response to Hersh’s article was swift, including Bush’s widely publicized comment that talk of attacks on Iran were “wild speculation, by the way”. Hersh pointed out in his interview his belief in the importance of listening closely to the president’s statements, and although that requires intestinal fortitude an increasing majority lack, it is good advice. In this particular case, it is noteworthy that Bush’s comments never questioned the accuracy of Hersh’s reporting. In fact, according a 2001 study by a group that included several individuals Bush would later appoint to key administration positions, it turns out that the wildest of the wild speculations in the New Yorker article – the potential for the US to use preemptive tactical nuclear strikes against enemy targets – are, and should be, a central element of our military defense posture.

Most people (outside of the White House) would probably agree that the term “speculation” refers to something like conjecture. Maybe opinion. Rumor, gossip, assumption, guesswork, supposition, or hearsay could also substitute. But whatever your preferred synonym, “wild speculation” probably wouldn’t be the way most folks would describe a policy position that was published over five years ago by some of the very people who are now in a position to determine whether first-strike nuclear force is in the nation’s best interest.

Founded in 1981, and funded in part by a collection of hard right advocacy organizations, including the Carthage, Scaife and Olin Foundations (not to mention the US Government), the National Institute for Public Policy has long emphasized that emerging and unpredictable threats in a hostile post cold war era call for a muscular defense posture, unconstrained by the sorts of “legalistic” treaties, pacts and agreements that significantly advanced disarmament efforts after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Billing itself as a “non-profit education organization”, the US’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, early in Bush’s first term, is a more accurate reflection of the Institute’s intended influence on public policy.

No doubt the publication date is nothing more than coincidence, but in January, 2001, as Team Bush assumed the reigns of power, the National Institute for Public Policy issued a consensus executive report entitled, “Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control”. Clearly not headline grabbing dirt, this dry treatise drew little attention outside the wonkiest of circles. And that’s unfortunate because, as Hersh’s recent New Yorker report briefly notes, it provides critical context for evaluating the administration’s strategic perspective on emerging threats like Iran. Candid in its assessment, the reports asserts a variety of reasons for the necessity of robust nuclear arms capability, including more than a few that should be eerily familiar:

U.S. nuclear weapons may be necessary to:
Deter escalation by regional powers to the use of WMD, while the United States is defeating those powers in the conduct of a conventional war in defense of U.S. allies and security partners.
Deter regional powers or an emerging global power from WMD or massive conventional aggression against the United States or its allies.

Translated into Bushian vernacular, the idea here is that nuclear force may be necessary and justified in order to keep the “evildoers” from doing evil. And the way to do that would be to visit some serious evil on their butts.

The devil’s in the details, of course, and a priori, its not always easy to decide when you need to bring out the really big guns. Fortunately, the National Institute report provides some guidance there as well:

Some hardened targets can be attacked without resort to nuclear weapons, as was demonstrated in Desert Storm... Conventional weapons, however, might not be as effective or efficient in neutralizing hardened targets. For example, although conventional weapons could be used to attack the entrances, exits, or “umbilicals”—electrical power, air supply, and communications links—of a deeply buried facility, one or more nuclear weapons might be required to destroy the facility itself.

Hmmm. According to Hersh’s report, some of the prime targets in any strike against Iran would include hardened, buried nuclear facilities like the ones we know from IAEA inspections exist in Natanz. Suddenly that “wild speculation” sounds a little less wild.

But even those on the lunatic fringe appreciate that the decision to use nuclear force goes well beyond strategic, military issues, involving a complex constellation of humanitarian, ethical and political considerations, right?

… today’s nonnuclear bombs and missiles may substitute for nuclear weapons in many tactical, operational, and even strategic roles. … Conventional weapons, however, cannot entirely replace nuclear arms. Current nonnuclear strike capabilities have a number of limitations … In some cases, conventional weapons are less effective or ineffective in comparison with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. … To ensure that enemy facilities or forces are knocked out and cannot be reconstituted, attacks with nuclear weapons may be necessary. … the United States may need to field simple, low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons for possible use against select hardened targets such as underground biological weapons facilities.

Okay, okay – so these folks believe in an unbelievably strong defense posture. But at least they’re rational and disinclined to base strategic decisions on anything less than hard-core, empirically derived, known facts, rather than subjective perceptions and intuition, right? RIGHT? Well, maybe. The following, from a section of the report entitled, “The Political-Psychological Importance of Nuclear Numbers”:

Maintaining a numerical edge may usefully signal a U.S. readiness to compete with aggressive rivals, raise an entry barrier to states aiming to become major nuclear powers, and thus possibly prevent such challenges in the first instance. The latter point is important, because potential opponents may prefer to compete with the United States in nuclear arms, where the technologies are a half-century old, rather than in the nonnuclear strike systems of the “revolution in military affairs,” where advantage depends on exploiting ongoing advances in information technologies. The United States is likely to desire the capability to deter authoritarian adversaries who are impressed by an opposing nuclear force with greater, rather than fewer weapons. As a study of the effects of perceptions on the behavior of political and military leaders concluded, “Authoritarian states and leaders seem to place special emphasis on large numbers, perhaps because … dictators find in large numbers a promise or manifestation of the unlimited force they want to exercise.

Okay, you say, but still, this reflects a general neoconservative policy position published years ago, one that has nothing to do with current circumstances, and certainly no specific implications for how the administration might confront Iran in the near term. Sorry, but from a section title, “Potential Adversaries…”:

Regional states of concern such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq have smaller militaries and economies, but as a result of proliferation, still may present considerable threats. Under certain circumstances, very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries—if they are highly motivated to challenge the United States and willing to accept high risk and costs in doing so.

