Monday, August 29, 2005
While I believe “the media” is very often incompetent and generally lazy (and gutless when it comes to this administration) I think most often the reason for their lameness is the desire to sell the story. Think about the missing pretty white girl in Aruba, contrasted with the thousands of other missing children in America. But I digress.
In recent (and especially in the past couple of) years there have been a series of bad hurricanes and the media has been quick to look for answers in the “dramatic increase” in hurricane activity. So, as I was browsing the National Hurricane Center’s website, I came across this:
Hurricanes by Decade:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
You’ll notice it appears we have come out of a period of relative calm in this area. Look at the 30’s and 40’s, it would appear that we are about on pace to match those, not dramatically increase the totals. So, I think this shows the media’s lack of knowledge of history and it’s love of sensationalism.
But I’m sure some will find a conspiracy, but methinks it's more ignorance and laziness.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
With "moral authority" like this...who needs "godless liberals"
So, I go on some business trips and vacation and Pat Robertson shows his true colors again. Not only mixing his politics with his religion (how DOES his group maintain a religous organization designation?) and while dispensing with the Sixth Commandment.
Maybe Pat should fight to have the 10 commandments installed in his home and his TV studio instead of trying to put them in my kids' classroom. Then he wouldn't call for the murder of people he "don't like".
Really, it's not like we didn't know him and his cabal of similar "Christians" are hypocrites, especially after the "prayer-in" to have God strike down some Supreme Court Justices.
Do you REALLY think Jesus wants this hypocrite speaking for him? I've had trouble finding the biblical passage where you turn the other cheek, unless you happen to be a South American Government Executive, maybe someone could show me that passage? Or the asterisk next to the 10 Commandments?
Anyway, good to be back.
Maybe Pat should fight to have the 10 commandments installed in his home and his TV studio instead of trying to put them in my kids' classroom. Then he wouldn't call for the murder of people he "don't like".
Really, it's not like we didn't know him and his cabal of similar "Christians" are hypocrites, especially after the "prayer-in" to have God strike down some Supreme Court Justices.
Do you REALLY think Jesus wants this hypocrite speaking for him? I've had trouble finding the biblical passage where you turn the other cheek, unless you happen to be a South American Government Executive, maybe someone could show me that passage? Or the asterisk next to the 10 Commandments?
Anyway, good to be back.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Maybe we can teach that the world is flat too?
Maybe that the sun revolves around earth?
This is just religion dressed up in pseudo-science. This man’s disconnect from reality is truly amazing. This just proves the mythical nature of religion. Religion has always been based on saying “God” or Thor or Vishnu or whatever exists because we don’t know why X happens.
This is just the latest modern creation myth. No different than the one I learned about the Native Americans whose reservation I lived a mile from:
Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Creation Myth
The Iroquois creation myth is a fascinating one, it tells of a world inhabited by all living things, all except humans... It is interesting to note that they tell of the earth being covered by water, and that these waters are inhabited by monsters. Perhaps the story was passed down from generation to generation, from the prehistoric Iroquois on... As the story goes, the birds which fill the air witness a woman falling from the heavens, and prevent her from hitting the water by spreading their wings as a safety net. But then the monsters in the water also try and prevent her from the dangers of the deep, but realize they cannot help her, so they send a giant tortoise to carry her across the waters. the tortoise magically begins to grow, until it becomes an island; an island upon which the woman gives birth to twin sons, a Good Spirit, and an Evil Spirit.
The Tortoise continues to grow, covering the earth, and when it moves, the earth quakes. Years pass, and the Sky-Holder decides to put humans upon the earth, so he creates six pairs of humans to populate the planet; the first are the Mohawk, the second the Oneidas, the third the Onondaga, the fourth are the Cayuga, the fifth are the Seneca, and the sixth are the Tuscarora.
This is just religion dressed up in pseudo-science. This man’s disconnect from reality is truly amazing. This just proves the mythical nature of religion. Religion has always been based on saying “God” or Thor or Vishnu or whatever exists because we don’t know why X happens.
