Done for the Day

Here's a double-shot of Neil Young to finish off here.

Neil Young - Rockin' in the Free World

A song often misapropriated at the end of the 'Cold War,' the anger for the failure of 'Reaganomics' for working Americans is palpable, and it is my favorite Neil Young song.

Neil Young - Let's Impeach the President

Most Americans simply wish Bush was not in office today. When the investigations pick up, few would be suprised to see it all end with that short jaunt to Marine 1 out on the White House lawn.

Not to Make Too Much of It...

...but this whole Britney Spears press orgy is emblematic of our culture as a whole. We are consumers. The ultimate fate of the target of our consumption is of little to no concern of us; whether its our environment, the under-paid and over-worked producers of goods and services; or, as in this case, even our young.

This girl was paraded as a sexual object for men four times older than her before she had even built any personal identity, forget a sexual one. And because she made a lot of money (and perhaps in the view of some women, because she was a little too perfect), the minute she began living her life on her own flawed terms it became the right of every member of our society to subject her to whatever pejorative attack we saw fit.

Money is money, but it can't buy self-valuation, emotional well being, or the ability to construct relationships with others on terms other than manipulation. A lot of people are a lot more fucked up at twenty-five than she is, but they never dealt with carrying the expectations of being a cultural symbol. And so now that we have sucked everything we want out of her, and men across America can't imagine statutorily raping her; we are only too willing to kick her as hard as we need to to get her to the curb. It ain't right. We as Americans literally consume our young; and along with the rest of her family, we share the blame for whatever happens to her.

But it ain't news.

A Look Back

I published this on my old blog back on October 6th of last year. Thought it was prescient today.

Injustice: American Style

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." While America has never seen fit to enforce these truths absolutely; in the context of the era under which they were written, the words themselves were entirely revolutionary. At no point in this basic proclamation endowing all men and women with a basic humanity not to be violated, was the term 'American' used as a qualifier for deserving such distinction. As a nation still rabid in the grip of phantom fear, we find ourselves failing in our daily confrontations with those who would render those words useless.

Recently, in one of his few acts still strongly supported by the general public, George Bush negotiated legislation that provides guidelines in the interrogation and 'trying' of supposed terror suspects. Among these, no clear distinction of torture was created, other than to allow discretion to be left in the hands of those whom have already failed to utilize it; however, the legal adjudication system created is far worse in its lack of respect for humanity. It allows permanent detention without trial; in trial it allows those standing accused to be dealt with without public knowledge, without being supplied of evidence kept in secret, or even the identity of witnesses testifying against them.

In our zeal to deal retribution to those we have judged responsible, we have forgotten a very important necessity in the ingredients for proper justice: guilt. We claim that these individuals are guilty of crimes so heinous that we should not be required to adequately prove their guilt in the first place; our fear has allowed us to accept whatever happens to these individuals in secret, while allowing us to awaken daily with the air of innocence. Our judicial hatchet men do it all without us directly knowing, as we still continually reassure ourselves that we are the good people, and the captured barbarians operate divorced entirely from the law, as the line between ourselves and our 'enemy' blurs dangerously.

We forget that each citizen's name is written invisibly on every flag, whether it flies over the White House, or Baghdad. That even the most despotic of nations took a first step down the wrong path, on which we may have treaded out too far to turn back without analyzing what inside ourselves allowed us this moment of weakness in our resolve for honor and fairness. That what is right is right, and what is popular is popular; and though they sometimes happily coincide, the path to righteousness is often found through the solitude of speaking against the crowd.

We're Holding them Over There, So We Don't Have to Give Them a Fair Trial Over Here

Court Backs Administration on Detainee Issue

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

…

Under the commissions act, the government may indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as ''enemy combatants'' and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics.

But most criticized by Democrats and civil libertarians was a provision that stripped U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they were being held illegally.

Attorneys argued that the detainees aren't covered by that provision and that the law is unconstitutional.

''The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress,'' Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would accelerate efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights.

(Read More)

The Military Commissions Act is a historically depraved piece of legislation. Our fear of phantom terror has lead to the complicity of the American people in something that will be recorded as the low point in our American Empire. Basic morality requires that the Democratic Party ignores political expediency in making the eradication of this legitimizing of torture and political imprisonment a fundamental priority of their charter. Or else I fear what the rest of the world will think of us (or do to us) as result.

Just Say 'No'

US ‘Iran attack plans’ revealed

Last Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 10:28 GMT

BBC

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

…

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

(Read More)

Or if an artificial connection between an Iraqi attack and Iran can be manufactured by the Bush administration.

Busy Night

Dead Kennedys - Kill the Poor



Quite possibly one of the sharpest satirical songs ever written.

Really, No.

Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

(Read More)

There are a lot of people sitting back and saying ‘he won’t do this;’ or hoping that everything will work out in the end. If George Bush doesn’t attack Iran, it will be because the people and its Congress told him he couldn’t.

Well, I'm For that While at the Same Time I'm Against It

Giuliani 'not confident' war will turn around

POSTED: 3:14 a.m. EST, February 15, 2007

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former New York mayor and 2008 presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani said Wednesday he is not sure the tide will turn in the war in Iraq, as President Bush has said.

