Wednesday October 30, 2002
Had a conversation about abortion today. My friend tried to equate abortion to capital punishment. I was making the argument that the woman is an actual citizen, and the fetus is a potential citizen, and the citizen's rights have to take precedence. My friend replied, "Well, isn't that like capital punishment? Some people make the case that people on death row are tumors, malignancies." He asked, "Didn't Hitler think the same way?" My reply was that there is no equivalency between the the two. Capital punishment kills citizens, breaking the same laws that we've used to condemn them. Hitler denied humanity to those he opposed. I'm not denying humanity or life or anything. I'm denying that the fetus is a citizen. I argued that it is not a citizen until the baby is born. He replied, "But a baby isn't independent after it's free from the womb." And he's right! But it is 1) Free from the mother. That baby can be given to another mother, or to a hospital for care. 2) Given rights under our laws. "Viability" isn't the issue - that's why this whole trimester delineation is a bunch of crap, and it just muddies the waters.
The pro-life anti-abortion crowd knows that this is the crux of the matter. Don't let them fool you! That's why they've been making subtle changes to insurance rules to allow the fetus to be eligible for care and reimbursement independent of the mother. Because they know that if they extend the rights of citizenship to the fetus (de facto making it a citizen, even if it's never codified) then they've sown the seeds of their victory.
So, my question is this: Why won't they try to make the case legitimately? Make the case that the fetus is a citizen. Why try to make an end run around the issue? Make your best argument.
If any of you get harangued by Rightists over the memorial rally for Paul Wellstone last night, ask them to justify this mailing.
And then ask them why it's wrong to celebrate a man's life at the time of his death. Or do they want nothing but black capes and mourning? Could it be that they're afraid that their politicians couldn't muster more than a torpid funeral march?
According to this report from Josh Marshall, Republicans in South Dakota are resorting to push-polls to smear Tim Johnson.
"The questioner first asked a few generic questions: leaning more toward Republicans or Democrats, more likely to vote for Thune or Johnson, etc. And then he asked: 'Have you heard about the investigation going on about fraud in registering voters?'"Boer said yes.
"'And if it was told to you tomorrow that it was Johnson's campaign that was responsible for this [fraud] then would that change your vote?'"
Tuesday October 29, 2002
Hyatt points out an extremely funny article about the actions and misbehaviors of this crop of Survivor and Amazing Race characters.
Is Christopher Hitchens really a journalist, or a semi-inebriated drummer for a washed-out classic rock band?
You be the judge.
A note about the antiwar demonstrations here in the US, and the state of political activism here:
In Italy, on September 14th, between 180,000 and 500,000 people (according to the estimates of local officials and organizers, respectively) turned out into the streets of Rome to protest the conflicts of interest that plague the Berlusconi administration and the timidity of their left-wing leaders in confronting the issues important to Italians. Even the low estimate is nearly double the number that appeared in D.C. this past weekend. And that's from a country with a population of only 56 million.
Eschaton reports that Dick Morris called Bush a pussy, and the NYPost has an article by Dick Morris about "Bush's Fall", echoing commments that Atrios quoted. But Dick then goes on to say that Bush needs to rachet up the anti-Iraq rhetoric, and set a deadline for attacking. Otherwise, people will forget that Saddam Hussein has us under seige and could destroy us at any minute. Really he could. Really Really.
Bush decides to not attend the Wellstone funeral (read "snub"). His excuse? There's no precedent for the President attending the funeral of a sitting Senator. Uh, not quite true, Ari (read "you lying ratbag!").
Could it have something to do with the fact that Senator Wellstone voted against the Iraq resolution? Or could it be that Bush is just too busy campaigning?
MediaWhores follows with a link to a side-by-side photo comparison of the rallies for and against the Iraq war (the "war war now now" rally sponsored by the Freepers, apparently). Here are links to images from the huge anti-war rally that was held in San Francisco. I like this one.
Ah, lots of news this morning, much courtesy of MediaWhores . (Oh when are they going to have article permalinks?)