This is just the latest modern creation myth. No different than the one I learned about the Native Americans whose reservation I lived a mile from:
Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Creation Myth
The Iroquois creation myth is a fascinating one, it tells of a world inhabited by all living things, all except humans... It is interesting to note that they tell of the earth being covered by water, and that these waters are inhabited by monsters. Perhaps the story was passed down from generation to generation, from the prehistoric Iroquois on... As the story goes, the birds which fill the air witness a woman falling from the heavens, and prevent her from hitting the water by spreading their wings as a safety net. But then the monsters in the water also try and prevent her from the dangers of the deep, but realize they cannot help her, so they send a giant tortoise to carry her across the waters. the tortoise magically begins to grow, until it becomes an island; an island upon which the woman gives birth to twin sons, a Good Spirit, and an Evil Spirit.
The Tortoise continues to grow, covering the earth, and when it moves, the earth quakes. Years pass, and the Sky-Holder decides to put humans upon the earth, so he creates six pairs of humans to populate the planet; the first are the Mohawk, the second the Oneidas, the third the Onondaga, the fourth are the Cayuga, the fifth are the Seneca, and the sixth are the Tuscarora.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Alterman on : Wouldn't it be nice if the Bushies were held to a standard
Speaking of an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction…
Great Quotes in History or, Why Can’t Life be More Like Baseball?
"I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period."
The guy who said that was slapped with a ten day suspension. But what about these guys?
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.[i]
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002.[ii]
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." [It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity. Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002.[iii]
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002.[iv]
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003.[v]
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.[vi]
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003.[vii]
"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003.[viii]
“Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. . . Defense Policy Board Chair, Richard Perle, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003. [ix]
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003. [x]
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003[xi]
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003. [xii]
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003. [xiii]
"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there " Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003. [xiv]
Great Quotes in History or, Why Can’t Life be More Like Baseball?
"I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period."
The guy who said that was slapped with a ten day suspension. But what about these guys?
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.[i]
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002.[ii]
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." [It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity. Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002.[iii]
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002.[iv]
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003.[v]
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.[vi]
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003.[vii]
"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?... I think our judgment has to be clearly not." Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, March 7, 2003.[viii]
“Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. . . Defense Policy Board Chair, Richard Perle, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003. [ix]
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003. [x]
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003[xi]
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003. [xii]
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003. [xiii]
"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there " Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003. [xiv]
From Salon
Don't anybody tell Dick Durbin
Do you ever feel like you don't recognize your country anymore?
Maybe the moment came for you when five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court handed a presidential election to one of their own. Maybe it came when the president took America to war based on pretenses that turned out to be false. Maybe it came when you saw those photographs from Abu Ghraib, or when you learned that the man who helped orchestrate America's torture policies would become its attorney general. Maybe all of those things built up in your mind until your idea of America started to seem a long way off from the reality around you.
Maybe that hasn't happened to you yet. And maybe it will when you read about the plight of two young men from China who have spent the last three years locked up inside the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.
Abu Bakker Qassim and A'del Abdu al-Hakim are Muslims who left their homes in China to flee religious persecution there. As their lawyer has told the Boston Globe, Qassim and al-Hakim met each other at a market in Kyrgystan right around the time of the attacks of Sept. 11. They decided to make their way together to Turkey, where they apparently planned to set up new lives for themselves and the families they hoped would follow. Instead, Qassim and al-Hakim were arrested by Pakistani police, who thought they might be al-Qaida members. The Pakistanis turned them over to the United States -- apparently in exchange for a $5,000-per-head bounty. And the United States shipped them off to Guantánamo Bay, where they have been held ever since.