"I'm not confident it's all going to turn around," Giuliani told CNN's "Larry King Live." "Who knows that? I mean, you never know that in the middle of the war.

"I'm confident that we have to try to make a turnaround, and we just can't walk out, and that it is critical to us that things get to the point in Iraq that we have some degree of stability and not the way they are now," Giuliani continued. "Because if we leave it the way it is now and we run out, then we're going to face further difficulties in the future."

…

...Giuliani's positions favoring abortion rights, gay rights and gun control may not be well received by the more conservative elements of the Republican party.

King pointed out that Giuliani has said that if he won the presidency he would appoint judges who are strict constructionists and might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"I don't know that," Giuliani replied. "You don't know that."

"I am pro-choice, yes," he said. "But I'm also, as you know, always have been, against abortion -- hate abortion, don't like it, wouldn't personally advise anyone to have an abortion.

"But I believe a woman has a right to choose, and you can't have criminal penalties. ... I think that would be wrong.

"I would select judges who try to interpret the Constitution rather than invent it," he said.

Giuliani also addressed gay rights and gun control.

"Gays should be protected. ... But the way I'm portrayed by my opponents -- and I guess to drive people away from me -- is that I'm in favor of gay marriage. I am not."

However, Giuliani said he does favor domestic-partnership laws for gay and lesbian couples.

And while he favors gun control, "I understand the Second Amendment," he said. "I understand the right to bear arms.

"I think that a lot of these things have to be resolved on a state-by-state basis," he said. "And I used to say also when I was the mayor, it's one thing for New York, it's something different for Texas."

(Read More)

Maybe I’m wrong, but did Guiliani make a concise stand on even one of the issues raised here?

And you have to love the invocation of ‘states’ rights’ here, which is a vestige of the segregationist movement; and has been adapted in recent times to suit the needs of anti-abortionists, creationists, and other groups whose views have been dismissed by wider society as erroneous.

And, as far as the war is concerned; well maybe Rudy would find a way to get those lazy troops to work a little harder (video below):

Kill the Poor

Americans' savings rate drops to Depression era-low

Sun Feb 4, 12:30 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Americans spent more than they earned last year as the economy steamed ahead, pushing the personal savings rate to negative 1.0 percent, the deepest hole since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The figure, published last week by the US Commerce Department, means that not only did Americans spend all their income, they dug into savings and used credit to buy more.

Over the past seven decades, the personal savings rate -- the difference between post-tax, or disposable, income and spending -- has been in negative territory only four times: 1932, 1933, 2005 and 2006.

In the 1930s, the Great Depression explains why Americans had to dip into their savings at a time when a fourth of the workforce was out of a job.

But in 2006 and in 2005, when the personal savings rate slipped to negative 0.4 percent, the economic situation was far different, which bothers economists.

"It's surprising, especially in a period with the economy growing so strongly," said Martha Starr, an economics professor specialized in savings and consumption issues at American University in Washington.

The US economy grew by a robust 3.4 percent in 2006 -- consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of US economic output -- and the unemployment rate ended the year at 4.6 percent.

"That, I think, is what may be really shocking. We would think that with the unemployment rate so low and the economy growing so vigorously that there wouldn't necessarily be any reason for the saving rate to be so low," Starr said.

…

The American dream could fade under the glare of overspending, MetLife, an insurance and financial services group, said.

"The announcement by the Commerce Department about the negative US savings rate, which is at its lowest level in 70 years, is a bellwether for the future of the American dream," it said.

"The lack of savings, combined with the seismic shifts that have occurred in our society in the last few decades with regard to pensions, social security and health care, are increasingly putting the dream out of reach for most Americans."

(Read More)

The outright war on working people in America has been waged subversively since the end of the recession in 2001. The recent growth in the economy has almost entirely gone to the upper echelon of American class strata; and while inflation and cost of living increases continued, real wages for the vast majority of Americans have evaporated.

Between 2001-2006, national gross domestic production has grown at an average rate of 5.54% per year (source). In contrast, from November 2001-January 2006, hourly wages have only risen $0.46 (1,2). To mitigate this, working Americans have relied more on credit accounts and cashing in on the equity of their property during the recently-fading housing boom to simply maintain their standard of living. This is a consequence of a period of ‘economic prosperity’ that has only positively affected already-wealthy capital owners, while the actual physical producers of goods and services have seen their take diminish.

Furthermore, when compounded by the exponential rise in healthcare costs, and the Bush Administration’s rewriting of bankruptcy laws; the effect on the working class has been devastating. While upward mobility has been mainly quashed in the current environment, national poverty statistics have grown substantially since Bush took office. Whole new classes of working poor, and even working impoverished have been created by this national disparity. Even as this has been metastasizing in plain sight, our President and media have seen fit to encourage Americans to spend their needed savings on consumer goods and services to ‘spur’ our economy.

As it stands now, the current economic direction of the U.S. is untenable. We are creating an entirely divisive society, while promoting the highest levels of our class system toward aristocracy status. While our international situation is obviously dire and of great importance, one unnoticed benefit it has been to the right is its ability to draw attention away from this massively important issue that requires immediate debate. We are heading down a road that is going to soon pit American against American. If a majority of our citizens are fighting to maintain their current class in a time of ‘prosperity,’ then it would be wickedly immoral to fail to prepare them for future difficulties which may even place them and their families’ lives at risk. There is no reason why this cannot be resolved if not for the outright greed of our corporate kleptocracy.

