No

MONDAY 08.16.04 / 9:58 PM / LINK

So Kerry was off by a month or two...

Can you remember exactly when you were wherever you were 35 years ago? And if you were off by a month or two in your calculations would you be a bad person? Come on...

The thing to really consider in all this BS is that George Bush really wasn't anywhere near Cambodia back then. Not on Christmas or Halloween, for that matter. Nor was he hangin' around Vietnam --north or south. He wasn't buzzing Hanoi, or flying off and onto carriers in the Tonkin Gulf. Nah, Mr. silver spoon (as opposed to Mr. Bronze Star) was, at that time, not showing up for cream-puff Air National Guard duty back in the states.

Kevin Drum clears the smear up here. So all you smear mongers SHUT UP! as Bill O'Rielly likes to say.

Citing Kerry's biographer, Douglas Brinkley, Drum sums it up: "So let me get this straight. Kerry did go to Cambodia — even though that was supposedly impossible, he did take CIA guys in — even though that was supposedly absurd, and he did get a hat from one of them — even though that was supposedly a sign of mental instability. The extent of Kerry's malfeasance is that instead of doing it in December, he actually did it in January and February."

TOP



08.16.04 / 7:10 AM / LINK

More Florida Voter Harrisment (sic)

The state police in Florida are busy busy Harrising black voters again, according to this commentary by Bob Herbert. I say "Harrising" instead of "harassing" because it's closer to the truth of the situation.

Remember this sweetie?


Herbert says, "State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd 'investigation' that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November."

The police say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud in the use of absentee ballots. If they were investigating Kathrine Harris they might be believable. But since most of the people interviewed in the "investigation" are elderly & black this stinks as much as the events of 2000.

If elections can be manipulated this easily out front, you've got to know there are really ugly maneuvers going on behind the scenes. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theory nut to hold that view.


TOP



SUNDAY 08.15.04 / 8:00 AM / LINK

Reactionary Judges

What do you call a judge who tries to "(club) a live Constitution to death", as suggested by Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Slate?

Lithwick calls them re-activist judges, as opposed to those activist liberal judges the right wing loves to excoriate. But since she's throwing the idea out for consideration, she says she's open to alternate terms.

Mine is "reactionary judges". I like reactionary because it has more negative impact than "re-activist". It approximates the negativity meant to be conveyed by the conservative's "activist liberal".

A dictionary definition of "reactionary" is:

adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress; extremely conservative. noun. An opponent of progress; an extreme conservative.

So someone who's reactionary would be someone who's more comfortable with the status quo (segregation, for instance, or discrimination against homosexuals) than with correction of it. It'd be someone who insists that the world be immutable (or close to it, as with creationists). It'd likely be someone who fears change. Someone who'd warn, "Don't rock the boat" or "Don't make waves" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

A reactionary judge, then, would be one with a mission to fix what he or she considered the ill-conceived fix of the activist liberal judge before him.

The left, these days, is getting wacked real good by the goons of Fox media, so it's about time the left learned how to use the language. As Lithwick lays out her modest proposal, "Let's invent a new term right here, today, for judges or judicial nominees on the right, who claim to be merely 'interpreting' the Constitution, even when they are refusing to impose settled law; law they deem unsettled because it was invented by 'liberal activist judges.' And while I am open to better suggestions, here's a tentative offering: 'Re-activist judges.' "

I call them reactionary judges.

The framers of the constitution were not reactionaries. Their world view was essentially liberal. Though they were too human in many ways and unable to make the perfect leap from their small world to the lofty one they envisioned (Jefferson's slave holdings, for example), they wrote a constitution that recognized the inevitability of change and made allowances for it. They created a document that actually undermined their more personal narrow perspectives. They instituted a judiciary to interpret law in specific cases over time. And they meant for those interpretations and decisions to mean something: to have the force of law by becoming the law of the land, and therefore, avoid the weakness of brittleness.

Reactionary judges, on the other hand, move in the opposite direction. As Lithwick puts it, for instance, "Re-activist judges have increasingly adopted the view that their personal religious convictions somehow obviate the constitutional divide between church and state. President Bush's recess appointment to the 11th Circuit, Bill Pryor, expended energy as attorney general of Alabama to support Judge Roy Moore in his quest to chisel the Ten Commandments directly into the wall between church and state. Pryor is entitled to be offended by case law barring government from establishing sectarian religion. But what re-activist judges may not do is use their government office to chip away at that doctrine."

If activist liberal judges are those who "re-write" the constitution to reflect the wisdom that time endows, then reactionary judges, are nothing more than activist conservative judges who re-write the living constitution as a means to return to simpler times when we called, say, a spade a spade.

