New Link!

If you look to your left, my right, you can see a link to a new blog, Think Progress, brought to you by the geniuses at the Center for American Progress. Just one look at the blog, and I like it already.

Courtesy of Talking Points Memo, (who got it from CfAP):

From the people who bring you The Progress Report – the daily electronic newsletter the National Review calls "the most aggressive, most energetic opposition research in politics" – comes Thinkprogress.org, a new blog ready to revolutionize the world of research-intensive rapid response. Debuting in tandem with the State of the Union address on Feb. 2, Thinkprogress.org will give journalists and the public real-time access to American Progress’s highly regarded rapid response operation for the first time ever. And in honor of the launch, American Progress CEO John Podesta will be a guest blogger, providing live commentary throughout the entire State of the Union address.

They have different color-coded categories for their posts for easy reading. They've whittled the rage down to four succinct categories: Corrupt Establishment, Incompetent Establishment, Braindead Media, and Radical Right-Wing Agenda. I like it. And Mr. Podesta tomorrow should be great.

Why Does This Sound Familiar?

Tens of thousands of Iraqis, notably in restive Sunni Arab areas, may have been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of insufficient ballots and polling centres, officials said.
...

Arab voters who initially intended to boycott the polls in the ethnically-mixed city of Kirkuk had apparently changed their minds after realising they would lose to Kurds. But by the time they arrived to vote, ballot sheets were gone, he said.

"I think the decision came from Baghdad. They were concerned with keeping Sunnis out of the game," he said.

Read more.

Oh! Where
Have
I heard
Of this before?

It's right there on the tip of my tongue...

How Far Will We Let Them Go?

Un-fucking-believable! They've changed the rules in the Georgia House. Are you sitting down? The Republicans have taken over in Georgia and came up with this new plan for the Speaker of the House to appoint an unlimited number of "Hawks" who can go to any committee meeting and vote in those meetings.

From the Georgia Chamber of Commerce:
Changes in the rules also outline a new type of committee member, known as a Hawk. These legislators, selected by Speaker Richardson, will serve as an Ex-Officio type of committee member, eligible to attend and vote in any and all committee meetings.

Do you see what that means? If the Speaker hears that a vote might not be going the way HE wants it to go, he can send however many Hawks he needs to make sure he gets his way. Or to put it another way, the Speaker is essentially the dictator of the Georgia Legislature.

More info on this appalling rules change is at www.nohawks.com. Wow.

Unsafe at Any Speed

I've never said that SUVs should be outlawed. I've always hoped that SUVs would eventually become a guilty pleasure that only the most brazen asshole wouldn't be ashamed to drive. They waste our natural resources, funnel money to terrorists, and unnecessarily pollute our atmosphere contributing to global warming. We've known that for some time.

But now, a new campaign is starting to emphasize how horribly dangerous these monstrosities are. Oh - and in case you're wondering, it's paid for by Ford Motor Company as part of a settlement for a lawsuit brought by the governments of all fifty states. Yet another example of those greedy, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers stealing hard-earned money from the little guy (Ford) for no good reason (protecting the public interest).

Stop the Torture

At this moment, there are 555 weblogs signed on to the Daily Kos' no-on-Gonzales project. Good show!

If you want to help, you can contact your senator. All contact information can be found here. When you call, tell the operator that you are a constituent, and that you have a message for Senator X. Then politely state your opinion on Gonzales, urging him or her to vote no. Who knows? With a grassroots groundswell, maybe we can actually stop this? Or at least let them know that there's a political price to pay for voting yes.

Freedom!

Yep, the Iraqis voted today, and now, the war is over. Democracy is spreading like wildfire throughout the Middle East. No need to worry anymore, and our troops...

Ah, I can't do it. I'm trying to be sarcastic but the fact is, it's actually sounding pretty good over there. I mean, 44 people died, which isn't good - but in a way, that's kind of not all that bad either. And 72% of Iraqis turned out. That's better than the turnout in the U.S.! Could it be possible that Bush is right on this one? I'll say it - I hope so. I hope that we're all wrong on this one. Wouldn't it be great if the election takes the wind out of the sails of the insurgency? Wouldn't it be great if we could start bringing our troops home?

