building the margins
Friday, January 28, 2005
payolagate - Bu$h administration caught with pants down
This is now officially in the realm of ridiculous.
First we learned that Armstrong Williams had a $241,ooo contract from the government to promote No Child Left Behind. Then we found out that columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,ooo of your tax dollars to talk up Bu$h's marriage initiatives. Today we learn that columnist Mike McManus has been paid $10,ooo to promote Bu$h's marriage initiatives.
All of these people did their government promotions without happening to mention that they were getting paid to promote these Bu$h programs.
Now let's think about this. Three people lost their jobs over Dan Rather's report which was basically a true report based on false evidence. No one lost their jobs after it came out that we went to war based on false evidence.
Now we have evidence that several columnists have been paid by the Bu$h administration to promote Bu$h's programs with taxpayers' money. And I have no doubt that there are many more people out there who also got money for prostituting themselves for this administration.
Any chance that any of those people will lose their jobs over this? Or, more importantly, that Bu$h or any of his employees might lose their jobs?
We all know that the Bu$h administration is seriously ethically challenged. (exhibit A: unprovoked war on Iraq; exhbit B: torture memo; etc...) What is it going to take for a president to get impeached for something other than consensual oral sex?
Maybe enough people realizing that Bu$h is screwing the country.
¶ 5:14 PM 2 comments
This is now officially in the realm of ridiculous.
First we learned that Armstrong Williams had a $241,ooo contract from the government to promote No Child Left Behind. Then we found out that columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,ooo of your tax dollars to talk up Bu$h's marriage initiatives. Today we learn that columnist Mike McManus has been paid $10,ooo to promote Bu$h's marriage initiatives.
All of these people did their government promotions without happening to mention that they were getting paid to promote these Bu$h programs.
Now let's think about this. Three people lost their jobs over Dan Rather's report which was basically a true report based on false evidence. No one lost their jobs after it came out that we went to war based on false evidence.
Now we have evidence that several columnists have been paid by the Bu$h administration to promote Bu$h's programs with taxpayers' money. And I have no doubt that there are many more people out there who also got money for prostituting themselves for this administration.
Any chance that any of those people will lose their jobs over this? Or, more importantly, that Bu$h or any of his employees might lose their jobs?
We all know that the Bu$h administration is seriously ethically challenged. (exhibit A: unprovoked war on Iraq; exhbit B: torture memo; etc...) What is it going to take for a president to get impeached for something other than consensual oral sex?
Maybe enough people realizing that Bu$h is screwing the country.
¶ 5:14 PM 2 comments
is Cheney underpaid?
Apparently, Cheney can't afford to dress appropriately for ceremonies commemorating the people who died at Auschwitz. Maybe he had to give back some of the money from "food for oil" Halliburton.
Why must Americans be embarrassed yet again by the stupidity and callousness of our leaders?
¶ 4:40 PM 0 comments
Apparently, Cheney can't afford to dress appropriately for ceremonies commemorating the people who died at Auschwitz. Maybe he had to give back some of the money from "food for oil" Halliburton.
Why must Americans be embarrassed yet again by the stupidity and callousness of our leaders?
¶ 4:40 PM 0 comments
Thursday, January 27, 2005
even Pat thinks King George is over-reaching
Although I am not normally a fan of Pat Buchanan, I have to say that he gets it right in his article yesterday entitled Inaugurating Endless War. (thanks to John for the tip!)
Pat points out:
¶ 11:02 AM 0 comments
Although I am not normally a fan of Pat Buchanan, I have to say that he gets it right in his article yesterday entitled Inaugurating Endless War. (thanks to John for the tip!)
Pat points out:
The president is here asserting a unilateral American right to interfere in the internal affairs of every nation on earth, without regard to whether these nations have threatened us or attacked us. Their domestic politics are now our concern, because if they are not democratic, we are not secure.
Let it be said: This is a formula for endless collisions between this nation and every autocratic regime on earth and must inevitably lead to endless wars. And wars are the death of republics.
He goes on...
President Bush is championing a policy of interventionism in the internal affairs of every nation on earth. But did we not learn from 9/11 that intervention is not a cure for terrorism, it is the cause of terrorism?
Clearly, the president does not understand this, or believe it. For in his inaugural, he describes 9/11 as the day "when freedom came under attack." But Osama bin Laden did not dispatch his fanatics to ram planes into the World Trade Center because he hated our Bill of Rights. He did it because he hates our presence and our policies in the Middle East.
I love finding proof that there are conservatives out there who do understand that Bu$h's pride and policies are liable to lead to the downfall of this country as we overextend ourselves trying to do what isn't necessary.
Despite his so-called mandate after the 2004 election, more and more people are starting to doubt that going to war against Iraq will result in the stable democracy that Bu$h hopes to achieve. Given the bloodshed that we have suffered for this elective war with dubious results, I hope that the American public will be much less willing to send our troops to fight Bu$h's next wars.
¶ 11:02 AM 0 comments
industries use the back door
During the past four years, the Bu$h administration has steadily been using the system of regulatory change to affect everything from truckers' hours to environmental policy.
This means that instead of trying to change laws, and having to go through public scrutiny as proposed changes get debated in the House or Senate, government agencies proposes changes to the Federal Register and usually gets changes through much more quietly.
