« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
Bumper Sticker Mania
This last summer I bought some bumper stickers from a website called dontblamemeivotedforkerry. My favorite one says, "stop using my religion to sell your politics." I've got that one in my rear window of my car.
So anyway I apparently didn't uncheck a box when I ordered the stickers because this afternoon I got an email from them touting their new stickers. They've got 13 pages of bumper stickers for sale. A few are offensive to me, but there are a handful of real zingers that cracked me up when I saw them a bit ago.
A small sampling:
Posted by Kevin at 09:23 PM |
Major speech? Let's make it a major motion picture!
That's all I have to say about that. Well, except STAY THE COURSE 9/11 PLAN FOR VICTORY THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT!
Posted by Jeff at 12:45 PM |
Walmart paints Chanel Red Raspberry on it's porcine lips
I wonder how much WalMart paid for this:
There's a comic side to the anti-Wal-Mart campaign brewing in Maryland and across the country. Only by summoning up the most naive view of corporate behavior can the critics be shocked -- shocked! -- by the giant retailer's machinations. Wal-Mart is plotting to contain health costs! But isn't that what every company does in the face of medical inflation? Wal-Mart has a war room to defend its image! Well, yeah, it's up against a hostile campaign featuring billboards, newspaper ads and a critical documentary movie. Wal-Mart aims to enrich shareholders and put rivals out of business! Hello? What business doesn't do that?Wal-Mart's critics allege that the retailer is bad for poor Americans. This claim is backward: As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." Furman advised John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart's products.
Wow..a cheap shot at Kerry and a sychophantic homage to cheap goods purchased overseas so that those in poverty might stay poor. And we're only in the first two paragraphs.
Sugarcoating the problems that WalMart brings into a community is probably the only way guys like Sebastian Mallaby, who wrote this Washington Post column I'm citing here, can sleep at night.
Walmart just wants to "contain health costs"? How many other corporations do this by forcing the vast majority of their workforce to either not qualify for health care..or pricing it out of their reach? Which other corporation that claims to offer their employees health benefits is costing the taxpayers millions of dollars because their kids are enrolled in state health care?
Mallaby's contention that WalMart is good for the poor because the poor can afford to shop there is a joke. WalMart drives other businesses out, making it the only game in town. Then they can charge whatever they like for goods. Further, when jobs leave an area, that forces employees to go to work for the only game in town: WalMart. And then due to low wages, ineligibility for health care and high premiums..WalMart employees are forced onto public assistance.
Its unlikely that an individual hired to write opinion pieces for one of the largest circulation newspapers in the nation isn't aware of these issues.
But then guys like Tim McVeigh can justify blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of hating government. Justifying the screwing over of people in poverty (along with entire communities) goes down with a spoonful of sugar. No problem.
Posted by Carla at 07:19 AM |
What a difference 3 weeks makes
November 6, 2005: Montgomery Mayor Praises Man for Using Gun
November 30, 2005: Seven Murders, Six Days; What Can Police Do?
"It appears to be the same things: alcohol, drugs and repeat offenders," said police Chief Art Baylor.Baylor and other officers say Alabama has no problem busting people when they break the law. The hang up happens when offenders get out quickly and go right back to crime, usually drugs. Often, that leads to violence.
Baylor's argument:
"The police department has no way to cure the social ills of this city," he said. (emphasis mine)
But some criminologists say if police deter alcohol and drug crimes, violent offenses will decline. The theory behind problem oriented policing is to flood crime prone areas with officers and that scares the problem away. The question is...would it work here?
(snip)
We asked Chief Baylor, through a spokesman, if MPD would consider concentrating more units in high violence or high crime areas. Lt. Huey Thornton told us that was not likely because the department is concerned that might create a crime problem in other areas.
And, there's a question of cost.
Montgomery hasn't filled its employment quota for police officers in years. One reason: low starting pay and better jobs elsewhere.
Chief Baylor also contends the criminal justice system is broken in another way: overcrowded prisons allow non-violent criminals to leave quickly even if they have multiple offenses.
I commend the police for doing their jobs, overworked and understaffed as they are. And the mayor's trying. But I'm sure right now he's kinda wishin' he hadn't made that crack about "fight crime -- shoot back".
Posted by Jeff at 06:51 AM |
Blog Against Racism Day
Tomorrow is Blog Against Racism Day. I'll do my bit--I've got something that's been sticking in my craw for a while anyway, and I can post it just as easily tomorrow as I can today.
I do want to make sure that we don't just reserve one day for even talking about it. If the end result is a push for change and more awareness raised, if we finally engage in some difficult conversations, then great. It's about time.
Posted by at 06:51 AM |
November 29, 2005
Objective reality...it sucks in Iraq
My post from earlier today outlined why the "good news" in Iraq isn't why we're there. As a companion to that piece, I offer evidence that the rosy scenario some would like to have painted isn't supported by the numbers:
The latest figures issued by the Department of Defense and other U.S. and Iraqi official sources reveal an insurgency still raging unabated in which the number of total casualties inflicted on U.S. troops is once again climbing, and where the insurgents appear to be switching resources from targeting Iraqi security forces to carrying out Multiple Fatality Bomb (MFB) attacks.As of Monday, Nov. 14, the total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the start of U.S. operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003, was 2,106 according to official figures issued by the Department of Defense, a rise of 45 in 14 days.
Improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs, continued to account for more than half the total casualties inflicted on U.S. troops -- an ominous indicator that the technical expertise of the insurgents is steadily advancing.
The rate of deaths showed a grim and consistent upturn on figures over the previous two weeks. The loss rate was just under 3.25 U.S. soldiers killed per day, a significant rise on the 2.4 killed per day during the previous 11 day period. But it was still much better than the figures in late October when 30 were killed during a five-day period, a rate of six per day.
So there's a little good and a lot of here. US soldier deaths in Iraq are escalating, but not as bad as they were at the end of October. Iraqi security forces seem to be targeted less as well.
Alarmingly, IEDs are apparently becoming more sophisticated.
Okay...so they're inflicting damage on us. But we must be kicking the crap out of them, right?
Well..yes and no.
The Iraq Index Project also notes that the U.S. estimates of the number of is urgency combatants killed remains very rough and approximate. The estimates are rounded off at 3,000 per month for the three months of August, September and October.There is good reason to greatly look at the the accuracy of these estimates: If correct they would mean that the insurgency lost 9,000 troops in only three months when other U.S. military estimates have calculated that there are never more than 20,000 insurgents active at any one time.
Those figures, therefore, would if true mean that the insurgency had lost almost 50 percent of its active and experienced manpower in less than three months, a rate of attrition that has only been seen historically in the closing stages of counter-insurgency operations when the guerrilla movement is literally disintegrated and rapidly losing its ability to inflict casualties. There has been no sign whatsoever of that process so far in Iraq.
I've said before that this thing in Iraq is a hydra. You cut off one head and more show up to replace it. If the numbers from the government are accurate, we should have obliterated the insurgency by now. Instead attacks are escalating.
We can't afford to allow the war sympathizers to blow sunshine up our skirts about Iraq. It's a complicated quagmire of a mess.
Posted by Carla at 04:27 PM |
Wrote a song about it - wanna hear it - here it go!
SCENE: Comfy room with fireplace. Camera crew bustles about, sound tech with boom mike fidgets, gets in position.
Camera tracks to GWBush sitting on edge of wingback chair, getting set up for fireside chat, arranging stuff nearby; glass of (what looks like) water. Quick cut closeups show his outfit: GWB wears bola tie; cowboy boots with L and R on the heels.
Disheveled Floor Manager with headset moves in.
FM: "All set, Mr. President?"
GWB: "You bet. Let me wet my whistle, though... (takes one sip, then a bigger gulp). Ahhhh. Let's roll!"
FM: "Hat?"
GWB: "Right, right!" (puts on Stetson, hanging on chair behind him)
FM: "Guitar?"
(Props person is already there as FM speaks, handing Presidential seal acoustic guitar to GWB. He strums it, settles back on his chair)
GWB: "My. Dog. Has. Fleas! Outstanding tuning job there, Hotrod!"
FM (stepping back): "OK, quiet. And... Lights. Camera. Action!"
GWB: "My fellow Americans..."
(GWB seen through camera's monitor; head & shoulders closeup. Director sits back into chair. Camera pulls back to show rest of GWB, the room, logs burning, etc.)
GWB: "... tonight I'd like to have a little sit-down with you. Some one-on-one, quality-time. So, pull up a chair, make yourself comfortable (adjusting tie) -- we need to talk. It's not you, it's me. Really... heh heh, y'know people always say that, and ever'body's right away all jumpy. (strums minor chord) Bad news! Must be bad news! 9/11! heh heh. Heh.... Same way, same thing, when people start out sayin' to ya: "Y'know, life is funny..."? heh heh heh... And how, y'know, it's never funny for you? when they say that...? Heh..."
(He's gone off the prompter. Caught in headlights look. Searches to find his place; his mouth moves as he reads. Recovers.)