Good article. Read it here.


Some articles on "activist judging":

Real Story: The Right-Wing “Activist Judge” Smear Campaign

Judging Discrimination

Proud "Activist" Judge

"Activist" Judges Targeted

Charles Pickering: Bush's Activist Judge

TOP





FRIDAY 08.13.04 / 6:57 AM / LINK

I own, therefore I am

To be fully American one must own. This is what George Bush suggests in a new campaign ad. As Paul Krugman notes, the new ads push "..the theme of an 'ownership society.' They conclude with President Bush declaring, 'I understand if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of America.' "

This, of course, has been the Bush domestic doctrine from day one --at least for anyone who doesn't carry their brain around in their wallet. True citizenship rests upon property. If you don't own something, you're less than U.S. Grade A material.

Krugman points out how this "understanding" underlies the administration's tax policy. He says, "The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off. But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. Last year Daniel Altman pointed out in The New York Times that Mr. Bush's proposals, if fully adopted, 'could eliminate almost all taxes on investment income and wealth for almost all Americans.' Mr. Bush hasn't yet gotten all he wants, but he has taken a large step toward a system in which only labor income is taxed.' "

Translation: only the poor and middle class will be taxed. Only the poor and the middle class will fund government. The same government that screwed them into being the only ones who are taxed in the first place. Neat huh?

But how can this be, given what Krugman calls,"the political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages (when) the vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then," he wonders, "can such a policy be sold?"

"By promising that everyone can join the elite," he answers.

The truth is, the so-called born-again Bush turns Abraham Lincoln on his head. This smug little scion of the elite has made it his life's work to make sure a government of the wealthy, for the wealthy, and by the wealthy shall not perish from the earth.

And the amazing things is, he's got a huge chunk of abjectly masochistic American screwees (about 45%) backing their own rape. Ah, the awesome power of media whores who's leading brothel is Fox News.

Read Krugman's article of the Bush Ponzi scheme here.


TOP





08.13.04 / 6:37 AM / LINK

The savage stubbornness of John Ashcroft

The reason governments fail has as much to do with the evaporation of compassion as with weak militaries. If John Ashcroft is a Christian he's a lousy advertisement for the religion.

A young Haitian man named David Joseph was caught two years ago in the gears of the Justice Departments 9/11 reflex. He's still lodged in it's cogs.

According to those who know, such as Selena Mendy Singleton, a vice president of TransAfrica Forum, a research and policy group that is among several organizations supporting Mr. Joseph's request for asylum, "He was fleeing persecution. He is not a threat to the community. He is not a terrorist. And he meets the criteria to be released on bond. David needs to be let out."

But John Ashcroft is worried that dealing fairly with David Joseph will encourage groups to seek asylum here which will threaten U.S. security. This self-proclaimed man of god says, "Sometimes individual treatment is important. Sometimes it's important to make a statement about groups of people that come."

The Romans liked to make those kinds of statements. And they punctuated their points with floggings and crucifixions.


TOP




08.13.04 / 6:26 AM / LINK

Another tardy mea culpa

Three months after the NY Times' slow-coming self-critique of it's pre-war reporting, the Washington Post finally comes clean.

Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks told (Post media critic Howard) Kurtz, "There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

But talk is cheap. The question is, are they doing their job right now?


TOP



THURSDAY 08.12.04 / 7:00 PM / LINK

There's too much confusion, and I can't get no relief...

No one would argue that the Bush administration does not want to be confused with (D)emocrats, but the frightening thing is they also don't seem to want to be confused with (d)emocrats.

What almost half the country has settled for during these last four years, and are apparently willing to settle for in the future, is a country run by American closet fascists who claim to be doing God's work.

When we're told we can't freely protest what we see as harmful to the nation, and nearly half the nation agrees, the liberty jig is simply up.

Dahlia Lithwick writes here about the political convenience of another confusion: regarding protest as terror.

TOP



WEDNESDAY 08.11.04 / 8:57 PM / LINK

Florida-proof voting machine

Here's a photo of a new voting machine that's been outlawed in Florida because even Republicans can't cheat with it.


TOP




08.11.04 / 8:57 PM / LINK

One big fat mistake

The war, that is.

Here's an article by Josh Marshall that goes through all the prewar arguments made my the administration and looks at them in the light of day. And he cites none other than conservative William Buckley as coming to the same conclusion:

George Bush's misadventure in Iraq was just one big fat miserable mistake.

