The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty. --James Madison
, 2009
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Keeping An Eye Out For The News You Need To Know! Each day we scan newspapers from around the country and around the world... in an effort to give you the often overlooked, sometimes buried news you need to know!
News about corporate criminals and criminal corporations... |
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
, 2008
.
USA IS LOSING PATIENCE ON IRAQ
Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.
The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn't suggested sending more U.S. troops.
"We have reached a tipping point," says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. "Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, 'I want our troops home.' "
The pattern of public opinion on Iraq — strong support for the first two years that then erodes — is reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, he says.
White House spokesman David Almacy, asked about the poll, said it was "vital" for U.S. peace and security that "we complete the mission by training Iraqis to provide for their own security, and then our troops can return home with the honor they have earned."
Bush's approval-disapproval rating was 47%-49%, a tick worse than it was two weeks earlier but in the same range it has been for a year.
The poll is consistent with other recent surveys that show growing concern about the war. In an ABC News-Washington Post poll last week, two-thirds said the U.S. military was bogged down in Iraq, and nearly three-quarters called the casualty level unacceptable.
•Of those who say the war wasn't worth it, the top reasons cited are fraudulent claims and no weapons of mass destruction found; the number of people killed and wounded; and the belief that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.
•Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reason cited was the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that an "incredible gap between the reality on the ground and the rhetoric back here" is costing Bush support on the war.
On ABC's This Week, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., an ardent supporter of the invasion, called on Bush for a timetable for withdrawing troops. "I feel that we have done about as much as we can do," he said.
Find this article here:
This is all part and parcel of the K Street Project--named after the DC row housing many of the city's high-profile lobbying firms--run by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and GOP leaders Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay in Congress. Since its founding in 1995, the K Street Project has been remarkably adept at convincing, forcing or blackmailing the lobbying community into hiring Republicans and firing Democrats. "We don't want nonideological people on K Street," Norquist tells journalist Elizabeth Drew in "Selling Washington," her remarkable New York Review of Books dispatch. "We want conservative activist Republicans on K Street." To that end, thirty-three of the thirty-six top lobby shops now have Republicans at the helm, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt boasts a "formal, institutionalized" alliance with K Street and Santorum holds closed-door meetings with lobbyists every Tuesday.
"There are no restraints now," a friend who works closely with K Street tells Drew. "Business groups and lobbyists are going crazy--they're in every room writing the legislation. You can't move on the Hill without giving money." The Republican purge manifests itself in legislation like the Medicare reform and energy bill written for big business; the retribution against firms like the Motion Picture Association of America who still hire Democrats; and the lavish trips lobbyist Jack Abramoff sponsored for DeLay. A recent study by Congressional Quarterly found that disclosure forms filed by members of Congress "frequently show a direct correlation between a member's legislative interest and the sponsors of his or her trips." Needless to say, the poor and middle class don't enjoy similar privileges. Abramoff is simply an extreme example of a widespread practice.
Ironically, Republicans rose to control in 1994 vowing to clean up this cesspool. Instead, they've turned Congress into a "transactional institution" where lobbyists hire Republicans who write the legislation passed by the Republican leadership. "The arrogance that brought Republicans into power is arrogance that will take them out of power," says a former GOP aide-turned-corporate lobbyist.
Democrats Rahm Emanuel and Marty Meehan in the House have recently introduced legislation to overhaul Congressional lobbying laws by cracking down on privately-funded travel, weak disclosure rules and a revolving door culture. Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain will soon bring a similar bill in the Senate. Don't expect many Republicans to sign on.
Find this article here:
Yet two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup say that the economy is "only fair" or "poor." And only 33 percent of those polled believe the economy is improving, while 59 percent think it's getting worse.
Is the administration's obliviousness to the public's economic anxiety just partisanship? I don't think so: President Bush and other Republican leaders honestly think that we're living in the best of times. After all, everyone they talk to says so.
Since November's election, the victors have managed to be on the wrong side of public opinion on one issue after another: the economy, Social Security privatization, Terri Schiavo, Tom DeLay. By large margins, Americans say that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and Mr. Bush is the least popular second-term president on record.
What's going on? Actually, it's quite simple: Mr. Bush and his party talk only to their base - corporate interests and the religious right - and are oblivious to everyone else's concerns.
The administration's upbeat view of the economy is a case in point. Corporate interests are doing very well. As a recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, over the last three years profits grew at an annual rate of 14.5 percent after inflation, the fastest growth since World War II.
The story is very different for the great majority of Americans, who live off their wages, not dividends or capital gains, and aren't doing well at all. Over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery - less than a tenth as fast as profits. But wage-earning Americans aren't part of the base.
The same obliviousness explains Mr. Bush's decision to make Social Security privatization his main policy priority. He doesn't talk to anyone outside the base, so he didn't realize what he was getting into.
In retrospect, it was a terrible political blunder: the privatization campaign has quickly degenerated from juggernaut to joke. According to CBS, only 25 percent of the public have confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about Social Security; 70 percent are "uneasy."
The point is that people sense, correctly, that Mr. Bush doesn't understand their concerns. He was sold on privatization by people who have made their careers in the self-referential, corporate-sponsored world of conservative think tanks. And he himself has no personal experience with the risks that working families face. He's probably never imagined what it would be like to be destitute in his old age, with no guaranteed income.
The same syndrome has been visible on cultural issues. Republican leaders in Congress, who talk only to the religious right, were shocked at the public backlash over their meddling in the Schiavo case. Did I mention that Rick Santorum is 14 points behind his likely challenger?
It all makes you wonder how these people ever ended up running the country in the first place. But remember that in 2000, Mr. Bush pretended to be a moderate, and that in the next two elections he used the Iraq war as a wedge to divide and perplex the Democrats.
In that context, it's worth noting two more poll results: in one taken before the recent resurgence of violence in Iraq, and the administration's announcement that it needs yet another $80 billion, 53 percent of Americans said that the Iraq war wasn't worth it. And 50 percent say that "the administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Democracy Corps, the Democratic pollsters, say that there is a "crisis of confidence in the Republican direction for the country." As they're careful to point out, this won't necessarily translate into a surge of support for Democrats.
But Americans are feeling a sense of dread: they're worried about a weak job market, soaring health care costs, rising oil prices and a war that seems to have no end. And they're starting to notice that nobody in power is even trying to deal with these problems, because the people in charge are too busy catering to a base that has other priorities.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Find this article here:
EDITORIAL / OPINION
With each new week, the battle over ethics charges against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay sounds more like one of Washington's endless political mud fights.
Allegations continue to fly, particularly but not exclusively from Democrats, that DeLay has behaved unethically on issues from accepting trips paid for by questionable groups to putting his wife and daughter on his campaign payroll.
Now, some leading Republicans are joining — or at least accepting — the combative leader's counterattack. President Bush defended DeLay again last week, and in recent days several congressional Republicans have charged he's the victim of out-to-get-him Democrats.
In doing so, they elevate the profile of the most important issue raised by the DeLay charges: whether the majority party can fairly handle allegations of ethics abuse when one of its leaders is accused.
Fairness, real and perceived, is a litmus test of the political health of either party. By that standard, the Republicans have hurt themselves more in handling the DeLay issue than the Democrats have with all of their attacks.
The allegations may or may not merit punishment, but they certainly deserve a fair hearing. Among them:
• DeLay's travels. Money for a trip to Britain, including golfing in Scotland, was arranged by his political lobbyist friend Jack Abramoff, who is now under investigation for alleged corruption. At least one trip to Asia was reportedly paid for by "foreign agents," illegal under congressional rules.
• Payments to his wife and daughter. They received $500,000 over four years for work on his campaign. While that is not illegal, and many politicians do this, the large sum has raised questions.
• Questionable fundraising. One of his political action committees may have funneled illegal corporate contributions to Texas Legislature candidates.
It's difficult to argue that such allegations should just be scuttled.
Yet that's where they're heading. Months ago, in the wake of the Texas charges, the Republicans all but shut down the mechanism able to handle them fairly, the House Ethics Committee, which DeLay says is the only body he will answer to.
House leaders ousted the chairman and two other members who had dared to admonish DeLay last year for repeated abuses of power. They were replaced by staunch DeLay supporters. House leaders also re-wrote the rules to make it all but impossible to investigate alleged infractions. Charges brought by Democrats now die unless at least one Republican on the committee agrees, and vice versa.
DeLay's defenders say there is no proof he has broken any law. Perhaps so. But absent a forum for fair judgment, political invective is inevitable.
The bigger truth is that power brings the temptation for abuse — and the seeds of its own destruction, as Democrats learned a decade ago when Republicans regained control of the House, in part because of Democrats' ethical lapses and scandals.
Sadly, the Republicans seem to have taken the wrong lesson from the experience.
Find this article at:
Pentagon Refuses To Prosecute
By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times | March 26, 2005
The number is higher than Pentagon officials have previously acknowledged, and it indicates that criminal acts caused a significant portion of the dozens of prisoner deaths that occurred in US custody. ------------------------------
Army investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be charged in those cases, the newspaper said. While none will face any prosecution, one received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged after the investigations.
It was not until the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit over the detainee abuse that the Pentagon was forced to release thousands of pages of documents.
The ACLU said in a news release yesterday that the Pentagon was trying to bury the report by releasing it on the day before a holiday weekend.
For the rest of the story:
One of 96 detainees who have died in US custody in Iraq
NEW YORK - The U.S. Army says it has reopened an investigation into the suspected bludgeoning death of a key Iraqi government scientist in American custody, a chemist who allegedly experimented with poisons on prisoners in the days of Saddam Hussein.
Mohammad Munim Izmerly, 65, is the only known weapons scientist among at least 96 detainees who have died in U.S. custody in Iraq.
Questions have surrounded the death ever since his body was dropped off at a Baghdad hospital in February 2004, two weeks after he died.
For the rest of the story:
By Susan Page - USAToday - June 13, 2005
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO?
By Ari Berman - June 13, 2005
In ways subtle and overt, Republicans and corporate lobbyists in Washington have never been closer in collaboration. Consider a few recent anecdotes reported by The Hill newspaper: A Republican congressman calls and asks a lobbyist to take his family out to dinner; a Senate staffer, eating and drinking at a bar, walks over to a lobbyist and hands him the bill; an ex-Congressman, Brian Bilbray, now lobbies in the House chamber; a senior aide to Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus is known as the "Mayor of Capital Hill" for his frequent appearances at corporate-sponsored events, fundraisers and trips.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE OBLIVIOUS RIGHT
By Paul Krugman - April 25, 2005
According to John Snow, the Treasury secretary, the global economy is in a "sweet spot." Conservative pundits close to the administration talk, without irony, about a "Bush boom."
DeLay dust-up draws venom, but where's scrutiny?
US ARMY SAYS 27 PRISON DEATHS ARE HOMICIDES
ACLU says Pentagon tried to bury report by releasing day before holiday weekend
WASHINGTON -- The Army has concluded that 27 of the detainees who died in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2002 were the victims of homicide or suspected homicide, military officials said in a report released yesterday.
Overruling recommendations by its own investigators, the Army has decided not to prosecute 17 soldiers implicated in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, The New York Times reported today.
------------------------------
Army reopens probe of Iraqi scientist's death
ASSOCIATED PRESS
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
New Attorney General Even Worse Than Ashcroft
In "Survival at Auschwitz," Primo Levi recalled that, after their most sadistic guard had been transferred away, he and his fellow death camp inmates were terrified. True, the man was a murderer. But the prisoners had studied his habits, learned how to avoid his wrath. What if his replacement turned out to be even meaner?
No matter how bad they are, things can always get worse. Little did the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq, abused by horrific regimes, realize that their "liberation" would usher in a grim "Mad Max" era of chaos and looting by AK47-toting teenagers. Now political entropy, a staple characteristic of overseas Bushism, is manifesting itself as second-term political appointments here at home.
Faithful readers will note that I never joined the four-year-long chorus of catcalls against outgoing attorney general John Ashcroft. It's true that he used the sweeping prosecutorial powers granted him under the USA Patriot Act to arrest more than 5,000 people, none of whom have ever been convicted of anything, and that he held them without letting them see a lawyer. Ashcroft was also a central figure in what wags are beginning to call the Bushiban--loopy Christianists in Bush's inner circle. In November 2001, while Brooklynites were still dusting the pulverized corpses of their fellow citizens off their window ledges, Ashcroft spent over 8,000 tax dollars on a curtain to cover the bare-breasted Spirit of Justice statue at the Justice Department. The statue, marble boob exposed, hadn't attracted attention since its installation in 1936. Still, Ashcroft wasn't unusually evil.
Dick Cheney is a breathtakingly corrupt politician, trading American and Iraqi lives for his personal profit. Compared to ordinary warmongers, Donald Rumsfeld is exceptionally gleeful and callous about the people who die every time he shoots off an email. John Ashcroft, on the other hand, was nothing more than another conservative nut. His mass detentions and arbitrary prosecutions were the inevitable result of the Patriot Act--a heinous attack on American freedom for which Bush and Congress are solely to blame. Janet Reno, given Ashcroft's freedom to abuse personal liberties, would have behaved similarly.
Alberto Gonzales, on the other hand, possesses one of the most twisted minds the American legal system has ever produced.
If Bush gets his way, the nation's chief law enforcement official will be a man whose warped interpretation of presidential power, contempt for due process and gleeful deconstruction of fundamental human values puts him at odds with every patriotic American. {*Since this piece was written, Bush got his way and Gonzales has become our US Attorney General}
Gonzales is the author of the infamous August 2002 "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A," a legal opinion issued while on his current job as White House Counsel. The 50-page "torture memo," which provides government interrogators justification to torture suspects in the war on terrorism, isn't just another memo. It's a benchmark position paper, a document that Administration figures from Bush and Rumsfeld down to CIA interrogators at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib still rely upon to protect themselves from possible future prosecution for war crimes.
