Paralysis of the Mind

Below is a link to the book I spoke of, written by Smedley Butler, who I wrote about in an earlier post. Butler's book, "War is a Racket", no doubt is competely and utterly true today. I highly recommend giving it a read (it's a long web-read, but in book terms couldn't have been more than 10-15 pages):

War Is A Racket

Late-night blogging: bad for the eyes, good for the soul.

Five semi-interesting things of the day:

5. U.S. and Iraq select the new prime minister of Iraq: Okay, okay, cool. I'm sure the guy is a fine human being and all, but lessee... he's been on the CIA's payroll, he's Ahmed Chalabi's relative apparently (Chalabi being... God, tomorrow we'll get a whole post in on Mr. Chalabi's audition for "Catch Me If You Can 2"), he's been out of Iraq for years, and hey, he used to be a Baathist. Wonderful. I'm guessing that I'm not the only person who thinks that the utterly meaningless handover on June 30th will be staged, but Osama bin Laden with a fake nose and glasses on will be Prime Minister...

4. Terror Level Questioned... But Not Raised: Double awesome. Curiously, if we have all this information shouldn't we... y'know... USE the terror levels? After all, if we're going to go from our current Yellow (shopping okay in all cities) to Orange (shopping okay only in non-target cities) or even to Red (shop online ONLY), shouldn't that come out first and THEN we can get more specific threats? Indeed, let me be the CIA for a second. There's only one event this summer that's gonna get terrorized, and frankly, it's the Athens games. Why? Because Greek security stinks. It's a high-profile target, it's Western-oriented, and did I mention that Greek security stinks? Either that, of course, or else feint toward Athens and strike in the US. Either way, it leads to...

3. Remember kids, a VOTE for Kerry is a VOTE for terror!!: Someday, down the road, we'll look back at the media incompetency and gall and have a merry old chuckle. Or, maybe we won't. Here's a few snippets from my link (Arena is the reporter, mind you):

ARENA (voice-over): Terror experts say it's not about who wins the U.S. election, it's about impact.

True. Go on.

M.J. GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: If, for instance, say, George Bush was in the lead in the opinion polls right now and an attack took place and that changes the equation as it did, for instance in Spain, then al Qaeda would feel that it has scored a major success.

Well, Bush certainly doesn't have a lead, thanks for noticing...but, uh, the sky is blue. So we're at least in the realm of facts. Please continue.

ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party.

Miss Arena has moved into the funny world of SPECULATION. The polls were VERY close prior to the Spanish election. Now, I don't doubt the attacks made an impact, but it wasn't as though they turned a landslide against the socialists in another direction. Bear in mind that Aznar (the departing Spanish PM) moved into Iraq with about 90% of the country against him, AND both candidates from BOTH parties openly suggested that troops would be removed from Iraq (although, to be fair, the Socialists were much more up front about it)

ASHCROFT: We believe, for example, the attack in Spain is one that is viewed by al Qaeda as particularly effective in advancing al Qaeda objectives.

If, of course, Al-Qaeda existed in Iraq before we invaded. Which it probably didn't. Sigh. But since we've gone and upset the apple cart, I guess he's right...

ARENA: The attack did result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Experts say the less Western influence in Iraq, the better for al Qaeda.

NO NO NOOOO ABORT ABORT DANGER WILL ROBINSON... you see, Miss Arena, now you've jumped speculation into outright mis-statement. Firstly, the attack had absolutely NO bearing on the number of troops in Iraq. THEY WERE GOING TO BE PULLED OUT! And, as above, there was apparently little or NO Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq prior to... our invasion, which I think qualifies as "Western influence" Furthermore, who is an expert on this? Does Miss Arena KNOW a few al-qaeda agents who have explained this to her (patiently, I imagine)? Oh, I forgot, you can say "experts" and mean the genius trust in the White House who got us into this mess in the first place...

It's nonsense like that which keeps me from watching TV news unless I have no other form of entertainment. And trust me, I mean ENTERTAINMENT.