While changes to the Register usually require a public comment period, it's not the kind of stuff that usually makes the news until after the changes have been made. In fact, you'd probably only know if a change was proposed if you were paying attention either to the Register itself (which is huge and not very fun reading), or if you were signed up with some sort of group that pays attention to proposed changes.
Now, if you're still reading this post, you're probably saying, this is all very fascinating (yawn) but why should I care?
A new report (via the Washington Post, reg. req.) shows that many industry groups have been lobbying the US government to make some very interesting regulatory changes over the next few years.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but many government rules have developed out of a desire on the part of the public for protections from industries whose main interest is their own bottom line, not necessarily worker safety or environmental protection. The above companies and lobbying groups (and there are many more like them) are trying to change both the regulatory process and the regulations in order to make them more favorable to industry desires.
This means that what is good for you or I or the environment will probably get less consideration than what is good financially for industry when it comes to making regulatory changes.
Businesses use some of the money they earn from selling products to us to lobby for regulatory changes. On the other hand, the folks who lobby for our protections (such as the PIRG groups) usually rely on donations in order to do their work.
So, the more we support businesses (such as Deere and Co.), the more money they have to help make rules that will make them more money, and possibly injure us or our quality of life. Sounds fair, right?
The Bu$h administration will say that the regulatory changes are done in the name of streamlining the government and improving health and safety for citizens. However, this is the same administration that changed the rules to allow truckers to drive for more hours at a time.
Regulatory changes affect our quality of life and our health and happiness. That's why we should care that big business is attempting to change the rules in their favor.
¶ 9:38 AM 1 comments
During the past four years, the Bu$h administration has steadily been using the system of regulatory change to affect everything from truckers' hours to environmental policy.
This means that instead of trying to change laws, and having to go through public scrutiny as proposed changes get debated in the House or Senate, government agencies proposes changes to the Federal Register and usually gets changes through much more quietly.
While changes to the Register usually require a public comment period, it's not the kind of stuff that usually makes the news until after the changes have been made. In fact, you'd probably only know if a change was proposed if you were paying attention either to the Register itself (which is huge and not very fun reading), or if you were signed up with some sort of group that pays attention to proposed changes.
Now, if you're still reading this post, you're probably saying, this is all very fascinating (yawn) but why should I care?
A new report (via the Washington Post, reg. req.) shows that many industry groups have been lobbying the US government to make some very interesting regulatory changes over the next few years.
On the latest wish list, for example, Deere & Co. asked that all government regulatory activities be privatized, including the development and enforcement of rules. It also wants the Environmental Protection Agency to involve business and industry coalitions in its rulemakings. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers wants the EPA to rethink its "unrealistic goal" of cleaning up all groundwater. The American Furniture Manufacturers Association asked for changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act rules. NAM said that the Interior Department should tighten its procedures for listing endangered species because they are inhibiting its ability to conduct business.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but many government rules have developed out of a desire on the part of the public for protections from industries whose main interest is their own bottom line, not necessarily worker safety or environmental protection. The above companies and lobbying groups (and there are many more like them) are trying to change both the regulatory process and the regulations in order to make them more favorable to industry desires.
This means that what is good for you or I or the environment will probably get less consideration than what is good financially for industry when it comes to making regulatory changes.
Businesses use some of the money they earn from selling products to us to lobby for regulatory changes. On the other hand, the folks who lobby for our protections (such as the PIRG groups) usually rely on donations in order to do their work.
So, the more we support businesses (such as Deere and Co.), the more money they have to help make rules that will make them more money, and possibly injure us or our quality of life. Sounds fair, right?
The Bu$h administration will say that the regulatory changes are done in the name of streamlining the government and improving health and safety for citizens. However, this is the same administration that changed the rules to allow truckers to drive for more hours at a time.
Regulatory changes affect our quality of life and our health and happiness. That's why we should care that big business is attempting to change the rules in their favor.
¶ 9:38 AM 1 comments
public safety or public secrecy?
The Department of Transporatation just got authority to classify previously public documents as "security sensitive". This means restricting public access to information about roads, bridges, etc.
The article from the Scripps Howard News Service notes:
and further...
I have to wonder just how broadly the Dept. of Transportation will interpret this new right to government secrecy. I can appreciate the need to protect some information from potential terrorists, but how exactly is it determined what info should be secret? And how will the public know the nature of what is being kept secret?
It seems like our government is creating more and more policies that require that we just trust that they are doing the right things for our benefit.
How has it come to be that the party for smaller government is actually the party advocating for more governmental controls over information? This hypocrisy is one of the reasons why I am not inclined to just trust the Bush administration and to allow them to secretize the workings of the government.
¶ 9:12 AM 0 comments
The Department of Transporatation just got authority to classify previously public documents as "security sensitive". This means restricting public access to information about roads, bridges, etc.
The article from the Scripps Howard News Service notes:
Mineta's directive went into effect when it was signed Jan. 5. But it was not publicized by the department until it was published in the Jan. 18 issue of the Federal Register. It says information that agency officials regard as being sensitive involving "all modes of transportation" will be exempted from release under the Freedom of Information Act, or during court proceedings on civil suits.
and further...
In response to a reporter's question, the department issued a statement saying "information previously available to the public, such as environmental impact statements and safety statistics, will continue to be accessible according to laws protecting public access."
I have to wonder just how broadly the Dept. of Transportation will interpret this new right to government secrecy. I can appreciate the need to protect some information from potential terrorists, but how exactly is it determined what info should be secret? And how will the public know the nature of what is being kept secret?