Well, at least folks at the National Institute for Public Policy aren’t in a position to push any nuclear buttons – at least there’s that. But wait – members and signatories of the 2001 report:

Stephen Cambone, who previously served as Director of Strategic Defense Policy, with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and who is currently the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Bush administration.

Stephen Hadley, who was personal diplomatic representative under then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, and national security advisor in the current administration.

Robert Joseph, previously the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, is the current Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

“Wild speculation” my hairy ass.

Conservatives Skanks and Liberal Hotties

2006-04-20T14:12:00.000-07:00

Most forums discourage, if not ban outright, ad hominem argument in public discourse. And to the degree that it circumvents flame wars, needless hostility and hurt feelings, its all to the good. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that one doesn't need to do much more than take a good hard look at the powerbrokers of the right to know that the country's been taken over by a gang of despotic death-eaters. Seriously, consider a random sample.

(Cross-posted at MyLeftWing.com, dailykos.com)

In no particular order, let's begin with Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. An accomplished, intelligent person by all accounts, can anyone look at that face and honestly say they'd be surprised to see a forked snake tongue come flickering out of her pie hole? And has anyone ever seen her sweat? Or give birth to live young? Mammalian or reptile? You decide.

Then there's Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Known by many as Skeletor, it is widely rumored that he was first pick to play the role of Lord Voldemort in Goblet of Fire. The picture shown here is hardly the worst available, but it does capture that brain-eating zombie aura that many feel has contributed to Chertoff's mixed success as an administrator. Michael Brown has his own problems, but you can understand him not wanting to go for help to someone who looks like he might rip your liver out for lunch. And those eyes! Dead and cold, like a doll's eyes.

Speaking of Michael Brown, some might say he seems no more dangerous than Potsy's Dad on Happy Days. But look more closely. Deer caught in the headlights? The creepy dude that hangs around the restroom by the kid's playground in the park? Someone who likes to have their bum patted with baby powder and swaddled in diapers after a nice bowel movement? No matter how you look at it - scary.

Katherine Harris? As much as anyone, her's is the face of integrity, the face of principle, the face of the Republican party. Part Cruella Deville, part Bea Arthur, and part Courtney Love on smack, ya just gotta want her to hang in there for the duration of the Florida Senate race.

Rumsfeld, Delay, Bush II, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Ken Mehlman, and of course the ever-sneering vice president - on and on, right down the list, this is the nastiest, meanest, sourest looking bunch of creatures from the black lagoon you'd ever want to run into.

Oh sure, every once in awhile some smart-ass newshound manages to catch a liberal in an unfortunate pose or circumstance, but can anyone seriously deny that, on average, progressives are approximately sixteen times better looking than conservatives? Come to think of it, maybe that's why they're all so bitter.

(Full photo credit to originators)

General Fatigue

2006-04-18T09:19:00.000-07:00

What's today's tally? We're up to like six, seven dozen retired military brass who have called for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation, right? Okay, we exaggerate. But the intensity of dissatisfaction with Rummy's performance is entirely genuine, and privately, some have suggested that a severe public flogging, or maybe even extraordinary rendition, would appropriate payback for the Secretary. Others have suggested a differ course, including the possibility that, rather than exposing his age-spotted hide to the harsh desert sun, Rumsfeld and the world would be better off if he made room for a surprise visit to his wife's vagina every now and then.

And so it is undeniably gratifying to see Rumsfeld called to account – not by the usual crowd of rabid, blame-America first Bush-hating traitors – but by a good-sized handful of ex-buzz-cuts adorned with all manner of sparkly do-dads, ribbons and other official-looking shit, some whom were involved in planning the Iraq adventure, and who even served under Rummy as recently as last year.

Righteous Schadenfreude, however, is tempered on several grounds. Any realistic appraisal confirms that, if someone belatedly started paying attention to the General’s belatedly voiced concerns, the outlook is so bleak Bush would have a hell of a time scaring up a replacement dumb enough to take the job. Sure, sweeten the deal and you might be able to get a Michael Brown or The Hammer interested, or the president could pay back a few favors to the likes of Harriet Miers or Katherine Harris, for instance, but at best we’re talking minor league, vocational talent, qualified on the basis of blind loyalty and ideological conviction rather than relevant experience and, well, skill.

Moreover, short of a trip in the ‘way-back’ machine, wherein Bush concedes the election to either of the opponents who actually won, it is difficult to imagine a shake-up in the administration that could accomplish more than blow kisses and slap a band-aid on their disastrous foreign policy mistakes. Let’s suppose, for example, that through some combination of bribery, extortion, or other nefarious trickery, Team Bush managed to find some numbfuck willing to take on Rumsfeld’s position. And while we’re imagining unimaginable hypotheticals, let’s further suppose its someone who is not a widely recognized numbfuck at all, someone who many people might view as both sane and qualified – a Sam Nunn, for example. Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and co-author of the Department of Defense Reorganization Act, Nunn arguably has some relevant credentials in his background. And although, unlike Bush, Nunn actually served in the military, the two share prior drunk driving convictions, a dislike of homos in the armed services, and a few other common ‘turn-ons’ and ‘turn-offs’ that might provide a basis for effective communication. The relevant question then becomes, what is the likelihood that, deep in the second term of his Co-Presidency, running full bore on an agenda of legacy building, Dick Cheney would be willing to cede an inch of ground on control of any issue, especially our military posture in the Middle East? The answer? None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

So, a zero sum gain, whether Rumsfeld stays or goes? Not on your life, and the administration knows it. The political calculus is that the appointment of a consensus builder like Nunn, a “uniter, not a divider”, and a conservative Democrat (no less), could give Bush and company a patina of change, a cosmetic facelift, the appearance of a commitment to fresh input and a new direction. And all just in time for a critical mid-term election season.

The sad reality is we’re better off with Rumsfeld where he is.

