My last post highlighting commentary by Kagro X might lead some to the conclusion that I am of the opinion that the resolutions to end the Occupation of Iraq that were passed by the House and Senate were the best legislation for the job.
This is not so.
While the bills in question do call for a withdrawal by a named date in 2008, they also allocate $20b more than the Shrub requested for 2008, and they provide for an additional $50b for military operations in 2009.
Arthur has written about this disappointing, maddening turn of events here, citing powerful commentary by Matt Taibbi:
As for everyone else -- specifically, the Democrats who sponsored and passed the timetable measure -- they benefited from the bill most directly, riding a crest of antiwar sentiment and setting the Democrats up as the party that will look the best in the eyes of frustrated, war-fatigued voters in 2008. But lost amid all of this antiwar posturing were a series of inconvenient truths. One was that the bill was always going to be meaningless because Bush was always going to veto it, there were never going to be enough votes to override the veto, and everybody knew there were never going to be enough votes to override the veto. The second is that the timetable measure was buried in an emergency spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bill that ended up authorizing $122 billion in spending when the supposedly evil, warmongering, politically isolated Bush White House only asked for $103 billion. In other words, the outwardly combative Democratic leadership not only refused to do anything substantive to bring the troops home, it actually tossed Bush an extra $20 billion or for the war effort without prodding.
In my visits to Washington in the past few months I've heard different stories from Democratic congressional aides about what the party's intentions are. Some say they think the leadership is just going to stall and pass a bunch of non-binding, symbolic, Kumbayah horseshit to help propel whoever the Democratic candidate is into the White House two years from now. Others claim with a straight face that all of these non-binding resolutions are only a start, that the strategy is to really end the war via a death-by-a-thousand-cuts type of legislative grind, with the leadership sending to the floor bill after bill after bill designed to eat away at either war policy or war funding. They claim that all of these votes are exercises in coalition-building, necessary steps to gathering the support needed to pass real biting measures later on.
Dave Lindorff:
Despite polls showing that 6 in 10 Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq asap, the best that this crew can come up with is a call-not binding, or course-for the president to pull out the troops by next spring or even summer. That would be over a year from now, and more than five years (!) into this criminal and incredibly stupid war.
At the rate things have been going, it would also be perhaps 1000 more dead Americans, 14,000 more gravely wounded Americans, and 100-150,000 more dead Iraqis later.
This is not exactly the legacy I thought we had stumbled upon last November. More and more I'm coming to realize that Arthur's thoughts on the Democrat's predilection for imperialistic policies dating back to Woodrow Wilson (which are in many ways worse than those of Republicans--mainly because they are much more competent about executing those policies and achieving maximum results):
In effect, Democrats (and many liberal and progressive bloggers) would have you believe that something like the Iraq disaster would never occur if the Democrats were in charge.
This is flatly false. It is a lie offered for the least admirable and most petty of ignoble partisan motives. The Democrats would have you forget Woodrow Wilson and World War I, and the century of conflict to which our entrance into that war led (and the effects of which still play out in the Middle East and beyond today); they would have you forget Vietnam, which parallels the Iraq catastrophe in ways beyond counting -- and they would have you forget the Balkans and Kosovo.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that there aren't any candidates out there who will be around after the primaries worth even considering, and yet one of them will be in the White House trying to figure out the next chapter in this whole sordid mess on 1/20/09. How far the conflaguration has spread by then God only knows, and even that entity may have averted its eyes from the mess we may have made of things by then.
UPDATE 31 MAR 07:
In an interview with Think Progress Mike Gravel has plenty to say about this:
I think it’s ridiculous legislation. Truthfully, truthfully. Here, when they’re talking about getting out of Iraq next year, what about the people that die between now and then when they know they’re going to get out? What about the families of those people that going to get killed between now and then? We need to get out now.
A year from now isn’t going to make it any better. And I have my suspicions that — whether Democrats or Republicans — they’re not going to get out of Iraq, even after the election. I don’t care who’s elected.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The message is clear
Kos:
Bush's veto sends troops to Iraq without rest, without armor, and without training. No president in American history has ever abandoned troops in the field to die. But George W. Bush is about to show you he's "man enough" to do it, just to prove he can.
As for his concern about setting an artificial deadline, with or without this bill there's already an artificial deadline: January 20, 2009. Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant and as openly traitorous as this one. In short, George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office. So anyone who pretends that moving the date up a few months is going to make a damned bit of difference in this disaster just isn't doing any serious thinking about the situation.
Any questions?
Bush's veto sends troops to Iraq without rest, without armor, and without training. No president in American history has ever abandoned troops in the field to die. But George W. Bush is about to show you he's "man enough" to do it, just to prove he can.
As for his concern about setting an artificial deadline, with or without this bill there's already an artificial deadline: January 20, 2009. Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant and as openly traitorous as this one. In short, George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office. So anyone who pretends that moving the date up a few months is going to make a damned bit of difference in this disaster just isn't doing any serious thinking about the situation.
Any questions?
On the Road to Tehran...
Highway signage by Halliburton; No Bid contract with US Government as part of the Iran Reconstruction Initiative.
The jerking knee almost caught me in the chin
Speaking with a colleague today about the situation between Iran and Britain I had to hold my tongue a bit (actually, a lot) in order to avoid getting into a heated argument about how much fault to lay in either direction. In truth, enough time, rhetoric and information has flowed in so many directions that the truth has already passed into the realm of unknowability. My colleague spoke of the unshakable evidence that Britain has put forth in the form of their GPS readouts and lamented about how he's got two children who will be of eligible age for the draft in eight or nine years that he doesn't want to see potentially sucked into the maelstrom when they reach that age. I believe his exact words were, "I don't want to be worrying about this kind of crap in nine years..."*
I restrained myself since engaging him in a debate about the fluidity of the actual line of demarcation and the question of justification of both thee British and the Iranians would have taken all afternoon, or at least a good chunk of time that we didn't really have available to us. I also recognized, even though I have known this particular individual for less than a month and our relationship has been on a strictly professional level, the tone of one who has come to a conclusion and only looks to media coverage of the GPS declarations to bolster his viewpoint about how the British "have the Iranians dead to rights with the GPS readings", and "will have them in a pretty tight corner if they're not careful".
Pointing him in the direction of coverage and commentary like Pepe Escobar's here would most likely elicit head shaking and eyebrow raising at this non Western media source.
I'm sure commentary like this would be received with skepticism:
Tactically, as a backgammon or, better yet, chess move - in which Iranians excel - the Shatt-al-Arab incident may be much more clever than it appears. Oil is establishing itself well above US$60 a barrel as a result of the incident, and that's good for Iran. It's true that from London's point of view, the incident could have been arranged as a provocation, part of a mischievous plan to escalate the conflict with Iran and turn Western and possibly world public opinion against the regime.
But from Tehran's point of view, for all purposes British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a soft target. The episode has the potential to paralyze both President George W Bush and Blair. Neither can use the incident to start a war with Iran, although Blair has warned that his government is prepared to move to "a different phase" if Iran does not quickly release the sailors.
If the Tehran leadership decides to drag out the proceedings, the Shi'ites in southern Iraq, already exasperated by the British (as they were in the 1920s), may take the hint and accelerate a confrontation. Strands of the Shi'ite resistance may start merging with strands of the Sunni resistance (that's what Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has wanted all along). And this would prove once again that you don't need nuclear weapons when you excel at playing chess.
And this splash of cold water would most likely be towelled off quickly with dismissive comments about aspiring superpowers who have no business meddling in a clear cut case of aggression:
Simultaneously, the combined US maneuvers and London's fiery rhetoric against Iran have made Moscow and Beijing realize the explosive nature of the situation, inducing them to draw a red line on their support for the United States' designs against Iran.
Thus, in their joint statement in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao warned the US against making any military moves on Iran. The United States' painstakingly assembled international coalition against Iran at the United Nations has now been put to severe new tests. It is far from clear that, by the time the Security Council meets again some two months from now to consider the Iran nuclear crisis, the coalition will even be intact.
