A Pointed View

With Democrats like Hillary, who needs Republicans?

2008-04-15T13:03:00.005-04:00

"They cling to vote on the basis of guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."

If you get to the heart of what Obama was saying, that people are manipulated into voting on the basis of issues unrelated to their political interests, how much truer a statement can you get?

Why else have the GOP candidates for decades talked about immigrants, god and the NRA, stirring up blue-collar voters? Would they win those votes if they admitted what they really had planned?

And it's worked. These folks have voted against their self-interest. So now, Hillary Clinton, who owes Rush Limbaugh for her margin of victory in Texas and Ohio primaries, is once again playing the Republican game, has once again out-Republicaned the Republican in this race.

Words to Live By

2007-11-27T08:30:00.000-05:00

We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
-Gandhi

Response to Sen. Schumer's Op Ed on supporting Mukasey

2007-11-06T09:45:00.000-05:00

Here's the text of an email I sent Senator Charles Schumer of New York (purportedly, a Democrat) this morning after reading his rationalization for rubber-stamping George W. Bush's nominee for U.S. Attorney General.

Dear Senator Schumer:

Your Op-Ed in The New York Times this morning is repugnant.

You say: "No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to remove
the stench of politics from the Justice Department."

Plenty of people question what you claim no one questions. The man
refused to condemn waterboarding as torture and refused to say the
president must obey the law.

How is it beneficial to our country to install Torture Boy II in the
office that the original Torture Boy has vacated? My question to you:
Who's going to remove the stench of politics from your self-serving,
craven, torture-acquiescing cave-in to Bush administration policies?

Mr. Schumer, it's not Republicans that are the problem. There aren't
enough of them to do the damage that's been done to this country.
They couldn't function without the help of unprincipled, calculating
Democratic enablers like yourself.

Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance?

2007-10-25T11:49:00.000-04:00

One of the most important issues Americans face -- if not the most important -- is the way money talks in our system of government. Candidates for every office, from city commissioner to president, are financed in their campaigns by major corporations and other special interests. When the candidate becomes an elected official, payback means that laws get passed, projects get funded, regulations get softened, in ways that favor the financiers of their campaigns, usually to the detriment of the rest of us.

The Supreme Court has equated money with speech and made it possible to spend obscene sums to influence would-be office-holders. The more money you have, the more "free speech" you have. That means that, whatever issues are most important to you, whether it's global warming, the Iraq occupation, education, privacy, or anything else, you're up against, not just another block of voters with different opinions, but corporate interests which can spend many millions to drown out your voice.

Not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

A few U.S. senators have proposed a Constitutional amendment to give the power of limiting campaign contributions back to the Congress. It probably has no chance at this time in history, given that everyone who's ever influenced anyone w/money will lobby against it. But, for what it's worth, here's the gist, from the website of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

With new fundraising records being set nearly every quarter in this year’s presidential primary contests, Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-Pa), Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced a joint resolution to overturn the 1976 Supreme Court decision in the case of Buckley v. Valeo and restore Congress’ power to regulate campaign finances...

...“The cost of elections has spiraled out of control—and as the cost of running for office continues to rise, the integrity of the campaign process wanes. A perception that those with money have undue influence will continue to grow,” said Harkin. “We need to have a campaign finance structure which limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy.”

Recent Supreme Court opinions on campaign finance reform—such as in the Wisconsin Right to Life case—have reaffirmed Buckley, invalidated key tenets of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and further limited Congress’ ability to regulate campaign financing. This resolution would in fact allow for better First Amendment protection in situations where a candidate’s views might be dwarfed by a self-financing opponent. In addition to restoring Congress’ power to regulate campaign finances in federal elections, the resolution also authorizes similar power to each state for election to state or local office, ballot initiatives, and referenda.

Bush to Ahmadinejad: Pot calling kettle black

2007-09-24T10:13:00.000-04:00

In his 60 Minutes interview with President Ahmadinejad of Iran, yesterday, correspondent Scott Pelley displayed all the swagger of a surrogate George W. Bush -- right down to the total absence of awareness of the irony in his own words.

At one point, Pelley told Ahmadinejad the following:

"I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world."