MediaWhores points out that the Washington Post has printed a letter from Paul Begala, refuting Ari Fleischer's recent denial (in the same paper) of Bush's outrageous lies. During his letter, Ari made a statement about Clinton's "crime that shook the nation". Paul's response:
"The lawyer in me is compelled to point out that President Clinton has never been charged with nor convicted of a crime. The same cannot be said of President George W. Bush who, of course, was convicted of drunken driving many years ago. To his shame, in the 2000 campaign Mr. Bush falsely denied ever having been convicted of a crime."The political veteran in me knows that lying about a long-past drunken driving conviction -- or an affair -- is understandable, if not excusable. What is not excusable is misleading the country -- repeatedly, as The Post and others have noted -- about going to war. There is something odd about a White House that thinks misleading people about sex is a crime, but misleading us about war is good public policy."
Monday October 28, 2002
Seen at MediaWhores, news of how the US is not giving Germany support in the hunt for Al Quaeda, after Schroeder refused support for the Iraq war. Here's the NewsHour article referred to at MWO, and here's a quote:
"At a time when U.S. intelligence agencies are warning that al-Qaida has regrouped and is threatening to launch a fresh wave of attacks against U.S. interests, both at home and overseas, the authorities here in Hamburg say their investigations into the activities of al-Qaida supporters have run into a problem."They say they're not getting the cooperation they need from the authorities in the U.S.A., and they're worried that a political dispute between Washington and Berlin is hampering their ability to protect the public.
"It's been four months now since President Bush and the German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder, once warm allies, have spoken to one another, after the German leader infuriated the White House by ruling out support for U.S. military action against Iraq.
"In Hamburg, the police say that breakdown in communications between the U.S. and German governments has also led to a dramatic reduction in the amount of investigative help they're getting from the U.S.A."
And here's a bit of an interview with Hamburg's top police officer:
"BOBO FRANZ, Hamburg Police: I am quite sure that there is more information, but they didn't give us that information. And that is a problem for us because we have not been able to act, to handle this case without having information."SIMON MARKS: Is that frustrating?
"BOBO FRANZ: Yes, in a special way it's frustrating, because in my opinion it is not the way which we can go when we want to fight against international terrorism.
"SIMON MARKS: The situation is so bad, that last week Hamburg's state secretary, Walter Wellinghausen, traveled quietly to Washington for direct talks with officials at the CIA and the FBI."
What does our government have to say?
"In response to NewsHour inquiries, the U.S. Justice Department and FBI in Washington also said they would not comment on their relations with German law enforcement."
Lula wins the run-off for President of Brazil.
CNN's headline? "Leftist wins Brazil's presidency by a landslide"
If CNN had been as biased in their reporting during the November 2000 elections, what would the headline have been? "Rightist radical christian-armageddonist conservative crony capitalist wins by a cheat"?
Interesting note about the vote (from the article): Serra voters didn't necessarily vote against Lula because he was a liberal. Here's what a Serra supporter had to say:
"'Lula doesn't have experience to govern,' Conde said. 'To rule a country like ours, which is dominated by the United States, it is necessary to have a lot of experience and a firm hand. Serra showed he has that.'"
That's right: a supporter of the candidate that the world-marketeers (and the Bush administration, of course) wanted elected talking about the domination of Brazil by the US.
Hopefully Brazil's new president can and will stand up to the intimidation of the plutocracy that's leading his country around by the nose, and hopefully he can make some positive changes for the people of Brazil.
Sunday October 27, 2002
100,000 protest the war with Iraq, it gets daylong play on CSPAN, but I saw nothing about it on CNN, and a 5 second blip on headline news.
Here's the short piece that the CNN website mustered up to describe the event.
Saturday October 26, 2002
Seen first at Eschaton: "A voice for the 'little fellers'"
"In his first trip to the White House, he buttonholed President George Bush for a harangue on the inadvisability of war, and Bush reportedly said afterward, 'Who is this chickenshit?'"
Paul Wellstone's death caused a small buying spree on the stock market, as capitalists everywhere salivated at the thought of a one-party government.
Friday October 25, 2002
Wednesday October 23, 2002
Arriana Huffington, incensed by the administration's latest anti-drug ads ("the ones where innocent-looking, middle-class teens admit their culpability for the consequences of the drug trade"), posted an article yesterday proposing a counter-ad campaign:
So how about using the same shock-value tactics the administration uses in the drug war to confront the public with the ultimate -- and much more linearly linked -- consequences of their energy wastefulness? Imagine a soccer mom in a Ford Excursion (11 mpg city, 15 mpg highway) saying, "I'm building a nuclear bomb for Saddam Hussein." Or a mob of solo drivers toodling down the freeway at 75 mph shouting in unison, "We're buying weapons that will kill American soldiers, Marines and sailors! Yahoo!"