Why? Well, for no reason at all, it turns out. In March of this year -- which is to say, three years after the United States took Qassim and al-Hakim into custody -- a U.S. Combatant Status Review Tribunal concluded that the two men were not enemy combatants but merely had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the America in our minds, that means that they were released immediately with the nation's apologies, with something approaching fair compensation and with a guarantee of safe passage back to wherever it is they wanted to go. But that's not what happened in the America in which we're actually living.
Although Qassim and al-Hakim were cleared in March, the United States didn't bother to share that fact with anyone outside Guantánamo. And having been denied contact with their lawyers or their family members, the men had no way to spread the word themselves. So for four more months, they sat in Guantánamo, cleared but not freed.
The men were finally allowed to meet with the lawyers in late July, and they were able then to reveal the news that they had been cleared. The government confirmed that fact for the lawyers last week. So are the men free now? No. Their lawyers asked a federal judge in Washington to order their release yesterday, but the government is resisting. The U.S. says it can't send the men back to China because it fears they'll be persecuted there, and it hasn't found any other country that is willing to take them. Why not release them into the civilian population at Guantánamo until something better can be arranged? Can't do that, either, the government says. "They have been detained in here with some very bad people, under some very bad influences," Guantánamo spokesman and Army Maj. Jeff Weir tells the Globe. "We can't just release them into a hotel amongst the civilians on the base ... We understand the point of what the lawyers are saying, but it's an impossibility."
Of course, Qassim and al-Hakim weren't surrounded by "very bad people" and "very bad influences" until the United States purchased them from the Pakistanis and locked them up at Guantánamo. Maybe we're naive, but it seems to us that the United States had a moral obligation to find a good solution for Qassim and al-Hakim four months -- if not three years -- ago. U.S. District Judge James Robertson seems to be thinking the same way. At a hearing yesterday, Robertson said he may order the Bush administration to deliver the two men to his courtroom in Washington in order to get them out of Guantánamo Bay -- or at least require that the men be moved outside the barbed wire of Guantánamo's detention facility and into housing the U.S. provides there for Cubans and Haitians who are seeking asylum in the United States.
That would be a start toward making things right -- and a small step toward making this nation something like the one we remember.
-- Tim Grieve
Do you ever feel like you don't recognize your country anymore?
Maybe the moment came for you when five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court handed a presidential election to one of their own. Maybe it came when the president took America to war based on pretenses that turned out to be false. Maybe it came when you saw those photographs from Abu Ghraib, or when you learned that the man who helped orchestrate America's torture policies would become its attorney general. Maybe all of those things built up in your mind until your idea of America started to seem a long way off from the reality around you.
Maybe that hasn't happened to you yet. And maybe it will when you read about the plight of two young men from China who have spent the last three years locked up inside the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.
Abu Bakker Qassim and A'del Abdu al-Hakim are Muslims who left their homes in China to flee religious persecution there. As their lawyer has told the Boston Globe, Qassim and al-Hakim met each other at a market in Kyrgystan right around the time of the attacks of Sept. 11. They decided to make their way together to Turkey, where they apparently planned to set up new lives for themselves and the families they hoped would follow. Instead, Qassim and al-Hakim were arrested by Pakistani police, who thought they might be al-Qaida members. The Pakistanis turned them over to the United States -- apparently in exchange for a $5,000-per-head bounty. And the United States shipped them off to Guantánamo Bay, where they have been held ever since.
Why? Well, for no reason at all, it turns out. In March of this year -- which is to say, three years after the United States took Qassim and al-Hakim into custody -- a U.S. Combatant Status Review Tribunal concluded that the two men were not enemy combatants but merely had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the America in our minds, that means that they were released immediately with the nation's apologies, with something approaching fair compensation and with a guarantee of safe passage back to wherever it is they wanted to go. But that's not what happened in the America in which we're actually living.
Although Qassim and al-Hakim were cleared in March, the United States didn't bother to share that fact with anyone outside Guantánamo. And having been denied contact with their lawyers or their family members, the men had no way to spread the word themselves. So for four more months, they sat in Guantánamo, cleared but not freed.