It seems like our government is creating more and more policies that require that we just trust that they are doing the right things for our benefit.
How has it come to be that the party for smaller government is actually the party advocating for more governmental controls over information? This hypocrisy is one of the reasons why I am not inclined to just trust the Bush administration and to allow them to secretize the workings of the government.
¶ 9:12 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
what part of "bin Laden determined to attack within the US" didn't she understand?
Talk about low expectations. Given the fact that Condi was National Security Advisor leading up to 9/11, yet she somehow is (in King George's bloodshot eyes) worthy of a promotion, the bar for success as Secretary of State seems like it will be set ridiculously low.
I suppose if World War 3 breaks out while she is SoS, the Repubs will think that she has done such a good job that she deserves to be the next president.
And Alberto Gonzalez is another shining example of how incompetance and lack of morals gets you a great job with this administration. Despite the fact that he failed to give Bu$h pertinent details about death row convicts before Bu$h was to decide on whether to grant clemency, and despite the fact that he would be involved in a big conflict of interest if he had to conduct investigations into Abu Gharib as AG (since the administration would have been acting on his legal opinions regarding torture), he is apparently a shoo-in as AG.
Is this really the best our country has to offer in two of the highest jobs in this country? It just gets more and more embarrassing to be an American. Apparently our highest value is not on freedom (despite Bu$h's lip service) but on incompetancy and dishonesty.
I guess it makes sense given the examples that the prez and vp offer.
¶ 9:05 PM 1 comments
Thursday, January 20, 2005
imagine if Americans valued intelligence in their presidents
A must-read for today is Gary Hart's commentary in the Independent about the Bu$h administration's goals for the restoration of pre-New Deal programs and policy. (Thanks to Scratch & Sniff for the heads-up on this one.)
Another must-read if you need a good giggle is Wonkette. And while I didn't think the new JibJab is quite as good as "This Land is Your Land", it's definitely worth a view. (thanks to Sriram's Soapbox.)
¶ 10:37 AM 0 comments
A must-read for today is Gary Hart's commentary in the Independent about the Bu$h administration's goals for the restoration of pre-New Deal programs and policy. (Thanks to Scratch & Sniff for the heads-up on this one.)
Another must-read if you need a good giggle is Wonkette. And while I didn't think the new JibJab is quite as good as "This Land is Your Land", it's definitely worth a view. (thanks to Sriram's Soapbox.)
¶ 10:37 AM 0 comments
Four (or more) more wars
Did King George just declare war on the world in the name of freedom? Methinks he did.
Well, maybe not on the entire world. England, Australia and Poland may be considered to be on the side of liberty. But I think the French potentially will have an American boot in their ass in the near future if Bu$h has his way, not to mention Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, many African countries, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.
I guess "ownership society" means the US owning a lot of other countries, just like we now own Iraq.
¶ 9:57 AM 4 comments
Did King George just declare war on the world in the name of freedom? Methinks he did.
The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors.
Well, maybe not on the entire world. England, Australia and Poland may be considered to be on the side of liberty. But I think the French potentially will have an American boot in their ass in the near future if Bu$h has his way, not to mention Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, many African countries, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.
I guess "ownership society" means the US owning a lot of other countries, just like we now own Iraq.
¶ 9:57 AM 4 comments
the wheezing of democracy
How appropriate that the administrator of the oath of office had to wheeze his way through the process. Kind of a nice analogy for the state of our country.
(thanks to Blahguy for pointing out the metaphor.)
¶ 9:48 AM 0 comments
How appropriate that the administrator of the oath of office had to wheeze his way through the process. Kind of a nice analogy for the state of our country.
(thanks to Blahguy for pointing out the metaphor.)
¶ 9:48 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
the joke is on us
Bu$h visited the US Constitution and Bill of Rights today at the National Archives. I guess he never got around to reading it the first time around (he must have just gotten the Cliff notes version, edited by Alberto Gonzales).
Apparently in 2000 he took the alternate inaugural oath. Instead of preserve, protect and defend, he promised to spit on, shred up, and laugh at the Constitution. It must be on the basis of his success at doing those things that he got re-elected. Or maybe all those favors he called in to manufacturers of voting machines. But I digress.
All I know is that there are a lot of people like me who have no trust in this government that we are stuck with for the next four years, and that is a sad commentary on the state of our nation. I don't know if it's possible to be any more disgusted or embarrassed as I am today that we have inflicted Bu$h and Co. Inc. on our country and the world for another four years.
But I guess we have four more years for B&C to prove just how much we can embarrass ourselves and antagonize the world. And at the end of it, the misleaders will have nice tidy sums of money waiting for them from the corporations that they have served and will continue to serve.
One nation, under corporate charters, by BuSh divisible, with liberty and justice for some.
I truly hope he isn't as bad a president as I think he'll be. But that was what I hoped for in 2000, and the policies and agenda of the past 4 years were much worse than I could have anticipated.
One word of advice to try to prepare for the next four years. If they say they aren't going to do something (such as go to war against of Iran), you can translate that to mean they are planning to do it just as soon as they can manipulate the sheeples into supporting it.
At least when we learn to decode the lies, we can be better prepared for whatever happens next.
Happy Inauguration!
(Did you hear the one about Bu$h going to see the US Constitution today? insert your own punchline here ___________________________________________________________________)
¶ 9:29 PM 0 comments
Bu$h visited the US Constitution and Bill of Rights today at the National Archives. I guess he never got around to reading it the first time around (he must have just gotten the Cliff notes version, edited by Alberto Gonzales).