People have taken to the idea, and the National Resources Defense Coucil decided to set up an account to raise money to have the ads made. Hopefully they will soon create a website to make donations easier.
Jeffrey Rubin's latest editorial in the NYTimes, "Brazil's Democracy Takes a Chance," points out one of the more insidious aspects of "free" markets: they tend to do everything in their power to stifle democratic choice. As Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva powers towards his victory in the October 27th runoffs, he has had to campaign not only against opponents, but against the world market as well. As Mr. Rubin states in paragraph three:
The disruptive potential of markets has been apparent throughout the presidential campaign. As soon as Mr. da Silva surged in the polls last spring and foreign observers realized that his Workers' Party might govern Brazil, international banks warned investors to beware. Immediately, Brazil's currency — the real — began a precipitous decline. Central bank efforts to bolster the real by increasing bank reserve requirements and raising already high interest rates do not appear to be helping.
This market influence over elections is unfortunately just as insidious and blatant here in the US, but it has been that way for so long that only when we see it in action with some objectivity can we truly grasp its corruptive and anti-democratic power.
Market capitalists seem to believe that their capital investment is somehow equivalent to citizenship. But that could not be further from the truth. At the core of what we believe about citizenship, more fundamental than our belief in participation and community, is the concept of loyalty. While business leaders stake out moral high ground by claiming that their businesses spur job growth and community, their position is undercut by their lack of country allegiance, lack of loyalty to the people that are at the core of any of their business ventures.
What is happening in Brazil is a clear example of this. These capitalists have decided that democracy is not in the best interests of Brazilians, and they have decided to punish the Brazilian people before they even get a chance to exercise their right to vote. Instead of a government by the people, Brazil finds itself governed by an offshore plutocracy bent on shaping everything from economic policy to fundamental social contracts. Mr. Rubin writes:
Supporters of unrestricted free trade believe that democratic citizens must endure dire poverty and wait for market-generated wealth to improve income levels. In contrast, Brazilians are deciding, democratically, in the course of a long and much debated political campaign, that they would like to modify some basic arrangements.
The Brazilians are having none of it. Lula surged in the polls after the real started falling. He is sure to win the runoff in 5 days. Will the markets react by pulling out of Brazil? Or will they realize that their high-handed anti-democratic efforts have probably done nothing but help elect the candidate that they opposed?
If domestic and international investors run from Brazil in the face of a victory by Mr. da Silva, it will be impossible to expand these innovative policies or implement new ones. And if the very existence of debate about a society's economic bargains leads investors to strangle the economy, then change will be impossible, and democracy will have been defeated.In that case, we would have to revise commonly held views about international support for democracy and recognize a different truth: the international community supports democracy in developing countries so long as it doesn't do much more than efficiently administer the status quo.
If international markets continue to conspire to quash social and economic reforms in Brazil after Mr. da Silva is elected, is Brazil truly democratic? And what if the people still crave democracy and justice and a better life after their hopes for democracy are crushed by external forces? Do you believe that they'll stand idly by like Americans and watch their government become a vapid, polluted wasteland of entrenched corporate excess? Or might these modern-day robber barons end up sparking a new and bloody revolution?
Tuesday October 22, 2002
Montana State Senatorial candidate Mike Taylor, last seen doing some old-skool hairdressing in an opponent's attack ad, has jumped back into the campaign with the slogan "Countdown to Decency."
How's 'bout "Countdown to Dumbass" instead?
The Washington Post has the first mainstream, national news article on the President's lies: "For Bush, Facts Are Malleable"
However, they're not called lies. In fact, the only places that you can find the word "lie" on the page are encased in the words "tax-relief", "earlier", and "supplied". "Lying" only shows up in the word "implying".
The Post goes so far out of its way to avoid the use of the word "lie" that it talks about Ronald Reagan's "apocryphal story about liberating a concentration camp," Nixon's Watergate "denials" and Johnson's "truth-stretching." The Post, who hounded Clinton mercilessly during the 90's, goes so far as to call his statements in the Lewinsky witch-hunt "fibs".
But what are the facts that they are discussing?
1) Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were 'six months away from developing a weapon.'" Unfortunately, this is a lie. The report doesn't exist. Now the White House says that he was referring to an internal intelligence document (to which no one in the media has access). How convenient.
2) Bush "warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the United States.'" Lie. "Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States."