I fully realize that I am not exactly giving him a fair chance to react to this material, but I've been engaged in enough conversations about international affairs with fellow countrymen to recognize certain stances fairly quickly. I'm not trying to paint him as a warmonger or subjugator of Middle Eastern people, but when the main thrust of an individual's argument is the assumption that "the only language that these people understand is violence" I have a fairly good handle on where the conversation would go if I tried to pursue it. I'm also not as confident in my skills of face to face debate as opposed to my writing abilities. Some of it may also be to do with the fact that this forum is a one way street to some extent and what dialogue there is available is choppy at best via the initial entry and subsequent comments...
In the past, when I've run into a situation like this all I've done is mulled over it and replayed it in my head, coming up with clever ripostes and counterpoints after the fact. Now at least I can externalize it here and move on with trying to maintain my sanity while the last seconds tick away on the Doomsday Clock: Five minutes and counting...
*UPDATE 3/30/07:
It was never my intention to discount or call into question my colleague's concern for his children's future. As a non-parent, I have absolutely no frame of reference to what a parent goes through thinking about the potential for their children to be placed in harm's way at the whim of a nameless, faceless government in order to enforce policy that they may or may not agree with.
It concerned and annoyed me to see him using his concern about a draft that doesn't exist, and has been shown to be extremely unpopular when put to public opinion (so much so that not one of the malcontents currently in Congress will even touch it with a long pole) to help frame an argument about who was at fault in an international dispute over borders, and in a larger sense, the role of a sovereign nation in a remote region in relation to its fellow nations.
It's highly unlikely that a draft will ever be instituted in this country again, with the possible exception of the case of an actual physical invasion by another country. None of this "fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here" crap, or the mantra of helping to maintain stability and train native forces so that they can protect themselves. The American public recognizes the corporate imperialistic nature of the majority of the wars the administration embarks on and wants no part of them, particularly when their children are asked to fight them on a compulsory basis.
I restrained myself since engaging him in a debate about the fluidity of the actual line of demarcation and the question of justification of both thee British and the Iranians would have taken all afternoon, or at least a good chunk of time that we didn't really have available to us. I also recognized, even though I have known this particular individual for less than a month and our relationship has been on a strictly professional level, the tone of one who has come to a conclusion and only looks to media coverage of the GPS declarations to bolster his viewpoint about how the British "have the Iranians dead to rights with the GPS readings", and "will have them in a pretty tight corner if they're not careful".
Pointing him in the direction of coverage and commentary like Pepe Escobar's here would most likely elicit head shaking and eyebrow raising at this non Western media source.
I'm sure commentary like this would be received with skepticism:
Tactically, as a backgammon or, better yet, chess move - in which Iranians excel - the Shatt-al-Arab incident may be much more clever than it appears. Oil is establishing itself well above US$60 a barrel as a result of the incident, and that's good for Iran. It's true that from London's point of view, the incident could have been arranged as a provocation, part of a mischievous plan to escalate the conflict with Iran and turn Western and possibly world public opinion against the regime.
But from Tehran's point of view, for all purposes British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a soft target. The episode has the potential to paralyze both President George W Bush and Blair. Neither can use the incident to start a war with Iran, although Blair has warned that his government is prepared to move to "a different phase" if Iran does not quickly release the sailors.
If the Tehran leadership decides to drag out the proceedings, the Shi'ites in southern Iraq, already exasperated by the British (as they were in the 1920s), may take the hint and accelerate a confrontation. Strands of the Shi'ite resistance may start merging with strands of the Sunni resistance (that's what Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has wanted all along). And this would prove once again that you don't need nuclear weapons when you excel at playing chess.
And this splash of cold water would most likely be towelled off quickly with dismissive comments about aspiring superpowers who have no business meddling in a clear cut case of aggression:
Simultaneously, the combined US maneuvers and London's fiery rhetoric against Iran have made Moscow and Beijing realize the explosive nature of the situation, inducing them to draw a red line on their support for the United States' designs against Iran.
Thus, in their joint statement in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao warned the US against making any military moves on Iran. The United States' painstakingly assembled international coalition against Iran at the United Nations has now been put to severe new tests. It is far from clear that, by the time the Security Council meets again some two months from now to consider the Iran nuclear crisis, the coalition will even be intact.
I fully realize that I am not exactly giving him a fair chance to react to this material, but I've been engaged in enough conversations about international affairs with fellow countrymen to recognize certain stances fairly quickly. I'm not trying to paint him as a warmonger or subjugator of Middle Eastern people, but when the main thrust of an individual's argument is the assumption that "the only language that these people understand is violence" I have a fairly good handle on where the conversation would go if I tried to pursue it. I'm also not as confident in my skills of face to face debate as opposed to my writing abilities. Some of it may also be to do with the fact that this forum is a one way street to some extent and what dialogue there is available is choppy at best via the initial entry and subsequent comments...
In the past, when I've run into a situation like this all I've done is mulled over it and replayed it in my head, coming up with clever ripostes and counterpoints after the fact. Now at least I can externalize it here and move on with trying to maintain my sanity while the last seconds tick away on the Doomsday Clock: Five minutes and counting...
*UPDATE 3/30/07:
It was never my intention to discount or call into question my colleague's concern for his children's future. As a non-parent, I have absolutely no frame of reference to what a parent goes through thinking about the potential for their children to be placed in harm's way at the whim of a nameless, faceless government in order to enforce policy that they may or may not agree with.
It concerned and annoyed me to see him using his concern about a draft that doesn't exist, and has been shown to be extremely unpopular when put to public opinion (so much so that not one of the malcontents currently in Congress will even touch it with a long pole) to help frame an argument about who was at fault in an international dispute over borders, and in a larger sense, the role of a sovereign nation in a remote region in relation to its fellow nations.
It's highly unlikely that a draft will ever be instituted in this country again, with the possible exception of the case of an actual physical invasion by another country. None of this "fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here" crap, or the mantra of helping to maintain stability and train native forces so that they can protect themselves. The American public recognizes the corporate imperialistic nature of the majority of the wars the administration embarks on and wants no part of them, particularly when their children are asked to fight them on a compulsory basis.
Keeping their grimy paws of the Internets...
If web radio program content that is free from corporate broadcasting's taint is important to you, please check out this petition. It must drive the execs in their boardrooms crazy that there is a medium out there that is free and clear of any influence on their part. Of course, the untapped financial potential in the form of all those ears of consumers can't be helping but make them chafe at the bit all the more.
A great deal of what I write about and link to here comes from internet sources, some of which already engage in commercial advertising, but almost none of which are subject to government or corporate regulation. I think that's just fine. If these measures find their way into the internet broadcasting realm, they will only take root deeper and spread to other formats which are vital to the amazing exchange medium that the internet is right now.
A great deal of what I write about and link to here comes from internet sources, some of which already engage in commercial advertising, but almost none of which are subject to government or corporate regulation. I think that's just fine. If these measures find their way into the internet broadcasting realm, they will only take root deeper and spread to other formats which are vital to the amazing exchange medium that the internet is right now.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Lines, lines, lines...
They mean nothing to the Sun. Or the Birds, or the Fish, or... anything, except meddling governments that have nothing to do with or any inherent concern for the native land and peoples that the lines are ostensibly de-marking...
Craig Murray:
The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
Of course, the official British line is treated as almost gospel:
BBC:
Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was "unjustified and wrong".
Tony Blair said it was time to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran, with whom the UK has now suspended bilateral contacts.
The prime minister said: "These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine - there was no justification therefore for their detention."
UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters
The only thing that has helped me keep my faith in the integrity of the BBC is the headline of the previous section--"UK version of events." Funny how just a few words can make all the difference in the world...
Arthur's take on it is here.