Still MORE Pants on Fire

2006-04-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the tireless efforts of our Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative staff, we are now able to link to an important, and thoroughly depressing article in the incomparable National Journal, by the equally incomparable Murray Wass. To summarize, it reports that Vice President Cheney directly authorized his Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to leak classified information to the press in an effort to undermine the credibility of a former ambassador who dared to question key pre-war intelligence estimates.

What is remarkable about the story is not the factual substance of the matter. After all, it is widely recognized at this point that the broader effort to discredit Joe Wilson emanated directly from the highest levels of the White House, despite the President’s frequent public denunciations about the excessive leakiness of Washington, and not from some low-level bureaucrat with bad breath and an axe to grind. Nor is it the fact that a grown man goes by a childhood nickname like “Scooter”, forcing otherwise respectable news outlets to set his moniker off in quotation marks.

No, the real story here is that we have traveled so far down the road of public deception and carefully choreographed message management that it requires extraordinary efforts to extract and verify even the simplest truths about the actions of our government. In this particular case, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, countless careers and reputations, and ultimately, thousands of lives, all to learn what could have been determined by the President of the United States actually leading, and calling his own inner circle to account for their actions, fully and completely.

Political gain is not a justification for the selective leaking of classified information, at the expense of national security. That is the simple truth. Its beyond time for the electorate to articulate the appropriate response, loud and clear enough for the entire world to hear; “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

LIAR LIAR!

2006-04-13T18:44:00.000-07:00

There are so many pairs of trousers, and skirts for that matter, that must be totally, completely, irrevocably afire right now in our nation's capitol that its not even the least bit funny.

Let’s be entirely clear what yesterday’s Washington Post article documents about the “mobile weapons labs” found in Iraq several years ago, shall we? First, turns out they weren’t mobile weapons labs at all. Notably, it was the unanimous judgment of American and British inspectors on the ground that there was no friggin’ way these trailers were mobile weapons labs (or more polite wording to the same effect). So obvious was the conclusion that they came to it in a matters of hours of on-site inspection.

Second, this is most certainly not, as White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said, a rehashing of the widely accepted understanding that PRE-war intelligence was incorrect. This was POST-war intelligence. The calendar proves it (although there maybe some subtlety of phrasing that the White House will claim gives it some wiggle room here – international datelines and whatnot).

Third, completely obscured in the White House’s truly embarrassing account, this judgment was made available in advance of the unequivocal, glory on high, POST-war claims that the coalition had found Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – no doubt about it. And those claims continued to ooze from various administration mouthpieces for a year after the report demonstrating it just wasn’t so.

And perhaps most pathetic in this latest revelation in the almost daily saga of the administration’s naked disregard for the views of the American public, Scott McClellan indicates, by way of explanation, it is not clear whether the President was aware of the conclusions of the mobile weapons lab report when it was first made available. In other words, either the President was briefed on the report and chose to publicly claim the precise opposite, based on no apparent evidence, OR he was unaware of the judgment of coalition weapons experts our own government had charged with evaluating the key find of the POST-invasion period, and again elected to proclaim the precise opposite, based on no apparent evidence. Have we really gotten to the point that the press and American public accept either of these accounts as reasonable or acceptable?

Colin Powell’s not pretending anymore, and neither are the top military brass. When is the administration going to admit it? Or more importantly, when are the American people going to demand a change. After all, liar liar pants on fire!

Gettin' it Said

2006-04-12T17:45:00.000-07:00

And it MUST be heard! A taste:

According to the Economic Policy Institute, "The real income of the typical household has fallen five years in a row, despite the fact that the last three of those years - 2002, 2003, and 2004 - have been years of economic expansion."

According to the Brookings Institute, "Almost 37 million Americans - roughly one person in eight - were poor in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available. That's 5.4 million more than in 2000." The number of Americans without health insurance is up by 6,000,000 since 2000.

This is the reality. More on the fantasy world of the administration soon.

Confirmed: US Policy Toward Iran Totally Psycho

2006-04-09T13:18:00.000-07:00

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay... trying to stay calm here, but the idea seems to be that we could use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, and the justification would be to stop them from developing tactical nuclear weapons. And if it didn't work, and they developed tactical nuclear weapons anyway, and they figured, well, hell, Bush used 'em on us, then we'd say..., um, yeah, okaaaaay, but you guys are really really bad. Or something like that.

News that's news because its news...

2006-04-08T16:38:00.000-07:00

How could it possibly be news that Cheney has been at the center of the administration's propaganda efforts from the start? And yet it is, apparently. Well, for those who somehow didn't take the hint over the last six years, the lead from an article in tomorrow's Washington Post:

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Not to belabor the point or anything, but seriously, y'all didn't know that? Seriously?

Lying Sacks of Useless... Part 617 in a continuing series

2006-04-06T10:08:00.000-07:00

First this, from a 9/30/2003 White House Press release:

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. … I want to know who the leakers are.

To this, the latest in a series of outstanding reports from Murray Waas of National Journal, 4/6/06:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

If the President himself authorized the leaks that ultimately lead to the Fitzgerald inquiry, and the President himself claimed to have no knowledge of anybody in his administration who leaked information, and the President himself failed to correct the record, wouldn’t that be kind of like, well, a lie? And obstruction of justice?

BREAKING UPDATE: Hey everybody - its A-okay! Turns out its perfectly legal for the president to leak classified information to the public at his discretion, for political gain! Phew - thank goodness. No word yet on whether lying about it is a problem, but gee, at least we know the President didn't do anything really bad.

Editor's Update, 4/7/06: Turns out, Digby pretty much had this nailed last summer; "I see that Bob Schieffer takes the president to task for not just hauling in his top aides two years ago and telling them he wanted to know who talked to the press. This is a good question and one which I think the press should be asking every day. But then, Bush has always been a little cagey on this, hasn't he? Why you'd almost think he already knew all about it" (emphasis added). Spooky, eh? Well, not really - day after day the evidence mounts that you can't go too far wrong by assuming the worst of the administration.