Those words sounded strangely familiar. As they should. The message that Pelley delivered to Ahmadinejad from Bush is simply a regurgitation of the message that a group of 26 Republican and Democratic military leaders and diplomats, calling itself, *Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, sent to the American people about Bush, himself, three years earlier, when advocating for a change of leadership in the 2004 presidential election.

From the statement:

"Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaida and the attacks of Sept. 11. The evidence did not support this argument.

"Our security has been weakened...

"Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us... Never in the 2¼ centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."

In other words, Bush had made terrible choices for his people; had isolated the United States of America; and made it the pariah of the world.

*(The Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change group included Reagan's chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral William Crowe; Reagan's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock; Carter's CIA director, Stansfield Turner; and George H.W. Bush's Air Force chief of staff, Tony McPeak.)

The First Amendment: No License Necessary to Publish

2007-07-27T17:43:00.000-04:00

Michael Moore is a journalist. He produces documentaries. The United States cannot demand that a journalist get a license before practicing journalism. That's what freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is all about: we don't need no stinking license. We're free to publish.

Historical context: One of the issues that America's founders dealt with under former British rule was licensing of printers. No one who wasn't licensed, by either the king or the official church, was permitted to publish. So, the First Amendment was meant to address this by guaranteeing freedom of the press and thereby, abolishing the need for press licenses.

It's a principle that's managed to withstand a couple of centuries.

Fast forward to today. Apparently, Michael Moore has been issued a subpoena for his taking his film crew to Cuba to film his latest documentary, Sicko. And what is the issue the government is raising? That he may not be licensed as a journalist to do so.

There is nothing more dangerous to our press freedom than giving the government control over who may or may not qualify for a license to report and publish. Demanding licenses, which must come through the federal government, means that the federal government can shut down the activities of "non-licensed" journalists. It's as unconstitutional as it gets, folks. Protest it to the rafters.

This is an especially important issue for freelancers (like me, for example), who, while journalists, aren't necessarily on staff with a particular news organization.

The letter the Bush administration sent Moore, and a link, is below:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20220 May 2 2007

CERTIFIED MAIL - REQUIREMENT TO FURNISH INFORMATION No: CT-336858

Michael F. Moore
ADDRESS DELETED

Dear Mr. Moore:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") administers a
comprehensive trade embargo against Cuba as set forth in the Cuban
Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515 (the "Regulations").
Section 515.201(b) of the Regulations prohibits all unauthorized
travel-related transactions with respect to Cuba by persons subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States. Travel-related transactions may
be authorized only through general or specific licenses issued by
OFAC. Violations of Regulations may result in civil and/or criminal
penalties.

OFAC has received information indicating that you traveled to Cuba
during March of 2007. This Office has no record that a specific
license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related
transactions involving Cuba. OFAC has information indicating that you
claimed to qualify under the provision for general license for
full-time journalists. An application dated October 12, 2006 was
submitted by Coldflat Productions, which included you, but no
determination had been made by OFAC. OFAC Enforcement is conducting a
civil investigation for possible unlicensed transactions under the
Regulations surrounding your alleged trip to Cuba. The information you
provide in response to this letter may serve as the basis of further
civil enforcement action by OFAC.

Pursuant to section 501.602 of the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties
Regulations, 31 CFR Part 501, you are hereby required to provide this
Office with a detailed written report concerning your alleged trip to
Cuba. Your report must specifically respond to all the items
enumerated below.

1. Provide your dates of travel (include date and point of departure
from the U.S., third country stopover points, date of arrival in and
departure from Cuba and date of return to the U.S.).

2. Provide the reason for your trip to Cuba and your itinerary within Cuba.

3. If you claim that your trip to Cuba qualifies for a general license
for journalistic activities, provide the following:

a. Evidence that you are regularly employed as a journalist by a news
reporting organization or;

b. Evidence that you are regularly employed as a supporting or
technical personnel by a news reporting organization.

4. State the cost of your airline or ocean vessel tickets and the name
of the individual or entity that paid for each ticket (provide a copy
of each ticket receipt).

5. Provide the name and address of any travel agency that you used to
arrange travel to Cuba, the service each agency provided to you and
the amount you paid to each agency (provide a copy o f receipts).