Calling it a Day

Bob Dylan - Masters of War

It's More than the Middle East

From The Times

February 15, 2007

Giants meet to counter US power

Jeremy Page in Delhi

India, China and Russia account for 40 per cent of the world’s population, a fifth of its economy and more than half of its nuclear warheads. Now they appear to be forming a partnership to challenge the US-dominated world order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

Foreign ministers from the three emerging giants met in Delhi yesterday to discuss ways to build a more democratic “multipolar world”.

It was the second such meeting in the past two years and came after an unprecedented meeting between their respective leaders, Manmohan Singh, Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin, during the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.

It also came only four days after Mr Putin stunned Western officials by railing against American foreign policy at a security conference in Munich.

…

One area of agreement is opposition to outside interference in separatist conflicts in Chechnya, the northeast of India and the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang.

Another is energy. India and China are desperate for Russian oil and gas, and Moscow is worried about its dependence on Western markets. But their most significant common ground is opposition to US military intervention in Iran. The joint statement did not mention Iran, but the three countries have taken a common stance in calling for a negotiated solution through the International Atomic Energy Agency. None of them wants a nuclear-armed Iran, but Russia sells Tehran nuclear technology and India and China need Iranian gas.

(Read More)

We are entering a very dangerous time. China, along with Japan, is the largest creditor nation to the United States, providing much of the previously unbudgeted costs for the Iraq War. India’s rapid ascent into the first world will only create greater competition amongst the developed world for energy. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin may be the most powerful man on Earth, as he establishes a new Russian autocracy that gives him dangerous levels of control over his nation.

The idea that America can act unilaterally without concern for the anxieties expressed against its foreign policies is no longer valid. Our excursions into Middle East imperialism are eroding American strength threefold: by creating a significant us vs. them scenario with the other world powers, which affects trade in valuable commodities (most notably energy), and causing a coalescence of world powers tired of being disregarded as irrelevant; by placing the United States in compromising positions in which in a dispute, nations in direct competition with us can call for repayment of debts owed (possibly crashing our economy); and by handicapping the functional abilities of what was the most powerful military on Earth.

It is precisely because of this position of weakness that others view an opportunity to challenge the status of U.S. hegemony. Should we choose to invade or bomb Iran, irreparable damage may be caused not only with these nations, but Europe as well. The unfortunate irony for the Bush Administration is that our persistence on displaying our strength in response to the completely unrelated event of 9/11 has only gone to compromise the status of American Empire.

However, if China and Russia were truly interested in a more democratic management of global tensions, then their steadfast refusal to consider reforming the structure of the United Nations Security Council is blatantly hypocritical. At least Bush makes no pretense of caring what other nations (or his own people) think.

The New Scarlet Letter

Wednesday, 02/14/07

Lawmaker wants Tenn. to issue death certificates for abortions
By ERIK SCHELZIG
Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee would collect death certificates for aborted fetuses under a bill introduced in the General Assembly.

Rep. Stacey Campfield said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed in Tennessee. The measure would also likely create public records on which women are having abortions.

"All these people who say they are pro-life -- at least we would see how many lives are being ended out there by abortions," said Campfield, R-Knoxville.

The measure would give abortion providers 10 days following an "induced termination of a pregnancy" to file a death certificate with the state Office of Vital Records.

"Hopefully we'll be able to get a little information out of this," Campfield said.
Campfield acknowledged his bill might have a hard time making it through the Democratic-controlled House. But the Republican-controlled Senate "will probably pass it," he said.

House Judiciary Chairman Rob Briley, D-Nashville, called Campfield's proposal "the most preposterous bill I've seen in eight years in the Legislature."

…

Tennessee law already requires abortions to be reported to the Office of Vital Records, though the identities of women having abortions are not included in the reports. Death certificates require identifying information like Social Security numbers.

(Read More)

The Evangelical Anti-Sex Jihad strikes again.

The idea that public records of women who receive abortions would exist for the same zealots who have assassinated doctors and blown up clinics to peruse is terrifying. It is blatantly obvious that this would eventually lead to public condemnation and possible violence against women who want control over their bodies.

Furthermore, this is also a subversive attempt at abortion suppression. The day a woman can no longer count on receiving treatment in a private facility which provides absolute confidentiality is the day that desperate women fearing a judgmental society either travel out of state, seek out unregulated facilities that provide possibly unsafe (but confidential) treatment; or don’t seek any at all.

The attempts of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement to frame the issue as the protection of unborn children are intentionally duplicitous. This is part of a broad campaign to attempt to force evangelical ideas of sexual chastity on to wider society. When Plan B (commonly referred to as the ‘morning after’ pill) came up for FDA approval for sale without prescription, it met with efforts within the Bush administration to keep it from happening, despite both FDA studies recommending this reclassification; and the fact that Plan B acts BEFORE CONCEPTION. Compounded by fundamentalist-driven attacks on sexual education programs, and the idiocy of Republican-implemented ‘pharmaceutical discretion’ laws in allowing pharmacists to deny filling prescriptions on the basis of their personal belief; it becomes increasingly clear that the right wing stance on abortion is nothing more than a segment of a wider cultural view in which the many must acquiesce to the moral belief structures of the few. This fundamentally undermines democracy.

