Happy New Year

A lot has happened over the past year that we should take time out to reflect upon, and we should also take time out to think about the coming year.

But for now, do your best to make sure you don't remember tonight.

Happy New Year! :)

Narcissism

Time ta get them crimnuls!

The Justice Department said today that it had opened a criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a secret National Security Agency program under which President Bush authorized eavesdropping on people in the United States without a court warrant.

As we all know it's much more important to investigate those lawbreakers who leaked information than to spend time on the people who broke the laws in the first place. Stalin, er, I mean Bush, is infallible. Their reason?

"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue," Mr. Duffy said. "The fact is that Al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page One, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications."

Where do I even begin... here's good. As we all know, the leaking of classified information is quite serious. Just ask Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. They know all about that. That quote should read:

"The leaking of information that could possibly harm the Bush administration's image is a serious issue," Mr. Duffy said.

Just a thought.

Syriana

Saw Syriana today. Pretty good (non) fictional movie. I didn't have much trouble tying the different segments and plots together so I had a good time watching it. I agree with Digby's take on it, that oil is king and everyone is scrambling to get it at no matter the cost. Of course this hit home for me, which in a large part got me thinking about America's role as the world superpower and its influence.

I think a great deal of the failings we've had on the world playing field since WWII, or at least since Vietnam, have been due to our own arrogance. We've been willing to subvert democratic ideals and popular wills to suit our own purposes, which to a large extent have been about cheap goods and energy. I'm not saying that there aren't fundamentalists out there who would have passed on the opportunity to see us dead if even if we hadn't tried to assume pseudo-control of their governments and economies, but I think a large part of the problem is us and our hubris.

Just as we live our daily lives conscious - if you're not a sociopath - of not humiliating other people in our dealings with them and violating their wills, it should be the same thing on the world stage. I'm not ruling out the necessity of reprisal and self defense on our part, but I think we need to be a little more clear cut about what that is. I've spoken to otherwise rational people who believe that if other countries have oil that we need to survive, and they are unwilling to give it to us, then we are justified in slaughtering every last one of them to get that oil.

Such a manic obsession with anything to the point of destroying other people is a sign of psycopathy, and it overlooks basic human interactions. We all learned as kids that you do not beat little Timmy senseless if he doesn't want to give you some of his candy. (Of course little Timmy's a tool, but that's besides the point :P) If you have trouble understanding that basic behavioral principle on an internal level, and either 1. don't believe it, or 2. only follow it out of fear of reprisal, you need help. Now.

In the case of oil, it overlooks that basic respect for someone else's will. The natural response to this is what if it becomes a question of self defense, i.e. if you don't have oil you will die. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it overlooks a lot of basic solutions, such as: 1. don't use as much oil 2. switch to alternative energy 3. life existed without oil and will continue to exist without oil. If your only answer is that you need to consume oil like now and like you've never consumed it before, you're a twit.

That brings us back to the earlier problem. If you can't obtain what you want under normal social interaction terms, then something's gotta give. The problem is that we've transferred the causes for that problem onto other countries and abused them when it's really our problem. If we want to fix this problem we have to start owning it. Heretofore all we have done is run away and blame others for our problems. The solution is to own up for what we've done and start doing things differently by respecting other people and countries. I think it means being more isolationist in military terms, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Trade will continue to flourish, but maybe it will be closer to actual free trade and not what neocons and supply siders like to call free trade.

This solution carries its own problems with it, most notably, how do we affect this? Well, the obvious answer is to elect people with these beliefs, but that only begs the question of how in hell do we do that? We need a government full of white knights, and that isn't going to be easy to pull off. The major obstacle is that the correct solution requires owning up for our actions and taking responsibilty - something which the American people abhor doing. The will vote for Mr. Sunshine (they literally did 25 years ago) over Mr. Raincloud, even if they are living in a drought and are dying of thirst. One of the classic conservative complaints is that progressives are too negative. It's easier to vote for the guy who tells you we're alright and things will be fine than to vote for the guy who lays it out as is. Easier to dodge reality and live an escapist fantasy.

However, this provides the perfect opportunity to grab the easy moral high ground. It's something that politicians and the grass roots should not shy away from. It's about economic and social responsibility. It's an issue that people with convictions will easily come together on, unless they believe that it's all caused by homosexuality and letting women vote. If people want to deny the consequences of their actions, we should hit them full on with "sinners." Even for those of us who are not god fearing it still carries the same meaning, for it is an abomination to humiliate and subvert people in the way we have been doing in our arrogance. Using the word "sinner" in particular speaks to what the problem is and also communicates with a large part of the population we are trying to speak to. George Bush is a sinner. Even after he found Jesus at the bottom of a pile of coke, he continues to sin. Bribery is a sin. Murder is a sin. The list goes on and on.

Syriana gave us a glimmer of hope at the end, even as it was marred by yet another defeat, by showing that we can make progress, even if it is at a brutally slow and painful pace. Let's own this problem and get to it.

Bucking the Status Quo

Feingold has given us great examples of how to lead and succeed, and he's done it all by bucking conventional wisdom. He talks clearly and plainly, and articulates his values. Check this out if you don't believe me. So far he's my top choice for 2008.