The men were finally allowed to meet with the lawyers in late July, and they were able then to reveal the news that they had been cleared. The government confirmed that fact for the lawyers last week. So are the men free now? No. Their lawyers asked a federal judge in Washington to order their release yesterday, but the government is resisting. The U.S. says it can't send the men back to China because it fears they'll be persecuted there, and it hasn't found any other country that is willing to take them. Why not release them into the civilian population at Guantánamo until something better can be arranged? Can't do that, either, the government says. "They have been detained in here with some very bad people, under some very bad influences," Guantánamo spokesman and Army Maj. Jeff Weir tells the Globe. "We can't just release them into a hotel amongst the civilians on the base ... We understand the point of what the lawyers are saying, but it's an impossibility."
Of course, Qassim and al-Hakim weren't surrounded by "very bad people" and "very bad influences" until the United States purchased them from the Pakistanis and locked them up at Guantánamo. Maybe we're naive, but it seems to us that the United States had a moral obligation to find a good solution for Qassim and al-Hakim four months -- if not three years -- ago. U.S. District Judge James Robertson seems to be thinking the same way. At a hearing yesterday, Robertson said he may order the Bush administration to deliver the two men to his courtroom in Washington in order to get them out of Guantánamo Bay -- or at least require that the men be moved outside the barbed wire of Guantánamo's detention facility and into housing the U.S. provides there for Cubans and Haitians who are seeking asylum in the United States.
That would be a start toward making things right -- and a small step toward making this nation something like the one we remember.
-- Tim Grieve
The President's Best Friends
Bush vowing his continued support of one of the most repressive regimes in the world:
And Russia proving Freedom doesn't have to be in the march once Bush has looked into your leaders eyes and seen a good man.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/909d8cf2-3f4d-4cd8-9aa6-5d40efca4578.html
Saudi Arabia will continue to pump oil "to the best of our capability, with a
reasonable price" under its new leader, King Abdullah, a top Saudi diplomat said
Monday. Saudi Arabia holds a quarter of the world's known oil supplies, and
crude futures set a new record of $61.57 a barrel on news of King Fahd's death.
President Bush said: "I have spoken today to the new king, and the United States
looks forward to continuing the close partnership between our two
countries."
And Russia proving Freedom doesn't have to be in the march once Bush has looked into your leaders eyes and seen a good man.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/909d8cf2-3f4d-4cd8-9aa6-5d40efca4578.html
Why do these AF officers hate America?
From Salon:
"A fraud on the American people"
Just last month, John G. Roberts joined two other federal appellate judges in a decision that cleared the way for the Bush administration to use military tribunals to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Here's a question an enterprising senator might pose to Roberts in his upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings: If he knew then what we're learning today, would he still have subjected the detainees to the military tribunal process?
As the Wall Street Journal is reporting today, two Air Force lawyers quit their jobs on the Guantánamo prosecution team last year in protest over trials before military tribunals that they believe were rigged against the detainees. Read that last bit again: The lawyers quit their jobs on the prosecution team. These weren't defense lawyers, from whom one would expect to hear -- and, in fact, from whom one has heard -- complaints that the military tribunal process is unfair. Maj. John Carr and Maj. Robert Preston were Air Force prosecutors, and they quit their jobs on the prosecution team because even they thought that the tribunal process amounted to a kangaroo court.
In e-mail messages provided to the Journal and to the New York Times, Carr and Preston accused their superiors of rigging the tribunals against the detainees and charged their fellow prosecutors with ignoring allegations of torture, failing to protect evidence that could have exonerated some detainees and withholding information from their superiors.
In one March 2004 e-mail message, Carr said that Col. Frederick L. Borch, then the chief Guantánamo prosecutor, had "repeatedly" told the prosecutors who worked for him "that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel" and academicians who would study the cases later. Preston said in another e-mail message that moving forward with the tribunals would be "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people." Preston wrote: "I lie awake worrying about this every night ... writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it will be is kind of hard -- particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and a lawyer."