You Can't Trust Him.

February 14th, 2007 -"I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops."

January 28th, 2003 - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."


We won't get fooled again.

The Clash - Clampdown

Most hits ever today, just a little Clash to say thank you for reading.

Only Pussies Believe in Diplomacy

Tentative 'deal struck' over N. Korean nukes

POSTED: 5:07 p.m. EST, February 12, 2007

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- North Korea has tentatively agreed to close down its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy aid, U.S. and Chinese officials said Tuesday.

But the proposed deal was being reviewed by officials in the negotiators' capitals before becoming final.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead American official at the talks, said the United States will give an unspecified amount of energy assistance to North Korea in exchange for North Korea freezing its production of plutonium.

Hill said negotiators are running the agreement by their capitals and would reconvene later Tuesday.

"We feel it's an excellent, excellent draft," Hill said. "I don't think we are the problem."

The United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia have been holding talks with North Korean officials since 2002 in an effort to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program. (Read More)

But we can’t talk to Iran. Because, you know, then nobody would die.

Spring Training Begins Next Week!

After a while, anybody gets sick of talking about war, so with that in mind, here’s this:

February 12, 2007, 02:40 PM ET
Bern It Down

by Jay Jaffe

So Bernie Williams has undertaken his version of Operation Shutdown, refusing the Yankees‘ admittedly half-assed offer of a minor-league contract for a player who — no matter his long list of accomplishments or central place in building their recent dynasty — has no business being on their 2007 roster. Instead Williams plans to continue spurning guaranteed offers from other teams and wait for the Yankees to change their minds and offer him a guaranteed roster spot. In other words, he’s painting himself into a corner roughly the size of the spot on the Venn diagram where the keen strategy of a four-year-old’s hold-breath-until-blue temper tantrum meets a paraphrased Yogi Berra chestnut: if he doesn’t want to come to spring training, nobody’s going to stop him.

…

Ok, enough piling on. I’m not trying to be harsh; I wish Bernie absolutely no ill and thank him for the fond memories, and hope that he simply takes the hint and bows out gracefully. The real purpose of this post is to get to reader Devin Lavelle’s emailed question:

I was just wondering if you could update us on Bernie Willams’ HOF status. I’ve always believed him to be likely the greatest unheralded players of this era. I think his HOF qualifications are fairly borderline — but I think he should be in.

According to the latest build of JAWS (which sometimes differs from what’s on our DT cards), which I presume is what Devin is asking about, Williams scores at 106.2 career WARP3, 63.6 peak and 84.9 overall. That’s the ninth-best score among all centerfielders:

Player           Career  Peak   Overall

Willie Mays      206.1   91.9   149.0

Ty Cobb          190.0   81.8   135.9

Tris Speaker     173.2   77.8   125.5

Mickey Mantle    155.1   85.3   120.2

Ken Griffey Jr   130.9   79.4   105.2

Joe DiMaggio     120.2   77.3    98.8

Jim Edmonds      103.9   70.6    87.3

Richie Ashburn   105.0   66.1    85.6

Bernie Williams  106.2   63.6    84.9

Andre Dawson     109.5   58.4    84.0

AVG HOF CF       111.7   65.1    88.4

Good as it is, Williams’ score is 3.5 points below the average Hall centerfielder, though it is well about the median Hall centerfield score of 76.3. As an aside, I’ll note that I don’t think I’ve ever received an email critical of my decision to make JAWS such a mean bastard that wasn’t arguing in favor of a sentimental favorite’s JAWS score relative to the median rather than the average — which is actually not the average, because I drop the lowest at each position, so I call the positional scores “standards”. The point of JAWS, as I’ve always maintained, is to ever-so-slightly raise the bar of Hall selections by identifiying above-average candidates.

In any event, by the JAWS method, beloved Bernie falls shy, but JAWS knows nothing about Williams’ five All-Star appearances, four Fielding Grammies, 22 postseason homers or four World Series rings, the kind of stuff that can — and should — be factored into an informed voting decision. I suspect Williams will fall shy when his name comes up for a vote in six or seven years, but that he’ll creep in eventually, either because so many writer hold him in high esteem due to his key role within the Yankee dynasty (the Olney position) or because he’ll be at the upper end of a Veterans’ Committee ballot, with a candidacy significantly stronger than the Roger Maris types certain factions tend to wishcast into Cooperstown.

This is a source of constant debate with friends of mine. I’m almost hoping Bernie moves on to another team so he can pad his credentials a little more.

Sure, I am entirely biased; and Bernie is by no means an easy Hall of Famer. However, there have been many, many worse selections. After 8 years as a Yankee season ticket holder, and being a fan long before that, I’m going to feel a little older the day Bernie Williams isn’t roaming the outfield in Yankee Stadium anymore.

And in Other News, The Sky is Blue

Ex-Bush Iran official: US seeks pretext for conflict with Iran
David Edwards
Published: Monday February 12, 2007

A former top Bush administration official for Persian Gulf affairs has said in an interview this morning on CNN that the US may be trying to spark a conflict with Iran.