2. Pat Tillman probably killed by friendly fire: This is a damn shame. Whether or not you think going in the Army is really a way to solve anything, Tillman has to be considered a true patriotic American, willing to stand up and fight for his country. The question I have, though, is does this mean he has to give back his Silver Star? Technically speaking, getting killed by your own side doesn't qualify for bravery...? I certainly HOPE no one even follows that line of thought, but my cynical side says that someone is gonna raise a stink about it...

Either way, Tillman and his family are heroes to me. With any luck, no more American soldiers will have to die in a foreign land - provided someone figures out that the people of this country want the soldiers to come home...

1. Next weekend will be fun: Everyone must go see Harry Potter the Third, that's a Paralysis of the Mind Blog-Command. Okay, okay, if you don't it's okay, but next Sunday is also my girlfriend's birthday and our third anniversary (that anyone can put up with ME for three years is cause for celebration, frankly). Gifts welcome. Money accepted. All currencies and denominations, of course.

Tomorrow: Ahmed Chalabi and Catch Me If You Can 2...

... it'll be me.

Phish calls it quits.

I can't complain too bitterly. In 2000 when they took a hiatus, there was some suspicions that they'd never come back then, and they did. And I got to see them twice in 2003, and will probably get the same this year. So it isn't as though I missed everything. And heck, I saw them 10 times, which not really quite "wookie" status, but I've been there and seen plenty of stuff...

But it's hard to tell myself that my favorite band, of all time, is gone, and will NEVER play again. It isn't that I can't see them in concert - heck, they played like 800 concerts, and I haven't heard a good 700 of 'em - but there's no new albums, no new wild antics, nothing new at all, just re-treads and old footage. Good stuff, of course, but it isn't the new thing.

They have a new CD coming out on June 15th, and it sounds good from what I've heard, but gee... that's gonna be a sad day buying their last album. And going to their festival in Coventry VT, which will be their final show, it's gonna be quite a sad scene. Hippies crying everywhere, getting cleaner via their tears... well, I won't dwell on it too long. So, if you hear sobbing... make sure there isn't a wookie in your trashcan :)

*** UPDATE: SPAC is definitely on. The final festival is a hopeful maybe; unfortunately this is the summer I chose to actually make something of my life, so there's no guarantee that I'll be able to get the time off. Either way, I will get a chance to say goodbye... ***

As the incomparable Eric Alterman argued in his book "What Liberal Media?" one of the great election-night stories that always gets play is the fact that in America, elections really mean something, and our government has never been changed by coup d'état. One of the reasons Bush got such favorable coverage post-November 2000 was that Fox (almost but not quite) News called the election for Bush. The other networks followed suit, and it became part of the message: Gore should concede and Bush is President. Otherwise, the system DIDN'T work, and America is no better than those (warning, about to use Bush strawman argument) brown-skinned folk who can't govern themselves.

I feel disgusting even joking about it.

Anyway, the system has to work, if only based on the fact that it hadn't failed us up until 2000. Even in 2000, despite the fact that a) a full recount showed Gore won b) Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State removed 57,000 residents from the voting roles because they were black c) many votes were improperly discarded and of course, the infamous d) the fact that many Palm Beach residents voted for Pat Buchanan by accident - the fact is that the Florida election fell WELL within any numerical statistic to be considered close enough to be a tie. The fact that Gore won the popular vote - and by a non-statistically tied margin - is NOT the system, therefore, the system basically held up its end of the bargain. In 1960, mobsters and Mayor Daley PROBABLY delivered Illinois to Kennedy illegally. Did the system fail then too? Nobody has decided to look closely enough at it, as Kennedy was elevated to cult status, and most of the evidence has died off by now.

The point, though, is that we've never had democracy by the barrel of a gun. Right?

Well, YOU would be wrong.

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was beginning to fight the Depression with his New Deal. FDR's left-wing plan scared many of the business leaders in America, and for good reason. He meant to chip away at the social systems that had bankrupted the poor masses. As such, his programs meant to spread the wealth downward. Without screaming Communism, some of the business leaders of America banded together and had an idea: to replace Roosevelt with a business-led fascist government.

