Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Bush: Failure in Iraq Not an Option

"We understand full well that the political process in Iraq must occur soon," the president added. "I don't expect everybody to agree with my decision to go into Iraq. But I do want the people to understand, the American people to understand, that failure in Iraq is not an option."
ABC News


Well, I guess that's it. Failure in Iraq is no longer just an option or possible outcome. Guess that sort of makes it a foregone conclusion, no?


17May06 Update: Is there somewhere that Bush's policies have succeeded?

Friday, April 14, 2006

Throw Rummy From the Train

The blogs are saturated with calls for Rumsfelds resignation, as well as articles breathlessly asking: when?


I got news for you, folks. Rummy isn't a "contributer" to the administration that Bush can let go of. Rumsfeld, along with Cheney (and to a slightly lesser degree Rove) is the administration.

I'm not trying to defend Bush -- far from it. Bush in all aspects appears an idiot. There's good reason for that conclusion: all evidence supports it.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are "The President". Bush is the confidence man that presents the face. And I mean "confidence man" in every aspect of the word. With him we have entrusted the pride and integrity of our nation; he has absconded it.

It is more likely that Bush will be evicted and replaced than either Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Get used to it.


Update: Looks like I'm not the only one thinking this.

Work in Tech? Want to Keep Working in Tech?

Then you need to read this article by Dr. Norman Matloff.

Now you know why.

"Cheaper At Any Cost"

Journalist Michael Pollan uttered that quote the other day in an interview on NPR with Terry Gross.

That neatly sums up America's view on just about everything.

WalMart, offshoring of jobs, you name it. Even naming rights to newsrooms.

Yes, folks. American's have finally gotten to the point where they will sell their owns souls for a dollar and they're ok with that.

Hmmm.. selling part of our Abrams tank manufacturing (and ports) to a Dubai company...how could that be a problem?
Aren't we in a war?

America won't be eliminated by its enemies. They won't get the chance because we'll sell ourselves to them first.

"Jobs American's Won't do: Tech"

Update: I just found this article by Dr. Norman Matloff
It's a must-read if you're an American who "Doesn't Want to Work".



The current immigration "feces fest" focuses mainly on "low wage workers". According to George Bush, "Jobs American's won't do" (those lazy slouches).

(Very well covered at "The Talent Show")

None of this affects those of us with college educations, right?

Or does it?

I've been holding my personal exprience on this issue inside for a long time, but with all the debate about illegal immigration, now is the time to get it out there:

College grads, you ain't safe from illegal immigration.

George Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the idea that America is falling behind in science and technology (true) and that the solution is to have better science and technical education (also true) to encourage American kids to study math and science (this is where it falls down).

The "Kids" are not stupid. They quickly develop an appreciation of supply and demand. Kids are avoiding science and math for the fundamental reason that there's no money in it. They aren't going to torture themselves through years of Calculus, etc. (like I did) to be unemployed (like I was). Why the shift? Was it the dot.com bust? Sort of...

Let's get into the way-back machine and go to 2001 ( insert harp music here ).

Me and two of my tech co-workers noticed job opening postings in the company cafeteria. The job descriptions matched our current positions, but were for more money. All three of us immediately decided to go to the personel office to "apply".

We got a cold reception from the personnel director. "You can't" were his exact words. "Why not?" we asked. "Because they're not real openings."

"Eh?", said we.

"You can't apply for those positions as they are for our renewing H-1B visa holders." To comply with the law, we must post a job for X months. If no 'qualified' U.S. citizen applies, then we are allowed to bring in an H-1B person to fill the role. If you apply then we'll have no opening to fill."

"But its our exact job but for $20k/year more!"

"Go away." was his answer.

( More xylophone music and back to the present)

So what's happening here? I didn't realize it at the time, but that was my first experience with "the visa game".

Here's how it works: The law is more or less like the HR Director described. If no "qualified" citizen can be found, then an H-1B visa holder can be brought in and *must be paid a wage equivalent to an American worker*. But there's a subtle catch to H-1B visas: the H-1B visa holder can *only* work for the company that sponsored them. ( Yes, *sponsored*. These companies pay big $$$ to law firms to cover the costs of bringing in H-1Bs ) If the visa holder loses his/her job with the company that sponsored them, the visa holder must also leave the U.S.

So why in the world would a company pay so much money up front to sponsor a foreign worker? The bottom line is this: once the H-1B holder is brought over, their salary is quickly lowered. There's always an excuse ( the economy is bad, the company has to cut back, etc.) but the result is the same: "we're cutting your salary by half. If you don't like it, you can always go back home."

Most immigrants are unaware that this practice is illegal and even those who do are afraid to report it because half or even less of the prevailing wage is still more than what they can get back home.

So the key to getting cheap labor is:
- Make the job requirements so specific that only the person you're currently attempting to sponsor can fill it.
- Pay some $$$ up front to lawyers to handle the paperwork.
- Pay the visa holder prevailing wages for while to pass paperwork, but then quickly cut the wages back to 1/2 or even lower. If he or she "squeals", refuses to work overtime, talks back, etc., you send them back home. A perfect gig for any employer.

A similar practice was described in your high school history lessons as "endentured servitude". Look it up.

Not only have I as an American Citizen been on the short end of this stick, I have immigrant friends that have been on the other end. An Indian friend has been working for at least 3 years now with his wages "witheld" by 2/3. His employer promises him the back wages when "business improves".

I've also spoken with a secretary who's in charge of the hiring practice. She told how she was required to keep meticulous records of interviews to prove they couldn't find "qualified applicants" so that the business could hire H-1Bs. Not an H-1B? Sorry you're too expensive, er.. "unqualified".


Every imigrant I've met has been a good person. They are on the whole nice people. They are good people. We need immigrant labor. It helps both countries. But we need to make sure that American citizens aren't being screwed by cheating companies.

I have a quick solution. Change the visa requirements so that a company can sponser as many immigrants as they like. But said immigrants can work anywhere he/she likes for that fixed time period. If the visa-holder can find better pay somewhere else, he/she will go. That will put a quick end to business undermining American wages through endentured servitude.

Many mouth off about the virtues of "Supply and Demand" and "Capitalism" being critical to American success. Currently, American business, via their corruption of lawmakers, is not allowing labor to be in demand.

Alas, Privacy... We Hardly Knew Ye

Still wondering about that title. Did we "hardly know ye" or did we just take you for granted?

---------------------

I've long railed about America's infatuation with video surveilance. Got a problem? Put up a camera? Don't have a problem? Put up a camera anyway. God how Americans want to be on screen. 15 seconds of "fame" and all that.

Scott McNealy famously (in geek circles anyway) said, "(Online) privacy is dead. Get over it"


Well now I'm starting to see some of the upsides of a total lack of privacy. Caught picking your nose in public? No problem.. everyone does it. Here, let me show you the video. Have incriminating photos that imply I may be gay? No problem! 25% of the population is gay; even the ones in government that are trying to hide it. Want proof? Here's the video!

Want my credit-card number? How about 300 million others to go with that?

I can imagine a certain peace from every one having complete knowledge of everyone else. No one can be derided for being X when it can be instantly shown that 99% of the populace does the same thing.

Or I could be wrong.

Scott McNealy says he was. Funny how attitudes change when its their ass in the grinder.

Technology As Salvation

America has an infatuation with the idea that any problem can be solved (cheaper!) with technology.

People dumping trash in your yard? Put up a camera. Drivers running down your kids when they exit school buses? Add some cameras to the bus. Drivers running redlights? Put up redlight cameras. Drivers changing lanes like maniacs and shooting at other drivers? Ummm... wait for us to install cameras; cops are too expensive.