"...but it's all good. Freedom is on the march, and it -- it -- it's a new morning in Amurka. So, get comfortable, and we'll have us a talk about things, and just to set the mood, yeah, calm everybody down during this hectic nine-elevaholiday! season, Laura asked me to set the mood here, with a little song --"
(GWB plays a couple chords, gets happy rhythm going, grins ear to ear, sings:)
"How could you believe me when I say 'I love you'
When you know I been a liar all my life?
I've had that reputation since I was a youth --
You must have been insane to think I'd ever tell the truth..."
(He keeps playing, stuck on one chord, looks troubled, regains his grin, and says:)
GWB: "Then there's... some sorta Bridge, y'know, middle section? and there's a girl singin' the next line:
(sings, falsetto)
'You said I'd have ev'rything, a beautiful diamond ring, a bungalow by the sea...'
"Then the Boy, HE sings: 'You're really naïve to ever believe / A full-of-baloney phoney like me.'"
(Girl voice): 'Say, how about the time you went to Indiana?'
(Boy voice): 'I was lyin', I was down in Alabama!'
(Girl voice): 'You said you had some bid'ness you had to complete?'
(Boy voice): 'What I was doin' -- I really can't repeat....!' (winks; pauses playing). Gooood times. Yeah.
(plays again, with gusto)
"How could you believe me when I say 'I love you'
When you know I been a liar all my life?
When you know I've been a liar -- a good for nothing liar --
all my good for noth - in' life!'" (big finish)
FM: "CUT!"
GWB: "What was wrong with that one, Eyepiece? C'mon...! I got other songs, listen to this one: 'I don't want to set the world on fire...'
Posted by Jeff at 01:48 PM |
"Hey, turn it up, that's Zeppelin!"
Immigration Crackdown, it's always the same!
Havin' a nervous breakdown
Drive me insaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnneee! Suck!
I recall a radio ad, scare tactic propaganda from sometime in the 1980s, that had a voice speaking vaguely-Spanish-accented English, saying threatening things like "... and we will cross your border with an ARMY of ONE MILLION MEXICANS...!"
Here we go again. Everything that goes around comes around again.
I recall hearing lots of grumbling, around 1985-86, about the Japanese. They were ruining Amurka, buying everything -- even our sacred golf courses! -- and putting us outta work, to boot. "Buy American! Crafted with PRIDE in the U.S.A.!" WalMart was all on board with that. Until they realized the bottom line was bottoming out. End of story.
So, what's in the news today...? I love Google News, following the 'all 897 related headlines' links, just reading the variety of leads. What? Bush wants to be gettin' tight, and wants tighter boarders...? I can see that (insert "Girls Gone Wild: Roommates" pic here).
Oh. Damn. "Bush Calls for Tighter Borders".
Every headline can be misconstrued these days, just look at all the possibilities. Drinking euphemisms, or words used recently to describe W and his behavior?
Belligerent stands out. I don't see Staying the course. Or Uniting, not dividing. Or Changing the subject. Guess I'll have to add those!
So, next time you or someone you know has gotten Bomblasticated, try this: "I got wonked last night -- and it's all Hillary Clinton's fault!"
Posted by Jeff at 07:35 AM |
The "good news" from Iraq isn't why we're there.
With typical fingerpointing gusto, my friends on the rightwing side of the aisle are pointing to this piece in the Christian Science Monitor that they think definitively proves that the media isn't telling the whole story of Iraq:
Yet the Iraq of Corporal Mayer's memory is not solely a place of death and loss. It is also a place of hope. It is the hope of the town of Hit, which he saw transform from an insurgent stronghold to a place where kids played on Marine trucks. It is the hope of villagers who whispered where roadside bombs were hidden. But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies.Like many soldiers and marines returning from Iraq, Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences.
It's very possible that the media isn't reporting much of the good news from Iraq: new schools, new hospitals, infrastructure improvements, etc. Iraq is a very dangerous place. Kidnappings and bombings make the region difficult to yield a comprehensive picture of everything that's going on.
However, I believe that even if the media was reporting the vast majority of the "good things" happening in Iraq, public support would still be eroding quickly.
We were told that we had to invade Iraq because they were going to use weapons of mass destruction against us on our soil. We couldn't wait to invade because if we did...it would put our nation at real physical risk. This information turned out to be spectacularly false. Had the public been told that we were going to invade Iraq to save the Iraqis from Hussein and then rebuild their country to bring democracy...it's unlikely there would have been much public support.
Even with all of these good deeds our soldier are doing in the name of bringing democracy and helping the Iraqis, millions of them believe that suicide attacks against US and British soldiers are justified. Even more alarming, up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve their security.
The Iraqis have to be seeing these good things we're doing. The experiences of these marines who've testified to these positives can't be one sided. Even with those good works factored in, the Iraqis pretty clearly believe we're doing much more harm than good.
Perhaps the cognitive dissonance of good vs bad in Iraq isn't on the part of the media, as my rightwing friends (and some soldiers) would have us believe. Perhaps the dissonance is on the part of the soldier who are heavily weighting the positives they're able to do against the many negatives seen by the Iraqis...and by the American people.
Or maybe things like trophy videos showing private security contractors randomly shooting Iraqi civilians so clouds the issue that Iraqis can't see the positives. Maybe for them, knowing that the US and Great Britain are responsible for the deaths of so many innocents...it really doesn't matter.
Posted by Carla at 06:53 AM |
November 28, 2005
Oh man...they're just gonna breed MORE now
If you're a single, white heterosexual in search of an uptight conservative to create spawn with, the Republican People Meet is for you.
Quite a collection of shiny white faces here.
Posted by Carla at 01:58 PM |
Duke Cunningham resigns in disgrace...seat may switch hands
Conservative Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned in disgrace today after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax charges.
My inside baseball on Duke's seat says that the Dems are headed into that district with "guns a-blazing". They're going to fight hard for it.
And given the corrupt state of the GOP in general right now...they ought to be able to make it happen.
Posted by Carla at 01:38 PM |
(insert Alabama is fulla idiots joke here)
You know an election year is near when you see our public servants at work: Bill would put "God Bless America" on Alabama car tags.
Nothing would be removed from the current plate, but somehow they're supposed to squeeze in more. How 'bout this?
From the same article:
Carol Moore of Columbiana, president of the Atheist Law Center, said her organization would oppose Hurst's bill."It is entirely inappropriate to have it plastered over license plates. We have enough on license plates now that we don't need something else," Moore said. "We have a lot more serious problems in Alabama than what's on the license plates. We need to make sure our children in public schools can read what's already on the license plates."
Never fear -- Jimmy Martin's got the answer!
Rep. Jimmy Martin, D-Clanton, said he plans to reintroduce a bill that would permit the posting of "In God We Trust" on classroom walls in Alabama public schools. Martin said he hasn't seen Hurst's bill, but likes the idea."The concept of 'God Bless America' sounds like a good idea," Martin said.
The bill to post "In God We Trust" on classroom walls has been introduced the last two years, but hasn't received final passage.
Martin said he believes putting the words on classroom walls will help restore discipline in schools.
"Anybody who recognizes God will be respectful of everyone," Martin said.
Hell, why don't we just tattoo the 10 Commandments to the front AND back of every school-age kid's head. Simple, and permanent.
And for anyone who may have missed this recent news item: Sessions wants to fence off Mexico.
Okay, I'm off to re-design the license plate again... "God Bless America* (whites only, no furriners)"...?
And no, this guy is NOT our governor (yet!), but he very well could be:
Posted by Jeff at 11:11 AM |
President-for-Life Sheelzebub praises Black Friday Ultimate Fighters and Big Box Stores
In an impromptu press conference between spa trips over Thanksgiving weekend, her Infernal Majesty Sheelzebub heaped praise upon the people involved in the Black Friday fracases and the stores that promoted them, and awarded them the title of "Black Friday Ultimate Fighters."
"I am so heartened--well, as heartened as a heartless, sociopathic demon from hell can be--that the big box stores and their patrons have gone the extra mile, the extra step, and the extra punch to promote our patriotic policy of shopping," she said, sipping a dry Shiraz. "Most Thanksgivings and Christmases, you have all the namby-pamby Christians and liberal do-gooders bleating on and on about those tiresome poor people. It's nice to see the true spirit of the holiday embodied this past Friday."
"There were many examples of good Americans doing what they should, fighting and trampling each other to get merchandise made by poor sots in sweatshops around the world grateful people in poor countries who were happy to have the jobs given to them by us superior Americans. This provides such good training for our future grabs for resources and oil wars to protect our great nation from threats. You are all great examples of citizen fighting machines, and I know you'll be honored to serve your great nation when called. Which will be soon, believe me!"
She didn't want to leave the retail stores out of her praise, citing the following news story as an example of good marketing:
Pre-dawn pandemonium and violence erupted at two Mays Landing stores as thousands of shoppers eager for Black Friday sales overwhelmed retailers and police.Customers trampled, shoved and assaulted fellow shoppers and even fought police in "their race to be the first in line" for discounted electronics at Circuit City and Wal-Mart on the Black Horse Pike, said Police Chief Jay McKeen.
Trouble began shortly before 6 a.m. at Circuit City when employees handed out pamphlets to shoppers at the front of a line of about 1,500 people. Customers further back, mistakenly thinking vouchers for limited-supply items were being distributed, rushed to the front.