TOP




08.11.04 / 7:09 AM / LINK

There will never be cheap oil again

Received an email from my friend Harry Walsh that begs attention:

In Newsweek, of all places, and in the Jane Bryant Quinn column, (of all places in of all places) there is a discussion of oil. Specifically, the discussion is about the coming peak of oil production. This is right around the corner, Jane says. She cites a book "Beyond Oil" (being written) which claims production will peak in 2005 and thereafter decline. Big Shot Oil knows this, which is why no new refineries are being built. There will be less oil to refine, not more. Here is a web site cited by Jane: I have just started to hunt around in it and it seems to be crammed with good information. There will never be cheap oil again. Competition with China and others for the remaining oil will keep the prices high and economies unstable. The beginning of the end of the oil age is upon us and the way change seems to accelerate when conditions are in change who knows how long it will be before some level of chaos is upon us. For me the issue right now, an admittedly small issue, is the house we own next door and recently rented to a young couple on limited income at what for here is a bit less than a reasonable price. The house has oil heat. Last Winter, if I remember correctly, oil dropped to as low as eighteen bucks a barrel and mostly stayed in the twenties and low thirties. Now, it is at forty five dollars a barrel. How the hell are the kids in my house going to pay for their heat? I can't even give them an estimate of what it will cost. This situation, low income people using oil heat, of course, will be repeated all over the colder parts of the country this year. My friend Jack, a legal services lawyer who handles landlord tenant relations, mostly defending tenants facing eviction, says he expects to be swamped this Winter with clients choosing heat and food over rent. (Without cheap oil there will be no cheap food) Anyway, seems like a topic you might wish to publish. Even a BBC report says oil production from all sources will peak somewhere between 2010 and 2030: "When the last oil well runs dry" here H.

TOP




08.11.04 / 7:03 AM / LINK

How to know if there is a God:

Having now eliminated the least dangerous threat of terrorism (Iraq -the Granada of anti-terrorist invasions) the Bush administration is now doing little about the greatest. According to Nicholas Kristof in today's Times we've got more pressing threats to focus upon. Nuclear threats.

Kristof says, "...many experts believe (a nuclear) attack, somewhere, is likely. The Aspen Strategy Group, a bipartisan assortment of policy mavens, focused on nuclear risks at its annual meeting here last week, and the consensus was twofold: the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it."

Just yesterday I heard an interview on NPR that contained much of the same info that Kristof's commentary does. And it was hair-raising. But George Bush is tangled up in his faith-mission to assure the world is safe for business and the Lord, so he's a little too preoccupied to address the problem of al-Qaeda with a nuke.

If George Bush is reelected the issue is settled: there is no God.


TOP




08.010.04 / 6:12 AM / LINK

The all spin zone

Not liking the new job numbers the White House has given the responsibility of explicating them to it's corps of whirling press dervishes. Paul Krugman takes apart what they're doing here.

Careful, don't get dizzy.

TOP




SUNDAY 08.08.04 / 9:01 AM / LINK

Getting better all the time?

Beatles tune:

It's getting better all the ti-i-ime.
Getting, getting, better...

This is the one George Bush has been singing to the nation.

Another one:

Help, I need someone, He-e-elp....

This is the one Kerry thinks we ought to be singing.

In the economic sphere commentator Thomas Oliphant thinks Kerry's singing the right tune. In today's Boston Globe Oliphant says, "The alleged recovery from the recession more than three years ago is sputtering, and the big shots in the financial and political world have neither seen the slowdown coming nor been able to explain it to worried Americans."

The present regime thinks a Superpower needs few friends. But world events and the international economy suggest maybe we ought to redefine "Superpower".

The rub: ideologist don't understand the concept "redefine".

Why we need help according to Oliphant:

"One fact is that the period of unprecedented stimulation is at an end. More credit card debt is not an option for the vast majority of Americans; neither is another round of home mortgage refinancings. And the tax cuts have stopped."

How things are getting better all the time for George, We've-Turned-the-Corner, Bush:

"On the other hand," say Oliphant, "corporate profits have soared, and businesses are flush with cash."

TOP




08.08.04 / 7:52 AM / LINK

Cat's away? The mice will play.

While the U.S. is busy conducting pre-emptive war in the mideast, China, free of political baggage, is trading it's ass loose in Africa.

In this article by Howard French in today's NY Times we read, "Experts in African affairs say that China's choices of partners and its diplomatic philosophy, which preaches noninterference in other countries' internal affairs, may have important consequences for Africa, especially at a time when Western countries seem largely preoccupied elsewhere."



Here's the picture. Nowadays, when the west is not exactly gushing with trade enthusiasm about what it used to call the "dark continent", China sees a lot of light there.

In fact, according to the Times, "China's trade with the African continent reached $18.5 billion in 2003, an increase of 50 percent since 2000, and it is on track for another big increase this year."