Track your kids

Jesus! Just try Googling "Nanny Cam". Does no one give a second thought to wiring their house with 30 camera to spy on the "nanny"? If you think you can't trust the nanny, why are you letting them watch your kids?

(I'll save you my rants on personal privacy, but like Scott McNealy said, personal privacy is dead. Forget it.)

Drivers and other annoyances can be covered with the Band-Aid of video, but what if your problem is more severe, say, bad foreign policy, for example?

Suppose you're a government trying to solve a nagging problem of re-election by distracting the voters with an illegitmate and unneeded war. The downside is that the populace gets cranky when you start killing them off ( that's *your* populace, not *theirs*. You don't need *their* votes.) Solution? Send in the 'droids!

That will finally make war clean. No more messy pictures of "coalition" (ahem) troops getting killed by fuzzy foreigners that don't like being occupied. Finally get some peace around here...


USA Today

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Mmmmmmm.... Apocalypse...

The warm appeal of absolute justice (well, to your enemies, anyway)

Deepak Chopra

Sales Meme?

Interesting observation on the application of sales techniques to war:

Walter @ AndrewSullivan.com


Guess it is possible to sell someone anything they wish were true... if it makes them feel "safer", anyway.

Want to make all of your problems disappear? Don't wait around for the Apoloclypse, take this simple pill and your fat, er, problems will simply melt away!

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Why People Think the Economy Sucks

Here, here!

Billmon

Where Everyone is Above Average

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

Interesting observations on just what it means to (believe) you are above average:


Damned Interesting

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Wonkette: Please Tip Your Waiters & Waitresses

A glimpse at Bush's slide from President of the United States to night-club act.


From Wonkette:

"Pathological Stupidity"

From the Tahlequah Daily Press:

Can Bush get much lower?

As more details are brought to the fore about the seamy underbelly of the Bush administration, the perpetually trusting souls among the American electorate are having trouble keeping those scales firmly in place on their eyes.

The president has sunk so far down in the polls it’s hard to imagine he could get any lower without being adept at limbo dancing. And it’s no wonder: Even staunch loyalists are at pains to name one positive thing Bush has accomplished during his five years in office, except perhaps the seating of two new justices (presumed to be conservative by ardent Bush supporters, who could be sorely disappointed if they merely turn out to be fair).

The usual response from Bush fans, when asked such impertinent questions about their fearless leader, is to fire another accusatory salvo at his predecessor, whose peccadilloes are not only irrelevant to the situation at hand, but pale by comparison.

Bush’s “political missteps,” on the other hand, would fill several pages, even with small type. The senior citizens are having trouble with his Medicare program, and his fence-straddling on the immigration issue is ripping his own party apart. The cronies he empowered within FEMA dropped the ball in spectacular fashion when Hurricane Katrina roared through, and the fallout on that fiasco continues. The violence goes on unabated in Iraq, and Afghanistan is lurching toward a theocracy that Western states will ultimately find as unpalatable as Iran’s government. The national deficit has ballooned to incomprehensible levels, and the wages of the average Joe are stagnant. Philosophically, Americans are polarized, and not only do our fellow countrymen from the opposing party dislike us, but the rest of the world does, too.

And now, Bush himself has been identified as the ultimate source of the information leak that led to publication of supposed pre-war intelligence and the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. With all due respect to Gomer Pyle, and with as much sarcasm as can possibly be mustered: “Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!”

It seems that Scooter Libby – who went from bureaucrat to porn novelist to Dick Cheney’s top aide – is now squealing like a stuck pig from the muddy sty to which he’s been consigned. Intent on saving his own skin after being fingered in the information leak case, Libby (who probably has another book deal in the works) has turned on his former superiors and is giving them the biblical “pearl treatment.”

Libby told a grand jury he discussed pre-war intelligence with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who dutifully printed the material. Now it’s been revealed that he had permission to flap his gums, by none other than Bush himself, through Cheney.

One can almost feel sorry for Scott McClellan, Bush’s hapless press secretary who got his post not through the grace of God or abundance of talent, but because his parents are old Texas barbecue buddies of Bush. But members of the White House press corps must have been thunderstruck when they heard the official spin on the story: The administration had “declassified” this information about the same time as Libby leaked it, and all for the good of the American people! Furthermore, McClellan asserted, the commander-in-chief has a right to leak information if he gets a hankering to do so.

Someone in this equation is destined to turn out stupid: The administration, for expecting the public to swallow this fish tale, or the public, for doing just that.

If the leaked information was declassified by the administration so Libby and others could hand it over to the media, then why didn’t they just say so to begin with? Why did they lie and say they knew nothing about it? Or, is McClellan the liar in this case?

To buy any of this, the public will have to suffer not just from pathological stupidity, but also from terminal amnesia. We’ll have to forget that Ms. Plame’s name only became public after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, disclosed that he could find no evidence of weapons of destruction in Iraq. We’ll also have to forget that several subsequent investigations have vindicated Wilson – which means the “declassified information” was completely erroneous, or a complete fabrication.

Regardless of what the Bush people call it, the “intelligence” was propelled forward on zeal for vendetta and a war of predestination to topple Saddam Hussein. Someday the truth will out, as well it should. It’s gotten an awful lot of people killed.
print this story email this story comment on this story

Monday, April 10, 2006

Iraq War Summarized

A reader at AndrewSullivan.com provides a quick and poignant summary of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration :



I supported the action in Afganistan. Everyone - the whole world - realized that that action was necessary. Hell, even Dennis Kucinich supported it. There was no other choice. And had we prosecuted the action in Afganistan competently, and to the end, by securing the peace and rebuilding the country, we might have come out of the war on terror with our heads held high and with the world's respect and even admiration. Certainly our action there, and the related pressure on Pakistan, resulted in the most important single victory in the war on terror to date: the unmasking of the A. Q. Khan network. But we never finished in Afganistan. We let bin Laden escape. We did not and have not secured the country, or rebuilt it. Why? Well, why have we not secured or rebuilt Iraq? There is a reason. This is not just criminal negligence. This is a pattern.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It smelled. It smelled to high heaven. This Photo_disarm was no action in response to 9/11. This was something else. Some grand design for restructuring the Middle East, for "draining the swamp". A war of revenge against the man who ordered the President's father assassinated. Unfinished business. Oil. Yes, all those and more, as Wolfowitz admitted, but none of them would do as a trigger, so WMD was chosen. WMD was the one excuse that would work, the one threat that, tied to 9/11, would inspire action and overwhelm and silence opposition.

But the real motivation for the war in Iraq, Andrew, was the consolidation of Republican power here at home. Iraq was to be George W. Bush's great victory, and Karl Rove's hammer. The victory of the Republican right was to be complete and permanent. Bush and his crew knew the WMD excuse was fraudulent. As Zinni said, he knew, and they had the same information he had. But they did believe the old stockpiles, or some portion of them, were still there, moldering in Saddam's secret bunkers, and would provide all the evidence needed to justify their war, cover their lies, and secure theirSmugbush02 political triumph. The shame of the election of 2000 would be history, Bush would become the image of the man he always wished to be, and Rove would secure the Republican realignment.

But Bush's great victory has turned to ash, and Rove's hammer to a dagger he holds by the blade. One could write a book (and no doubt many will) on the Oedipal complex that drove Bush the son to surpass the father, and fail. A Greek tragedy played out in real life, right before our eyes. And could Shakespeare have bettered the cast of characters we have lived with these last six years, or the themes, or the plot? My God, what a play! He would be writing furiously even now. One play? No. Three, perhaps: Bush the Second, Parts I, II and III. We are in the middle of the third play. The end is coming.