3) Bush "said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy 'for a long period of time.'" Lie. "[T]he customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago."
Do we need to have these things tattooed on our foreheads so we don't forget? Our President is simply lying about serious domestic and international matters in order to drum up support for his policies and war plans. Washington Post, why can't you call a lie a lie?
Monday October 21, 2002
Do Republicans ever emotionally graduate from the boorish behaviour that propelled them through their high school years? Doesn't seem that they do.
Yay! MediaWhoresOnline is back from vacation! Some headlines to coax you over to the site:
"Jeb, White House Freak Out As McBride Surges!"
"GOP Spreads Blatant Race-Baiting Lies!"
"McBride Sweeps Florida Newspaper Endorsements!"
"Democrats Refuse Russert-'Moderated' Debates: Candidates Just Say No to Disgraced Imus Suck-Up"
"NRA GROUP SAYS MARYLAND DEMOCRATS MAY BE BEHIND SNIPER: Gun Nuts Go Berserk"
Saturday October 19, 2002
Washington Post: "N. Korea Issue Irks Congress":
"The White House withheld North Korea's admission about a nuclear weapons program from key Democrats until after Congress had passed its resolution authorizing war with Iraq, prompting complaints on Capitol Hill that the administration has let politics influence its conduct of foreign affairs."
"Bush remained silent on the North Korea developments yesterday for the second day in a row, although he continued to use speeches along the campaign trail to condemn Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as 'a true and real threat.'"
Friday October 18, 2002
Via Eschaton I came across this link to Josh Marshall's reporting on the "voter fraud" in South Dakota, which was supposedly going to hurt the Democrats.
But now it seems that two reporters for the TV station that has been pushing the story are in bed (perhaps literally in one case?) with members of Republican John Thune's campaign. Both reporters are now off the story, and it makes one wonder if there's even a story after this, other than the pile of legal trouble that should be dumped on the TV station and the Thune campaign.
NYTimes editorial day: Paul Krugman's "Springtime for Hitler" and Nicholas Kristof's "Bait and Switch". Both deal with, directly and indirectly, the malicious disregard that the Rightists holds for the truth. Mr. Krugman talks about how the Republican Rightists have started comparing their opponents to the regime of Adolph Hitler, and Mr. Kristof lays bare the notion that democracy can appear anywhere (like in Iraq, for example) with the wave of a magic wand.
In "Springtime for Hitler," Mr. Krugman comments on a fundamental behavior of authoritarian regimes (and the Bush administration): repeat something often enough and it takes on the patina of truth. One gets the impression that if any arbitrary thought is out in public view and repeated ad nauseum, it will somehow become true even if it has been refuted by the facts. From the article:
"The strategy used to sell the Bush tax cut was simply to deny the facts — and to lash out at anyone who tried to point them out. And it's a strategy that, having worked there, is now being applied across the board.
"Michael Kinsley recently wrote that 'The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting.' All I can say is, now he notices? It's been like that all along on economic policy.
"You see, some folks must be under the impression that as long as something is repeated often enough, it will become true. That was how George W. Bush got to the top."
Mr. Kristof's piece talks about the nonsensical belief that somehow democracy will spring forth whole from the lopped-off head of Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq will blossom into a new age of freedom and capitalistic delights:
"We haven't even been able to nurture full democracy in modern, bustling Kuwait, where women still cannot vote, or in Saudi Arabia, which is more egalitarian — neither men nor women can vote."
"'There will not be a democracy in Iraq, not a real democracy,' said Mohammed Al-Jassem, editor of the newspaper Al-Watan in Kuwait. 'That would mean allowing a Shiite state. America and the gulf countries cannot afford that.' The rise of a Shiite state in Iraq could strengthen Iran and lead to clashes with Shiite minorities in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries, he warned."
"Of course, even a nicer tyrant — Saddam Lite — would be a huge improvement for the Iraqis. But I'm afraid that the prattle about creating a democratic model on the Tigris is just a shrewd White House marketing attempt to bait and switch."
Thursday October 17, 2002
Bill Kristol asks the question, "Has anyone had a better six weeks than George W. Bush?"
Since the stock market has been tanking and unemployment is on the rise and consumer confidence is waning and a sniper is stalking the D.C. area and airlines teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and Northern Ireland is slipping back towards conflict and Israel and Palestine inch closer to an extended war in the region and the Brazilian economy has been crushed by the fact that the Brazilians might actually vote for someone of their own choosing...