For the Love of Christ

2006-04-02T10:38:00.000-07:00

Sometime in May of 2004, Nicholas Berg, a 26 year-old American civilian and independent contractor, was abducted in Iraq and beheaded. The horrific event was videotaped, and amidst swirling controversy concerning the circumstances of his kidnapping and death, the decapitation was widely posted and remains a popular internet destination. Just one month earlier, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan was shot when his unit came under fire in Bahgdad. He died April 4, 2004, at 24.

The particulars of these tragic losses share little in common, aside from the overarching context of war, and the response of those closest to the deceased was equally varied. Nick Berg’s father Michael, a retired teacher and long-time peace activist, continued his anti-war efforts with increased zeal and commitment, forged and strengthened by the profound loss he suffered. A popular and articulate spokesman, Michael Berg recently announced his intention to run for a U.S. Congress seat on the Green Party ticket in the state of Delaware, campaigning largely on a platform of withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

Not camera shy, and gifted with a talent for sincere stridency that the media can capture in short sound bites, Casey’s mother Cindy Sheehan has drawn more attention. Probably most famous for her impromptu, grassroots vigil outside the Bush ranch during the President’s extended summer vacation last year, Sheehan’s anti-war, anti-administration advocacy is extensive, continuing to the present. Gripped by the tragedy of loss and moral outrage, Berg and Sheehan share the perspective that the policies and actions of the Bush administration fuel Islamic hatred and, in that way, directly contributed to the death of their sons. In other respects, these parents have dealt with their personal agony in very different ways, each according to their own predilections, beliefs and circumstances.

Not so the response from religious conservatives. The Swiftboating of Cindy Sheehan was fast and furious, as widely noted in the mainstream press. The administration’s reliable satellite outlets for all manner of rightwing buttnuttery, like David Horowitz’s popular hate site, were giddy with excitement at the opportunity, claiming Sheehan’s words and actions conclusively demonstrate her hatred for her son, America, and everything good in the world. Plus she’s ugly, a whore – essentially a Charlie Manson in drag, or words to that effect.

But in the case of both Sheehan and Berg, it’s the cries of religious conservatives that are most disturbing. The issues are contentious, of course, and reasonable people obviously hold widely divergent, heartfelt views on the substance of the matter, on the legality, morality and effectiveness of our efforts to “spread democracy” throughout the Middle East. Being a person of faith certainly is not incompatible with expressing your views on these issues, and in fact, some would argue that certain flavors of religious conviction command precisely that course of action. What is not particularly useful, logical or decent, however, is to use the veil of Christian faith as amnesty for advancing a distinctly unChristian ideology of prejudice and hatred.

And so, as a public service, listed below are a few warning signs of hypocritical Christian assholery. If you recognize yourself, take immediate corrective action and shut the fuck up, for the love of Christ. And if you detect these telltale indications in others – friends, family, neighbors, strangers – tell them too, for everyone’s sake, “Shut the fuck up – for the love of Christ!”.

Warning Signs You Might be a Hypocritical Christian Asshole:

If you’re Editor-in-Chief for a publication that bills itself as the conservative Christian voice of North Carolina, and you publish an article titled, “Michael Berg is Insane!”, simply because he’s elected to run for Congress, then you most definitely might be a hypocritical Christian asshole. Of course having the name Judson Cox, and looking like the author (see right - photo credit to renewamerica.us) pretty much proves you’re an asshole, but not necessarily the hypocritical Christian kind.

If you’re a geriatric, born-again Pat Boone, who has gleefully taken on the role of “…blasting the peace message of Cindy Sheehan…”, in between preaching the gospel and doing bad heavy metal covers, you may very well be a hypocritical Christian asshole.

If you feature a misty picture of hands holding the scripture, and refer readers to Ephesians 6:11 on the header of your blog, but then discount the actions of a grieving mother of a lost soldier as “communist antics”, and causing pain and suffering to POW’s, you’re most probably a hypocritical Christian asshole. Actually, if you post Cindy’s picture juxtaposed with images of bloody heads from people who suffered the same fate as Nick Berg, you are most definitely a major hypocritical Christian asshole.

If you’re a Texas blogger who dismisses the sincerity of Cindy Sheehan’s views and actions with a running series of cheap, lame jokes, chances are good that you’re a hypocritical Christian asshole. Actually, we’re making an assumption regarding the Christian affiliation in this particular example of assholery, on the basis that that’s pretty much the only kind they let in the state of Texas, right?

And if you’re a super scary looking freak of an Evangelical General, who sees Nick Berg as a call to arms for “warriors of faith”, you’re beyond, WAY beyond, your standard, run-of-the-mill hypocritical Christian asshole.

And so, as we suggested, please, for the love of Christ, shut the fuck up.

kids today!

2006-04-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

Turns out some of them are just terrific! Laurie Pycroft, for example, who has taken on the rabid anti-intellectual, anti-science movement in England, in a proactive push toward right and reason. Today's New York Times coverage is certainly the most visible coverage, but Laurie's own words are at least as impressive.