6. Provide the name and location of hotel(s) or other place(s) where
you stayed while in Cuba and the amount you paid (include method of
payment and receipts).

7. For each individual who was part of this trip, provide their name,
address and purpose for participation..

8. Provide any additional information which you may wish OFAC to
consider concerning your trip to Cuba.

Your report is due at OFAC within 20 business days from the reciept of
this letter and should be addressed as follows:

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Attn: John Dickie
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (Annex)
Washington, D.C. 20220

You should be aware that failure to respond to this letter may result
in the imposition of civil penalties by OFAC. If you have any
questions, please call Mr. Dickie at (202) 622-2430

Sincerely,
SIGNATURE
Dale Thompson, Chief
General Investigations & Field Operations
Office of Foreign Assets Control

After The Fireworks

2007-07-05T12:37:00.000-04:00

I watched the colorful explosions last night from a relatively secluded spot at a small inlet on Sarasota Bay. The boom, boom of miniature bombs, the flags hung out all over town, and the commentary, earlier in the day, from media pundits about our founding fathers, all seemed to flow together but not in the way intended.

What Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, was as hypocritical, in its own way, as George W. Bush’s declaration of war against Iraq on March 19, 2003.

“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.”

Jefferson intended that only some men should enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not all. He and other founders, indignantly declaring their independence, did their best to ensure that their slave population enjoyed no rights of any kind.

In building a nation independent of an unjust monarch, the founders poured this much graver injustice into the foundation of the newly declared United States. And, what has been built since then, sags from that defect.

Our constitution, a model document in other respects, created an electoral college to pick our president. The number of electors for each state was determined, not by the number of eligible voters in each of the states, but by population, whether free or slave. Each of the half-million slaves was counted as three-fifths of a person so that, in the south, where population was swelled by slaves, free men got more bang for each vote. The more slaves that slave states held in captivity, the more electoral votes it got.

Another of our revered founders, James Madison, proposed this system, instead of direct election. In an argument we’d easily see as essentially evil if suggested anywhere in the world today, this man we treat almost like a secular saint, demanded that slave owners get the right to use their slaves’ circumstances to perpetuate those circumstances.

Which brings us to today and George W. Bush. No matter how loyal Bushies had manipulated the situation in Florida in 2000, Bush wouldn’t be president if not for slavery. The electoral college vote, designed to create an inequitable system, did so again. It rendered moot Al Gore’s popular vote lead of about a half-million votes.

So, if not for slavery, we would not be in Iraq.

Of course, a great many other things would have been different throughout American history as well. Thomas Jefferson would never have been president, for example, if not Virginia's massive slave population — and the extra electoral college votes granted to Jefferson as a result. It’s impossible to guess what that alternate America and world would have looked like.

But if we finished, for another year, with the July 4th explosion of fireworks, the flag-waving and singing of “God Bless America,” that gets everyone all misty-eyed, we should look with clearer eyes at what we claim is so blessed.

Time

2007-07-01T19:56:00.000-04:00

“If I could save time in a bottle, the first thing that I'd like to do…"

When a song insists on playing in my head for minutes or hours or days, there’s always something that one part of my brain is trying to tell another part, through the music. Sometimes I hear the message; sometimes, just the song.

I recognize the message of the above. Time in a Bottle, Jim Croce's love ballad, has always reminded me of something he didn't intend to say to those who listened. Croce died in a plane crash, not so long after writing it. So, when it gets stuck on "play" in my consciousness, I’m reminded of how little time we each have — and how little we know about when that time will end.

For me, the importance of all this is not so much to pack life with the most of everything I want to get out of it, because I can’t ever succeed at that. While there’s life, there will always be the far goal, along with the many little nearby ones. I can’t possibly do everything I think I might like to do — and what I think I might like to do often looks, from the other side, after having done it, less important.

So, for me, the key is to avoid doing what I know I'll otherwise feel guilty about having done; and to gather the will to do what, I know, I'll otherwise feel guilty about not having done.

The Loyal Bushies' Excellent Debate Club

2007-06-29T19:48:00.000-04:00

Ever since George W. Bush won the only vote that mattered — 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court — we’ve been told by those who support him that so many of the issues we thought were settled, aren’t.