Yes, it would. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. First of all, the Iraqis who voted have indelible ink on their fingers, so they can still be identified and targeted by insurgents. The ballots still need to be tallied, so those people could be targeted. And maybe most importantly, I don't take at face value anything our government says about anything. The 72% turnout and the 44 dead people could be false. But still! For now, things look really good. It sure would be great if we can look back on this day as the day that things started to get better. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm guardedly optimistic.

Maybe They Really Are Nazis

I always thought that was just hyperbole. But look at this.

Dick Cheney went to a ceremony at Auschwitz yesterday, but instead of dressing up like all the other grown-up world leaders, he wore a weird parka and a knit ski cap.

French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, were wearing dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots. Because it was cold and snowing, they were also wearing gentlemen's hats. In short, they were dressed for the inclement weather as well as the sobriety and dignity of the event.

The vice president, however, was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower.

Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood. It is embroidered with his name. It reminded one of the way in which children's clothes are inscribed with their names before they are sent away to camp. And indeed, the vice president looked like an awkward boy amid the well-dressed adults.

...a knit ski cap, embroidered with the words "Staff 2001." It was the kind of hat a conventioneer might find in a goodie bag.
...

Just last week, in a frigid, snow-dusted Washington, Cheney sat outside through the entire inauguration without so much as a hat and without suffering frostbite. And clearly, Cheney owns a proper overcoat. The world saw it during his swearing-in as vice president. Cheney treated that ceremony with the dignity it deserved -- not simply through his demeanor, but also through his attire. Would he have dared to take the oath of office with a ski cap on? People would have justifiably considered that an insult to the office, the day, the country.

Asshole.

Dick! Dick! Dick! Dick!

Some loony parent's group filed 36 complaints with the FCC which were instantly dismissed. Thank god for small miracles. But that's not the good part. In Salon today, Amy Reiter lists the complaints one-by-one. And they're fucking hilarious! Some of the jokes are funny on their own, but the complete lack of anything indecent in every one of these complaints is what cracks me up. Here are some of my favorites:

"Fastlane," September 18, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: one character threatens another by stating: "...in my next life I'm coming back as a pair of pliers and pull off your nutsack."

Nutsack. Huh, huh...

"Girls Club," October 21, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: a young female attorney says to an older male attorney: "...those power dicks are going to start giving me trials." The attorney responds: "Is that what you call us? Power dicks?"

"Girls Club," October 28, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: a female character remarks: "I'm not feeling too sexual these days ... Especially here, I'm having a little trouble with one of the power dicks."

"Dawson's Creek," October 30, 2002, 8 p.m. EST: one character remarks to another: "Listen, I know that you're pissed at your dad for flaking on you. It doesn't mean he's a bad dad, and it doesn't mean he doesn't love you. Another character responds: "No, it just means he's a dick."

"Dawson's Creek," December 11, 2002, 8 p.m. EST: one character tells another: "...you're being a dick."

"Dick" is such a problem with these people. And in this context, it's not even dirty, as in, for example, "Holy crap, look at his dick!" How did they whittle this down to just 36 examples? I can't imagine watching any random half hour of television and not finding ten things more offensive than, "you're a dick."

"Friends," May 1, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: a female character and her husband encounter the husband's former girlfriend at a medical office. After a conversation concerning fertility treatment, the female character says that she has to go because she's got "an invasive vaginal exam to get to."

They're presumably watching dozens of Friends episodes, and they're upset with "invasive vaginal exam?" I saw an episode last night where Joey and Chandler are discussing what would happen if the two of them were in a three way with a girl and making rules - "Keep your eyes closed at all time! But what if I had my eyes closed and I reached out and touched... EYES OPEN AT ALL TIMES! How do we decide what goes where? We could flip a coin. So how do we know what is heads and what is tails? If you don't know that, then I don't want to do this with you!"