...it's possible that Bush wins the prize by default.
Kristol continues, waxing eloquently on Bush's clarity, toughness, straightforwardness, his possession of an "impressive clarity of presentation and lucidity of argument." But these are all just codewords for simplemindedness, arrogance, and bellicosity.
Now, according to Kristol, Bush must put on his game face and pretend that he actually gives a damn about what the UN thinks, about what the American people think (the majority that thinks he should work in concert with the UN on any military action), about what our military leaders think, until it's time to drop the hammer. And, well, if some dissembling is required, Bill's sure that W.'s up to the task.
But 5 days has passed since Mr. Kristol's comments. What has happened since then? The UN rose up in opposition to Bush's resolution, France continues to stand opposed to it, North Korea emerges as a much stronger threat than Iraq could ever be, and we find out that if any war plans are being drawn up, they're not being drawn up by the people who have the most stake and the most experience.
Maybe we should ask the question "Who has had a better week than George W. Bush?" Well, the sniper, for one. The rest of us are still screwed.
Does the news that North Korea has a nuke program mean than it's now a more dangerous regime than Iraq? Is regime change required? Is disarmament required? Should we start quietly positioning American troops in the region?
Wednesday October 16, 2002
Just when I thought that America had reached its surreal nadir comes the news that Donald Rumsfeld might be planning the Iraq invasion without the help of the uniformed service chiefs. That's an article by Bob Novak, by the way. Novak's a hard-core conservative, but I think that the Bush administration gives even Bob Novak the heebie-jeebies. Here's the final paragraph:
"I asked a senior, well-informed Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of President Bush, whether the U.S. military was preparing for war with Iraq with sufficient force to cover all possibilities. 'They better have,' he replied. When I rephrased the question, he gave exactly the same answer. He does not know, and neither do some gentlemen with four stars on their shoulders."
Next comes this article from the Washington Post: Rumsfeld's Style, Goals Strain Ties In Pentagon. Here are some select paragraphs:
"Indeed, nearly two dozen current and former top officers and civilian officials said in interviews that there is a huge discrepancy between the outside perception of Rumsfeld -- the crisp, no-nonsense defense secretary who became a media star through his briefings on the Afghan war -- and the way he is seen inside the Pentagon. Many senior officers on the Joint Staff and in all branches of the military describe Rumsfeld as frequently abusive and indecisive, trusting only a tiny circle of close advisers, seemingly eager to slap down officers with decades of distinguished service. The unhappiness is so pervasive that all three service secretaries are said to be deeply frustrated by a lack of autonomy and contemplating leaving by the end of the year."
"'There is a nearly universal feeling among the officer corps that the inner circle is closed, not tolerant of ideas it doesn't already share, and determined to impose its ideas, regardless of military doubts,' said Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute who has close ties to defense contractors and the military."
"All three service secretaries were recruited from private industry to bring 'best business practices' to the Pentagon and promised autonomy in making management reforms. But all three find their actions constrained by Rumsfeld and what is referred to as his small 'palace guard,' according to Pentagon insiders."
"Others are far more pessimistic. 'Things are more fouled up [at the Pentagon] than I've ever seen them,' said one former defense official sympathetic to Rumsfeld."
"'The depth of disaffection is really quite striking,' added one defense consultant. 'I think Rumsfeld is courting a rebellion.'"
So there you have it: the Bush administration, which has been seen as a failure on economic issues but an overachiever on the foreign policy/military front is exposed as utterly inept across the entire political spectrum. And there's more evidence (if we even really needed it at this point) that a small cabal of people is shaping aspects of our national policy secretly without oversight or consultation, and without accountability to anyone, be they civilian or military.
Tuesday October 15, 2002
Via the always-updated Eschaton comes this link to an article at Reason Online on the new logo for the government's "Information Awareness Office":
From the article: "Suppose you're devising a logo for a new wing of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an office charged with developing intelligence tools and integrating the government's existing surveillance networks. Suppose that it has a vaguely sinister name—say, the Information Awareness Office—and that it's to be run by a former Iran-contra conspirator. What would your design be?
If you work for the actual Information Awareness Office, created earlier this year with one-time National Security Adviser John Poindexter at its helm, you'd depict a Masonic eye-in-the-pyramid blasting a sci-fi death ray across the globe."