What if you want to call yourself a Supreme Court justice?
"A fraud on the American people"
Just last month, John G. Roberts joined two other federal appellate judges in a decision that cleared the way for the Bush administration to use military tribunals to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Here's a question an enterprising senator might pose to Roberts in his upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings: If he knew then what we're learning today, would he still have subjected the detainees to the military tribunal process?
As the Wall Street Journal is reporting today, two Air Force lawyers quit their jobs on the Guantánamo prosecution team last year in protest over trials before military tribunals that they believe were rigged against the detainees. Read that last bit again: The lawyers quit their jobs on the prosecution team. These weren't defense lawyers, from whom one would expect to hear -- and, in fact, from whom one has heard -- complaints that the military tribunal process is unfair. Maj. John Carr and Maj. Robert Preston were Air Force prosecutors, and they quit their jobs on the prosecution team because even they thought that the tribunal process amounted to a kangaroo court.
In e-mail messages provided to the Journal and to the New York Times, Carr and Preston accused their superiors of rigging the tribunals against the detainees and charged their fellow prosecutors with ignoring allegations of torture, failing to protect evidence that could have exonerated some detainees and withholding information from their superiors.
In one March 2004 e-mail message, Carr said that Col. Frederick L. Borch, then the chief Guantánamo prosecutor, had "repeatedly" told the prosecutors who worked for him "that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel" and academicians who would study the cases later. Preston said in another e-mail message that moving forward with the tribunals would be "a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people." Preston wrote: "I lie awake worrying about this every night ... writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it will be is kind of hard -- particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and a lawyer."
What if you want to call yourself a Supreme Court justice?
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Nate Died
So, I'm watching the end of Six Feet Under and Nate dies. What's up with that? I for SURE didn't see that coming.
Did you?
Did you?
Friday, July 29, 2005
F/u to my letter that appeared in Altercation on Tuesday
Re: Second Amendment
I'm glad Matt from Denver mentioned technology advances in guns. Which seems to be the one of the other major argument gun control advocates claim proves that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to own any longer. Matt makes the very correct point that this isn't the same country as the late 18th century. And the fact that technology has advanced diminishes none of the ideas in the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, one could say that the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything but newspapers, pamphlets and shouting on a street corner. If improvements in technology since 1789 preclude these rights wouldn't that mean that the First amendment doesn't apply to the telegraph, telephone, television, radio, satellite, cable, walkie talkies, bullhorns, cell phones,the internet and a host of other communication methods that didn't exist then? No, of course not.
I do not now and never have owned a gun, in fact I've only shot a .22 once...about 25 years ago as a kid. I just happen to believe in the entirety of the Bill of Rights, and as Matt pointed out, specifically in its Spirit. I'm not a cafeteria civil libertarian.
I'm glad Matt from Denver mentioned technology advances in guns. Which seems to be the one of the other major argument gun control advocates claim proves that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to own any longer. Matt makes the very correct point that this isn't the same country as the late 18th century. And the fact that technology has advanced diminishes none of the ideas in the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, one could say that the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything but newspapers, pamphlets and shouting on a street corner. If improvements in technology since 1789 preclude these rights wouldn't that mean that the First amendment doesn't apply to the telegraph, telephone, television, radio, satellite, cable, walkie talkies, bullhorns, cell phones,the internet and a host of other communication methods that didn't exist then? No, of course not.
I do not now and never have owned a gun, in fact I've only shot a .22 once...about 25 years ago as a kid. I just happen to believe in the entirety of the Bill of Rights, and as Matt pointed out, specifically in its Spirit. I'm not a cafeteria civil libertarian.
Look at this "liberal" rag...supporting free trade
From the NY TIMES
July 29, 2005
Applauding the Cafta 15
In the wee hours yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a sliver of two votes. Fifteen Democrats joined 202 Republicans in voting to open up trade between the United States and El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Anyone who believes, as this page does, that the benefits of free trade outweigh those of protectionism should give a pat on the back to the Democrats who chose principle over politics and defied their party's leaders to vote for the trade pact.