That's WAY more offensive than vaginal exam, isn't it?

"Run of the House," October 23, 2003, 9 p.m. EST: a female character teases her brother about dating a woman who looks like his mother and, after her brother and his girlfriend have been in the hot tub, tells him "I know what you're doing."

I kinda don't even get this one. And I definitely don't get what's offensive about it. Do you ever wonder if these parent group types are just thinking about sex, sex, sex all day long so they start these crusades as a way of flagellating themselves? Because I'm just not seeing it in this one.

"Gilmore Girls," November 18, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: in one scene, a character's grandfather reminisces about college pranks involving nudity; in another scene, two current college students discuss the night the male student spent nude in a dorm hallway. There is also another scene in which a female character listens to a brief message on her answering machine in which a male caller makes a reference to "growing a pair."

"Growing a pair" is short for "growing a pair of balls," freakparents. You see? The writers preemptively censored it already!

"One Tree Hill," November 18, 2003, 9 p.m. EST: in a school hallway, a male character tells a female character, "I've got something for you," and she replies, "I know you do, gorgeous." He then gives her a book, telling her she might want to "check it out," and she replies, "Oh, I definitely want to check it out. I suppose I could read the book, too."

Here's a bit of news for you super-censors: If you get the double-entendre, then you probably aren't offended by it. If you don't get the double-entendre, like say, maybe a kid, then no harm, no foul. She said, "I know you do, gorgeous." Not "I know you have that dick for me, gorgeous."

"Charmed," November 23, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: three female characters are talking, one remarks that she's late because she was "tied up," and another asks "where, at Richard's?" Later, one of the female characters talks about being afraid to "take it to the next level" with her boyfriend, and another character tells her to "relax and let it happen." She replies: "That's easy for you to say, you weren't the one sleeping with an angel for three years."

I know what this one's about. Sex with an angel is strictly forbidden by Christian law. Oh wait. There's no such thing as angels. Angel orgy! (oh - and let's invite SpongeBob) Oh yeah, and by the way, nutcase Christians, those three female characters - they're witches! The dark arts of Satan. Oooooohhh...

"Gilmore Girls," February 10, 2004, 9 p.m. EST: one character says to another: "you're a dick."

"Angel," February 11, 2004, 9 p.m. EST: one character says to another: "you're still a dick."

Again with the dicks? Lighten up. Oh, and again - that guy, Angel. He's a vampire. A good-guy vampire! Demons and vampires and blood and witches. Beelzebub is pissing all over that show, and you have a problem with "dick?"

"AUSA," March 18, 2003, 9:30 p.m. EST: one scene depicts Adam, a lawyer, lying on a hotel bed watching an adult movie on the hotel's video system (no video images are visible). Dialogue from one video, "Here Comes the Judge," is audible: Male voice: "The defense rests." Female voice: "Not tonight. Now hand over those briefs." The next scene shows the lawyer waking up and realizing that the adult channel continued to play while he slept. Remaining scenes contain jokes about his watching adult entertainment all night, to wit: Adam: "What's [my boss] going to say when he finds out I spent nine of my 16 hours here in Arizona watching porn?" Clerk: "You're a sad, lonely man with remarkable stamina." Another scene depicts a woman asking Adam if "he's decent," and he remarks: "I'm buttered from the waist down." Another scene has a character listing the movies Adam paid for: "Jurassic Pork, Laid in Manhattan, Catch Me in the Can."

I just had to include this one because I love fake porn names. Jurassic Pork. Ha!