Why We Need to Buck the Status Quo

Because articles that spew this kind of nonsense do not help anything, nor does the mentality they would like to enshrine:

Now, liberal critics of Mrs. Clinton appear to be running headlong into the same political reality: the immense support she has with the party faithful, despite having taken positions that infuriated the left. That loyalty among the rank and file may help explain why the senator's advisers do not appear to be very troubled by the protests erupting on the left, loud and persistent though they may be.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what immense support among the party faithful means. I, and several thousand others, if not millions around the blogosphere consider ourselves to be the party faithful, and her support is lukewarm at best. On the whole we appreciate her as a senator, but are not enthusiastic about her up and coming presidential bid. Hillary has spent the past couple years beefing up her centrist and moderate cred, in the DLC mold, which is what we can't stand. Some of us believe in the theory that appealing to the center, especially one that happens to be constantly shifting, is a mistake. This theory has been borne out over the past 6 years in statewide and national elections. The reasons are as follows:

1. Moving to the center and closer to the other side is a slap in the face to your base
2. It has the simultaeous effect of reaffirming that the other side was correct; meaning, why do they need you when they have one of their own
3. It demonstrates a lack of ideology and commitment that has proven to be fatal
   

The main reasons I've heard in support of Hillary are the same things I heard for Kerry: electability , name recognition, money. All of these things are irrelevant and relying on them only impedes progress in the areas that really matter: communication, consistency and policy (a third c would've been nice though). Surprisingly, those of us who are the party faithful are concerned about the future of the party, and that is why we are trying to buck the status quo, as evinced in Hillary's strategy, that has been so detrimental to the party in the past decade. It is why Howard Dean and not Martin Frost is running the DNC. It is time to do things differently.

The other status quo that we must buck is the media's little game of playing with their favorite memes - don't they know they can go blind if they keep doing that? The media - the above quote is from that great, left wing conspiracy bastion, the New York Times - loves to play with the "Democrats divided" meme. Come on. We have a war going on, in case anybody forgot, which it seems they have, an economy in the tubes, Republican corruption scandals coming out of the wazoo, a President who has broken the law and laughed at the Constitution, and all the media can think to write about is how the Democrats are divided? Give me a fucking break. Ignatius' column in the WaPo today is all about how yes, Bush broke the law, but it should be legal anyway!

The status quo in the press is to carry water for the Bush administration and the Republicans. Think of the Froomkin flap as a perfect example. The press are not doing their job and hurting this country. This is another status quo that must be bucked. I'm a little less sure of how to do this one though. Maybe start with Media Matters.

Any ideas?

Oh Who Owns the New York Times?

This question originally arose in response to a diary on Kos about if the NYT helped throw the election. I was originally going to write "no, I think that's going a little too far, although there is probably a grain of truth in it," but after thinking it through I'm willing to give it a lot more weight. I don't think it was an intentional nod to Bush, but rather the paper's attempt to cover its own ass for all the shit - Miller et al. - that it was responsible for.

Since I started following politics and the media I've always thought of the times as left of center. Not some cog in the vast left wing conspiracy, like me, just left of center. But the governing interests at the times are anything but that. You can read the bios of the NYT board of directors here. Then please check out the full list with analysis over at DKos. In brief:

The Carlyle Group. Big Pharma. Insurance. Venture Capital. These people are THE rich and THE powerful. "The haves and the have-mores," as certain humble public servants would have it. Bush calls them "his base."

The Times' goal is not to report the "All the news that's fit to print." It is to preserve the Times' standing in the world. The problem is that is dictated by the above group of individuals. Not really representative of most of the world, or even the Times' readers. When a small, over-privileged class acts to protect its own interests at no matter the cost to everyone else, what else can we expect?

Freedom

Apparently can mean the freedom to limit other people's freedom.

President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security.

The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics.

Interesting definition, I hadn't thought of that one before.

Link.

Lessons from the Transit Strike

About time I got around to blogging about the strike. I lived through all 3 days of it, and it really didn't bother me. I think striking was a bad tactic on the union's part; the union didn't improve its position at all, and even though the Taylor law is ridiculous - allow for unions but make it illegal for them to strike? - the union is legally liable for millions of dollars. That said, I supported the strike and I think it was justified because of the MTA's ridiculous terms - not that the TWU's terms weren't a little ridiculous too, but the difference is one of magnitudes - and shitty treatment of the TWU.

Even though a majority of New Yorkers supported the strike, I never got a chance to speak to any of them - it's just the parts of town I live and work in. Instead, most people complained about the lack of service and blamed the workers for walking out. This was reinforced by the media, who tacked on "illegal" before "strike" with every breath they took. Even after I brought most of them around to seeing that the MTA bore a large share of the responsibility, they usually fired back with "I can't sympathize with the TWU because they're fighting for a full pension and benefits that I don't get. Why should they get those benefits and not me?"

What bothered me was that everyone's irritation with the TWU was being misdirected. It was more of a frustration with the general state of healthcare and retirement plans in this country, and jealousy at the TWU for having something most people don't.

Of course people are frustrated. Premiums have been going up and up for decreasing benefits and what were once believed to be safe retirements and pensions have disappeared. But I think it's wrong that people blame the TWU for their actions. Instead, they should be blaming the government for allowing this to happen. Healthcare and a safe retirement are things that the government can and should guarantee for every person in this country. It is time that we made a move to universal healthcare and put an end to the system in which the rich can afford and own everybody else who can't.