Feds Launch Massive Domestic Propaganda Campaign

2006-03-29T07:30:00.000-08:00

It’s the stuff of cheap political thrillers. An administration suffering from a severe case of second term flu is handed a series of stinging rebukes from its own majority party in congress. There is a dawning realization among the public at large – once blindly supportive – that the President is unable to articulate a coherent, spontaneous response to the smallest of challenges. The administration’s meager pretense of a coherent domestic agenda is going precisely nowhere as all but the most securely situated legislators distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular President and the policy missteps of his even less popular cabinet. A high ranking White House official resigns under indictment, the political mastermind of the team remains under investigation, a VP who mistakes an 80 year-old lawyer for a small bird and plasters his beak with buckshot, a massive reorganization of the federal emergency response management system that, on its maiden voyage, with days of forewarning, handles the destruction of a great American city as a spectator sport, a media that becomes willing to divulge state secrets like the President’s long standing order for the national security apparatus to violate federal law and intercept the communications of its citizens, a public increasingly skeptical that the ship of state is on course and commanded by a competent skipper...the list is endless.

And at the root of it all, the steady, pounding rhythm of the war. The persistent drip of bombings, torture, lawlessness and carnage. It all goes back that - every failure, ever hint of success, every feckless attempt at leadership is colored by the war. Now approaching the dusk of the administration’s second term, the president’s legacy, the legacy of an exceptionally powerful group of political operatives, the legacy of an historic hard right shift in policy, hangs in the balance.

This is the essential backdrop for understanding the intelligence community’s recent decision to dump tens of thousands of pages of ‘quickly reviewed’, Arabic language documents on the web. From the outset, the Bush administration has exhibited a remarkable zeal for secrecy, reversing the decades-long trend under Republicans and Democrats alike toward openness in government, using the veil of national security as justification for a dramatic increase in the scope of activities treated as classified. Recall that this is the same administration that has repeatedly claimed revelations about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program have seriously harmed counter-terrorism efforts, despite the seemingly reasonable assumption that the evildoers might guess we liked to listen in on their conversations. Indeed, as many others have noted, claims of confidentiality and the need for secrecy have become the instinctive response of this White House to requests for open disclosure from the public, Congress and the press.

So why the change of heart? The official account is that the intelligence community hopes to “release the power of the internet”, presumably relying on the hordes of Arabic-fluent, pro-American, freedom-loving bloggers throughout the world to carefully mine, analyze and synthesize the evidence, toward the development of new and useful strategies in the global war on terror. Apparently, that potential is judged greater than the possibility that the hordes of Arabic-fluent, anti-American, freedom-hating evildoers will carefully mine, analyze and synthesize the evidence toward the development of new and useful strategies to defeat global counter-terrorism efforts. Its also inevitable that releasing these reams of presumptively sensitive documents will lead to an avalanche of misinterpretation, misinformation and utter nonsense, such as the almost instant assessment from one retired Army officer claiming the documents include plans to release anthrax-laced pamphlets in Iraq disguised as leaflets from coalition forces, thereby proving that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Additional exaggerated claims will surely follow, ranging from “proof” that Saddam was a peace-loving homebody more interested in model trains than dominating the Middle East, to the discovery of Al Qaeda’s secret recipe for Bin Laden’s favorite hummus. All of this will be freely available, and thanks to the power of the internet, widely disseminated, cherry-picked and re-reported in support of all manner of raving horseshit.

And so you have to wonder. Will we find out in the closing chapters of this cheap political thriller that this is exactly the goal? To enable a fog of disinformation that obscures the crimes of a dangerously incompetent, power-hungry administration as the country heads into a critical mid-term election? Or has there been a genuine shift in the administration’s perspective, an earnest desire to re-examine their policies and honestly, openly engage the public on issues critical to the country’s future and place in the world? Which scenario sounds more believable to you?

Editor's Update: The plot twists in this political thriller get more and more absurd with each passing day. This from the Washington Post:

President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.

...read the rest, if you dare

The Two Percent Solution?

2006-03-25T22:33:00.000-08:00

The key passage from an article in today's Washington Post:

The administration wanted a tough-minded alternative to the civilian court system that the Clinton administration had used against terrorists. Yet the swift and certain punishment that supporters of the commissions expected has not materialized. Though 10 of the 490 terrorism suspects currently held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay have been designated for trial, not a single case has been decided.

Two percent? Two percent of the people held in Guantanamo Bay are headed for trial (of whatever sort)? Not to be rude, but are there any issues worth mentioning about the 98%?

Onward Christian Soldiers

2006-03-24T07:53:00.000-08:00

The current relevance of these decades old lyrics is stunning, and the message all the more chilling.

Canons of Christianity
By Phil Ochs
Phil Ochs In Concert, Elektra, 1966

Christian canons have fired at my days
With the warning beneath the holy blaze
And bow to our authority
Say the canons of Christianity

Oh the children will be sent to schools
Minds of clay are molded to their rules
Learn to fear all of eternity
Warn the canons of Christianity

Holy hands will count the money raised
Like a king the Lord is richly praised
On a cross of diamond majesty
Say the canons of Christianity

Missionaries will travel on crusades
The word is given, the heathen souls are saved
Conversions to our morality
Sigh the canons of Christianity

Come the wars and turn the rules around
To bend your soul on the battle ground
And the Lord will march beside me
Drone the canons of Christianity

Cathedral walls will glitter with their gold
And the sermons speak through silver robes
Building castles amidst the poverty
Say the canons of Christianity

Worship now and wash your sins away
Drop the coins, fall to your knees and pray
Cleanse the world of all hypocrisy
Smile the canons of Christianity

Christian canons have fired at my days
With the warning beneath the holy blaze
And bow to our authority
Say the canons of Christianity

Editor’s Note: In the live, concert recording of the song, Ochs responds to the audience applause, “Thank you, and God bless you.”

David Horowitz: Dick-Lover Champion, or Just a Dick?

2006-03-21T08:29:00.000-08:00

The latest installment in a running diabtribe:

Speaking of perverse pleasures, there is little that compares with witnessing David Horowitz’s fuming, sputtering rage, especially when it’s an off-the-wall disproportionate response to a mild rebuke from someone he’s viciously attacked. In that context, David’s lead piece on his vanity site today is worth a read. The background story is straightforward: Michael Vocino, an openly gay faculty member at the University of Rhode Island, was asked for a response to his profile published in Horowitz’s latest fantasy about the left, The Professors – The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Like all honorees who have taken the trouble to comment, Vocino briefly notes that “…[what] David Horowitz has said about me is a not so creative mix of fiction, lies, and distortions.”

