Eisegeses

2010-06-14T02:53:00.004-04:00

Standing Against Insanity

Amid all the news of the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf, and the incompetent response and cover-up by BP and the U.S. government, new reports of likely war crimes and crimes against humanity by the U.S. have surfaced. Medical practitioners, working for the CIA, experimented on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in order to find newer, "better" interrogation methods. These are the same prisoners that are largely innocent, held for purely political reasons, tortured and held for years without hearing or trial. Some, as I'm sure you know, were not only innocent, they were kids, pre-pubescent when captured.

I cannot find the words to express the depth of my incredulity, disappointment and anger over this. It wasn't enough for America to imprison innocent people for years, or to needlessly torture, or to imprison (and probably torture) children. Under Bush and Cheney, they had to conduct medical experiments to test the limits of human endurance, so that they could improve their torture methods. Unconscionable? Horrific? I don't know where to begin.

Obama has said that his administration will not prosecute crimes committed under the Bush Administration, stating that he prefers to "look forward." This is pure hypocrisy, though, as the DOJ has made it clear that this "look forward" policy only applies to the crimes committed in the name of the U.S. government, and not to those Americans who have tried to expose the inhumane practices of the previous Administration.

I believed that I grew up in an America that didn't do these things; an America that stood, and died fighting, against such horrific acts. In Germany, where far worse acts were committed a generation ago, neo-Nazis exist openly because it is a democracy, but their rallies routinely draw more protesters than supporters, and good people place their politics before business to avoid supporting the neo-Nazi apologists and revisionists. I see little of this outrage and intolerance of evil in the U.S.

I believe that action is needed. The crimes of the past cannot be buried with the past, but must be prosecuted. Unfortunately, there are no electoral votes in changing course. Healthcare benefits people directly and can influence votes; a single successful (or even unsuccessful) act of terrorism will shift votes. Ensuring justice for those we have been told to fear has no such direct political benefit. Despite the political calculus, America must stand against such crimes, not just in the strong words of a vocal minority, but through the rule of law that makes American democracy possible. Today I sat down and wrote an open letter to President Obama, submitting it to the White House and publishing it on this blog. More than just letters is needed, but it's a start. Maybe together we can end this complacent spiral into insanity.

2010-06-14T02:43:00.005-04:00

An open letter to President Obama.

Dear Mr. President,

I voted for you in 2008. Your victory night celebration in Chicago was one of the great moments in American history, and it marked a personal milestone: the first time in my life that I wanted to be a part of American politics; when I believed Washington had a chance of living up to American values of justice and liberty.

Your policies on the worst abuses of the Bush Administration—continuing torture, indefinite detention without evidence or hearing, NSA spying on Americans and refusing to hold war criminals accountable—have been steadily eroding the optimism that you and your election created. Instead of turning around these abuses, you have endorsed them and, in some cases, expanded upon them.

You have said that you want to look forward; not back. Fine. Look forward. What kind of country will we have when future Administrations are firmly above the law? What kind of country will we have when "medical experimentation" on detainees is excusable? What kind of future will Americans face when everyone, everywhere, knows that Americans kidnap, torture and murder innocent people with impunity?

This is not the country that I grew up believing in. It is not the future that I hoped for when you stood in Grant Park and stated, by both your words and your presence "yes, we can!" It's not the America that I want for my daughters.

As President, you stand tall. Will you stand for oppression, or for humanity and justice? Don't let "looking forward" continue to be an excuse for allowing horrors to be committed in your name, and in mine.

Thank you.

2008-06-08T08:00:00.002-04:00

Bush Incompetent on Security

This is interesting:

the U.S. government under the Bush administration has been uniquely vulnerable to the intelligence schemes and foreign policy freelancing of discredited individuals and deemed fabricators such as Manoucher Ghorbanifar, and potentially even counterintelligence threats of an Iranian or other nature. It details how top officials in the Bush administration endeavored to permit such an ill-advised channel, took affirmative measures to conceal it in order to bypass the professional intelligence service, and then took steps to protect their role in the matter by shutting down the counterintelligence investigation launched by the Pentagon and to stall the Senate probe.

In simpler terms: President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their trusted lieutenants allowed themselves to be conned, ignoring the warnings of more experienced intelligence professionals in the CIA and elsewhere.

Bush and Cheney are bad for U.S. security.

2007-12-31T22:30:00.000-05:00

Bush Laughs at Congress

You may recall that the Senate, rather than going into recess over the holidays, has been holding pro forma sessions in order to prevent Bush from engaging in any of his usual recess appointments and other shenanigans. This is not just Democratic maneuvering; Bush has been on track to tie President Reagan's record-setting two hundred forty-three recess appointments over two terms.

Except for one minor snag.

President Bush has decided that pro forma sessions by the Senate doesn't mean that Congress is “in session.” He has stated his intent to pocket-veto the new defense policy bill. Without having raised any previous objections.

As the Daily Kos points out, there's no case law and no statutory law to give guidance in this case. Only two cases have been heard by the Supreme Court on the matter. The Supreme Court has established that if one House is in session, then Congress is not considered ”adjourned,” and that if Congress is adjourned for less than three days, a pocket veto was not allowed, while adjournments of five months or more were long enough to allow for a pocket veto. Between three days and five months? The Court is silent. What about pro forma sessions? Also silent.

So what this boils down to is that the lawyers in the White House know their case law, and the President has decided to have a little fun with the Democrats in the Senate. If the White House is sued over this, it will establish a clearer definition of “adjournment,” but not for years; long after Bush has left the White House.

The Democrats could decide that this constitutes a high crime or a misdemeanor, deserving of impeachment.

No, wait. They took impeachment off the table.

So the Senate cannot do anything about this in the next few years.

However, if they don't, then they'll have legitimized the White House's stance, opening the way for recess appointments. The Senate is in a pretty pickle, and I can hear Bush laughing at them from way over here.

Bush is such an asshole.

2007-12-31T20:51:00.001-05:00

Two Years

It's been two years since my last post.

I'm shocked; I wouldn't have thought it more than a year.

It's been a busy time, yada yada yada.

The truth is, I haven't had the heart. Bush & Co., the neo-cons, have been very successfully destroying all that was good about this nation. Their corruption makes the Nixon Administration look like a bunch of amateurs. Almost no one has stood up to them. No one has made a dent. My previous missive on the fate of the Great Experiment still stands two years on. I hate to keep saying “we're doomed,” so I haven't said anything.

However, we're moving in to a new election. The policies won't change, much, but the actors will. It's an opportunity to think about the system that is American politics, and why it is so destructive. A chance to compare and contrast, and see the similarities imprinted on candidates by the system. While I'm working on this, posting may pick up. Maybe there'll be a post a month, instead of a post every two years.

Echoing Edward R. Murrow, I can only wish you good luck.

2005-12-06T19:03:00.000-05:00

Bush & Co., Decent Men All

For some reason, this reminded me of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Not in a good way.

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Translation by Stephen Mitchel. DailyTao.org Widget by Glen Sanford.

2005-11-27T07:45:00.000-05:00

Further Evidence

Further evidence that Bush and his cohorts are taking their lead from the Nazis of 1930s Germany. Perhaps most tellingly is this quote, from the end of the post:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials

2005-11-19T17:07:00.000-05:00

How ridiculous…

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

From Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post. Nicely written.

2005-11-19T11:31:00.000-05:00

American Students Embrace Jack-Booted Fascism

Now here's one I missed. Nearly a year ago, the BBC reported that a study of U.S. high-schoolers found that the students largely reject basic freedoms. About half think that newspapers should not be able to publish news that is not officially approved by the government. Over a third think that the First amendment goes "too far." Seventeen percent think that people should not be allowed to express unpopular views.

In the "just plain false" category, half think that the U.S. government has the right to censor the internet, and two-thirds think that it is illegal to burn the American flag.

Sound familiar? Sound like things Bush has said? If not, then you haven't been paying attention. There is, of course, the famous "there ought to be limits to freedom" quote, but there is also the Patriot Act and innumerable other decisions and actions that have eroded basic freedom.

Mind you, in totalitarian countries, the things America's high school students believe about America really are true. In fascist countries, theses things are true. In China, they're mostly true. In a land of freedom and democracy, they cannot be true. They are incompatible with the very foundations of democracy. And yet American students believe them. Accept them. Support them.

So, where does that leave us?

The U.S. is finished as a democracy. Oh, I hear you arguing "but they're young and impressionable; we can show them the light; there's lots of good about this country; it's still the best country..." Right. Let's think about this.

First, there's about seventeen million high school students in the U.S. Apparently, they're not well-educated, or they don't care about democracy. Apparently, whatever medium is currently conditioning them is working against the basic tenants of American democracy. How are you going to counter this? One child at a time? With seventeen million high schoolers, you'll never make the least dent. Not unless you can gain control of the same medium that is currently turning them against America.

Second, recognize that children are a reflection of the times. If today's children are against basic freedoms, all they're really doing is picking up on the trends of America as a whole. It's not just the high schoolers that are the problem. They've grow up in an environment—a system—that has taught them that "the First amendment goes too far." We're talking about a country where half of the people support torture! So focusing on the students is, at best, only going to partially alleviate the problem. The real problem is the country as a whole. America is against the basic freedoms of American Democracy.

Sure, it's not the whole country. There's a range. A broad range. If you haven't noticed, I'm way over on the Left, and I have friends who are even more liberal. But the average—the center—is clearly on the side of limiting freedom. Of "de-scoping" democracy. Of creating a safe, strong, (fascist) State.

Just like Bush, Cheney and the other rich elites want. With them in charge (because, after all only they know how best to protect you), and you and me as little wind-up toys.

How do you fix that? How do you change the system that is American democracy to be, well, more American?

I don't know. I've hardly even heard anyone thinking along these lines (with the possible exception of economist and columnist Paul Krugman).

Maybe Bush and Cheney are self-destructing. Maybe they'll drag the Republican Party down with them, like Nixon did. But if you think that'll be the end of it, you're mistaken.

Their legacy lives in today's students. The damage is done, and unless we fix the system, it will only grow. The next generation, having been acclimatized to the anti-American ideals of the neo-conservatives in Congress, the White House and the media, will be more willing to limit freedom than the last. For the most part, they won't even see it as harming democracy.

America is finished. It's dying of a disease that most Americans are utterly blind to, because the only way to see it is to give up pride and patriotism and look critically at that which you have always been taught was best: your country. The only way to fix the system is to break it, and no one is willing to give up the safety of the current system for the uncertainties of improvement. That safety may be an illusion, but at least it's a known factor.

The neo-Cons know this, and they've spent more than two decades telling Americans what to be afraid of. Most, if not all, of it has been bullshit, but Americans have bought it. The next generation has clearly bought it. And as long as Americans are afraid, the anti-American neo-Cons win; American democracy and values lose.

Update: It seems that Bob Harris is thinking along similar lines. Which is somewhat reassuring. Of course, he says it with so much more style.

2005-11-18T13:01:00.000-05:00

I am:
-4%
Republican.

"You're a damn Commie! Where's Tailgunner Joe when we need him?"

Are You A Republican?

2005-09-10T15:56:00.000-04:00

The Callous Bush and the Callous Louses He Surrounds Himself With

Bob has a nice run-down of the outrages perpetrated by Bush & Co. during Hurricane ~~Corrina~~ Katrina. Bush staying on vacation while people died. Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney attending a baseball game the night after the levees were topped. Condi Rice going shopping for shoes after the levees were topped. Bush stuffing the leadership of FEMA with people who had no experience and no credentials, except for the head of FEMA, Mike Brown, who lied on his resume (let's ignore, for a moment, the gross incompetence and dereliction of duty of the Bush White House and Republican senators who confirmed Brown's appointment without actually checking it…talk about croonyism). Bush and team, under the leadership of Karl Rove, saying out of one side of their mouths that this isn't a time to assign blame for the disaster relief fiasco, while out the other side of their mouths blaming local and State officials for the Federal government's failures. There's more. Go read.