It's simple: eliminate the middleman and negotiate a plan between suppliers of healthcare - doctors, not insurance companies - and recipients of healthcare - everyday people. Such a plan would have to be funded by tax dollars, which is why it is necessary that people negotiate with doctors in order to reach a reasonable compromise as to what services will be offered for what prices. This takes money out of a volatile market and puts it in a safe place, for which services will be guaranteed. Corporations would rejoice at such a plan as it would allow them to dump their pensions, which are weighing them down, and make them financially more attractive - cough, GM - again. For example, Toyota was thinking of opening a factory in the U.S., but eventually decided on Canada because although taxes were lower here, they would have had to assume healthcare costs for all their workers. All those costs don't exist in Canada.

We cannot allow those in power to divert our frustration from where it is due. Fighting the TWU over something that everyone should be entitled to will keep this country divided, fighting over scraps and in a generally worsening condition. People need to take their heads out of the ground, look around them and consider everyone else's situations. The problem is not "why does the TWU get to have these benefits and I don't?" The problem is "why does every American not have these benefits?" The solution is a call for universal healthcare.

Crazy Like a White Supremacist

Or a FOX news affiliate.

More from C&L and our Jesus General.

Edumacation

Why do Republicans hate this country???

Under the bill, college students would pay higher interest rates on loans. Many banks will receive lower subsidies. And the Education Department will work with the Internal Revenue Service to ferret out students and parents who underreport incomes on financial aid applications. The budget bill is estimated to save $39.7 billion over the next five years. Student aid accounts for $12.7 billion of the savings, or 32 percent.

I remember Bush harping on about education being the savior of this country's economy and people. So how can he and his caucus be happy about this? I completely understand that they are downright thrilled that poor people are going to pay more for healthcare and receive fewer benefits, but how can they be happy about every child left behind...

Never mind.

All I Want for Fitzmas

I would like Rove Roast and Cheney Pie.

The media can downplay it as much as it would like, but it's going to happen.

Fitzgerald is getting ready in his DA's workshop, making a list and checking it twice, and he knows who's been naughty and who's been nice.

Merry Fitzmas to all, and to all a goodnight!

Shorter Conyers

Impeach him.

King George and the House of Commons

King George wants nothing more than to kill democracy. As per the latest plot:

longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation are swept away. Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted in the legislation behind closed doors. This is the procedure the Leadership hopes to use today to muscle through these bills.

Fair and open debate is the sign of a democracy, not the majority party illegally pushing things through. Why do Republicans hate democracy? Why does Bush hate democracy?

If you're looking for another symptom of Bush's evilness, just think about who he considers to be the enemy:

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

I'll ask it again: WHY DO BUSH AND REPUBLICANS HATE DEMOCRACY?????

Bush Not Above the Law

The Supreme Court ruled over 30 years ago that the President is forbidden by the law to authorize warrantless surveillance. Bush has knowingly broken the law and violated his duty, to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Impeach the fucker.

Victory in Iraq?

This week witnessed an election in Iraq. The administration and its allies - among whom are many in the media - declared a major victory. For me all of this begs one question: What constitutes a victory? What are we victorious over?

The answer is undoubtably dependent on what the objective is. If the objective was to invade Iraq, depose Saddam and set up a Baskin Robbins, then, yes, we have been victorious. However, if the objective is, say, set up a stable democracy, then, no, I do not believe we have been victorious.

This entire operation - Give Bush His Legacy - has been marked by a non-ending series of small victories. We invaded. Mission Accomplished. We toppled a statue. We caught Al Qaeda's #2. We caught Saddam. We caught another one of Al Qaeda's #2s. We built a school. We caught a #2. We restored an electric grid - that we previously destroyed - to a city. We caught another #2. We held an election. We wrote a constitution. We caught another #2. We held another election.

In retrospect all of these small victories amount to next to nothing. If the grand objective was to set up a stable democracy in Iraq, then we are not yet victorious. The administration and the press has been spoon feeding us little tidbits every day. A new school, another group of insurgents wiped out, a group of children vaccinated. When the right wing and their apologists like to say the media - and anyone who disagrees with them - is too negative, they technically have a point, albeit a point that uses a very twisted logic. They would point to these small victories and have us believe that therefore we are victorious in Iraq. Yet in doing so they miss the grand objective of this endeavor. As far as that objective goes, we have fallen short by a mile. What they are doing is similar to a company's management trumpeting their new vending machines while ignoring that they are bankrupt.

I cringe at making this comparison, but today on CNN's Late Edition, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) commented - he cringed at it too - that while the U.S. was fighting a war in Vietman the country held elections, and each time President Johnson delcared victory and that the troops would come home, but we all know where that eventually went. The point of this is that despite the baby steps Iraq seems to be making towards real democracy, we know that they are only possible because someone is gingerly holding it each step of the way. The real sign of a stable democracy is when the government can govern effectively with minimal problems and corruption. I consider an army of insurgents making continued, coordinated attacks on the country, billions of dollars disappearing and a country armed to the teeth and ready for civil war to be more than minimal problems and corruption.