In his characteristically rambling, omnidirectional response, Horowitz blusters on for nearly 3,000 words to make two points. First, David wants us to know that he’s so not a homophobe that he’s actually gone as far as hiring and working with gays – even some in executive positions. And second – and this is even more important - since no one has raised a legal challenge against any of the slander in his book, it must all be true! Now isn’t that just the kind of intellectual rigor and honesty you want in a self-appointed protector of Academic Freedom?

Others have offered more articulate, serious commentary, but anyway you look at it, Horowitz – what a dick.

SUPPORT THE FEINGOLD CENSURE RESOLUTION!

2006-03-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

CREDIT: Kirk Anderson

Worth of a Picture

2006-03-19T15:18:00.000-08:00

By all means, read the transcript of relevant recent comments and make up your own mind. But, as the saying goes, a picture's worth some seriously heavy stuff too, or words to that effect.

Full Photo Credit: AP

Required Reading

2006-03-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Op-Ed piece in today's Washington Post. Read it and defend the assertion that a single perspective expressed is true. Dare ya! The following excerpt is particularly indefensible from anyone other than an unmedicated schizophrenic, let alone someone entrusted the responsibility of defending the country:

Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today -- at the terrorist threat we face -- can come to only one conclusion: Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.

Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.

-Donald Rumsfeld, March 2006, on the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion

SUPPORT THE FEINGOLD CENSURE RESOLUTION!

2006-03-18T07:01:00.000-08:00

Yes, it bears repeating.

Maggot-ridden sacks of steaming, useless...

2006-03-17T06:27:00.000-08:00

Its been noted by others, but bears repeating as the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad approaches: the conservative punditry of this country has become a de facto mouthpiece for White House propaganda, shamelessly shilling for a radical right ideology against all reason, integrity and moral principle. As we move forward, and the administration continues to carefully cultivate the culture of fear, xenophobia, and the “you’re with us or against us” perversion of patriotism they created in a naked grab for permanent, imperial rule, it pays to remember these words. And these.

Muslim Hummer Babe

2006-03-16T06:45:00.000-08:00

One of the many blessings of living and working in New York City is being a spectator to the circus of delightfully unexpected, laugh out-loud funny, and not infrequently, deeply disturbing scenes of humans going about their lives. So what to make of this: a devout-appearing Muslim woman in full, understated head garb cruising through the streets of Manhattan’s Upper East Side in a fully tricked-out, highly chromed, truly gargantuan Hummer. And not just any jackass, penis-extending Hummer, but a screaming yellow one, in the color earlier generations seemed to feel was more appropriate for taxis, school buses, and earth-moving equipment. Among the many questions that demand answers, how many cup-holders do you suppose a vehicle like that has anyway?

SUPPORT THE FEINGOLD CENSURE RESOLUTION!

2006-03-14T17:12:00.000-08:00

'nuf said (for now).

Dazed and Confused

2006-03-14T05:55:00.000-08:00

Is it just us, or is anyone else flummoxed by the fact that, among the long longer longest list of assaults the administration has visited on the foundations of our representative democracy, the biggest political hit has come in response to approving the sale of managerial services for six US ports from one foreign entity to another? While appreciating the irony that the basis of resistance to the deal stems directly from the culture of fear and xenophobia that Vice President Cheney and company have cultivated so carefully over their tenure, in comparison with the administration’s many actual crimes, the import of this particular instance of incompetence has to rank well below something like, oh, say, lying about an oval office blow job.

And so on a related note: our position on Senator Russ Feingold’s recently introduced censure resolution? Guess.

Bush Goes Vindaloo - Extra Hot

2006-03-07T09:14:00.000-08:00

Soft, chewy naan, warm from the oven, the subtlety rich interplay of spices in a creamy Chicken Tikka, the wholesome satisfaction of a simple Saag Paneer, and maybe a touch of something fiery hot for contrast. As a great culinary critic once noted, he who doesn't love Indian food is truly and righteously wacked (or words to that effect).

But it is a balancing act, requiring delicate rounds of negotiation, sensitivity to the tastes and gastrointestinal well-being of others. Indian restaurants are best sampled in packs of companions, and even in a small group there’s likely to be at least one vegetarian, an otherwise normal-ish sort who’s bizarre, self-imposed dietary hell must be accommodated. Then there is the adventurous one who, despite the emphasis on sharing, and vocal protests, insists everyone will love the baby lamb anus tartare. (This is the same person who, when the dish arrives, smelling and tasting like the ass it is, will blame the disappointment on a new chef managing the kitchen). Whether to go spicy or mild is debated amiably, and the outcome is predictable; a bit of each. Dramatically over-sized Indian beers or American, samosas or mixed appetizers, and extra servings of fragrant basmati? Important considerations all, and reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution is, after all, part of the delicate dance that makes a trip to your local Indian joint such rousing fun.

Over the course of the 2004 Presidental debates one, if not the only, issue on which the President and Senator Kerry were in complete agreement was that nuclear proliferation represents the single biggest threat to our national security. Differences were expressed about the success of Bush’s efforts, and the merits of Kerry’s plan for dealing with the threat, but there was no disagreement on the underlying point. Driving home the conclusion, debate moderator Jim Lehrer summarized this rare instance of accord, asking, “So it's correct to say, that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree, if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?” Both candidates readily responded in the affirmative.