That's Hurricane Katrina to most of us, but to the Bush family, it's Hurricane Corrina. (thanks to Bob for that one, too)

Just in case it hasn't set in yet: the Bush family doesn't care about Americans. The entire Bush White House doesn't care. They're the kind of callous, rich buffoons who sit around their dining room and remark at what a good thing a hurricane can be for the "under-privileged."e; Let me reiterate my point of a few days ago: if you voted for Bush, then the deaths along the Gulf are largely your fault.

2005-09-06T13:37:00.000-04:00

Look How Far We've Come

Norman Solomon reminds us:

"True compassion," Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." He accused the federal government of demonstrating "hostility to the poor"—appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity" but providing "poverty funds with miserliness." Four decades later, de facto hostility to the poor remains government policy, and its results include widespread deaths in New Orleans that could have been prevented.

2005-09-04T09:38:00.000-04:00

Did You Vote for Bush?

Then the human tragedy in New Orleans is your fault.

Don't like that? Think it's a little harsh? Are you whining that hurricanes are no one's fault, that you didn't choose for people to live below sea level? Got some other excuse?

Get over it.

You voted for Bush. That gave Bush the responsibility and authority to see to the safety of Americans. Bush ignored everyone and chose to underfund levee maintenance and to even reverse wetland restoration that would have mitigated some of the impact. Bush moved 40% of Louisiana's National Guard to Iraq in an effort to ~~eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction~~ ~~eliminate State-supported terrorism~~ show people the U.N. means business ~~stop the suffering of Iraqis~~ secure Mid-East oil for U.S. cars and power plants. Bush did nothing—zip, zilch, zero—to prepare for a category five hurricane, even as it was approaching New Orleans.

Instead, Bush enjoyed himself on his spacious Crawford ranch, and then, when it was too late to do anything, claimed that no one "anticipated the breech of the levees."

I hear some of you mumbling something about balancing priorities, war on terror, homeland security, blah blah blah.

Those are excuses dreamed up by Bush's political hacks, you fucking parrots.

Bush is incompetent. Grossly incompetent. His incompetence has killed men, women and children in New Orleans. His incompetence separated children from their parents, and some of them will never be reunited.

What's that you say? Getting all defensive now, are we? Claiming that people would have died anyway, because New Orleans was never prepared for a category four or five hurricane, so we can't blame Bush (or you?) for that?

Poppycock.

Bush made it worse. He underfunded the levees. He reversed the wetland restoration projects that would have reduced the storm surge and made the New Orleans levees that much more effective. He didn't push for an evacuation of New Orleans. He didn't encourage the Governor of Louisiana to call up that State's National Guard.

He sat on his ass.

People died because of Bush.

A competent leader would have prepared. A competent leader would have planned ahead.

Bush is totally, completely reactive. He's so reactive that he actually believes that there was nothing that could have been done ahead of time.

You know people like this. Bush is one of those grossly incompetent middle-managers who seem to float up in an organization that's too afraid to fire incompetent people. He can't do anything worth-while. You can't trust him with real work. You don't want him on your team because he'll do a tenth of the work, stick his hand in other people's work just enough to screw it up, claim credit for the successes, and then sit back and tell you that it couldn't have gone any better given the uncertainties and make-up of the team. He's the kind of manager that you wish upper management would just fire, damn it!

And you voted for him!

So look on the human tragedy in New Orleans—most of which could have been avoided—and raise a glass to yourself; you made this happen.

And here's the best part of it: if you don't acknowledge your duplicity, you'll make the same mistakes the next time you vote. If you don't learn from this history, you'll repeat it, and more people will die.

Welcome to the world you made.

2004-12-31T08:52:00.000-05:00

Holiday Spirit

Update: The U.S. has increased its pledge tenfold, to $350 million, with that number to change “as the full effects of this terrible tragedy become clearer,” according to President Bush. So now the U.S. is giving about $70 per survivor. I sincerely hope that it's enough to prevent further deaths.

The day after Christmas, the nations of the Indian Ocean suffered one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters in years and the most deadly tsunamis in recorded history (see the entry at the Wikipedia for details). More than 126,000 people are dead, and many tens of thousands are expected to die of starvation and disease, possibly doubling the death toll.

In an unprecedented show of holiday spirit, the United States, the wealthiest nation on Earth, has pledged (not delivered) just $35 million. A few dollars per death. The World Bank has offered $250 million, the UK government and public have offered $140 million, and “officials estimate that billions of dollars will be needed.” The U.S. is spending between $133 and $177 million per day to just occupy Iraq.

Bob Harris has some more nice comparisons to show the meagerness of the U.S.'s offer.

Further down Bob's page is a nice list of ways you can help out where your government won't.

2004-12-10T09:23:00.000-05:00

On Honesty

I'm going to start a repeating theme: honesty. Too often, people�especially people in the public light�lie, or stretch the truth, or otherwise distort things in their favor. Politics�especially the politics of Presidential elections�are widely characterized by this sort of deceit.

It hurts us. It hurts us as individuals and it hurts us as a nation. It should be obvious that basing government on "little" lies can only lead to a nation characterized by lies. More than that, Americans see their nation as standing strongly for freedom, democracy and justice. When politicians lie or distort the truth, they sacrifice justice directly, and democracy and freedom quickly follow. The impact of those lies probably hits most quickly among the peoples of the world outside the United States—the very people that Americans hope to help and act as role models toward.

Such lies, from official representatives of the United States, are also betrayals of the American people, because Americans value honesty very highly; it is a key characteristic of the "rugged individualism" that Americans shape their lives around. Americans don't lie, because we stand up for our own values and principles. Except, of course, when someone lies for us.

It hurts us as individuals on two fronts. First, garbage in leads to garbage out: ordinary people, fed false or misleading information, end up making bad decisions—decisions that they would not agree with in light of the honest facts. Second, it provides a poor role model, and encourages everyone to follow suit: when the truth is maleable and depends entirely on perception, then nothing is really a lie and everyone can lie about anything. Eventually the lies and the truth become mixed up, so that people start believing their own lies.

The brilliant physicist Richard Feynman probably put it best in a 1974 Caltech Commencement Address (since republished as "Cargo Cult Science"):

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

Where he says "other scientists," substitute the group you're talking to: "colleagues;" "friends;" "family;" "Americans;" "people."

So the main thing is to be honest with yourself, and then it's easy to be honest with the people around you.

In the future, I'll explore the public spaces, and show where the above principle is repeatedly violated, and the negative (sometimes disasterous) effect this has on us all.

Eventually, I hope you'll agree with me that we must hold ourselves and our public figures to a higher standard than we've been allowing in the past few decades.

2004-11-10T11:00:00.000-05:00

Freedom and the American Way Beaten By Nation of Walking (and Voting) Morons

Here's a law of nature for you: people believe what they want. They can believe facts, or they can believe authority. The majority of Americans don't know facts from their arses, and instead fall prey to oft-repeated lies and their own imaginations. For example, two-thirds to three-quarters of Bush supporters believe the following falsehoods:

that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;
that Iraq was a major supporter of the 9/11 terrorists;
that the majority of the world supports the U.S. in its persecution of Iraq,
that Bush favors multilateral approaches to major issues like nuclear weapons proliferation, land mines, prosecution of internation criminals and global warming;
that Bush favors including environmental and labor standards in trade agreements.

None of these has ever been true. Some of them Bush has never stated; the ones he did say (weapons of mass destruction, link between Iraq and Al Qaida) were demonstrably false at the time Bush said them. On multilateralism, Bush's record has been clear: the U.S. does not need partners. Or, stated in Bush's "native" Texan: "Fuck all y'all."

Don't know if there's a connection, but similar percentages of Americans believe in ghosts, the Devil and Hell.

If nothing else, it ties in to my previous post. The majority of Americans believe in entertainment; not facts or reason. What this country needs is a good magician to run for President. I wonder if David Copperfield has any plans for 2008?

2004-11-04T07:54:00.000-05:00

Bush Wins...Fuck

So I've kept quiet through the last months of the election season. Despite the polls, and the profusion of Kerry lawn signs, I thought it was pretty clear that Bush would win, and there was no way of stopping it.

What makes me such a genius? Nothing, really. People just don't like change. People like security. Scratch that. People like security blankets. Doesn't matter if they're actually secture, just so long as they're not the one rocking the boat. Being in the middle of a new and interminable war (I mean Iraq, though "terror" isn't a bad fall-back position�nice one, Karl) is the perfect reason to vote for the incumbent. Those of you who think otherwise are in the minority, in case you hadn't noticed.

I also have little respect for the Democratic political machine. Republicans long-ago realized that, in the era of television, the public face of politics is entertainment, no different than Bugs Bunny and Baywatch. The Dems still think reason matters both in D.C. and on T.V. They are wrong. Kerry didn't have the charisma to win. I think that's what made Clinton such a good, modern-era President: he had both the charisma to beat his opponents and the head to handle the policy. Bush is, at best, only half the President that Clinton was, but he's got it where it counts in the polls.

Of course, the Repugs have engineered�or at least leveraged�this situation. They push entertainment-as-politics, sacrificing reason, facts and reality. Fox News, Limbaugh, Coultier and the rest exist for one reason: to mask reality with entertainment; to draw a crowd. The republican willingness to sacrifice everything in order to win is what put Bush in office in 2000. It's why liberals think the neo-cons have all sold their souls to the devil. Liberals are right, but being right doesn't win elections; grabbing the electorate's attention does.

So we have a little Stalin in the White House for at least four more years. The neo-cons get to have their wet dreams of conquering the world, of remaking the U.S. as the Soviet Union. Unless Bush becomes the man he could be, the rest of us are fucked, and there's no way he's going to get any better when he only has contact with the likes of Cheney and Rove.

2004-09-08T08:43:00.000-04:00

New Links

Just want to bring your attention to three new links over in the "Democracy" section on the left. Electoral Vote Predictor Map provides a map of the United States, showing the current electoral college leaning of each State in the U.S. Presidential race. You can see if your State is strongly, weakly or barely for one candidate or the other, or if you happen to live in a State that's perfectly torn between them. The same site offers the Electoral College Graph, which shows the electoral college votes over the past year. Based on polling data, of course. Finally, State By State 2004 provides you access to the polling data, and will generate a U.S. State map based on your criteria (e.g. you can see only likely voters over the past two months, excluding certain polls).

Enjoy.

2004-05-27T07:43:00.000-04:00

Just So We're Clear

Here's a nice comparison of Bush's Vietnam record and Kerry's. Two salient points:

Bush did everything he could to get out of serving in Vietnam; Kerry made a special request to serve there;
Bush was AWOL and discharged without any honors or commendations; Kerry has a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts.

Remember how the Republicans made all that noise about Clinton's lack of service? Where are those two-faced humps now that they've managed to put a deserter in the White House?

Remember this come November: Bush is a coward and a liar; Kerry is a man of integrity. Who you gonna vote for?

2004-05-26T09:25:00.000-04:00

The Long Silence

It's been a busy year.

It's also been a depressing year.

Bush is a liar. A consummate liar. The President of the United States of America, our leader, the leader of the free world, is a bald-faced liar. Mutherfucker.

The Armed Forces of the United States of America, who are supposed to defend freedom, democracy and inalienable human rights, are chock full of a bunch of sadistic fucks who think it's fun to rape, sodomize and murder people. Not just at Abu Ghraib, but throughout the ranks. These assholes represent the rest of us Americans to the world. These same fucks are Christians. God Damn.

The war on terror (or terrorism or terrorists? Are we fighting a concept, an activity or a people? Does Bush even know?) hasn't been so much a war against terror as a war against human rights, led by none other than the leader of the free world, U.S. President George W. Bush. If that doesn't seem quite right, as if the leader of the free world should be protecting and promoting human rights, well, too bad; you're not President.