Apparently in 2000 he took the alternate inaugural oath. Instead of preserve, protect and defend, he promised to spit on, shred up, and laugh at the Constitution. It must be on the basis of his success at doing those things that he got re-elected. Or maybe all those favors he called in to manufacturers of voting machines. But I digress.
All I know is that there are a lot of people like me who have no trust in this government that we are stuck with for the next four years, and that is a sad commentary on the state of our nation. I don't know if it's possible to be any more disgusted or embarrassed as I am today that we have inflicted Bu$h and Co. Inc. on our country and the world for another four years.
But I guess we have four more years for B&C to prove just how much we can embarrass ourselves and antagonize the world. And at the end of it, the misleaders will have nice tidy sums of money waiting for them from the corporations that they have served and will continue to serve.
One nation, under corporate charters, by BuSh divisible, with liberty and justice for some.
I truly hope he isn't as bad a president as I think he'll be. But that was what I hoped for in 2000, and the policies and agenda of the past 4 years were much worse than I could have anticipated.
One word of advice to try to prepare for the next four years. If they say they aren't going to do something (such as go to war against of Iran), you can translate that to mean they are planning to do it just as soon as they can manipulate the sheeples into supporting it.
At least when we learn to decode the lies, we can be better prepared for whatever happens next.
Happy Inauguration!
(Did you hear the one about Bu$h going to see the US Constitution today? insert your own punchline here ___________________________________________________________________)
¶ 9:29 PM 0 comments
things that suck
1) 4 more years of Bu$h, the idiot king
2) West Wing replaced by the Blazers on the night before inauguration
(tonight, of all nights, I needed to imagine that we have a president with integrity)
3) all out of rum (did I do that?)
4) condi getting a promotion
5) where the *@&# did Oregon's rain and snowpack go?
6) getting my left boob smashed between cold glass and metal today
7) my friends' pets getting lost and/or dying
8) any reality tv show about Love
9) the potential that CBS News might go on primetime
10) Iran is next
¶ 9:13 PM 0 comments
1) 4 more years of Bu$h, the idiot king
2) West Wing replaced by the Blazers on the night before inauguration
(tonight, of all nights, I needed to imagine that we have a president with integrity)
3) all out of rum (did I do that?)
4) condi getting a promotion
5) where the *@&# did Oregon's rain and snowpack go?
6) getting my left boob smashed between cold glass and metal today
7) my friends' pets getting lost and/or dying
8) any reality tv show about Love
9) the potential that CBS News might go on primetime
10) Iran is next
¶ 9:13 PM 0 comments
Friday, January 14, 2005
gotta go kick the dog
A new National Intelligence Agency report says that Iraq is becoming a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists.
In keeping with the White House's recent decision to dispense with reason, Scott McClellan today characterized the report as speculative while also saying that it backs up the administration's strategy for winning the war on terror. (On second thought, this administration clearly dispensed with reason years ago and is using good old-fashioned fear and greed to develop policies.)
McClellan was asked repeatedly about the apparent contradiction between the report's findings on Iraq and the administration's assertion that its actions in Iraq are helping the war on terror, but he managed to obfuscate his way through the questions.
So, let me get this straight. While denouncing the report as speculative, McClellan is using it to cite the merits of the adminstration's strategy against terrorism? And although the report saying that Iraq is more of a terrorist breeding ground than before the war, our decision to declare war on Iraq has somehow helped us in our war on terrorism?
This seems like yet another example of the administration twisting facts to suit their needs. They do seem to be quite adept at it.
McClellan also said that a theme of Bu$h's inaugural talk will be "the importance of advancing freedom to achieve peace." Or, in other words, fighting wars to bring peace. Because apparently the way to stop the hatred that is breeding terrorists is to bomb countries, kill civilians and destroy cities. That won't create more hatred - it will spread freedom and then people will love us.
Makes sense, right?
Boy, I feel safer with Bu$h and Co in charge. They clearly know what they are doing.
Excuse me while I go kick my dog so it will love me.
¶ 2:21 PM 1 comments
A new National Intelligence Agency report says that Iraq is becoming a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists.
In keeping with the White House's recent decision to dispense with reason, Scott McClellan today characterized the report as speculative while also saying that it backs up the administration's strategy for winning the war on terror. (On second thought, this administration clearly dispensed with reason years ago and is using good old-fashioned fear and greed to develop policies.)
McClellan was asked repeatedly about the apparent contradiction between the report's findings on Iraq and the administration's assertion that its actions in Iraq are helping the war on terror, but he managed to obfuscate his way through the questions.
So, let me get this straight. While denouncing the report as speculative, McClellan is using it to cite the merits of the adminstration's strategy against terrorism? And although the report saying that Iraq is more of a terrorist breeding ground than before the war, our decision to declare war on Iraq has somehow helped us in our war on terrorism?
This seems like yet another example of the administration twisting facts to suit their needs. They do seem to be quite adept at it.
McClellan also said that a theme of Bu$h's inaugural talk will be "the importance of advancing freedom to achieve peace." Or, in other words, fighting wars to bring peace. Because apparently the way to stop the hatred that is breeding terrorists is to bomb countries, kill civilians and destroy cities. That won't create more hatred - it will spread freedom and then people will love us.
Makes sense, right?