I'm not being facetious. The horror and terror of tragedy is its inevitability. The audience sees what the characters cannot. And the audience knows that they too suffer, like the characters they watch. The play is a mirror. The war in Iraq has been our tragedy, our mirror. Perhaps, if we are lucky, our catharsis. But we are not yet to that stage, which comes after. We are still in the midst of the horror, unable to look away from the mirror. You stare into the face of Abu Ghraib. Me? What do I stare at? And all of us. We are living one of the great stories of history, Andrew.

Rove08 Did I really know all this back then? Yes. Not so clearly, or at least, I would not have been able to express it so simply. Many people saw it, people of good faith, not just mindless Bush-haters or partisans. And every suspicion I had, and shared with those others, about Bush, and Rove and the rest, and about their motivations and methods, has proved out, and then some. And there is, I know, future revelations yet to come. None of it surprises me.

I'm only surprised that you are surprised. I think, Andrew, you were blinded by idealism, the desire to slay the monster Saddam. Have you read the Gilgamesh Epic? Or Castenada? We are betrayed, not by our faults, but by our strengths. Because that's where we're truly blind. Thus you. And me. And Bush. The difference is of degree, not kind. But that difference of degree is crucial. Bush doubts nothing. He is trapped in a rigid arrogance, a self-righteousness based ultimately on low self-esteem and fear of failure. Fear is his basic spiritual signature. [snip]


Read the rest here.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Bush: Fooling

"... fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


For more:
Slate

Friday, April 07, 2006

Gualala Wisdom

Seen on a bumper-sticker in Gualala, CA:

I Never Thought I Would Miss Nixon

Nick: This one's gonna leave a mark...

From Nick:

This one's gonna leave a mark...


President Bush, 9/30/03:
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified
information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to
know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

President Bush, 9/30/03:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. .
. . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be
fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any
information inside our administration or outside our administration, it
would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can
find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the
business."

President Bush, 10/28/03:
"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive
information."

President Bush, 6/10/04:
Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done
so?"
President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the
facts."

President Bush, 10/28/03:
"I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who
the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession,
you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:
"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my
administration."

White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for
people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his
administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards
of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they
would no longer be in this administration."

White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03:
"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President
and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked
classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this
administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a
part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House
operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his
administration to conduct their business."

Presidential Perogative

It can be argued that declassification of documents is a perogative of the President.

But as I recall, revealing the identity of an undercover agent is still against the law.

Too Expensive to Live in America

The Nation

Perhaps we should start sending our poor to live in Mexico?

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Should They Rebuild?

When New Orleans flooded in September of 2005, many people asked, "Should they rebuild?"

I mean, all those hurricanes make it a dangerous area, right? I don't want *my* money going to help those people stupid enough to live in dangerous areas.

I'll get back to this post later to dig into a little more detail into the idiocy of those remarks, but until then: more areas where we should ask, "Should they rebuild?"


Grand Forks, North Dakota 06 Apr 2006


Caruthersville, Mo 06 Apr 2006

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Newspapers Anxious Over Web

Newspapers are in a dither over falling newspaper revenue and the growing competition from online sources.

Mike Butcher


Question: Why?

Sure, Craigslist is killing them on classifieds and printing costs are through the roof. But, so what?

There's a saying that goes, "People don't buy drills because they want drills. They buy drills because they want holes."
Likewise people don't buy newspapers because they like killing trees. They buy newspapers because they want fast, thoroughly researched and reliable information and insight.

Ink and paper does not provide reasearch, information or integrity, no matter how big your press. Dump it.

Printing newspapers is huge, expensive and a hassle. Online publishing is quicker, more energy and time efficient and has the potential to reach many more people. If you really must supply newspapers to a shrinking number of subscribers, outsource it.

So what does that leave? Journalists and editors. Before your start rolling your eyes, think about why you want to roll your eyes. Perhaps you're thinking, "Journalists?!!?? Thhhppppttt. Please! There hasn't been a decent journalst for 20 years."

You're probably thinking that because of the way media has sacrificed its bread and butter on the altar of yellow journalism.

*Anyone* can publish "news". TV, radio, E!... anyone with an internet connection. That's been the biggest problem with media for the past 10+ years. Newspapers, TV & radio counted on their respective monopolies to place ad revenue above all other concerns, especially journalistic integrity. Years of slashing research costs in the name of attracting readers with stories of blood, bread and circuses. "If it bleeds it leads!" Anyone can do that. What's worrying newspapers is now anyone is doing that.

Sure, online newspapers are going to have a hard time getting readers to pay a fee to read fluff pieces about the latest Katie Couric hairdo. But they have a staff of hundreds of trained and willing professionals who would love nothing more than to be paid for researching hard news. You know, the stuff no one seems to want to do anymore.

Yes, everyone will have access to the first few paragraphs of a story, with internet ads flashing in the boundaries. But a large percentage of internet readers will desire more in-depth information. They will want the information and stories that only hard work, research and beating the pavement can provide. Something very few bloggers, TV stations or gossip rags are wont -- or even able -- to do.

So will these "new" newspapers destined to compete against the likes of monthly magazines such as US News and others? Yes. Do they have what it takes? Probably. Will people pay for in-depth, credible reporting on hidden stories they can't find anywhere else? Yup. Always have.

The carpet that's being yanked from under newspapers isn't capability or medium. Its monopoly. Soon they're be competing against folks that can publish worldwide almost for free. But now so can newspapers.

The folks that succeed online (at least in this near-term of hyper-competition to build a customer following) will be the ones that go back to "old-school" journalism. In-depth reporting of news, political scandals and information that is there but must be dug up.

Getting the news that no one has is a requisite step, but there's another, more important resource, one that is not available for the taking, but must instead be grown and nutured in-house: Integrity.

That's how the large newspapers beat their previous competitors to get to where they are today. It is just as important for fighting their way to the top in this new media.

Hard news, research and integrity. The basics. He who provides it will rise to the top, at least in the near term... before monopoly and laziness again take over.

Those that don't offer hard news and integrity will be just another blog, much like this one.

Heck, you don't even know me. Why should you believe a word of this? Would you believe it more if it came from a respected New York Times Journalist?

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Job Americans Don't Want

I've developed a quick test to detect jobs Americans don't want. It's actually very easy. Here's how:


Take your job for example. Would you stay at your job if they stopped offering 401k? Would you stay if they cancelled health insurance? Would you stay if they they cancelled all paid time off.. and sick leave? Vacation? Retirement?

Would you stay at your job if they cut your pay by 1/3? By 1/2? How about by 2/3?

When you interview for your next job, will you accept the same offer?

Suprise! You're the one who doesn't want to work!


You're also currently overpaid. Dramatically overpaid. Pick up an almanac. Odds are you can point your finger at a country full of people with your job skill that will be more than willing to take your job for 1/10th your pay. Can't find that country? Jesus! Did you fail geography too? You ARE overpaid!

How did this country manage to get by for so long overpaying you so much? You fucking scum.

Now get back to work... before we take away your 30-minute lunch "hour".

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Iraq: A Proposal for Compromise

No matter how bad it gets in Iraq, one thing is certain: George Bush will continue to deny the state of affairs and insist that its not as bad as it looks. All the while coninuing the same course of action.

At first we were to accept only victory. Now we're down to "progress".

I propose a compromise:

Let's pull out the troops and declare "victory". Let's be honest, no matter what happens in Iraq, the pro-war supporters will claim "victory". If we pull them out now, the troops will be home, not much will change in Iraq and pro-war folks have their victory now rather than later. Meanwhile, W can continue to give speeches about how good things are going in Iraq.

Everyone happy, no?

Whores and Congress

to paraphrase Mark Twain, "but I repeat myself".

------------------------

I'm starting to resent the repeated references to Congress as "whores".

In defense of whores, whores only sell what is *theirs*.

Congress, on the other hand, is selling what is ours. And it is we that are getting "screwed".