Which brings us to the best of the good news: al Qaida's ranks are swelling. Given the above good news, who wouldn't want to kill Americans? I figure the only silver lining is that al Qaida might do Americans a favor by going after the bastards who got us in this mess. Unfortunately, given al Qaida's record it seems far more likely that innocent and well-meaning Americans (and people of other nationalities) will be their targets.

And given that al Qaida is growing stronger, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are about to tell us that this should be our Summer of Fear, except that, you know, Bush and his pack of rats are a bunch of liars, so maybe their "credible threat" just means that they're afraid Bush might lose the Presidential Election again, and they figure that paranoid, frightened Americans are more likely to vote for the incumbent Rat-Fuck In Chief than someone more honorable and capable.

In summary: the United States of America, led by a President who was not elected, is leading the charge in a "war on terror" that is actually increasing the threat of terrorism, and at the same time is widely and systematically violating human rights across the globe, making the world a worse place; not a better one. Americans who believe in equality, freedom and democracy are being portrayed by their government as sadistic, corrupt and evil. Americans believe in a United States—in an American Way—that stands for freedom and equality for all people, but America presents a very different, much more malignant face to the world. Remember: you reap what you sow.

So, all this is by way of saying "sorry for not posting since February." Sometimes it's hard to even know where to start.

2004-02-28T16:58:00.000-05:00

Bush Thinks Teachers are Terrorists

On this past Monday, February 23, Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called the National Educator's Association a "terrorist organization."

Say again? The people who work for slave wages teaching—even babysitting—our children for eighteen years are, get this, terrorists.

To a functional illiterate, they might actually seem a bit terrifying. But terrorists?

Is this the guy you want leading the country? Is he really a good a role model for your children and the person who should lead us forward to the future?

No way in hell!

The NEA has more on this, and a petition you can sign letting Bush know that you don't agree with this language and calling on him to fire Secretary Paige.

The Dems also have a petition calling on Paige to appologize. Paige has already appologized, but it's good to let him and his boss know that education is important in this country, and not an act of terror. Go sign. The fact that the Dems aren't calling for Paige's ouster either means that they tacitly agree with him, or that they're a bunch of spineless wimps. Either way, signing their petition is a strike against Paige; not support for spineless Republican-wanna-bees.

Remember this when you go to the polls in November: Bush doesn't want education in this country. Check someone else's name.

2004-02-28T07:46:00.000-05:00

Bush Doesn't Just Lie, He Ignores Facts

As I have pointed out here many times, Bush is a liar. He also lives in a fantasy world. Let's be clear about this: the leader of the free world, the guy in command of our military—the best military in the world—the guy whose decisions determine the fate of the world, that guy lives in a fantasy world. That guy does not have a bead on reality. The guy is dangerously out of touch. Worse, he's willfully, intentionally, out of touch with reality. And not just when it comes to invading Iraq and killing civilians and U.S. soldiers. Let's look elsewhere for examples. Let's look at science. Science is an interesting field. It doesn't work by the same rules as politics. In science, it doesn't matter how loudly or adamantly you state your beliefs. The final arbiter in every scientific discussion is Nature herself. If nature doesn't do it the way you think, then you're wrong. End of argument. Politicians spend their whole lives trying to pretend that they're right. Scientists spend their whole lives finding new ways to prove themselves wrong. It's critical to recognize the role that science plays in public policy. Scientists spend their time collecting information; policy makers spend their time making decisions. We all know that good decisions are made by well-informed people. How often have we said this about our bosses? "The upper management is totally out of touch; they're making bad decisions." Decision-makers need good information, or they make bad decisions. Science needs to inform the policy-making process. Policy makers need to seek out scientific information and use that to make good decisions. Scientists deal in probabilities ("chance of rain is 20%"); policy makers deal in exact decisions ("this is how it's gonna be"). A policy maker needs to accept the inexactness of science, and make the best decisions possible. What kinds of decisions need to be informed by science? Well, anything that has a physical component. Pollution, lead in paint, mercury in fish, building codes, the environment, global warming, and so on. So how are Bush's decisions informed by science? To put it plainly: they aren't. Bush approaches science the same way he approaches politics: whatever he says is just as valid as what anyone else can say. "You say Mother Nature's gonna rain on me? I say 'no she won't,' therefore the won't!" Impressive conviction, but I'll take my umbrella anyway. Bush suppresses scientific information whenever it might prove his convictions wrong. Scientific studies find that there are antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" surrounding hog farms? Bush says: don't publish that report; let farmers get sick and die! Utilities are releasing enough mercury in to the environment to cause neurological damage in one in twelve women in the U.S.? Bush says: sit on that report for nine months so our campaign contributors don't look bad! The Bush administration has been adamantly insisting that global warming is a "liberal myth" intended to hurt Bush's supporters. The Pentagon recently released a report calling for immediate and significant action to curb the threat of global warming. The Pentagon report states that even if the likelihood of global warming is small, the potential impact on U.S. and global security is severe, and steps must be taken, today, to avoid global warming. The World Bank's Extractive Industries Review commission has released a very similar report, recommending that the World Bank curtail spending on the development and use of fossil fuels and drastically increase spending on renewable energy sources. Of course, Bush has so far managed to ignore the Pentagon's report. The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently issued a report finding that Bush has consistently distorted and suppressed information critical to the welfare and health of U.S. citizens. The blurb on their website reads:

Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; nd undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether.

Bush would have you believe that the only thing that matters is what he says; that his convictions can overcome reality. As if the health and security of the U.S. could be decided like a Harvard debate. Mother Nature is not so accommodating. People will get sick no matter what Bush's convictions. No matter how strongly Bush stands by his policies, pollution will kill people and alter our environment in ways that could, according to the Pentagon, destroy civilization in the U.S. and Europe. It's time for the people of the U.S. to decide what they want: a President so out of touch with reality that he won't act on the facts, or a new President that bases his decisions on reality. Come November, vote for anyone except Bush. According to the Pentagon and scientists everywhere, the fantasy world that he lives in will kill your children.

2004-02-03T08:42:00.000-05:00

Let Them Eat Cake

or: get fat and stupid, America!

Such is the response from the Bush administration to a recent World Health Organization (WHO) strategy for fighting obesity, diabetes and related illnesses worldwide. "WHO's own studies show that unhealthful diets and physical inactivity have become the leading causes of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer throughout the world." Their strategy calls for promotion of healthier diets (you remember the food pyramid, don't you? No Big Macs there!), limiting advertising for certain kinds of foods (high-calorie fast food and the like) and promotion of healthier snacks in schools (essentially breaking the grip the coca Cola has on the vending machines and cafeterias in U.S. public schools). Seems reasonable, from a health perspective. We all know that eating junk food results in obesity and related illnesses. Sure, the linkage is somewhat complex—it also depends on activity levels and normal level of metabolism—but it's clearly there. Eat a Big Mac and fries at McDonald's every day and you'll get fat. Bush is an avowed fitness nut, so this must be something he'd want to support. What's more, two years ago he said that he expects more "personal responsibility in America, I expect there to be corporate responsibility as well, and we will hold those to account who do not uphold those high standards in America." You'd think he would be all over supporting the WHO's strategy. Oh...wait...what's that you say? Bush lies? Right. The official word from the Bush Administration isn't "let's get fit." It's "well, maybe the linkage isn't direct enough to warrant action" and "people, not corporations, should take responsibility for their actions" and "we don't mind seeing your children with diabetes, just so long as we keep getting $200,000 contributions from companies like Kraft, Atria (Phillip Morris) and Safeway." Remember, Bush doesn't care about you or your kids. He cares about money. Come November, vote him out of office! A few parting thoughts, from the article:

And it's time for the U.S. government to take some responsibility itself, and stop hindering parents' efforts to instill healthful eating habits in their kids. Forgotten in the daily barrage of junk food ads is the way the government actually encourages these very corporations. Under U.S. tax law, for example, most corporate advertising is tax deductible. So next time your kid throws a tantrum because you don't want to buy her another Big Mac, you might recall that your tax dollars are helping to pay for the ads that induced your child's snit. The obesity lobby has developed a welfare mentality, and it's past time for the Bush people to show some tough love. It should stop � right now � the tax break for advertising of junk food, and advertising to children generally. No more taxpayer-subsidized meddling in the American family. No more corporate welfare to goad kids to throw tantrums for Whoppers, Cokes, M&Ms and the rest. The President himself should take some personal responsibility for this step. He should call Lanny Griffith and Rob Leebern, lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers of America and Coke, into his office. He should tell them that even though they each have bundled $100,000 to the Bush 2004 campaign, the time has come for them to decide whether they are going to be part of the problem or part of the solution � and that the government isn't going to help them anymore if they persist in the former.

2004-01-27T06:25:00.000-05:00

Bush AWOL While Others Died

You've probably seen it by now, but it's worth summarizing.

To escape service in Vietnam, Bush attempted to join the National Guard
Despite having the lowest admissible exam grades, he was sworn in and promoted to second lieutenant
By mid-1971, Bush was at various times AWOL and insubordinate
He was discharged with honors eight months before his obligation was up, just in time to head off to Harvard

Michael Moore has the details in two articles and a video clip.

2004-01-24T09:22:00.000-05:00

Good Christians All, Rejoice…

…your name and contact information is being sold for profit by the very organizations "doing God's work." You do like being called by all those telemarketers, don't you? Oh, Catholics, Republicans and other conservatives, your organizations are also selling your privacy. (link via Counterspin)

2004-01-24T06:59:00.000-05:00

No WMDs In Iraq

Until Friday, David Kay was the U.S.'s chief weapons hunter in Iraq. He has stepped down, and told reporters

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said. "I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," said Kay, who returned from Iraq in December and told the CIA that he would not be going back. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about," Kay said. In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush again insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programs right up to the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March. "Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

So, two chief weapons inspectors, whose job it was to search for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and weapon programs in Iraq, have called Bush a liar. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq it was the U.N.'s Hans Blix, who the Administration basically dismissed as being easily duped by Saddam Hussein. Now it's the U.S.'s own David Kay, who was the man to get the evidence that Blix was too stupid to find. No intelligence agency in the world claimed that Iraq had any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program after the 1991 Gulf War, except Bush and Cheney's special unit within the Pentagon that consists of long-time proponents of an Iraq invasion (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, among others). Five hundred American servicepeople dead on the ground in Iraq in support of Bush's invasion and occupation plan. Five hundred dead because Bush lied, and continues to do so. And the Republican-controlled Congress won't do anything about it. Come November 4, don't vote for Bush; don't vote for Republicans. Anyone would be better than those lying, murdering SOBs.

2004-01-23T08:24:00.000-05:00

Yeah, Bush Cares About Homeland Security

The Bush Administration has decided to "try out" electronic voting over the Internet in this year's primary and general elections. The public face on this idea is that the six million or so Americans who have to fill out absentee ballots—civilians and military personnel—will have a more convenient means of casting their vote. As anyone who uses the Internet should know, the Internet is not a very secure medium of communication. Computers connected to the Internet are routinely hacked; Web pages are sometimes "spoofed"—a process of one website pretending to be another, usually to obtain personal information (e.g. credit card numbers). A group of researchers took a look at the prototype system, and they conclude that the security Internet voting is fundamentally and irreperably flawed. According to their work (and the daily experience of millions of Internet users), online voting would allow hackers to alter votes, prevent blocks of voters from voting, and just monitoring the votes of individuals.

The flaws are unsolvable because they are fundamental to the architecture of the Internet," said David Wagner, assistant professor of computer science at UC Berkeley. "Because the danger of successful large-scale attacks is so great, we reluctantly recommend shutting down the development of SERVE and not attempting anything like it in the future until both the Internet and the world's home computer infrastructure have been fundamentally redesigned, or some other unforeseen security breakthroughs appear.

You'd think that the Bush Administration, with its concern for homeland security, would have considered the posibility of massive voter fraud in the national elections. Unless, of course, you remember how Bush took the White House.