Boy, I feel safer with Bu$h and Co in charge. They clearly know what they are doing.
Excuse me while I go kick my dog so it will love me.
¶ 2:21 PM 1 comments
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
pop quiz
When asked today if America would have invaded Iraq if we had known that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if terrorism has increased around the world as a result of American imperialism, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if we have poisoned some of the food and water in Iraq with bunker busters and chemical weapons, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked whether it had been worth invading Iraq even without finding weapons of mass destruction, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked whether Rumsfeld should have perhaps personally signed some of the condolence letters going out to families of soldiers killed in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if he sleeps well at night despite the fact that so many American soldiers have been killed and injured in a war in which he chose to send them to on "bad intelligence", Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if he enjoys lying to the American people about reasons for going to war, about Social Security, and about just about everything else he can get away with, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
pop quiz:
Which of the above statements did Bu$h actually make? (find answer here)
extra credit questions (do your own research):
1) Which of them are true despite the fact that he hasn't admitted to them?
2) Which of them are false, and are therefore further reasons to be ashamed that 51% of our country were stupid enough to inflict this jerk on the world for another four years?
Further enjoyment:
For fun, create your own "absolute Bu$h" questions.
For example: When asked if he thinks his daughters are embarrassing little twits, Bush responded "Oh, absolutely." Or, When asked he still enjoys a little of the white powder on his visits to Colombia, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
(By the way, for some fun flip-flopping adminstration quotes on Iraq, check out this Seattle PI page. All the pre-war quotes can be summarized by "we're uncertainly certain he has the power/potential/magic spell to make/buy/summon weapons and nuke the world/bug my daddy/kill a hamster." All the post-war quotes can be summarized as "coulda, woulda, shoulda".)
(
¶ 10:30 PM 0 comments
When asked today if America would have invaded Iraq if we had known that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if terrorism has increased around the world as a result of American imperialism, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if we have poisoned some of the food and water in Iraq with bunker busters and chemical weapons, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked whether it had been worth invading Iraq even without finding weapons of mass destruction, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked whether Rumsfeld should have perhaps personally signed some of the condolence letters going out to families of soldiers killed in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if he sleeps well at night despite the fact that so many American soldiers have been killed and injured in a war in which he chose to send them to on "bad intelligence", Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
When asked if he enjoys lying to the American people about reasons for going to war, about Social Security, and about just about everything else he can get away with, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
pop quiz:
Which of the above statements did Bu$h actually make? (find answer here)
extra credit questions (do your own research):
1) Which of them are true despite the fact that he hasn't admitted to them?
2) Which of them are false, and are therefore further reasons to be ashamed that 51% of our country were stupid enough to inflict this jerk on the world for another four years?
Further enjoyment:
For fun, create your own "absolute Bu$h" questions.
For example: When asked if he thinks his daughters are embarrassing little twits, Bush responded "Oh, absolutely." Or, When asked he still enjoys a little of the white powder on his visits to Colombia, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
(By the way, for some fun flip-flopping adminstration quotes on Iraq, check out this Seattle PI page. All the pre-war quotes can be summarized by "we're uncertainly certain he has the power/potential/magic spell to make/buy/summon weapons and nuke the world/bug my daddy/kill a hamster." All the post-war quotes can be summarized as "coulda, woulda, shoulda".)
(
¶ 10:30 PM 0 comments
real photos from a real war
The site Fallujah in Pictures has incredible photos from Iraq and other "underreported humanitarian emergencies". Many of the photos are graphic.
I would say that children shouldn't look at them, but considering the fact that so many Iraqi children are witnessing the horrors first hand, I actually think that American children should be shown the photos so that they understand that there are real consequences to using guns and bombs.
The photo of 5 Iraqi kids staring at a severed hand made me ponder this point. Can you imagine if your own children had to witness this? Wouldn't you be outraged? Or would you say, "my children are scarred for life by what they have seen, our house and all our possessions are destroyed, my sister and her husband are dead, but we get to vote in two weeks. Thank you, America!"
Think about it. There were 300,000 people living in Fallujah. Now, only 40,000 or so have returned to a city in which 60-70% of the buildings have been destroyed, basic utilities are months away from working, and the people are being told not to eat the food or water (as they were potentially contaminated by US chemical weapons and cluster bombs.) Add to that the horror of finding your neighbors' or relatives' bodies partially eaten by dogs remaining in houses around the city.
Nigel Parry notes that Iraqis will have months or even years to contemplate whether the death and destruction in Fallujah was worth the fight the Americans fought against the insurgents. Americans, on the other hand, will have forgotten about the plight of the Iraqi people within a short time.
Remember 9-11? Do you know why it happened? Not because "they hate our freedom" but (as Parry and others point out), they hated our policies. And still we continue with policies that cannot help but anger and frustrate millions of Muslims (and non-Muslims) around the world.
Did we win the hearts and minds of those 5 boys staring at the severed hand of a fellow Iraqi? Call me cynical, but somehow, I doubt it.
¶ 10:20 AM 1 comments
The site Fallujah in Pictures has incredible photos from Iraq and other "underreported humanitarian emergencies". Many of the photos are graphic.
I would say that children shouldn't look at them, but considering the fact that so many Iraqi children are witnessing the horrors first hand, I actually think that American children should be shown the photos so that they understand that there are real consequences to using guns and bombs.