When we were horrified at learning our government was engaged in the regular practice of torture, we were told that there’s a “debate” about what constitutes torture. So we debated.

When we demanded that our government do something about man-made global warming, we were told there’s a “debate” about whether global warming is man-made. So we debated this, too.

Now, we’re told by White House press secretary Dana Perino that there’s a “debate” about whether the vice president’s office is part of the executive branch.

At long last, instead of engaging in the so-called debate, our pundits and politicians are saying what they should have said about all along when the loyal Bushies pretended that settled information is mere hypothesis. Vice President Cheney is part of the executive branch. It says so right there in the U.S. Constitution. Go look, but don’t come back and waste our time with plans to debate about it.

These are fairly straightforward issues. If some folks insist they require debate, the reason is strategic. So long as the "debate" continues, accepted facts aren't acted upon.

STRATEGY: Insist that there's a debate about whether the globe is actually warming; or about whether the warming is man-made
RESULT: No action on this imminent global threat. Americans, instead of demanding change, get diverted into proving the false arguments false.

STRATEGY: Insist that there is a debate about whether waterboarding, stress positions, psychological torment, and other standard torture techniques in use by the U.S. government are torture.
RESULT: Instead of rallying to end torture, people are put on the defensive where first they must prove torture is torture. As long as the diversionary debate continues, so does the torture.

STRATEGY: Insisting that there’s a debate about whether the vice president is a part of the executive branch of government.
RESULT: This one isn’t working. We were supposed to get sidetracked into questioning the obvious here, too, but maybe there just aren’t as many loyal Cheney-ites as there are loyal Bushies. The result is we’re all staring at the naked vice-emperor, laughing our asses off.

But unless we reject all the phony arguments, without giving them the credence they strive for through debate, the joke is still on us.

Global warming is an imminent threat. Torture is torture. And Vice President Cheney, whatever else he is, belongs to the executive branch. For another 16 (looooooong) months, anyway.

Justice for me but not for thee

2007-06-16T10:06:00.000-04:00

With all the ranting about tort reform that folks like the failed Bush I nominee for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, do, you'd think they really believed that most lawsuits brought by individuals against corporations are scams. And, when they demand that the government cap punitive damages on medical malpractice and other claims, they do so with such fervor, it would be easy to assume that they are truly offended by large damage awards.

Well, now we know: Bork is offended when, say, the person whose healthy right foot is mistakenly amputated, instead of his gangrened left, gets compensation from the doctors and hospital that botched things. When it comes to compensation for his tiny bump on the head, however, the sky is no limit.

[Robert] Bork spoke at the Yale Club last year, and fell on his way to the dais, injuring his leg and bumping his head. Mr. Bork is not merely suing the club for failing to provide a set of stairs and a handrail between the floor and the dais. He has filed a suit that is so aggressive about the law that, if he had not filed it himself, we suspect he might regard it as, well, piratical.

Mr. Bork puts the actual damages for his apparently non-life-threatening injuries (after his fall, he was reportedly able to go on and deliver his speech) at “in excess of $1,000,000.” He is also claiming punitive damages. And he is demanding that the Yale Club pay his attorney’s fees.

The above would be non-news if not for the Op-Ed that Robert Bork co-authored back in 1995:

Our expensive, capricious and unpredictable civil justice systems present precisely the kind of conflicting and costly state regulation of commerce that the Commerce Clause was designed to solve. Lawsuits, verdicts, settlements and the insurance necessary to defend and indemnify against them, are driving up the cost of goods and services everywhere, and consumers are paying the bill. The litigation explosion has no respect for the state lines because commerce and insurance are now national. Interstate commerce and trade have become the principal victims of a runaway liability system.

Courts are now meccas for every conceivable unanswered grievance or perceived injury. Juries dispense lottery-like windfalls, attracting and rewarding imaginative claims and far-fetched legal theories. Today's merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation - anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates.

The last Sopranos episode

2007-06-11T15:58:00.000-04:00

The web has been lit up today by reviews of the last episode of the hit HBO show. Most folks seem disappointed. I thought it proved itself as art with its "roll your own" ending, instead of wrapping up all the dangling story lines as would typical, forgettable entertainment.