2004-01-22T08:38:00.000-05:00

Bush Lies in the State of the Union 2004

Lies and cheap shots, claim vs. fact and lies about the budget. Special bonus section: lies about Iraq. Pullout section: Plagiarism, too.

2004-01-21T06:25:00.000-05:00

The Real State of the Union

From The Independent. Here's a sampling:

10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest
2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House
9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year
1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began
16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war
0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945
0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed
0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq
$100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003 (at this point, nearly $400 for every man, woman and child, or over $1200 for every working person)
100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2003

2004-01-19T07:03:00.000-05:00

NASA Has A Problem

Or, How Not to Manage a Space Program

The Hubble Space Telescope is the best eye on the universe that we have. It has told us more about neighboring solar systems, our own galaxy, other galaxies and the history of the universe than any other visible telescope in history. The images from it are not only scientifically valuable but downright breathtaking. It was slated to operate until about 2010. Now NASA is going to stop servicing it, meaning it will die within then next few years. Why? Because it's too difficult to reach the Hubble from the International Space Station (ISS); their orbits are too different. You can see it at NASA's J-Track website, where the ISS is labeled "Station" and the Hubble is labeled "HST". Be sure to hold down the control key and click on the "HST"image to see the orbital paths of both the ISS and the Hubble. Because it's difficult to switch between orbits with different inclinations (that is: one orbit passes further north and south than the other), and because NASA wants to have a lifeboat that only the ISS can maintain, NASA isn't sending any shuttle missions anywhere except the ISS. So, good-bye Hubble. NASA's administrator, Sean O'Keefe, made this decision. He is clearly risk-averse, trying to cover his own ass. Unfortunately, this decision isn't going to help him. The most dangerous parts of a shuttle mission are the launch and the re-entry. Actually, the launch is much more dangerous than the re-entry. Remember Challenger? Even Columbia's problems were created on launch; it was a small miracle that the Columbia wasn't lost during that launch. The next Shuttle accident will most likely be during launch, so having a lifepod at the ISS isn't going to help anyone. O'Keefe isn't covering himself very well, but he is killing millions of dollars worth of scientific research, and one of the main reasons that NASA has a budget. Of course, he was nominated for the position by President Bush.

2004-01-18T09:03:00.000-05:00

Illustrating A Point…

Let us remember, thanks to Tom Tomorrow, that during a campaign debate with Al Gore, then Presidential candidate George W. Bush set himself apart from the Clinton administration and Gore by promising

If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that.

Exactly how the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) fulfills this promise has me somewhat baffled. Oh, yeah…Bush is a liar.

2004-01-18T06:27:00.000-05:00

Bush Goes For My Vote

So we're going to Mars. More importantly, we're going to establish a permanent "presence" on the moon. If there was any policy of this President's that I could support, this would be It. There are few things more important than establishing a permanent presence Out There. Doing so would solve at least one serious problem, and it could alleviate many others. To put it simply (and, for the moment, without justification): if we don't go, then humanity doesn't have a future. Yeah, I'm all for going to the Moon and Mars and staying there. I've been pretty critical of President Bush, so perhaps, as the right-wing Miami Herald admonishes, I should suck it up and admit that this President is "heroic" for promising to spend a hundred billion dollars or more while at the same time driving this country farther in to debt than it has ever been before. I won't do that. Not because I don't like Bush (I don't), and not because I think that this would be a colossal waste of money (just the opposite). In fact, I'm rather disappointed with the Dems for attacking this plan on cost; they're being extremely short-sighted, and that short-sightedness will keep Bush in the White House. No, I'm not going to congratulate this President for having "that vision thing" because I don't think he has vision. In fact, I don't think that he really intends to send anyone anywhere that doesn't have oil (and the Moon and Mars don't have oil). It's not about vision; it's about credibility. This President doesn't have any credibility. He's lied too many times, about too many things, for me to trust him on this. He promised "compassionate conservatism" and to "lead from the center," instead we get a hard-headed right-winger who does whatever he wants, regardless of whether it's good for the country or desired by his boss (the American people; this is supposed to be a democracy, after all). There's links to plenty of those lies on the left of my home page. What's more, Republicans have tried for years to kill NASA's budget, the only organization in the world with the capabilities to achieve Bush's stated goals. Bush is a right-wing Republican through and through; he's not going to change more than two decades of Party policy. Bush is playing election-year politics. He knows that a divided Congress will never approve the massive NASA budget that would be required for this endeavor. He can safely say something "heroic" and then let it die in committee. He gets a bump in good will from the electorate, and then no hit when he doesn't follow through, because he can always say "we're working on it." Unlike the Event of stating the goal, letting the goal die is a fuzzy process of watching it fade away. Unfortunately, Bush won't lead this country to the Moon or Mars. He knows it, and he's just lied to us again. Remember that come November 4. Update: The Mighty Reason Man makes the same argument, only better. Go read. Another Update: Jerry Pournelle says pretty much the same thing: NASA won't get us to the moon or Mars, because NASA's de facto mission is pretty much incompatible with space exploration or colonization. Dr. Pournelle isn't some Bush-hating wacko, either; he used to work for NASA (not at NASA; his affiliation was through contractors or somesuch), and he's a huge advocate for establishing a permanent presence in space to utilize the precious resources available there (you know, things we might use, like nickel, and iron, and gold and platinum). His book, A Step Farther Out, though now long out of print (and partially outdated), is something of the bible on the subject. Pournelle has several interesting papers on his website that are not out of print: scroll about three-quarters of the down his home page.

2004-01-04T15:35:00.000-05:00

Watch this and get fat and stupid.

Author George Dvorsky argues convincingly that a high-tech democracy such as ours can only exist if the populace knows enough about how the world and technology work to form knowledgeable, fact-based opinions.

Ignorance of how science and technology works is rampant in our society, leading to a stunningly dependent, suggestible and ill-informed populace. … We all need to know about science. Without this knowledge we are powerless, forced to live in a fog about how things work. Without it, we are utterly dependent on others to form our opinion. Without it, we cannot properly participate in society as informed, critical and responsibly opinioned citizens. Moreover, in today's hi-tech information age world, democracy cannot work without a scientifically literate society.

Or, as Bill Hicks said, "Go back to bed, America; you're government is in control. Here's Love Connection...watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer you fucking morons!" However, I'm not sure that Dvorsky would have agreed with Hicks' statement. Dvorsky makes the wider observation that even our public officials are increasingly poorly educated with regard to technology and science and simultaneously shackled with belief systems that deprive them of the ability to think clearly. These two flaws, taken together, make it impossible for our "leaders" to make well thought-out, wise decisions. Science illiteracy may cost us our democracy and our freedom, but it could cost us a lot more than that if our decision-makers are consistently making poor decisions.

2003-12-15T07:56:00.000-05:00

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Security

I missed this; thanks to Bruce Schneier's CryptoGram for the heads-up. First, let's get something straight: computer security is a serious matter of national importance. Computer systems run our banks, our financial transactions from credit card purchases, to nightly business deposits, to stock purchases. They run our phone system and our cars. They maintain records on just about everything, ensuring traceability and auditablility. They're the enabling technology that has taken us from where we were in the fifties to where we are today. Without computers, the modern world's economy—our whole freakin' society—goes down the pisser. Like all security, computer security is complicated. People are a big problem, because they give out their passwords to people they shouldn't; because they choose easy-to-remember, and easy-to-crack, passwords; because they run email attachments that they shouldn't and don't configure their systems to protect themselves. The technology is a problem, too, though. The technology allows for viruses to propagate through networks. The technology allows improperly- (or properly-, depending on your perspective) written code to crash systems. The technology allows errors to propagate from one system to the next, causing cascading failures. So at a very simple level, computer security involves two levels of vigilance: at the level of the technology; and at the level of the user. Given the central role of computers, and the increased awareness of security issues brought on by President Bush's War on Terrorism, you'd think that his administration would be all over cleaning up computer systems to make them more secure. Or, you might have followed Bush's unflinching love-affair with wealthy industries, and realized that he'd never, ever, risk alienating a potential wealthy donor. The Bush Administration's official stand on computer security: it needs to be tightened up, but the software and hardware developers don't have to play a role. Here's what Amit Yoran, the U.S.'s top cyber security official, has to say:

"For example, should we hold software vendors accountable for the security of their code or for flaws in their code?" Mr. Yoran asked in an interview. "In concept, that may make sense. But in practice, do they have the capability, the tools to produce more secure code?"

The correct answer is "of course they have the capability." Unless you're Bush, and not really interested in security.

2003-12-10T06:38:00.000-05:00

The Carrot and the Stick

The childness of it is unbelievable, yet it's perfectly consistent with President George W. Bush's past actions. Still trying to punish our allies who didn't sign up to slaughter Iraqis for their oil, the Bush Administration has announced that reconstruction contracts will only be awarded to companies based in coalition countries. Canadian, German, French and Russian companies, among others, will be excluded from consideration due to "the essential security interests of the United States." What mallarky. As if Canadian companies are going to send in anti-American terrorists. As if German contractors, known the world over for their superior designs and workmanship, are going to build bunkers for terrorists rather than water, sewage and electricity projects for Iraqi citizens. These were the people that supported the Iraqi people against a reckless invasion by the U.S.; when the U.S. was attacked on September 11, 2001, they came out by the tens of thousands to mourn with the U.S. They're not the U.S.'s enemy, and they're harder on terrorism than the U.S. is. It could hardly be any clearer: Bush wants to squeeze the companies in these countries in the hopes that the companies will in turn pressure their governments to support Bush's warmongering in the future. Never mind that the people in those countries didn't want to go to war. I mean, who gives a spit about "democracy," anyway? This is what Bush calls "compasionate conservatism." Cripes.

2003-11-18T10:34:00.000-05:00

Brights

It seems that my muse is a fickle mistress. I post once in a month, and now a virtual flurry of posts. What can you do. About those Brights. "Bright," used as a noun, is meant to be used as an umbrella term for people with no supernatural or mystical beliefs. This covers atheists, agnostics, people who recognize that "pyramid power" is just a tourist gimmick and people who are smart enough to recognize that people like Graham Hancock are just authors trying to sell books. Well, not that last one; Brights don't want to be seen as superior. A good friend brought my attention to this whole Brights thing a while back, and I've been tenaciously resisting the pull to identify with them. Maybe I'm just antisocial, but I keep thinking that "bright" isn't the right term. Despite my reservations, they've got their own web site and some pretty heavy hitters have joined the team. Good news, though: Jeremy Stangroom agrees with me. He's got some good thoughts. Go read.

2003-11-18T06:19:00.000-05:00

GOP Takes Advantage of Children

There's no arguing this one: the GOP is made up of a bunch of immoral bastards. What's next on their agenda? Pedophilia?

2003-11-18T06:04:00.000-05:00

Bush Administration on Drugs

"You don't use Ambien? Everybody here uses Ambien," said Secretary of State Collin Powell in a recent interview. When conservatives even imagine that a liberal Administration might have done drugs at some point in the distant past, the press is all over it. When a conservative Administration admits to actually being on drugs right now, the media barely blink. Where's the media? Where's the Democrats? We have drug addicts in the White House for christsake! The President of the United States is a drug addict and a liar! Links courtesy of Bob Harris over at This Modern World.

2003-11-07T17:12:00.000-05:00

Lynch Really Is A Hero

Don't believe everything you hear…despite the Pentagon hype, Jessica Lynch really is a hero and a great American. When used by the Pentagon as a symbol to portray valient Americans fighting barbaric Islamists, Ms. Lynch did the right thing and told the truth. As reported by the BBC:

"I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do," she said. "I did not shoot - not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees - that's the last thing I remember."

2003-10-15T06:43:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to the People's Republic of China

Today, China became the third nation in the world to launch a man in to space. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Yang Liwei is currently orbiting the Earth. Congratulations to the people of China. God speed and safe return, Lieutenant Yang.