Hillary Mann is the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. She warned in the interview that the recent flare up between Iran and the US over the former's alleged assistance to Shi'a militias results from a US desire to provoke conflict with the Iranians.

"They're trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," Mann said. (Read More)

No.

I don’t care what ‘evidence’ the White House cares to come up with, I steadfastly refuse to accept any military action against Iran under any pretenses.

That is it; that is my stance. The intelligence agencies who report to a voracious, war-driven executive branch cannot be trusted to produce impartial information that at some base level is not driven by the motivations of the Bush Administration. The question now is not ‘if’ Cheney bombs/invades Iran; but instead if the American public and Congress will allow him to.

Today, officials attempted to offer proof of material support from Iran for Sunni fighters and Shiite militias whom have consistently attacked U.S. forces and contractors. Newsweek writes of the briefing:

A trio of American military officials led the show. Their mission: rolling out the administration’s case that Iran is supporting attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Under the rules of this afternoon’s briefing, the three could not identified by name. No TV cameras or tapes were allowed in, and journalists’ cell phones were taken away before they entered the briefing room. But if their job was to provide proof of Tehran’s involvement in Iraq’s bloodshed, they’re unlikely to convince the doubters with what was shown Sunday.

If the Administration has absolute confidence in their assertions, then why hold this briefing under such tight control? Under the best of circumstances, the Iraq War will be remembered in history for pre-war intelligence rife with inconsistency and sloppiness (if not outright deception and malice). The idea that ANY international maneuvering, particularly that which may lead us toward war; could be conducted without ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY only further explicates the totalitarian-based fantasy world that Cheney and Co. live in.

With two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf right now, and allegations that plans floating around the Pentagon reportedly center on the use of tactical nuclear weapons to disable Iran’s nuclear enrichment program; what people often fail to take into account is proxy war. The minute that American bombs strike Iran, the likelihood is that occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (both border nations) will become untenable. Considering the current state of deterioration, an honest appraisal of it would be calling it outright ground war; causing casualties in numbers significantly higher than that currently seen. Where are our re-enforcements to send in this likelihood? Oh, that’s right. They don’t exist.

I do not believe that Iran is a threat to the United States, our allies, or interests. I do not believe our nation is financially prepared to accept the burden of worsening military engagements in the Middle East. Though our bombs are mighty, the rest of our army is in disrepair while mired in compromising positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is not fair to ask so many more of our uniformed personnel to sacrifice their lives for the bloodlust of our Executive. I believe it is immoral to leave another nation in ruin and its people suffering or dead. I neither believe nor trust our President; nor those who work under him. Therefore, I am a member of the American majority. It is up to us. Are you tired of five and a half years of death and war? Then stand and shout until you are heard. We can no longer stand aside and shrug our shoulders in expressions of powerlessness; the stakes are too high.

This Is Not a Game, People!

Hillary: I didn't vote for 'pre-emptive war'

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

Friday, February 9^th, 2007

Manchester – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton today insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

…

Clinton said Bush and his administration “have performed a great disservice to our men and women in uniform, to our country, to our vital national security interests in the region and to the ongoing struggle against Islamic extremists.”

Clinton spoke with UnionLeader.com and the New Hampshire Union Leader on the eve of her first campaign visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state this weekend.

She said she does not “at this time” support a cut in funding for American troops in Iraq. She backs instead a cut in funding for Iraqi troops.

“We have got to get their attention,” she said of the Iraqi leadership. She said they “do not fulfill their promises and make “worthless” assurances. (Read More)

Meanwhile…

Obama declares candidacy for US presidency in 2008

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Saturday February 10, 2007

Washington- US Democratic Senator Barack Obama Saturday announced officially his candidacy for the US presidential election in 2008. Announcing his presidential bid to rapturous crowds on his home turf of Springfield, Illinois, Obama, 45, a fast-rising African- American, pledged to free the US "from the tyranny of war".

"America, it's time to bring our troops home," he said. (Read More)

Hillary Clinton is playing word games with the lives of both Iraqis and American soldiers. She believes that she can play both sides. That she can continue intellectually dishonest prattle of how she would deal with an insignificant Iraqi government differently; while also believing that with a wink, the activist left will trust her in her efforts to triangulate.

Obama may be a latecomer to John Murtha’s party; however he is currently the only mainstream candidate who has advanced legislation calling for a withdrawal. He also holds distinction as being in the minority of candidates who did not vote for the resolution to give Bush authorization, as well as voicing clear disapproval of the impending invasion. Clinton attempts to insinuate that she was never enthusiastically supporting invading Iraq, but unfortunately for her, the modern world has things like video cameras, tape recorders, and reporters with notebooks:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Hillary Clinton, United States Senate, October 10^th, 2002

The importance of our current context requires that Clinton admit that not only was the Iraq policy flawed, but that her support of it was a mistake. Without a clear disavowal of her previous position, she cannot be trusted to not make similar errors in the future. Indeed, even as the Iraq war rages, another unnecessary confrontation looms in the horizon.

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel

The Associated Press

Published: February 1, 2007

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

…

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said. (Read More)

The reason why Hillary Clinton is dangerous is because she views and utilizes war as a political tool. Everyday as the Iraq war degrades, and the mice jump off the sinking ship; her triangulations and wordplay only go further to ensuring her defeat in either the primary or general election.