Right wing apologists will no doubt complain that we are on track to complete this objective; however, it is something that will take time. Our country was not built overnight, how can we expect Iraq to be picture perfect? Well, I understand that every well-laid plan takes a while to unfold and mature, but I cannot see this plan ever achieving its objective. I am not sure if the objective was fatally flawed from the start, but I am sure that we could have come a lot closer to hitting the mark had the people who drew up the plans for this war actually put some thought into it and planned it through.

The Bush administration is no different from the boy who cried wolf. The next time they would like to trumpet their latest victory, we must stop them short and ask how they are coming along with the grand objective, the only thing that constitutes victory, because they cannot answer that question in a positive light. While they declare victory, both our troops as well as Iraqis are being killed with no end in sight. This election will not end the fighting. At best it is another band aid on the gaping wound we call Iraq.

If we ignore all the facts at hand and instead cherry pick them - much like the pre-war intellgience - we may be fooled into thinking that we are victorious. But to do so is both irresponsible and negligent. As a country - including the media - we must face reality and recognize that we have fallen far short of anything resembling victory.

Doublespeak

"The Patriot Act was designed to protect American liberties and lives." - George W. Bush

It's been a while since I read 1984, but I believe the thing about doublespeak was that you were supposed to use the opposite of something to describe it in positive terms. So something that was bad became plus, and really bad would become really plus, or something along those lines (anyone care to refresh my memory?).

This is exactly the way in which Bush speaks about the Patriot Act. The Act does not protect American liberties; it chops them down at the knees. I think the tone of Bush's discourse should tip everyone off to his method of operation.

Bush Hearts Big Brother

Oceania good, Eurasia bad. Or was it the other way around?

Get ready to sick up.

And read up on why this is blatantly illegal.

WTF

I guess this is symptomatic of how the war was run, but goddamn if it isn't depressing.

Big Brother Bush Is Watching You

I knew the F.B.I. and local law enforcement were infiltrating anti-war groups and making arrests - for what, I do not know - but I did not know the NSA was in on the deal as well.

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.

Woohoo freedom!!!! Freedom is on the march!!! ... to the concentration camps. Just in case you think has become legal in our crazy, Orwellian, brave new Bush-world, it is not.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

Regrettably, as we all know, you need a stained dress in order to conduct impeachment proceedings against a sitting president.

However, here is the other best part of this mindfuck story:

The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.

If anyone still doubts that the press is a willing partner in bed with the government, he needs to stop, now. The NYT has a huge story about a potentially illegal action by the government that could affect every American, and what does it do? It rolls over and plays dead because its master told it to do so. Imagine if Nixon did not have to go to the courts to try to get a gag order on the press from publishing the Pentagon papers. If all he needed to do was to place a call to the major papers' editors and say "This could be bad... boogeymen could walk the earth and we could have man on dog if you publish this. And we will cut off your access." While that last point is not explicitly mentioned in the WaPo's rag on the NYT, it is clearly the real reason that the NYT did not publish the article. They did not want their precious access to be revoked.

This is a fatal problem with the fourth estate. It has reached the point where it is trying to preserve the power it has and fending off anyone who tries to reach out and grab any of it. Instead of flexing its muscles and working, the media has become a gluttonous sloth that is guarding its territory, but is too lazy to move. It is for this reason that the current media output model will fail. Slowly but surely, people will turn away from a business that offers a flawed product. They will instead move toward blogs and other media outlets that are more interested in providing a better end-user product - information in this case - than those who are only interested in serving themselves.

The fact that the NYT - and the WaPo and Bob Woodward are guilty as well - are more concerned with preserving their access than fulfilling their role to disseminate information to the public demonstrates how low the press has sunk. They are not the much vaunted guardians of freedom that they try to make themselves out to be, - judyjudyjudy - only the guardians of their own hoards.

Link.

Fool Me Once...

Like I believe this:

Iraqi voters turned out in force countrywide Thursday to elect a parliament to remake their troubled nation, with Sunni-led Iraqi insurgent movements suspending attacks for a day so that Sunni Arabs could vote en masse for the first time.

The voting appeared to split along sectarian lines as expected, with many Sunni voters in the Sunni-dominated far west saying they were voting for Sunni candidates. Long lines were reported among Sunnis, most of whom boycotted elections earlier this year or were frightened away by threats.

We heard the same bullshit about the last election they had. In reality that election was marred by violence, much lower turnout than officially reported and ballot stuffing and other illegal measures to produce a desired result. This stinks of the same old Bushco patented bullshit all over again.

Most of Us Think Torture Is Bad

I need a better explanation why even one representative voted against this:

The House gave strong support yesterday to a measure that would ban torture and limit interrogation tactics in U.S. detention facilities, agreeing with senators that Congress needs to set uniform guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism.

On a 308 to 122 vote, members of the House supported specific language proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. Though lopsided, the vote was largely symbolic and does not put the language into law.

Congratulations, we have just taken one step forward after taking one hundred backward, and we did it with people kicking and screaming the entire way. Let's keep going.

The WAR on Xmas

Note I said Xmas, not ******mas, which is what people like me are waging war on.

I thought it was already ridiculous when rightwing, nut-job Christian groups decided to put their weight behind this meme and make this into an issue - C&L has a clip of Air America Radio host Sam Seder tearing into one of these crazies - and of course you never stand a chance of bypassing O'Reilly making it into a no spin zone crusade if it is that batshit, but I never thought it would get to the point where House Republicans are trying to pass a bill to "fight" the war on Xmas.