His anecdote about the missed opportunity from his youth has gotten me to thinking about the philosophical ramifications of investing in a socially responsible way or not--and how one may apply the financial benefits reaped from such investments.
Riddle me this, Batman:
Is it acceptable to invest and reap financial rewards from not so socially responsible investments (in defense industries or energy industries who aren't as environmentally responsible as they could be) if the resulting gains are applied towards endeavors that are more aligned with social responsibility (a more ambitious blog effort than this one, active investment/development of alternative energy industries, support/founding of humanitarian aid foundations)?
An interesting question to ponder. Although the age old saying about the road to Hell and the Good Intentions that it is paved with always should be kept in mind whenever one contemplates and/or actively pursues such a course of action.
As to which nonsocially responsible industries are the best bets, your guess is as good as mine... if I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be writing here nearly as often--I'd be too busy dealing with my many (hopefully world redeeming, but you never know, money does funny things to people) endeavors and having my ulcers (from the worry about all that great sums of cash inevitably causes) treated... Batteries seem like a good bet, but who knows? Everyone seems to be exploring and finding new reserves of fossil fuels and staking their claims, so that might be a red herring for another fifty years.
Craig Murray:
The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
Of course, the official British line is treated as almost gospel:
BBC:
Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was "unjustified and wrong".
Tony Blair said it was time to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran, with whom the UK has now suspended bilateral contacts.
The prime minister said: "These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine - there was no justification therefore for their detention."
UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters
The only thing that has helped me keep my faith in the integrity of the BBC is the headline of the previous section--"UK version of events." Funny how just a few words can make all the difference in the world...
Arthur's take on it is here.
His anecdote about the missed opportunity from his youth has gotten me to thinking about the philosophical ramifications of investing in a socially responsible way or not--and how one may apply the financial benefits reaped from such investments.
Riddle me this, Batman:
Is it acceptable to invest and reap financial rewards from not so socially responsible investments (in defense industries or energy industries who aren't as environmentally responsible as they could be) if the resulting gains are applied towards endeavors that are more aligned with social responsibility (a more ambitious blog effort than this one, active investment/development of alternative energy industries, support/founding of humanitarian aid foundations)?
An interesting question to ponder. Although the age old saying about the road to Hell and the Good Intentions that it is paved with always should be kept in mind whenever one contemplates and/or actively pursues such a course of action.
As to which nonsocially responsible industries are the best bets, your guess is as good as mine... if I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be writing here nearly as often--I'd be too busy dealing with my many (hopefully world redeeming, but you never know, money does funny things to people) endeavors and having my ulcers (from the worry about all that great sums of cash inevitably causes) treated... Batteries seem like a good bet, but who knows? Everyone seems to be exploring and finding new reserves of fossil fuels and staking their claims, so that might be a red herring for another fifty years.
How to lose friends and alienate people...
Trying to retain any type of support must be like carrying water in a cloth sack these days:
NYT:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — The king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, condemned the presence of American forces in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation” in a speech today, and said the withholding of aid to Palestinians should end.
The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League summit here, appeared to distance his country’s position from that of the United States. Saudi Arabia has been a powerful Arab ally to the United States in the Persian Gulf region.
Christian Science Monitor:
But war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.
"I think the discussion has really shifted," says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a pressure group in Washington that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems and worries that the Iraq war has made Israel and America less safe. "The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed," says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that thought military action could be possible this year, he says. "Now, hardly anyone does."
But it's not just doves like Rosenberg. The more hawkish forces in Washington – from neoconservatives who believe the Middle East should be remade by force to pro-Israel lobby groups that say military strikes would prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions – have taken a step back.
The logistics of a strike, with an expanded US military role in Iraq and the fact that the two US carrier groups in the Gulf can't stay there indefinitely, are growing ever more difficult. And polls show a large majority of Americans prefer diplomacy, at least for now.
Ken Pollack, another supporter of the Iraq invasion, said he favors keeping the pressure on Iran with sanctions...
He sees military action as an absolute last resort, and worries that Iran could easily tie up US forces in Iraq – where the US alleges many of the Shiite militias closely cooperate with Tehran. "We need to think about Iraq before we go off on some half-cocked military action against Iran,'' Mr. Pollack says.
Bob Dylan: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..."
NYT:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — The king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, condemned the presence of American forces in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation” in a speech today, and said the withholding of aid to Palestinians should end.
The king’s speech, at the opening of the Arab League summit here, appeared to distance his country’s position from that of the United States. Saudi Arabia has been a powerful Arab ally to the United States in the Persian Gulf region.
Christian Science Monitor:
But war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.
"I think the discussion has really shifted," says M. J. Rosenberg, the director of analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, a pressure group in Washington that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems and worries that the Iraq war has made Israel and America less safe. "The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed," says Mr. Rosenberg. There were influential people who thought that thought military action could be possible this year, he says. "Now, hardly anyone does."
But it's not just doves like Rosenberg. The more hawkish forces in Washington – from neoconservatives who believe the Middle East should be remade by force to pro-Israel lobby groups that say military strikes would prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions – have taken a step back.
The logistics of a strike, with an expanded US military role in Iraq and the fact that the two US carrier groups in the Gulf can't stay there indefinitely, are growing ever more difficult. And polls show a large majority of Americans prefer diplomacy, at least for now.
Ken Pollack, another supporter of the Iraq invasion, said he favors keeping the pressure on Iran with sanctions...
He sees military action as an absolute last resort, and worries that Iran could easily tie up US forces in Iraq – where the US alleges many of the Shiite militias closely cooperate with Tehran. "We need to think about Iraq before we go off on some half-cocked military action against Iran,'' Mr. Pollack says.
Bob Dylan: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Fasten your seat belts
Arthur sure has...
Reuters has coverage of the next staggering step towards the unthinkable, yet seemingly more and more inevitable:
By Stefano Ambrogi
LONDON, March 27
Captain Dan Cloyd said in an interview the USS John C. Stennis strike group would carry out dual carrier exercises for a "few days or more", but could stay on in the Gulf for longer.
He said the deployment and exercises were not timed to exert pressure on Iran and did not mean a military confrontation was looming.
"We do not foresee, and have no desire to engage in any kind of kinetic exchange with any force in the region," he said.
meanwhile...
Britain's Prime Minister warned Tehran on Tuesday of a "different phase" if it did not free the 15 marines and sailors seized on Friday.
and rounding out the party:
Iran's navy began a week of exercises in the Gulf last Thursday with submarines and small missile carrying ships.
all this, and the biggest concern facing us remains:
Ariel Cohen, an energy expert with the U.S. Heritage Institute, has warned that a conflict in the strait could push oil prices to $120 a barrel.
Oh, the horror! (but not to horrible, especially where our portfolios are concerned...)
Hey radioactive oil is still oil. It can still be refined into gasoline... yeah, okay, radioactive gasoline, so maybe we'll sell it at a cut rate of $2.00 a gallon...
Despite the manoeuvres and political differences Cloyd said dealings with the Iranian military were cordial.
"We interact occasionally here in the Gulf and waters outside of the Gulf with Iranian navy and airforce units, they operate with us in a very professional and courteous way."
So we'll engage and destroy them in a very professional and courteous way.
If you think I'm being alarmist, that's okay. I'd love to be wrong on this as well as many other subjects. If all this happens to resolve itself in a manner that doesn't relegate us to a world bereft of any technology and societal structure, you can give me an unending raft of shit about my Chicken Little impersonation concerning it over a few stiff drinks and cigars...
Reuters has coverage of the next staggering step towards the unthinkable, yet seemingly more and more inevitable:
By Stefano Ambrogi
LONDON, March 27
Captain Dan Cloyd said in an interview the USS John C. Stennis strike group would carry out dual carrier exercises for a "few days or more", but could stay on in the Gulf for longer.
He said the deployment and exercises were not timed to exert pressure on Iran and did not mean a military confrontation was looming.
"We do not foresee, and have no desire to engage in any kind of kinetic exchange with any force in the region," he said.
meanwhile...