It's also interesting to see how many reviewers claim it's odd for a thug to be embraced as the show's hero. I don't agree. I see Tony Soprano as sort of a cynic's everyman and his role — mob boss — as metaphor.

Tony Soprano tells his analyst that he's a good guy and believes it. He gets away with infractions that are extreme but he thinks of them the way anyone else who cuts corners here and there would think of their own infractions: the office worker who steal supplies, sneaking them out in her oversized purse; the pharmaceutical executive who hides research showing the company's latest drug is harming patients; the politician doing all the ugly things politicians do to get elected and keep power. All these people are likely pillars of their communities, too. Who's to say that, in Soprano's position, with his power, all the above would behave all that differently, seeing what they're already willing to do?

My favorite part of the last episode (don't read if you haven't seen it):

AJ's fantasies of saving the world, becoming a soldier, liaising with the civilian population in Afghanistan, and maybe going on to the CIA, are shown to be the mental meanderings of a spoiled child with no intention of doing anything, when his parents dangle a shiny new opportunity in front of him. They arrange for him to work for the porn movie producer who's branching into a better class of film (like Cleaver). And AJ, who, in theory, wants to save the world by not driving an SUV, rationalizes his new BMW by saying that there's no public transportation to the new gig.

I loved it.

Why Gonzo Isn't Gone

2007-05-14T21:29:00.000-04:00

Despite the revelations about the politicization of federal justice under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he's in no apparent danger of losing his job. By the Rove/Bush standard, his performance is exemplary. As ordered, he signed off on the firing of at least 8 U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. Then, when testifying before Congress, Gonzales claimed memory lapses that would probably have qualified him for this clinical trial. Now, his former classmates at Harvard Law School are trying to shame him into behaving like someone who actually gives a damn about the law. A letter from several dozen of the Class of 1982 urges Gonzales to:

“... relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.”

You'd think that folks who graduated from Harvard Law would be smart enough to figure it out: the reason the attorney general still has his job, while underlings fall like dominoes (Deputy AG McNulty is the latest to "resign"), is precisely because he follows the reckless path Rove has mapped out for the DOJ.

Gonzo's safe as long as he continues to show the utter disrespect for the rule of law and the Constitution that he's shown to date.

Make that 10 Fired U.S. Attorneys

2007-05-13T20:34:00.000-04:00

The former U.S. Attorney for West Virginia, Karl K. "Kasey" Warner, now says that he, too, was asked by the Department of Justice to resign. And he, too, suspects that the reasons were strictly political. When the DOJ first told him to get lost, he refused, (saying that he took his orders from the president). He promptly got a letter from Harriet Miers, then the president's counsel, telling him he was fired. No explanation.

"The facts speak for themselves," Warner is quoted in a CBS News report as saying. "If they want to look at the cases I had and the corruption cases we have now, people can come to their own conclusions about why I was let go." The report goes on to note:

Some former U.S. attorneys such as New Mexico's David Iglesias said Republican politicians pressured them to rush public corruption investigations in election years. Warner would not comment on whether he received any such pressure and would not say who was being investigated when he was fired.

"Speaking generally," he said, "in my mind, if you want a good justice system, you don't remove U.S. attorneys to thwart ongoing criminal investigations."

Department of [Obstruction of] Justice?

2007-05-12T09:41:00.000-04:00

A federal judge has approved a limited immunity deal for Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice liaison who refused to testify before Congress about the firings of U.S. Attorneys. But, it looks like, even before Goodling's testimony, the truth is coming out. The entire Department of Justice has become just another tool to advance the Rove agenda of a permanent Republican majority. No matter which party you favor politically, this harms all of us.

The intended result of this messing with personnel at all levels, from top of the food chain to bottom, has already been suggested from anecdotal evidence re the firings of the 8 (make that, 9) U.S. Attorneys : If you committed a federal crime and were a powerful Republican or connected to one or two, the investigation would disappear as quickly as the "disloyal" employee who allowed it to begin. If you were a prominent Democrat or connected to one or two, you might find yourself hauled before a federal court on thin or bogus charges -- preferably, from the power base's POV, within weeks of an election in a key district.