"Night of Too Many Stars," May 31, 2003, 8 p.m. EDT: comedian Dana Carvey, reprising his role as the Saturday Night Live character, "Church Lady," says to the actor Macaulay Culkin: "...then we jumped on the puberty train and got all tingly ...we want to fornicate, so we thought it would be nifty to get married when we were twelve." Dana Carvey later discusses Michael Jackson and says of him: "Did he ever dangle anything in front of you at the sleepovers? ...Say, his happy man-loaf? ...When he moon walked, he didn't moon you as he walked, did he? ...Did he ever get into Billy's jeans?" Another character asks whether "his [Jackson's] shalonthaz [sic] ever rose up to salute you? You never played hide the toast?"

Um... NaziParents? You know that the Church Lady character is specifically clowning on you, right? OK, let's move on.

"The Simpsons," November 16, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: in this animated program, a scene depicts students carrying picket signs that read "Don't cut off my pianissimo" and "What would Jesus glue?" A male character says "Well, I guess this story has a happy ending after all. Just like my last massage."

The Simpsons is great, isn't it? What would Jesus glue, indeed...

"King of the Hill," November 23, 2003, 7:30 p.m. EST: in this animated program, a cartoon boy is shown about to enter a communal shower at his school. An off-screen voice emanating from the shower asks, "Is that a pimple or another nipple?" As the cartoon boy removes his towel and enters the shower, his buttocks are briefly depicted.

OH NO!! Cartoon buttocks!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

I guess I've made my point. As a final thought to all you parents out there, especially these psycho crusading parents who clearly enjoy watching way too much television - if you don't like it, if you don't want your kid watching, change the fucking channel. We can't have art stripped of everything that makes it interesting. Everyone is different, everyone has different tastes. Stop wasting our government officials' time with these ridiculously minor complaints. And stop trying to parent the whole country. As it is, you already have your way. When's the last time you saw breasts on tv?

Uh... Oh yeah.

Totalitarian Scribblers

You gotta love Joe Conason.

It is remarkable that Williams and Gallagher, who claim to understand why democracy and freedom are superior to tyranny, don't fully understand why pundit payola is so repugnant. American journalists don't take money from the politicians they cover because we don't live in a totalitarian regime where state-subsidized scribblers are expected to glorify the Beloved Leader.

And he wrote that before we found out about number three.

Goebbels Is Smiling Somewhere

Ah, yes. How the noble have fallen... A third (3rd) paid propagandist for the Bush administration has been uncovered.

It's pretty unbelievable when you think about it. That cocky son of a bitch needs to pay people to spread his lies for him, when there are so many willing to do it for free! Or are they? The media is (rightfully) in a tizzy about this. As Salon pointed out this morning, right-wingers are protesting especially loudly. Why is that? I mean, in theory, they aren't on the payroll, so there's no reason to worry, right? It's because this journalistic ethics "line" that they claim is currently being blurred is already blurred. It's been blurred for some time now. I've written about this in the past, but the key is that even before BushCo was paying them directly, they've been making money through his dishonest and shameful policies for years. But now that the pay-for-play has been discovered, they aren't going to be able to hide behind the facade of "fair and balanced" anymore. The more of these propagandists that pop up, the more the public is finally going to wake up and start wondering - "Do they believe this, or are they serving their own interests?" When Bill O'Reilly claimed that the tax cut went to everyone, not just the rich, was he only saying that because he's rich?

I wonder...

No on Gonzales

Just in case it wasn't clear here, here, here, and here, I'm emphatically stating for the record - for the love of god, NO on Gonzales.

Directly from the Daily Kos:

No on Gonzales
Tue Jan 25th, 2005 at 12:43:07 PST

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.

As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

There Is No Crisis

Satire is funny.

Tom the Dancing Bug

Condi Wins!

We knew it was coming. Lying in order to get us into an unnecessary and bloody war is so *yawn* these days. But it still matters. Condoleezza Rice was confirmed as Secretary of State this morning by a vote of 85 to 13. If you're like me, you're wondering - how did my senators vote? For your edification, the "nays" are as follows:

Akaka (D-HI)

Bayh (D-IN)

Boxer (D-CA)

Byrd (D-WV)

Dayton (D-MN)

Durbin (D-IL)

Harkin (D-IA)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Levin (D-MI)

Reed (D-RI)

Kudos, John Kerry, for growing a set of balls since November! In fact, well done, all of you, for standing up for what we believe in.