So if anyone could actually bear to pay attention any longer, Bush’s recent visit to India might come as something of a shock. Against the backdrop of hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets, where the only location that could be secured for the President to offer an open address was the New Delhi Zoo, a poverty-riddled country where the Commander-in-Chief’s contingent of guard dogs was housed in a five-star hotel (the staff of which was instructed to not referred to them as dogs because they are officially members of the U.S. Army), the President graciously responded in the manner befitting a great Emperor, noting that, “"I have been received in many capitals around the world but I have never seen a reception as well organized and as grand as the one I just received … the horses that led us in added great elegance to this welcoming ceremony”. Never mind that the security situation was far too volatile for Bush to address the Indian Parliament, as Bill Clinton did before him - the multinational corporate interests in attendance were well aware of their appropriate role, fawned accordingly, and were rewarded handsomely.

On behalf of the American people, President Bush abandoned four decades of carefully negotiated policies, from Republican and Democratic administrations alike, aimed at curbing nuclear proliferation. Once again, rabid economic ideology trumped human survival – after all, by encouraging the development of Indian nuclear power technology, we can get this booming, brown-skinned horde off our backs in the competition for increasingly scarce oil resources – score! And if the cost is allowing India to dramatically increase the size of their nuclear arsenal? Its really none of our business because, after all, they never signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the first place. The U.S. is a principle signatory, of course, and the fact that Bush has just violated that Treaty on our behalf? Well maybe we’ll just have to live with that because, to do otherwise would be pre-9/11 thinking, it would encourage the evildoers, it would tell the terrorists they won, or some such. And if the administration’s policies encourage other to pursue similar, matching nuclear ambitions – say an agreement between Pakistan and China, to take a random example? Or if batshit crazy regimes in places like North Korea and Iran use our own breach of international concensus to implement whatever batshit crazy plans come to them in a batshit crazy fever dream?

Basically, Bush is the office acquaintance that you mistakenly think might be a nice addition to that group you go out with for Indian every so often. He shows up, makes stupid, loud cracks about the sitar player’s bare feet, asks the server what’s up with the dot on her forehead, and proceeds to order for the entire table. “Chicken Vindaloo all around! Fuck that spinach crap – Chicken Vindaloo! Extra spicy! Oh, and maybe a side of them lamb assholes.” The Budweiser flows, he demonstrates how he can sit cross-legged, pretends to charm an imaginary cobra from a basket with an imaginary flute, and other seriously annoying jackassery.

Naturally, as the one responsible for this horror, your friends look to you for a solution, to tell this worm, “fuck off dickhead”. Will you?

Neoconservatism: Evolution Stalled

2006-03-03T07:40:00.000-08:00

Research reported in today’s issue of GeekWeek demonstrates that chimpanzee’s will work cooperatively toward a common goal - such as retrieving a food tray that cannot be obtained by an individual animal - but that they’re fine with screwing over a partner when they can go it alone and hog all the booty for themselves. Interestingly, when mutual cooperation was required for these lovable furry ancestors to snatch a treat, they would immediately abandon a previous partner if they could hook up with another chimp more skilled at such tasks. The authors spin their findings for an audience interested in the evolutionary foundations of human behavior, suggesting that the roots of collaborative social interaction are phylogenetically conserved.

Of course the real story here is that the data definitively prove that neoconservatives are a subhuman primate species, more closely related to apes than homo sapiens. Think about it – cooperative collaboration with others only as necessitated by a profit incentive – go it alone whenever possible – a lack of respect for the needs and desires of others – a callous willingness to abandon ties to friends in favor of maximizing personal gain – an inability to mount an effective disaster management response to a category 5 hurricane in the Gulf, despite many days of warning. Okay, this last one wasn’t actually tested in the study cited, but can anyone honestly claim a bunch of chimps would have come off Katrina looking much better (or worse) than Brownie, Chertoff and the rest of Team Bush?

Otherwise, aren’t these traits the defining features of modern neoconservatism, and the driving ‘principles’ behind the administration’s policy initiatives, foreign and domestic? Unifying parsimony is a hallmark of sound scientific interpretation, and in that context, it is interesting to consider whether the same evolutionary failure that gave rise to the neoconservative subspecies might also account for the President’s frequently noted, and disturbing, resemblance to a chimpanzee. Although speculative, that issue clearly merits further investigation.

Come for American Idol, Stay for the Revolution

2006-02-26T09:25:00.000-08:00

For all the glaring incompetence of the Bush administration, aren’t you starting to get at least a little pissed off at your fellow citizens? Seriously. What do these numbfucks need to do before Joe Blow Average wakes up and says, “yo, s’nough!”.

Maybe its just the density of the assault – that day after day after day (read that part over ‘til you hit 2,000 plus) there is fresh evidence that the administration couldn’t care less about what the people who put them in office think, much less the people who wouldn’t vote for them if their short hairs were on fire and Donald Rumsfeld was the only one around with a water pistol. Think about it – it won’t take more than a few minutes, and it’ll only hurt more if you put it off. There is not a single coherent policy position of this administration, conservative or moderate, morality-based or pragmatic, secular or faith-based, in any sphere that is the responsibility of our elected officials.

Domestic security? No sentient creature on the face of the earth could seriously claim at this point in time that threats to our security (and everyone else’s) hasn’t spiked sharply as a direct consequence of Bush’s befuddled and hostile policies and actions. Can you honestly say you’d be surprised if Iran lobbed a nuclear bomb on someone tomorrow? Or if we did? You’d be horrified, of course, but surprised? Don’t think so.

Foreign policy? What foreign policy? Seriously, is there a coherent agenda – whether you agree with it or not – that the US or any other country can look to that might predict the administration’s response in any given situation? And please, preemptive war in service of “spreading democracy” hardly counts as a policy. The words sounded superficially reasonable the first few thousand times Bush mangled them, but lately you get the impression even his heart isn’t in it, like he can’t wait to move on to something important. Baseball commissioner maybe.