Trade votes are always cliffhangers, and Cafta was no exception. The vote, which started just after 11 p.m., took almost an hour as some Republicans, many from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. But the Republicans who voted for Cafta at least did so knowing that they were ensuring for themselves the approval of their party leaders, including President Bush. Many of the Democrats who voted for the pact knew that they were practically guaranteeing themselves a primary fight come next election. Indeed, organized labor was already talking yesterday morning about extracting revenge. "Punish the Cafta 15" was a headline in Working Life, a pro-labor blog.
Labor unions should obviously give their support to anyone they deem fit. But the Cafta 15 deserve respect for their independence and good judgment. Cafta is a modest trade pact, hardly likely to lift the six countries' economies into the 21st century. But it may be enough to lift them into the 20th century by lowering tariffs and helping job growth in a needy region. It should help export growth in America as well. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that Cafta could increase United States agricultural exports by nearly $1.5 billion a year; the National Association of Manufacturers said it would add about $1 billion a year to the value of United States exports of manufactured goods.
Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.
July 29, 2005
Applauding the Cafta 15
In the wee hours yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a sliver of two votes. Fifteen Democrats joined 202 Republicans in voting to open up trade between the United States and El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Anyone who believes, as this page does, that the benefits of free trade outweigh those of protectionism should give a pat on the back to the Democrats who chose principle over politics and defied their party's leaders to vote for the trade pact.
Trade votes are always cliffhangers, and Cafta was no exception. The vote, which started just after 11 p.m., took almost an hour as some Republicans, many from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. But the Republicans who voted for Cafta at least did so knowing that they were ensuring for themselves the approval of their party leaders, including President Bush. Many of the Democrats who voted for the pact knew that they were practically guaranteeing themselves a primary fight come next election. Indeed, organized labor was already talking yesterday morning about extracting revenge. "Punish the Cafta 15" was a headline in Working Life, a pro-labor blog.
Labor unions should obviously give their support to anyone they deem fit. But the Cafta 15 deserve respect for their independence and good judgment. Cafta is a modest trade pact, hardly likely to lift the six countries' economies into the 21st century. But it may be enough to lift them into the 20th century by lowering tariffs and helping job growth in a needy region. It should help export growth in America as well. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that Cafta could increase United States agricultural exports by nearly $1.5 billion a year; the National Association of Manufacturers said it would add about $1 billion a year to the value of United States exports of manufactured goods.
Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.
More Fakery from the Pentagon
If you’re going to make up the news… you can’t be lazy about it. We deserve better lies than that.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/24/military.release/index.html
Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:
Sunday's news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."
The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/24/military.release/index.html
Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:
Sunday's news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."
The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'"
Musical Rant for Monday
You may have heard this before, but I HATE cover songs that are done exactly like the original (or at least the most famous version). Worst example of this is Natalie Merchant’s “Because the Night”, for so many reasons. (First of which is that Natalie Merchant is the anti-Patti Smith). I heard 311 cover “Love Song” by the Cure this AM on the way to work…LAME.
Do you think Toby Keith sits down to write a song and thinks about how many “patriotic” TV specials he can sell the song to? I can almost see him “This song will be great for a Fox News special about how great America is”. Anyway, somehow my clock radio was set to a lame “country” station this morning and I awoke to Keith’s “American Soldier”. It’s a fine sentiment, but the subtlety of his work is that of a jack hammer.
I love Interpol.
Yet Dwight’s new album is still not doing it for me….(Shut your mouth)
Other recommends: LCD Soundsystem and M.I.A.
Now, get back to work
Do you think Toby Keith sits down to write a song and thinks about how many “patriotic” TV specials he can sell the song to? I can almost see him “This song will be great for a Fox News special about how great America is”. Anyway, somehow my clock radio was set to a lame “country” station this morning and I awoke to Keith’s “American Soldier”. It’s a fine sentiment, but the subtlety of his work is that of a jack hammer.