If only Congress were populated by whores. Perhaps then they'd only be selling themselves for profit and not us.

Jackson's Horse Allegory

Found it on the internet, so it must be true, right?

The Independent Institute

"The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

In law firms, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following: buying a stronger whip; changing riders; saying things like 'this is the way we have always ridden this horse'; appointing a committee to study the horse; arranging to visit other firms to see how they ride dead horses; increasing the standards to ride dead horses; declaring that the horse is better, faster, and cheaper dead; and finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed."

-- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 16 February 1999, in the courtroom after lunch on the second day of testimony from Microsoft's Brad Chase.

The Second-Best Sales Job Ever

I recently began to more fully appreciate religion. What a fantastic concept.. at least from a sales perspective. Think of it!

The Pitch:
You give me something tangible ( money, food, clothing, etc. ) and in exchange I will promise you X after you die.

Billions of people every day are sold a better existence that doesn't kick in until after they die.

"We've had no complaints yet."


So what is *The Best* sales job ever?

"Go kill yourself by exploding a bomb strapped to your body, and in return you'll get..."

That's right. The sales person is too lazy to even bother to help you into the next world. You have to do it yourself. Talk about crappy customer service.

In my mind, I can hear Michael Palin's halting but somehow soothing voice delivering the pitch:
"Oh, yeah, well by the way: you'll er.. How do I put this tactfully? You see, in order to actually collect, you'll need to blow yourself up. We really can't be seen as involved. Bad press and all. Its such a personal thing, really. Just think of it as going out on your own terms, so to speak..."


Western religions, be on notice; you're losing the sales war.

Two More Truisms

Two more truisms from "The Talent Show":

( I added the emphasis in the second paragraph ).


Which is where most Republicans would start talking about tax "reform" as if raising the taxes of the poor is going to help someone who isn't even lucky enough to live paycheck to paycheck. If businesses insist on paying immigrants shit, the least they should do is pass along the difference to help offset they problem they're creating. Better yet, they should stop being allowed to break the law and save a few bucks. Or to paraphrase something I wrote earlier, breaking the law should always be more expensive than obeying it.

We've got a serious immigration problem in this country that's the fault of businesses who have shifted jobs from American workers to illegal immigrants and the goverment that's looked the other way for decades. The idea that the President and his allies want to codify this second class of workers (and solidify the division between the two) shows you how out of touch he is with working men and women. The struggle in the streets of Los Angeles and elsewhere isn't one between immigrants and Americans, but between the working class and the business/government entities that are looking for new avenues to cheap labor, even if it means exploiting ethnic tensions to turn people against each other.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Port Security Outsourced to Chinese

W slept through the entire attempted CNOOC (Chinese national oil) takover of a major share of American petroleum production and the subsequent rejection. Strangely, W lept out of bed and announced two (Two! Veto, even! ) threats of veto if the Dubai ports deal were outlawed?

Well contrary to past Republican opinion of the deal, looks like W et.al. have decided to outsource only the most critical portions of port security this time.
( How do they manage to keep screwing up like this? Is there a crack team inside the administration dedicated to stupid maneuvers? )

Josh Marshall at TPM

We need to oursource W.

Saddam "official" met with Osama!

More excuses from Andrew Sullivan:

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio."



Saddam authorized officials to meet with Osama?

Umm... didn't the CIA more or less *train* Osama in the Afghanni war against the (country formerly known as) U.S.S.R.? I guess sending him tons of dough, stinger missiles and terrorist training followed by turning him loose after the Soviet pull-out is less damning than a "meeting"?

Do we invade Virginia next? I have it on good sources that there are WMDs in the area...

I'm not an America basher. We had good reasons for fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Turning Osama loose after that... maybe not so smart.

Invading some other piss-ant country as a diversion from getting the *real* guy. Stupid.

Stop trying to justify the Iraq war. It was wrong. Stop it with the "but ... but.. " it just undermines your integrity. It was overhyped. America was duped.

Let's dump this nightmare that we elected, capture Osama and use his cell as the cornerstone of the new Trade Center.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

American Taliban II

From Savage Love:

Straight Rights Update: Earlier this month, Republicans in South Dakota successfully banned abortion in that state. Last week, the GOP-controlled state house of representatives in Missouri voted to ban state-funded family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control. "If you hand out contraception to single women," one Republican state rep told the Kansas City Star, "we're saying promiscuity is okay." On the federal level, Republicans are blocking the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.

The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're going to have those babies, ladies, and you're going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen. And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.

What's it going to take to get a straight-rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas is seeking to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God's sake! Wake up and smell the freaking Holy War, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!



Banning abortions, banning birth control, banning vaccines for cerivcal cancer... fucking ridiculous.

Let's go ahead and push this to the logical next level: let's hit the guys. When they're finished putting the women "back in the kitchen" who will they turn to next? Bans of pre-marital sex, looking at women, porn, masturbation, pulling out early... CONDOMS?

Do these people really have so little to occupy their tiny minds that they spend all day worrying about the sex lives of people they don't even know?

Let's make it crystal-freakin' clear exactly what these assholes are: American Taliban.

Why do these conservatives loathe Islam so much when they share so many of its goals?

The Base

In almost every news article that mentions George W. Bush, the article invariably mentions Bush being concerned with "his base". Nurturing "the base", paying attention to "the base", etc.

Does it strike anyone as unusual that the translation of "al Qaeda" is "The Base"?

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Bush Surrenders; Troops Stay Put

Huffington Post


Davis Sweet Wed Mar 22, 12:30 AM ET


Today, we saw our commander-in-cheap sell our fighting forces to the political machine. "Future presidents," he says, "and (wink-wink) governments of
Iraq" will clean up his screw-up. He's going to nap for the remainder of his term, secure in the belief that America's discount democracy will choose someone competent next time around.

Bush has morphed from chicken-hawk to chicken-chicken, abrogating his responsibility to protect and defend the place because it's just too taxing to do the work it'd take get our soldiers home. Only this time, unlike his fratboy scooch out of Indochina, there's not just one soldier going in his place (my money's on Marine PFC D. C. Carter, born a month after Bush in New Haven, Connecticut, killed November 12, 1969, Panel 16W, Line 62 on the memorial). There's over a hundred thousand at a time, rotating in and out -- or, frequently, right back in -- originally on a fool's errand; now just on indefinite hold until somebody comes along with presidential authority and a desire to get them home with all the parts they started with.

This Bonzo has tried to fight two wars on the cheap. He sent an embarrassingly light force into
Afghanistan to get the cave-mad "mastermind" who god-conned nineteen fanatics into offing themselves and as many American non-warriors as they could. The supposed strategy: buy off the already-fighting locals, horse feed being cheaper than coordinated bombing raids, and have them fight the war. The glaring hole in the head: the other guys buy off the same locals, and we end up with an escaped Public Enemy Number One, a prison camp full of farmers, and, all right, a nice oil pipeline.

On to Iraq, where the coalition of the cheap took out a local thug in three weeks. Cool! Pop the airhead, and feel the thrilling whoosh of the power vacuum. That'll be 1.7 billion dollars, please. Drive ahead.

Oh, we have to be the cops now? We have to be the strongman holding together the imaginary state? Well, as long as we can do it with underwhelming force and it only takes a decade. Won't the oil pay for it by then anyway? Well, according to the just-FOIA'ed prewar "plans" from the felonious Iraqi exiles and Cheney's flying monkeys in the "Future of Iraq" scam, there's not even enough oil capacity per year in that place to pay for two months of the cheap-ass invasion. (Fave quote: "...effective use of Iraq's resources (oil) [is key] to Iraq's future stability..." p. 40 of the "Defense" PDF) They estimated the country could spurt about ten billion bucks' worth, per annum, into our gaping SUVs, vs. the 6 billion a month it costs us to keep our guys and gals in the Halliburton chow line. Three more years, minimum, says we'll send another 200 billion chasing the 251 billion we'll have thrown down by the end of this month. For securing potential oil revenues in the 100 billion dollars a decade range, I think this deal blows.