First and foremost, Gonzales argues for a definition of "torture" that omits the most commonly used tactics banned by the Geneva Conventions. (Gonzales calls Geneva as a "quaint" anachronism.) To qualify as torture, he writes, the agony "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Abuses previously banned by the Army--"pain induced by chemicals or bondage, forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time, food deprivation, mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis," according to The Washington Post--are now A-OK, according to Gonzales. As long as Bush orders it.
Even the extreme mistreatment Gonzales still calls "torture," says Gonzales, is permitted--up to and including the death of the victim. This is because a post-9/11 torturer "would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by...Al Qaeda."
The military's judge advocate generals (JAGs), not known for squishy liberalism, say that Gonzales is nuts. "It's really unprecedented," says a senior military attorney. "For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way. Once you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop."
Gonzales' torture memo has already cost the lives of innocent--i.e., never convicted, never charged and likely totally unconnected to terrorism--detainees. Two Afghan detainees died in U.S. custody at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan during the same week of December 2002; though their deaths were ruled homicides, no one has been charged. In April 2004, a captured Iraqi general was murdered by "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia." The Pentagon says that there have been at least 127 homicides of POW detainees.
Taking his cue from the Nazis' "führer principle," Gonzales posits that Bush, by virtue of his "commander-in-chief authority," can authorize torture. But American law doesn't include any such concept.
Thanks to the Democratic wimps in Congress, this pseudointellectual monster is coasting to confirmation. Noting that as a Texas judge he once "let a teenager get an abortion without her parents' knowledge," the New York Times' liberal editorial page signaled that it is resigned to Gonzales' ascension to the top gig at Justice. The Bushies shrewdly calculated that Democrats wouldn't want to be seen blocking the nomination of a Hispanic. Again demonstrating the bankruptcy of identity politics, traditionally progressive Latino groups are pleased as punch that one of their own--albeit a psychopath--has gotten the nod. "This is probably the most meaningful nomination ever for the Latino population," said Brent A. Wilkes of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
A set of strategically placed electrodes might change his point of view.
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Win or Lose, Kerry Voters Are Smarter Than Bush Voters
Democratic hand wringing is surrealy out of hand. No one is criticizing the morally incongruous Kerry for running against a war he voted for while insisting that he would have voted for it again. Party leaders have yet to consider that NAFTA, signed into law under Clinton, may have cost them high-unemployment Ohio. No, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, darling of the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council, blames something else: the perception "in the heartland" that Democrats are a "bicoastal cultural elite that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that Americans hold in their daily lives."
Firstly, living in the sticks doesn't make you more American. Rural, urban or suburban--they're irrelevant. San Francisco's predominantly gay Castro district is every bit as red, white and blue as the Texas panhandle. But if militant Christianist Republicans from inland backwaters believe that secular liberal Democrats from the big coastal cities look upon them with disdain, there's a reason. We do, and all the more so after this election.
I spent my childhood in fly-over country, in a decidedly Republican town in southwest Ohio. It was a decent place to grow up, with well-funded public schools and only the occasional marauding serial killer to worry about. The only ethnic restaurant sold something called "Mandarin Chinese," Midwestese for cold noodles slathered with sugary sauce. The county had three major employers: the Air Force, Mead Paper, and National Cash Register--and NCR was constantly laying people off. Folks were nice, but depressingly closed-minded. "Well," they'd grimace when confronted with a new musical genre or fashion trend, "that's different." My suburb was racially insular, culturally bland and intellectually unstimulating. Its people were knee-jerk conformists. Faced with the prospect of spending my life underemployed, bored and soused, I did what anyone with a bit of ambition would do. I went to college in a big city and stayed there.
Mine is a common story. Every day in America, hundreds of our most talented young men and women flee the suburbs and rural communities for big cities, especially those on the West and East Coasts. Their youthful vigor fuels these metropolises--the cultural capitals of the blue states. These oases of liberal thinking--New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Boston--are homes to our best-educated people, most vibrant popular culture and most innovative and productive businesses. There are exceptions--some smart people move from cities to the countryside--but the best and brightest gravitate to places where liberalism rules.
Maps showing Kerry's blue states appended to the "United States of Canada" separated from Bush's red "Jesusland" are circulating by email. Though there is a religious component to the election results, the biggest red-blue divide is intellectual. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" asked the headline of the Daily Mirror in Great Britain, and the underlying assumption is undeniable. By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush.
72 percent who cast votes for George W. Bush, according to a University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks poll, believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs. 75 percent think that a Saddam-Al Qaeda link has been proven, and 20 percent say Saddam ordered 9/11. Of course, none of this was true.
Kerry voters were less than half as idiotic: 26 percent of Democrats bought into Bush-Cheney's WMD lies, and 30 percent into Saddam-Al Qaeda.
Would Bush's supporters have voted for him even if they had known he was a serial liar? Perhaps their hatred of homosexuals and slutty abortion vixens would have prompted them to make the same choice--an idiotic perversion of priorities. As things stand, they cast their ballots relying on assumptions that were demonstrably false.
Educational achievement doesn't necessarily equal intelligence. After all, Bush holds a Harvard MBA. Still, it bears noting that Democrats are better educated than Republicans. You are 25 percent more likely to hold a college degree if you live in the Democratic northeast than in the red state south. Blue state voters are 25 percent more likely, therefore, to understand the historical and cultural ramifications of Bush's brand of bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy.
Inland Americans face a bigger challenge than coastal "cultural elitists" when it comes to finding high-quality news coverage. The best newspapers, which routinely win prizes for their in-depth local and national reporting and staffers overseas, line the coasts. So do the cable TV networks with the broadest offerings and most independent radio stations. Bush Country makes do with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity syndicated on one cookie-cutter AM outlet after another. Citizens of the red states read lackluster dailies stuffed with generic stories cut and pasted from wire services. Given their dismal access to high-quality media, it's a minor miracle that 40 percent of Mississippians turned out for Kerry.
So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn't those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what's going on in the world. If you voted for Bush, we accept that we have to share the country with you. We're adjusting to the possibility that there may be more of you than there are of us. But don't demand our respect. You lost it on November 2.
|
|
From The "Parting Shots" Department:
Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions on America's obligations under international treaties and agreements, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.
In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war.
"The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group.
Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found "expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed" that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.
"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.
For the entire story:
|
 Dear God...by Jill Rachel Jacobs
Dear God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Oprah, fill in the blank_________,
I wanted to first start with an apology. As you may have noticed, I tend to only get in touch when I want something, but I’m working on that. Oh, sorry. Guess you already knew that.
Actually, I’m not looking for much this time other than a little clarification.
As you well know, the world is in turmoil. More than 1100 American soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis, including scores of innocent children, have perished in an assault that began as the result of a little “misunderestimation” by our current leader in the WMD’s department.
Over 70,000 human beings have been murdered during the ongoing genocide in the oil-barren Sudan, with that number rising steadily; where men continue to be slaughtered and women brutally raped at an alarming rate. Yet, the world looks on in silence.
Poverty and unemployment are on the rise and 45 million Americans are living without health insurance. Although our elected officials refuse to acknowledge the irreversible and irrefutable damage being done to the planet we have now thoroughly trashed, there is a really big elephant residing in America’s ecological living room.
OK, so I may be a bit of a downer and I’m not the most fun at a party these days, but it’s not all my fault. It’s kind of hard to be jovial during such times of duress.
So what’s the deal? Are you angry? Is it something we did or didn’t do? Or is this some sort of test? Obviously we’re failing miserably if it is.
Take the recent Presidential election, (please, take it), where the numbers didn’t quite add up again. The news media and our public officials would have us believe that the election was won as the result of people casting faith-based votes. And while that all sounds nice on paper, it seems to me that a lot of the good folk of this nation were less comfortable with guys kissing than they were with obliterating and overtaking a country while killing and maiming thousands.
Maybe I’m naïve, but if you didn’t want there to be gays, why did you create them? Was that a test too? Hmm. It’s all very confusing.
That’s why I decided to go directly to the source. The President has implied on numerous occasions that he has some sort of direct line to you, so I thought what the heck? Maybe I could follow his lead and get my queries answered in a timely fashion too.
Because right now, I’m filled with more questions than answers, like, when you said, “Thou shalt not kill,” that meant everyone, right? Like, no killing at all. None whatsoever. Nada,. Zilch. Zero. Never, right? That was my interpretation of that law, anyway.
But it seems to me that many of your disciples may be employing a looser interpretation of your admonition not to snuff the life out of their fellow human beings. And it’s my humble observation that your message of love is seriously being trumped by the strong message of hate that many seem to be promoting under the guise of freedom, religion and pseudo-security. While some of those in charge profess to follow the Good Book, I find myself wondering if they only read the cliff notes, because it doesn’t appear that they are getting the full gist of your message.
If it’s not too much to ask, I could also use a little explanation on some other key issues, like when are we supposed to employ “An eye for an eye versus “Turn the other cheek?” That’s always been a confusing one for me and I suspect a lot of other people find this bewildering based on the behaviors they often exhibit.
Well, I guess that’s all for now. I’ll look for some sign that you got my message. Don’t worry if you can’t respond right away. I'll understand. I know we’re keeping you pretty busy.
Respectfully yours,
(Oh, sorry. Guess you already knew that).
Jill Rachel Jacobs is a writer and humorist living in New York City.
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
From The "Just Because The Watchdog Is Cooped-Up Here" Department: Louisiana Is Unhealthiest State In The Nation
The Minnetonka, Minn.-based foundation has ranked the 50 states' healthiness for the past 15 years, and Louisiana has finished last in 14 of those years. Louisiana finished 49th last year.
To rank states, the study considers recent data on personal behavior, such as obesity, education, prevalence of smoking and motor vehicle death rates; and community environment, including violent crime, lack of health insurance and rates of infectious disease, such as AIDS.
Louisiana's obesity rate has doubled since 1990, going from 12.3 percent of the population reported as obese, to 24.8 percent this year.
The state's decrease in percentage of the population who smoke has not kept up with the rest of the country. About 29 percent of Louisiana's population smoked in 1990; 26.5 percent smoked this year. The 1990 study ranked Louisiana 22nd in the country for its percentage of smokers; the state ranked 47th this year.
The study said Minnesota is the country's healthiest state, followed by New Hampshire and Vermont. Tennessee finished 48th and Mississippi was 49th.
|
A new study names Louisiana the country's least healthy state, blaming high rates of smoking, violent crime, obesity, cancer death and infant mortality. The United Health Foundation also found stark disparities in the percentage of black women who receive adequate prenatal care compared to white women. About 69 percent of black pregnant women got adequate care, compared to 86.5 percent of white pregnant women.
|
The Loonies Have Taken Control Bush's 'Morals' Victory Means Imposing Evangelical Intolerance On Everybody Else By Maureen Dowd
"We had a good conversation," the senator said. "And we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."
Democrat: Heal thyself.
W. doesn't see division as a danger. The President got re-elected by dividing his country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riff-raff who disagree to heel.
W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters", as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Bush, whose Administration drummed up fake evidence to trick Americans into war with Iraq, putting US troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues".
The President says he is "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?
While Bush was making his little speech about reaching out, Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.
He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts. "He'll raze Fallujah if he has to. He feels that the election results endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents US troops kill, the more they create.
Just listen to Dick (Oh, lordy, is this cuckoo clock still Vice-President?) Cheney, introducing The Man for his victory speech: "This has been a consequential presidency which has revitalised our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world." Well, it has revitalised the Halliburton segment of the economy, anyhow. And "confident" is not the first word that comes to mind for the foreign policy of a country that has alienated everyone except Fiji.
Vice continued: "Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love." Only Dick Cheney can make "to serve and to guard" sound like "to rape and to pillage".
He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.
Several new members of Congress are so over the top they will make W. seem moderate.
Tom Coburn, the new senator from Oklahoma, advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and warned that "the gay agenda" would undermine the United States. He also characterised his race as a choice between "good and evil" and said he had heard there was "rampant lesbianism" in Oklahoma schools.
James DeMint, the new senator from South Carolina, said during his campaign that he supported a state Republican platform plank banning gays from teaching in schools. He explained: "I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend should be hired to teach my third-grade children."
John Thune is an anti-abortion Christian conservative - or "servant leader", as he was hailed in a campaign ad - who supports constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage.
Even the Democrats in recent days started talking about values and religion. Their sudden passion for wooing Southern white Christian soldiers may put a crimp in Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign (nothing but a wooden stake would stop it).
Meanwhile, the blue puddle is comforting itself with the expectation that this loony bunch will fatally overreach, as Newt Gingrich did in the '90s.
But with this crowd, it's hard to imagine what would constitute overreaching.