2003-10-15T06:35:00.000-04:00

America as a Terrorist State

Just to remind everyone who it is that actually trains, funds and arms terrorists, especially in the Americas, go to this site and watch the video clips.

2003-10-05T09:23:00.000-04:00

Who will pay?

When the U.S. invaded Iraq, members of Bush's administration—including Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz—were assuring Congress that Iraqis could pay for the damage done by the invasion and a decade of embargo by selling their oil. Now the New York Times reports that this claim was a lie. Before the war, the Pentagon had produced a report on the state of Iraq's oil industry, making it clear that American taxpayers—not Iraqis—would pay for for any invasion. Elections are just a year off. When you go to the polls, remember this: Bush lies, and his lies hurt you.

2003-09-19T16:37:00.000-04:00

Bush: Takes from the Poor; Gives to the Rich

In case there was any doubt when Bush proposed his economic policy during his 2000 Presidential campaign, let's make it very clear: Bush is perfectly happy fleecing 98% of Americans—including those in poverty—in order to make his wealthy friends a little wealthier. Case in point: Forbes reports that while wages for working Americans didn't grow any faster than inflation in the past year and , the wealthiest of Americans saw their riches grow by 10%! Money doesn't grow on trees; it comes from somewhere. The only place for the wealthiest Americans (each worth tens of billions of dollars) to grow their wealth by hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars is to take money from the rest of us. Bill Gates saw his wealth grow by $3 billion in the past year. That's about $11 for every man, woman and child in the United States. It's about $70 out of a year's income for every working American! And that's just Bill Gates. Collectively, every working American gave (on average) about $2300 to the richest 400 people in the United States. About $240 of that comes directly from tax dollars that Bush's so-called economic recovery plan has redirected out of your hands and in to theirs. What is this guy doing in the White House? What moron would vote for someone who just turns around and stabs all of us in the back like this?! This story is carried in the Independent.

2003-09-18T08:17:00.000-04:00

It's About The…

The New York Times and many others report today that President Bush, after two years of implying a close connection between the September 11, 2001 attacks and Iraq, has admitted that he "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." The New York Times goes on to recall that Bush justified invading Iraq on the basis that "the United States could no longer tolerate the kind of threat Mr. Hussein posed or risk that Mr. Hussein's weapons could reach the hands of terrorists." Which brings us to this article in the Independent, which highlights the fact that none of "Mr. Hussein's weapons" have been found in Iraq, despite years of searching by U.N. teams and intensive searches by 1400 U.S. scientists and military experts since the official end of hostilities in Iraq. So, the story repeatedly put forward by the Bush administration—that Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaida—is now an admitted lie. The story that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were a direct and immediate threat to the United States and our allies holds no water at all. Maybe it was about the oil. Update: I see that Tom Tomorrow (and probably every other blogger from here to Iraq) has a post on this, too, which includes not only Bush's recent statement, but the text of the letter that the President sent to Congress requesting approval to invade Iraq. Note where Bush claimed that an invasion would be "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." I can't imagine a clearer statement that there were connections between Hussein and Al Qaida. Bush is a liar. He's admitted it himself. Worse, he's lied to Congress, and that's an impeachable offense. When is the pansy Republican Congress going to stop kissing Bush's ass and impeach him for his crimes?!

2003-09-17T08:41:00.000-04:00

So You Want US$85 Billion

Michael Moore brings our attention to this New York Times article that begins

When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents.

As a father, I have to say that this really hit home. Bush started a war. Scratch that. Bush started three wars; two of them involving the invasion and occupation of sovereign countries. Meanwhile, the Pentagon goes on spending money as if it were business as usual, and Bush asks for an extra $166 billion to cover the wars. As if money grew on trees, and we could always pay for everything that we wanted to do. I wish it were so—my computer could use a few upgrades, not to mention my house—but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It's time for Bush to stand up and take responsibility for his actions. It's time for him to act like a President rather than a loafer. Either the Pentagon's job is going to be to occupy two countries, or the Pentagon's job is going to be to continue developing useless—even reckless—new weapons systems like the NMD. It's time for some belt-tightening at the Pentagon. Not much, mind you. Bush's latest request for $87 billion is about 28% of the Defense budget. It's already been determined that the Defense budget could be cut by 20% without hurting our military's ability to carry out their missions, or sacrificing our lead in better weapons systems. So to fund Bush's wars, the Defense Department really only needs to shift 8% of its budget. That's not a lot to ask in a time a war. In fact, it's a lot less than what taxpayers are being asked for. Contact your Representative and both Senators in Congress, and let them know that we need to take responsibility for our actions, and not pass that responsibility on to the next generation. By the way, Moore's article is worth reading in its entirety.

2003-09-14T09:22:00.000-04:00

Bush, Friend of Terrorism; Enemy of Peace

In case you have forgotten, the world cried with the U.S. when it was attacked on 11 September 2001. Even people who had no reason to love America—Pallestinians, Kosovites, Chileans—cried and stood against terrorism. (link via Tom Tomorrow, via Atrios) We could have pulled the world together. We could have made a real difference for peace. We wouldn't have ended terrorism, but we could have embraced the good will of people everywhere to reduce the level of conflicts; to make it harder for terrorists to find safe harbor. Less than two years later, Bush had turned that unity into conflict. Instead of fighting for peace and security, Bush had started a war; had sparked the largest anti-war protests in history. Two years on, Bush has driven away not only those who might have become our allies, but has even driven a wedge between the U.S. and many its traditional allies. The conflict in Israel, a source of anger against the U.S. in the Arab world, has worsened rather than improved. Bush is the most incompetent and dangerous President that this country has ever seen.

2003-09-14T07:29:00.000-04:00

Bush, Supporting Our Troops

While Bush has been claiming great success in the occupation of Iraq, and U.S. media have been happily touting the Pentagon's low casualty numbers, the Observer reports today that there have been more than 1500 American servicepeople wounded—many of them seriously—in Iraq since the start of hostilities. So much for the Bush administration's lies and coverups.

2003-09-10T19:19:00.000-04:00

More Proof that Bush Hates Americans

On September 18, 2001, just a week after the terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center, the EPA, under pressure from the White House, issued a report claiming that the air quality in New York City was acceptable, and that the fallout from the collapse of the Twin Towers posed no health threat. The EPA has now admitted that the report was a lie. Bush and his National Security Council pressured the EPA to release false and misleading statements and to bury information relavent to the public's health. This is the same group that tried to falsely claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Africa. Can it be any plainer? Bush is a liar, and his lies cost American lives every day that he remains in office.

2003-09-10T11:31:00.000-04:00

World Trade Taxes the Poor, Gives to the Rich

The Independent once again comes through with a very interesting article on World Trade.

We do our best for the world's poor. Perhaps our aid budgets are not as large as they could be, but we do what we can. Wrong. Through the complex web of taxes, tariffs and quotas that governs trade we take far more from the poor than we give them. For every $1 we give in aid, we take $2 through unfair trade. Unfair trade costs the world's poor $100bn a year. Today, ministers from around the world begin a five-day World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun, Mexico. There are terrible inequities that need to be addressed if the 2.7bn people in the world who live on less than $2 a day are to be enabled to stand on their own feet

2003-09-10T11:08:00.000-04:00

A Glimmer of Hope

A federal judge has ruled that seventy cases can proceed against the American and United Airlines.

Calling the possibility that a hijacked jet might crash and cause deaths on the ground "a foreseeable risk," the judge refused to dismiss the lawsuits already filed on behalf of those killed and injured at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon � and thereby opened the door to others who have not yet sued.

If any of the suits against the airlines is successful, you'll start to see real security measures—like armored cockpit doors—rather than just a few armed pilots (which, thankfully, has only been implemented to a very limited extent).

2003-09-09T07:24:00.000-04:00

Americans Are Dupes

An excellent article in the Independent highlights brainwashing in American schools. No, we're not talking about the liberal bias in colleges. We're talking about how children are conditioned to believe good things about the United States. For instance,

the daughter of a friend of mine merrily sang her way through "It's a Grand Old Flag", which includes the lines: "Every heart beats true/'neath the Red, White and Blue, /Where there's never a boast or brag ..." Her father, an old Sixties radical who doesn't like to keep quiet about these things, gently asked her when they got home whether the whole song wasn't in fact a boast and a brag. His daughter went very quiet as she thought through the implications of his question. Challenging received wisdom in this way is something she never encounters in the classroom.

It's not that we should teach our children to despise the United States. It's that we should teach them to think for themselves. To admire our nation, with eyes wide open, for all the good reasons that exist and not just because, like Pavlov's dogs, they've been conditioned to do so. A more balanced self-assessment can only lead to improvement. Howard Zinn provides an exceptional history of the United States in his A People's History of the United States : 1492-Present. You probably already know everything in this book, but it's the kind of content that was glossed over or ignored in grade school. Reading it all in a single book really places American history in perspective. Yes, we've been a great nation, but we have been far from perfect. For commentary on current events, try ZMagazine and the related website, ZNet. They provide a wealth of information and commentary from leading thinkers and observers, including Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

2003-09-08T05:53:00.000-04:00

Iraq About Oil; Not Terror

Michael Meacher, British MP and former Environment Minister, has written an exposé arguing that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with oil. He pulls together an amazing range of quotes from the public record, showing that key members of Bush's cabinet—including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to occupy Iraq and possibly Iran long before September 11, 2001; that they pushed (and failed) to find links between September 11 and Iraq; that they new a terrorist attack was in the works, that it could have involved hijacked planes, and that they did absolutely nothing to avoid it. He makes a good argument, one that any oil man (Bush, Cheney?) would understand.

2003-09-03T11:14:00.000-04:00

Security Frauds, or: What Bush isn't doing to make our skies safer

As previously mentioned here, Bush isn't doing anything to make our nation's airways safer. In fact, he's just spinning his wheels. The latest nail in that coffin is the complete failure of two separate face recognition systems, one installed in Logan International Airport, the other in public areas in Tampa. Both systems have been shut down. Even the manufacturers admit that the systems don't work, claiming a poor 90% correct matches rate. You may recall that these systems were widely hailed as a boon to fighting terrorism and crime in general. You might notice that Bush, rather than pushing for proven security techniques, has stood idly by while these systems were being tested at an expense of millions of dollars. Bush has his own 747; what does he care if the commercial airlines aren't equiped to stop terrorists? A 90% correct matches rate means that, of the nineteen known September 11 hijackers (none of whom had any connection to Iraq, contrary to Bush's continuing implications), two of them would have had a good chance of making it through the security checkpoints. Sure, two is better than fourteen, but not if you're one of the other passengers on that plane. Of course, that's a statistical "good chance;" no telling how many would actually have gotten through.

2003-09-02T06:36:00.000-04:00

In Other Health News

Exercise improves health and immune response. Get out for a walk.
Emotional state has a direct effect on the body's immune response. Don't worry; be happy.
Sage really does improve memory! Go take your sage oil pill. Also, do things that test your memory and brain power—play crossword puzzles, read more, discuss something interesting with your friends (sports, politics, whatever).

2003-09-02T06:16:00.000-04:00

It's Not Just the Environment

Researchers at the National Center for Smart Growth have found a significant correlation between urban sprawl and poor health, especially obesity. Though they say that more work is required to establish a firm cause-and-effect relationship, their findings are clear: people in more compact urban and suburban areas spend more time walking, weigh less and suffer from fewer cases of obesity-related illnesses like high blood-pressure. So, not only is urban sprawl bad for the environment, it's bad for our health, too. When will city and state managers wake up and start managing the growth and sprawl of cities intelligently?

2003-08-31T07:05:00.000-04:00

Bush Hates the Environment

The Bush administration has decreed that carbon dioxide from industrial emissions - the main cause of global warming - is not a pollutant. The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency—announced with minimal fanfare on the eve of the Labor Day weekend—…allows industry to increase emissions with impunity.