And from the same article, here's the image that the Patent and Trademark Office used to illustrate "Homeland Security" in the April edition of their "Pulse" newsletter:
The latest Zogby poll shows Democrats gaining ground in the midterm election races, and Jeb Bush seems to be in trouble.
Bush wants to make a distinction between terrorism performed by Muslims and terrorism performed by right-wing gun-nuts:
"'First of all, it is a form of terrorism, but in terms of the terrorism we think of, we have no evidence,' Bush said. 'But anytime anybody is randomly shooting, randomly killing, randomly taking life, it's coldblooded murder. . . . And we're doing everything we can to capture whoever that might be and bring them to justice.'"
Monday October 14, 2002
Thomas Friedman has an editorial on the erosion of security here at home, acknowledging that the sniper moving around DC actually poses a terrorist threat. He also puts the Bush administration on the spot:
"Frankly, I don't want to hear another word about Iraq right now. I want to hear that my president and my Congress are taking the real steps needed in this country — starting with sane gun control and sane economic policy — to stop this slide into over here becoming like over there."
Sunday October 13, 2002
Bush calls the Bali bombing "terrorism", but what does he think about what's going on around D.C. now? He calls it cowardly and senseless. But not terrorism, George? Is it because you're in the pocket of the NRA that you won't call this guy's behavior terrorism?
Friday October 11, 2002
CNN, apparently not content with the results of their first poll this morning (Do you agree with the choice of Jimmy Carter for the Nobel Peace Prize? 91% Yes, 9% No), has added a new poll: "What aspect of Jimmy Carter's work is most deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? 1) Presidency 2) Post-presidency 3) Both are equally important." (Currently 2% Presidency, 66% Post-presidency, 32% both)
The poll results will certainly be brayed about on Judy's show at 4, and I imagine that Wolf will have an entire 15 minute segment devoted to analyzing them.
How many Republicans will hit the airwaves today to decry Carter's Nobel prize win as a cynical ploy by the world to make Bush look like a warmonger in comparison?
Am I surprised that the House and Senate voted the way they did? Not in the least. Will I be surprised if we're cruising into Iraq (cruise missiles, that is) before the end of the year? Not at all.
Will I be surprised when the Republicans blame someone else if things start to go wrong?
Josh Marshall points out Eugene Scalia's conflict of interest in his oversight of the longshormen/PMA dispute:
"But it turns out that Scalia has a bit of a conflict. Before he became Solicitor one of his legal clients was -- you guessed it -- the Pacific Maritime Association. Click here to see the key page of Scalia's public disclosure statement, which has just been added to the TPM Document Collection."
Calls for Mr. Scalia to recuse himself have gone unheeded. Did anyone expect otherwise? Josh asks, "Can't we expect better?" I'll eat my hat the first time one of these unelected Republican wingnuts takes responsibility for the consequences of any of his actions.
Wednesday October 09, 2002
Guardian: White House Exaggerating Iraqi Threat
Below is just a brief preview of this surprising article:
"David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.
"Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: 'There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA.'
"Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: 'The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent.'"
Monday October 07, 2002
I hate to miss Bush's speech to the nation that he's doing in front of a crowd of supporters, but I'd rather watch something that's intentionally funny, like Drew Carey, or something that's intentionally scary, like Fear Factor.
So much talk about usability, but what I want is reliability. And no one has it. Not the computer manufacturer, not the software manufacturer, not the Operating System, not the Internet provider, not the Web servers.
And in America, we have so pathetically capitulated to the market that we accept this unreliability as a given. And we've accepted that a once-reliable service, our phone system, is now as unreliable as our computers. All for a little more convenience?
I sure hope this lack of rigorous standards and practices doesn't leach over into the health-care technology industry. Wouldn't you be sad if your brain scans came out fuzzy, or your pacemaker only worked when you were "within range"?
Sunday October 06, 2002
After getting beaten up by celebrities ever since taking over the White House, asserting all the while that the celebs were all nutcases and useless, the Republicans were effervescent when they heard that Steven Spielberg supported Bush's position on Iraq.
Turns out that it's just not so.
Watched some of the morning news shows today. What did I see?
On Meet the Press I saw Richard Perle -- scumbag warmonger and adviser to Dick Cheney -- pathetically attempt to decouple Bush's pre-emptive force doctrine from the war they're about to engage in Iraq. He proceeded to exclaim that inspections won't do a lick of good. So much for that sham of an overture to the United Nations. I wonder what Bush has planned for tomorrow. More dissembling, perhaps?