Invading France?
|
With the US Democratic Party splattered at his feet in little blue puddles, John Kerry told the crushed crowd at Faneuil Hall in Boston about his concession call to President Bush. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Can't We All Just Get Along? A Few Thoughts on the Recent Election By Ben Tripp
 American voters, average Joes and poltroons
My fellow Americans, get stuffed. After four years of a government with all the integrity of a syphilitic pimp shoplifting at Woolworth's, it comes to this: you want more. The maladministration of George W. Bush is a disaster, the first four years of which will echo down the dust-farinated halls of history, turning heads for centuries like an outburst of flatulence at the New York Public Library. ..... And don't go mewling about how only half of us voted for him. Don't you dare, or I'll smack your bottom. Even if you include the 5% of votes jiggered by the electronic voting machines (based on the discrepancy between exit polls and votes counted), a vast number of Americans cast ballots for this empty little sociopath. Driven by hate, fear, and a headful of helium, millions of Americans took the lowest road and voted for the worst interests of everything and everybody in the whole wide mother-loving world. Why is Nero still remembered? Because he presided over the destruction of something important. Washington? He fathered a great nation. Lincoln? He saved that nation's life. Bush? See Nero. But am I being furibund here? Sho am, boss. But I'm not exaggerating. We have two presidential elections in a row clouded with suspicion and doubt and chicanery, and the same cretin won both times. Will his people push to strike the law forbidding a third, fourth, eighth term? Of course. Will he continue destroying everything this nation has ever held dear, in the name of everything this nation has ever held dear? Yes, and here's why. The American voter, the Average Joe, is a poltroon. This wretched specimen has the wit of a condolence card, the courage of a shaved rabbit, the morals of a schoolyard dope peddler, the integrity of a counterfeit nickel, and the gall of a second-hand coffin salesman. I take no consolation from anything. My fellow citizens are colder-blooded than serpents and stupider than a sack of toenails. How dare you vote against other Americans? That's all 'morals' is, these days: a code word for hate. How many millions of puffed-up poisonous psalm-singing sons-of-Birchers voted, not for Bush, but against queers? Against black people and Northerners and single women and poor children? What is the matter with you, that you want nothing more in this life than to stick a jackboot into the ribs of the downtrodden? There is no common good any more. Jesus Christ Himself would barf all over his anointed feet to see you venal, venomous vermin vituperate via votes. You elected George W. Bush, the Pontius Pilate of our age. Quit playing the outraged outsider, Christian soldiers. You got away with another election, you outnumbered the righteous, and we will all get everything you deserve. Bush and his gang of Confederate oliomaniacs will see to that. Here's what makes me sick: the last time, Americans voted for this Hakencreuz Hillbilly because he misrepresented what he was about. This time, they knew exactly what he was about, and they voted for him anyway.
 Ben Tripp can be reached at credel@earthlink.net. His book, 'Square In The Nuts', will be released soon. |
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Some European Newspapers Less Than Enthusiastic About Bush Re-election LONDON - (AP)
"How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" the liberal Daily Mirror asked in a Page One headline. Inside, several pages of coverage were headed "U.S. election disaster."
The Independent bore the front-page headline "Four more years" on a black page with grim pictures including a hooded Iraqi prisoner and an orange-clad detainee at Guantanamo Bay.
The left-leaning Guardian led its features section with a black page bearing the tiny words, "Oh, God." Inside a story described how Bush's victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression."
Across Europe, many newspapers expressed dismay at the prospect of another term for Bush, a president often regarded as inflexible and unilateralist.
"Oops -- they did it again," Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headline. The cover of the Swiss newsmagazine Facts called Bush's re-election "Europe's Nightmare." "Victory for the hothead: how far will he go?" asked another Swiss weekly, L'Hebdo.
All agreed the result reflected a sea-change in U.S. politics, a victory for neo-conservatives and the religious right.
"March of the Moral Majority" said the conservative Daily Mail, above a photo of Bush with his wife and daughters. "America's moral majority sweeps Bush back into the White House," The Daily Telegraph said.
The Times said Europe "must come to terms, not only with Mr. Bush, but with the nation that has elected him. This is a president who really can speak for America."
For the actual story:
|
The re-election of President Bush dominated British newspapers Thursday, and many cast impartiality aside in reporting the result. 
A few British papers welcomed the U.S. election result. "The world is a safer place with George W. Bush back in the Oval Office," the tabloid Sun said in an editorial. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists by Michael Moore
Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.
Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:
1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.
2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.
4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)
5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.
6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes!
7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan.
8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.
9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.
10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't.
11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!
12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.
13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.
14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.
15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.
16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!!
17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.
Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'"
But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.
Yours,
Michael Moore |
Dear Friends, ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada by Sarah Anderson
1. The Rest of the World. After the February 2003 antiwar protests, the New York Times described the global peace movement as the world's second superpower. Their actions didn't prevent the war, but protestors in nine countries have succeeded in pressuring their governments to pull their troops from Iraq and/or withdraw from the so-called coalition of the willing. Antiwar Americans owe it to themajority of the people on this planet who agree with them to stay and do what they can to end the suffering in Iraq and prevent future pre-emptive wars.
2. People Power Can Trump Presidential Power. The strength of social movements can be more important than whoever is in the White House. Example: In 1970, President Nixon supported the Occupational Safety and Health Act, widely considered the most important pro-worker legislation of the last 50 years. It didn't happen because Nixon loved labor unions, but because union power was strong. Stay and help build the peace, economic justice, environmental and other social movements that can make change.
3. The great strides made in voter registration and youth mobilization must be built on rather than abandoned.
4. Like Nicaraguans in the 1980s, Iraqis Need U.S. Allies. After Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984, progressives resisted the urge to flee northwards and instead stayed to fight the U.S. governments secret war of arming the contras in Nicaragua and supporting human rights atrocities throughout Central America. Iraq is a different scenario, but we can still learn from the U.S.-Central America solidarity work that exposed illegal U.S. activities and their brutal consequences and ultimately prevailed by forcing a change in policy.
5. We Can't Let up on the Free Trade Front Activists have held the Bush administration at bay on some issues. On trade, opposition in the United States and in developing countries has largely blocked the Bush administrations corporate-driven trade agenda for four years. The President is expected to soon appoint a new top trade negotiator to break the impasse. Whoever he picks would love to see a progressive exodus to Canada.
6. Barak Obama. His victory to become the only African-American in the U.S. Senate was one of the few bright spots of the election. An early opponent of the Iraq war, Obama trounced his primary and general election opponents, even in white rural districts, showing he could teach other progressives a few things about broadening their base. As David Moberg of In These Times puts it, Obama demonstrates how a progressive politician can redefine mainstream political symbols to expand support for liberal policies and politicians rather than engage in creeping capitulation to the right.
7. Say so long to the DLC. Barry Goldwater suffered a resounding defeat when he ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but his campaign spawned a conservative movement that eventually gained control of the Republican Party and elected Ronald Reagan in 1980. Progressives should see the excitement surrounding Dean, Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton during the primary season as the foundation for a similar takeover of the Democratic Party.
8. 2008. President Bush is entering his second term facing an escalating casualty rate in Iraq, a record trade deficit, a staggering budget deficit, sky-high oil prices, and a deeply divided nation. As the Republicans face likely failure, progressives need to start preparing for regime change in 2008 or sooner. Remember that Nixon was re-elected with a bigger margin than Bush, but faced impeachment within a year.
9. Americans are Not All Yahoos. Although I wouldn't attempt to convince a Frenchman of it right now, many surveys indicate that Americans are more internationalist than the election results suggest. In a September poll by the University of Maryland, majorities of Bush supporters expressed support for multilateral approaches to security, including the United States being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (54%). The problem is that most of these Bush supporters weren't aware that Bush opposed these positions. Stay and help turn progressive instincts into political power.
10. Winter. Average January temperature in Ottawa: 12.2°F.
Sarah Anderson (saraha@igc.org) is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
|
Ready to say screw this country and buy a one-way ticket north? Here are some reasons to stay in the belly of the beast.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Post-Concession Reflections by Robert L. Borosage
John Kerry has conceded. George W. Bush will have a second term. By consolidating their hold on the South, Republicans have added to their majorities in the House and Senate. What is clear is a fundamental failure of leadership. In the midst of a war—with 9/11 still searing our consciousness—Bush’s policies and politics have deepened the divisions in this country.
Bush won votes by wrapping himself in the flag and by summoning the passions of his evangelical base. Conservative evangelicals supplied his volunteers, turned out in large numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
Bush's Narrow Base
The president split the popular vote with Kerry, but the narrowness of his base is striking. The majority of Bush’s support—88 percent—came from whites. He lost African Americans nine to one. Asians nearly two to one. Efforts to woo Hispanics earned all of 40 percent of their votes. Only in the South did Bush win a majority—losing the popular vote in the East, the Midwest and the West.
Class mattered—even though Kerry was unable to sustain an economic message amid the barrages of the campaign. According to exit polls, Bush lost majorities of all those making $50,000 and less—and won majorities of those making more than that. His biggest margin came from those making more than $100,000. His base remains the “haves and the have mores,” as he famously put it.
The president won overwhelming majorities among those who considered the war on terrorism or morals the most important single issue. But, tellingly, he lost three-quarters of voters who considered Iraq the most important issue and three-quarters who thought the economy and jobs the most important. Kerry’s candidacy was propelled by anti-war sentiment and economic discontent. Kerry also won vast majorities of those who thought health care or education was the most important issue.
Some argue that the strength of the president’s evangelical base suggests America is headed toward a new era of prohibition and moral reaction. But John Kerry was the most secular of candidates. He championed science against the forces of moral reaction. He stood clearly for liberal social issues from civil unions to women’s right to choose. He was a liberal senator from Massachusetts, as the president delighted in repeating. Kerry’s campaign may mark the beginning of a reaction not by the right—but by the center and left against the forces of intolerance.
Amid record turnout, the mobilization driven by progressive groups from Americans Coming Together to MoveOn.org to the AFL-CIO clearly transformed the race. First-time voters went for Kerry. Young voters went for Kerry. African-American turnout was up dramatically. Union households sustained one-quarter of the electorate and voted in large majorities for Kerry. That mobilization won Pennsylvania and Michigan, drove the divide in Ohio and overcame the systematic Republican efforts at voter intimidation and suppression.
What's Next
Bush's victory will produce a second-term president with a mandate for little beyond patriotic and pious posturing. A majority of Americans have shown that they oppose his war and have no interest in his domestic agenda. When the offensive starts in Iraq and the casualties rise, his popularity will plummet. Were he to try to privatize Social Security, move to a flat tax or weaken Medicare, his party will suffer. When the dollar falls or the economy slows, burdened by debt and oil prices, a broad majority will express their buyers' remorse.
The independent energy and organization that drove the Kerry campaign must continue to build. Its potential was demonstrated in this election. The sophistication exhibited by groups like Moveon.org, ACORN, U.S. Action, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, Working America and many others provides the base for taking back the country—whether the White House is an ally or an enemy.
|
Robert L. Borosage—a leader in the progressive movement and co-director of the Campaign for America's Future—looks at the data about who voted and why. Although he won the popular vote, Borosage shows that President George W. Bush's base remains surprisingly narrow.///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
BUSH ELECTED PRESIDENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME!
BEGINS SECOND TERM IN JANUARY
|
The Case Against Bush Ten Reasons America Needs A Change by Ted Rall
1. He stole the 2000 election. Voting to "reelect" an illegitimate commander-in-chief who seized power by judicial coup d'état is a tacit endorsement of how he got into the White House in the first place. How the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore is irrelevant. As a federal court, the five runaway Supreme Court justices had no right to agree to hear the case. Under our system of government, elections--and election disputes--fall under state jurisdiction. Their decision to take the case, the way they fixed the outcome in Bush's favor, and Bush's willingness to assume the presidency extraconstitutionally are outrages that no patriotic American, even if they agree with his policies, can forgive.
2. He politicized 9/11. During the early days after the attacks on New York and Washington, a stunned nation came together to mourn, and to assess the motivations of the 19 men who despised us so much they were willing to commit suicide as mass murderers to drive home the point. Rather than channel our newfound solidarity into positive initiatives, however, Bush used 9/11 to push for the USA Patriot Act, fast-track signing authority on free trade, tax cuts for the wealthy, lax regulations for polluters and a multitude of items from the partisan Republican Party wish list. He portrayed Democrats and others who disagreed with him as un-American traitors.
3. He let the terrorists get away while giving them a payraise. The 9/11 hijackers were Egyptians and Saudis recruited by an Egyptian group, Islamic Jihad, with funding from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, some of whom received training at camps which were mostly in Pakistan, all of which were funded by Pakistani secret intelligence. Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), who may have funded all or part of the operation via Al Qaeda, was in Pakistan on 9/11. So who does Bush go after? Afghanistan, at best a back lot of Pakistani-backed Islamists and Iraq --which had nothing to do with 9/11. And what does he do about our real enemies in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? He sells them more weapons. Egypt becomes the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel, collecting over $2 billion annually. Pakistan, ruled by a pro-Taliban general who jailed and tortured his democratically elected predecessor, is encouraged to develop its nascent nuclear capabilities. The 3,000 victims of 9/11 remain unavenged--and the stage is set for future attacks.
4. He murdered nearly 100,000 people. The war in Afghanistan killed at least 10,000 civilians and 20,000 Afghan soldiers (of which 10,000 were POWs allegedly massacred by Northern Alliance soldiers as U.S. Special Forces troops supervised the slaughter.) As of three weeks after the fall of Baghdad, General Tommy Franks estimated Iraqi dead at 30,000 civilians and 30,000 Iraqi soldiers, men who were fighting to defend their country from a hostile invasion army. At least 10,000 more civilians and 5,000 Iraqi resistance soldiers have died since then. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have anything to do with the war on terrorism, which has yet to start. Both wars were waged to expand American military and economic hegemony and Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s policy of "total energy dominance" over oil and natural gas resources. The world would be safer if Charles Manson, a mere amateur killer by comparison, were released and Bush was sitting in prison.