This is nothing short of being absolutely pathologically insane. Besides the obvious paranoia and fear of persecution, the fact that the governing body in this country is spending its time on something like this is totally fucking crazy. I was watching the parties debate this issue on C-Span, and could not help but be struck by the absurdity of the entire issue. (Apparently so was the Onion)

1. There is no war on Christmas (see? I said it)
2. No one is getting hurt in said war, unlike that other war from which some congresscritters keep trying to divert attention
   
3. Government should do its job and govern

It is a fucking non-issue, so get over it. Stop being whiny-ass titty babies. Furthermore, stop trying to divert attention from the real issues at hand and get to governing and spreading happiness and joy, or at least providing people with healthcare, education, heating in the winter, and food for those who cannot provide for themselves. The myth of everyone being able to support himself and do well is nothing more than a myth. This ridiculousness only goes to prove that. Republicans cannot even tie their shoes by themselves in the morning with having conniptions about if someone is attacking Christmas. A real country with a serious government would not be caught dead even thinking about this issue. For that matter, so would any sane person.

But I guess all of this makes sense if you assume that Republicans are bald faced liars and hypocrites, only interested in stupid things they cannot substantiate to bolster their own egos and assert themselves over others and control them. This is the only credible explanation for the situation.

The Hilarious Iraqi Death Count

This was so funny I almost forgot to laugh:

Q Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.

Yes. Q Mr. President, thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: I'll repeat the question. If I don't like it, I'll make it up. (Laughter and applause.)

Fuck him. He has nothing short of a total disregard for human life. I cannot begin to express how I feel about that in any blog post, so I will leave it at Fuck Bush.

Lone Voice of Reason

Although the Washington Post's editorial page is usually not that much better than the Wall Street Journal's, it is comforting to know that E. J. Dionne has been able to maintain a voice of reason and sensibility in today's faux balanced media climate. He likes to call it as it is, and I like to read it as it is.

Energy Policy for Everybody

A bunch of diarists over at Kos have spent the past few months working on an national energy plan, and today they published their fourth draft. I really encourage the read, progressives need a credible, reliable, solid energy plan in order to counter the damage done by the Republicans, and to demonstrate that we understand what we are talking about - we are not a bunch of wild-eyed, doped out crazies. The plan is broken up into two sections: the bumper sticker / elevator pitch and the legislative proposals. If you do not have the time or the stomach for the law, at least check out the talking points.

Energize America

Goodbye, Big Easy

This confirms what I wrote about last week:

The president stood in New Orleans and said it was going to be one of the largest reconstruction efforts in the history of the world. You go to the White house home page, there's Barney cam, there's Social Security, there's Renewing Iraq. Where's renewing New Orleans? A presidential advisor told me that issue has fallen so far off the radar screen, you can't find it.

We are losing an entire city and part of this country's history and Bush does not care. The most fitting epithet for Bush is not that he is a uniter, divider, leader, idiot, failure, inspiring, or any other adjective. He is apathetic. Bush is an apathetic person and president.

Apathy is one of the worst qualities a person can exhibit, and Bush exhibits all too much of it. Bush is the Progressive nemesis because of what all his policies and actions boil down to: apathy, which is the opposite of empathy, the most important Progressive quality.

Global Warming Is Here to Stay

The latest news on global warming has been far too depressing for me to blog about, but what makes me angry is people who are actively fighting against any effort to curb global warming. People who say that the science does not prove anything - is it any wonder that this is the same country in which intelligent design is taken seriously - and are content to line their pockets with black gold while others suffer as a consequence of their actions.

The United States, after fiercely resisting any new international talks to address Earth's warming climate, agreed to a separate nonbinding informal dialogue to respond to climate change as representatives of nearly 200 nations concluded two weeks of meetings on the issue.

We are the only country that is holding out, and produce the largest share of the world's emissions. This has never been an issue of left vs. right or libertarian vs. authoritarian. This is an issue of reality vs. fantasy. Anyone who disagrees with the reality, no matter how well intentioned he is, does not deserve to be taken seriously and have a part in discourse. The only people who should be working with this issue are people who can deal with reality and want to proactively work to make it better.

To this end, I propose that Congress create an independent governmental body to work on combatting the issue of global warming. This body should receive government funding, but should be entirely self governing and appointed, save the first head.

This is an issue that exists outside of politics. By playing politics for their own short sighted purposes, Bushco and the Republicans are playing with peoples' lives. To treat someone as a tool or piece in a game is one of the most degrading and cynical ways to view people. It is exactly how this corrupt and immoral leadership governs.

Link.

Lieberman in Disarray

I'm glad that instead of the typical Democrats in disarray meme, the press decided to run a piece more characteristic of the real situation:

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is troubled by Lieberman's comments, Reid's aides said. "I've talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people," Reid said yesterday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters this week that "I completely disagree" with Lieberman. She added: "I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is on is not making the American people safer, making our military stronger and making the region more stable."

I think the underlying current of what is being said and reported is that the Democratic party is finally finding its place; what it will stand united for and against, and it is overwhelmingly clear that Lieberman is a Fox News Democrat, like Zell Miller, and out of touch with his party and base. If Dick Cheney (vice president - pro torture) agrees with you on anything, especially a false war that was a failure from day one,

Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week.