From the Independent. For the real facts (as opposed to Bush's realfacts), see the Union of Concerned Scientist's web section on the Science of Global Warming. Note in particular that

The atmosphere around us is made up of gases. Some of these gases function like the panes of a greenhouse: they let some radiation from the sun in but also retain heat in the atmosphere, that is: they don't let all radiation back out. As a result of this natural effect, it is warmer on Earth than it would be without these heat-trapping gases. Human contributions of certain gases to the atmosphere have increased this greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of those heat-trapping (greenhouse) gases that have increased significantly in atmospheric concentration since pre-industrial times and thus has raised the greatest concern.

Bush is simply intellectually and morally bankrupt. It's a wonder that any morally upright conservative would ever vote for such a lying scum.

2003-08-26T06:51:00.000-04:00

Fifteen...TEN! Ten Commandments!

Let's say the Supreme Court of the United States allows the chief justice of the great state of Alabama to keep his 2-ton monument to the Ten Commandments in his office building in Montgomery. Next question: Which Ten Commandments? … Even the Bible contains two versions, one in Exodus 20:1-17 and a slightly different one in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. … Then there is the question of what the commandments were meant to mean. For example, the First Commandment that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" indicates that it was OK to have gods other than Yahweh, so long as Yahweh was No. 1. Monotheism came later.

Courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle.

2003-07-20T14:51:00.000-04:00

How Stupid Can Bush Be?

In a desperate attempt to show that he still hates the environment and all people on Earth, President Bush is aggresively working to undermine the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol, signed by President Reagan in 1987, is the international treaty banning the use of ozone-destroying chemicals. New US demands - tabled at a little-noticed meeting in Montreal earlier this month - threaten to unravel one of the greatest environmental success stories of the past few decades, causing millions of deaths from cancer. Not satisfied with killing at least one U.S. soldier nearly every day in Iraq, not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians, Bush now wants to begin killing everyone else, too. Apparently, for just $2.6 million in campaign contributions from agribusiness, Bush and the Republican National Committee will sell you a global increase in cancer deaths (presumably, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League is a big part of that donation; scroll down).

2003-07-09T20:38:00.000-04:00

White House: Bush Lied

The White House has admitted that President Bush lied to the Amerian people, to Congress and to the world during his State of the Union address. The President claimed that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. It was known at the time that the report was "bogus." This lie constitutes an impeachable offense and a federal felony. When will the Republican Congress apply the same stringent rules that they applied to Clinton and impeach Bush? I hear someone saying something about a "snowball's chance in hell." Fair enough. Elections are just a year and a half away. Who wants an admitted liar, whose lies have killed well over 200 American servicepeople, in office? 200 people, dead because Bush, a wealthy oil man, wanted Iraq's oil for himself. Dead because Bush lied; knowing that Americans wouldn't accept invading Iraq in order to boost his oil stocks (and Cheney's, and...), fabricated reasons that Americans would accept. Bush deliberately put Americans in harm's way, for purely selfish and personal reasons, with no regard for lives lost or American values. Is this the kind of cretin that we want as President? Come November 2004, be sure you take time to vote. Every single vote matters.

2003-07-02T15:48:00.000-04:00

Bush Hates the Rule of Law

President Bush has decided to punish nations that believe in the rule of law. If you don't get what the rule of law is all about, get on board quick. The rule of law is the belief that no one is above the law; that if someone breaks the law, whether they're a con or a President, they get prosecuted the same as everyone else. Guys like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro oppose the rule of law, because they couldn't function as tyrants if they could be prosecuted for their crimes. Democracies can't exist without the rule of law, because at a very fundamental level, democracy assumes that everyone is equal before the law. President Bush, who swore to uphold the laws of the land and defend the Constitution, who as America's figurehead most represents the principles of democracy and American values to the world, has snubbed the very principles and values that make America a great country. He stepped up to the plate and said that the rule of law should be abandoned. In fact, he said that America has abandoned it, and that nations that don't follow suit are going to get their shoes squeezed. Could it be any plainer that Bush hates democracy?

2003-06-29T07:43:00.000-04:00

Iraq War Not Over

Though President Bush declared the victory in Iraq on May 1, he apparantly didn't mean that the war was over. U.S. officials are now saying that the war is not over in Iraq. With twenty-two U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1, the backpeddling was inevitable.

2003-06-27T21:48:00.000-04:00

Iraq is a Guerrilla War

Speaking with his forked tongue, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld today tentatively admitted that Iraq was becoming a guerrilla war. Following his usual tact of saying one thing and meaning another, Rumsfeld implied that U.S. casualties in Iraq were the result of criminals released from prison by Saddam Hussein, and not a result of opposition to the U.S. occupation. This is beginning to sound like the lies and prevarications that got us in to Vietnam.

2003-06-26T14:01:00.000-04:00

Chickenheart

No, that's not right. Words escape me at the moment. When America was attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001, did Bush stand up and say "take me home," or "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me?" In the make-believe world of Bush-backed films, yeah. In the real world, Bush did nothing. For at least five minutes after he was told "America is under attack," he just sat like a marionette with its strings cut. Dumb as stump. Not a care in the world. As three thousand Americans were dying, and the scope of the attack was completely unknown. Not only President Bush, but also his staff and his Secret Service detail. America was under attack, and none of them did a damn thing. None of them tried to get the President to safety. Not a care in the world. Nada. Zip. Zilch. People are dying, but what can you do? Maybe it wasn't a surprise. Bush had close ties to Bin Laden's family. Maybe he knew in advance. Hard to believe, but more incredulous things have happened. Either Bush really is so utterly stupid that he didn't comprehend what "America is under attack" meant, or he knew that he was safe. If the former, then Bush is utterly incompetent as Commander in Chief. If the latter, then Bush is, technically and morally, a traitor to the United States. Link via Bob Harris over at This Modern World.

2003-06-26T08:52:00.000-04:00

Education is Good for...

...preventing Alzheimer's. ...and crime prevention. Given that spending on education cuts crime, cuts health-care costs, and cuts crime fighting costs, why aren't fiscally conservative and morally compasionate Republicans all over this? If they were honestly about cutting costs of government programs, they would ensure good public education for everyone, rather than cutting funding for schools. Oh, that's right. They're a pack of hypocrites and liars.

2003-06-24T14:35:00.000-04:00

Comparison of Kucinich and Dean

If you're thinking of voting in Moveon.org's presidential primary, you might want to check out Bob Harris's comparison of Kucinich and Dean. In my opinion, Kucinich comes out on top. Another source for info is Vote Smart.org, though their info on Dean is rather sparse.

2003-06-24T09:14:00.000-04:00

Bush Trounces Freedom

Bush hates America. Bush hates freedom. He hates Americans. Don't believe me? Go read this piece over at This Modern World. Bush has taken the unprecedented step of charging a peaceful protester with a federal crime (he won't even get a trial by jury). Bush is doing everything in his power to make free speech a federal offense. Bush is a traitor to the United States of America, and should be impeached. When Congress finally wakes up and realizes that he works for Osama Bin Laden, Bush should be tried as an enemy combatant.

2003-06-23T17:11:00.000-04:00

Politicians and their Offspring

Let's take the case of President George W. Bush. He says that he has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. His daughters, however, are known to drink under age and to smoke pot. Without getting busted. Papa Bush doesn't say a word. They get ticketed and then let off. President George W. Bush remains silent—unless he pulled strings to get them off. Compare this to Presidential candidate Howard Dean. Last week, his son was caught stealing alcohol from a local country club. Did Howard Dean pull any strings to get his son off? No. Did he try to cover it up, or lie? No. What he did was tell police to treat his son like any other teanager, and let justice take its course. Howard Dean may not be perfect. Certainly, his son is showing only slightly more character than Bush's twin daughters. Dean is showing far more character and moral fortitude than Bush has ever shown. The socially conservative right, worried about family values, should be loudly endorsing Dean over Bush. On the one side you have a guy who isn't perfect but does the right thing. On the other, you have a guy who isn't perfect, and tries to cover up his faults, even lying about them. Bush should be impeached for being a lousy person, let alone lying to Congress and getting Americans killed and generally showing a lack of interest in carrying out his oath of office.

2003-06-23T06:20:00.000-04:00

It's Not About the Oil, Really

Oil shipments resumed on Sunday, even as Iraqis go without electricity and water in 113°F (45°C) temperatures. In the U.S., heat waves above 95°F are a major problem, and the media often tracks the heat-related deaths of the elderly as a failure of human services. If the invasion of Iraq was about liberating Iraqis, why has Bush placed greater emphasis on getting the oil flowing than on the basic welfare of the Iraqis? Okay, we all know: it was about the oil, and fuck the people.

2003-06-22T20:11:00.000-04:00

Politics in Three Dimensions

Good article over at Kiro5hin about the development of descriptions of political ideology from simple "leftist"–"rightist" to a three-dimensional model that more clearly delineates economic, social and political tendencies. Yes, liberals and conservatives are still diametrically opposed. Link via Mark Glaser.

2003-06-21T21:28:00.000-04:00

Bush...Coward or Liar?

The Independent has a nice review of the made-for-TV docudrama DC 9/11.

According to one version of history, President George Bush was so slow to react to the momentous attacks of 11 September 2001 that he continued reading to a group of primary school children in Florida even after being informed of the first plane crashing into the World Trade Centre. Then, after making an anodyne remark about finding "the folks who committed this act", he was whisked off in Air Force One, first to Shreveport, Louisiana and thence to an underground bunker in Nebraska, where he was hastily coached in the art of responding to the crisis in an appropriately presidential manner. That, however, is not the George Bush who emerges from a new television docudrama due to air on cable in time for the second anniversary of the attacks this September. In this version, the President is all swagger and seize-the-moment bravado. "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me," he says. "I'll be at home. Waiting for the bastard." "But Mr President ..." stammers his Secret Service chief. "Try 'Commander-in-Chief'," Mr Bush corrects him, "whose present command is, 'Take the President home!'" If this scenario sounds like wishful thinking cooked up by the Republican National Committee, it probably is, given that the film, entitled DC 9/11, was produced and written by a direct associate of the President's, Lionel Chetwynd, in close co-operation with Mr Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove.

I'm sure that it's not so much that Bush was being "unpresidential," as that he simply didn't have any idea what the World Trade Center was. Or a terrorist.

2003-06-17T21:12:00.000-04:00

Bush: Prostitute or President?

Bob Harris over at This Modern World makes an interesting point. Here's the quote from This Modern World.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, I think the amount of money that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of the amount of support they have around the country. So the President is proud to have the support of the American people, and the American people will ultimately be the ones who decide how much funding goes to any Democrat or any Republican. Q How can that really be reflective of his support, though, considering he's getting money from people who can afford to go to dinner for $2,000? I mean, most Americans cannot afford that. So how can that really be reflective of his support from middle America? MR. FLEISCHER: The rules are equal. The rules are the same for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties compete knowing that. They, of course, raise money from all groups of Americans, including many low-dollar donors. And, again, the American people decide how much support to give either candidate in either party.
Ah. So the Democrats are free to equally whore themselves to the wealthy, and that's democracy. Nice to have it spelled out so clearly for once.

Get it? Fleischer is equating monetary donations with democratic principles. Well, isn't that right? I mean, people are free to spend their money as they like, so isn't that democratic? &nsbp;No more so than going down to the local Baskin Robbins and buying an ice cream cone. You're free to do go to Baskin Robbins instead of Dairy Queen, if you like, but is that democracy? Not at all. It's capitalism. It's about freedom to spend the money that you earned. Democracy is defined in Webster's as "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people." Let's compare that to capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of capital." Similar freedoms, but entirely different. One is about the culture you live in and about laws and services; the other is about what you own. So for Bush, selling himself as capital—as a material possession—is democracy. Of course, this isn't democracy at all. Bush doesn't know what democracy is. He does, however, know how to prostitute himself.