5. He bankrupted the treasury. When Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $5 trillion over the next ten years. Now, after two expensive wars of aggression and two series of extravagant tax cuts for the ultrarich--including the elimination of inheritance taxes on multimillionaires' estates--the federal budget is facing a $5 trillion shortfall. That's a $10 trillion net deficit--ten times more than the Reagan deficit that took Clinton his entire tenure to pay off--for giveaways to Bush-connected defense contractors like Halliburton and a fraction of one percent of wealthy individuals. Most Americans will get nothing out of this but the bill which, if history serves a guide, won't be repaid until our children are dead. Goodbye national healthcare, sayonara help with college tuition. Bush has stolen our future.
6. He threw thousands of innocent people into concentration camps. Drawing from another of fascism's greatest hits, Bush used his fictional war on terrorism as a lame pretext to throw thousands of Muslims and Arabs into a new gulag archipelago spanning the globe from secret CIA-run prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq--including the infamous Abu Ghraib--to INS detention centers in Brooklyn to the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees caught in battle were denied their Geneva Convention rights as POWs, tortured and even murdered. Illegal immigrants who should have been deported were jailed indefinitely without access to attorneys, or visits from family. In the ultimate Orwellian twist, they were turned into "unpersons"; even their names were withheld from the media. Any president who endorses such atrocities, as Bush has repeatedly done in speeches, is against everything that America purports to stands for. Bush has even signed a secret directive authorizing himself with the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere--including American citizens--as "enemy combatants."
7. We are more feared than Al Qaeda. Bush's radical new policy of "preemption"--a self-ascribed right to invade other countries based on a presumed hunch--has terrorized the international community. Even though they have never threatened us, nations like Iran and Syria wonder whether or not Bush will invade them next--and are racing to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the U.S. threat. Our traditional allies, who still want to engage themselves with the rest of the world, have been forced to distance themselves from our bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy. We, not Islamist terrorists, are the world's most feared power. We are feared, which is why we are hated. Because we are hated, we are in greater danger.
8. Bush has done nothing to improve the economy. At one of the presidential debates, Bush was asked what he would tell someone who had lost their job to outsourcing overseas. He answered that the unemployed had received their $300 tax cuts, and that within five years his education policies would start to help children. The truth is, Bush did nothing to jumpstart the weak post-dot-com economy he inherited in 2000. Like most Republicans, he favors high unemployment as a way to keep labor week and salaries cheap. A Bush victory would ensure more of the same--fewer jobs, lower salaries, reduced unemployment benefits. A president can do a lot to stimulate the economy: jobs programs funded by the government, tax cuts for the working class. But Bush won't act because it would run counter to his ideological beliefs.
9. Bush will appoint the next Supreme Court justice. Whether they're values issues like abortion or gay marriage, or the next election dispute, the Supreme Court is balanced on the razor's edge between reason and right-wing fascism. Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and William Rehnquist, who originally intended to step down during the last four years but evidently decided not to do so because of Bush's lunacy, are over 80 years old. They may not last another four years. We can't let Bush have the chance to appoint their successors.
10. We deserve a president who can speak English and doesn't look like a chimpanzee. John Kerry is a far from ideal prospect but he's a huge leap forward from an evolutionary standpoint.
(Ted Rall is the author of two new books, "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right" and "Generalissimo El Busho: Essays and Cartoons on the Bush Years." Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
Some Final Thoughts About Martha Stewartby Harry Browne I recently received the following email:
Unfortunately, the news coverage has given many people the wrong impression of what happened in the Martha Stewart case. In the first place, the law does not say that insider trading is a crime. And she wasn't indicted for insider trading. She was convicted of lying (1) to federal investigators about insider trading and (2) to the shareholders of her own company when she announced that she was innocent of insider trading. She also was convicted of conspiracy to lie about insider trading by making up a lie with her broker, Peter Bacanovic. Thus she was convicted on three counts of lying about something that isn't a crime and that she wasn't charged with doing. If the government can't charge her with insider trading, what difference does it make whether she lied about insider trading? And, incidentally, if simple lying were a crime, we'd all be in prison. Lying under oath is called perjury. Lying to a federal official when not under oath is certainly no worse than a federal official lying to you – which happens far more often. All Martha Stewart's alleged offenses were lumped together under the heading of "obstruction of justice." What justice – when no crime against anyone was being charged? Even if you believe that Martha Stewart should go to prison for lying about something that wasn't a crime, you don't even know that she was lying. All you know is that a broker's assistant, Douglas Faneuil, was originally charged with being part of the conspiracy – only to have the charges dropped when he agreed to testify that Martha Stewart lied. Why would you believe him and not Martha Stewart? I have no idea whether Martha Stewart lied. Neither do you, and neither did the judge or the jury. But what difference does it make if she did? You say, "She became too arrogant in continuing to deny her mistake." I hope you never get convicted for something you didn't do – because the judge will probably increase your sentence for being so arrogant as to express no remorse over a crime you didn't commit. October 13, 2004 Harry Browne [send him mail], the author of Why Government Doesn't Work and many other books, was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. See his website. Copyright © 2004 Harry Browne |
|
The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket White House Scrambles With Quickly Changing Stories
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week?
According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece. The prime suspect was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser.
When the online magazine Salon published an article about the rumors on Friday, the speculation reached such a pitch that White House and campaign officials were inundated with calls.
First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.
"There was nothing under his suit jacket," said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.
"It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric."
Ms. Devenish could not say why the "rumpling" was rectangular.
Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.
|
The White House was flooded with calls about the bulge.
|
Campaign Aide Says Elvis To Moderate Third Debate More on "The Mystery of the Jacket Bulge"
CHANHASSEN, Minn. (Oct. 10) - Campaign aides to President Bush on Saturday laughed off rampant Internet speculation about whether the president was wired to get help from advisers during his first debate with Sen. John Kerry.
"It's not true. It's ridiculous," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
A still photo from television footage of Bush as he debated Kerry on Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Fla., appears to show a small, boxy shape between the president's shoulder blades.
The New York Times and The Washington Post wrote stories about the rumors Saturday. Campaign officials declined to discuss it further because they weren't certain a bulge even existed and do not want to appear to take seriously what they consider a "wild accusation."
Bloggers and others began to muse on various Web sites that the bulge could have been a radio receiver that the president's aides could use to give him answers during the debate.
One Web site, www.isbushwired.com, is devoted solely to the matter.
"Some people have been spending too many hours looking at left-wing conspiracy Web sites," Stanzel said. "Did you hear the one about Elvis moderating the third debate?"
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Sixth Canadian Province Allows Gay Marriage More to Come and the World Has Not Been Destroyed
Justice Heather Robertson ruled the definition of marriage in the province will now be "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," and that the marriages of same-sex couples who wed outside Nova Scotia would be recognized in the province.
"I'm very pleased," said Chris Ambidge, a spokesman for Integrity Canada, a national network of LGBT organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada.
Ambidge said 82 percent of Canadians now live in areas where gays can marry.
Nova Scotia follows Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and the Yukon Territory in legalizing same-sex marriage. Saskatchewan's high court is expected to follow suit next week.
And next month, Canada's federal Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on reference questions from the Minister of Justice, a move that is expected to set a national legal standard on the validity of same-sex marriage.
Ambidge said only in Alberta, with a more conservative population, is he expecting a legal challenge to any future court ruling in favor of gay marriage, and he expects such a challenge to fail.
Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, facing a much broader struggle at home, applauded developments north of the border.
"Canada should get credit for leading the way," said Molly McKay, associate director of Equality California, an organization working to gain marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
In May, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to allow gays to wed. But in recent weeks, Missouri and Louisiana residents voted to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, and several other states will have similar measures on their ballots in November.
McKay said efforts in the United States, Canada and elsewhere make the battle for marriage rights "a civil rights movement that's truly international." She called same-sex marriage "inevitable" in the United States and called the backlash by anti-gay forces "the dying cry of the wounded beast."
For the entire article:
|
Nova Scotia became the sixth Canadian province or territory to allow gay couples to marry on Friday, when the province's high court ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
|
Crawford, Texas Newspaper Endorses Kerry Endorsed Bush In 2000 Source: The Lone Star Iconoclast
The Lone Star Iconoclast said in an editorial dated Sept. 29 that Texans should rate the candidates not by hometown or political party, but by where they intend to take the country.
"Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq," the editorial said.
The Iconoclast, established in 2000, said it endorsed Bush that year. It also said it editorialized in support of the invasion of Iraq, and publisher W. Leon Smith promoted Bush and the invasion in a British Broadcasting Corp. interview, believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda," the editorial said.
The newspaper praised Kerry for "30 years of experience looking out for the American people" and lauded his background as "a highly decorated Vietnam veteran."
Visit The Lone Star Iconoclast:
|
CRAWFORD, TEXAS - A weekly newspaper that billed itself as President Bush's hometown paper has now endorsed John Kerry for president, saying the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"
The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.
The most significant of these requirements are:
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
The Entire Washington Post Editorial:
|
Monday, September 27, 2004
|
GIs Claim Threat By Army Soldiers Told To Re-enlist or Face Deployment To Iraq Source: Rocky Mountain News - Colorado Summary:
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.
A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.
The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team.
"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.
The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view.
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned to where we're most needed. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.
The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said.
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.
A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.
Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.
A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us."
Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.
But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.''
The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread."
"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.
Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson
WHAT THE FORM SAID
• "Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''
WHAT IT MEANS
• Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007.
• Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq.
To See The Entire Story:
|
Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
1-866-OUR-VOTE PROTECT THE VOTE by Bob Herbert
Oops! Republicans aren't supposed to actually say they want to suppress black votes. That's so retro. It's so Jim Crow. This is the 21st century, and the thing now is to do the dastardly deed, but never ever acknowledge it.
That's where our friend Pappageorge went wrong.
After his startling quote was published several weeks ago in The Detroit Free Press, Mr. Pappageorge, who is 73, apologized and said he certainly never meant to suggest that anything racist or illegal take place. But he reiterated to me in a phone conversation last Friday that he did indeed mean that the vote in Detroit needed to be kept down.
A lot of other Republicans have similar views about the vote in areas with large African-American populations. Most blacks vote Democratic. If those votes can be suppressed, Republicans benefit. And there is increasing evidence that a big effort to suppress the vote among blacks and some other heavily Democratic voting groups is under way, which is why it is important to keep the following phone number handy:
1-866-OUR VOTE.
That's a hot line set up by the Election Protection Coalition, a group that was formed to identify and stamp out attempts to disenfranchise voters, especially in predominantly black and Latino precincts around the country.
On Election Day in November, the coalition expects to have as many as 25,000 volunteers, including 5,000 lawyers, available to provide assistance to voters who encounter irregularities or feel they are not being treated fairly at the polls. Voters who call the hot line will immediately be put in touch with volunteers in their local area.
The coalition is also urging people to call the hot line now if they are aware of efforts to discourage or prevent people from voting.
Among the groups included in the Election Protection Coalition are the People for the American Way Foundation, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the League of Women Voters, the N.A.A.C.P., the American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy group in Washington.
The attempt to prevent blacks from voting has been a staple of America's political history, like long-winded speeches and balloons. I wrote three columns last month about a situation in Orlando, Fla., in which armed state police officers went into the homes of elderly black voters to question them as part of a so-called criminal investigation involving absentee ballots. This tactic sent a definite chill through voters who were old enough to remember the torment inflicted on Southern blacks who tried to vote in the 1950's and 60's.
A new study by the People for the American Way Foundation and the N.A.A.C.P. describes many recent examples of voter harassment and intimidation - the latest entries in the long and sordid history of disenfranchisement in the U.S. The study, called "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow," noted:
"Voter intimidation and suppression efforts have not been limited to a single party, but have in fact shifted over time as voting allegiances have shifted. In recent decades, African-American voters have largely been loyal to the Democratic Party, resulting in the prevalence of Republican efforts to suppress minority turnout."
In Texas, students at the predominantly black Prairie View A&M University were threatened with arrest by the local district attorney, a Republican, who suggested they were not eligible to vote in the county in which the school was located. This was nonsense. Students can vote in their college towns if they designate the campus as their home address. The whole point, of course, was intimidation. The threat of arrest is an excellent way of deterring someone from voting.
There are endless stories of attempts to discourage blacks from voting. Few get substantial publicity, so this is not seen as a big national problem. It deserves a brighter spotlight. When duly registered blacks are improperly challenged at the polls, or Florida tries to use a patently discriminatory voter felons list, or black votes are criminally tampered with or simply not counted at all - something should be done.
Do something! The number to call is 1-866-OUR VOTE.
|
More than 80 percent of the population of Detroit is black. This is very well understood by John Pappageorge, who is white and a Republican state legislator in Michigan. "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote," said Mr. Pappageorge, "we're going to have a tough time in this election."
|
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN by Brooke M. Campbell
I had made the very same trip in February, cutting classes to spend my brother's two weeks' leave from Baghdad with him. Little did I know then that the next time I saw him would be at Arlington National Cemetery. During those days in February, my brother shared with me his fear, his disillusionment, and his anger. "We had all been led to believe that Iraq posed a serious threat to America as well as its surrounding nations," he said. "We invaded expecting to find weapons of mass destruction and a much more prepared and well-trained Republican Guard waiting for us. It is now a year later, and alas, no weapons of mass destruction or any other real threat, for that matter."
Ryan was scheduled to complete his one-year assignment to Iraq on April 25. But on April 11, he emailed me to let me know not to expect him in Atlanta for a May visit, because his tour of duty had been involuntarily extended. "Just do me one big favor, ok?" he wrote. "Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you."
Last night, I listened to George W. Bush's live, televised speech at the Republican National Convention. He spoke to me and my family when he announced, "I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers and to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong."