"Talk about creating a buzz," she said. "That's just fabulous! There's nothing like an entire crowd pushing its way into your store to give you a certain cachet. You can use the footage in your future commercials! Slashing prices to ridiculous levels for a few short hours in the morning and getting people to wait in long lines--a stroke of genius! Of course only a few people would get the really cheap goods. I haven't seen mayhem like that since the Ramones were together, and their fans didn't go buying anything. You know, you stores should do this more often, and give me the kickbacks."
She continued, "I certainly hope that people realize now that shopping is not a self-indulgent act. It's actually quite dangerous, and only patriots of the highest caliber would put themselves through this to support big business. It's hard on your wallet--and now it's hard on your body--but it's necessary. Only those who hate America and everything it stands for--big box stores, sweatshop labor, and debt--would even think about opting out of the Friday fracases. If we can continue this, our country will be stronger than ever. Not only does the revenue provide your esteemed President-for-Life with much-needed kickbacks, it also provides you, the citizen soldier and "Ultimate Fighter," with the necessary training to fight the enemy at our shores. We're not sure who the enemy is yet, but they're somewhere and we'll have to fight them. Or you will. I won't, because I'm rich and therefore I'm better than you. Look, even Osama and George agree with me on that one."
President-for-Life Sheelzebub personally awarded the participant of each melee a coupon for Hardee's, and told them, "Whenever you ask What Would Jesus Do? just remember the answer: He'd shop. And kick some ass."
Posted by at 09:51 AM |
Wyden pushes back on covert spying against US citizens
The Pentagon has pushed legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.The proposals, and other Pentagon steps aimed at improving its ability to analyze counterterrorism intelligence collected inside the United States, have drawn complaints from civil liberties advocates and a few members of Congress, who say the Defense Department's push into domestic collection is proceeding with little scrutiny by the Congress or the public.
"We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without even a [congressional] hearing," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a recent interview.
Wyden has since persuaded lawmakers to change the legislation, attached to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill, to address some of his concerns, but he still believes hearings should be held. Among the changes was the elimination of a provision to let Defense Intelligence Agency officers hide the fact that they work for the government when they approach people who are possible sources of intelligence in the United States.
Modifications also were made in the provision allowing the FBI to share information with the Pentagon and CIA, requiring the approval of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, for that to occur, and requiring the Pentagon to make reports to Congress on the subject. Wyden said the legislation "now strikes a much fairer balance by protecting critical rights for our country's citizens and advancing intelligence operations to meet our security needs."
These government clowns already have a heap of power. Hand them more and they'll abuse it..as Bush proved with his invasion into Iraq.
At least Wyden forced the government to be open with Congress about what they're doing...as well as require permission of the National Intelligence Director for the information.
Of course the National Intelligence Director is John Negroponte..he of the Iran Contra Affair and of the Honduran death squad/CIA coverups. Hardly a standup guy.
Here's hoping Wyden gets those hearings.
Posted by Carla at 05:13 AM |
November 27, 2005
Iraq: stay or leave?
''I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren't they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better,'' wrote William Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general and former Reagan-era National Security Agency director, for a Harvard University website. : Miami Herald
(hat tip to The Martian Anthropologist)
Posted by Kevin at 01:21 PM |
What patriotism means to me
During our years of schooling most of us at one time or another were required to write essays in which we had to regurgitate our beliefs on a topic. This morning on CSPAN, a series of callers did their best to imitate those essays. And the topic was patriotism.
Predictably, call-ins ranged from the It's My Country, Love It Or Leave It to the its incumbent upon us to criticize everything rants.
So what does it really mean to be a patriot? Clearly there are varying degrees of ideas that fall within the ranges of the notions outlined by the CSPAN poles. It occurs to me that many of my fellow citizens however confuse dissent with disloyalty. The Republican Party has worked hard to take advantage of this conflation in an effort to demonize those of us who have spoken out against the war in Iraq.
The logical conclusion of the notion that the leftist dissent against the war is disloyalty is "the Left wants us to lose" the war in Iraq. A prime example of this belief set was outlined by commentor "Thomas" on my blog post If you don't agree with the Iraq War, it's your fault we're losing. Thomas says:
Meyer is using a vapid analogy to say several things. We are in this war together as a country. Like it or not, we voted and determined, as a country, to engage in this war. Even putting aside the issue of the pre-war intelligence we all owe it to our troops to fully support them in the battle they are engaged in not in re-fighting the decision that sent them there.
What many Republicans fear is that the Left is not engaged in serious criticism of the war but rather in revisiting the decision to go to war itself. They appear to R's to be hypocritically both gloating over the losses at the same time they wring their hands over them. They suddenly pretend to speak for the troops they ignore during peacetime.
The losses we have suffered are not militarily out of line with what we would reasonably expect from this type of engagement. The left warned of many, many more losses just in the “hot” or conventional aspect to the conflict. Do you recall the dire warnings from the left that Saddam would uses WMDs against our troops? They were dramatically wrong.
Now we are engaged in a unconventional struggle in which the actual target of the enemy is the mind of the American public. Militarily the enemy has no chance of defeating us. They are targeting the Will of the American public. The left wants us out, the hard left wants us our regardless of the consequences. In other words they both support the goal of our enemy. The only question is the internal one of motivation.
The Left, in Meyer’s analogy is the whining woman who is determined to ruin the vacation. It may be a vapid analogy, but its actually more pleasant than the blunt truth - the Left wants the US to lose (and celebrates US losses) to validate its political position. Its too bad that Meyer did not put a child in the back seat who could cry “Are we there yet?” every two seconds.
There are a number of shaky premises here that Thomas uses to build his point, which I'll address momentarily. But the thrust of what he's saying is clear: Leftists speaking out against the war are only doing so for political gain. There is no possible way that their points have any moral or ethical merit..because dissent is disloyalty.
What Thomas likely doesn't consider in reaching this conclusion is, if the left is using the foibles of the war for political gain...then the right is doing the same thing. If the right can stand up and tout the war (and surround themselves with soldiers and flags for photo ops) as a plank for their electability...then why is it bad for the left to demonstrate that the war is going poorly and was the wrong thing to do so therefore new leadership is needed?
Additionally, the country as a whole didn't vote to engage in this war. Our senators voted to give the President authority to go into Iraq based on very specific criteria..which the President didn't meet. Bush abused the authority given to him on Iraq by the Senate. Had Bush followed through on the promises made to the Senate when given that authority we might not be in this mess.
The best way we can support our troops is to be honest with them. Our nation has been ambivalent about this war from the beginning..and now that the premises for going to war have turned out to be nonexistent, support is eroding quickly. We can't keep flag waving and cheering a policy that isn't working and that's damaging our nation. Our troops know this as well as every other American citizen. Support the troops, indeed.
Several leaders on the left have developed plans to disengage ourselves from Iraq. Many on the left believe that the only reason we're in Iraq is to control the oil resources. That's not a good enough reason to send our soldiers into harm's way. Many believe that the right is attempting to smokescreen their actual reasons for going to war in order to retain power and line the coffers of their campaign donors. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was an excuse to get us there..and waving the flag is an excuse to keep us there.
Many of my fellow citizens who embrace conservative ideology seem to believe that patriotism is demonstrated by an unfettered and unwavering flag salute and a hearty "Hoo-Yah!". In my view this is nothing more than theatre.
Patriotism is working to make your country a place where you want to live and raise your family. It's taking pride in that place you've built and working to sustain it for future generations.
Dissent is how we voice our disagreement when we believe our nation isn't heading in the right direction. The right did it often under Clinton..even when our soldiers were in harm's way (remember the right's charges of "wag the dog"?). The right had no problem working to undermine those policies of Clinton that they believed were damaging the direction of the country..even when soldiers were in the battlefield.
Under Bush...the right hypocritically wails about the left's same dissent under which the President has put us in a vastly more shaky circumstance then Clinton ever thought of.
Dissent is not disloyalty. In fact...dissent is the highest form of patriotism. It's speaking out even when its unpopular to do so.
Posted by Carla at 09:35 AM |
November 26, 2005
Saturday update
I'm back from my ventures to the north...which actually ended up being to the south...because things unraveled up north. But either way it was a successful tryptophan high coupled with Friday shopping endorphans. :)
It's a really gorgeous day here...so I haven't been motivated to blog. Perhaps later.
Feel free to comment about what's on your mind or what's sticking in your craw.
And when I'm motivated..I'll also respond to Thomas in comments from the "It's your fault..Iraq.." thread. Which frankly deserve a monumental smackdown.
Posted by Carla at 01:09 PM |
November 24, 2005
Happy Turkey Day!
I'll be spending this day with my family...off to the frozen north of Washington State.
I'll be gone until sometime Friday evening.
Enjoy your turkey...or tofurkey..or whatever it is you do on this day to give thanks and remember our blessings.
Posted by Carla at 08:00 AM |
If you don't agree with the Iraq War, it's your fault we're losing
It used to be that I'd read things out of The Onion and believe them to be so outrageously absurd that they're clearly parody.