The photo of 5 Iraqi kids staring at a severed hand made me ponder this point. Can you imagine if your own children had to witness this? Wouldn't you be outraged? Or would you say, "my children are scarred for life by what they have seen, our house and all our possessions are destroyed, my sister and her husband are dead, but we get to vote in two weeks. Thank you, America!"
Think about it. There were 300,000 people living in Fallujah. Now, only 40,000 or so have returned to a city in which 60-70% of the buildings have been destroyed, basic utilities are months away from working, and the people are being told not to eat the food or water (as they were potentially contaminated by US chemical weapons and cluster bombs.) Add to that the horror of finding your neighbors' or relatives' bodies partially eaten by dogs remaining in houses around the city.
Nigel Parry notes that Iraqis will have months or even years to contemplate whether the death and destruction in Fallujah was worth the fight the Americans fought against the insurgents. Americans, on the other hand, will have forgotten about the plight of the Iraqi people within a short time.
The Administration has no understanding of the most obvious fact — that true peace can only come to a situation in which people are not dealing with the basics of survival, where they have homes, utilities, and a sense of security. Peace has been pushed generations back in Fallujah.And please don't say that progressives just speak gloom and doom about American policy. We obviously are more forward-thinking than the politicians who believe that bombing a country back into the stone age will "win the hearts and minds" of those people.
America seems to think it can simply fix this, forgetting that the destruction of an entire city and way of life will leave bitter rubble in people's hearts for years to come.
Remember 9-11? Do you know why it happened? Not because "they hate our freedom" but (as Parry and others point out), they hated our policies. And still we continue with policies that cannot help but anger and frustrate millions of Muslims (and non-Muslims) around the world.
Did we win the hearts and minds of those 5 boys staring at the severed hand of a fellow Iraqi? Call me cynical, but somehow, I doubt it.
¶ 10:20 AM 1 comments
this highway cleaned by the KKK
Several states lost an appeal to the Supreme Court on Monday which would have allowed states to refuse to let groups like the KKK participate in roadside clean-up programs.
Instead, in the interest of free speech, you may soon see states thanking groups like the KKK for helping to pick up litter with official state signs along stretches of our highways.
Hey, since groups with any kind of agenda are apparently allowed to participate in these programs, I propose forming a group with the name "Ashamed of Bush Jr." or something similar and cleaning up many miles of Oregon's roads. The court has spoken - it's our right.
And by the way, advocates of free speech everywhere apparently have this man to thank. What would we do without those upstanding Baptist ministers who devote their lives to "standing up for their white Christian faith"?
I'm sure Jesus is proud.
¶ 9:25 AM 0 comments
Several states lost an appeal to the Supreme Court on Monday which would have allowed states to refuse to let groups like the KKK participate in roadside clean-up programs.
Instead, in the interest of free speech, you may soon see states thanking groups like the KKK for helping to pick up litter with official state signs along stretches of our highways.
Hey, since groups with any kind of agenda are apparently allowed to participate in these programs, I propose forming a group with the name "Ashamed of Bush Jr." or something similar and cleaning up many miles of Oregon's roads. The court has spoken - it's our right.
And by the way, advocates of free speech everywhere apparently have this man to thank. What would we do without those upstanding Baptist ministers who devote their lives to "standing up for their white Christian faith"?
I'm sure Jesus is proud.
¶ 9:25 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
wake up - you're being robbed
If you haven't already seen it on a news source, you should know that evidence came out today of Karl Rove's strategy to gut Social Security by first convincing the American people that Social Security is "headed for an iceberg". The administration's rhetoric is that they want to save Social Security, but this "strategy document" clearly reveals the administration's goal is not to save it but to gut it.
Sure, we could use a healthy debate about how best to preserve Social Security so that it remains useful for those beyond current retirees, but I don't trust Rove's intentions here one bit.
Social Security is one of the great achievements of our government during the 20th century, and it would be truly tragic for this administration to gut this program (under the guise of saving it) and to deny us and our children the benefits that Social Security can provide.
Americans are not know for their overwhelming ability to save money. And Bu$h is certainly not known for his stunning economic acumen. In fact, he and his administration are better known for being in the pockets of corporate interests. I don't doubt for one second that their plans for Social Security include lining the pockets of corporate executives and investment bankers, rather than making sure you or I have money in our "golden" years.
Don't fool yourself. This is the same administration who cares nothing about sending thousands of young Americans into an unnecessary war. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they give a damn if you have to eat cat food when you are 70 years old... they will be long gone anyway, and they'll have made sure that Jenna and Barbara don't have to pay any "death tax" on the Bush fortune.
Anyone who thinks that this administration has our interests at heart is sadly deluded.
¶ 10:41 PM 1 comments
If you haven't already seen it on a news source, you should know that evidence came out today of Karl Rove's strategy to gut Social Security by first convincing the American people that Social Security is "headed for an iceberg". The administration's rhetoric is that they want to save Social Security, but this "strategy document" clearly reveals the administration's goal is not to save it but to gut it.
Sure, we could use a healthy debate about how best to preserve Social Security so that it remains useful for those beyond current retirees, but I don't trust Rove's intentions here one bit.
Social Security is one of the great achievements of our government during the 20th century, and it would be truly tragic for this administration to gut this program (under the guise of saving it) and to deny us and our children the benefits that Social Security can provide.