This is my reply: Mr. President, I know that you probably still "don't do body counts," so you may not know that almost one thousand U.S. troops have died doing what you told them they had to do to protect America. Ryan was Number 832. Liberty was, indeed, precious to the one I lost – so precious that he would rather have gone to prison than back to Iraq in February. Like you, I don't know where the strength for "such pride" on the part of people "so burdened with sorrow" comes from; maybe I spent it all holding my mother as she wept. I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while "doing good," as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us "Moms" and "Brookster." But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death. You are in my prayers, Mr. President, because I think that you need them more than anyone on the face of the planet. But you will never get my vote.
So to whom it may concern: Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you.
Sincerely, |
I found out that my brother, Sergeant Ryan M. Campbell, was dead during a graduate seminar at Emory University on April 29, 2004. Immediately after a uniformed officer knocked at my mother's door to deliver the message that broke her heart, she called me on my cell phone. She could say nothing but "He's gone." I could say nothing but "No." Over and over again we chanted this refrain to each other over the phone as I made my way across the country to hold her as she wept. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
From The "Debunking The Swift Boat Veterans For Bush" Department:
Source: THE WASHINGTON POST
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.
In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."
"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.
A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.
In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.
The Post, however, filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.
Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."
Members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense, as has Rassmann, the Special Forces officer whom he fished from the river. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue. The two had an emotional reunion on the eve of the Iowa Democratic caucuses in January, an event that some political analysts believe helped swing votes to Kerry at a crucial time.
The Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand. Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. But he has refused repeated requests for an interview after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe about whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He was unreachable again last night.
Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to the group's leader, they have received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president.
To See The Entire Story:
|
Larry Thurlow, debunked critic
|
From The "Is Anybody Looking?" Department:
April 21 was an unusually violent day in Iraq; 68 people died in a car bombing in Basra, among them 23 children. As the news went from bad to worse, President Bush took a tough line, vowing to a group of journalists, "We're not going to cut and run while I'm in the Oval Office."
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business. But hardly anyone else noticed, and that was hardly an isolated case.
Allies and critics of the Bush administration agree that the Sept. 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have preoccupied the public, overshadowing an important element of the president's agenda: new regulatory initiatives. Health rules, environmental regulations, energy initiatives, worker-safety standards and product-safety disclosure policies have been modified in ways that often please business and industry leaders while dismaying interest groups representing consumers, workers, drivers, medical patients, the elderly and many others.
To See All The "Behind-The-Scenes" Damage Being Done...
|
Source: The New York Times ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
From The "A Rose By Any Other Name" Department:
There is probably nothing I can do or say to convince you that the words "activist judge" have no more meaning than the words "hectic smurlbats." You've heard "activist judges" so many times - from the president, from Congress, from the angry guys on the radio - that you can define it right along with me. Together then: Liberal activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it. They ignore the plain meaning of texts to invent new rights. Superimposing their moral views onto their legal reasoning, they brazenly advance the cause of the fringe liberal elites in the culture wars.
That certainly sounds right. Justice Antonin Scalia would say it better, of course. He'd make reference to the framers and toss in words like kulturkampf. But it hardly matters. We all evidently believe that you're either for the liberal activist judges or against them. Folks on the left say they protect minorities from majority tyranny, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did last year in the gay marriage decision. Folks on the right say they act as unelected superlegislators. Folks on the left say they are interpreting a living Constitution. Folks on the right say they are unmoored from any fixed point, save, perhaps, the Harvard Law School.
We can disagree about outcomes, but we have, at least as a matter of political language, internalized the fiction that liberal judges "make" law, while conservative judges "interpret" it.
A modest proposal, then: Let's invent a new term right here, today, for judges or judicial nominees on the right, who claim to be merely "interpreting" the Constitution, even when they are refusing to impose settled law; law they deem unsettled because it was invented by "liberal activist judges." And while I am open to better suggestions, here's a tentative offering: "Re-activist judges."
Re-activist judges are the ones trying to roll back time to the 19th century. Re-activists are the judges who have reactivated federalism by rediscovering the "dignity" of states. Re-activists view Lawrence v. Texas - last year's gay sodomy case - as having all the jurisprudential force of a Post-it note. When the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld an Alabama ban on the sale of sex toys last month, it did so by sidestepping the logic animating Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence. Ignoring Kennedy's lofty promises of sexual privacy - his assurance that "there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" - the 11th Circuit framed the case as a dust-up over the constitutional right to a vibrator.
Re-activists like Priscilla Owen, President Bush's nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, rewrite the Texas parental notification statute in abortion cases, to make it vastly harder for young women to bypass parental consent. Re-activists like another Bush nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, have called the Supreme Court's shift toward defending New Deal legislation in 1937 the start of "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
Re-activist judges have increasingly adopted the view that their personal religious convictions somehow obviate the constitutional divide between church and state. President Bush's recess appointment to the 11th Circuit, Bill Pryor, expended energy as attorney general of Alabama to support Judge Roy Moore in his quest to chisel the Ten Commandments directly into the wall between church and state. Pryor is entitled to be offended by case law barring government from establishing sectarian religion. But what re-activist judges may not do is use their government office to chip away at that doctrine.
Re-activist judges are able to present themselves as "strict constructionists" or "originalists" by arguing, as does Justice Clarence Thomas, that any case decided wrongly (i.e., not in accordance with the framers of the Constitution) should simply be erased, as though erasure is somehow a passive act. And while there is an urgent normative debate underlying this issue - over whether the Constitution should evolve or stay static - no one ought to be allowed to claim that the act of clubbing a live Constitution to death isn't activism.
So, judicial re-activism. It doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, I know. But let's put it out there anyhow, and attempt to level the rhetorical playing field before November.
To See The Actual Editorial In Print...
|
Source: The New York Times
|
From The "Greasy Slimeballs" Department:
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Thursday said its quarterly earnings surged 39 percent on higher energy prices, growing production and its best refining and marketing results in 13 years.
We all know the story...but if you want to read it:
|
Source: MSNBC
 DEPARTMENTby Bob Barr
Even were I among the chosen few deemed by the government as sufficiently valuable to warrant a vaccine, I wouldn't get one. Consider it my personal protest against the politics of fear that has fallen across the country like a blanket since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Now that the election is finally over, can we please get on with life? Life has always been inherently risk-laden. But in 21st-century America, life is becoming increasingly a search for the Holy Grail of security in everything we do, from flu to finances to flying, and from sports to politics.
The hysteria over the flu is but one example of the fear that pervades America and much of Western civilization these days. But if we can't come to grips with the reality of a tiny virus, how can we hope to come to grips with a worldwide terror network threatening our very way of life?
The flu — influenza — has been with us since time immemorial. And despite the advances in medical science that allow us to minimize its effects, the flu almost certainly will be with future generations for ages to come.
Every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, 15 million to 60 million people get influenza between October and May.
Of these victims, far fewer than 1 percent are hospitalized, and fewer than .01 percent die; that's less than 1 percent of 1 percent, for heaven's sake.
Sure, the flu is an annoying condition, with fever and muscle aches, but it is not the bubonic plague, which wiped out nearly half of 14th-century Europe's population.
Nevertheless, our national irrational hysteria pastime has ramped up again over this year's flu vaccine shortage . Americans cross the border in droves to get a socialized Canadian shot in the arm. Drastic emergency powers legislation pass in state after state to empower governors to criminally charge, if not burn at the stake, those who dispense flu vaccine to "low-risk" patients.
The CDC formed its own special ethics panel to weigh the moral questions about who gets vaccinated. (We need ethics in government, Lord knows, but a panel of ethicists to decide who gets a flu shot? Come on, folks, get a grip.)
Granted, the flu virus is a danger to both the very young and the very old, as well as to those with underlying medical conditions. If that's you, please, by all means, try to get a flu shot. But, for everyone else who wants to know how to stop the flu: Wash your hands. Cover your mouth when you sneeze. Don't go into work when your sinuses feel like they're filled with cement and you could cook an egg on your forehead. If every American followed the basic life lessons learned in kindergarten, the CDC wouldn't have to go to red alert every time something like this happens.
The flu panic, however, belies a larger failing in America. We tend to like to be scared, and in recent years we've allowed that predisposition to control our national decision-making. It's tough to blame Americans writ large for this unfortunate tendency. The media, popular entertainment and politics all center around some form of "if it bleeds, it leads." And most "average" consumers of news lack the basic knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff about real threats and false threats.
This fear-mongering, however, has very real and unfortunate consequences for public policy-making, especially in the context of counterterrorism. Unfortunately, because of public anxiety after September 11, 2001, and the consequent message to politicians that something — anything — had to be done, we ended up with the Patriot Act, the CAPPS II airline profiling system and a whole raft of other "security" measures more about making people feel safe than actually making them safe.
It's the same phenomenon as the new CDC ethics board; it will do little to improve the medical condition of the populace, but provides window-dressing to a jittery public.
My humble request is that everyone just take a deep breath and do a Google search before worrying about any of the social scourges the press and politicians like to say are out to get us. Learn about the particular risks of the flu and what you can do to minimize them. Teach yourself the specifics of al Qaeda and like groups, so you can know where they come from and what they want before you talk about how good or bad the Patriot Act is. Get a handle on the finer points of crime statistics, and the social phenomena that underlie criminal activity, before going into palpitations over the latest shooting reported on the 11 o'clock news.
And, most important, get some independent second opinions before voting on the basis of fear. That means stop listening to Washington leaders of both parties, who see our fear as a chance to aggrandize political power.
America is built on the principle of risk vs. reward. Our entire economic, legal and political system is geared toward encouraging informed risks in the hope adventurous investing and entrepreneurship will cause capital and wealth to grow, thereby prodding invention and innovation. Had our forebears been as hung up on fear and threat as we, America would be a third-rate power nestled in the narrow corridor between the Atlantic and the Shenandoah Valley, without railroads, airplanes, heavy industry or the Internet.
If we don't slap ourselves out of this fear-induced dormancy, there wait in the wings some lean and hungry nations to our west that seem to have more of America's old risk-taking spirit than we now do.
Bob Barr, a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia, is a columnist for United Press International.
|
I've never had a flu shot, and I sure as heck won't get one this year. For one thing, I'm in that category of Americans deemed "expendable" and therefore not worthy of receiving whatever protection — psychological or physiological — a flu vaccine might afford: I'm a white, middle-aged male. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Joe Republican's Day!
With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications
are safe to take because some stupid commie-liberal fought to insure their
safety and to be sure they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his
medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal
union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - and now
Joe gets it, too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's
bacon is safe to eat because some girlie-man liberal fought for laws to
regulate the meat-packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for
his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its
amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his
right to know what he was putting on his body.
Joe dresses, walks outside
and takes a deep breath. The air is clean because some environmentalist
wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our
atmosphere.
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized
ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation
fees, because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal
union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer
pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to
call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a
worker compensation or unemployment check because some ridiculous liberal
didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal
wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the
banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie
Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because
some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off
if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from
work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the
country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in
the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety
standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to
live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until FDR,
some big-government liberal, stuck his nose where it didn't belong and
demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now
retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because
some wine-drinking, quiche-eating liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home,
and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals
are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved
Republicans fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys
throughout his day.
Joe agrees with the barking radio host: "We don't need those big-government liberals
ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man! All Americans should take
care of themselves, just as I have."
|
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with
water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and safe because
some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Linda To Bush: "You're No Good, You're No Good, You're No Good... Baby, You're No Good!
Some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater after Ronstadt's comments.
Linda Ronstadt not only got booed, she also got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.
Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old singer called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everyone to see the documentary about President George W. Bush.
Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos, and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.
"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told The Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."
Timmins, who is British and was watching the show, decided Ronstadt had to go - for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.
Ronstadt's antics "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said.
Timmins said it was the first time he'd sent a performer packing.
"As long as I'm here, she's not going to play," Timmins said.
Ronstadt had been booked to play the Aladdin for only one show anyway.
Calls to Ronstadt's manager were not immediately returned.
In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal before the show, Ronstadt said, "I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back."
Looks like she got her wish.
See it in print:
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Make Your Breasts Stand at Attention!
The U.S. Army has long lured recruits with the slogan "Be All You Can Be," but now soldiers and their families can receive plastic surgery, including breast enlargements, on the taxpayers' dime.
The New Yorker magazine reports in its July 26th edition that members of all four branches of the U.S. military can get face-lifts, breast enlargements, liposuction and nose jobs for free -- something the military says helps surgeons practice their skills.
"Anyone wearing a uniform is eligible," Dr. Bob Lyons, chief of plastic surgery at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio told the magazine, which said soldiers needed the approval of their commanding officers to get the time off.
Between 2000 and 2003, military doctors performed 496 breast enlargements and 1,361 liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents, the magazine said.
The magazine quoted an Army spokeswoman as saying, "the surgeons have to have someone to practice on."
See The Actual Reuters Story Here:
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
From The "Just Asking" Department:
A potentially major news story -- that Iran had more connections with
al Qaeda than Iraq ever did, according to the 9/11 Commission's
interim report -- has been relegated to the back pages of national
newspapers and underplayed by the electronic media. The commission
found that as many as 10 of the September 11 hijackers were given
safe passage by the Iranians during the year before the attacks. Has
the U.S. media already become so cynical about the Bush
administration's motives for invading Iraq that this does not even
rate a front page news story?
For the rest of Evan's column:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
893 DEAD ... 10,000+ WOUNDED!
Nearly as many US soldiers lost their lives in Iraq in the first half
of July as in all of June, even as Iraqi insurgents [sic] seem to
have shifted focus from attacking US targets to aiming instead at
Iraqi security forces and government officials. The relatively high
rate of US military casualties has dimmed hope that the handover of
power to the Iraqi government would help stabilize the country and
reduce pressure on US soldiers. Since the June 28 handover of
power, the 160,000 coalition forces have averaged more than two
deaths a day, among the highest rate of losses since the war began 15
months ago.