I love Interpol.
Yet Dwight’s new album is still not doing it for me….(Shut your mouth)
Other recommends: LCD Soundsystem and M.I.A.
Now, get back to work
Freedom on the march
Conservatives always bragging about how Bush saved Afghanistan and brought peace and prosperity to the whole place, while I’ve continued to point out that the US didn’t finish the job before turning to Iraq and left the place in ruins and in a state of Anarchy. Recent bombings in Egypt and the UK prove we didn’t finish the job, not to mention what a disaster the “Flypaper Strategy” is for the Iraqis.
How desperate do you have to be to attack a US military base with rocks?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8702657/
How desperate do you have to be to attack a US military base with rocks?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8702657/
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Don't mean to be hatin'
I know I'm getting very near sacrilege here, but here goes. I, like everyone else, is impressed by Lance Armstrong's domination of the Tour de France, but probably less so than most. What he's done is amazing no doubt, but as far as I know he trains year round for one event. Just one. Again, my knowledge of road racing is limited to when the media pays attention to the sport for 3 weeks in July, but other racers, I believe, race in other events.
So, what if Tiger Woods played one event a year. Let's say he trained exclusively for the Masters. Would it be safe to say that he might win it every year, if he trained exclusively for that and competed only in that event?
I'm just askin.
So, what if Tiger Woods played one event a year. Let's say he trained exclusively for the Masters. Would it be safe to say that he might win it every year, if he trained exclusively for that and competed only in that event?
I'm just askin.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Traitor Karl
Greetings from the Santa Nella, CA.
My favorite part is how Rove’s own lawyer and other Bushie-traitor lovers claim that “Rove didn’t mention her name”. He just said that it was Wilson’s wife. Unfortunately, the law states that it is a crime to provide information that reveals the identity of a covert agent. Which Rove clearly did…hence he’s a traitor.
To use the Rove lawyer logic. Rove could stand across the street from a Covert agent and tell anyone who will listen that “that person over there is a CIA agent”, but he wouldn’t be committing a crime because he didn’t mention her name. Obviously that is not the case, and not the law.
That type of logic would be funny if his actions weren’t treasonous.
My favorite part is how Rove’s own lawyer and other Bushie-traitor lovers claim that “Rove didn’t mention her name”. He just said that it was Wilson’s wife. Unfortunately, the law states that it is a crime to provide information that reveals the identity of a covert agent. Which Rove clearly did…hence he’s a traitor.
To use the Rove lawyer logic. Rove could stand across the street from a Covert agent and tell anyone who will listen that “that person over there is a CIA agent”, but he wouldn’t be committing a crime because he didn’t mention her name. Obviously that is not the case, and not the law.
That type of logic would be funny if his actions weren’t treasonous.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Fox News's new Motto?
“We buy Futures, you mourn the dead:”
From Sheppard Smith and Britt Hume…
From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 1 and 2 p.m. ET:
His First Thought…Buy Futures…WOW
From Sheppard Smith and Britt Hume…
From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 1 and 2 p.m. ET:
SMITH: Some of the things you might expect to happen, for instance, a drop
in the stock market and some degree of uncertainty across this country -- none
of that really seen today, and I wonder if the timing of it -- that it happened
in the middle of the night and we were able to get a sense of the grander scheme
of things -- wasn't helpful in all this.
HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you
know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had
some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard --
just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the
futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to
buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about
the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would
obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of
reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits
handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There
seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here,
although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.
His First Thought…Buy Futures…WOW
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Traitor Bob walks while someone else goes to Jail...astounding
Novak commits Treason, thanks to a felony from Karl Rove’s office and Judith Miller goes to jail.
Astounding:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contempt/index.html
Is it really the "liberal media" that hates America? Or is it Karl Rove and Bushie hacks like Bob Novak. Both of whom should be in jail for treason.