Then today I read this from the online periodical The American Thinker and am wondering if the masthead is supposed to be ironic:
A Question of AttitudeI’m not writing to argue with your judgment about the war in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to protest your attitude toward the war. And the point I want to make is this: sometimes, you have to choose between proving yourself to have been right, or helping make a project succeed despite your opposition to it.
Since all our tempers are boiling over, it might be best to try and cool things down by using a non-political example to illustrate my point: Imagine that a husband and wife are planning their vacation. One wants to spend it on the beach at Puerto Vallarta, and the other wants to go traipsing around Europe’s battlefields. They cannot do both, and it makes no sense to try and split the difference geographically by spending two weeks in, say, Baltimore. So one spouse wins, and the other loses. If you are the winner, it’s a good idea to avoid gloating. But if you are the loser, you have a difficult choice to make. You can prove yourself to have been right by making the vacation as miserable as possible – by whining about the food, the weather, the lack of a DSL line in your hotel room, and by generally being a pill. Or, you can recognize that the vacation isn’t nearly as important as the marriage itself – in which case you swallow your defeat gracefully, look cheerful even if you aren’t, and do whatever you can to make the vacation a success. If it’s a disaster anyway – well, next time your spouse may take your advice. But if you give it your best shot despite your misgivings, you will at least preserve the marriage. And – I speak from experience – it’s even possible the vacation itself will turn out better than you had expected.
It’s the same in politics. When a policy is adopted that you don’t like, sometimes – not always, but sometimes—you must choose between fighting it in hopes of proving you were right, or pitching in to make it work, despite your misgivings, for the good of the country.
The Iraq War is analagous to a botched vacation?
This latest Republican excuse to get people to sit down and shut up in their dissent of the war has got to be the most desperate...not to mention the most insulting.
I'm not just annoyed about the way we invaded and are occupying Iraq. I'm fundamentally alarmed and dismayed by the actions of our government in this matter. And yet Mr. Herbert E. Meyer, formerly of the Reagan era CIA, says that my duty as a citizen is to clam up and pretend that waving the red, white and blue will fix it all.
Previous to reading this online equivalent of Charmin, I had thought that the Republican claims of "traitor!" were bred of their political desperation to hold on to power. Now I'm not so sure. Mr. Meyer seems to really believe that dissent is a very bad and dangerous thing for the United States.
His attitude is completely appalling, not to mention antithetical to most of the tenets this nation was founded upon. Its incumbent upon me as a citizen to be vocal in my expressions of dismay at my government. Its my job to let our elected leaders know, especially when they're doing something that costs people their lives, my thoughts and beliefs in these matters.
I'm curious if Mr. Meyer has ever stepped outside the myopic box of conservative thinktankery to try to understand how those of us on the left approach this issue. I doubt its crossed his mind. Most conservatives I've encountered can't be bothered with such pursuits. Understanding fundamental philosphical and ideological differences requires a mind open enough to attempt it. In my experience this is hardly the forte of conservatives.
This leaves Meyer with no alternative than to blame the left for "hurting the cause". Good. This is a cause that I strongly disagree with. If in my own small way I'm doing something that ends what we're doing then I'm doing the right thing. Which is not the same as being "proved right".
Posted by Carla at 07:20 AM |
November 23, 2005
Bush knew early on that there was no Al Qaida/Iraq connection
For those of you blathering on about how Democrats had the same access to intelligence data that the White House had, I give you Murry Waas:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
Further....
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.
This is hardly an explosive document. The lack of a substantive Al Qaida/Hussein connection isn't exactly shocking news to those of us who have paid close attention. It's been widely reported that Bin Laden and Hussein hated each other.
If the Administration is working to keep the Senate from seeing this type of documentation, then what more potentially serious documents are they hiding?
Posted by Carla at 02:14 PM |
The Pentagon agrees with Murtha
Why is it when Democrats propose troop withdrawals from Iraq they're called "cowards" who want to "cut and run"...but its perfectly okay that the Pentagon discusses troop withdrawals from Iraq less than a week later?
To be fair, Murtha's plan and the Pentagon's plan are not exactly the same. Murtha's plan would most certainly be a more swift draw down of troops. But it is curious that the GOP hackery become so tight-lippingly mum on troop withdrawals when it comes from that Republican Pentagon.
Posted by Carla at 01:15 PM |
The Pope wears Prada?
It seems Benedict's got himself some high fallutin' fashion sense:
Pope Benedict XVI is developing a reputation as a clotheshorse with his taste for Prada shoes and designer sunglasses.The pope has also reportedly turned to another tailor for his vestments, dropping Annibale Gammarelli, whose firm has been serving the Vatican since 1792.
The Tablet, a Roman Catholic newspaper in England, points to the new pope's expensive sunglasses, which Vatican officials say were a present. He has also been spotted in baseball caps and red shoes from Prada.
Prada shoes? Designer sunglasses?
Don't these guys take a vow of poverty?
Posted by Carla at 11:39 AM |
Yikes
The truely awful part is trying to surmise where all these bodies are now....
6,644 are still missing after Katrina; toll may riseBy Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
The whereabouts of 6,644 people reported missing after Hurricane Katrina have not been determined, raising the prospect that the death toll could be higher than the 1,306 recorded so far in Louisiana and Mississippi, according to two groups working with the federal government to account for victims.
Most of those who remain listed as unaccounted-for 12 weeks after the storm probably are alive and well, says Kym Pasqualini, chief executive officer of the National Center for Missing Adults. She says they are listed as missing because government record-keeping efforts haven't caught up with them in their new locations.
However, Pasqualini says those counting the victims are particularly concerned about an estimated 1,300 unaccounted-for people who lived in areas that were heavily damaged by Katrina, or who were disabled at the time the storm hit. The fact that authorities haven't been able to determine what happened to them suggests that the death toll from Katrina could climb significantly.
Another 1300 or more possibly dead bodies out there somewhere?
I have a tough time believing that if this disaster had happened in Manhattan (or here for that matter), they'd have called off the search for the dead with that many unaccounted souls.
The shameful manner in which this entire Katrina disaster has been handled should cause government officials at all levels to lose their jobs. It's absolutely unacceptable.
Posted by Carla at 11:26 AM |
November 22, 2005
A Republican gets on board with Murtha
But Gilchrest, himself a former Marine and Vietnam veteran, said Monday that the resolution had asked too simple a question."That was the wrong thing to vote on. That was not what Murtha wanted to do. That was a political vote, for whatever reason, by Republican leadership," Gilchrest said.
Murtha's public statements were valuable, Gilchrest said, as a hint to America's various enemies in Iraq that U.S. forces, their common enemy, would not be in the country forever.
"What Murtha did was send a signal to these disparate organizations that normally hate each other but have come together" to fight the United States, Gilchrest said. "That dissipates some of their strength."
That's a new twist on the basic argument that the US presence in the region is escalating terrorist recruitment and terrorist acts.
On a side note, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (OH-2) was the culprit who brought the House to a standstill the other day by smearing Murtha on the House floor. Schmidt trotted out the name of Marine Colonel Danny Bubp, a 30 year Marine.
Oddly..in those 30 years of Marine service, Col Bubp managed to miss every single military engagement. His service bio:
Military Service : 1978 - Commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps 1978-Present - Continues to serve in United States Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel of Marines 1997-Present - Serves on the staff at the National Defense University, Washington, D.C. as Team Leader for the Reserve Component National Security Course 2003 - Graduate of Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island 2003 - Served on the J-3 Staff at United States Central Command, Tampa, Florida for General Tommy Franks in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
How does a guy spend 30 years in the Marines and not manage to participate in any combat? And how in the hell does it qualify him to critique anyone that has?
What a dick.
Weird how so many combat veterans are at least willing to consider that we've got to make changes in how we're doing things in Iraq...while these pretenders like Bubp and 5-deferrment Cheney spout otherwise.
Posted by Carla at 03:24 PM |
November 21, 2005
Rewriting History
(hat tip: Can't Keep Quiet!)
Posted by Kevin at 11:06 PM |
Elevator speeches
I've just started reading Bait and Switch by Barbara Ehrenreich, and I've already got mixed feelings about it. I'm on Chapter Two.
It's a very funny book--she should have written a novel spoofing the whole job-seeker culture and the psychobable-spouting parasites that bottom feed as personal/career coaches. Heck, since she didn't do it, I might do it. And it is troubling--something you intuit by seeing all of these ads about networking events and job coaches and articles by the same coaches is that there sure are a lot of people out there profiting from others' misery. And I have yet to find anyone who was actually helpful.
A lot of the stuff she points out is already known to those of us who haven't worked most of our lives as full-time writers or academics: enterence into the corporate world requires fakery that Satan himself would have trouble with. It's the weak resume puffing, constantly-networking, glad-handing optimism or die attitude that makes me twitch, but you have to fake it, you have to use the jargon in the industry in which you want to work, you have to adopt the stupid pseudo-spiritual and fake-philosophical platitudes (Sun Tzu and leadership! The Tao of the Career!), and you have to basically play the game. No matter how insipid it is. Some nightclubs don't let you in if you're not glam or hip enough, some corporations won't let you in if you're not blandly bubbly enough.