Some issues require tests of personal integrity over political expediency; and Clinton consistently fails every one. The Iraq War is not just unpopular; it represents a world view and ideology that Americans have grown to understand is wrong. Clinton’s dogged persistence in supporting it is both immoral, and a miscalculation. As was so eminently clear in November, we are entering into a new age of American liberalism, and this Thatcher clone is unfit to carry our banner.

Honey, I Didn't Mean to Cheat on You! It Was All George Tenet's Idea!

(The original video from Doug Feith's appearance on The Situation Room has been pulled from YouTube. To see the clip, head over to Crooks and Liars)

One of these days, George Tenet is going to tire of being the fall guy; and when that day occurs, the White House and Office of the Vice President will have another thing coming. This is all the result of attempts by Cheney and Rumsfeld to set up an autonomous intelligence unit within the Pentagon which they utilized to promote their Iraq policy. They browbeat the CIA into submission in the run up to the war, and now are trying to deflect all blame toward them.

But intelligence officials are neither stupid, nor powerless. The day one of them flips, and tells where the metaphorical bodies are buried just might be the end of the Bush Administration.

Cultural Bankruptcy

A society is often judged on who it celebrates. I am less upset with our media's infatuation with this inconsequential passing than I am terrified that this is what American society wants to discuss. This segment is nothing more than another segment in our national freak show. And it isn't news.

Do You Think I'm an Idiot?

Well then, make your case.

I believe in the free exchange of ideas, so by all means, feel free to comment on my posts, no matter what your personal ideological persuasion is. As long as you aren't advertising or blatantly prejudiced, your contributions are absolutely welcome.

Also, for any inquiries, please feel free to contact me at micheil.slactivism@gmail.com. I'd love to hear back from readers.

More Things That Bother me

Subscription Cards - I subscribe to your magazine. I'm attempting to read an article, when every five seconds, the magazine pops open to some page that has a half-inch subscription card stapled to it. Why?
I fail to see the reason behind this. Do publishers think I'm going to subscribe to their magazine twice? Is this a benevolent attempt to offer customers in hotter climates an improvisational hand fan? Why waste the paper, and inspire my (admittedly petty) ire?
Seriously, you show me a magazine that prints subscription card-free issues for their subscribers, and I will subscribe (I'm going to contact Guinness, because I'm pretty sure that I've set a record for using different tenses of 'subscribe' in a sentence). Seriously. Even if its Dog Fashion Monthly.

Our Long International Nightmare Continues

U.S. Doesn't Sign Ban on Disappearances

By JAMEY KEATEN

Associated Press

Updated: 9:28 p.m. ET Feb 6, 2007

PARIS - Nearly 60 countries signed a treaty on Tuesday that bans governments from holding people in secret detention, but the United States and some of its key European allies were not among them.

…

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined comment except to say that the United States helped draft the treaty, but that the final text "did not meet our expectations."

McCormack declined comment on whether the U.S. stance was influenced by the administration's policy of sending terrorism suspects to CIA-run prisons overseas, which Bush acknowledged in September.

Many other Western nations, including Germany, Spain, Britain and Italy, also did not sign the treaty. France introduced the convention at the U.N. General Assembly in November and it was adopted in December.

Many delegates expressed hope that other nations will sign by year-end. Some European nations have expressed support for the treaty, but face constitutional hurdles or require a full Cabinet debate before signing, French and U.N. officials said. (Read More)

This article sure makes Extraordinary Rendition sound innocuous. In reality, intelligence agents of the United States have kidnapped innocent civilians in European countries, and sent them to authoritarian regimes for torture and interrogation. Indeed, recently there were proceedings in Italy questioning whether to charge CIA officials with kidnapping in absentia.

In another generation, those now in power are going to have some serious questions to answer; and if there is any decency within them, more than a modicum of shame. Indeed, as our collective democracy represents our will as individuals, this is a burden that we must share as citizens. Because we allowed it to happen.

However, any European nation which has had its citizens suffer rendition at our hands is engaging in the greatest hypocrisy should they fail to sign as well.

Why Do You Need Your Own Money?

I was watching tv tonight, when I saw a commercial for a group named PhRMA which argued against changes to the medicare prescrition drug benefit. First off, who is PhRMA? In their own words:

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, which are devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier, and more productive lives.

Okay, so it's an interest group for pharmacutical companies. Surely, however, they wouldn't engage in partisan politics to avoid controls on prices for percription drugs paid by taxpayers? Like, a right wing rag like the Wall Street Journal would never say anything like that, right?

Wednesday, 10/25/2006

Fearing a Democratic Victory, Drug Makers Fund Key Races

Cash Fuels Campaign Debate About Medicare Benefit; Oil, Finance Follow Suit

Wall Street Journal

...Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies. The industry successfully argued that the government's clout would mess up prices and stifle innovation.

Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri benefited from $900,000 in ads this year touting his role in the prescription-drug benefit, according to a tally by Americans United for Change, a liberal advocacy group with close ties to congressional Democrats. Mr. Talent made a similar pitch in two TV ads as well as in a recent debate with his Democratic challenger, Claire McCaskill.