How 'bout we invade Kansas, take their soybeans and flax, make biodiesel, and... whoops, started imagining plans where our soldiers don't get their limbs scattered. What country was I thinking?

Anyway, after this latest wimp Bush Wal-Marts the global struggle/war against violent sloganeering, he trembles when the bill arrives. I call bullshit. You don't get to just throw up your hands and cower behind Lady Liberty's skirts when there are real people patrolling your IED- and mine-infested war game.

Isn't there a natural point where the surrender monkey has to give up the reins of the war horse? Where he doesn't get to control the lid on the rapidly boiling combat zones, trapping our men and women in his mistakes like so many lobsters back at the ranch in Connecticut?

There may be, as the war-cheerleaders say, no good options in Iraq. The official leader of the force lying down on the job, though, is a no-good option for sure.

NOTA

Ok, so finally many people are starting to realize that our last (two) selections for president were... shall we say... not ideal.

We've known for a long time that nearly every other official that's been elected has been more interested in corruption than making our town/county/state/country better.

So what to do to fix this?

Well, the ideal thing to do would be to select only qualified individuals for office in the first place and watch them like a hawk. First hint of conflict of interest, we throw the bums out.

Unfortunately, not only is there no way to accomplish this, its unlikely that the method(s) would be adopted even if we could figure out a way to do it.

I've got a different (though probably not new) idea: None Of The Above.

Right now, each of the two parties slaughters a goat, examines the entrails on a new moon and selects the person with the most money as their new "candidate".

Don't like the selection? Then vote for the 3rd party candidate.

Ha ha ha ha. Had you there, didn't I? With a few exceptions, there's really no better than either of the two "primary" choices. Just usually more poorly funded.

So most people give up in frustration and just stay home.

We all know what its like when they hold an election and no one shows. Most voter turn-out rates hover near 25%. But it doesn't have to be that way. What if you didn't like any of the choices and could vote your mind? That's what NOTA would signal: None Of The Above.

If NOTA won the majority, then the parties would be forced to go back to the drawing board. Hopefully, once they were embarrassed by this a few times, we would start to see better offerings.

I'm under no delusion that NOTA will be welcomed by any of the folks involved in administering elections. But if you have the opportunity to vote for a write-in candidate and you don't like the options given, write in "None Of The Above".

And tell your friends. Maybe we can start turning this thing around.

Jane Sums It Up

Jane Smiley gives the newly-converted Bush haters ( the slow folks? ) a well-deserved thrashing.

In my opinion, she started drifting off the subject there for a while, so as a free service ( ;-) I offered my "tightened up" version here. It consists of a simple snip of a few 'graffs in the middle.

While I'm at it, I should also note that I differ from her WRT Sandra Day O'Conner as well. I'm not familiar with S.D.O's support for Bush either explicit or implicit. Maybe someone can enlighten me?



Huffington Post




Jane Smiley Wed Mar 22, 1:58 AM ET

Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley,
Sandra Day O'Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush's faith-based reality seem, right now, to be glorying in your outrage, which is always a pleasure and feels, at the time, as if it is having an effect, but those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.

1. Bush doesn't know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and support him. No degree of relationship (father, mother, etc.), no longstanding friendly intercourse (Jack Abramoff), no degree of expertise (Brent Scowcroft), no essential importance (
Tony Blair, American voters) makes any difference. There is nothing you have to
offer that makes Bush want to know you once you have come to disagree with him. Your opinions and feelings now exist in a world entirely external to the mind of George W. Bush. You are now just one of those "polls" that he pays no attention to. When you were on his side, you thought that showed "integrity" on his part. It doesn't. It shows an absolute inability to learn from experience.

2. Bush doesn't care whether you disagree with him. As a man who has dispensed with the reality-based world, and is entirely protected by his handlers from feeling the effects of that world, he is indifferent to what you now think is real. Is the
Iraq war a failure and a quagmire? Bush doesn't care. Is global warming beginning to affect us right now? So what. Have all of his policies with regard to
Iran been misguided and counter-productive? He never thinks about it. You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question? It doesn't matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or, most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you, he's not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to him. You cannot change his mind. Nine percent of polled Americans would agree with attacking Iran right now. To
George Bush, that will be a mandate, if and when he feels like doing it, because...

3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a "sense of entitlement". Bush is a man who has never been anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and cajoled into being president of the United States through his connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own purposes. He has a surface charm that appeals to a certain type of American man, and he has used that charm to claim all sorts of perks, and then to fail at everything he has ever done. He did not complete his flight training, he failed at oil investing, he was a front man and a glad-hander as a baseball owner. As the Governor of Texas, he originated one educational program that turned out to be a debacle; as the President of the US, his policies have constituted one screw-up after another. You have stuck with him through all of this, made excuses for him, bailed him out. From his point of view, he is perfectly entitled by his own experience to a sense of entitlement. Why would he ever feel the need to reciprocate? He's never had to before this.

4.
President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil, you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and
Abu Ghraib, the
Terry Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty, preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants because you have let him.

5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation. I once knew a guy who was still a Marxist in 1980. Whenever I asked him why Communism had failed in Russia and China, he said "Mistakes were made". He could not believe that Marxism itself was at fault, just as you cannot believe that the ideology of the unregulated free market has created the world we live in today. You are tempted to say: "Mistakes have been made", but in fact, psychologically and sociologically, no mistakes have been made. The unregulated free market has operated to produce a government in its own image. In an unregulated free market, for example, cheating is merely another sort of advantage that, supposedly, market forces might eventually "shake out" of the system. Of course, anyone with common sense understands that cheaters do damage that sometimes cannot be repaired before they are "shaken out", but according to the principles of the unregulated free market, the victims of that sort of damage are just out of luck and the damage that happens to them is just a sort of "culling". It is no accident that our government is full of cheaters--they learned how to profit from cheating when they were working in corporations that were using bribes, perks, and secret connections to cheat their customers of good products, their neighbors of healthy environmental conditions, their workers of workplace safety and decent paychecks. It was only when the corporations began cheating their shareholders that any of you squealed, but you should know from your own experience that the unregulated free market as a "level playing field" was the biggest laugh of the 20th century. No successful company in the history of capitalism has ever favored open competition. When you folks pretended, in the eighties, that you weren't using the ideology of the free market to cover your own manipulations of the playing field to your own advantage, you may have suckered yourselves, and even lots of American workers, but observers of capitalism since Adam Smith could have told you it wasn't going to work.

[snip]

Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of those who profess them.

6. As Bad as Bush is, Cheney is Worse.

Monday, March 13, 2006

To Andrew Sullivan

I'm not trying to attack you. I agree with a lot of your opinions and I have a high regard for your willingness to admit mistakes. But you seem to be allowing this "no one could have predicted the lack of WMDs" argument to distract you from our current situation in Iraq.

You seem quite happy to point out that "before the war, no one could prove there were no WMDs".

Putting the onus on anti-invasion arguments to prove a negative was a brilliant rhetorical sucess for the administration.

Your argument implies that since no one could prove there were no WMDs prior to invasion, no one could have predicted we wouldn't find them.

Pro-WMD evidence was just as flimsy as the "evidence" of a Saddam/Al Queda link. Many people interpreted the Ron Popeil hard-sell for invasion as an indication that something else was afoot. Many also suspected that WMDs were a misdirection towards the larger red hering that was Iraq. How did invading Iraq bring us immediately closer to our main goal: the capture of Bin Laden?