And her inexperience comes out in other ways: when one of her job coaches asks her to cite her three biggest fears, she lists "being too old to find a job" and "living in poverty" (she couldn't think of a third one). I smacked my hand against my forehead because you never say that. You just don't. You never, ever admit fear about things like jobs or life or money. Everyone in the shiny happy office has no financial woes and no worries about their employability. The things one worries about and speaks of are "being unchallenged by my job" or "spending too much time at home." Okay, maybe not the latter, but you get the picture. It's like talking about salary and being upfront about the fact that actually, you'd like more of it. Can you imagine!
It made me think of my two plus years in graduate school, where our professors tried to lead us into finding our ambition and dreams. I'm rolling my eyes even thinking about it now, since most of the students there were single parents looking for a leg up in cubicle world. Job flexibility, our profs would cry, money isn't everything! And we'd nod and smile very politely. Until the third or fourth time, when someone would point out that negotiating a raise for a pink collar job wasn't done, nor was telecommuting. You showed up and accepted your salary and shut up. And when you had a kid to feed and clothe, and skyrocketing rent to pay, money was pretty major, if not everything. Admitting that, though, was bad, bad, bad.
Ehrenreich went to a networking event at the exhoration of her coaches, and met a whole bunch of unemployed people. I remembered thinking, Well, what is hanging out with people with no connections to jobs for you going to do, besides waste your time? Her coaches told her the same thing when she reported that she went to the event, but they're the same people who told her to go. Maybe their mission is to make people chase their tails? It's possible.
She was also struck by the corporate mask that everyone must affect. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about--the bland but cheerful, professional and calm, busy but engaged, schmoozy but focused personna that becomes Everydrone. You don't let your real thoughts or feelings be known. Everything is pleasant. Everydrones have their own language, with dialects specific to their industries and companies. Everydrones manage to promote themselves and be humble at the same time.
Still, I will not liken their plight to the working poor, who are often judged more harshly for making unwise choices. Ehrenreich mentioned letters she got from people who asked her when she'd talk about their plight, the plight of good hardworking people who did everything right, who didn't have babies young, who went to good schools and worked hard. This drove me crazy--the janitor who cleans your office and the barista who serves your latte both work pretty damn hard and may well have done everything right but got unlucky. It just reminded me of my irritation with our double-standards. We trash the working poor for being spendthrifts and having babies and making horrible choices, but weep over wealthy or middle-class people who haven't made the best or most prudent choices, either.
No matter. I know unemployment is a soul-killing monster. I've been there, and it is demoralizing, as is all of the advice you get. One guy at Ehrenreich's networking event was in tears. She didn't know why--she was tuning everyone out because they'd launched into a sales pitch for a boot camp for the white-collar unemployed. And that's something that hit me broadside when I was laid off in my early twenties--people see the unemployed as great customer prospects, as if we're dripping with money for resume consulting and job coaching and boot camps and whatnot. And the advice and rules just boggled the mind. Treat your job search like a full-time (or full-time plus) job. Schedule your time, get up early, and dress like you're at the office. Get your spouse to "supervise" you. Network! Meet friends for lunch. Schedule informational interviews. Call companies proactively. Write down your hopes and dreams and visualize your dream job. You will have it, with three easy payments of $99.95 each! Acknowledge your depression, but don't wallow in it. In fact, keep busy. Volunteer. Go to the gym and get needed excersize while networking with other people who don't have jobs and are therefore at the gym on a Tuesday afternoon. But treat your job search like a full-time job and then some. It overwhelmed me. Networking? What the heck was that? And how much follow-up did one do without getting pegged as a stalker? How can I afford to belong to a gym and meet people for lunch (to network, of course) when I'm not getting a bloody paycheck to pay for it? And how many informational interviews could you do before your head exploded in frustration?
Now we've got even more advice, and it's a doozy. You need an elevator speech. I'll be sure to write mine and post it at some point, though it will be for my job as President-for-Life, not what I really do for work. What if you're looking for work in the NSA? "Hi, my name is Sheelzebub, and I'm a crackerjack wiretapper!" Not an elevator speech you want to hear, y'know?
You need tons of psychobabble and stupid personality tests that mean abseloutely nothing. The joke being that corporate America loves them some personality tests, as if they could slot people into whatever job they think would work for you. What a load of crapola. These tests never peg anyone as a sociopath, or else I would have been found out ages ago and promoted to CEO of a huge multinational. But I digress.
So far, the book has reminded me of every encounter I've had in job searches/career counselling that tripped my cynicism wires. It's like we all pretend we drank the Kool Aid even though few of us even took a sip. You need something a little stronger than that to get through the knee-deep horse-puckey.
In that sense, I sympathize. I've been there, and it's beyond awful.
Posted by at 10:23 PM |
I wish Earl Blumenauer was my Congressman
Earl brings his plan for Iraq to the table:
American forces should be redeployed out of Iraq in two phases. First, let's bring the 46,000 National Guard and Reserve forces home immediately. These elements in our total force have been most overburdened by ever-increasing deployments and are most needed here in the United States.Continued U.S. aid and military support must be tied to performance objectives for the Iraqi government and military. On that basis, the rest of the American forces should be withdrawn over the next one to two years, based on a detailed plan for the sector-by-sector transfer of security responsibility. The majority of these troops should be brought home. Others should be redeployed to Afghanistan to create a larger security footprint and help prevent the re-emergence of the Taliban. A small rapid-reaction force should be left in Kuwait that can protect against any destabilizing coups.
The administration must re-engage diplomatically by seeking a new United Nations resolution that supports international efforts to stabilize Iraq and by beginning a regional security dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. We should also work with the Arab League to facilitate a renewed effort toward a political solution within Iraq by engaging with nationalist faction leaders who might be a force for stability when U.S. troops are withdrawn.
We must also change the nature of our economic assistance. By shifting reconstruction aid to Iraq away from large projects undertaken by foreign contractors toward small, locally oriented projects run by Iraqis, we would create jobs, give Iraqis a greater investment in their success and minimize corruption and price-gouging.
President Bush's model of "go it alone, do it cheap and put it on a credit card" has not only led to grave instability in Iraq, it is crippling our ability to deal with the more serious strategic threats, from Iran and North Korea to a terrorist movement that we have inadvertently strengthened.
Imagine that. Another Democratic Congressman who actually has a plan to deal with mess in Iraq. If only the vomitous Jean Schmidt and the rest of the Republican House contingent had something more to offer than their usual pap of "traitor!" garbage.
It's apparent that the Democrats are willing and able to offer up meaningful, purposeful ideas to get us out of this debaucle.
The Republicans want to "stay the course". The problem is...there is no course. There are no clear objectives. There is no way for the troops or the American people to know when our job is done over there. We merely have an arbitrary lipservice to "supporting the troops"...which is meaningless. How can we "support the troops" when no one knows exactly what we're supporting?
Then there's the we must win the "global war on terror". Since when did we fight a war against feelings? "Terror" is an emotion. I get that it's about fighting "terrorism"...and I can support that. But thus far we have yet to see any plan from the Republicans that will actually lessen terrorist recruitment or terrorist acts.
Iraq has created a breeding ground for recruiting terrorists. It's a rallying cry for these individuals to perpetuate their disgusting acts. If we're serious about combatting terrorism we need to get out of Iraq ASAP.
It seems Blumenauer understands this. So do many other Democrats, apparently. What's taking the Republicans so long to figure it out?
Posted by Carla at 04:22 PM |
Bob Graham calls bullshit
Bob Graham is back...and this time he's having to wear waders to muck through the disgraces eminating from Republicans:
What I Knew Before The Invasion
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.
In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.
In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.
At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.
Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
Holy crap Bob..it would have been nice if you'd have piped up about this awhile ago.
Oh wait...he did. Apparently his words were missed over the din of Republican sabre rattling and grandstanding.
Worse, many people are still missing it. The Republicans are so busy clutching power while they dance to the tunes of "traitor!" and "coward!" that it doesn't matter if their President and his team misled the nation into war.
Nevermind that the Iraq war is helping to recruit terrorists and that Iraq has done nothing to stem the
But of course...the caveat there is "honest".
Posted by Carla at 08:08 AM
|
And on a side note
My brilliant son and his debating partner took first place in the Cross Examination Junior Division (C/X) at their weekend tournament.
[Yes I'm a proud mother--and as long as Kevin is willing to tolerate my intermittent personal shout outs....I'll pop off with them}
Props to my kid!
Posted by Carla at 07:23 AM |
The "man behind the curtain" is out of the closet
And it's a thing of beauty.
Posted by Carla at 06:47 AM |
November 20, 2005
The horse in my race: Linfield
Most Oregonians around here are either Duck fans (University of Oregon) or Beaver fans (Oregon State University). Not I.
I'm a Linfield girl.
My beloved purple and red Wildcats stomped all over their NCAA Div III playoff opponents Occidental of Los Angeles by a score of 63-21.
Linfield is the defending NCAA III National Champion.
(and my alma mater)
Who needs the Civil Bore?
Posted by Carla at 06:38 PM |
Fact checking FactCheck.org
The emminent braintrust at FactCheck.org appears to have dropped the ball.