Sounds crazy, right? Not so. In the mid-30s, business leaders spoke openly of their admiration for the way Mussolini had dealt with Italy. American newspapers wrote glowing articles praising Mussolini's business endeavors, and his handling of the nation. In fact, Mussolini was contracted to write articles about the "new" Italy in no less prestigious paper than the New York Sun (considered the Times of its day). As Hitler came to power, businessmen admired his handling of labor unrest and getting the German economy back up, even at gunpoint. Also, the crimes and atrocities of these fascist states were somewhat in the future - certainly, no holocaust was happening yet. Of course, opposition leaders were turning up dead, but these things were hardly worth noticing, especially as the state ran the press in both countries...

Meanwhile, this coalation of businessmen and other interested parties formed a plan. They were going to go to certain U.S. Army generals and see if they could raise an army to oust Roosevelt. At best he would go quietly; at worst a civil war would break out and they could both profit from the war, and hopefully come out victorious. The first officer they went to was General Smedley Butler. Butler was a Quaker of unimpeachable moral character. He was a colorful man, widely respected, and honored many times for both bravery. He inspired deep loyalty from his troops, and was not considered overly bright, which was the reason he was asked to perform this task.

Butler was asked to do the following: He was to go to Roosevelt, tell FDR that if he did not step aside that he would lead half a million troops to Washington and take the government by force. FDR would create a new cabinet position, "Secretary of General Affairs" to run things while FDR stood aside. Of course, this secretary would take all his cues from the business leaders on Wall Street. FDR, who was known to be in poor health, would simply claim illness and stay away from the spotlight.

When asked what sort of government would come out of such a set-up, Gerald MacGuire, Butler's key recruiter and assistant to Robert Clark who was one of the richest bankers on Wall Street, was candid: They would set up a business-first fascist government led by J.P. Morgan and the DuPont families.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) Butler wanted absolutely no part. He immediately went to Congress. The general revealed the details of the coup before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, which would later become the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (the Red Scare in the 50s provided the Committee with plenty of ammo to destroy innocent lives). Amazingly, the committee did very little, despite the fact that it's final report said that there was most definitely a plot against Roosevelt and that it could have involved the upper echelons of Wall Street businessmen. The whys are innumerable: the media wouldn't or couldn't report upon the story because they were owned by the bussinesmen in question. Congressmen were HIGHLY paid to squash the story, and with the media's help, were able to keep the story quiet long enough for it to pass into the backwash of American history.

However, Butler was a Quaker, and as I said above, had impeachable morals. He was not a liar or given to such falsities. In 1967, a full 35(!!) years after the beginning of the plot, Butler's story was finally proven by John Spivak, a crusading journalist. He uncovered the original report, and found many famous names involved in the plot including:

Al Smith, a former political opponent of FDR's from New York
Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party.

And yet, Congress and the media did nothing. So the next time you THINK fascism couldn't take root here in America, remember what nearly happened to FDR, and consider how carefully we, as Americans, need to keep an eye on our institutions... and consider what is currently happening in America right now. Also, consider how poorly history is taught to students when you think of what an important moment this could have been in history, and how YOU had no idea this ever happened. It is not easy to find, y'know... :)

Red Monster here. Today we're gonna drop some chick-knowledge on the world.

First, during the week, I met John Kerry's wife. Three things I can say about her: 1. She's the richest person I've ever shook hands with, 2. She has a firm grip with a handshake and 3. She apparently likes redheads because she complimented my hair. No kidding! I shook her hand and said that she was a trooper for barnstorming with her husband, and she said thank you, and she was glad to have my support, and that I had lovely hair.

The nice thing about it was that we met in uncluttered circumstances. There was a Secret Service (I think?) agent next to her, but there wasn't a crowd of people surrounding her, so I was able to actually talk to her for a few seconds before getting shooed. We had a surprisingly pleasant conversation, and she was extremely nice to me, or at least acted like it.

'Course, her hubby spoke there (which is why both of us were there in the first place), and he's a DAMN good speaker in person. Even better than Clinton, in my most HUMBLE opinion. He's also a good looking fellow. If you'll follow my photographic timeline below:



Yep. The original JFK, jokingly called the "first attractive president" in the Onion's "Our Dumb Century." Any resemblance to our current JFK...?