Those that dared voice these concerns were attacked as anti-American -- denunciation of skepticism being another indicator of an argument's intellectual dubiousness. Joseph Wilson's case shows that these vicious attacks were vetted and supported by the administration just as surely and ruthlessly as torture is abided today.

The WMD evidence was insufficient to justify invasion. It was then and remains so now.

Since no one could prove there were no WMD in Iraq, you seem to be using this "failure" to somehow justify continuing the current course in Iraq.

Iraq was a long shot but winning was possible. Due to many factors, including the gross incompetence with which the affair was and continues to be handled, it is all but certainly now doomed to failure.

You are now in a position similar to when you supported the invasion. You are allowing your desire for a certain end to cloud your judgement of evidence. Things are not going well in Iraq and no amount of "well, its not a civil war *yet*" will cause things to improve.

To win, the administration must

1) Measure the current situation
2) admit there are problems
3) determine what those problems are
4) create solutions
5) implement them.

Unfortunately the adminstration has no history of 1or 2, let alone any of the rest.

You see the evidence against your current conclusion (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/fire_rumsfeld.html) but you just can't let go of the hope that a miracle may be in the future. God helps those who help themselves. The administration's ineptitude is hurting any chance of success.

After the end is known and the administration continues to blame the media for the failure, will you then state that no one could have known we would fail?

Friday, March 10, 2006

Ch..ch..changes...

God's going through a lot right now. Deepak Chopra points out that the rise in fundamentalism may be a response to the declining power of religion overall:

intentblog

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Working Hard or Hardly Working?

I'm just trying to imagine the folks that developed this software. Every time someone walked up to their desk they had to say something like, "Seriously, dude. I'm doing work!"

Where were websites like this when I was a kid?

(NFW):
Shockabsorber.co.uk

Friday, March 03, 2006

Those That Fail to Learn From History...

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” - Winston Churchill


Say, doesn't W have a Bachelor's in History from Yale?
George W. Bush's White House bio

India to finance Iraq War

Strange. Bush advocates sending jobs to India, yet doesn't mention that offshored jobs don't pay U.S. taxes. How is the US to finance the Iraq War? India doesn't seem keen to do it.

Perhaps we'll be able to finance the Iraq War through all the money we save on cheaper goods and services from abroad.


Reuters

Belief vs Reality

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
— George Orwell, “In Front of Your Nose.” 1946

Thursday, March 02, 2006

The Media's Competition

"The Media" has expressed concern over the rise of bloggers and is anxious that bloggers will be more successful.

How weak does one have to be to be worried that some random person with no credibility or integrity to speak of could post something to the web and steal trust from the mainstream media. Not only has the credibility of the mainstream media sunk to non-existent levels, they've just admitted it.

The Secret of Stewart

Did you hear that? Something strange has happened. The Daily Show, which doesn’t try to be anything but fake, has gained loyal fans because of its truthfulness.



Th e Mercury News


This quote says less about The Daily's Show's successes than the failures of "The Media"

I'm stupefied that "The Media" is so amazed at his ratings. Its simple folks: He actually questions what is going on. He doesn't just let his guests rattle off some bullshit unchallenged. He's not afraid to speak what every (educated) person is thinking: "Why is this crap allowed to continue?"

He's popular because he's the only "newssource" that isn't only concerned with selling koolaid. What he's showing is intelligence and integrity. Not to mention that the Republicans are having a hell of a time smearing him because he never claims to have any credibility in the first place.

All the Daily Show has to do is ask a few simple questions and dig into past video to reveal the current government and media for the idiots and liars they are. People these days fully believe that they can say anything because no one will take the time to review the footage and call them on it. Mostly they're right because "The Media" certainly doesn't. That's why The Media is foundering.

Again, the fears of the media belies their mediocrity. Stewart doesn't *claim* credibility, he *domonstrates* it.

And he's funny. Not crazy funny, but funny enough.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Presidential Criticism & Patriotism

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."


"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Bill Moyers: DeLay, Abramoff, and The Public Trust


Huffington Post


Bill Moyers Tue Feb 28, 8:48 PM ET

Back in the first Gilded Age, Boies Penrose was a United States senator from Pennsylvania who had been put and kept in office by the railroad tycoons and oil barons. He assured the moguls: "I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money... and out of your profits you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money."


Gilded Ages - then and now - have one thing in common: Audacious and shameless people for whom the very idea of the public trust is a cynical joke.

A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 70% of Americans believe lobbyists bribing members of Congress is the way things work. Findings like these underscore the fact that ordinary people believe their bonds with democracy are not only stretched but sundered.

You see the breach clearly with
Tom DeLay. As he became the king of campaign fundraising, the Associated Press writes, "He began to live a lifestyle his constituents back in Sugar Land would have a hard time ever imagining." Big corporations provided private jets to take him to places of luxury most Americans have never seen - places with "dazzling views, warm golden sunsets, golf, goose-down comforters, marble bathrooms and balconies overlooking the ocean." The AP reports that various organizations - campaign committees, political action committees, even a children's charity established by DeLay - paid over $1 million on hotels, restaurants, golf resorts and corporate jets in DeLay's behalf.

DeLay was a man on the move and on the take. But he needed help to sustain the cash flow. He found it in a fellow right wing ideologue named Jack Abramoff. Abramoff personifies the Republican money machine of which DeLay with the blessing of the House leadership was the major domo.
Just last month Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials, a spectacular fall for a man whose rise to power began 25 years ago with his election as Chairman of the College Republicans. Despite its innocuous name, the organization became a political attack machine for the Far Right and a launching pad for younger conservatives on the make. "Our job," Abramoff, then 22 years old, wrote after his first visit to the Reagan White House, "is to remove liberals from power permanently [from] student newspaper and radio stations, student governments, and academia." Karl Rove had once held the same job as chairman. So did Grover Norquist, who ran Abramoff's campaign. A youthful $200-a-month intern named Ralph Reed was at their side. These were the rising young stars of the conservative movement who came to town to lead a revolution and stayed to run a racket.

Abramoff made his name, so to speak, representing Indian tribes with gambling interests. As his partner he hired a DeLay crony named Michael Scanlon. Together they would bilk half a dozen Indian tribes who hired them to protect their tribal gambling interests from competition. Abramoff and Scanlon came up with one scheme they called "Gimme Five": Abramoff would refer tribes to Scanlon for grassroots public relations work, and Scanlon would then kick back about 50% to Abramoff, all without the tribes' knowledge. Before it was over the tribes had paid them $82 million dollars, much of it going directly into Abramoff's and Scanlon's pockets.

Some of the money went to so-called charities set up by Abramoff and DeLay that filtered money for lavish trips for members of Congress and their staff, as well as salaries for Congressional family members and DeLay's pet projects. And some of the money found its way to the righteous folks of the Christian Right.

It gets worse.

Some of Abramoff's money from lobbying went to start a non-profit organization called the U.S. Family Network. Nice name, yes? An uplifting all-American name, like so many others that fly the conservative banner in Washington. But the organization did no discernable grassroots organizing and its money came from business groups with no demonstrated interest in the "moral fitness" agenda that was the network's professed aim.

Let's call it what it was: a scam - one more cog in the money-laundering machine controlled by DeLay and Abramoff. A former top assistant founded the organization. DeLay's wife also got a sizeable salary.

Twenty five years ago Grover Norquist had said that "What Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs in Washington. Then this will be a different town."

Well, they got what they needed, and the arc of the conservative takeover of government has now been completed.

Here we come to the heart of darkness.

One of Abramoff's first big lobbying clients was the Northern Marianas Islands in the Pacific. After World War II the Marianas became a trusteeship of the
United Nations, administered by the U.S. Government under the stewardship of the Interior Department. We should all remember that thousands of Marines died there, fighting for our way of life and our freedoms. Now, the main island, Saipan, has become known as America's biggest sweatshop.