Their latest tome seems fundamentally flawed:
The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.
The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. No investigation regarding the Administration's use of intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion and occupation has taken place.
The two investigations referred to by FactCheck.org are the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) investigation and the Silberman-Robb Commission.
Neither the SIC or Silberman-Robb were authorized to look into how the Administration used the intelligence on Iraq. In fact the Silberman-Robb report specifically states that it wasn't:
"We were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgements about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.
No such review has ever taken place.
And while the GOP is busy dithering hither and yon over John Murtha and how they can get that gasbag Jean Schmidt to pretend she knows anything about being in the military (let alone the Marine Corps), German Intelligence is saying that Bush exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq from the source known as Curveball.
Perhaps the collective mental energies of FactCheck.org might take a few minutes to pool their resources and actually do what they get paid to do: real research. How is it that a nonpaid layperson like myself can easily find out that none of the investigatory bodies have been authorized to look into how the Administration used intelligence...and these guys can't?
Posted by Carla at 04:36 PM |
Execute the dissenters for freedom's sake!
When in doubt, advocate the death penalty for war dissenters. Bob Newman does it when he goes after John Murtha for having the truck to suggest that we should pull out of Iraq.
The best argument Bob Newman can make is that John Murtha is vermin, he's a coward, and he's a traitor. He's also insisting that Murtha's advocating surrender, which is a flat-out lie, but lies are just the white noise of the far right these days. All because Murtha said that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has not only been ineffective, it's been downright catastrophic for our national security and for the Iraqis. Instead of actually offering any reasoned and logical argument to rebut Murtha's statement and assert that we're doing the right thing, Newman indulges in ad-homs and waxes enthusiastic about the death penalty for Murtha, who is obviously aiding the enemy by using his right to express himself.
Murtha, by the way, was a Marine. But supporting the troops and respecting our veterans is done much in the way the some traditionalist men show respect to their wives by bossing them around. Sure, we respect you as long as you just shut up and do what we say.
And that's the thing that's really getting up my nose--no matter what you actually say, you'll find GOP lackeys chomping at the bit to lie about you and falsely accuse you of wanting to surrender to al-Qaeda, of hating America, and of being a coward--ironic, considering that it takes a lot of courage to question the status quo in the country lately, what with the calls for your immediate execution or deportation for not staying the course and falling into line behind King President Bush. You're a traitor who loves Osama Bin Laden according to these people. And yes, you should be killed.
Encouraging retreat is viewed as aiding the enemy by the Marines and is a violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is punishable by death. Currently serving Marines, active duty or reserve, who encourage surrender are in violation of Article 100 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an offense also punishable by death. Because Murtha is retired, he is virtually assured of not being prosecuted.
There's a big difference between advocating pulling out of an illegal war and encouraging retreat. But never mind that, since Newman obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Here's the text of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
There's a world of difference between someone saying this war isn't succeeding in making us safer and bringing democracy to Iraq and someone broadcasting messages to the troops from Bin Laden's home that they should lay down their arms and surrender. Murtha hasn't done that, but in today's climate, dissent is traitorous and a capital offense. Unless you out a CIA operative who was actually gathering intelligence about our enemies. Then it's okay.
Here's a particularly rancid clump:
The traitor, Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, agrees 100% with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi that the Marine Corps, which is mangling the enemy on a daily basis in Iraq and suffering comparatively light casualties, should lay down its arms, call it quits, and abandon the people they are defending in the fledgling democracy of Iraq.
Actually, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been great for al-Qaeda's recruiting efforts. Osama Bin Laden wouldn't want us to pull out--he's a spineless rich twit who loves him a good war as long as his ass isn't on the line. He's happy to make more martyrs for the cause. We've given him some great marketing material, what with the bombings and daisy cutters, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo. He's loving this.
But citing the actual facts is so very boring when you can pull something new and exciting out of thin air. Bob Newman should do a magic show--boogeymen out of hats would be so much more exciting than the rabbits that everyone else uses.
Posted by at 03:35 PM |
November 19, 2005
The seventh sign of the Apocalpyse
If you're a regular reader of this blog...you probably know that I'm not organized religion's biggest fan. I often criticize what I see as oppressive and tyrannical overlording and inappropriate inscinuation to places where religion doesn't belong.
So you might want to make sure you're sitting down before you read what I have to say.
I agree with the Catholic Church:
The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
Who knew Catholicism could be more progressive than Protestantism?
Not me.
Way to go, Catholics.
Posted by Carla at 10:04 AM |
November 18, 2005
Friday Random Ten: Pre-Tryptophan Edition
In anticipation of the turkey-tryptophan onslaught ...a definite mess of a mix:
1. Squeeze Box--The Who (I have heard this song no less than four times this week on the radio. I downloaded it last night and voila! Top of the Random Ten)
2. Beautiful--Christina Aguilera
3. Crazy--Patsy Cline
4. AC/DC--Back in Black (number one with a bullet I'm a power pack...LOL great lyrics)
5. Madonna--Ray of Light
6. GunsNRoses--Paradise City
7. Dance: Ten, Looks: Three--A Chorus Line, soundtrack
8. Bicycle--Queen
9. These Dreams--Heart
10. Jump--Van Halen
Posted by Carla at 09:52 AM |
I'd love to tell this story to Walter.
As an infant of the late sixties and early seventies, Walter Cronkite was as much a part of my existence as milk, Cookie Monster and afternoon naps.
In fact, my mom says that "Cronkite" was one of my first words.
My father came home from work just after 5:00 every work evening. As a "Daddy's girl", being scooped up into arms and showered with hugs and kisses was the highlight of every week night.
These daily reunions with my father coincided with the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. The "most trusted man in America" was also the sign that my father was coming home from work.
My mother tells the story that before I learned to walk, my first words were "da-da", "ma-ma" and "Cronkite". I could be anywhere in the house and as soon as I heard the CBS Evening News theme music and Cronkite's voice, I'd come tearing through the house in my walker yelling, "Cronkite! Cronkite!".
I've tried to locate Mr. Cronkite's snail mail or email address. I'd love to be able to tell him that story.
I wonder how many other folks my age have similar tales.
Posted by Carla at 08:51 AM |
November 17, 2005
Priorities, priorities
So we can afford to pay billions every year to occupy Iraq...but we can't pay less than a billion to house our citizens whose lives were wrecked after a massive hurricane? We're kicking them out?
Senseless.
Habitat for Humanity is in that region rebuilding. Why hasn't the government given that organization a major grant for materials and workers and temporarily housed the displaced nearby so they can build their own homes?
Instead we're kicking the poor to the curb..telling them to fend for themselves.
It's like a bad version of Oliver Twist.
When did our priorities get so screwed up?
Posted by Carla at 07:43 AM |
Last night's "Lost": Welcome to the class war
Read below the flap if you want the spoilers.
Ever since I got hooked on the show, I bit my snark back over all of the resources our beleagued castaways had. Penecillin! The flight manifest, which somehow survived a fiery crash. Water bottles. They didn't even have to look for water for a few days. Suitcases and personal effects.
And last night, when we saw what the talies went through, it really hit me: those fusies have had a trip to summer camp in comparison. Sheesh. The most wrenching moment for me was when the psychologist went to Ana Lucia to tell her about the injured man's infection. Ana Lucia looked at her and said something like: "What do you think we can do about it?"
Just wait for him to die. Because they have no penecillin--so he didn't even have a chance. On the other side of the island, people died, but they also had a fighting chance, what with a doctor and meds and an herbalist. (And opiates now. Bless those painkillers, if Charlie can manage to stay on the wagon.) They didn't have a doctor, or an herbalist, or even the raw numbers of the fusies. They had kids, which brought out The Others, and they had a lot of fear. They had no water. Nothing. Hell, despite all of the claims of an extended episode, they only got an hour to tell their whole story, unlike the fusies. Bah. Then again, I doubt they had time to engage in any soul-searching or angst. Their predicament was the real deal. They just needed a basketball to call Wilson.
They relied on guesswork to figure--wrongly--that Nathan was one of the Others. There was no flight manifest, which was how the fusies figured out that Ethan was a menace. Seeing what they went through, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same things Ana Lucia did. I probably would have thrown him into the hole. But I still flinched when I saw that someone gave him a banana to eat and he hid it--because she was trying to make him talk by starving him out. And you knew, you just knew, that he couldn't be one of the Others, that was an irritating but ultimately innocent guy who was being tortured (and the cutting the finger off bit? Twitch, twitch. Look, full disclosure: I'll commit to crucifying Jesus all by myself if you cut off my finger, which tells you how much a confession under torture would be worth--and if peace corp man used his brain, he'd have known that and saved himself the trouble of killing Nathan). I'll assume they gave him water--he would have been dead or damn close to it after four days with no water.
Here's what I think: something in Ana's past is really involved with kids. She either had one and had to give it up, lost one, or was involved in a tragedy around one.
Okay, them's my thoughts on the only TV show that I watch with any regularity.