Disappointing names on the list of shame:

My own Senators Clinton and Schumer

Joe Biden? Joe! Joey! I thought we was tight, yo!

Dianne Feinstein

Joe Lieberman (just kidding, we all know he's already a Republican)

Barack Obama - Dude! You just got there. We love you! Why you gotta sell us out so soon?

Harry Reid, our noble leader

Debbie Stabenow (only because I'm originally from Michigan) Debs - Carl voted nay; what gives?

Let's not forget this vote, and perhaps even more importantly, let's note how they vote in the Gonzales Affair. Remember that it's their job to represent our interests. Not the other way around. If you don't feel represented by this vote, write to them, call them - let them know.

You can find out your senators, congressman and their contact information here.

Scalia For Chief Justice! (?)

I'm not so sure about this, but I have to say, Slate's Nicholas Thompson makes a good argument in favor of allowing the Republicans to name Scalia Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Out of the Woodwork

Oops! Another paid government propagandist is uncovered today in the Washington Post.

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.
...

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal.
...

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me."

Yes, Mags. You did indeed violate journalistic ethics. Did you violate your own ethics? I doubt it.

Attorney General / Secretary of Torture

I could write 1000 posts about Alberto Gonzales and it wouldn't be enough. The Washington Post has a great editorial today. A Degrading Policy:

Alberto R. Gonzales was vague, unresponsive and misleading in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration's detention of foreign prisoners. In his written answers to questions from the committee, prepared in anticipation of today's vote on his nomination as attorney general, Mr. Gonzales was clearer -- disturbingly so, as it turns out. According to President Bush's closest legal adviser, this administration continues to assert its right to indefinitely hold foreigners in secret locations without any legal process; to deny them access to the International Red Cross; to transport them to countries where torture is practiced; and to subject them to treatment that is "cruel, inhumane or degrading," even though such abuse is banned by an international treaty that the United States has ratified. In effect, Mr. Gonzales has confirmed that the Bush administration is violating human rights as a matter of policy.
...

The constitutional amendments, he told the committee, technically do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in the administration's view the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. "The Department of Justice has concluded," he wrote, that "there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas."
...

He was asked if there were any legal prohibition against U.S. personnel using simulated drowning and mock executions as well as sleep deprivation, dogs to inspire fear, hooding, forced nudity, the forced injection of mood-altering drugs and the threat of sending a detainee to another country for torture, among other abuses. He answered: "Some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances."
...

In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that "no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have "provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled." Senators who supported the amendment consequently face a critical question: If they vote to confirm Mr. Gonzales as the government's chief legal authority, will they not be endorsing the systematic use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" practices by the United States?

What is wrong with these people? They're running around finding loopholes by way of questionable interpretations of the law to defend the United States' practice of TORTURE. That's torture, people. And not the cute kind like when you say, "That Titanic movie was three hours of pure torture." No, no - the bad kind like in Marathon Man where Laurence Olivier is drilling holes in Dustin Hoffman's teeth. You know? How can these supposed "men" sleep comfortably at night knowing that they're responsible for torturing people? Where is their humanity? Furthermore, how can they, with a straight face, claim that the Abu Ghraib situation was caused by a few "bad apples?" It's right there in their words! They think torture is ok.

Is it, my fellow Americans? Do we live in a country where we look the other way, while the men we elected to govern in our name are torturing people? Does this fit the Founding Fathers' vision of America?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All men, Mr. Gonzales. Not just all American men.