By Saturday, 36 US soldiers had already died this month, compared
with 42 in all of last month, according to a Globe analysis of official
statistics.
By Friday, more than 10,000 coalition soldiers had been wounded. In all, 893 Americans have died since the war began in March 2003, most of them in hostile action.
For the complete story:
|
News Summary:///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
They Do Chicken Wrong!
Source: The New York Times
An animal rights group involved in a long legal dispute with Kentucky Fried Chicken about the treatment of the 700 million chickens it buys each year is to release a videotape today showing slaughterhouse workers for Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the nation's second-largest poultry processor, jumping up and down on live chickens, drop-kicking them like footballs and slamming them into walls, apparently for fun.
Animal rights groups have long complained that sheer malicious behavior - on top of the expected confinement and bloodletting - goes on in slaughter plants, but this is the first time such graphic proof has been produced. The tape was taken surreptitiously by an investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who worked from October 2003 to May 2004 at a Pilgrim's Pride plant in Moorefield, W.Va., that won KFC's "Supplier of the Year" award in 1997.
The tape includes loud music the workers listen to, the screeching of the birds and the sound of each hitting the wall. When released, it will be on a Web site of the animal-rights group, which is known as PETA, at www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com .
The undercover investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation and still does undercover work for the group, said in a telephone interview that he saw "hundreds" of acts of cruelty, including workers tearing beaks off, ripping a bird's head off to write graffiti in blood, spitting tobacco juice into birds' mouths, plucking feathers to "make it snow," suffocating a chicken by tying a latex glove over its head, and squeezing birds like water balloons to spray feces over other birds.
He said the behavior was "to alleviate boredom or vent frustrations," especially when so many birds were coming in that they would have to work late.
On April 6, one day he filmed, workers made a game of throwing chickens against a wall; 114 were thrown in seven minutes. A supervisor walking past the pile of birds on the floor said, "Hold your fire," and, once out of the way, told the crew to "carry on."
On another day, he said, the supervisor told the crew to kill correctly because inspectors were visiting.
To document cruelty and position his tiny camera, he said, he spent eight months working in the "hang pen," where workers attach newly arrived chickens by their feet to a conveyor that carries them upside-down through an electrified "stun bath" and then into the whirling blades of the throat-cutting machine.
If you can stomach more... see the full story:
|
News Summary:///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
New York Times Movie Review:
OUTFOXED
Spin Zones, Flag Waving and Shouting to Catch a Fox
In the soggy early evening hours on Sunday about 60 people gathered in Zebulon, a modest bar on a not yet completely chic block in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, to watch "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald's new documentary about the Fox News Channel. The event was one of many "house parties" — dozens in New York City and around 3,500 nationwide — organized by MoveOn.Org, which helped produce the film, along with the Center for American Progress. (The film, which does not have a theatrical distributor, is also being sold on line as a DVD.) Zebulon, a recently opened establishment aiming for a lived-in, neighborhood feel, serves a smattering of reds and whites by the glass, as well as snacks including Camembert on toasted slices of baguette.
So you might say (or perhaps Fox News might say) that the crowd on Sunday — young, hip, and partisan — represented a bohemian, early-21st-century incarnation of a political archetype that flourished (at least in conservative imaginations) in the 1970's and 80's: the wine-and-cheese liberal. An unscientific glance around the room suggested that a plurality of those in attendance preferred beer to wine. The audience's frequent cheers and hisses suggested that they enjoyed the movie: which is to say that they were, as the filmmakers intended, outraged by it.
The partisan nature of "Outfoxed," a series of expository and analytical talking-head segments interspersed with the high-octane flag-draped shouting-head segments that have become Fox's trademark, is obvious. It is also, therefore, a little beside the point. In the American media, like it or not, the job of exposing bias is often taken up by people and organizations with a definite point of view. Fox News itself came into being with the intention of "balancing" the supposed leftward tilt of the print and broadcast mainstream, what Fox opinionators call the elite or secular media. The channel's "fair and balanced" slogan was, from its inception in 1996, meant as a provocation, a way of smearing the traditional networks with some of the mud Fox was happy to wallow in, and of implying a symmetry between Fox's outspoken (periodically denied) conservatism and the supposedly covert liberalism of CNN or CBS or The New York Times.
One of Fox's great successes, apart from an impressive ability to attract viewers and infuriate liberals, has been the promotion of the idea that what it does cancels out the unacknowledged propaganda coming from the other side. Mr. Greenwald's film challenges this notion and methodically works to disarm the ready-made accusation that it is outfoxing Fox by stooping to its methods.
These methods are analyzed by an array of media critics and activists, and also exposed by former employees of Fox News Channel and its parent, the News Corporation, some of them speaking anonymously, with their voices disguised. The story they tell is of the systematic and deliberate dismantling of journalistic norms, and of an outfit that has become not merely a voice of conservatism but a cheerleader for the Republican Party. Sean Hannity, co-host of a popular public-affairs yelling match, uses part of each broadcast to count off the days until "the re-election of George Bush," and daily memos from headquarters set an agenda of slanted priorities.
Some clever editing shows how the newscasters use repetition to hammer home their positions: joining the name of Senator John Kerry to variations on the word "flip-flop" as if it were his very own Homeric epithet; floating the disconcerting idea that the likely Democratic nominee is, somehow, "French"; and implying that he is the favored candidate of North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il. There is also an amusing, appalling dissection of the way Fox uses the phrase "some say," as in "some say Senator Kerry has a tendency to flip-flop," not to cloak a source but to camouflage a statement of opinion.
Mr. Greenwald addresses all of this and a good deal more — or rather, his subjects do, since the director himself is unseen and all but unheard — with methodical sobriety. "Outfoxed" will inevitably be discussed in the same breath (or with the same hyperventilating rage) as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," but it lacks both the showmanship and the scope of that incendiary film. Toward the end "Outfoxed" briefly veers away from being an exposé of Fox News toward a more wide-ranging critique of the corporate media and the consolidation of ownership, but this attempt at a more general frame of reference risks weakening the specific force of the movie's argument, which has to do with the behavior of a particular corporation.
Some will say that the argument is unfair and unbalanced. Fox's critics — the most famous are Walter Cronkite and the inevitable Al Franken — appear relaxed, reasonable and good-humored, sitting in front of shelves of books and making their points in measured tones of voice. The on-air Fox personalities, on the other hand, appear to be a prize collection of blowhards and hyenas, with little regard for either journalistic niceties or basic good manners.
But whose fault is it, really, if they come off badly? They are, after all, on television. What we see must be what they — and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch — want us to see. It must also be what we — or at least the millions who watch Fox News Channel, including some who shut out virtually every other source of news — want to see. Which is, according to "Outfoxed," cause for alarm, and for action.
Watching Bill O'Reilly's belligerent, boorish "interview" with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the attack on the World Trade Center and who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11, is enough to make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O'Reilly's sense of decency. But those days — when Welch undid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy on live television, and when that medium was new enough to bring a promise of transparency and truth-telling into the public consciousness — are long past.
Mr. O'Reilly's fans are about as likely to watch "Outfoxed" as the patrons of that bar in Williamsburg are to tune in to "Fox & Friends." For the foreseeable future, there will be more shouting, finger-pointing and tuning out, as each side accuses the other of bias, distortion and dishonesty.
Somehow, though, in these confusing circumstances you can catch a glimpse of the truth, even in a bar in Brooklyn on a muggy Sunday evening in July.
OUTFOXED:
Produced and directed by Robert Greenwald; directors of photography, James Curry, Will Miller, Glen Pearcy, Richard Pérez, Luke Riffle, Bob Sullivan and Eugene Thompson; edited by Jane Abramowitz, Douglas Cheek and Chris Gordon; music by Nicholas O'Toole; released by the Members of MoveOn.Org and the Center for American Progress. Running time: 77 minutes. This film is not rated.
See the review:
|
(Available on DVD)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
An Editorial From The Right
Senate GOP In Disarray
WASHINGTON -- Majority Leader Bill Frist lost his customary smile last Tuesday in addressing the weekly meeting of Republican senators. The rich and handsome surgeon from Nashville, who once seemed much younger, now looked older than his 52 years. "Ya'll got to help me," he pleaded. Colleagues thought their leader had been missing some sleep.
Frist had an excuse for looking haggard. He was in the middle of two of the worst weeks for any Senate leader in memory. Republicans pulled defeat from the jaws of victory when Democrats killed a bill to curb trial lawyers. That was followed by last week's fiasco, when Republicans could not even win a simple majority to ban homosexual marriages. The 49-member Democratic minority was running the Senate.
Senate disarray is only one part of Republican malaise. George W. Bush is viewed by his own party's loyalists as sounding an uncertain trumpet, and GOP senators marvel that John Kerry has not forged well ahead in the polls. But especially in the tight little world of the Senate, Democrats are in the driver's seat. They have blocked President Bush's federal judicial nominees, and Republicans have been unable to pass a budget.
Frist is more pitied than condemned. He was a leading future presidential prospect a year and a half ago when he became majority leader replacing Trent Lott, who was the victim of Democratic viciousness and Bush's non-support. Senate majority leader may be the toughest job in Washington, lacking the Rules Committee discipline that brings order to the House, or a president's ability to hide his mistakes. The Senate leader stands nakedly open to attack, and Frist assumed the leadership with less legislative experience than any predecessor in memory.
Nevertheless, Republicans have been on a catastrophic course. Multiple parliamentary blunders transformed a solid Senate majority for the class action lawsuit bill into a failed attempt for 60 votes to impose cloture. Republican senators were even more baffled and dismayed by the tactical train wreck on gay marriage when Republicans could collect only 48 votes.
Grumbling in the Senate Republican cloakroom began well before that. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's carefully constructed plan to block Bush's judges has stymied Frist, who fired the aide who discovered Democratic memos revealing the grand design. A long-stalled tax bill broke free last week when Republicans agreed to Kennedy's huge tobacco buyout. The message: Nothing important clears the Senate without Teddy Kennedy's OK.
The added factor is the worst hostility between Republican and Democratic leaders since I began Senate-watching in 1957. Frist broke precedent by traveling to South Dakota to campaign against Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's re-election. Republicans who must deal with Daschle regard him as one of the coldest men they have met in politics, who truly subscribes to the Kennedy clan's axiom of "Don't get mad, get even." Daschle could not conceal his glee two weeks ago in humiliating Frist on the class action bill.
While it is easier to be a minority leader than a majority leader, Democratic command in the Senate is still remarkable. Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, who lives on the Senate floor, controls day-to-day operations more effectively than anybody in the majority. What's more, Daschle and Reid are leading Democrats who are more closely unified than their Republican counterparts.
Some junior Republican senators look to Majority Whip Mitch McConnell as a more knowledgeable and skilled parliamentary battler than Frist. But McConnell has not fulfilled hopes, when he became whip after the 2002 election, that he would be Harry Reid's constant shadow on the Senate floor. He underwent triple-bypass heart surgery in February 2003 just as he was taking on his new duties, and he may not have yet recovered his full powers.
The finger-pointing by Republican senators is natural. How could they lose the class action bill when they had a clear majority? How could they fail to win a majority on the gay marriage amendment? How could they fail to pass a budget? Why did they succumb to Teddy Kennedy on the tobacco buyout? The answers revolve around the caliber of leadership.
For the editorial source:
|
Source: Town Hall
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
From The "News You Don't Need To Know" Department:
Doctors Trying To Rehabilitate Man Raised By Chickens
Source: WDSU TheNewOrleansChannel.com
Social workers in Fiji are trying to rehabilitate a 32-year-old man they say was raised by chickens, according to NBC.
As a young child, the man was locked in a chicken coop for several years by his grandfather after his parents died. He had little contact with humans and picked up the habits of the birds.
After escaping from the coop, the man was taken to a local hospital. No one knew how to treat him, so hospital workers locked him in a room and tied him to his bed for more than 20 years.
Now, doctors are trying to treat the man. They say he has no mental defects and agree his condition is from years of abuse and neglect.
"He had imitated or imprinted with the chicken," said Elizabeth Clayton who is rehabilitating the man. "He was perching, he was picking at his food, he was hopping around like a chicken. He'd keep his hands in a chicken-like fashion, and he'd make a noise which was like the calling of a chicken -- which he still has."
Doctors said the man has made remarkable progress and is now learning to walk and speak like a human.
For the actual story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
House Republicans Defend Patriot Act Through Partisan Tactics
Source: The Washington Post
House Republicans, under strong pressure from the White House, narrowly defeated an effort yesterday to water down the Bush administration's signature law to combat domestic terrorism.
By a 210 to 210 tie vote that GOP leaders had to prolong for 23 tumultuous minutes while they corralled dissident members, the House finally rejected a proposed change to the USA Patriot Act that would have barred the Justice Department from searching bookstore and library records. White House officials, citing the nearly three-year-old law's importance as an anti-terrorism tool, warned that any attempt to weaken it would be vetoed.
But the victory came only after GOP tactics that infuriated Democrats and a number of Republicans. The vote, scheduled to last only 15 minutes, dragged on for 38 minutes despite outraged shouts and a unified chant of "shame, shame, shame" from Democrats across the aisle.
"The Republican leadership is out of control," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.). "Today's vote on the Freedom to Read Protection Act is just the latest example of a growing trend towards abusive, closed-fist partisanship on the part of Republican House leadership."
At one point the electronic tally board above the visitors' gallery showed the proposal passing, 219 to 201. But as the Republican whip organization went to work to get defectors to switch, the number of those voting for passage dropped steadily.