Posted by at 07:02 AM |
HypoChristians in the midst of us
Actual conversation, Monday morning, August 29th:
Jeff: "Somebody reminded me about Hurricane Georges -- remember that one? They had opened the Superdome as a shelter, but a bunch of people in there thought they would be not only sheltered but fed, and entertained -- "Lee: "Georges?"
Trish (raised eyebrows, bemused look): "Entertained?!? and fed?"
Jeff: "-- so there was a lot of damage, furniture stolen out of offices and so on..."
Randy: "Well maybe -- if the Superdome got washed away, it wouldn't be any great loss..."
Lee: "Yeah, they could just turn on the gas, y'know...!"
(laughter; then, as I walked out)
Lee: "Jeff had to leave on that one -- !"
Jeff, over his shoulder: "Lightning might strike, y'know, not takin' any chances!"
Lee was joking, I know that; he said as much later. Randy's comment -- not too sure. And he was the one gushing about W's "compassionate" hug-the-9/11-girl photo-op. Libertarian, you say? HypoChristian, I say.
Reported yesterday on CNN:
Dozens of families have returned to what is left of their homes and found, lying amidst the mold and the wreckage, a body, forgotten, abandoned. Maybe it's their mother or their grandmother, sometimes even their missing child. The state called off searching house to house in New Orleans well over a month ago. They said they completed the job.(snip)
There was no joy for Paul Murphy in this homecoming. When he walked into his house in New Orleans' Ninth Ward last month for the first time since Katrina, it was shock and anger.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, I'm thinking that, OK, I was going to come and salvage a few pictures or something. And I walk in here. I found my grandma on the floor dead.
DORNIN: Since November 1, 10 bodies have been found in the ruins of the Ninth Ward. The last area, known as the Lower Ninth, will open to residents December 1. Coroner Frank Minyard worries about what people will find.
(on camera): You're fully expecting that more bodies will come in once they open the Ninth Ward?
FRANK MINYARD, ORLEANS PARISH CORONER: Yes. And I think it's -- it's going to come in for a good while. There's so much rubbish around that they might find people in the rubbish. DORNIN (voice-over): They already have. And there are still many bodies left unidentified and unclaimed.
(snip)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: You warned us October 3. When the state stopped house- to-house searching for the deceased, you said, it was a bad idea, that there were more people out there. Now the death toll, it turns out, has jumped by 104. And -- and families are returning to find the bodies of their loved ones still in their homes. How does -- it's got to infuriate you.
JACK STEPHENS, SAINT BERNARD PARISH SHERIFF: Well, you know, you just wonder what provoked that decision.
(snip)
It was a horrible -- it was a gruesome sight. Very -- and again, people don't deserve any more grief and pain than they're going through right now. I mean, this whole process has been so excruciatingly screwed up and slow that, I mean, you're starting to feel a real sense of anger and hostility on the part of people locally and, my God, it's well-deserved.
It is a disgrace that this is happening in America. This is the country that took great pains to recover every little bit of human remains at Ground Zero after 9/11. Now we won't even bother to search homes in which we know bodies remain. This is not a matter of time or resources. The authorities simply chose not to take the time or allocate the resources to Do the Right Thing.
Well maybe, if Jesus were here, he'd remind you:
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
And there's this: "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." Deuteronomy 15:11 (KJV)
But I'm more in the mood for Rev. Jules Winfield: "Ezekiel 25:17? 'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.'"
Posted by Jeff at 06:53 AM |
Happy Birthday Howie
Howard is 57 years old today.
Posted by Kevin at 06:43 AM |
November 16, 2005
Which time was Alito lying?
Home state blog Zeros and Ones gave up the inside scoop on Samuel Alito's anti-choice writings to Reagan's disgusting AG Edwin Meese:
Alito, an assistant in the Office of the Solicitor General at the time, said he was “particularly proud” of his contributions to cases in which the Reagan administration had argued before the Supreme Court that “racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.“ He said it had been a “source of great personal satisfaction” to help advance such legal causes — positions that he said “I personally believe very strongly.”
No Constitutional right to abortion. Racial and ethnic quotas can't be allowed. And he gets all sorts of personal satisfaction from his efforts to make sure these ideas are implemented.
Apparently Alito was for these things before he was against them. Or so he tells Senator Feinstein:
The Samuel Alito who argued against abortion rights in 1985 was "an advocate seeking a job" with the conservative Reagan administration, the Alito who is now a Supreme Court nominee told Democrats on Tuesday.The current version "thinks he's a wiser person" with "a better grasp and understanding about constitutional rights and liberties," senators said as Alito tried to downplay a 20-year-old document in which he asserted "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Sam has had a prochoice epiphany and that's why conservatives are so excited about getting him confirmed?
Uh huh. And I have some lovely beachfront property to sell in Nebraska.
Posted by Carla at 12:04 PM |
Confessions of a Repentant Republican
I'm not a conservative and I'm not a Republican. I've never been a Bush supporter (none of them: 41, 43, Jeb..take your pick). It's difficult for me to relate to those that are.
It's heartening however to see that there are at least some Republicans and conservatives who recognize that our nation is careening out of control. They awknowledge the damage that their Bush vote has done to this country:
Confessions of a Repentant Republican:
I supported George W. Bush in the presidential election in 2000, believing then that he best reflected my love for America and for our tradition of liberty. I supported the war in Afghanistan. In March of 2003, I believed that the invasion of Iraq was justified based upon pre-war revelations presented to Congress and to the American people. Accordingly, the indictments contained herein apply, first and foremost, to myself.
Many Americans whom I know and love, including many current supporters of President Bush, remain conflicted over both his ultimate intentions in Iraq as well as domestic curtailment of civil liberties.
Many have given the benefit of the doubt to President Bush, and, in a misdirected spirit of unity, have supported, as did I, Administration policies that conflict with our essential values.
This essay explores many of the issues that led me personally to the recognition that the policies I was supporting in Iraq were not consistent with the justifications made for the invasion in the spring of 2003, that implicit in our post-invasion actions was the goal of permanent occupation, which would ensure endless war and the resultant degradation of our liberty, our security, and our moral authority.
For me, recognizing that I could no longer support the President for whom I voted, and the occupation of a land we had invaded, remains personally painful.
I have learned that while it is difficult to admit being wrong, such recognition is a prerequisite for redemptive action, necessary both for individual growth and for the healing of our nation.
It is in this spirit that I submit these reflections.
William Frey, M. D.
November, 2005
While Dr. Frey and I likely have divergent ideological views in many ways, I respect the fact that he sees beyond the party loyalty. He sees what many of us on the left have seen for years: an erosion of public discourse and a corrosion of the political process largely led by the current Republican leadership structure. His reflections on the Iraq War and the way that the Bush team has led America astray are an aching realization.
Posted by Carla at 07:29 AM |
No wonder the Ship of State is off-course.
The Captain's in his cups again. Kevin Drum sums it up nicely: PRESIDENTS ACTING BADLY....What's going on with the George Bush rumor mill?
Needless to say, all of these stories are sourced anonymously and there's no telling if there's any truth to any of them. But who are these sources? At the very least, there seem to be a fair number of people who can be plausibly labeled "insiders" and who are gleefully passing along rumors of serious presidential angst. What's going on?
Either W is having real problems, or people just can't stop talking, even if they have to make it all up. Riiiiight. Must be something to it, or at least it's believable gossip given W's history, so it just gets repeated anyway.
This much is all obvious. But what if...?
One day, the news media explodes: "W gravely ill -- rushed to the hospital -- heart attack? stroke? will he live? will he die? The nation, the WORLD, waits and watches in anticipation...! More live coverage from the President's bedside vigil, after this word from Merck Pharmaceuticals..."
You think the Reagan death watch, then the papal circus, was something? Imagine the Days of Our Bush Lives soap opera insanity that would ensue. Multiply by 10 all the feeding-frenzy coverage of the Runaway Bride, Natalee Holloway, Terri Schiavo, Katrina & other hurricanes, looting, 9/11, Iraq, SCOTUS, Karl Rove -- hold it.
Karl, is that you feeding the rumor mill?
There's frequent commentary in Blogworld about the BushCo. desperation in the face of falling approval ratings, and it's usually expressed with the "wonder what they might do NEXT?" fear of something dreadful. But if the WH wanted to change the subject, dominate the news media discourse for awhile -- this would certainly do the trick.
Okay, anyone else want the tinfoil hat now? I'm just sayin' it's possible.
Meanwhile, I expect to see more recycled "out-of-control celebrities" stories like this at the Publix checkout stand in the next few months:
Song for the day: Cal Smith, "The Lord Knows I'm Drinkin'" --
CHORUS
The Lord knows I'm drinkin'; And runnin' around;
And He don't need your loud mouth informin' the town.
The Lord knows I'm sinnin'; And sinnin' ain't right;
But me and the Good Lord's gonna have us a good talk
Later tonight.
"Everybody sing!"
Posted by Jeff at 06:43 AM |
November 15, 2005
We don't need no stinkin science...
Audit Faults FDA on Morning-After Pill :
A congressional audit released Monday cited "unusual" steps in the FDA's initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.
Rightwing ideologues in the Food and Drug Administration were rejecting Plan B pills before the scientific data was reviewed???
How terribly shocking.