Britain's Prime Minister warned Tehran on Tuesday of a "different phase" if it did not free the 15 marines and sailors seized on Friday.
and rounding out the party:
Iran's navy began a week of exercises in the Gulf last Thursday with submarines and small missile carrying ships.
all this, and the biggest concern facing us remains:
Ariel Cohen, an energy expert with the U.S. Heritage Institute, has warned that a conflict in the strait could push oil prices to $120 a barrel.
Oh, the horror! (but not to horrible, especially where our portfolios are concerned...)
Hey radioactive oil is still oil. It can still be refined into gasoline... yeah, okay, radioactive gasoline, so maybe we'll sell it at a cut rate of $2.00 a gallon...
Despite the manoeuvres and political differences Cloyd said dealings with the Iranian military were cordial.
"We interact occasionally here in the Gulf and waters outside of the Gulf with Iranian navy and airforce units, they operate with us in a very professional and courteous way."
So we'll engage and destroy them in a very professional and courteous way.
If you think I'm being alarmist, that's okay. I'd love to be wrong on this as well as many other subjects. If all this happens to resolve itself in a manner that doesn't relegate us to a world bereft of any technology and societal structure, you can give me an unending raft of shit about my Chicken Little impersonation concerning it over a few stiff drinks and cigars...
The most tenacious enemy...
is the one we find within the ranks.
More sparks are flying as I grind my axe down to nothingness over the insanity of the military's treatment of their most valuable resource (until they perfect the art of engineering the perfect human soldier, that is), people. Of course, unlike unnecessary and redundant weapons systems and vaccines that sicken and kill the very people they are supposedly protecting, there are not potential financial windfalls in the signing of the contract between the government and the individual serving, so they are not worth protecting.
I can't really write anything coherent beyond this (I was able to here and here though), so I just ask you to check out the links and act as your sense of humanity compels you to, keeping in mind that the folks impacted by this nefarious conduct are mere pawns whose desire to serve the country they love has ended up changing their lives in ways that they could have never imagined.
More sparks are flying as I grind my axe down to nothingness over the insanity of the military's treatment of their most valuable resource (until they perfect the art of engineering the perfect human soldier, that is), people. Of course, unlike unnecessary and redundant weapons systems and vaccines that sicken and kill the very people they are supposedly protecting, there are not potential financial windfalls in the signing of the contract between the government and the individual serving, so they are not worth protecting.
I can't really write anything coherent beyond this (I was able to here and here though), so I just ask you to check out the links and act as your sense of humanity compels you to, keeping in mind that the folks impacted by this nefarious conduct are mere pawns whose desire to serve the country they love has ended up changing their lives in ways that they could have never imagined.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Those aren't numbers that you're crunching...
This is delving into the realm of fantasy not seen since Hitler reinstated nonexistent Army divisions with the wave of a hand during the waning days of World War II on the Eastern Front.
Salon:
March 26, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- Last November, Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, a communications specialist with a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had surgery on an ankle he had injured during physical training. After the surgery, doctors put his leg in a cast, and he was supposed to start physical therapy when that cast came off six weeks later.
But two days after his cast was removed, Army commanders decided it was more important to send him to a training site in a remote desert rather than let him stay at Fort Benning, Ga., to rehabilitate. In January, Hernandez was shipped to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., where his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was conducting a month of training in anticipation of leaving for Iraq in March.
Hernandez says he was in no shape to train for war so soon after his injury. "I could not walk," he told Salon in an interview. He said he was amazed when he learned he was being sent to California. "Did they not realize that I'm hurt and I needed this physical therapy?" he remembered thinking. "I was told by my doctor and my physical therapist that this was crazy."
Military experts say they suspect that the deployment to Fort Irwin of injured soldiers was an effort to pump up manpower statistics used to show the readiness of Army units. With the military increasingly strained after four years of war, Army readiness has become a critical part of the debate over Iraq. Some congressional Democrats have considered plans to limit the White House's ability to deploy more troops unless the Pentagon can certify that units headed into the fray are fully equipped and fully manned.
Who are they seriously trying to kid? Besides themselves? Anyone... anyone at all? Bueller?
Someone needs to walk up to these shills with a hammer and smash all the shells they're using in their nefarious misdirection ploys to expose the sham that this occupation is and has been. And if a few fingers get broken in the process, so be it...
Salon:
March 26, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- Last November, Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, a communications specialist with a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had surgery on an ankle he had injured during physical training. After the surgery, doctors put his leg in a cast, and he was supposed to start physical therapy when that cast came off six weeks later.
But two days after his cast was removed, Army commanders decided it was more important to send him to a training site in a remote desert rather than let him stay at Fort Benning, Ga., to rehabilitate. In January, Hernandez was shipped to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., where his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was conducting a month of training in anticipation of leaving for Iraq in March.
Hernandez says he was in no shape to train for war so soon after his injury. "I could not walk," he told Salon in an interview. He said he was amazed when he learned he was being sent to California. "Did they not realize that I'm hurt and I needed this physical therapy?" he remembered thinking. "I was told by my doctor and my physical therapist that this was crazy."
Military experts say they suspect that the deployment to Fort Irwin of injured soldiers was an effort to pump up manpower statistics used to show the readiness of Army units. With the military increasingly strained after four years of war, Army readiness has become a critical part of the debate over Iraq. Some congressional Democrats have considered plans to limit the White House's ability to deploy more troops unless the Pentagon can certify that units headed into the fray are fully equipped and fully manned.
Who are they seriously trying to kid? Besides themselves? Anyone... anyone at all? Bueller?
Someone needs to walk up to these shills with a hammer and smash all the shells they're using in their nefarious misdirection ploys to expose the sham that this occupation is and has been. And if a few fingers get broken in the process, so be it...
Why do you Serve? No, really...
This article got me thinking about why people get into public service in the first place, why they chose to remain there, and how they go about staying if they do decide to try and stick around.
My optimistic and 'willing to try to see the good side of peoples' intentions' streak is readily willing to accept the premise that most individuals entering the world of public service and the politics that go along with it do so with the best and most noble intentions. However, it seems that the fetid and twisted world of politics; be it local, state, or national; can quickly suck even the most purely intentioned individual into the mire of back scratching and deal-making that is modern day politicing in our supposedly utopian democratic system of government. The most recent example of this arm twisting that is commonplace in the daily workings of legislation in our Congress is the persuasive tactics (some which we probably would be more comfortable not knowing the details of) employed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to secure the passage of the new Iraq funding bill which places a timetable on the deployment of US troops in Iraq as well as authorizing the funding to keep them in place and ensuring that returning troops in the period before the deadline expires are properly trained and equipped. The bill barely passed with the gratefully accepted (but by no means easily obtained) votes from key "Blue Dog" Democrats and these two brave rank breaking Republicans. The merits (or lack thereof) of this bill have been chronicled in almost infinite depth already, so I will spare you digression in that direction (pause for sighs of relief).
My main quandry here is the motivation of individuals for staying in office and the methods they employ to achieve that goal. Most seem to think that adhering to the mainstream party line where major issues are concerned is the safest bet, based on the soul-less data provided by regional and national polls. While it seems to work in terms of getting re-elected, what about serving one's constituents, i.e. the people who are ostensibly paying your salary and therefore the ones whom you work for and answer to? Don't they have a say in whether you as a public servant are retained in your position? How hard is it to take the time to meet with them on a semi regular basis to find out how they feel about the war that their sons and daughters are being asked to fight in a conflict with no foreseeable end and no clear objective? Or possibly what they might want you to try to accomplish for the district that you represent on a local level? Do these elected officials rally think that once placed in office the mandate given to them by the electorate is forfeit and subject to their personal whims? Again I realize that my naivite (and whiskey enhanced sense of outrage) may be distorting my expectations and realistic handle on the concept, but my understanding of the government as outlined in the Constitution is that it is one that is By the People, Of the People, and For the People.