"He is entirely correct," Mr. Cheney said on Tuesday at Fort Drum, N.Y. "On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission."

You know there is something very wrong with your position. Except Joe does not. Allow me to clarify: Joe Lieberman is associating himself with people who aggressively promote torture. What would Holy Joe know about that...

No Justification for Torture

Once again I did not think that I would be blogging tonight because of lack of time, but some things are so ridiculous that I have to blog about them.

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

Why am I not suprised. However, the point of this post is not point out yet another lie spoonfed to the nation and passed on by the press. The point is to drive a hypothetical nail in the justification for torture's coffin. IF torture yielded accurate information, you might have a case - albeit a case more cynical than Henry Kissinger - for using it. But look: torture does not yield accurate information. There is absolutely no reason to ever use it.

George W. Bush is still a fucker.

Marsha Blackburn's Education

I was not planning on blogging tonight, as it is late and I still have work to do, but 5 minutes of watching C-Span while eating dinner was enough for me.

Apparently Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) had the kind of education that teaches that since elementary school teachers can currently deduct out of pocket expenses for their work on their taxes, it would therefore be wrong to raise taxes because those items would no longer be tax deductible and teachers would suffer.........

............

Apparently she did not have the kind of education that teaches if you raise taxes you can cover those things under a school budget or with higher salaries for teachers. Sounds like she needs to go back to school and be learned right.

Time to Go, Joe

Lieberman is at it again:

Lieberman, whom the Bush administration has praised repeatedly for his war stance, defended the president. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

How on earth this jackass has not yet been kicked out of the Democratic party is beyond me. He is beyond DINO at this point. Any Democrat who uses Republican talking points to bash another Democrat is no Democrat, he is a Republican. I am glad to hear that Weicker, who was defeated by Lieberman, is thinking about running against him.

"When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party," Mr. Weicker, 74, said in a phone interview from his home in Essex, Conn. "I'm going to do everything I can to see that Joe Lieberman does not get a free pass."

Stated plain and clear. Any challenge to Lieberman, especially a strong one in the primary, would be nothing short of fantastic.

I Like C-Span

Just saw Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) blast Bush for not delivering on his promises to the Katrina refugees. Apparently the government outsourced the contract for trailer homes to a company - run by friends of Bush who have donated big money to his campaign - on a monthly fee. That's a great incentive to do the work as quickly as possible. Apparently there are thousands of trailers just sitting around gathering dust and not being delivered.

In business, a CEO can be fired for much less. Bush is toying with people's day to day lives. It's time to kick his ass out of the government.

Oh Waterboy!

The MSM loves Bush so much they're always content to be the Republicans' waterboy, no matter what kind of reality says otherwise. Take this latest for example in regard to the Abramoff corruption:

Dorgan has asked some of the toughest questions in the committee hearings probing the $82 million Abramoff and Michael Scanlon charged their tribal clients. As the Associated Press reported last week, Dorgan had his own dealings with Abramoff's circle.

I'm sure the Washington Post will tell you they're just playing fair and pointing out that corruption exists on both sides. However, there are three oversights with that claim.

One, the reporters, James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt, suffer from a failure to perform any real journalism. To begin with, there isn't a single quote in the piece. Furthermore, much of the body of the article comes from an AP article, and probably the beltway buzz that only cool Washington DC insider reporters know. Apparently these reporters also never learned how to cite their sources in journalism school. I would've gotten booted out of college in a split second if I ever wrote something like that. On top of the piece being a recycling of older - week old - news, this article neither adds anything new to it nor do the authors bother to talk to anyone on Dorgan's side to balance out these charges. If I want to see unsubstantiated charges thrown against Democrats, I need go no further than to the Republican slime machine. I go to the press for a modicum of honesty and even-handedness, not to see them carrying water for the Republicans and doing the same thing as the slime machine.

Two, I'll be damned if these reporters could even be bothered to do any investigative journalism on this issue. A couple hours after these charges were levied against Dorgan, Kagro X over on Kos posted this great response:

Oh, so that's where the evidence came from. A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushattas. He didn't tell the FBI, though. He told the AP. I wonder why he would do that? And who is this lawyer for the Coushattas?

Well, the story tells us his name is Jimmy Faircloth, Jr. -- although they also misidentify him as Jimmy Fairchild in the same article.

And who's Jimmy Faircloth? (And why doesn't this page list his $2000 contribution to Bobby Jindal?)

Jimmy Faircloth is a Republican lobbyist. Why is he giving "new evidence" about Byron Dorgan? And why is he giving it to the Associated Press? And why is it being portrayed as evidence of actual wrongdoing? And why are we playing along?

A blogger was able to dig up this information in a minimal amount of time. How is it that two reporters with the Washington Post behind their backs can't get at least the same, if not more information in a week? A simple Google search for "dorgan faircloth" will reveal, in the first three links, a clear rebuttal and opposite view to the bullshit in this article. I can't be bothered to read or trust what I read in the news if I know that the people who make the news aren't doing their jobs.

Three, the claim that the reporters intimate with

Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Republican ethical woes. But as The Washington Post reported in June, some prominent Democrats, including former senator Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), were among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff's associates and clients.

Is, in other words, Democrats do it too so we're only being fair.