On that CNN 3 hour monstrosity I saw Wolf Blitzer push his "War is good for the economy!" cheerleading onto Robert Reich and Steve Forbes. He went out of his way -- twice -- to plug the economist who had told him of the windfall that awaits us once we bomb the shit out of Iraq.
I saw nothing but mere 1/2 second clips of the protests that occurred this weekend in the US. In addition, 20,000 people marched in Milan against the war, 10,000 in Rome, and it didn't even get a mention.
Friday October 04, 2002
Wolf Blitzer plugs an economist's view that war will stimulate the economy.
Wolf has been blitzing for war regularly now on CNN - they even staked a new show on the war actually happening: "Showdown: Iraq"
You outside the US -- you think I make this shit up? 12:00pm on CNN (weekdays).
I think the HTML page title of Doug Forrester's "issues" page (and all the subpages of his candidacy website) says all that needs to be said about what Doug Forrester is about: "Forrester, Inc. 2002"
If you can stomach them, read Andrew Sullivan's comments today, and understand why the political right in this country is so utterly pathetic and bereft of even the most basic intellectual honesty. Read Nick Kristof's piece in the NYTimes, where he describes his recent conversations with Iraqis. Read how he tempers his remarks by noting the oppressive regime in Iraq, and how people feel compelled to not voice opposition to Saddam Hussein, and how he felt that he got some honest reaction out of people after their tongues were loosened with quantities of arak, the national drink:
"Public opinion is very difficult to gauge in a dictatorship as brutal as Iraq's, where reporters are mostly accompanied by government minders and where anyone who criticizes Saddam risks having his tongue amputated. It takes quite a bit of arak, the national drink, before conversations even begin to get interesting."
But despite this, here's what Andrew Sullivan had to say about the piece:
"USEFUL IDIOT WATCH: Nick Kristof goes to Baghdad and finds people ready to attack the U.S. Quelle surprise! In a police state where the tiniest dissent on the tiniest matter can have you disappeared and tortured, Kristof deduces no support for a U.S. invasion. Let's check in and see what happens if we do invade, shall we? We have long memories in the blogosphere, Nick. And little pity."
The fact is that Mr. Sullivan's comments are a singular example of American rightist spin. If you ever watch an episode of Crossfire or tune into CSPAN in the mornings, what you'll see is simply an extension of this behavior: utterly misrepresent an opponent's arguments, and take no responsibility for your deception. If you pass this first phase without being challenged, other rightists will immediately pick up the ball and run with it, repeating it on radio and tv ad nauseum, until the next "scandal" erupts.
This is a sickness of the mind, and I have no idea how anyone can challenge it. It's so absurd on its face that one feels that the deception should be obvious to everyone. But the right is such a hotbed of vapidity that these comments actually gain traction. And with Fox News, they get wide dissemination.
What's left to do? What's the left to do? This nonsense is actually winning the minds of the people in this country, and it just confounds me.
The feeling is akin to getting beaten up by a gang of clowns: both surreal and all-too-real.
Democrats.org flash animation on Social Security privatization. CSPAN is going to be having open phones about this animation this morning (which you should be able to watch at CSPAN.org if you have Real Player).
Wednesday October 02, 2002
One Vote Away by Nicholas Confessore.
"The preferred tool of retrenchment, however, is cutting taxes... For professional conservatives... tax cuts are a means... government is starved of revenue, endangering even popular programs like Social Security and Medicare."
"And that's the point. Bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and you bankrupt two programs that are pillars of the Democratic Party and of Washington's involvement in national life, denying voters popular government services and, over the long term, divorcing them from the very idea of government as a force for good. Similar thinking animates the conservative mania for education vouchers. That experimental voucher programs have yet to prove effective is of little consequence to conservative strategists, who see them primarily as a way to shrink the government. 'If you went to complete school choice, you'd take half the state and local government and make it, in effect, a part of the private sector,' muses conservative strategist Grover Norquist. 'If you take Social Security, and allow people to put some of that money in the market, that privatizes a quarter of the federal government. The smarter guys on the right want to accomplish those two things and then the flat tax.'"
Tuesday October 01, 2002
Holy snot! Those guys weren't smuggling uranium! They were smuggling something much worse! Zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese! Someone wake me up when this terrorist nightmare is over!
Thanks to Eschaton for the link.