Economics? Record deficits, mostly resulting from huge and regressive tax cuts for the super rich, during a period of active military engagement are unheard of from either party. This isn’t a matter of partisan politics, its just plain stupid. Combined with a soaring trade deficit, the administration’s lack of attention to the near-term crisis of Medicare/Medicaid funding, their contribution to the Medicare/Medicaid liability crisis via the corporate giveaway prescription drug benefit, the historic decline in real median income levels, the lack of effective intervention against the historic rise in healthcare costs, fuel, housing and other expenses, the tanking of personal savings to pre-depression era levels…, well, you get the picture.

Individual and civil liberties? The NSA surveillance program, the Patriot Act, the incremental erosion of reproductive rights, degradation of long-standing protections in virtually all spheres of public life, persistent and concerted efforts to limit constitutionally mandated congressional oversight of executive branch activities, reconfiguration of the US courts on the basis of multiple considerations other than judicial temperament and competence, an historic reversal of commitments to minority voting rights and protections, the abandonment of any pretense toward civil liberties for minorities combined with advocacy for racial and ethnic profiling…, well, again, you get the picture.

Research and development in the public interest? This administration is the first in modern history that has so openly twisted, manipulated and lied about scientific data that there is hardly a single, qualified expert in the country willing to advocate on behalf of the White House. To the contrary, the white-coated, pocket-protected, ill-kempt hordes of nerds who are usually quite docile about such matters have repeatedly spoken up over the last six years to point out – in proper, scholarly jargon, of course – that Bush et al. are avowedly anti-science, anti-intellectual, that political and economic calculations have consistently trumped demonstrable facts, that our environmental policies (such as they are) are business policies, that the President has proved all too willing to conflate religious belief with empirically-derived knowledge, and in summary form, that the administration is both full of shit, and thrilled to death to spread that shit around as though it might actually be true – providing, of course, it in some way advances their agenda (whatever that agenda might be on any given day).

And all the other shit people actually care about. There is not a single area of simple, basic government function in which the administration has achieved success. Not one. And to the degree they have pursued new initiatives, those that have been tested have proved to be remarkable flops.

Reorganization of the nation’s security apparatus in this ‘post 9-11’ era? Let’s see: the most ineffective response to a natural disaster in the history of the country, a widespread program of illegal domestic surveillance directly authorized by the President, involving orders that subordinate government employees repeatedly commit felonies, the cavalier dismissal of America’s long-standing commitments to the humane treatment of prisoners of war and the rule of law, a remarkable predilection for ignoring qualifications, talent and anything other than political patronage in the appointment of individuals to key positions (think Brown, Bolton, Chertoff, Kerik, and Miers, for starters), and, of course, the pleasant trait of smearing anyone and everyone with the temerity to point out the ugly truth of the administration’s utter incompetence, including a long list of individuals with distinguished careers of public service and personal sacrifice. The administration’s treatment of people like Richard Clarke, Max Cleland, John McCain, Paul O’Neill, John Murtha, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, General Shinseki, Joe Wilson and other lesser known individuals speaks volumes about the absence of common decency and moral grounding underlying their overheated value-oriented rhetoric.

And still there’s more. Much, much more. Investment in college education? Against a background of skyrocketing costs, loan funding continues to lose ground. The cost of home heating fuel? Forget it. Environmental protection? The worst record in history, erasing decades of hard-fought gains in a matter of a few years. Poverty? Sure, more than ever, and plenty more where that came from. But not to worry – faith-based initiatives are taking up the slack, from feeding the hungry, to educating your kids, and preaching the magic of abstinence as the cure for everything from sexual desire to the common cold. Towing that line has required a little finesse on the whole ‘oath of office’ bit, what with the responsibility to uphold annoying constitutional details like the separation of church and state, but hey, as they say in Texas, 'you can’t clear brush without burning down a forest or two'.

And so, in a cosmically just universe, Bush may return as the pretzel caught in some other criminally immoral president’s trachea, Karl Rove may find himself lost and floating down a lazy river with the faint refrain of banjo picking building in the distance, Donald Rumsfeld might find himself wondering about his future from a cozy little spider hole of his very own, and Dick Cheney…, well, poor Dick Cheney’s future ‘undisclosed location’ might be any number of fun places around the world managed by graduates of The Guantánamo Black Site Abu Ghraib Bagram School of Hotel/Motel Management – places where the likelihood of unfortunate quail hunting accidents is minimal. These things, of course, are not ours to decide.

But what is ours to decide is how we respond in the here and now, while we have a chance. Any individual crime, or subset of crimes, of the Bush administration might be forgiven as the inevitable shortcomings, or honest errors, of mere mortals. After all, nobody’s perfect and it’s a rare life indeed for which the final ledger tallies a far greater number of positives than stupid mistakes and regrets. Remember those leather bell bottoms with fringe you figured were totally hot? Big mistake, big mistake. But at some point, you stood up, took a cold accounting and accepted responsibility. And you were better for it.

Can it be long before the same thing happens when the American people look to Washington? Can it be that much longer before we finally realize what a horrible mistake we’ve made entrusting our security and future – and the security and future of the world – to the Bush administration? Can the moment be far off when we finally put a check in the positive column of our collective ledger by saying, “enough already”? At some point the burden of responsibility for misdeeds shifts from those who perpetrate those crimes to those who stand idly by and do nothing to stop it, passively giving consent. At some point even those who endorsed the vision – a vision that became evil and corrupt - need to stand and be counted, to say clearly, “not in my name”.

Is that time now? Or should we wait ‘til Idol’s over?

As Mindless Distraction Goes

2006-02-23T12:44:00.000-08:00

THIS is exceptionally good.