A New Nation, Conceived in Liberty

There's an interesting article about the history (and legality) of seceding from the Union. Apparently, it wasn't all that uncommon to seriously debate the subject back in the day. And even before the debacle of November 2004, there are people out there who have been working to secede for some time. It makes for a good read. But something in the article leapt out at me:

And if saving the union was Lincoln's sole purpose, then breaking the law appeared to be his method. One wonders what kind of union he hoped in the end to save. As DiLorenzo notes, Lincoln was the first and only president to suspend habeas corpus. He shut down hundreds of newspapers that preached peace or criticized his administration, arrested thousands of political dissenters en masse, censored telegraph communications, used federal troops to intervene in elections, even deported a congressional opponent. Church ministers too felt his heavy hand: They were threatened with imprisonment if they failed to include at the beginning of each service a prayer for Lincoln and the preservation of the union.

According to Edward S. Corwin, writing in 1947 in his book "Total War and the Constitution," Lincoln probably "invented" the war-powers doctrine that has since provided such convenient legal cover for militarist ventures issuing from the White House. Oddly appropriate, then, that George W. Bush, announcing "victory" in his war, should have landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Following the attacks of Sept. 11, some news outlets, notably the New York Times, went so far, not incorrectly perhaps, as to dub Bush "Lincolnesque."

It really puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Putin doesn't run his country as ruthlessly as Lincoln did. As angry and pessimistic as I am, sometimes it's good to take a step back and honestly reflect on all the progress we've made. Bush may have put us back a few steps on the road to legitimate freedom, but we've come a long way since Jefferson's slaves, Lincoln's political prisoners, and FDR's internment camps. We just have to keep fighting, and history will (eventually) declare us victorious.

Iraq - A Country After Our Own Heart

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte was on Meet the Press this morning. Republican apologist Tim Russert asked him about allegations of stolen money and corruption in Iraq. Read it, (with my emphasis added):

MR. RUSSERT:  The New York Times reported yesterday that $300 million was taken from the Bank of Iraq, put on a chartered jet to Lebanon.  What can you tell us about that and how did it happen?

AMB. NEGROPONTE:  Well, first of all, we're looking into these allegations, but I would note that they have arisen in the context of an electoral campaign here and campaign charges that are being exchanged between two of the principal candidates.  So I'm not entirely certain what to make of them, but I would note that they come up one week before the election date.

In any event, we're looking into it and trying to find out as much detail about those charges as possible.  My understanding is that these are Iraqi moneys that are involved, not United States government appropriated funds. Nonetheless, we are trying to gather as many facts about this situation as we can.

MR. RUSSERT:  The Iraqi national security adviser said, "corruption is worse now than under Saddam Hussein."

AMB. NEGROPONTE:  Well, I just--I simply can't accept that or can't agree to that allegation.  I would also point out that while he may still carry the official title of national security adviser, he is, in fact, a candidate for political office and not carrying out the national security adviser function at this time.  But when you think of the corruption in the Saddam regime, the oil-for-food scandals, the billions of dollars that were smuggled out of the country, I think those levels of corruption simply pale in comparison to anything that might possibly have been happening in recent months.

Do you see what he's saying there? He's implying that the charges are bogus; a candidate simply said it about another candidate in order to win the election. What he isn't saying is the tacit acknowledgement that this is just how campaigns go - candidates file false charges against one another, "I mean, you know, Tim - think about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You know how elections can be."

*sniff* Iraq is all grown up now. And they're taking after their father. How sweet...

Right-Wing Echo Chamber

I'm not saying not to watch cable news. I'm just saying - be aware that they have an agenda.

Media Matters for America does an inventory of conservatives vs. progressives on cable news yesterday. I wish I could say it was shocking.

There Is No Crisis

Paul Krugman, once again, speakin' some mad truth about Social Security.

President Bush is like a financial adviser who tells you that at the rate you're going, you won't be able to afford retirement - but that you shouldn't do anything mundane like trying to save more. Instead, you should take out a huge loan, put the money in a mutual fund run by his friends (with management fees to be determined later) and place your faith in capital gains.
...

Sometimes I do find myself puzzled: why don't privatizers understand that their schemes rest on the peculiar belief that there is a giant free lunch there for the taking? But then I remember what Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Remember, for more truth, click on the There Is No Crisis ad to the left.