In 1998 a government report found workers there living in substandard conditions, suffering severe malnutrition and health problems and subjected to unprovoked acts of violence.

When these scandalous conditions began to attract attention, the sweatshop moguls fought all efforts at reform. Knowing that Jack Abramoff was close to Tom DeLay, they hired him to lobby for the islands. Conservative members of Congress lined up as Abramoff's team arranged for them to visit the islands on carefully guided junkets. They flew first-class, dined at posh restaurants, slept in comfort at the beachfront hotel, and returned to write and speak of the islands as "a true free market success story" and "a laboratory of liberty."

Abramoff took Tom DeLay and his wife there, too. DeLay practically swooned. He said the Marianas "represented what is best about America." He called them "my Galapagos" - "a perfect petri dish of capitalism."

For his services to the Marianas Jack Abramoff was paid nearly $10 million dollars. One of the sweatshop moguls with whom Abramoff was particularly close contributed half a million dollars to - you guessed it - Tom DeLay's U. S. Family Network.

To this day, workers on the Marianas are still denied the federal minimum wage while working long hours for subsistence income in their little "petri dish of capitalism" - "America at its best."

There are no victimless crimes in politics. The cost of corruption is passed on to you. When the government of the United States falls under the thumb of the powerful and privileged, regular folks get squashed.

Washington would have you believe this is just "a lobbying scandal." They would have you think that if they pass a few nominal reforms, put a little more distance between the politician and the lobbyist, you will think everything is okay and they can go back to business as usual.

They're trying it now. Just look at Congressman John Boehner, elected to replace Tom DeLay as House Majority Leader. Today he speaks the language of reform, but ten years ago Boehner was handing out checks from the tobacco executives on the floor of the House. He has thought nothing of hopping on corporate jets or cruising Caribbean during winter breaks with high-powered lobbyists.

Moreover, the man Boehner beat to succeed DeLay - Congressman Roy Blunt - has been elected to DeLay's first job as Majority Whip despite being deeply compromised by millions upon millions of dollars raised from the same interests that bought off DeLay.

And what now of DeLay? He's under indictment for money laundering in Texas, but the other day the party bosses in Congress gave him a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, and - are you ready for this? - they put him on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department which is investigating the Abramoff scandal, including Abramoff's connections to DeLay.

Business as usual. The usual rot. The power of arrogance.

I have painted a bleak picture of democracy. I believe it is a true picture. But it is not a hopeless picture. Something can be done about it. Organized people have always had to take on organized money. If they had not, blacks would still be three-fifths of a person, women wouldn't have the vote, workers couldn't organize, and children would still be working in the mines. Our democracy today is more real and more inclusive than existed in the days of the Founders because time and again, the people have organized themselves to insist that America become "a more perfect union."

It is time to fight again. These people in Washington have no right to be doing what they are doing. It's not their government, it's your government. They work for you. They're public employees - and if they let us down and sell us out, they should be fired. That goes for the lowliest bureaucrat in town to the senior leaders of Congress on up to the President of the United States.

National Evolution

Many in politics seem to be persuing conflicting goals.

For instance, many would like to enjoy the lower prices that are a product of "offshoring" but rail against the "socialist" programs of Europe. Many use Europe as a subject for derision for its low employment, socialized medicine and "lazy" lifestyle.

Yet in many ways, nations evolve in a pattern. At one time a young, whipper-snapper nation stole sensitive textile manufacturing technologies from Europe and undermined Europe's dominance of textiles. This brought the benefits of lower prices and much-needed income to a growing nation.

Now it's America's turn. We've long admitted defeat in low-cost textile manufacturing and are currently giving away manufacturing and technology to developing nations. In this coming decade we can fully expect to see other technologies -- such as medicine and research -- quickly moving to developing countries as it becomes "too expensive" to do here. In many ways this pattern is as inevitable as the tide and perhaps we would be just as successful in fighting it.

Europe has long ago given up these standards to America. Now it seems that it's America's turn.

Perhaps Europe isn't failing so much as simply evolving ahead of us.

Perhaps we should begin to accept that major changes are in order for an American society with no development or production base. Perhaps the Europe we know now is a result of moving to a "service economy".

We might start considering now how an America with no production or research leadership can carry the rest of its society. Learn from the Europe that has gone before us.. or start fighting the tide now.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

A "Cheney Facial"

Clinton was most certainly a bastard for wrecking the lives of (relatively) innocent women in efforts to cover his dalliances. Exercising complete contempt for the third branch of government by committing perjury when a simple "I take the 5th" would do was also definitely wrong.

But in light of Dick Chenney's latest actions you've got to give Clinton a bit of credit: at least his facials could be easily wiped off with a damp cloth.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Cheney Shoots Whittington

So I'm wondering, how long do you think it will be until Cheney's Secret Service agents stop sniggling, "Shotgun!" every time Cheney gets into a car?

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Our Detached Leader

Kathleen Reardon provided an interesting description of Our Leader:

Huffington Post


Kathleen Reardon: The Detached Leader: A Dangerous Oxymoron

Kathleen Reardon Tue Nov 29, 5:35 PM ET

There is no such thing as a detached leader. There are detached followers, going along to get along. The “leader” who doesn’t listen is the leader who doesn’t learn. This is a frightening being convinced of its own flawlessness, intolerant and disdainful of disagreement. People like this are chosen for leadership when we fall for the bravado – the conviction charade – the walk, the talk, the condescension and indifference. Sometimes it’s the dress and demeanor. Other times it’s the connections or family name. Occasionally, they just sneak in before we notice. We see such “leaders” chatting with “the folks” in contrived settings after modern day sophists have arranged what will be said to whom and for how long. Nothing is natural and so nothing is honest. It’s the kind of “leadership” Peter Drucker repeatedly warned against.


No matter how much Republicans blame the “liberals” for making
George Bush look bad, the truth is that he never looked good – not as a leader. We now have in the highest office in the land a man who is a walking antithesis to the demands of the time. He doesn’t communicate. Delegate and disappear is his leadership style. We wait for him to snap out of it, to explain the war or the plan, but he can’t stop sneering, patronizing, demeaning, or taking delight in the mere completion of a speech. He loves the trappings of power, the multiple flags, and the nodding uniformed legions standing expressionless at his back. It’s a stage set for substance -- a moment in time when another type of leader might reach out.

But before we blame all the detachment on George, or mistakenly consider him the cause, we need to see how insidious the spread of this illness in the name of leadership has become in our culture. Nora Ephron writes that Bob Woodward is so above other journalists that his special treatment and exemption from the rules is to be expected. He is not one of us, you see. He has passed over that line where seekers of truth become hoarders of truth. And, of course, we are supposed to accept this as the rightful domain of his ilk -- those who no longer need a political compass. Cunningham, DeLay, Libby and a host of other believers in detachment also thought they owed us nothing. Then there are the media elites so comfortable attacking the “political elites.” They have cute names for the rest of us like “the folks.” We are the great out-there little people whose very lives can be sacrificed with little remorse in the service of their latest misadventure. They twist recommendations from military heroes into calls for surrender to bolster the illusion of their exceptional wisdom. We see this superior attitude at every turn. We live with the effects everyday. Many are obsessed with whether we can say “Merry Christmas,” but don’t mind taking tax cuts that keep others from having one. It’s a vile detachment disorder possessed by disturbed organisms smitten by power, totally out of touch, taking names, making lists, and never taking responsibility.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

She "supports the troops"

But only the non-retired variety:

The Washington Post
Freshman Republican Weathers Backlash
Schmidt Says She Meant No Insult to Murtha

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03

Rep. Jean Schmidt flung the word "coward" at a decorated war veteran from Pennsylvania last week, but the Ohio Republican's comments landed with a splat in her own Cincinnati district, where some supporters are backing away as she scrambles to explain what she meant.