Astounding:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contempt/index.html
Is it really the "liberal media" that hates America? Or is it Karl Rove and Bushie hacks like Bob Novak. Both of whom should be in jail for treason.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
The Bushies LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063002158.html
GABORONE, Botswana -- As global leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum in January, officials from President Bush's $15 billion anti-AIDS program issued a news release citing their accomplishments. Nowhere were the numbers more impressive than in Botswana, where 32,839 AIDS patients were receiving life-extending treatment with the help of the U.S. government, they said.
But thousands of miles away in Botswana, the Bush administration's claim provoked frustration and anger among public and private partners that had built Africa's most far-reaching AIDS treatment program, recalled those involved. Although the Bush program had promised millions of dollars of support, no money had yet arrived, they said.
…
They agreed on the number of patients in Botswana who had been put on treatment because of the Bush program: zero.
GABORONE, Botswana -- As global leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum in January, officials from President Bush's $15 billion anti-AIDS program issued a news release citing their accomplishments. Nowhere were the numbers more impressive than in Botswana, where 32,839 AIDS patients were receiving life-extending treatment with the help of the U.S. government, they said.
But thousands of miles away in Botswana, the Bush administration's claim provoked frustration and anger among public and private partners that had built Africa's most far-reaching AIDS treatment program, recalled those involved. Although the Bush program had promised millions of dollars of support, no money had yet arrived, they said.
…
They agreed on the number of patients in Botswana who had been put on treatment because of the Bush program: zero.
I've said this before, but Abrams says it better
After I read Abrams piece on MSNBC.com, I've seen other raise the same questions about Traitor Bob.
Travesty of justice: Valerie Plame case (Dan Abrams)
Travesty of justice: Valerie Plame case (Dan Abrams)
A serious travesty of justice continues. Someone leaked a covert CIA
operative's name to a reporter. That reporter published the name in his
column, violating a federal law. Then, as the criminal investigation
into the source of the leak proceeded, that reporter miraculously appears to be
in the clear. But another reporter who never even published the name is
going to prison for failing to disclose her source? Huh?
That's the situation
New York Times reporter Judith Miller faces today. The U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear her case which sought First Amendment protection for her
refusal to divulge the confidential source in the case of Valerie Plame — a
former CIA agent. Robert Novak first unmasked Plame in a 2003 column. Even
though Miller never published the agent’s name, she now faces jail time.
Time magazine's Matt Cooper did actually publish Plame's name on the Time’s website, but only after Novak's column ran.In addition to the fact the Supreme Court refused to consider the case — a real shame — Robert Novak seems to be in the
clear legally. I've said this before, but with both Miller and Cooper out
of legal options and facing up to 18 months in federal prison today, it's more
of a plea...
Robert Novak needs to step forward and take
responsibility. If he doesn't want to disclose his source, that's
fine. But we don't even know if he was called before the grand jury or
what he did or didn't tell prosecutors.
Novak's silence puts Miller and Cooper at a distinct legal disadvantage, the prosecutor has indicated the case is all but finished and no one has been charged. But if Novak did testify, Miller and Cooper might be able to argue that their testimony isn’t even needed in the investigation or that they shouldn't be forced to testify before Novak does.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my father Floyd Abrams, is defending
Miller in this case. But this is an easy one. Two reporters may be
going to jail because they won't reveal who told them a secret. Meanwhile,
the guy who heard the secret first and made the initial decision to publish it
will be enjoying his summer vacation out of the reach of federal
prosecutors...
If that's not warped justice, I don't know what is.
Secrecy is bad for Democracy...check your history books
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002356455_files03.html
But there is concern the hoarding of information could backfire. Thomas
Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of
New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks
of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information among
agencies and with the public.
"You'd just be amazed at the kind of information that's classified;
everyday information, things we all know from the newspaper," Kean said. "The
best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed
public."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)