Americans are not know for their overwhelming ability to save money. And Bu$h is certainly not known for his stunning economic acumen. In fact, he and his administration are better known for being in the pockets of corporate interests. I don't doubt for one second that their plans for Social Security include lining the pockets of corporate executives and investment bankers, rather than making sure you or I have money in our "golden" years.
Don't fool yourself. This is the same administration who cares nothing about sending thousands of young Americans into an unnecessary war. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they give a damn if you have to eat cat food when you are 70 years old... they will be long gone anyway, and they'll have made sure that Jenna and Barbara don't have to pay any "death tax" on the Bush fortune.
Anyone who thinks that this administration has our interests at heart is sadly deluded.
¶ 10:41 PM 1 comments
phone phrustration
I just read Jalpuna's post about his problems with MCI. My dealings with Cingular last week don't quite match the pain and suffering he has gone through for the past month, but I thought I'd share...
I learned last week that apparently the best way to deal with cell phone companies is... in person! My husband had gotten us new Cingular/AT&T cell phones via the Internet, only they weren't activated (although they were supposed to be).
So I called the 800 customer dis-service number. After getting a recorded voice to tell me (3 times in a row actually) that "I'm sorry, there's no service for those numbers", or some such fact that I already knew, I was told (by the Voice) that wait times were about 8 minutes to talk with a real human. Cursing, I opted for the wait (the one good thing is owning a speaker phone... makes waiting much easier.)
Oddly enough, rather than annoying hold music or advertisments for service, for the first 6 minutes of holding I heard... nothing! How curious that a phone company doesn't have their hold set up for music or something to know that someone is still there. A really faint ad did come on about minute 7. Apparently Cingular hasn't figured out the volume controls for their hold function. Not that I'm a fan of either crappy hold music or ads, but something other than dead air might be nice.
At about minute 8 I made it through to a real person. Who checked my phone numbers, told me what I already knew (it's not active - no shit!), said she needed to transfer me to a local rep.
And I realized my mistake instantly - I didn't get the phone number she had transferred me to. I call this the Rule of Infernal Disconnection. Anytime you've been waiting for more than 5 minutes and then get transferred to another department, you are bound to be disconnected. I was.
After swearing at the phone again (granted, my little speaker phone was innocent in all of this, but I needed to vent, and beating the dogs didn't seem nice) I called back the 800 number, and had to go through the whole process again. This time, when the Voice said my hold time would be 7 minutes, I hung up and decided to call 411 to get the local number myself.
I procured a local number, dialed it and was greeted by the message "this number has been disconnected".
WHAT?! It's a phone company, and their number is disconnected?
Thinking there was a mistake, I call back 411 and explained that the number I had just gotten was disconnected, and could they check for a different one? Instead of keeping a human on the phone, a recording came on and gave me the same damn number. Great, so now I've paid twice to my home phone company for a number for my cell phone company that has been disconnected.
I commenced screaming at my phone. The dogs ran and hid. At about that time, my husband called and I explained my cellular runaround and asked him to please, please, please go to the local phone store to get it worked out, since using the phone wasn't going to work.
He did. The guys in the store were very helpful, especially in light of having to solve mistakes made by others far far away. It turned out that the reason why our phones didn't work in the first place was that a big batch of cell phones that were mailed right after Christmas were mistakenly programmed for New Jersey or something instead of for Oregon.
Bravo.
I've had AT&T Wireless for the past three years and have been really happy with them. However, this whole experience bodes ill for Cingular. Maybe it's just the holiday madness. Maybe it's the merger still sorting itself out.
Whatever it is, it makes me frustrated yet again that we have to use huge corporations for services such as these. And makes me fear for the imminent privatization of just about everything in this country under King George.
Privatize the postal service? Great, we'll have to pay $1 or more per letter, the CEO (and other execs) will make a million a year, and we'll probably have ads on the stamps. Brilliant.
¶ 10:17 AM 2 comments
I just read Jalpuna's post about his problems with MCI. My dealings with Cingular last week don't quite match the pain and suffering he has gone through for the past month, but I thought I'd share...
I learned last week that apparently the best way to deal with cell phone companies is... in person! My husband had gotten us new Cingular/AT&T cell phones via the Internet, only they weren't activated (although they were supposed to be).
So I called the 800 customer dis-service number. After getting a recorded voice to tell me (3 times in a row actually) that "I'm sorry, there's no service for those numbers", or some such fact that I already knew, I was told (by the Voice) that wait times were about 8 minutes to talk with a real human. Cursing, I opted for the wait (the one good thing is owning a speaker phone... makes waiting much easier.)
Oddly enough, rather than annoying hold music or advertisments for service, for the first 6 minutes of holding I heard... nothing! How curious that a phone company doesn't have their hold set up for music or something to know that someone is still there. A really faint ad did come on about minute 7. Apparently Cingular hasn't figured out the volume controls for their hold function. Not that I'm a fan of either crappy hold music or ads, but something other than dead air might be nice.
At about minute 8 I made it through to a real person. Who checked my phone numbers, told me what I already knew (it's not active - no shit!), said she needed to transfer me to a local rep.
And I realized my mistake instantly - I didn't get the phone number she had transferred me to. I call this the Rule of Infernal Disconnection. Anytime you've been waiting for more than 5 minutes and then get transferred to another department, you are bound to be disconnected. I was.
After swearing at the phone again (granted, my little speaker phone was innocent in all of this, but I needed to vent, and beating the dogs didn't seem nice) I called back the 800 number, and had to go through the whole process again. This time, when the Voice said my hold time would be 7 minutes, I hung up and decided to call 411 to get the local number myself.