2003-06-16T10:00:00.000-04:00

Bush's Airline Security Spending is Fraudulent

Mr. Schneier brings our attention to a short interview with Isaac Yeffet, a security consultant and former director of global security at El Al airlines. As short as it is, it's worth reading. Reading between the lines, one has to wonder what the Bush administration is really up to: they're spending billions of dollars on the airline industry, but doing little or nothing to improve security or safety. Bush wouldn't be just handing out corporate welfare, would he? I mean, he's already demonstrated how he hates people on welfare, so corporate welfare would be...well...dishonest, wouldn't it? I should mention that Mr. Schneier doesn't take any political position his newsletter; editorial spin is, as always, mine.

2003-06-16T09:42:00.000-04:00

Required Reading

Bruce Schneier's latest Crypo-Gram newsletter is out. If you haven't read it already, it's worth reading (as always, I might add).

2003-06-13T21:40:00.000-04:00

Media's Pro-Bush Bias

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting has released a comprehensive study of the media's coverage of Iraq. Their finding is that official U.S. government "voices have dominated U.S. network newscasts, while opponents of the war have been notably underrepresented."e

Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

News programs studied were "ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN�s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox�s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS�s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." No wonder the American public has been slightly pro-war: most of our information comes directly from official propaganda. In other countries, such biased reporting comes from "state-run" news agencies.

2003-06-13T08:10:00.000-04:00

Bush Lied...Senate Republicans Will Cover

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, has decided to investigate whether or not faulty intelligence was used to justify invading Iraq. The catch: the Intelligence Committee will be meeting behind closed doors. At the same time, Republicans, led by the White House, are attempting to rewrite history. Instead of claiming the Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is therefore a threat, they are starting to claim that Iraq was a threat because it had a weapons program. Additionally, they are attempting to shift focus from strong arguments that Bush made regarding the need to invade Iraq because of WMDs, and starting to emphasize other reasons for invading Iraq. This coverup cannot be allowed. Write to your Senators and ask them to take note of the well documented lies told by Bush and his underlings. Ask them to consider that lying to Congress is both a federal felony and a high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution's impeachment clause. Ask them to consider that more than two hundred U.S. soldiers have died because of those lies. While you're at it, send a copy to your Representative. It's the House, after all, that votes to impeach a President, and only after that vote does the Senate get involved. Update: TrueMajority has launched a fax-in campaign to urge members of the House and the Senate to investigate Bush's lies and take all appropriate action. Go fill in the form and fax your representatives.

2003-06-12T16:29:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld: U.S. Prefers Lawlessness

Belgian law allows non-Belgian citizens to be tried for war crimes. U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, however, insists that war criminals not be tried, and instead prefers the use of military force against everyone outside of the U.S. The rule of law—and therefore democracy—is slowing being killed by President(-for-life) Bush.

2003-06-10T09:13:00.000-04:00

A Note on H₂

For those who aren't clear about those trailers in Iraq that are for generating hydrogen—not biological weapons as Bush claimed—hydrogen and "hydrogen bomb" aren't the same thing. Not by a mile. Hydrogen (chemical symbol "H") is the lightest and simplest element, consisting of just one positively-charged proton orbited by one negatively-charged electron. Two hydrogen atoms combine readily with one oxygen atom to form water (H₂O), giving off a fair bit of heat in the process. This process, combined with aluminum-flake paint, is what caused the spectacular and terrible burning of the Hindenberg. Note that aluminum flakes are also sometimes used as a component in rocket fuel, because the high surface area helps increase the amount of hydrogen (or other fuel) that can be oxidized (burnt) in a given volume. The Hindenberg was, therefore, a fast, hot fire just waiting to happen. This chemical reaction also is at the heart of every fuel cell. The difference between a fuel cell and the Hindeberg is that the fuel cell is designed to carefully control the reaction while utilizing the electrons that are exchanged during the reaction to generate electricity. In contrast, a "hydrogen bomb" is a fusion bomb, in which two hydrogen nuclei (the protons) are forcibly combined to form heavier elements. This process is nothing like the chemical reaction of water formation. It's more similar to the fission reaction, in which heavy elements like plutonium are split in to lighter elements. In fact, fusion is the exact opposite of fission. The explosive advantage of fusion over fission can be seen in this curve of nuclear binding energies. As you move farther up (bottom to top), atomic nuclei become more tightly bound. This means that it takes more energy to break them appart. Conversely, they release energy when you form them. Fusion bombs opperate on the steep left side of the curve, where there's a big change in binding energy from one element to the next (and therefore release of energy), moving from lighter elements to heavier ones. Fission happens from the right side, moving right to left, where elements release energy as you break them apart. You can see that the energies of fission and the energies of fusion differ by about a factor of five on a per-atom basis (as the curve is drawn). Since elements to the right are also heavier, this means that fusion of hydrogen has a distinct weight advantage over fission of the heavy elements: about a factor of two hundred. So for a gram of explosive material, fusion bombs have about a thousand times more explosive energy than fission bombs. That curve also tells us something else. Iron nuclei are much more stable than every other element, because iron has the highest nuclear binding energy. To convert any element in to iron will release energy, but converting iron in to any other element requires an input of energy. You can always get energy out of a system—that's just basic thermodynamics—but you have to do work to put energy in to a system. It is possible to fuse heavy elements in to still heavier elements. That is, in fact, how all elements heavier than hydrogen have been formed, and how physicists are making the heaviest elements ever detected. However, once you get past iron, you need to pump energy in to the system; you don't get an explosion. Similarly, you can fission elements lighter than iron, but again, you need to pump a lot of energy in to the system (in fact, the energy from a fusion bomb is exactly the energy required to form hydrogen from helium and the heavier elements that are the byproduct of a fusion explosion). Nature's very lazy, and doesn't like to do any more work than is absolutely unavoidable. The result is that, given enough time, all heavier elements decay in to iron, and all lighter elements fuse to become iron. If the universe lasts long enough, it's likely that all matter will eventually be made solely of iron. This is known as the "energy death" of the universe, because once you have only iron, there isn't energy to do anything else (there also aren't any carbon-based lifeforms such as ourselves). Update: After further perusing the site that I linked to above, I should note that all elements decay to a particular isotope of nickel, which has the highest binding energy of all elements and their isotopes. You can read more about this at the site above.

2003-06-10T08:48:00.000-04:00

WMDs Just So Much H₂

Just a few days ago, on June 6, Bush stated that "banned weapons have been found," referring to two trailers that he referred to as mobile biological weapons labs. In fact, they were sold to Iraq by the U.K. to produce hydrogen for military reconnaissance balloons. No weapons there, Mr. Bush.

2003-06-10T08:41:00.000-04:00

The Evidence Builds...

...not for Iraq's programs to develop and manufacture chemical and biological weapons, but for the lies told by Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer and others in the White House and Pentagon. As those lies constitute an impeachable offense and a felony, the denials grow louder every day. Now that the Senate has decided to investigate Bush's actions, the U.S. media is starting to take notice. Too bad the U.S. media didn't bother to notice the credibility gap back in 2002; many deaths could have been avoided. Not only did Bush lie about Iraq's WMDs, but now it seems that he also lied about Iraq's ties to Al-Qaida. Of course, once again the media is just following the powers that be; there was plenty of evidence before and after 9/11/01 that Al-Qaida had no ties to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

2003-06-09T13:47:00.000-04:00

So this is what he meant...

North Korea doesn't "swim on a sea of oil," as Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said. What he meant, according to his official sources, was that sanctions against Iraq would have little effect, since their vast oil wealth enabled them to get around sanctions. North Korea, by contrast, doesn't have such resources, and our sanctions are having great effect: people have resorted to cannibalism, possibly killing children for food. I don't know who's crazier: Pyongyang, whose policies place military might above humanitarian needs, or Washington, whose policies...uh, right.

2003-06-08T22:06:00.000-04:00

The Coverup

Powell, Rice and others are all getting in the game. They'd have to, wouldn't they? Lying to Congress is a felony under federal law. It's also one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors" that can get a President impeached. Now, if they would just produce all those accurate intelligence reports that they cited when ~~lying~~ making their case, instead of vacuously protesting their innocence ("on advice of my lawyer, I claim that I believed every word I said was true").

2003-06-08T19:15:00.000-04:00

Me, Too

I don't usually like just repeating what other bloggers write, but Bob Harris has to be one of the best commentators of the modern era. Go read what he says about

Bush as a witless tool for his closest advisors.
The inevitable necessity of impeaching Bush.

Go read. It's worth your time.

2003-06-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld Lied, Admits DoD

The Department of Defense's Defense Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it could find no indication of WMDs in Iraq as late as September 2002, right when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Congress "we do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons." The revelation comes shortly after U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix stated that his teams could find no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, even with the best U.S. and British intelligence to direct his teams to potential sites. Make no mistake: Bush and Rumsfeld lied, and their lies have cost some 200 American servicemen their lives.

2003-06-05T10:02:00.000-04:00

MSNBC Full of It

MSNBC is quoting President Bush as saying that the U.S. will disclose the intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. MSNBC, for instance, reports that

In a speech before hundreds of U.S. officers and troops who helped guide the war in Iraq, President Bush reiterated that the U.S.-led invasion was justified and pledged that "we'll reveal the truth" about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction..

Having listened to a portion of his speach on NPR, I can say that he wasn't promising to share with us some intelligence that justified invading Iraq. He was making a hopeful statement that U.S. troops would eventually find the WMDs that Bush promised existed in Iraq's arsenal. Bush was acknowledging that no WMDs had been found, but stated that "you know better than me; it's a big country," and his "we'll reveal the truth" statement, in this context, was more akin to "I hope and pray that we find some WMDs." In other words, no WMDs, no basis for believing they exist, just unfounded hope that he won't be a failure at being President like he was a failure at everything else in his life. CNN does a better job of placing the quotation in context. The BBC further reveals that members of the U.S.'s intelligence community had serious doubts about the objectivity of intelligence being accepted by the White House. Some intelligence analysts were "under pressure to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials." If there aren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, at least we can fabricate intelligence in order to convince Congress and the American public to send troops in harms way. I guess that's just Bush's way of supporting our troops.

2003-06-05T07:26:00.000-04:00

Missile Shield a Farce

The General Accounting Office has released a report criticizing the Bush administration for rushing to deploy a ballistic missile defense shield by the end of 2004. As has been reported repeatedly in the past, the GAO found that many critical component technologies are "immature". The article above specifically mentions the radar system, which must be deployed with the system in 2004, will not be ready for field testing before 2007. The GAO goes as far as warning that the rush to deploy the system before its components are ready will undermine our capability to ever successfully deploy the system, and could significantly increase the cost of attempting to do so. In other words: more money for the weapons manufacturers, without any return. What the article fails to mention is that such a system also makes the U.S. less safe by eliminating the diplomatic controls that have so successfully kept the world from nuclear war. Deploying a missile shield would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the START II accords. Deploying a non-function "shield" is, therefore, utter madness.

2003-06-04T15:36:00.000-04:00

Bush: Kill Iraqis for their Oil

In an address at an Asian security summit, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." I don't think anything else needs to be said. At the moment, I can't think of anything else to say. I guess that I was holding out some last hope that Bush's invasion was for the sort of decent values that America is supposed to stand for, and not to just boost his oil stocks. I am not surprised, but I am deeply shocked and disappointed. Update: As has been pointed out, the Guardian may have over-spun the story. According to official Defense Department transripts, Rumsfeld meant that Iraq's oil gave it the financial resources to defy the U.S. indefinitely. Of course, Rumsfeld is the head of the DoD, so one must question the reliability of this new source. Either way, it's about the oil—maybe just not so much about Bush and Cheney's stock.