Well, I hate to break it to the beltway press, but it just aint so. Are Democrats involved in corruption scandals? Undoubtedly. Should they be hung out to dry? With all speed. But there is a huge difference between the amount of corruption in the parties, and it totally misrepresents the issue at hand when you try to compare the Democrats to the Republicans on equal footing. It's like comparing a slap on the back with torture methods at a secret CIA prison in eastern Europe and saying that they both cause harm. By writing this article and implying just that, these reporters continue to carry water for the Republicans.

You Want to Play Politics?

Fine, Bush. Let's play politics. Here's the truth:

"We need everything you've got," Blanco is quoted in a memo as telling President Bush on Aug. 29, the day Katrina made landfall. But despite assurances from the Federal Emergency Management Agency that 500 buses were "standing by," Blanco's aides were compelled to take action when the FEMA buses failed to materialize, documents show. "We need buses," Andy Kopplin, chief of staff to Blanco, said in an e-mail to Blanco staffers late on Aug. 30, the day after the storm hit. "Find buses that can go to NO [New Orleans] ASAP."

The reason the WH was loathe to play the blame game is because they'd be facing the brunt of the blame for being lazy and indifferent to Americans dying.

Link.

Scalito Looks ScaCrazier Every ScaDay

I was fully expecting him to be a not-so-in the closet misogynist and Republican hack. But this is something entirely different:

Alito wrote that he saw no constitutional problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who was fleeing after a $10 home burglary.

"I think the shooting [in this case] can be justified as reasonable," Alito wrote in a 1984 memo to Justice Department officials.

Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force, he said.

So now we know for certain that this man is another nutjob like Thomas. Democratic senators save us. Somebody needs to find out what Scalito thinks about the commerce clause, and quickly.

Lies, Liars and the Press

Well.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency pulled all its workers out of New Orleans's Lower Ninth Ward yesterday after threats of violence and planned to request additional police or National Guard support, a FEMA spokeswoman said.

As pathetic as it sounds that I've been reduced to such cynicism about this administration, this doesn't surprise me at all.

Let's analyze this situation and try to hit all of the angles.

First, it has been clear from the beginning that the Bush administration never had any intention of rebuilding any part of New Orleans non-adjacent to Trent Lott's house with his big porch where Bush could drink iced tea. When Brownie was booted out of FEMA - and promptly rehired as a disaster consultant - Bush appointed Karl Rove to head up the reconstruction of New Orleans. It's been a few months, and knowing how this administration loves to showboat a dinghy as a yacht, the lack of any press about NOLA can only mean that they've been doing jack squat down there. Honestly, it's unsurprising. Rove has been under Fitzmas fire and also doing damage control for the boy blunder every step of the way. These circumstances can only lead us to believe that Bush and the federal government don't give a damn about NOLA and would rather abandon the entire thing, then source it to private contractors such as Halliburton, who they would overpay and then take jobs with, most likely as lobbyists, after 2008.

The government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens, and when it failed to do that during Katrina and its aftermath, it assumed responsibility for rebuilding their lives. Apparently if you're a Republican personal responsibility - like getting out of NOLA when you don't have a car or having nothing bad ever happen to you, the surest sign you're a good person, and if you're poor, you're automatically bad - is immeasurably more significant and easier to achieve than governmental responsibility, which, despite its size and power, should not be responsible for its citizens. This is pathetic, and no one should be governed by a government that acknowledges that it does not want to govern. I guess it would rather take a month long vacation and eat cake with Marie Antoinette/John McCain and let its people die.

Second, FEMA is leaving beacuse of a threat? Let's try to think this through. A federal agency with the power of the federal government behind it is leaving because of a single threat? To quote Senator Blutarski, "Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" Looks like the strong and tough Bush administration is turning tail in the face of breaking one of its nails. However, all things considered, it's perfectly in keeping with the Bush attitude - this is annoying, we shouldn't be doing it, so let's pack up and go home. Again, not the kind of government I want governing me.

More important to this second point, where did this threat come from? You'll have to excuse me for being a little skeptical, but after it was finally revealed that the 'shooting' in the Superdome that caused the national guard to sit it out on the sidelines while helpless people were dying was nothing more than a fabrication and never really happened, I don't believe that this threat ever happened.

One relief worker in the region said an angry resident berated a Corps of Engineers employee before delivering a threat to the effect of "I'm going to go get my gun, and I'm going to kill you."

That's it. That's all we have for the threat. No actual violence reported. Just this speech from a Bush administration flunky:

"It's unfortunate that threats of violence would be made against anyone, as we all work together to recover from this disaster," Andrews said. "The first priority is to protect and ensure the safety of FEMA workers. There are a lot of employees working hard . . . to help folks return to their homes and ensure they are receiving the assistance they are eligible for under the law."

Wrong. FEMA's first priority is to protect and ensure the safety of the American people. If you want to protect a safety worker, bench them and make sure they never get out on the field, where they might get hurt. I don't think it's much of a stretch to see that these 'threats' are nothing more than made up stories by the Bush administration to justify leaving NOLA to the wolves*, because poor black people who misbehave and do not appreciate what the kind, white, hard-working FEMA employees do - or do not do - don't deserve to be taken care of by the government. This is a disgusting practice of strict father morality, especially when the government is lying in order to absolve itself of responsibility, which, no matter what the lie or truth is, the government cannot set its responsibility aside.