Okay. So they supported Republicans who helped Bush enact this plan with absolute price controls restricting the Government from using free market principles to negotiate lower prices. But I'm sure they didn't release basically what is nearly the same exact commercial in support of Jim Talent last Fall.



Oh. Okay. So maybe PhRMA is a corporate shill which exists solely to screw the taxpayer by making sure that their bought and paid for congressional representatives cut them sweetheart deals. But I'm sure they're nice to their mothers.

And then Xenu Tossed the Thetans in Volcanos, and Detonated Hydrogen Bombs...

Ancient Skeleton Focus of Modern Debate

Feb 6, 11:18 PM (ET)

By ANTHONY MITCHELL

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics: Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found.

But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm - one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism - once largely confined to the United States - has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind.

"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."

He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room - along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.

…

Among the 160,000 fossils due to go on display is an imprint of a lizard left in sedimentary rock, dating back 200 million years, at a time when the Earth's continents were only beginning to separate.

Dinosaur fossils and a bone from an early human ancestor, dating back 7 million years, will also be on show along with the bones of short-necked giraffes and elephants whose tusks protrude from their lower jaws.

They provide the clearest and unrivaled record yet of evolution and the origins of man, say scientists.

But the highlight will be the 5-foot-3 Turkana Boy, who died at age 12 and whose skeleton had been preserved in marshland before its discovery.

It will form the center stage of the exhibition to be launched in July following a $10.5 million renovation of the National Museums of Kenya, financed by the European Union. The EU says it has no concerns over the displays and that the museum was free to exhibit what it wished.

Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account in the Bible that God created the world in six days. Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later. He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.

Adoyo's evangelical coalition is the only religious group voicing concern about the exhibition.

Leakey fears the ideological spat may provoke an attack on the priceless collection, one largely found during the 1920s by his paleontologist parents, Louis and Mary Leakey, who passed their fossil-hunting traditions on to him. (Read More)

It’s terrifying what people believe in, and how intractable they can be without any evidence.

It’s funny how we can cast aspersions on the more archaic belief structures of Islam, yet accept illogical prattling like this from Americans who espouse the same nonsense as legitimate. I don’t care what people care to place faith in, as long as they don’t attempt to use it to counter fact.

We have parents in this country who deny their daughters HPV vaccines that prevent cancer because in their narrow view, it promotes promiscuity. Religion often seems to create an odd sense of morality.

BlackStar - Respiration

Hard to believe this album is almost 10 years old. Instant classic.

Ned Lamont '12!

Joe Lieberman saw his shadow today, and so that means we’re getting another two years of pointless war.

US should weigh war on terrorism tax - Lieberman

06 Feb 2007 18:23:45 GMT

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said on Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending.

A former Democrat who supports the Iraq war and backs President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, Lieberman said the proposed increase in the Pentagon's budget for next fiscal year will squeeze funding for critical domestic programs.

"I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it." (Read More)

What can you say? Connecticut, here’s your great senator, whom in your infinite wisdom you chose to re-elect; in all his glory:

We have talked a lot lately about Dick Cheney's delusional behavior and his childlike strategic foreign policy vision. It seems as if even the dunderhead Bush seems less threatening and freakishly out to lunch than Cheney. In fact, it's hard to find any Republicans wearing the fogged-up, rose colored glasses that Cheney sports these days. But there is one guy who equals Cheney for sheer magical thinking and schoolboy worldview; it's Holy Joe Lieberman, the Supreme Allied Commander of the War against Islamofascism.

…

I couldn't help but think of that scene when I read this:

Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was “Behind Enemy Lines,” in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, “Yeah!” and “All right!”

That is a 60ish US Senator from New England, not a 21 year old marine preparing to go to war. There's something very disturbing about that picture. (Courtesy Hullabaloo)

And he wants to bomb Iran. This man is beyond politics; he watches the world with self-professed omniscient eyes, playing G.I. Joe with men and women who have done something that he refused to do when offered the opportunity in his youth: fight and risk death in war.

His is the lowest, most debased perspective one can imagine in foreign policy: I don’t like you, so I’m going to go to war with you. How many times is Joe Lieberman going to drive support for wars with nations that pose no imminent threat to the people or interests of the United States?

Ultimately, Joe Lieberman watches the news like a fair-weather Bulls fan fawned over Jordan in the mid-nineties. That what his idol (Bush) does is right or wrong is of no significance to Joe; only that he has fortitude to turn his ill will into reality. His predisposition to be in awe of those who exert power against all objections would make Joe a fine cabinet member for Franco or Stalin; however, it does us all a disservice in his position as a check on the power of our executive branch.

And though he has proven all his words of moderation last November to be an outright lie; I would like to extend my sincerest wishes that the Republicans in Connecticut who drove his re-election are satisfied with sharing the burden for the body count Mr. Lieberman will leave in his wake.

Just one of Lieberman’s greatest hits before we go –

“It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
*Slurp*

What Must Be Done

The disassociation politicians create within themselves to separate their political gamesmanship from the effect that it has on the real lives of their constituency is often questionable, if not immoral. In no circumstances is this hypothetical more true than war. When the pieces on the chess board bleed suffer and die, the moral imperative must always be at the forefront of policy decisions.

With applications in the current circumstance, not only would doing the right thing serve a higher purpose; but it would also lend important political distinctions that would open up war proponents to isolation and criticism. However, to this day, the Democratic Party refuses to do what must be done.