Okay. He's a little craggy. Jay Leno called and wants his jaw back. But he's definitely a good looking cat, and here's my proof:



No doubt, the chin is still in. But that's a good-looking guy, and I won't accept any other rationalization. However, those who AREN'T with me on this can simply look at this:




I think you get the point. So in 2004, vote hot.

(All Bush images courtesy of the fantastic site Bush or Chimp which I highly recommend you check out)

Opinions are always interesting.

I'm always curious about the how's and whys of American public opinion. As is apparent from my blog, political thought looms large in my mind, but today I'm going to push them off the table. Shelly would be proud (by the way, she's out of town and away from the internet, so she'll be updating in a week about why Mr. Kerry is hot, ha ha). Today, though, I'd like to talk about the prevailing public opinion on sports in this country.

America tends to love its athletes (especially if they're Yankee$). A list of American heroes is almost certainly going to include at least ONE athlete, a Jackie Robinson or Jesse Owens, perhaps Mantle or Ruth, even today's crop of stars, like a Jeter, or Jordan, or Gretzky, and so on. We live in a country where we're very good at hero-making, and athletic feats take on new heights over time (which is how Larry Bird can be known as Larry Legend).

Yet when it comes to athletes of today, I hear a lot of the same complaints over and over again. The legend making process, of course, leads to more criticism of today's athletes (since obviously, "they" were better back then), but at the same time, I feel like athletes are held to a ridiculously high standard that they should not have to live up to. Let me give examples:

1. "They're paid too much."

No doubt about it: Teachers and firemen and police and soldiers and welders ought to earn more than baseball players. I mean, all they do is hit that little ball...

I agree with those sentiments. However, it's a simplification of the bigger issues facing athletes. First of all, the AVERAGE pro athlete will only play in the American major leagues an average of 4.4 years. (I took the averages from NBA, MLB, NHL and NFL) And, although there's a lot of media coverage about the giant-size of the star players salaries, the minimum salaries average out to be about $200,000 a year. That's a good paycheck! However, bear in mind that you're also paying taxes in that higher bracket, and you're only earning that salary for 4 years, so that's $800,000, minus a nice chunk of taxes.

Compare to a teacher in my hometown school district. I went to a very good school so my comparison isn't exactly perfect. But using the numbers, a teacher in my district starts at $34,500 a year. After 10 years, that would be $42,000. After 20, you're at $50,050. Of course, teachers RARELY get removed, especially those that achieve tenure (which typically takes 5 years). Plus, you can conceivably teach forever. Unlike athlete's physical skills, which decline over time (unless you're Barry Bonds), teaching skills tend to improve after years of experience in the classroom.

So, the average athlete has earned his $800,000. After 4 years he no longer has a paying job in his profession. And the teacher? Well, it'll take him 18 years to make that $800,000, however he'll also have a secure job, and will have paid less taxes on his money. Presuming that the teacher started at age 25, the teacher can teach for 40 years (or more), and within that time, will earn DOUBLE what the athlete would for playing, and would have life-long benefits. Athletic pensions are fairly meager, but teaching pensions are strong and viable.

Furthermore, fans who suggest that as athletes make more money, the price of games increase. This is half-true. In actual fact, it stands to reason that prices will go up. Ask a Depression-era survivor what the price of milk was back then... go on, I dare you. As you can imagine, it was cheap back then. As it is now. Inflation and wage-increases create market conditions that make prices rise. Indeed, blaming an athlete for the price of a game is ridiculous. When milk goes up 10 cents a gallon, you do not go to the store and blame the clerk, do you? Obviously not. The clerk has no say in how much the store wants to charge for the milk. The clerk does not dictate market conditions, the clerk has absolutely NO say with the dairy farmer, or the cows, or the natural conditions that create a glut or scarcity of milk in a given season. The clerk simply sells you the milk. Just like the athletes simply play the game.

2. "Agents are killing the game!"