Judging by her words yesterday -- the first after avoiding the public for three days -- Schmidt doesn't understand what the fuss is about, and sees herself more as victim than villain. "I am amazed at what a national story this has become," she said in a statement. "I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."


"There's no way that I remotely tried to impugn his character," Rep. Jean Schmidt said of her remarks on the House floor directed to Rep. John P. Murtha during debate on Iraq war policy.

Many people are unsympathetic. NBC's "Saturday Night Live" lampooned her, the Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial page -- which endorsed her congressional bid -- said she was "way out of line," and the friend she claimed to be quoting on the House floor last week declared yesterday that he had said no such thing.

Schmidt, Congress's newest member, vaulted from obscurity with inflammatory comments during a House debate over whether to promptly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, as has been proposed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha is a 31-year House veteran and longtime military hawk who fought in Vietnam and Korea as a Marine.

Schmidt said in her brief speech: "A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

The chamber exploded in boos and catcalls from Democrats, and within minutes Schmidt had withdrawn her words and sent a note of apology to Murtha. But waters were still roiling when she went home Saturday to start a two-week congressional recess.

Schmidt stayed largely out of sight until yesterday, when she issued her statement and spoke with reporters. "There's no way that I remotely tried to impugn his character," she said in a telephone interview. She said she was simply trying to register her strong belief that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until their mission is completed.

Noting that criticism has poured in via phone calls, e-mails and TV reports, she said in her statement: "I am quite willing to suffer those attacks if in the end that policy I so strongly oppose is exposed as unsound. First and foremost, I support the troops. They dodge bullets and bombs while I duck only hateful words."

Bubp, a GOP state legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer, had campaigned for Schmidt. He put out his own statement yesterday: "The comments and concerns I shared with Congresswoman Schmidt were never meant as a personal reference to Mr. Murtha. . . . We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to ever disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation." Bubp, through a spokeswoman, declined an interview request.

Schmidt recalls their Friday phone conversation somewhat differently. "I wrote down what he was saying," she said in the interview. "He did ask me to send a message to Congress, and he also said send a message to 'that congressman.' He did not know that congressman's name, but I did. Neither one of us knew he was a Marine."

Schmidt said she had not noticed the numerous references to Murtha's military background in the newspaper, radio and TV accounts of his troop-withdrawal proposal, made Thursday. "They keep us pretty busy," she said.

Paul Hackett, a veteran of the Iraq war who lost the August special election to Schmidt, said her comments on the House floor "were at best irresponsible and at worst grossly unpatriotic." Hackett, who has sharply criticized President Bush's Iraq war policy, is running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, but some Democrats are trying to talk him into a rematch against Schmidt.

Opponents had dubbed her "Mean Jean" for the sharp tongue she wielded in the August campaign to replace Rob Portman (R), the new U.S. trade representative. Bubp campaigned for her in his Marine dress uniform, rebuking Hackett for criticizing "their commander in chief."

Yesterday, Schmidt said she hoped the hubbub will have faded by the time Congress reconvenes next month. Asked if she would change anything if she could do it over again, she replied: "I wouldn't have used Congressman Murtha's name."

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

US: Torture = OK

Funny how you don't see the US criticising China over torture these days. Wonder why?

The Washington Post has revealed evidence of CIA torture centers around the world, including in the former Eastern Bloc. A friend pointed out how the administration's first reaction wasn't "That's not true" but "Who leaked that?"

What a sad place the Bush administration has taken us. "Proud to be an American" is getting to be a tougher song to sing, no?

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The Religious Right and your health

Dan Savage
Savage Love
November 9th, 2005



STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: As I mentioned a few months ago, a vaccine for two of the most common strains of HPV, the virus that causes genital warts, is currently moving through the federal approval process. HPV can also cause cervical cancer in women, and the cancers caused by the virus kill 4,000 American women every year. Who could possibly be against the introduction of a vaccine—one that has proven 100 percent effective in clinical tests!—that will save thousands of women's lives every year? Those "culture of life" assfucks, that's who.

"A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates [and] social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity," the Washington Post reported last week. Doctors want teenage girls to receive the vaccine as a matter of routine when they hit puberty, something the religious right opposes. "Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage... 'I've talked to some who have said, "This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,"' said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations." (To his credit, Rudd said he would want his daughters vaccinated.)

The right's abstinence message has bigger problems than this vaccine. Studies have shown that young men and women are still having premarital sex—no shit—despite the billions of dollars the Bush administration has poured into abstinence education. A study conducted at Texas A&M University found that kids who've been subjected to abstinence-only sex education, the right's preferred brand, have more sex than kids who aren't subjected to abstinence-only sex education. So what the right is saying is this: We're willing to kill American women in order to avoid "sabotaging" our ineffectual abstinence-only message. Nice.

Who ultimately gets to determine the government's position on the HPV vaccine? Thanks to George W. Bush, the Christian fundies do. From the Washington Post: "The jockeying [around the HPV vaccine] reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus On The Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used." W stands for women—that's what he told us when he ran for president. But, hey, it wasn't a lie. George W. Bush never said anything about standing for live women.

I've said it before, straight folks, and I'll say it again: The right-wingers and the fundies and the sex-phobes don't just have it in for the queers. They're coming for your asses too.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Equivocation (ee-kwv-kshn)

Anyone out there hearing similarities between this guy:


White House spokesman Scott McClellan




and this guy?

Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf



Let's try again:

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"


or

Q Scott, why did the administration feel it was necessary to coach the soldiers that the President talked to this morning in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I don't know what you're suggesting.

Q Well, they discussed the questions ahead of time. They were told exactly what the President would ask, and they were coached, in terms of who would answer what question, and how they would pass the microphone.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that what our troops were saying was not sincere, or what they said was not their own thoughts?

Q Nothing at all. I'm just asking why it was necessary to coach them.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the event earlier today, the event was set up to highlight an important milestone in Iraq's history, and to give the President an opportunity to, once again, express our appreciation for all that our troops are doing when it comes to defending freedom, and their courage and their sacrifice. And this is a satellite feed, as you are aware, and there are always technological challenges involved when you're talking with troops on a satellite feed like this. And I think that we worked very closely with the Department of Defense to coordinate this event. And I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect.

Q But we asked you specifically this morning if there would be any screening of questions or if they were being told in any way what they should say or do, and you indicated no.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's what the question was earlier today. I think the question earlier today was asking if they could ask whatever they want, and I said, of course, the President was — and you saw —

Q And I asked if they were pre-screened.

MR. McCLELLAN: You saw earlier today the President was trying to engage in a back-and-forth with the troops. And I think it was very powerful what Lieutenant Murphy was saying at the end of that conversation, when he was talking about what was going on in January, how the American troops and coalition forces were in the lead when it came to providing security for the upcoming election, an election where more than eight million Iraqis showed up and voted. It was a great success.

And he talked about how this time, when we had the preparations for the upcoming referendum this Saturday, you have Iraqi forces that are in the lead, and the Iraqi forces are the ones that are doing the planning and preparing and taking the lead to provide for their own security as they get ready to cast their ballots again.

Q But I also asked this morning, were they being told by their commanders what to say or what to do, and you indicated, no. Was there any prescreening of —

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any such — any such activities that were being undertaken. We coordinated closely with the Department of Defense. You can ask if there was any additional things that they did. But we work very closely with them to coordinate these events, and the troops can ask the President whatever they want. They've always been welcome to do that.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Bush Telconference with Soldiers Staged

Bush's desperation just keeps getting creepier:

AP


WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions
President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in
Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.
ADVERTISEMENT

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."