Has something changed?
If so, can we change it back?
If the results from last November and the recently manifesting actions of those results are any indication, then the answer is an unqualified, albeit slow to appear, yes.
We're not a nation of drones waiting to be told what to think, contrary to the beliefs of the extreme right wing media monolithic totem pole (featuring the mugs of Rush, the Coultergeist, the Jane wanna-be and Mr. leading-the-wrong-witness). When we're given the facts, we are perfectly capable of drawing our own conclusions and forming our own opinions. The key to keeping people on the straight and narrow is to limit the flow of information to them, which the mainstream right wing media has perfected, but which is being poked with more and more holes every day in this wonderful day and age of information in multiple forms.
I hope, I think, that some of the current events unfolding are harbringers of much needed change. However, while there may be a slight glimmer at the end of the tunnel that one may construe as sunlight from the end of said tunnel, the possibility of it being the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive cannot yet be ruled out. Another passage from a King novel comes to mind as a source of optimism:
"They'll turn him out and put in some one who understands the Lesson:
Don't fuck the people over for too long. That's the lesson. Adam Clayton Powell found out. Agnew and Nixon did, too. Just... don't fuck the people for too long."
Roger Chadsworth
-The Dead Zone
Fear is a great blinder, but eventually even those scales fall off. And when they do, God help the Fuckers, that's all I'm saying...
My optimistic and 'willing to try to see the good side of peoples' intentions' streak is readily willing to accept the premise that most individuals entering the world of public service and the politics that go along with it do so with the best and most noble intentions. However, it seems that the fetid and twisted world of politics; be it local, state, or national; can quickly suck even the most purely intentioned individual into the mire of back scratching and deal-making that is modern day politicing in our supposedly utopian democratic system of government. The most recent example of this arm twisting that is commonplace in the daily workings of legislation in our Congress is the persuasive tactics (some which we probably would be more comfortable not knowing the details of) employed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to secure the passage of the new Iraq funding bill which places a timetable on the deployment of US troops in Iraq as well as authorizing the funding to keep them in place and ensuring that returning troops in the period before the deadline expires are properly trained and equipped. The bill barely passed with the gratefully accepted (but by no means easily obtained) votes from key "Blue Dog" Democrats and these two brave rank breaking Republicans. The merits (or lack thereof) of this bill have been chronicled in almost infinite depth already, so I will spare you digression in that direction (pause for sighs of relief).
My main quandry here is the motivation of individuals for staying in office and the methods they employ to achieve that goal. Most seem to think that adhering to the mainstream party line where major issues are concerned is the safest bet, based on the soul-less data provided by regional and national polls. While it seems to work in terms of getting re-elected, what about serving one's constituents, i.e. the people who are ostensibly paying your salary and therefore the ones whom you work for and answer to? Don't they have a say in whether you as a public servant are retained in your position? How hard is it to take the time to meet with them on a semi regular basis to find out how they feel about the war that their sons and daughters are being asked to fight in a conflict with no foreseeable end and no clear objective? Or possibly what they might want you to try to accomplish for the district that you represent on a local level? Do these elected officials rally think that once placed in office the mandate given to them by the electorate is forfeit and subject to their personal whims? Again I realize that my naivite (and whiskey enhanced sense of outrage) may be distorting my expectations and realistic handle on the concept, but my understanding of the government as outlined in the Constitution is that it is one that is By the People, Of the People, and For the People.
Has something changed?
If so, can we change it back?
If the results from last November and the recently manifesting actions of those results are any indication, then the answer is an unqualified, albeit slow to appear, yes.
We're not a nation of drones waiting to be told what to think, contrary to the beliefs of the extreme right wing media monolithic totem pole (featuring the mugs of Rush, the Coultergeist, the Jane wanna-be and Mr. leading-the-wrong-witness). When we're given the facts, we are perfectly capable of drawing our own conclusions and forming our own opinions. The key to keeping people on the straight and narrow is to limit the flow of information to them, which the mainstream right wing media has perfected, but which is being poked with more and more holes every day in this wonderful day and age of information in multiple forms.
I hope, I think, that some of the current events unfolding are harbringers of much needed change. However, while there may be a slight glimmer at the end of the tunnel that one may construe as sunlight from the end of said tunnel, the possibility of it being the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive cannot yet be ruled out. Another passage from a King novel comes to mind as a source of optimism:
"They'll turn him out and put in some one who understands the Lesson:
Don't fuck the people over for too long. That's the lesson. Adam Clayton Powell found out. Agnew and Nixon did, too. Just... don't fuck the people for too long."
Roger Chadsworth
-The Dead Zone
Fear is a great blinder, but eventually even those scales fall off. And when they do, God help the Fuckers, that's all I'm saying...
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Nth verse, same as the first!
In the spirit of the Tonkin Gulf incident and the Gleiwitz raid, the seizure of 15 British Naval and Marine personnel and their subsequent transit in custody to Tehran is giving all the alarmists and war doggies plenty of reason to howl, rattle sabers and beat war drums. Coupled with the new sanctions recently imposed on Iran by the UN security council the Iranian government is being backed into a corner more and more tight each day.
The key fact that is being hotly contested right now is where the British patrol boats (2 rubber boat with outboard motors) actually were when they were seized. Predictably, the "we said, they said" debate began hours after the sailors and marines were surrounded and detained by the Iranian forces. It has only gotten louder over the course of two days, with the majority of the western mainstream media printing the governments version of these events as the unshakeable truth. Glenn Greenwald has written a lengthy column on it today at Salon. The updates are especially telling, III in particular:
UPDATE III: At the new National Review blog called "The Tank" (that's really tough - they must mean business over there), J. Peter Pham asks: "did Iran just declare war on the Coalition?" Meanwhile, in a NR feature article, Mario Loyola suggests that Iran may very well be telling the truth about what happened here, and that this incident was the by-product of efforts by the U.S. and Britian to provoke Iran into war -- justifiably, in Loyola's view (needless to say):
It wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own. As Churchill said, sometimes the truth is so precious that she must be attended by a bodyguard of lies. . . .
The gloves are coming off. And the risk-calculation here is: If someone gets nervous and starts shooting, the timing would be more auspicious now for us than for the Iranians. Therefore, it only makes sense that American and British naval units operating in the Gulf would be in a more forward-leaning and aggressive posture than the Iranians.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British sailors were detained because the British did something to make the Iranians really angry. Khamanei dramatically upped the ante this week. We probably raised. And they probably raised back. The stakes in this nuclear-poker game just got a little higher.
So the U.S. and Britain are deliberately provoking Iran in a "nuclear-poker game" and then lying about what they are up to, and Loyola thinks that's all great. A whole new war -- it's all so exciting and pulsating.
As C3PO liked to put it on numerous occasions in several of the SW films: "I have a bad feeling about this..." Of course, the irony of this statement by an android with no naturally occurring emotions (only those written into the programming) could be the subject of a lengthy essay on the reflection of the state of mankind's relationship with the his creations based on one of said creations uttering such a sentiment.
I wrote here that the Iranians are in quite a tight spot with hostile and/or Nuclear powers surrounding them on all sides.
Iran is not an immediate threat to the United States or its allies in the region. IF Iran is pursuing nuclear enrichment technology for the purpose of developing a weapons program in addition to an energy program, it is not an offensive act. It is an act of defense motivated by the fact that Iran is now surrounded by declared and undeclared nuclear powers: Russia to the North, Pakistan, India and China to the East, Israel to the West, and the United States to the South in the Persian Gulf with an disproportionately sized naval armada.
Whether or not they recognize the tactics of the British and American forces and, to a certain extent, the UN Security Council (in many ways just another wing of US influence) as provocative, restraint has to be getting harder and harder to adhere to. Their patience and/or feelings of security may have reached their limit what with this latest incident on top of the sanctions imposed by the Security council this week which the Iranians have rejected, of course.