That's the sort of design that brings us closer to becoming a police state, where the prisons are filled with political prisoners, and the well-connected corrupt are free to drain the country of its resources.

Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said.

And she helped maintain lists of all the United States attorneys that graded their loyalty to the Bush administration, including work on past political campaigns, and noted if they were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

By the time Ms. Goodling resigned in April — after her role in the firing of the prosecutors became public and she had been promoted to the role of White House liaison — she and other senior department officials had revamped personnel practices affecting employees from the top of the agency to the bottom....

...Mr. Comey [deputy AG under John Ashcroft] said that if the accusations about Ms. Goodling’s partisan actions were true, the damage was deep and real.

“I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our A.U.S.A.s (Assistant United States Attorneys) for political reasons,” he said at a House hearing this month. “I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.”

How Bush solves everything: cut healthcare & social security; wage more war

2007-02-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

If the Democrats we just elected to the majority of seats can't adequately debate the insanity of these policies, we should throw them all out and hand over Congress to whatever kindergarten class is willing to take the job.

Story here.

>>President Bush, poised to submit his new budget to Congress next week, warned Saturday that unless programs like Medicare and Social Security are changed, future generations will face tax hikes, government red ink or huge cuts in benefits...

...Mr. Bush will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior Pentagon official said Friday. Those requests come on top of about $344 billion spent for Iraq since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein...

...To address the growth of entitlement programs, Mr. Bush's budget proposal contains about a 1 percentage point cut in the rapid growth in Medicare to squeeze about $66 billion in savings over five years from the federal health care program for the elderly...

...White House budget director Rob Portman said Friday that Mr. Bush's plan will result in a budget surplus in 2012. That's assuming strong growth in tax revenues, continued cuts on domestic agency spending and other cuts to farm programs, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.<<

The Tinkerbell Strategy

2007-01-02T12:44:00.000-05:00

Clap your hands if you believe in fairies, Peter Pan tells us. If you believe, then the poison that Tinkerbell drank won’t be able to kill her.

On stage, Peter Pan was traditionally played by a woman and Tinkerbell, the fairy, was a tiny light that seemed to fly as stagehands danced the sparkly beam around the set. Today’s Pan is George W. Bush. Tinkerbell, still as insubstantial as that flitting light, is a democratic Iraq.

Just like the original Tink, this one has swallowed poison. In the real world, we’d know: we can’t save the suicidal from themselves, even if this was an assisted suicide and we measured out the fatal potion.

But this is Bush’s Never Never Land. Believe and we’ll somehow win, even though nobody seems to know what winning would look like.

Nevermind that even Bush acknowledged that America is not winning.

Nevermind that the presence of American troops is exacerbating the violence. Believe in a troop surge. Believe that, somehow, more war will bring peace. Believe or else.

Tinkerbell is counting on you.

Poor Stephen Colbert. How's he gonna parody THIS?

2006-11-20T13:53:00.000-05:00

Some commentators can out-absurd anyone trying to parody them. It's almost as if Bill O'Reilly is saying, top that, Stephen Colbert:

>>GamePolitics.com caught this gem from the Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly:

I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America… did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.<<

The piece goes on to caution that you should NOT subscribe to the O'Reilly podcast ... or the terrorists will win!

File under least competent criminals

2006-11-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

According to CNN.com, a Connecticut woman’s plan to murder all nine members of the Supreme Court, and various other government officials, was a complete failure.

Apparently, although the woman sent each would-be murder victim a package of delicious looking baked goods and candies, she included letters chockfull of death threats with each. Somehow, the recipients figured out that they shouldn’t eat the goodies which, chemical analyses showed, were laced with rat poison. Story here.

Undoing the damage of our national delusion

2006-11-17T10:44:00.000-05:00

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Charles MacKay, from his 1841 book, EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS

One by one, we took a good look at the man behind that red, white, and blue striped and starry curtain and we found, not our protector, but our undoing.

We recognized that he and his allies had used our trust in him, and our fear of terrorists, against us.

Just when he and his allies thought they had frightened enough of us into giving them absolute power, enough of us finally said, “Enough.”