Part of what's going on here is that China takes a hand's-off approach in it's international business relationships. No pesky moral issues come into play. Human right violations? Not to worry, it's all strictly business. How a nation set's itself up politically and economically? Forgetaboutit.

As French reports, China's deputy foreign minister, Zhou Wenzhong, is pretty blunt. "Business is business," he said in a recent interview. "We try to separate politics from business. Secondly, I think the internal situation in the Sudan is an internal affair, and we are not in a position to impose upon them."

"Mr. Zhou went on to blame the West for many of Africa's problems, saying: 'You have tried to impose a market economy and multiparty democracy on these countries, which are not ready for it. We are also against embargoes, which you have tried to use against us."

Maybe, if the Bush administration understood the value of working with other nations, maybe if it had kept from spitting in the eye of allies, we wouldn't be so tangled in our combat-boot straps and would have time to put some of the moral capital we used to have to good use. Maybe we'd be an example to China of how to be a nation who's self interest is integral with international justice.


TOP




08.07.04 / 5:04 PM / LINK

Neutering the People

Call me paranoid, but this about cinches it. Business is taking over government. No, really.

This is the biggest heist-news ever, and everybody's tuned to the Fear factor or Fox, or the latest orange alert. As if you'd learn anything at Fox that had not first been savaged by Rupert Murdock's propagandist's claws.

In this article, Steven Barr of the Washington Post reports,

"Distribution centers for tax forms and publications in Richmond and in Rancho Cordova, Calif., will be closed, the Internal Revenue Service said yesterday.

"The IRS said 191 permanent and seasonal employees at the two warehouses will lose their jobs. A third IRS warehouse, in Bloomington, Ill., will remain open, but at least 82 seasonal employees there will face layoffs, the IRS said."

First IRS warehouses, then maybe its revenue collection mechanism?

"The IRS team and bidders from industry were asked to make their bids based on trend data that showed a 6 percent annual decline in workload at the distribution centers, said RaymonaStickell, director of the IRS office of competitive sourcing."

The IRS can't afford itself anymore because it's operating budget has been doled out to major contributors to the Republican Party (via tax cut mania).

The neoconservative plan: First Business (with the full backing of the Republican party and the masochistic half or the country) squeezes as much out of the sacred sow as possible using the "starve-the-beast" method: tax relief for the rich and famous. Then the corporate octopus, under private contract to a Republican congress, assumes government bureaucratic responsibilities, wraps it's tentacles around what's left, and starts siphoning off our administrative life-blood from the inside before it can be used to nourish people-friendly things like national health care insurance or public education.

But whittling down the IRS is a good thing, isn't it? It's every American's dream, for chrissake. It's traditional market theology. It's the next best thing to "one nation under God" even.

We can all do with less government, right? Government should not be a brake on business. Let business take it all. Sacrifice the whole friggin' fiefdom to the white whale. A free market jingoist's dream: wrap yourself in the flag and go down with the U.S.S. Pequod (aboard which money and muscle are identical, and ideology operates the tiller).

So here it is, the neoconservative's most fundamental creed The one being played out in real time as we speak:

What the neoconservative Bush administration most want is to neuter government.

This is the sum and total of the Bush administration's political faith and it's war on the people.

Because if democracy really is government-by-the-people and neconservatives desire, above all, to neuter government, then it stands to reason that what they're really after is to neuter the people.

It's bad enough to have the Pentagon outsourcing war, but to have corporate juice seep, like toxic runoff, into the the government revenue stream through private contracts --or in any capacity whatever, is really courting the end of democracy as we knew (sic) it.

Do the math. If Government has no muscle (money) because it's been dieted to oblivion by tax anorexia, and what's left is bled-off into still more private vaults by corporations managing outsourced national tax collection; then, ipso facto, Business would forever be kicking sand into the face of the people's constitutionally established 97 lb. weakling --an emasculated government "by-the-people". And since money buys air time as well as congress and presidents, money will be talking louder than ever. So loud in fact, we wouldn't even be able to hear ourselves cry. It's as simple as 1776 minus 1776.

In the United States we all know what really talks. We learn this by studying political teas leaves. Money, in fact has more freedom of speech than a free-thinker at a Bush rally, because no free thinker can make it past the Bush campaign Fealty Police (and here) to voice a rebuttal under any circumstances. We've been around the block a few times. We all know that in our neighborhood market goons respect only those who have the bulk of the bucks.

Is out-sourcing tax revenue collection on the horizon? Could be. And once Wall Street gets a firm suck on that stream of nutrients they'll be having the whole pork pie for dinner. At that point all elections will decided by the Supreme Court.

TOP