The first objective is seizing the opportunity to redefine the failed Iraq policy in terms more stark and real than currently propagated by the White House and its GOP sycophants. This means the end of weak qualifiers for dissent of this war; no more terms such as ‘poorly initiated policy,’ or other terminology designed to render the problems in Iraq as Gomer Pyle-like mismanagement.

This means we have to finally stop triangulating, and discuss the war for what it was, is, and will be for recorded history: an illegal, immoral policy, driven by intentionally-corrupted evidence shoe-horned by fervent operatives at the hands of the President and Vice President over the objections of intelligence officials at a time when the American people were susceptible to deceit. That the war was doomed from its outset, and that an honorable and clean withdrawal may not be possible. That the status quo may only continue to degrade and entrap us more in this failed policy if we fail to take initiative and leave.

And finally, this means that we must leave Iraq today, and if not today, then tomorrow; and if not tomorrow, then the day after. As pressure against the war policy has become a national movement, Republicans have taken refuge in knowing that the left party will never force the issue. Behind every challenge from Republican operatives to cut off funding for the war is palpable fear. A vote on either the Feingold or Obama resolution will put every member of the House and Senate on record about the war and its prospects for future success. There are only two outcomes from this issue reaching the floor: either it will die at the hands of the Republican Guard who will lose office in a year and a half as result; or the war will be ended. I fail to see the harm of either alternative.

But then again, nobody in Congress is going to lay awake tonight wondering if they’ll still have all their limbs tomorrow; much less their lives. Stop the games. End the War.

You Are a Terrorist Until Your Government Says So, Damnit!

US government to set up DNA bank as law enforcement tool

RAW STORY

Published: Monday February 5, 2007

WASHINGTON - US authorities will soon begin collecting DNA samples from suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities, including hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, the New York Times reported.

The new rules, which are being put in place by the US Justice Department, aim to make the practice of collecting DNA samples as routine as fingerprinting for anyone detained by federal agents.

Until now, federal authorities have taken DNA samples only from convicted felons, but the new rules would allow a vast expansion of that practice. (Read More)

I think I’m starting to understand the viewpoint behind this: figure that our nation is in the hands of a fundamentalist ‘Born Again’ President. As any good Christian knows, we are all born with original sin, and so therefore, we are all guilty; which revokes habeas corpus, or any other civil liberty that the constitution grants to innocent citizens.

So, when you are arrested for committing a terrorist hoax next year due to the FBI surveying you without a warrant because of ‘suspicious activity’ while placing Christmas lights that may or may not resemble a anthrax dispersal unit; remember to blame that fucking prick Adam for eating that apple, and making you inherently wicked. (All this was sarcasm, btw)

In reality, this is just another really fucked up thing happening in the ‘Eternal Crusade Against Freedom-Hating Bad Muslims/Arabs/Ragheads/Hippies’ that people don’t notice or care about… yet.

If CNN has Anything to Say for it...

...bird flu is totally in for newscasters this spring. Then again, who needs to report on anything important today? It's not like we're in two wars, or anything.

The Voice of God

Sam Cooke - Blowin' in the Wind


Sorry, Jimi; but this is the greatest Dylan cover of all Time.

Sam Cooke, the most important soul singer in history, and one of the most influential Black Americans of the 20th century; died under mysterious circumstances in 1964. Making matters more suspicious, at the time of his death, Cooke began using his extensive popularity and influence to bring attention to the burgeoning civil rights movement. Now, his family is disputing the official record of his death. For more information, see ourunclesam.com.

Things That Bother me

In what is sure to become a recurring column, I'm going to go Andy Rooney, and voice things that disturb me; both of banal and significant nature. So, on with another in the litany of Web 2.0 complaint lists!

World War II Video Games - I am a video gamer who has owned close to 75% of major-market gaming systems in my lifetime. Furthermore, I believe in artistic license, and allowing people the freedom to choose to consume media as violent or otherwise salacious as they wish (albeit with the proviso that no person was harmed during its creation). This being said, there is something macabre in the mass-market desire to simulate the worst event in human history. The idea that people receive a visceral thrill from recreating battles where hundreds of thousands lost lives, many through such inhuman suffering as starvation or freezing to death; disappoints me.
While most rightfully celebrate the memories of the allies who rose at great personal risk to defend the world (and themselves) from what was quite possibly the most conspicuous concentration of human evil in history; it remains undeniable for all of time that World War II was the greatest failing of mankind, and as such should not be celebrated in this form. When you die in Call of Duty, it is simulating the death of your grandfather or great uncle; and I think if this association was more common, perhaps this genre would be deservedly less popular.

Dwayne Wade - Okay, so Wade by himself doesn't bother me. He is a fantastic player, perhaps the best player in the NBA; however, the referees' insistence on treating him as if he were made of porcelain is giving the Miami Heat an unfair advantage. Wade scored 24 points in the fourth quarter tonight to lead the Heat to a comeback win over the Cavaliers; however this is substantively less impressive when one notices that fourteen of these points came from the free-throw line. We've already had the integrity of the Finals compromised (at least in my mind) by 'The Wade Rules,' and it would be nice to see a legitimately great player perform to the merit of his own abilities.