More and more these days that great song by REM keeps going through my head...
UPDATE 26 MAR 07: Justin Raimondo writes here that the seizure of the sailors smacks in a painfully obvious way of the same maneuvering that I referenced in the beginning of this post and that the wheels are starting to spin faster on the war machine being steered in the direction of Iran.
The key fact that is being hotly contested right now is where the British patrol boats (2 rubber boat with outboard motors) actually were when they were seized. Predictably, the "we said, they said" debate began hours after the sailors and marines were surrounded and detained by the Iranian forces. It has only gotten louder over the course of two days, with the majority of the western mainstream media printing the governments version of these events as the unshakeable truth. Glenn Greenwald has written a lengthy column on it today at Salon. The updates are especially telling, III in particular:
UPDATE III: At the new National Review blog called "The Tank" (that's really tough - they must mean business over there), J. Peter Pham asks: "did Iran just declare war on the Coalition?" Meanwhile, in a NR feature article, Mario Loyola suggests that Iran may very well be telling the truth about what happened here, and that this incident was the by-product of efforts by the U.S. and Britian to provoke Iran into war -- justifiably, in Loyola's view (needless to say):
It wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own. As Churchill said, sometimes the truth is so precious that she must be attended by a bodyguard of lies. . . .
The gloves are coming off. And the risk-calculation here is: If someone gets nervous and starts shooting, the timing would be more auspicious now for us than for the Iranians. Therefore, it only makes sense that American and British naval units operating in the Gulf would be in a more forward-leaning and aggressive posture than the Iranians.
It wouldn't surprise me if the British sailors were detained because the British did something to make the Iranians really angry. Khamanei dramatically upped the ante this week. We probably raised. And they probably raised back. The stakes in this nuclear-poker game just got a little higher.
So the U.S. and Britain are deliberately provoking Iran in a "nuclear-poker game" and then lying about what they are up to, and Loyola thinks that's all great. A whole new war -- it's all so exciting and pulsating.
As C3PO liked to put it on numerous occasions in several of the SW films: "I have a bad feeling about this..." Of course, the irony of this statement by an android with no naturally occurring emotions (only those written into the programming) could be the subject of a lengthy essay on the reflection of the state of mankind's relationship with the his creations based on one of said creations uttering such a sentiment.
I wrote here that the Iranians are in quite a tight spot with hostile and/or Nuclear powers surrounding them on all sides.
Iran is not an immediate threat to the United States or its allies in the region. IF Iran is pursuing nuclear enrichment technology for the purpose of developing a weapons program in addition to an energy program, it is not an offensive act. It is an act of defense motivated by the fact that Iran is now surrounded by declared and undeclared nuclear powers: Russia to the North, Pakistan, India and China to the East, Israel to the West, and the United States to the South in the Persian Gulf with an disproportionately sized naval armada.
Whether or not they recognize the tactics of the British and American forces and, to a certain extent, the UN Security Council (in many ways just another wing of US influence) as provocative, restraint has to be getting harder and harder to adhere to. Their patience and/or feelings of security may have reached their limit what with this latest incident on top of the sanctions imposed by the Security council this week which the Iranians have rejected, of course.
More and more these days that great song by REM keeps going through my head...
UPDATE 26 MAR 07: Justin Raimondo writes here that the seizure of the sailors smacks in a painfully obvious way of the same maneuvering that I referenced in the beginning of this post and that the wheels are starting to spin faster on the war machine being steered in the direction of Iran.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The 'S' in $ must signify the soul that they once had...
Corporate greed and disregard for the value of life (in multiple forms) and limb continue to amaze me, although after seeing examples like this and this, I tend to be more and more (cynically) accepting of them. Lambert's suggestion is an interesting one, albeit highly unlikely.
As long as the only accountability that matters is that of the board's concern with the amount of black ink on the balance sheet, matters such as the impact that the products have on the customers or the criteria on which who the customers are will fall by the wayside.
The ramifications on the health (physical and spiritual) of the individuals behind these sort of policies are frightening to contemplate for me. I can see how someone who has known nothing but wealth and privilege all their lives might not be able to recognize them, but that still doesn't make it any easier to understand the fact that the consequences of corporate policies such as these can be so easily dismissed by those who define them.
Maybe if boardrooms looked and felt more like a back patio instead of the situation room in the basement of the White House it might be easier for corporate leaders to think of their fellow men, women, and furry friends as more than just potential black numbers in an Excel file.
As long as the only accountability that matters is that of the board's concern with the amount of black ink on the balance sheet, matters such as the impact that the products have on the customers or the criteria on which who the customers are will fall by the wayside.
The ramifications on the health (physical and spiritual) of the individuals behind these sort of policies are frightening to contemplate for me. I can see how someone who has known nothing but wealth and privilege all their lives might not be able to recognize them, but that still doesn't make it any easier to understand the fact that the consequences of corporate policies such as these can be so easily dismissed by those who define them.
Maybe if boardrooms looked and felt more like a back patio instead of the situation room in the basement of the White House it might be easier for corporate leaders to think of their fellow men, women, and furry friends as more than just potential black numbers in an Excel file.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Desperate thrashing of a rabbit caught in a snare: Redux
Excellent column at Salon by Joe Conason:
Rove is a proven liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is under oath, unless and until he is directly threatened with the prospect of prison time. Or has everyone suddenly forgotten his exceedingly narrow escape from criminal indictment for perjury and false statements in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation? Only after four visits to the grand jury convened by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a stark warning from Fitzgerald to defense counsel of a possible indictment, did Rove suddenly remember his role in the exposure of Plame as a CIA agent.
Harkening back to my post from yesterday, I would like to offer a passage from The Tommyknockers by Stephen King:
You talked to people who lived through one administration after another in which their elected officials told one lie after another, then lied about the lies, and when those lies were found out the liars said: Oh, jeez, I forgot, sorry--and since they forgot, the people who elected them behaved like Christmas and forgave. You couldn't believe there were so fucking many of them until you remembered what P. T. Barnum said about the extraordinary high birth rate of suckers. They looked you square in the face and told you you were full of shit, that the American government didn't tell lies, not telling lies was what made America great.
The passage is from an early chapter which introduces Jim Gardner, a marginally successful poet and spectacularly unsuccessful nukes protester. It deals with his feelings about government policy concerning the regulation of nuclear power, but the sentiment certainly seems to fit the administration's approach to the subpoenas that have been issued for White House staffers concerning the US Attorney firings scandal.
Rove is a proven liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is under oath, unless and until he is directly threatened with the prospect of prison time. Or has everyone suddenly forgotten his exceedingly narrow escape from criminal indictment for perjury and false statements in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation? Only after four visits to the grand jury convened by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a stark warning from Fitzgerald to defense counsel of a possible indictment, did Rove suddenly remember his role in the exposure of Plame as a CIA agent.
Harkening back to my post from yesterday, I would like to offer a passage from The Tommyknockers by Stephen King:
You talked to people who lived through one administration after another in which their elected officials told one lie after another, then lied about the lies, and when those lies were found out the liars said: Oh, jeez, I forgot, sorry--and since they forgot, the people who elected them behaved like Christmas and forgave. You couldn't believe there were so fucking many of them until you remembered what P. T. Barnum said about the extraordinary high birth rate of suckers. They looked you square in the face and told you you were full of shit, that the American government didn't tell lies, not telling lies was what made America great.
The passage is from an early chapter which introduces Jim Gardner, a marginally successful poet and spectacularly unsuccessful nukes protester. It deals with his feelings about government policy concerning the regulation of nuclear power, but the sentiment certainly seems to fit the administration's approach to the subpoenas that have been issued for White House staffers concerning the US Attorney firings scandal.
It really works, Ethel!
As what is probably a direct result of a story run a month ago on Democracy Now!, 9 year old Kevin Yourdkhani and his parents have reached Canada after an eight week long totally unwarranted stay at an immigrant detention center in South Texas. The story on their released was chronicled on today's show. It has also been chronicled in Canadian papers here and here.