2003-06-03T19:00:00.000-04:00

Bush Lied or Is Incompetent

Atrios raises an excellent question : why isn't the Bush administration going full-tilt to find the weapons of mass destruction that they "knew" were in Iraq? Could it be that, as every else has said, there were no weapons, Bush knew it, and he was just lying in order to invade a Middle-Eastern country for his own profit? Or could it be that Bush is dangerously incompetent and simply doesn't care how many Americans die in terrorist attacks using those weapons? Hmm...that would also place him in direct violation of his oath of office, which is a clear-cut impeachable offense. Actually, in either case, Bush is probably impeachable.

2003-06-03T17:51:00.000-04:00

Bush Trades America's Reputation

A new poll released today by the Pew Research Center finds that the majority of people in seven of eight Muslim countries believe that they will be invaded by the United States. Additionally, trust in NATO, the U.N. and the U.S. has seriously declined around the world, even in the U.S. Bush's warmongering has made us safer, how?

2003-06-03T08:27:00.000-04:00

Bush Hates Democracy

In yet another policy reversal, Bush has decided to select an Iraqi government, rather than allowing Iraqis to elect representatives at a national conference scheduled for July. There were two reasons that were generally accepted for invading Iraq: weapons of mass destruction and freedom for Iraqis. It has become blatantly obvious that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that Bush and his puppets knew this. What non-brain-dead observers have been saying all along, and what the media is finally cluing in to, is that Bush also has no plan for Iraqi freedom, and no intent of letting Iraqis have a democracy in which they might go their own way. Bush lies, and Bush hates democracy.

2003-06-03T06:28:00.000-04:00

The Lies Governments Tell

The Independent is running a story uncovering how the Bush and Blair administrations distorted what they new to be true in order to create support for an invasion of Iraq. The report clearly shows how both Bush's and Blair's administrations deliberately lied to their people—and to the world. Bush and Blair distorted the truth of Iraq's anthrax, which they new to have been destroyed but could not confirm as having been completely destroyed, and represented as current fact intelligence that they new very well was ten years old and completely out of date. Clinton deliberately lied about a fling with an intern and was impeached by the Republicans in the House. When will Bush's deliberate lies—that have gotten nearly two hundred American soldiers killed and thousands of Iraqis killed (more), including women and children—be considered grounds for impeachment? At least a Senate committee is investigating what went wrong, but it's led by a partisan Republican. Update: At least someone has drawn up Articles of Impeachment for Bush's (mis)conduct in the "War on Terrorism" and the invasion of Iraq.

2003-05-31T13:55:00.000-04:00

Lost in Lies, Bush Makes New Reality Show

Bush, still hoping that voters and the media won't notice how many lies he told in order to invade Iraq, today lied again, claiming that banned weapons had been found. Producers of hit reality shows responded by commenting how well this will play with viewers, stating that they are "glad" to see that the President has his own reality show, and are investigating options for exclusive rights to next season.

2003-05-30T19:02:00.000-04:00

Bush Lies About September 11

Tom Tomorrow brings our attention to a television movie that's being filmed about the President. In this version of reality, rather than cowering across the country on September 11, Bush stands tall and tries to take on the terrorists. Shaaa, not!

2003-05-30T16:15:00.000-04:00

Bush Lied About Iraq

Very nice compilation of Bush administration lies regarding Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs (link via Atrios). Arranged chronologically, it becomes painfully obvious that Bush & Co. deliberately overstated their case. So much so that where Bush claimed to know where the weapons factories were, none have been found beyond a couple of unused mobile chemical labs. Perhaps most telling are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recent admission that there might not be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's recent admission that weapons of mass destruction were just a convenient excuse for war. Remember this come November, 2004: Bush lies, lies, lies. Update: Tom Paine is on this, too. They re-print Billmon's list, and add a letter from a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that challenge's Bush on his free-wheeling dealings with the truth.

2003-05-23T08:11:00.000-04:00

"Civilized" America

In a show of solidarity with Cuba and former members of Saddam Hussein's regime, the State of Utah plans to execute two convicted murderers by firing squad.

The executions come just a month after the US State Department roundly condemned Cuba for executing a gang of ferry hijackers - they too were killed by firing squad. The firing squads will be made up of police volunteers, who will remain anonymous.

What is it with this country? We claim to stand for justice, peace, democracy, and then we as a society go and do something savage like this.

2003-05-22T08:04:00.000-04:00

Nukes Are Good

Bush, the Pentagon, and many members of the Senate:

Some bunkers are buried tens of feet under ground.
Some of these bunkers are well sheilded in concrete and steel.
Existing "burrowing" missiles and bombs can't burrow deep enough to penetrate these bunkers.
To get to these bunkers, we need weapons that can burrow deeper than existing technology.

Resume development of nuclear burrowing missiles and bombs.

Anyone besides me see how nuclear weapons wormed their way in here? Okay, let's give them this one: we need missiles and bombs that can burrow deeper, in to better-protected bunkers. How, then, do nuclear weapons end up being "good?" They don't, and they aren't. However, when you recognize that many members of the Pentagon and the Bush Administration started out wanting to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons—in the insane hope that more total destruction is somehow better—then the need for nuclear bunker busters becomes totally understandable. NPR reported on this today on Morning Edition. It seems that even very low-yield nuclear weapons need to be buried more than one hundred fifty feet under ground to avoid fallout from radioactive soil. Nuclear bunker busters, targetted at bunkers tens of feet under ground, would be a bigger environmental disaster than their above-ground cousins. What's more, such tactical nukes aren't even practical in war, and their use is widely expected to escalate to larger and larger-yield nuclear weapons. Bush: dragging the world closer to death.

2003-05-20T16:27:00.000-04:00

Bush Lies

An excellent compilation of Bush's many lies and distortions. Go read it. Link via Hesiod.

2003-05-20T09:18:00.000-04:00

The Press Notices that Bush Lies

The press is finally starting to notice that President Bush may be dangerously incompetent. A spat of stories discusses the planning incompetence, failure of Bush's counter-terror effort, the fact that attacking Iraq has had no impact on al-Qaida, Bush's squandering of good will among Iraqis, especially the Shiites, among many other storing. What is amazing is that it took so long. Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, knowledgable individuals started criticizing the Bush Administration's response. They charged that Bush & Co. were busy doing anything rather than busy fixing security problems. The media largely ignored them, or spun stories in Bush's favor. Many people took issue with Bush when the President turned his attention from terrorist organizations and started focusing on Iraq. Here was a war that Bush could win, but which would have no benefits for national security—and would probably do more harm than good. The media simply spouted the Bush line of lies that Iraq supported terrorists, that Iraq had ties with al-Qaida, that Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that they would give to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program so that al-Qaida could bring suitcase-sized nukes in to the U.S. When Bush started lying to the American public, giving all these fallacious reasons to preemptively invade Iraq, the media credulously repeated his lies, while many observers and citizens pointed out the obvious: Bush was full of it. Now that's starting to change. Naturally, the liberal bloggers are all over these stories, happily linking to them. Finally, the media is doing it's job! But, of course, the media isn't doing its job. The media are doing what they've always done: just repeat what official news sources are saying. The Pentagon is pointing fingers at the White House for any failures in Iraq, the White House is pointing fingers at the Pentagon, the Democrats are pointing fingers at Bush, and corporate America is blatantly trying to stay out of the fray while getting Bush to give them taxpayer dollars to "rebuild" Iraq. In the U.S., there is no longer a journalistic tradition; it's all media, and media is about entertainment and meeting deadlines. This isn't a new observation. Media critics like Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have been saying it for a few decades. Their book Manufacturing Consent offers an explanation for why this happons, and offers abundant examples to support their argument. Of course, in the U.S. the media calls them "cranks." Outside the U.S., they're given awards for their work. Organizations like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting have long detailed this sort of bias. Nobody should be very pleased that the media is finally starting to take Bush to task, because the media isn't. Official sources—Congressmen, the Pentagon—are taking Bush to task, and the media is just repeating what they say. The media isn't any more responsive to legitimate criticisms of Bush than they were a year ago. The media isn't reporting as the tenacious bulldog who ferrets out the truth, but has fallen in to a complacent roll of the mimic: "later today so-and-so will say..." and "earlier today so-and-so said..." We're in the same boat as ever. It's politics as usual, and the media is playing their roll—not informing the populace in a democracy, but playing us for fools. Freedom of the press is a bad joke.

2003-05-20T05:59:00.000-04:00

Humans are Chimps

Actually, the media are claiming the reverse: that chimpanzees are human. Oh, what great sensationalist headlines. The truth is far more interesting: that chimpanzees are more closely related to us—homo sapien—than to other primates. The old anthropocentric view was that all of our nearest relatives, like neandertal, were long since dead, and that we'd probably killed them or intermarried until there was only one species. Now, a group of geneticists is suggesting that we take a second look at the classification of chimpazees; that they belong in the same genus as us, homo, as a separate species. This is really interesting, and will surely cause a tempest among the anti-science religious types. Of course, many decent religions, such as the Catholics and Protestants, will probably accept this or simply not comment on it—it's not a religious matter, after all (no one's calling us chimps). MSNBC has already jumped in to the fray, subheading their article with "Some critics scoff at proposal" and quoting one employee at the anti-science Center for Scientific Creation calling the suggested reclassification "baloney." This tempest is a joke. Not to the people involved in it, but surely to anyone who understands what this potential reclassification means. You see, the reclassification means nothing. Nothing has changed. Chimps are still chimps—our clossest living relative—and humans are still human. We have the same genetic makeup that we did yesterday. We're the same as we were ten thousand years ago and more, and we still shared a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees about five million years ago. Phylogenetic classification is little more than a mental cruch; a means of talking about evolutionary relationships. Evolution is continuous; classification is discreet. Classification only partially represents reality. Biologists understand this and generally live with it. Everyone else gets worked up. Imagine cutting a tree in to thin slices, throwing out ninety-nine percent of the slices, and then trying to reconstruct the tree. Evolution can be view as something continous like the tree. Phylogenetic classification gives you only one percent of the slices; try to represent the original tree with just the slices. Even worse, evolution is fairly "fuzzy;" branchings are not as well-defined as in a real tree. So, this new refinement in our understanding of the genetic similarities (and differences) between chimps and humans is pretty interesting, from a scientific perspective, but the world hasn't changed since yesterday. For those who are interested, there's a nice browsable phylogenetic tree at the Tree of Life Web Project.

2003-05-05T09:05:00.000-04:00

So, let's see if we have this straight. After starting a preemptive war against Iraq in order to protect ourselves from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction—that no one except Bush actually claimed existed—we have yet to find a single sample of weapons or the tools to make them. In other words, despite the U.S. military's best efforts—and the damage that Bush has done to our relations with our allies—there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in recent history. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that they were working on such weapons since the U.S. government was selling such weapons to them in the eighties. Instead, what Bush's inept leadership has managed to accomplish is the likely theft of nuclear materials suitable for making "dirty" bombs. Who has such materials? We have no idea. Have they actually been stolen from Iraqi waste sites? We have no idea. Has Bush made Americans any safer? We have no idea. Bush & Co. are dangerous lunatics, who have no idea how their actions are affecting the safety of Americans everywhere. What's worse: despite their oaths of office, they don't care.

2003-04-11T15:52:00.000-04:00

Okay, I've been a little reticent about posting lately. It's pure laziness. I'll see if I can't get caught up during the next week or two. Let's start with a well-documented post by William Saletan brought to our attention by Atrios.

Thursday morning, President Bush greeted the people of Iraq on their TV screens. "You are a good and gifted people," he told them as Arabic script appeared below his face. I don't know Arabic, but I'm sure the translation didn't convey what Bush means by "gifted." He doesn't mean exceptional. He means ethnic. If you're black, Hispanic, or a member of some other group often stereotyped as incompetent, you may be familiar with this kind of condescension. It's the way polite white people express their surprise that you aren't stupid.

Frankly, I think that his argument could just as easily be about Bush's limited vocabulary and limited world-view as about Bush's racism...but it might be both.