The final count recorded 18 Republicans joining 191 Democrats and Rep. Bernard Sanders (Vt.), the House's lone Independent and the chief author of the amendment to limit some powers of the Patriot Act. Sanders called the proceedings "an outrage" and "an insult to democracy."
The floor fight was reminiscent of November's vote on a Medicare prescription drug program, when GOP House leaders kept the vote going for nearly three hours while they persuaded reluctant members to support passage of the bill.
For the entire story:
|
News Summary://///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
From The "How Conveeeenient" Department:
Source: The Daily Star
Military records that could have helped establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago were 'inadvertently destroyed', according to the Pentagon.
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former 1st Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No backup paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.
The destroyed records cover the three months in 1972 and 1973 when Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly six months have sought Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.
There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the president's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic charges that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.
In May 1972, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But National Guard officers have said they had no recollection of ever seeing him there.
For the entire story:
|
News Summary://///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
PICTURE OF THE MONTH
For the entire "Enron's Ken Lay Indicted" story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Philippines Halts Troop Deployment to Iraq
Source: Seattle Times
 Armed Iraq insurgents threatened to kill a Filipino hostage if his country does not withdraw from Iraq, according to a video that aired Wednesday. The Philippines responded hours later by ordering a halt to further deployment. In the video broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, the group claimed to have already killed an Iraqi security guard who was accompanying the Filipino, the newscaster said. The statement gave no details of his capture.
For the entire story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Poll: Bush loses support among Hispanics
A new Gallup Organization survey, which includes large oversamples of blacks and
Hispanics, finds President George W. Bush losing the support of
Hispanic voters. In the past year, Bush's job approval rating
among Hispanics has dropped significantly, while approval from whites
declined modestly. Now, more Hispanics disapprove than approve
of Bush's performance, and a majority indicate they will vote for
Sen. John Kerry and for the Democratic representative in their
districts in this fall's elections.
For the entire story:
|
Source: Gallup.com /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Computer Experts Warn of e-voting Problems
Just four months before November's elections, vulnerabilities persist
in electronic voting machines used nationwide, a group of computer
experts told House lawmakers Wednesday. The experts are concerned the
elections may be plagued by hackers, fraud and computer malfunctions.
Some argue for the return of the paper ballot as a backup to verify
voters' intentions. ... Nearly 50 million Americans are expected to
vote using touch screen machines this fall.
For the entire story:
|
Source: Detroit Free Press /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Former UPI White House Bureau Chief: 'This government lies'
Source: Indy Star
Hearst News Service columnist Helen Thomas stated her unambiguous
feelings about the Bush administration today. 'This government
lies,' she said ... to editors, reporters and interns
from The Indianapolis Star. As for the Bush administration's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, one of the key arguments for going to war against Saddam Hussein, Thomas had one word: "Baloney."
For the entire story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Blair Admits Likelihood WMD May Never Be Found In Iraq
Source: Dodge City Daily Globe
 Facing hostile questioning in parliament, Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged on Tuesday some friction in his close relationship with President Bush and the political problems the friendship causes at home. Blair used his sharpest language yet in the long-standing disagreement over the Bush administration's detentions at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying they 'must end.' Opinion polls show a majority of Britons dislike the U.S. president and disapprove of Blair's close relationship with him. And the British leader said it was likely weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq.
For the entire story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
From the "Winning The Hearts and Minds" Department:
Source: ABC NEWS
 The 19-year-old Iraqi's swimming skills were no match for the Tigris River. 'Marwan, save me!' Zaidoun Fadel Hassoun screamed to his cousin, himself struggling to stay afloat. The teenager drowned; his cousin made it to shore. 'I could hear them laughing,' Marwan Fadel Hassoun said, recalling how U.S. soldiers pushed the young men into the river. 'They were behaving like they were watching a comedy on stage.' The U.S. military said last week that three soldiers, now back in their base at Fort Carson, Colo., have been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Jan. 3 drowning of an Iraqi detainee. A fourth soldier faces charges of pushing a second man, who survived, into the same river
For the entire story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
HIV Cases Hit Record High in 2003
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
 The world is losing the race against the AIDS virus, which last year infected a record 5 million people and killed an unprecedented 3 million, the United Nations reported Tuesday. The virus has now pushed deep into Eastern Europe and Asia, and tackling it will be more expensive than previously believed, according to the most accurate picture to date of the global status of HIV infections. The number of people living with HIV has risen in every region. UNAIDS chief Dr. Peter Piot said the deaths and infections were a testament to the world's failure to get prevention and treatment to those who need it. Nine out of 10 people who urgently need treatment are not getting it, and prevention is only reaching one in five at risk, the report said.
For the entire story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Top Medicare Official Threatened Government Actuary Over Real Cost of Drug Benefits
An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top government Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.
A report on the investigation says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted.
But neither the threat nor the withholding of information violated any criminal law, the report said.
Mr. Scully, who resigned in December to become a lobbyist for health care companies, acknowledged having told Foster to withhold the crucial information from Congress.
For the entire sordid story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
New Halliburton Waste ... Called a Gravy Train by Army Chaplain
The Pentagon has already awarded Halliburton Co., the controversial military contractor, deals worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. But now former Halliburton insiders have come forward with new allegations of massive waste of taxpayer money.
Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who worked for Halliburton, was so upset by attacks on the company she e-mailed the CEO in December with a strategy on how to fight the "political slurs." But today, after five months inside Halliburton's operation in Kuwait, deYoung has radically changed her opinion. "It’s just a gravy train," she said.
DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."
DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.
"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.
DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."
Both deYoung and West have since left the company. Pentagon documents obtained by NBC News support the whistleblowers' charges. In December auditors complained of Halliburton's "serious deficiencies," including "lack of cost control and cost consciousness." Some examples:
Purchase of hundreds of high-end SUVs and pickups, loaded with options like CD players, which "most KBR employees do not need."
"Duplication ... and gold-plating" in purchases of computers and high-tech equipment.
Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels.
The company declined an interview with NBC News.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
MURDERS, SHOOTINGS, DROWNINGS, COVERUPS ... WELCOME TO THE US ARMY
Four American soldiers have been charged in the drowning death of an Iraqi detainee who was pushed off a bridge north of Baghdad along with another Iraqi man in January, the Army said Friday.
Three of the soldiers, including one officer, face manslaughter charges, while the fourth has been charged with assault in the nighttime incident that happened on a bridge over the Tigris River in Samarra, 60 miles north of the Iraqi capital. All four soldiers were also accused of making false statements about the incident.
The new charges filed against the four soldiers, who are with the Fourth Infantry Division, come just two weeks after a captain in the First Armored Division was charged with murder and dereliction of duty in the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian on May 21 after a chase in Kufa, in south-central Iraq.
The Army has now opened investigations into the deaths of at least 40 Iraqi detainees, and the new charges announced reflect a widening pattern of prisoner abuse, including deaths and assault, that took place beyond the confines of the Abu Ghraib prison.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Bill Cosby Has More Harsh Words for Black Community
Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community Thursday, telling a room full of activists that black children are running around not knowing how to read or write and "going nowhere."
He also had harsh words for struggling black men, telling them: "Stop beating up your women because you can't find a job."
Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them. He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black community's "dirty laundry."
"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street," Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund's annual conference.
"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
In his remarks in May at a commemoration of the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, Cosby denounced some blacks' grammar and said those who commit crimes and wind up behind bars "are not political prisoners."
"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said then. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."
Cosby elaborated Thursday on his previous comments in a talk interrupted several times by applause. He castigated some blacks, saying that they cannot simply blame whites for problems such as teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates.
"For me there is a time ... when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat, it keeps you frozen in your hole you're sitting in."
Cosby lamented that the racial slurs once used by those who lynched blacks are now a favorite expression of black children. And he blamed parents.
"When you put on a record and that record is yelling `n----- this and n----- that' and you've got your little 6-year-old, 7-year-old sitting in the back seat of the car, those children hear that," he said.
He also condemned black men who missed out on opportunities and are now angry about their lives.
"You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, because you didn't want to get an education and now you're (earning) minimum wage," Cosby said. "You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity."
Cosby appeared Thursday with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the education fund, who defended the entertainer's statements.
"Bill is saying let's fight the right fight, let's level the playing field," Jackson said. "Drunk people can't do that. Illiterate people can't do that."
Cosby also said many young people are failing to honor the sacrifices made by those who struggled and died during the civil rights movement.
"Dogs, water hoses that tear the bark off trees, Emmett Till," he said, naming the black youth who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, allegedly for whistling at a white woman. "And you're going to tell me you're going to drop out of school? You're going to tell me you're going to steal from a store?"
Cosby also said he wasn't concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people."
"Let them talk," he said.
This story was printed in its entirety ...for the printed story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point Ever, New Survey Finds
Published: June 29, 2004
President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks and skeptical about whether the White House has been fully truthful about the war or about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.
A majority of respondents in the poll said that the war was not worth its cost in American lives and that the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to restore order to Iraq.
The survey, which showed Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42 percent, while 51 percent disapproves of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job.
Similarly, 45 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Bush himself, again the most negative measure the Times/CBS Poll has found since he took office. And 57 percent say the country is going in the wrong direction, another measure used by pollsters as a barometer of discontent with an incumbent.
In what could prove to be a particularly far-reaching development for Mr. Bush — especially because he and his campaign have sought to undercut Mr. Kerry's credibility — nearly 60 percent said he was not being entirely truthful when talking about Iraq. Similarly, just 15 percent said the administration had told the entire truth when it came to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.
The poll contains a number of other potentially worrisome findings for Mr. Bush. By 51 to 32 percent, Americans believe that he has divided the nation, rather than brought it together. The number of Americans who said that Mr. Bush did not care about the "needs and problems of people like you" edged up to 42 percent from 36 percent in March. More than 50 percent said that Mr. Bush did not have the same priorities for the country as they did.
On the issue of the economy, even though job-creation numbers have been rising over the past few months, 45 percent of Americans say that the Bush administration has been responsible for a decline in jobs, compared with 24 percent who say it has brought an increase. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned that they or someone in their house would be out of work over the next year.
In Mr. Kerry's case, 36 percent said they had no opinion of him, despite the campaign's record-setting expenditure on television advertisements. That figure is fairly typical for challengers at this point in the campaign; in June 1992, 44 percent of the public did not have an opinion of Bill Clinton.
For more findings from the poll:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Michael Moore's 'Farenheit 9/11'
Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the highest-grossing feature-length documentary of all time ... and did so on its very first weekend in release ... taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country this weekend.
The movie, mocking President Bush and criticizing his decision to go to war in Iraq, was No. 1 at the box office, beating out the popular comedies "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," which were playing on more than three times the number of screens.
Theater owners in large cities and smaller towns reported sellout crowds over the weekend, with numerous theaters declaring house records.
"We sold out in Fayetteville, home of Fort Bragg," in North Carolina, Mr. Moore said on Sunday. "We sold out in Army-base towns. We set house records in some of these places. We set single-day records in a number of theaters. We got standing ovations in Greensboro, N.C.
"The biggest news to me this morning is this is a red-state movie," he said, referring to the state whose residents voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. "Republican states are embracing the movie, and it's sold out in Republican strongholds all over the country."
Market research leading up to the weekend had shown that the documentary would rank second or third at the box office after the two mainstream comedies. But "White Chicks" took in $19.6 million for the weekend on 2,726 screens, while "DodgeBall" took in $18.5 million on 3,020. "Fahrenheit 9/11," rated R, was released on 868 screens.
Even rival studio executives recognized that documentary's opening as exceptional. "This picture came from nowhere," said Tom Sherak, a principal at Revolution Studios, which made "White Chicks."
Beyond making box-office history, the movie may be seen by some as a bellwether of political support for the president and the war. The film's weekend success was fodder for the Sunday morning political talk shows, as pundits wondered what the political influence of the film might be, if any, on President Bush's re-election campaign.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Bush Suffers Huge Defeat Over Guantanamo Detainees
The US Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held in Guantanamo Bay can use the US justice system to challenge their detention.
The move is a huge defeat for President George W Bush, whose policies have been attacked by civil liberties and human rights groups, especially after the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.
At Guantanamo Bay, most of the 595 "enemy combatants" are being held without charge. They are suspected of fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan or supporting al-Qaeda militants after the September 11 attacks on the US.
The first detainees arrived in January 2002.
For the complete story:
|
Source: ITV.com/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
SO WHAT HAS JERRY FALWELL
Read The Latest "Falwell Confidential" ... Jerry's Newsletter
Date: June 25, 2004 ...
From: Jerry Falwell
CHURCHES NATIONWIDE TO LAUNCH 'PROTECT MARRIAGE SUNDAY'
As I reported last week, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the Federal
Marriage Amendment (FMA) next month. This is critically needed legislation
that would, if passed, permanently secure marriage as a legal bond solely
between one man and one woman.
While many people have now contacted both of their senators in order to urge
them to sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment, it has become apparent that
many others have yet to do their part to preserve traditional marriage.
This week, Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation,
said, "Too few calls, too few letters and too few faxes are coming into the
offices of members of the United States Senate urging them to stand firm in
defense of marriage between a man and a woman. That's why too many of the
senators who should now be strong supporters of the Federal Marriage
Amendment are still in the 'uncommitted' column."
What a tragedy it would be if people of faith did not utilize this singular
opportunity to positively impact the culture and the future of the American
family.
In order to join together in a mass effort to protect traditional marriage,
I am joining pastors across this nation as we establish Sunday, July 11, as
"PROTECT MARRIAGE SUNDAY".