We, the people of the United States of America, voted the bums out last week.

Democratic candidates, new to elected office, may celebrate Tuesday, November 7, 2006, as they day they won, but really, nobody has won anything yet. We’ve just put the brakes on our losses. If we celebrate too hard, we risk believing the work is over.

It isn’t.

We the people must still reverse what we can of the damage that was done in our name. We have to convince our new legislators that we no longer support the changes we allowed our leaders to make while we were in the thrall of the extraordinary national delusions that our president was competent, and that invading a country, that had nothing to do with those who attacked us, could keep us safe.

Bush is now a dictator. No, that's not hype

2006-11-02T20:22:00.000-05:00

I'll bet that almost everyone has heard of Madonna's baby adoption woes ... and not more than a tiny percentage of Americans knew anything about the following, which legalizes the mobilization of America's armed forces by the president, against American citizens, on virtually any premise.

Bush previously demanded -- and got -- a de facto amendment to the Constitution that does away with the right to a trial and allows the president to imprison and torture anyone, indefinitely. He also now has the right to do anything he wants with the armed forces, against U.S. citizens. Don't doubt that he will take full advantage:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1380.shtml

>>Domestically, that plan appears to involve the activation of the police state.

In the last few weeks, the Bush administration has signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arrest and torture whomever he chooses without charging him with a crime. Also, unbeknownst to most Americans, Bush signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy, will allow the president to unilaterally declare martial law. By changing The Insurrection Act, Bush has essentially overturned the Posse Comitatus Act which bars the president from deploying troops with the United States. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (as it is called) also allows Bush to take control of the National Guard, which has always been under the purview of the state governors. Bush now has absolute power over all armed troops within the country, a state of affairs which the constitution purposely tried to prevent. The administration’s dream of militarizing the country under the sole authority of the executive has now been achieved, although the public still has no idea that a coup has taken place.<<

Why Congress passed Bush's Pro-torture, anti-habeas, Constitution-shredding detainee bill

2006-10-12T11:30:00.000-04:00

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."
Voltaire

It's the blame Bill game. Again.

2006-10-11T13:38:00.000-04:00

At the very least, the Bush machine seems to hope N. Korea will move the page scandal off the front page. But how, oh how, do you make your policy failings work in your favor? No problemo. Blame Bill.

In his role as suck-up in chief to the current prez (hoping to get support to become next prez), formerly respect-worthy Sen. John McCain has taken on the task of pin-the-blame on the last prez.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/460704p-387461c.html

>>In a surprise attack, Sen. John McCain told Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday it was her husband's fault - not the fault of President Bush - that North Korea may now have a nuclear bomb.<<

Have to wonder whether McCain's accusations will drown out the reality that Clinton's policies kept N. Korea from going nuclear, earlier.

Here's an old Wash Post article, in which then-Secy of State Colin Powell praises Clinton's thwarting N. Korea's continued plutonium production:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30476-2003Jan8?language=printer

>>[Powell] pointed to statements, communiques and a letter issued by President Bill Clinton during the 1994 negotiations "that gave the DPRK [North Korea] some assurances [on security] that they at least accepted at that time." Those "assurances" led to a freeze of North Korea's plutonium facility, which was recently reopened.

While many senior administration officials have been critical of Clinton's 1994 deal, saying it allowed an inevitable problem to fester, Powell lauded what is known as the Agreed Framework. "The previous administration I give great credit to for freezing that plutonium site," he said. "Lots of nuclear weapons were not made because of the Agreed Framework and the work of President Clinton and his team." <<

I don't know if Kim Jong Il is the unforeseen October surprise that will successfully divert attention from Foley, or if Bush will successfully dodge blame and smear Clinton. So far, his insane insistence that belligerence is the only answer has proven wrong on every front. But, is the average American too frightened to recognize this?

Oh, no, Mr. Bush, not ANOTHER lie about Iraq!

2006-04-12T14:23:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration has been caught in yet ANOTHER lie re its Iraq weapons claims. I know, I know, everyone has Bush deception fatigue at this point. We barely can keep track.