Prior to agents and free agency, athletes were treated like chattel. Contracts were negotiated for one year. Players were told never to bargain together, while owners colluded together to keep salaries down, and to make trades difficult to get for disaffected players. The result was poorly informed and poorly paid players who had to live by their owners whim. Get injured? You could expect a pay cut. Got traded? Pick up your life and fly it across the country by tomorrow or else you could get released.

Players had no recourse against the owners. Now, there's agents. Personally, I don't care for agents and their greediness. However, that the playing field is level for both sides is a MUCH better sight than the old way of doing things. And free agency causes some problems, yes, but it also gives owners a reason to treat their players better - since now, the player has the right to walk away from a bad situation.

It's an American right to change employment for the better. A McDonald's fry cook making $6.00 an hour would not be jeered for learning typing skills and getting an $11.00 an hour job as a secretary somewhere else. But an athlete? Heaven help you if you want to go elsewhere. You're a mercenary, despite #1 above about how athletes only have a short window in which to make their money.

3. "These prima donna kids should just be quiet"

I graduate from college this summer with a journalism degree, so I'll use myself as an example. Let's say that after graduation I'm offered jobs at 2 different newspapers.

Paper A is a struggling paper with an undistinguished history. Circulation is falling, management has been changed many times in the past few years. The position I want to play is currently filled, and although they want to hire me, there's no guarantee I'll get to do what I want when I first join the paper. I do not care for my editor, and the paper is in a town in which I don't want to live.

Paper B is a struggling paper, however, it has a long history of success. Circulation is large, the paper has a steady management. The position I want is vacant, and the paper wants me to fill it. The editor has openly stated that he wants ME, and the paper is located exactly where I want to live.

If my name is Todd, I'm *OBVIOUSLY* going to choose Paper B. If my name was Eli Manning, though, I would be castrated in the media for not going to Paper A.

Yes, yes, Eli that "little prima donna" - according to big fat reactionary-conservative bimbo John Kruk - has absolutely upset the apple cart of society by openly stating that he would not play for the San Diego Chargers if they drafted him. The horror. Imagine an American citizen saying that he doesn't want to work for a certain employer! Like we have those rights! Oh wait... we do...?

In fact, we don't have to work for anyone if we choose not to. Why is this principle so lost on the athletic field? I don't know. Athletes are just supposed to "shut up and play" according to former "athlete" John Kruk. But why? Again, if you're a skilled employee, why can't YOU have the decision where you'd like to ply your skills? Especially in the NFL, where players can be released for no reason, and can be traded at the drop of a hat. But let a player decide where he wants to go? Oh no no no. Shut up and play, slave.

When Warren Sapp compared the NFL to slavemasters, he was roundly criticized. I disagree with his racial meaning, but I definitely agree with his assessment of their economic practices. If you sign a contract, it's supposed to mean BOTH sides have equal representation. However, in the NFL, that is not the case. There is little guaranteed money in an NFL contract. When Donovan McNabb signed for 105 million dollars last season, the asterik was the fact that he would have to stay in the league for 7 years with the Eagles as the starter, AND (this is the important part) he would also have to not be released by the team at any point of time during the contract. That's right. The Eagles could simply release him and McNabb would have no right to any of the promised money. That isn't a contract by any stretch of the imagination. The NFL Player's Union has utterly failed its constituents, frankly.

But in the media, heaven help the player who doesn't want to play under those conditions, or who doesn't want to keep quiet about it. The NFL (like most sports leagues) has a long wall of lawyers and media contacts who make sure that players who step out of line find the experience ugly enough to never do it again. And that's the way the league likes it.

4. "He/She should shut up and go back to playing sports"

My all time favorite comment. This one also applies to actors and singers. When someone speaks their mind in public, and athletes have a public forum that other people don't, often there's a segment of the population that scoffs. "They're just an athlete/singer/actor, they don't know what they're talking about, and they should just be quiet."

But the person saying that, are THEY in the media? Are THEY the keepers of American opinion? Are they an athlete, singer, or actor? Probably not. Therefore, shouldn't THEY shut up, since they don't know what they're talking about either?

They should, but of course, they won't. Because everyone has an opinion, and people like to share them. Athletes are people too, y'know, and they have every right to have an opinion, and they have every right to share it. That goes for intelligent well-versed opinions, and the soft reactionary tripe that an ignoramus like Mike Piazza spits out. He has EVERY right to his opinion. And he has every right to tell people what it is.