This is a striking example of the difference that independent media can make on the lives of those living in circumstances that I, for one, can not really fathom dealing with on a day to day basis, as well as the impact on policy that places people in those circumstances in the first place. The most amazing thing about it is that Amy and the crew at DN! didn't actively pursue this story. It literally fell into their lap during another story when Kevin's father Majid essentially cold called the show in the middle of the broadcast with his the story of his family's plight. Who knows whether it was recommended to him by someone else in the detention center, but it is another amazing example of the power of communication and information in all forms.
This is a striking example of the difference that independent media can make on the lives of those living in circumstances that I, for one, can not really fathom dealing with on a day to day basis, as well as the impact on policy that places people in those circumstances in the first place. The most amazing thing about it is that Amy and the crew at DN! didn't actively pursue this story. It literally fell into their lap during another story when Kevin's father Majid essentially cold called the show in the middle of the broadcast with his the story of his family's plight. Who knows whether it was recommended to him by someone else in the detention center, but it is another amazing example of the power of communication and information in all forms.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Anyone who enjoys watching this is kind of bent themselves...
Kevin Drum sums up the whole sorry, getting more painful to watch them stumble as they they to cover their tracks mess that is the Attorney Firings Scandal:
They've now had nearly two months to come up with a simple, clear, understandable explanation for why they chose those eight to fire but not the others. So what is it? And why has it taken such an interminable amount of internal chaos to come up with something?
People aren't stupid. If there were a simple, innocent explanation we would have heard it in January. The fact that the President of the United States held a press conference eight weeks after this issue first hit the media and still didn't have a plausible story to tell suggests pretty strongly that there is no plausible story to tell.
Steve at Crooks and Liars:
It’s an important point about this scandal, which is probably helping drive the media’s interest. The White House, and its vaunted communications office, has had eight weeks to come up with a plausible explanation. What have we heard? The Bush gang said a purge like this is normal and routine. It wasn’t. They said Clinton did the same thing. He didn’t. They said the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, which is true, but doesn’t offer any substantive explanation why these specific U.S. Attorneys had to go.
They couldn’t decide whether (and which) prosecutors were actually bad at their jobs. They can’t explain why Justice Department officials lied to Congress. They can’t explain why White House officials can’t testify under oath. They can’t explain what role the president had in the firings. They can’t explain what role the Attorney General had in the firings. They can’t explain the meaning of the phrase “loyal Bushies.” They can’t explain the 18-day document gap (which is slowly closing... see here). They can’t explain why they can’t explain.
It's hard for me to conceive of a mindset capable of subscribing to a line of reasoning that goes something like this:
Someone has an idea that seems really ingenious and solves a lot of problems. Never mind that actually executing the idea may bend a few rules--"hey, we enforce the rules, so we can bend them, and in the unlikely event that we're asked about it, we can just bend the truth about bending the rule". Then when asked about bending the rule or bending the truth about bending the rule, they claim ignorance based on how many people were involved in the bending of the rule and the bending of the truth about bending the rule. And if, God Forbid, the question askers want sworn testimony about the rule bending or truth bending, the benders (or the bosses of the benders) feign horror and indignation claiming partisan witch hunting and swear to protect the sanctity of the workings of the inner sanctum of the rule and truth benders.
They even try to invoke supposed precedents set during past administrations and try to employ tactics used in attempts to stave off the questioners by previous embattled administrations, but eventually to no avail. That is what makes the whole affair painful to watch, it is the beginning of the panicked last throes of an administration that thought itself more impervious and immortal to criticism and oversight than any other known in the history of this country...
They've now had nearly two months to come up with a simple, clear, understandable explanation for why they chose those eight to fire but not the others. So what is it? And why has it taken such an interminable amount of internal chaos to come up with something?
People aren't stupid. If there were a simple, innocent explanation we would have heard it in January. The fact that the President of the United States held a press conference eight weeks after this issue first hit the media and still didn't have a plausible story to tell suggests pretty strongly that there is no plausible story to tell.
Steve at Crooks and Liars:
It’s an important point about this scandal, which is probably helping drive the media’s interest. The White House, and its vaunted communications office, has had eight weeks to come up with a plausible explanation. What have we heard? The Bush gang said a purge like this is normal and routine. It wasn’t. They said Clinton did the same thing. He didn’t. They said the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, which is true, but doesn’t offer any substantive explanation why these specific U.S. Attorneys had to go.
They couldn’t decide whether (and which) prosecutors were actually bad at their jobs. They can’t explain why Justice Department officials lied to Congress. They can’t explain why White House officials can’t testify under oath. They can’t explain what role the president had in the firings. They can’t explain what role the Attorney General had in the firings. They can’t explain the meaning of the phrase “loyal Bushies.” They can’t explain the 18-day document gap (which is slowly closing... see here). They can’t explain why they can’t explain.
It's hard for me to conceive of a mindset capable of subscribing to a line of reasoning that goes something like this:
Someone has an idea that seems really ingenious and solves a lot of problems. Never mind that actually executing the idea may bend a few rules--"hey, we enforce the rules, so we can bend them, and in the unlikely event that we're asked about it, we can just bend the truth about bending the rule". Then when asked about bending the rule or bending the truth about bending the rule, they claim ignorance based on how many people were involved in the bending of the rule and the bending of the truth about bending the rule. And if, God Forbid, the question askers want sworn testimony about the rule bending or truth bending, the benders (or the bosses of the benders) feign horror and indignation claiming partisan witch hunting and swear to protect the sanctity of the workings of the inner sanctum of the rule and truth benders.
They even try to invoke supposed precedents set during past administrations and try to employ tactics used in attempts to stave off the questioners by previous embattled administrations, but eventually to no avail. That is what makes the whole affair painful to watch, it is the beginning of the panicked last throes of an administration that thought itself more impervious and immortal to criticism and oversight than any other known in the history of this country...
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blog Jambalaya
First ingredient:
The wagons are being drawn into a tight circle and the Shrub is puffing out his chest like we've seldom seen before to declare his omnipotent, omniscient power to resist any and all efforts to call his administration to account in the latest of what is sure to become many scandals that will now be pursued to the fullest as opposed to being ignored with a mere "oh, it's alright, I'm sure they bent/broke/ignored (insert law here) in the interest of national security or the pursuance of the War on Terror or blah, blah, blah"... He's offered up an alternative that the Congress is sure to laugh at before issuing subpoenas to Harriet Miers and the Cranium...
Meanwhile, the folks over at the Justice department are literally paralyzed by the prospect of any communication being snatched and used in an investigation into the workings of the department. This begs the painfully obvious question: If they're afraid to talk or communicate about anything, have they been doing anything on the straight and narrow over there, and if not, how long have things been seriously out of whack and partisan at DOJ? Since Gonzo took over? Highly unlikely--Ashcroft was about as non-partisan as Miers...
Second ingredient:
The Democratic Primary race is not even officially kicked off and it's already more interesting than any other one that I can remember (even the one with the Gary Hart boondoggle). Barack Obama has pledged to refrain from engaging in personal attacks in his campaign, but has already made some curious remarks concerning his opponent John Edwards (which Arthur had a thing or two to say about) , and a very slick redux of the classic Apple Computer Super Bowl commercial from 1984 (pay close attention to what the hammer slinger is wearing to bring it up to date in a very subtle way...) has popped up on YouTube in support of his campaign (which the campaign denied any connection to). Interesting way of not engaging in personal attacks on his opponents...
Third Ingredient:
A new report on Walter Reed shows that the military is continuing a long standing tradition of class discrimination between the enlisted ranks and the officers that goes back hundreds of years...
Fourth Ingredient:
More and more is coming out about the Shrub's administration's skewing of information from credible sources attributing numerous observable climate changes and anomalies to global warming and connecting said global warming to the activities of man and the byproducts of those activities. To quote Dead or Alive: "You Spin Me Round Baby (Like a record baby right round)"...