This brings me to my third point, the continued role of the press in propagating these lies. When Katrina hit and the levees broke, the government continued to spout its usual propaganda. That web of lies and deceit was broken for a brief moment when the press actually got down to NOLA and did its job - reporting on what was actually happening, which was in total contrast to what the Bush administration was saying. Regrettably, it seems as if the press has gone back to sleep, or is perhaps on vacation with Bush, because otherwise it would know better than to simply trust what comes out of the administration. However, all we have in this article are the Bush administration's talking points, and one quote from the opposition buried at the bottom of the article. A real journalist would do a real job on an article like this and go down to NOLA and follow around FEMA workers to see if the government's claims were true. I guess that's too much work for the defenders of truth to do.

The press needs to stop carrying water for lies and the liars who tell those lies. I know I've harped on this before, but the press cannot simply repeat Republican talking points and not scrutinize them or give the opposing point of view in equal terms.

Let's review the situation:

1. Government left people to die and fend for themselves in a situation with no hope of success, has been avoiding its responsibilities and feels that it should not fulfill them
   
2. Government creates a lie that is a pathetic excuse in order to shirk its responsibilities
3. Press dutifully reports that lie without bright yellow caution tape that it is a lie

Again, after the past 5 years this doesn't surprise me in the least. It is not only the government, although it bears the most blame, that is the guilty party, but also the press that needs to be held accountable for its failure to act properly. This particular sad, sorry situation is just symptomatic of what is plaguing the country and ordinary Americans' lives. In order to get better we must realize that the government and press are continually failing in their duties and demand that they take more responsibility for their actions.

* Halliburton

Dirty Work

As a follow up to the illegal Texas redistricting story, apparently

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales defended approval of the plan, telling reporters on Friday morning that he was confident that the decision was correct. Conflicting views simply reflected a healthy deliberative process, Mr. Gonzales said.

In any sane country, we do not give equal time to people who think that 2 + 2 = 5. Giving equal time to things that are in clear violation of the law is not a healthy deliberative process, it is a deranged one. Furthermore, approving things that are in violation of the law makes sure that the deliberative process is like Terri Schiavo - for all intensive purposes brain dead but kept alive by life support and giving the faintest illusion of being alive.

This is a straight line of corruption from within the state legislature all the way up to the justice department and the executive. These are not isolated issues where Republicans are acting independently; it is all part of a concerted plot to gain and keep power by any means possible, whether it is legal or not, and all parties involved are guilty.

Read the full article, it lists out some of the more notable cases in which this administration has consistently made power grabs.

Link.

IOKIYAR

It's OK If You're a Republican strikes again.

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post.But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

To top it off,

the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seatsin the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.

There's nothing like ignoring the law as it is specifically dictated to you by the judiciary, burying the decision for two years and illegally doing as you please. The Republican party is neither the party of morality nor the party of personal responsibility. It is the party of greed and acting out of personal, short sighted self interest. Lawmakers have a responsibility to the entirety of thhe country, not solely themselves and their own. Not only is it disgusting, but such people should also be kept as far away as possible from governing other people and thrown in jail.

It's time to spread the word: Democrats stand for economic and social responsibility. If there are some Democrats who don't, then they need to be kicked out of the party without DeLay. heh heh :P

Finding a Spine

It is about time that Democrats stood up for what they are supposed to stand for: progressive values. Chief among these values is empathy, for everybody. In order to stand up straight for those values you first need a backbone. It seems that in the face of a Supreme Court nominee who is definitively lacking empathy for women as Scalito would:

use the brief to promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."

"make clear" to the Supreme Court that we "disagree with Roe v Wade," and "would welcome" the opportunity to brief the issue of overturning it.

You can also add his tenure in CAP to the evidence that demonstrates that Scalito is nothing short of unacceptable.

It makes me proud to be a progressive and a Democrat when, in the face of mounting evidence against Scalito, our congressional leaders are finally finding their spines.

"Certainly the chance of a filibuster is greater today than it was the day Alito was nominated because of so many new revelations," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday.

"This moves this very much into a much more controversial nomination," said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who faulted Judge Alito both for his views and for his failure to mention the case in his responses to the Senate.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a member of the panel, said Judge Alito bore "an especially heavy burden at the hearings in January to explain the growing number of discrepancies between his current statements and his past actions."

I still believe it was a mistake to let Roberts pass without a fight with his positions so unknown, but I am glad that we are finally putting up a fight. We cannot let a nominee who has purposefully concealed his opinions a pass, because he has been dishonest with the American people. Furthermore, just like Clarence Thomas, despite what he may say at confirmation hearings, there is nothing to stop him from turning his back on what he wanted senators to hear and proceeding down the path of his antiquated judicial philosophy. On that reason alone, senators from both sides of the aisle should put an end to Scalito, much like he would end a woman's right to control over her body.

Different Day, Same Propaganda

I love the smell of subverting democracy in the morning.

"We're very concerned about the reports," the White House spokesman said. "We have asked the Department of Defense for more information."

Under the program, the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm working in Iraq, was hired to translate articles written by American troops into Arabic and then, in many cases, give them to advertising agencies for placement in the Iraqi news media.

Freedom is on the march! Freedom is on the march! Freedom to do whatever we want is on the march!

Link.

The Moral Black Hole

If this is your take on rape, please go find a hell to rot in.