Now, I don't like the way some celebrities think their opinion is a big deal. But just having one shouldn't get you criticized. I'm just a private person, but I know a lot of stuff, and I definitely have opinions. Should I not have one? Should I shut off the blog now?

I think not... :)

1. You simply MUST see this: Protesters show up at SecDef Rumsfeld's house for hours of playtime fun. Hi-larious. I wonder if this was an outbreak of 6 or 7 random Americans, and bears no relation to other Americans. I especially note the great old freeper protesting the protestors.

2. Manny Ramirez became an American citizen yesterday. I love Manny, but look, we have enough space cases in the country already, so either a) he needs to re-take the test or b) he'd better shape up or else we'll revoke it.

(Editor's Note: I'm kidding. I love Manny. Manny, Manny, Manny Ramirez, Manny Ramirez is great.)

3. On top of my page, Blogger places ads that I have no say about. Since I often post about the idiocy of our "President" and his cronies, I tend to get ads for said idiot, and/or his idiot allies. For example, I clicked on my page to see, in horror, that Karen Hughes' book was being offered on my page. DIS-GUSTING. Karen is a woman who compared abortion to terrorism like the big ugly meathead that she is. Now, if'n you don't agree with abortion, fine. I'm pro-choice with an asterik, because frankly, I think it's a woman's choice and as a guy, I should only have say if it's MY kid. And I absolutely understand a pro-lifer who is uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. I think life is precious too. And the procedure is... well, pretty nasty, to be totally honest. But for goodness sake, don't compare abortion to terrorism!! Next the right will be telling us that the reason 9/11 happened is because of the gays and legal abortion...

... oh. That Jerry Falwell is a fucktwit, ain't he?

Anyway, though, the point (some 500 words ago) is that Blogger takes the ads at the top of my page by words used in my posts. Since I bitch about the Chimperor, he's up there. Therefore, this post is going to counteract the effect.

"John Kerry is hot" - my girlfriend and my ex-girlfriend
"John Kerry is a war hero" - everyone not under the right-wing spell
"John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry, John Kerry" - me, trying to make Blogger look foolish.

That ought to be enough Kerry's for one night. And one more Manny Ramirez, for effect. God Bless ya, Manny. Good luck on hitting .400 this season, bay-bee!

... if I made a few mistakes.

The Center for American Progress has developed a list of 100 things George Dubya could apologize for.

He doesn't. He won't. He never will.

If you love America, you'll gently pass parts of that list along to probable voters.

... or should I say Bush versus reality. Enjoy.

"Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what they see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
George W. Bush, addressing Congress on 9.20.2001

"We're functioning in a - with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."
Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before Senate Armed Forces Committee, 5.6.2004

"Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida’s voter rolls on grounds that they were felons. Voter rolls contain the names of all eligible, registered voters... My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime – except for being African American. We didn’t have to guess about that, because next to each voter’s name was their race... When I questioned Harris’ office about the high percentage of African Americans on the scrub list, they responded, “Well, you know how many black people commit crimes.”

It wasn’t reported in mainstream press, but the NAACP sued Harris and the gang for the black purge, and won. The state threw up its hands immediately and said, ‘You got us! We’ll put these people back as soon as we can.’ We’re still waiting."
Liam Schiff, The Daily Dig 4.22.2003

"We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism."
George W. Bush, addressing Congress on 9.20.2001

"After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal."
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael from The New Hampshire Gazette 10.7.2003

"Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network."
George W. Bush, addressing Congress on 9.20.2001

"Body armor distributors have received steady inquiries from soldiers and families about purchasing the gear, which can cost several thousand dollars. Though the military has advised them not to rely on third-party suppliers, many soldiers say they want it before they deploy... Last October, it was reported that nearly one-quarter of American troops serving in Iraq did not have ceramic plated body armor, which can stop bullets fired from assault rifles and shrapnel."
CNN/AP Report 3.26.2004

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, 3/13/02


"'Forward,' he cried, from the rear
As the front... rank... died..."
Pink Floyd -- "Us and Them"

Bastards. Every last one of them.