But just think for a moment: back when Clinton was in office, the brouhaha was all about whether he lied about having "…sex with that woman." The press went wild for weeks, if not months, over his "…what the meaning of is, is." Gleefully wild. Over that one stupid lie that he should only have told his wife.

Today, the mainstream press can't keep up with revelation after revelation after revelation that the Bush administration justification for invading another country was built on lies and covered up with more lies. (Are we all caught up on the Plamegate deception discoveries of last week yet?) The MSM's response to each new revelation is muted because it no longer seems like news. "Oh, yeah, caught 'em in another lie about why they invaded Iraq, ho-hum."

Isn't that, in and of itself, astounding?

Anyway, enough editorializing, here's the deception discovery of the day:

>>On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

... A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.<<

Read the balance, here:
http://tinyurl.com/qg3fx

Americans finally acknowledge the incompetence of their government

2006-03-16T09:34:00.000-05:00

As I recall, prior to 9/11/2001, George W. Bush was considered an inept, willfully underinformed, disengaged president by a good percentage of Americans -- if not the majority, then pretty darned close. He seemed an overgrown frat boy, unserious about his serious job, vacationing more than working. His handlers wrote almost every word he spoke and cringed when the guy said something unscripted as it always demonstrated his cluelessness.

Most Americans wiped from memory that negative impression after 9/11 when we needed to believe that we had a strong leader who knew how to protect us.

We clenched our eyes closed when exposed to any of the great number of horrendously bad decisions by this administration because it was more important to us to be able to cling to the belief that we were being protected. Cold analysis could wait until we felt safe. Which would be never, if this administration, beating the drum about terrorists and mushroom clouds, had its way.

Finally, it seems, from recent polls like the new Pew survey of 1405 adults, we're ready to examine the actions of this prez and his administration, without distorting the view via rose-colored lenses. Here's a telling excerpt from the poll.

>>Bush's personal image also has weakened noticeably, which is reflected in people's one-word descriptions of the president. Honesty had been the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in the current survey "incompetent" is the descriptor used most frequently (See pp. 7-8). <<

All hail the tyrant

2006-02-14T19:46:00.000-05:00

With the Bush administration’s grasping for more and more power, its insistence on more and more secrecy, its refusal to abide by international or domestic law, we are, in my opinion, seeing the rise of real tyranny. And since Bush isn't the first tyrant who ever arose through history, it's had me wondering how the hell it happens, again and again and again.

Why do people love and support tyrants? Why do they cheer when their own freedom is taken away? Why do they get positively giddy at the notion of their home-grown tyrant suiting up for war and beating other nations into submission?

Why, with the rise of this particular tyrant, doesn't anybody in Congress seem to care very much that Guantanamo's prison is, by the Department of Defense's own estimates, half-filled with people who have never done a blessed thing to anybody?

Among those innocent prisoners are ordinary people who have hopes and dreams, just like ours. And these men may be imprisoned for nothing, NOTHING, for the rest of their lives.

Unlimited detention without charges, the innocent swept up with the guilty, it’s just the sort of thing we'd expect from an oppressive tyrannical regime. How can the U.S. Congress allow this to happen? How can anyone, left, right or middle, in a position of power, not be screaming, raging, demanding the freedom of those wrongly imprisoned?

But nope. Our senators and representatives just sit there with their tails between their legs. And occasionally, when they think it'll look good on their resumes, they make a noise that pollsters tell them will be well-received. And then, they roll over again.

The most obvious sign that a tyrant is rising is how muted and timid are the Congressional complaints against warrantless wiretaps and other spying on Americans. By ignoring the law written by the legislature and refusing to go through the courts, the president has said he is simply not accountable to the other branches of government. If for no other reason than the prospect of losing their own power as members of a co-equal branch of government, you would think that every single member of Congress would be demanding a special prosecutor. Why is it, instead, that so many are defending Bush’s decision to go around them and treat them as, essentially, irrelevant when laws they wrote get in the way of what he wants to do?

I saw some of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ testimony. He looked as smug as Dubya himself. His attitude, when answering the U.S. Senators’ questions seemed to be, "fuck you, what are you going to do about it?" He was thumbing his nose at them -- at their constitutional power to legislate. And they, with very few exceptions, were letting him.