In addition, I am calling on Americans everywhere to utilize Monday, July
12, as "CALL YOUR SENATORS DAY", to urge both of their senators to support
the FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
PROTECT MARRIAGE SUNDAY
Thousands of churches will be participating in "Protect Marriage Sunday" on
July 11.
On July 11, pastors will urge everyone attending Sunday services to call
their two senators on July 12 as part of a massive grassroots movement to
protect traditional marriage. In this column, I have provided a list of all
100 U.S. senators which includes their Washington, D.C., and home state
phone numbers, and e-mail addresses. Pastors may utilize this list in order
to print up cards that can be dispensed to parishioners on July 11, making
it very easy for people to call their senators the next day.
I am asking all pastors to lift up the God-ordained institution of marriage
in their sermons on July 11, and to make clear the serious pitfalls which
same-sex "marriage," polygamy and other diverse family forms present. In
addition, Sunday School teachers are encouraged to discuss marriage from a
biblical perspective, and also to discuss the threat of same-sex "marriage."
Click on this link to be taken to the list of 100 senators:
Non-pastors reading this column are urged to e-mail it or to personally
deliver it to their pastors, urging them to join in this critical campaign.
I am praying that we overwhelm senate staffers with phone calls and that
these calls will convince several senators that the vast majority of their
constituents support traditional marriage. I want to help rally the troops
in the cause to protect traditional marriage from arrogant judges and
pompous politicians who seek to circumvent the will of the people in order
to enact their ambiguous views on marriage - namely by authorizing same-sex
"marriages."
HOW TO DEAL WITH SENATORS' EXCUSES
Many senators are willing to let a single activist federal judge declare all
marriage laws void and to make same-sex "marriage" legal. We must not allow
this to happen. But it will happen unless God's people take action.
When you call your two senators, they may give you some excuses for not
voting yes on the FMA. Some may say that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
is already the law of the land and is sufficient to halt same-sex
"marriage." This is patently untrue. One federal judge can rule DOMA
unconstitutional. Some senators are saying that the Constitution is too
sacred to be altered or tampered with. But slavery and a woman's right to
vote, among other important matters, were all dealt with through a
Constitutional Amendment. Other senators may say this is a states rights
issue. The sanctity of the family is far too precious to be left to
unelected judges in Massachusetts, or any other state.
 GATHERING MOMENTUM There is some good news to report: Since last week's column, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) has announced he will vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment. In a letter to a constituent, he wrote, "As a United States Senator, I will support and protect the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. While it was my hope that the existing Defense of Marriage Act could accomplish this goal, I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage." While this is indeed encouraging news, we need several other senators to come on board. That is why I am urging everyone reading this column to immediately take personal action to help in the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Your action of calling both of your senators will have a powerful impact on this issue. Most senators will not vote against the FMA if enough constituents call to urge them to support the amendment. Remember, after you have called your senators, urge all of your friends and family members to also call and respectfully ask that their senators support the FMA. Most importantly, urge your pastor and congregation to observe PROTECT MARRIAGE SUNDAY and CALL YOUR SENATORS DAY. It is imperative that we preserve traditional marriage for the sake of our future generations. Please join me and thousands of other concerned Americans in taking a stand for traditional marriage by (1) calling both of your senators, (2) urging your friends and family members to do the same, and (3) have your pastor participate in the Protect Marriage Sunday.
Again, click on this link to be taken to the list of 100 senators:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
REPUBLICANS PLOT TO GET NADER ON BALLOT  Source: Boston Globe News Summary: Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention today in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot. The groups make no bones about their goal -- to draw votes away from Democrat John F. Kerry and help President Bush win this battleground state in November. 'We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics, but we'd love to see him make the ballot,' said Russ Walker. His group along with the Oregon Family Council has been working the phones to boost attendance at Nader's event -- with the idea that it could help Bush this fall. "We aren't bashful about doing it," said Mike White, the group's director. "We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue."
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
TEMPLETON GIVES $1 MILLION TO DEFEAT KERRY  Sir John Templeton and son John at prize ceremony in 2003. (AP/Wide World Photos) Famous financier Sir John Templeton has donated $1 million through his foundation to a political group that will encourage religious conservatives to vote this November. Templeton’s contribution to the mega-million effort to keep George Bush in the Presidency is another sign the hotly contested 2004 race is turning out to be a costly battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. |
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
From the "Changing the Tone in Washington" Department: Tsk Tsk Tsk! 
Source: CNN
We feel the headline pretty much sums it up ... but if you must hear the context of the innapropriate vulgarity for yourself... all the filthy details can be found below.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Testimony Ties Key Officer to Cover-Up of Iraqi Prison Death
The company commander of the unit charged with abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib testified Thursday that the top military intelligence officer at the prison was in the cellblock the night a prisoner died during interrogation.
His testimony suggested the officer, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, was aware of efforts to conceal the death.
Testifying at a hearing for one of the seven accused members of his unit, the 372nd Military Police Company, Capt. Donald Reese said that one night in November 2003, he saw the bloodied body of an Iraqi prisoner who had died during interrogation inside a shower stall in a prison cellblock. He said a number of officers were standing around it, discussing what to do.
One of them, he said, was Colonel Pappas, the head of the military intelligence at the prison. "I heard Colonel Pappas say, `I'm not going to go down alone for this,' " Captain Reese testified.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Source: World Net Daily
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping
mental health initiative that recommends screening for
every citizen and promotes the use of expensive
antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by
supporters of the administration. .... Critics say the
plan protects the profits of drug companies at the
expense of the public.
For example, Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.
Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Oopsy! U.S. Government Corrects Terrorism Report Count
Significant acts of terror worldwide reached a 21-year
high in 2003, the State Department announced ... as it
corrected a mistaken report that had been cited to boost
President Bush's war on terror. Incidents of terrorism
actually increased during the year, and the number of
people wounded rose dramatically ...
The corrected report shows that the Bush administration is "playing fast and loose with the truth when it comes to the war on terror," said Phil Singer, spokesman for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign. The administration "has now been caught trying to inflate its success on terrorism," he said.
Also important to note is the fact that even the newly corrected report did not include U.S. troops killed or wounded in Iraq, or attacks by resistance fighters against American troops, "because they were directed at combatants." Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who had questioned the initial report, said Tuesday the new version omitted terrorist attacks committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and she said the administration thereby "continues to deny the true cost of the war and refuses to be honest with the American people."
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., went even further and was sharply critical Tuesday.
"Funny things happened on the way to the printer," he said. "Unfortunately, this is not the first, second or third instance, for that matter, of a Bush Cabinet secretary having to rewrite a report from their own department."
Emanuel cited inaccurate reports on racial disparities in health care, misleading estimates of the Medicare prescription drug bill and the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed mercury emissions rules.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
U.S. taxpayers pay for Florida county cops' plush offices
Some of Broward County's [FL] top cops soon will hold
court on expensive leather couches ... and taking breaks
in private bathrooms decorated in marble and glass. ....
It's all being paid for, perfectly legally, with federal
tax dollars from a program that is directed at helping
state and local governments shoulder the costs of
housing illegal immigrants in their jails.
The project includes $1.24 million in construction materials and labor, $140,000 in architect fees and $438,000 in office furniture.
Among the furnishings: A $9,000 conference table; two leather loveseats at $2,615 apiece; two leather lounge wing chairs at $1,670 apiece for the sheriff's conference room; a $1,230 executive desk chair in a lieutenant colonel's office and a $500 ottoman for the sheriff's study. For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Catholic Church Hiding Sexually Abusive Fugitive Priests Abroad
Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children are hiding abroad and working in church ministries, The Dallas Morning News has found. From Africa to Latin America to Europe to Asia, these priests have started new lives in unsuspecting communities, often with the help of church officials. They are leading parishes, teaching and continuing to work in settings that bring them into contact with children, despite church claims to the contrary... Nearly half of the more than 200 cases identified involve clergy who tried to elude law enforcement. About 30 remain free in one country while facing ongoing criminal inquiries, arrest warrants or convictions in another. Most runaway priests remain in the church, the world's largest organization, so they should be easier to locate than other fugitives. Instead, Catholic leaders have used international transfers to thwart justice.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Catholic Bishops Brand Politicians Who Support Abortion Rights as "Cooperating in Evil" and Suggest Denying Communion
The nation's Roman Catholic bishops approved a statement on Friday on "Catholics in Political Life" that brands politicians who support abortion rights as "cooperating in evil" and leaves the door open for bishops to deny communion to such lawmakers.
The bishops also asserted unequivocally that "the Catholic community and Catholic institutions" should not give "awards, honors or platforms" to Catholics who "act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."
This means that Catholic universities, for example, may not give honorary degrees or speaking invitations to politicians who have a record of supporting abortion. Some Catholic universities already have such bans, but many did not. Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president and a Catholic who supports abortion rights, for example, recently gave an address at Georgetown University, which often provides a forum for presidential candidates.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
US Soldier Accidentally Beaten at Guantanamo by Fellow Soldiers
Sean Baker says he received injuries from fellow soldiers while posing as a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay camp for al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects. He blames officers for the botched exercise, and says he suffers seizures as a result. The army had previously said Mr Baker's injuries occurred in the line of duty.
Mr Baker, 37, was a member of a military police unit based in Kentucky when it deployed to Guantanamo Bay in 2003. In January of that year he volunteered to act as an uncooperative detainee for training purposes and put on an orange prison jumpsuit. He argues that other participants were not made aware that he was a soldier. During the exercise, Mr Baker says, military police choked him and slammed his head against the floor. Mr Baker says he told them he was a US soldier but the beatings continued until the jumpsuit was yanked down, revealing his uniform.
For the complete story:
|
Source: BBC /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
Illinois' Republican Candidate Resigns GOP Senate Race Amid Scandal
Jack Ryan, an Illinois candidate for the US senate, has dropped out of the race amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising political career to crash in four days.
Ryan, a pro-family, anti-gay rights candidate for the US Senate, was accused in court documents by his former wife of sexual improprieties.
The Republican candidate for the Senate from Illinois, had assured GOP officials there was nothing in his past that could come back to haunt him. But, court documents released earlier this week contain accusations by his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, that he had tried to force her to have public sex in several adult clubs.
Ryan spent four days trying to weather the political storm that followed the release of the documents involving a nasty custody battle between the two over their young son.
Ryan had campaigned for the Republican nomination on a pro family, anti-gay platform.
"I believe that marriage can only be defined as that union between one man and one woman. I am opposed to same-sex marriages, civil unions, and registries," he said on his website.
Republicans say they will now have to find another candidate.
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Rhode Island's Republican Governor Resigns Amid Ethics Scandal
Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican once
considered a rising star in his party, resigned ... amid
an ethics scandal that has shaken the political
landscape of his state.
The once widely popular Republican, who was elected governor three times, was facing impeachment over charges that he ignored ethics laws and repeatedly used his position to stuff his pockets with expensive gifts from state employees and friends who did business with the state.
For the complete story:
|
Source: Washington Times /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or
pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people --
they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If
they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure."
--Ronald Prescott Reagan, son of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, chiding the Bush administration
for invoking the Reagan name to justify war in Iraq.
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Halliburton:More Embezzlement Dating Back To CEO Cheney's Leadership
Halliburton said Friday that it was severing all ties with Albert J. Stanley, until recently one of its highest-ranking executives, after investigations showed he secretly enriched himself by channeling as much as $5 million from an elaborate payment scheme for a Nigerian energy project to a Swiss bank account.
Halliburton, one of the world's largest oil services companies, also said it was cutting ties with another executive it suspects of being involved in the scheme, William Chaudan. No charges, however, have been filed against either the men or Halliburton.
The dismissal of the two executives is the latest development in investigations under way in France and the United States that have uncovered a $180 million web of payments in connection with efforts to win contracts to build a $4 billion natural gas complex in Nigeria. Some of those payments were made prior to 2000, while Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive. Cheney retired from that post in 2000.
The development comes as Halliburton is also being investigated by the government because of recent accusations that it has grossly overcharged on its contracts in Iraq. The company has defended its work.
For the complete story:
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Cheney Claims To "Knows Things" -- But Offers No Proof
The NYT reports that the heads of the Sept. 11 commission asked Vice President Dick Cheney Friday to provide evidence to back up the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had a close relationship. This followed a Thursday interview Cheney gave to CNBC where he acknowledged he may know things about the alleged connection that the panel doesn't know. In its lead editorial, the NYT urges Cheney to: "Show Us the Proof."
|
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
|
"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.
He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no
knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon. ...
The shallowness that he has brought to the office has not
changed since he got there. ... The president's capacity to
lead has never been there. In order to lead, you have to
have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have
knowledge and experience. He has none."
-- House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
of California, to the San Francisco Chronicle, May 20.
|
QUOTE OF THE MONTH/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
Former Reagan-Bush Diplomats and Military Leaders Urge Bush's Ouster
A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said
Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in
November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America's
standing in the international community. Prominent members
include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces
in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father;
retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
under President Ronald Reagan; and retired Adm. Stansfield Turner,
former head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also included is Jack F. Matlock,
who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained the post
under the first President Bush, and William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's
ambassador to Israel and four African countries.
Normally, former diplomats and military commanders avoid making political statements,
especially in an election year. But last month 53 former diplomats accused the Bush
administration of undermining U.S. credibility in the Middle East by its strong support
for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
For the complete story:
|
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
|
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY
--Hermann Goering ... Nazi Leader under Adolf Hitler in 1939 Germany
|
"Of course the people don't want war...that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That's easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
© 2004-2009 ... Tell us what you think at NationalWatchdog@gmail.com
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
advertisement
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material... the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of social, environmental, political, human rights, economic, political, and/or scientific issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational or entertainment purposes. |