But THIS has, without a doubt, made my entire weekend.

It's positively hypnotic. wOOt is a master among masters, a genius among geniuses. I bow to his talents. (bows)

If you stopped Donald Rumsfeld on the street and asked him flat-out: "Sir, which do you fear more: Terrorists, or digital cameras?"

Prior to today, I would have given Mr. Rumsfeld credit and figured he'd be up with that whole terrarist-fearin' thing, and digital cameras would be low on his list of fears. But I WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG!!

Yes, folks, the great new fear of the 21st century is those pesky digital cameras, and the way they capture evidence so very precisely. Damn them to hell! Only terra-rists use digital! Only brown-skinned people fear non-digital cameras!

I have never been quite as sick as I was, watching Rumsfeld act as though the biggest problem with the photographs that came to light was NOT that it happened, but that they were taken in the first place. Utterly breathtaking. Then he turns around and says that in January, he knew about the abuses... but didn't see the pictures until last night?

Look, at least Nixon's henchmen lied convincingly for a while, Haldermann and Dean and G. Gordon Liddy need to take Rummy, Asshat, Rice, and Cheney aside and explain how to a) lie convincingly b) pick a script and stick to it NO MATTER WHAT and c) learn how to disregard the phrase "under oath." Because the Bush Administration apparently could not find its ass with a stick and a GPS satellite.

Their inability to lie aside, I've been nothing but amused by the questioning today. I'm now watching the House panel questioning the brass, but it's nowhere near as fun as the Senate questioning. So let me give out gold stars to the kids that did their jobs today:

Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) - Senator Dayton would NOT let Rummy off the hook, even though Rumsfeld kept pointing to his watch every 5 seconds during Dayton's questioning. (Rummy had to go get grilled at the House). Dayton went right ahead and kept him past the "scheduled time" - the most asinine phrase invented for these obscene committees. Rumsfeld got visibly upset by Dayton's questioning, and Dayton pretty much yelled him back down by the end. A command performance.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - That's MY girl, by the way... anyhow, Clinton did not press Rummy's buttons like Dayton and McCain did, but she calmly asked questions, didn't try to speechify her time by talking too much, and generally acted like the prosecutor that she's supposed to be doing. It was well done. She brought in some new information (James Yee, in particular) that hadn't yet been discussed by the panel, and very calmly kept Rummy as on track as he was getting.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - Like an attack dog, would NOT let Rummy get away without answering his question. Magnificent performance. How much better would our nation be if he hadn't been sunk by Bush's dirty campaign tactics in 2000. It's a legitimate shame that he has to share a party with people like that. Indeed, I'd like to go to the commissioner and request a trade... more on that in a minute... :)

The protestors - Typically, I hate protestors. Let me explain why. An effective protest is one that can boil down the essence of the protest into a few short slogans. Call me un-American, but there are very few things that can effectively be protested against without nuance. Now, I applaud the ideas behind many protests, but over-simplification is, frankly, something the other side is REEAAALLLL good at. Better than we are. Which means that our slogans are drowned out by the media's coverage of most protests (The sneer of the anchor, the interview with the one spittle-emitting moron) and replaced by the other side saying, "Gosh, look at those poor misguided moonbats. Most Americans don't feel that way." And Mr. and Mrs. America, in Iowa, say, "Those damn libruls. Now I wanna support the war."

All of this is a long way of getting to the point, which is that the protestors in the committee did their job better than usual. They didn't just chant "Fire Rumsfeld" or "War Criminal" they also asked about the other abuses in Iraq, if my hearing was good, they also asked about abuses in Afghanistan and James Yee. And -- can't overstate this enough -- they left peacefully. Chanting, but peaceful. Rumsfeld looked a little rattled, too, which I guess makes them effective.