I wonder if these are the same guys who are still trying to flip off Darwin after all these years.
Or maybe they just flunked high school biology.
Posted by Carla at 07:44 PM |
Did the US use chemical weapons in Fallujah?
[disclaimer: I don't know if any of this information is true. I haven't cooberated it outside this source. I'm just laying it out here. Do with it what you will]
This was sent to me via email:
U.S. Used Chemical Weapons In IraqVeteran admits: Bodies melted away before us.
Shocking revelation RAI News 24.
White phosphorous used on the civilian populace: This is how the US "took" Fallujah. New napalm formula also used.
11/07/05 "La Repubblica" -- -- ROME. In soldier slang they call it Willy Pete. The technical name is white phosphorus. In theory its purpose is to illumine enemy positions in the dark. In practice, it was used as a chemical weapon in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. And it was used not only against enemy combatants and guerrillas, but against innocent civilians. The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. An investigation by RAI News 24, the all-news Italian satellite television channel, has pulled the veil from one of the most carefully concealed mysteries from the front in the entire US military campaign in Iraq.
That's an excerpt. The entire piece as well as a cooberating piece are at the site.
There's a film, too.
**WARNING** The film is very graphic. View at your own risk.
Update: I'm bumping this up to the top because of this update.
There's been some speculation about the degree to which white phosphorous is actually that dangerous or bad. This information from GlobalSecurity.org gives some indication:
White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.
This looks an awful lot like melting people to me. At the very least, it's severely burning.
Posted by Carla at 05:10 PM |
Hacktacular Chris Hitchens
Columnist and writer Christopher Hitchens is a very articulate, very intelligent guy. He's also a Bush apologist of epic proportions.
His latest effort to dig the mess in Iraq out of Bush's hole and put it somewhere else...anywhere else is an homage to the man's dedication to his boy:
Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.
So if a Senator voted in 1998 based on intelligence we had at that time for this Act..it therefore stands to reason that four years later when they were handed cherrypicked intelligence by the Bush Administration, they should have known what they were getting into?
C'mon Hitch. You know better than this. Handing the Senate cherrypicked intelligence to get them to agree to give the President authorization for war isn't justified. Ever. Even if the Senate agreed four years earlier that Saddam had to go based on intelligence that was current at that time. This is a ridiculous argument.
I realize that sometimes Bush apologists have to really bendover backwards to squirrel themselves into looking like they've got a reasonable position. But jeez...Hitchens is having twist himself into a Gordian Knot to justify himself.
It's disheartening to see such a bright guy have to stoop so low.
Posted by Carla at 03:12 PM |
November 14, 2005
Shame on Wyden
I heard somewhere recently that there are only two basic human emotions: fear and love. Every other emotion springs forth from these two basic, boiled-down, visceral things.
Whether or not this is actually correct, it makes sense to me. These two primal emotions appear to be what drives much of what we do as human beings.
I guess that's why it's a bad idea to create policy bred from emotional response rather than reason and logic.
During last week's Senate session, Senator Lindsay Graham put forth an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would eliminate habeus corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. My Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, stood up with Graham in support of this amendment.
I've never been more dissapointed in someone I voted for. And that's saying something. I voted for Clinton (twice...and the Lewinsky thing pissed me off with how stupid it was) and for my current Democratic Congressman whose votes on Medicare and the Bankruptcy bill have me convinced to seek out a new candidate next year.
My senator is working to suspend a basic legal right that has been around since the 14th Century and in general practice since the 17th Century. How are the American people made safer by removing the rights of these individuals to know if they're legally incarcerated or not? How is justice served for anyone under these circumstances?
If habeus corpus can be suspended for foreign detainees..how long until it's suspended for American citizens? How can we declare that all men are created equal when our lawmakers have decided that their fear can dictate that some men aren't worthy of even knowing if they're being falsely imprisoned?
As is pointed out here, we put criminal Nazis on trial in the bright sunlight of open court. We didn't hide behind fear and injustice in order to deal with the Nazi scourge. That's one of the ways we know that Nuremberg was right...it's on the record in front of public view. Who can trust these secret tribunals where even the basic tenets of justice are suspended?
Shame on Ron Wyden for allowing his fear to grip his decision making process on this matter. Shame on him for representing Oregon in such a lackluster and untoward manner.
I am contacting Senator Wyden's office today to express my displeasure and dissapointment with his actions. I implore my fellow Oregonians to do the same. Or if you're in North Carolina, contact contact Lindsay Graham.
Governing by fear ruins us all.
Posted by Carla at 09:04 AM |
Will shill for some stuff
The more I read these news reports, the more vindicated I feel. Not to mention cynical. Basically, don't trust anything you read or hear gasping in delight over the newest brand or product. Chances are, it's coming from a shill who doesn't even have the brains to charge The Man real money for their public degradation. Critics can be so cruel. So Dave Balter, founder of the Boston-based marketing firm BzzAgent, thought it would be nice to have some nonpoisoned pens writing on his behalf when his book was published earlier this month. ''Grapevine: The New Art of Word-of-Mouth Marketing" is Balter's first book, and he wanted to give it every possible advantage. The review from Publishers Weekly, posted prominently on Amazon.com, was a cast-iron pan. Grapevine's ''slapdash, 'admittedly nonscientific' analysis is backed by little more than enthusiasm, quotes from The Tipping Point and three years of BzzAgent anecdotes," PW wrote. ''Balter's gee-whiz, narcissistic writing voice won't help win converts, either." But ''Grapevine" received a much warmer welcome from the amateur Amazon.com reviewers, who bestowed on the book an enthusiastic four stars (out of a possible five). It helps that many of the most glowing were written by foot soldiers in Balter's army of 117,000 BzzAgents -- volunteer product promoters who get free samples of new products. Two thousand of his buzz agents got an advance copy of Balter's tome. In a world where authority is shifting from the elite few to the wired masses, from The New York Times Book Review to the constant reader's blog, is that so wrong? BzzAgent and Tremor, a rival firm owned by Procter & Gamble, have both assembled networks of individuals who are willing to evaluate new products and services and help spread the word among friends, co-workers, and family. In Bzz-Agent's case, prospective members sign up on the company's website, and provide some background demographic information. BzzAgent's clients then pay the firm to get access to particular clusters of these people, offering them a free sample, along with an information kit that describes the product's benefits. Balter says the firm is currently managing 300 ''live" buzz campaigns. The company has worked with clients such as Levi's Dockers, Anheuser-Busch, Cadbury-Schweppes, and the publishers of ''Freakonomics" and ''Eats, Shoots, and Leaves," both bestsellers. (The firm also works with some nonprofits on a pro bono basis, including WGBH and the Wang Center.) Agents aren't paid for their work, but they can collect reward points by participating in campaigns, which are redeemable for goodies, such as an iPod. They're not obligated to be positive in what they say about a new coffee-maker or a business book, but they are expected to file a report with BzzAgent letting the firm know what they've been up to. Balter says an agent might go into a supermarket and ask an employee whether they carry Hahn's Yogurt and Cream Cheese (a current client), and inform BzzAgent headquarters that the supermarket had ordered the product, for example, but it wasn't in yet. Agents are supposed to disclose they're connected to BzzAgent. Part of the firm's code of conduct, Balter says, is that ''when buzzing others, you must first let them know that you're involved with BzzAgent." Well, they should. But they probably aren't, at least not according to Commercial Alert. Commercial Alert sent a letter today to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requesting it to investigate whether buzz marketers are violating federal law prohibiting deceptive advertising. The letter asks the FTC to review evidence that "companies are perpetrating large-scale deception upon consumers by deploying buzz marketers who fail to disclose that they have been enlisted to promote products. This failure to disclose is fundamentally fraudulent and misleading." Commercial Alert’s letter urges the FTC to thoroughly investigate Proctor & Gamble’s Tremor, which has enlisted about 250,000 teenagers in its buzz marketing sales force. "The Commission should carefully examine the targeting of minors by buzz marketing, because children and teenagers tend to be more impressionable and easy to deceive. The Commission should do this, at a minimum, by issuing subpoenas to executives at Proctor & Gamble’s Tremor and other buzz marketers that target children and teenagers, to determine whether their endorsers are disclosing that they are paid marketers." Most of the buzz marketers are teens, pushing crap onto other teens. And they're doing it for free stuff. Because there's nothing like Big Daddy Corporate Suit pimping kids. Bad enough that you've got grown adults willingly whoring themselves for a chance at an iPod--considering the traffic jams of market-saturated zombies scrambling to get into the first Ikea in New England, it's sad, but not shcoking. But kids? Well, I guess you have to get 'em while they're young. How much you want to bet this is the next step: buzz marketing becomes an "assingment" in kindergarten; the kids get some cheap platic toys in return.
Posted by at 07:47 AM |
November 13, 2005
A smartie in Southeast
A letter to The O:
Things I learned last weekend: I read where all of our president's men (and women, I assume), will be required to attend an "ethics review" class ("Bush staffers will get ethics refresher," Nov. 6). This begs the question: Who will be teaching the ethics class? Karl Rove? Dick Cheney? Bill Frist, perhaps? Or Tom DeLay? "Scooter" Libby is busy, but I ho