I procured a local number, dialed it and was greeted by the message "this number has been disconnected".
WHAT?! It's a phone company, and their number is disconnected?
Thinking there was a mistake, I call back 411 and explained that the number I had just gotten was disconnected, and could they check for a different one? Instead of keeping a human on the phone, a recording came on and gave me the same damn number. Great, so now I've paid twice to my home phone company for a number for my cell phone company that has been disconnected.
I commenced screaming at my phone. The dogs ran and hid. At about that time, my husband called and I explained my cellular runaround and asked him to please, please, please go to the local phone store to get it worked out, since using the phone wasn't going to work.
He did. The guys in the store were very helpful, especially in light of having to solve mistakes made by others far far away. It turned out that the reason why our phones didn't work in the first place was that a big batch of cell phones that were mailed right after Christmas were mistakenly programmed for New Jersey or something instead of for Oregon.
Bravo.
I've had AT&T Wireless for the past three years and have been really happy with them. However, this whole experience bodes ill for Cingular. Maybe it's just the holiday madness. Maybe it's the merger still sorting itself out.
Whatever it is, it makes me frustrated yet again that we have to use huge corporations for services such as these. And makes me fear for the imminent privatization of just about everything in this country under King George.
Privatize the postal service? Great, we'll have to pay $1 or more per letter, the CEO (and other execs) will make a million a year, and we'll probably have ads on the stamps. Brilliant.
¶ 10:17 AM 2 comments
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Loretta rocks!
One of my plans for 2005 is to do more non-political posts...
...in that spirit, I'd like to recommend that all music lovers should go out and buy Loretta Lynn's newest album "Van Lear Rose". It's been on high rotation in my house for the past few weeks, and it's one of those albums that sounds good on first play, and then just grows on you from there.
Even if you are not a country fan (and I'd never really listened to Loretta much before this album), give it a shot. Jack White from the White Stripes produced it and plays on a lot of it, and it's definitely one of the best albums of the past year, of any genre...
¶ 6:14 PM 3 comments
One of my plans for 2005 is to do more non-political posts...
...in that spirit, I'd like to recommend that all music lovers should go out and buy Loretta Lynn's newest album "Van Lear Rose". It's been on high rotation in my house for the past few weeks, and it's one of those albums that sounds good on first play, and then just grows on you from there.
Even if you are not a country fan (and I'd never really listened to Loretta much before this album), give it a shot. Jack White from the White Stripes produced it and plays on a lot of it, and it's definitely one of the best albums of the past year, of any genre...
¶ 6:14 PM 3 comments
woman in WA state not allowed to divorce abusive spouse
Happy New Year! And welcome to the 1800's...
Apparently in Washington state, women's rights don't matter if they are pregnant. The Stranger has the story about a woman who was granted an uncontested divorce from her abusive (and jailed) husband, only to have the divorce revoked because she is pregnant (and not by her abusive ex/not-ex spouse.)
As the reporter notes, this is chilling for a couple of reasons... the idea that judges can and would prevent pregnant women from legally ending a marriage to abusive spouses is both frightening and absurd. Not to mention the fact that this sort of legal ruling gives abusive men incentive to impregnate their wives to prevent them from trying to end a marriage.
At issue here are questions of paternity and "legitimacy" of the child. Surely refusing a divorce does nothing to solve the issue of paternity, which can be resolved with DNA testing. And the idea that in the year 2005 having a child "out-of-wedlock" is somehow something that a judge should try to prevent - even if it means risking the life of the mother and unborn child - is utterly antiquated and ridiculous.
The crime of the mother is apparently that she is receiving state support for her children, and WA state law prohibits the courts from leaving a child without financial support. So apparently in the eyes of the state, it's better to stay married to a jailed man than to have the option to marry a new person and the actual father of the unborn child... somehow that makes more sense financially...
The lesson for women here is that you'd damn well better not end up on state support otherwise you lose the right to decide whether to divorce or marry.
¶ 11:15 AM 3 comments
Happy New Year! And welcome to the 1800's...
Apparently in Washington state, women's rights don't matter if they are pregnant. The Stranger has the story about a woman who was granted an uncontested divorce from her abusive (and jailed) husband, only to have the divorce revoked because she is pregnant (and not by her abusive ex/not-ex spouse.)
As the reporter notes, this is chilling for a couple of reasons... the idea that judges can and would prevent pregnant women from legally ending a marriage to abusive spouses is both frightening and absurd. Not to mention the fact that this sort of legal ruling gives abusive men incentive to impregnate their wives to prevent them from trying to end a marriage.
At issue here are questions of paternity and "legitimacy" of the child. Surely refusing a divorce does nothing to solve the issue of paternity, which can be resolved with DNA testing. And the idea that in the year 2005 having a child "out-of-wedlock" is somehow something that a judge should try to prevent - even if it means risking the life of the mother and unborn child - is utterly antiquated and ridiculous.
The crime of the mother is apparently that she is receiving state support for her children, and WA state law prohibits the courts from leaving a child without financial support. So apparently in the eyes of the state, it's better to stay married to a jailed man than to have the option to marry a new person and the actual father of the unborn child... somehow that makes more sense financially...
The lesson for women here is that you'd damn well better not end up on state support otherwise you lose the right to decide whether to divorce or marry.
¶ 11:15 AM 3 comments