Now. We come to the most second-most appalling individual who spoke today:

Senator Joe Lieberman (D, but very guilty about it and wishes he was R-CN) - No, he doesn't get a link. Lieberman has always been a half-neoconservative/half anti-liberal centrist democrat, but today's performance was particularly disgusting. Shorter Lieberman: Terrorists never apologize, so it's okay for us to commit abuse because we do apologize. Saddam and 9/11 are bad, so we can be bad too. Absolutely... fucking... despicable. I hope semi-aware Dems in his state get together and get a reasonable candidate to run against him. Lieberman, of course, neglected to mention that a) the only apology Bush has ever issued was for this particular incident b) Saddam and 9/11 are totally unrelated and c) NOTHING GIVES US THE RIGHT TO DO THIS!!!!!

I would gladly - GLADLY - accept a Lieberman for McCain trade. We, as a party, would be happy to throw in Zell Miller (D, but unaware that he isn't R-GA) if the Republicans would like. Both are toadies for the administration, and while Zell didn't get a chance to give Rummy a long, slow, wet French kiss, Lieberman really beat him to it. Gosh, it was disgusting. Stuff like that *almost* makes me glad that Gore didn't get elected so we couldn't let uber-hawks like Lieberman into extra power. Then again, if Gore had been elected, we wouldn't be in this mess, and Lieberman wouldn't have the chance to lick Rumsfeld's boots. So I take it all back... :)

Remember kids: Patriots don't play with digital cameras.

UPDATE: Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) just lit into Rumsfeld about the lack of reports of this abuse before it came out in the press. Think I'm in love. :)

It is not how your treat your equals that marks you as a good human being, it is how you treat your inferiors.

Never has this been more true than the current atmosphere of how we've been treating our prisoners. If you want some pictures and news go right here.

When was it made okay to abuse and torture prisoners of war because we were American? This is absolute bullshit, and not ONLY does it show exactly how poorly trained and controlled certain segments of our armed forces are, it also proves how false the crap that Bush has been shoveling lately about how things have improved.

President Bush is very fond of saying "We closed Saddam's rape rooms." Is he sure? Or have those rooms moved from Iraq to Gitmo, and ownership has shifted from one dictator to another?

One of the great follies of America is the belief that without a doubt, our country is blessed and has been chosen by God to lead the world. Could you IMAGINE the outrage if we saw Osama bin Laden torturing an American soldier? There would be a strong contingent of middle America begging for a B-52 to take out the Sunni triangle... sort of like how we frothed at the mouth after those mercenaries were desecrated in Fallujah. That wasn't okay... and neither is this.

We could be trying our damnest to bow to Muslim law. We could be treating our POWs with respect and dignity. But they're beneath us, apparently. According to Bush's absolutely disgusting strawman "some people in America don't feel brown-skinned people can rule themselves." More utter bullshit. The only people who believed that non-whites couldn't rule themselves are the people who ordered this attack in the first place. End of story.

Furthermore, why SHOULD the Iraqis accept us? The French came across the Atlantic to help us defeat the British in the Revolutionary War; they did not stay around and write our Constitution. Would we have accepted French-aided rule in 1781? Obviously, we would not. I don't remember saying General Lafayette saying, "Some people in France don't feel New World people can rule themselves." This is because he did not. The Brits? They did not humiliate our POWs. And what happened? As a people, we eventually built a country, a pretty good one, a pretty sturdy one. For reasons I've yet to understand, we expect a nation ravaged by war and abuse to simply accept a foreign power's idea of government. WHY?!?! Because we're American? We are not Gods, we are not immortals, we are not all-wise and all-knowing. No one cares that our Constitution is a great document; they'd rather create their own, thank you very much.

But that's beyond our leaders. I've seen a lot of pundits shrugging these pictures and stories of American atrocities off, as though they don't matter. Well... they do. Human beings have long memories and carry grudges for a VERY long time. And some day, this is going to come back. Because a bully isn't bigger forever... the kid who gets picked-on won't be small forever... and these feelings last beyond a lifetime. We might install a puppet government in Iraq, and that government might bring more freedoms to Iraqis. That remains to be seen (and although I feel it's unbelievably unlikely, I have to give it a chance yet), but this sort of America the great, America the Perfect thinking will absolutely come home to roost someday.

I'm so mad, I can't even keep typing. Sorry if I'm ranting. :)