Fifth Ingredient:
While the fourth anniversary of the onset of the Iraq War is being marked by protests and demonstrations this week, another event's third anniversary is fast approaching: the killing of four security contractors in Fallujah in March of 2004. I've been writing about the plight of the men and women serving in the Middle East in the Military, and while their plight is harrowing while they are there and when they return, the contractors' situation is much worse.
Their personal safety is addressed in a bare minimum fashion by the huge corporations whose only concern, it would seem, is the securing of the multi million dollar no bid contracts from the US government. From the KBR website employment page (italics are mine):
It should be understood that employment may be located in potentially dangerous areas, including combat or war zones. This might involve the possibility of suffering harm by dangerous forces or friendly fire. These dangers are inherent to working conditions in a dangerous environment.
This is the standard language that is listed at the end of any job posting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to be all they think they need to tell you to absolve themselves of any culpability even when they fail to take the precautions they say they will in a signed contract(italics mine again):
But the Blackwater men were uneasy. One team member, former Army Ranger Wes Batalona, complained to a friend that the team had never worked together before. And contractually, Blackwater was to supply two SUVs with three guards per vehicle. Instead, the men set out that morning with just two men per car, each short a rear gunner.
And this is only the beginning. The contractors lucky (?) enough to make it back home alive are likely to suffer from the same ailments, both physical, mental, and emotional, as their counterparts in the armed forces, but they, being independent contractors, have no support system, however ineffective and dysfunctional, to turn to for treatment of any kind. The mounds of cash they made working under those harrowing conditions will, if not having been previously committed to previous crushing debts, melt away like a snowball on a hot stove going towards healthcare to address their post Gulf region employment ailments. Another feather in the cap of the corporate giants reaping as much in profit from no bid military and government contracts--no money poured down the drain that is employee benefits!
The disparity between the regular military personnel and the contractors is highlighted repeatedly in the Frontline Special--the fact that the contractors are a good thing, because there's no sense in having a soldier do menial tasks like KP duty, latrine patrol and the like; contrasted with the fact that they can be a liability when a camp or base where military personnel and contractors are stationed comes under fire: there's xx,000 personnel on the grounds, but only 2/3 of them are combat trained to defend the facility, what do the other 1/3 do in a combat situation to help and or stay out of the way? Another huge source of friction is the gulf (pun definitely intended...)between the pay that the armed forces personnel are receiving compared to the contractors (it's significantly lower) and the fact that the contractors are just that--contractors, who can opt out of their contract for what ever reason, as opposed to military personnel, who are committed for a fixed length of time (and sometimes longer, depending on what the Surger has been told by his advisors on any given day)
Combine ingredients in a Cranium with 1 cup of Cerebrospinal fluid and the Brain.
Mix well.
DO SOMETHING..
This is what our country is being outsourced and relegislated to...
The wagons are being drawn into a tight circle and the Shrub is puffing out his chest like we've seldom seen before to declare his omnipotent, omniscient power to resist any and all efforts to call his administration to account in the latest of what is sure to become many scandals that will now be pursued to the fullest as opposed to being ignored with a mere "oh, it's alright, I'm sure they bent/broke/ignored (insert law here) in the interest of national security or the pursuance of the War on Terror or blah, blah, blah"... He's offered up an alternative that the Congress is sure to laugh at before issuing subpoenas to Harriet Miers and the Cranium...
Meanwhile, the folks over at the Justice department are literally paralyzed by the prospect of any communication being snatched and used in an investigation into the workings of the department. This begs the painfully obvious question: If they're afraid to talk or communicate about anything, have they been doing anything on the straight and narrow over there, and if not, how long have things been seriously out of whack and partisan at DOJ? Since Gonzo took over? Highly unlikely--Ashcroft was about as non-partisan as Miers...
Second ingredient:
The Democratic Primary race is not even officially kicked off and it's already more interesting than any other one that I can remember (even the one with the Gary Hart boondoggle). Barack Obama has pledged to refrain from engaging in personal attacks in his campaign, but has already made some curious remarks concerning his opponent John Edwards (which Arthur had a thing or two to say about) , and a very slick redux of the classic Apple Computer Super Bowl commercial from 1984 (pay close attention to what the hammer slinger is wearing to bring it up to date in a very subtle way...) has popped up on YouTube in support of his campaign (which the campaign denied any connection to). Interesting way of not engaging in personal attacks on his opponents...
Third Ingredient:
A new report on Walter Reed shows that the military is continuing a long standing tradition of class discrimination between the enlisted ranks and the officers that goes back hundreds of years...
Fourth Ingredient:
More and more is coming out about the Shrub's administration's skewing of information from credible sources attributing numerous observable climate changes and anomalies to global warming and connecting said global warming to the activities of man and the byproducts of those activities. To quote Dead or Alive: "You Spin Me Round Baby (Like a record baby right round)"...
Fifth Ingredient:
While the fourth anniversary of the onset of the Iraq War is being marked by protests and demonstrations this week, another event's third anniversary is fast approaching: the killing of four security contractors in Fallujah in March of 2004. I've been writing about the plight of the men and women serving in the Middle East in the Military, and while their plight is harrowing while they are there and when they return, the contractors' situation is much worse.
Their personal safety is addressed in a bare minimum fashion by the huge corporations whose only concern, it would seem, is the securing of the multi million dollar no bid contracts from the US government. From the KBR website employment page (italics are mine):
It should be understood that employment may be located in potentially dangerous areas, including combat or war zones. This might involve the possibility of suffering harm by dangerous forces or friendly fire. These dangers are inherent to working conditions in a dangerous environment.
This is the standard language that is listed at the end of any job posting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to be all they think they need to tell you to absolve themselves of any culpability even when they fail to take the precautions they say they will in a signed contract(italics mine again):
But the Blackwater men were uneasy. One team member, former Army Ranger Wes Batalona, complained to a friend that the team had never worked together before. And contractually, Blackwater was to supply two SUVs with three guards per vehicle. Instead, the men set out that morning with just two men per car, each short a rear gunner.
And this is only the beginning. The contractors lucky (?) enough to make it back home alive are likely to suffer from the same ailments, both physical, mental, and emotional, as their counterparts in the armed forces, but they, being independent contractors, have no support system, however ineffective and dysfunctional, to turn to for treatment of any kind. The mounds of cash they made working under those harrowing conditions will, if not having been previously committed to previous crushing debts, melt away like a snowball on a hot stove going towards healthcare to address their post Gulf region employment ailments. Another feather in the cap of the corporate giants reaping as much in profit from no bid military and government contracts--no money poured down the drain that is employee benefits!
The disparity between the regular military personnel and the contractors is highlighted repeatedly in the Frontline Special--the fact that the contractors are a good thing, because there's no sense in having a soldier do menial tasks like KP duty, latrine patrol and the like; contrasted with the fact that they can be a liability when a camp or base where military personnel and contractors are stationed comes under fire: there's xx,000 personnel on the grounds, but only 2/3 of them are combat trained to defend the facility, what do the other 1/3 do in a combat situation to help and or stay out of the way? Another huge source of friction is the gulf (pun definitely intended...)between the pay that the armed forces personnel are receiving compared to the contractors (it's significantly lower) and the fact that the contractors are just that--contractors, who can opt out of their contract for what ever reason, as opposed to military personnel, who are committed for a fixed length of time (and sometimes longer, depending on what the Surger has been told by his advisors on any given day)
Combine ingredients in a Cranium with 1 cup of Cerebrospinal fluid and the Brain.
Mix well.
DO SOMETHING..
This is what our country is being outsourced and relegislated to...
Monday, March 19, 2007
Recovering from the weekend
The weekend out at the farm was great, but I find myself needing to recharge my batteries from the recharging of my batteries out there... Lots of good food, beer drinking, fire sitting, guitar picking and singing. I also spent two nights in a tent for the first time in something like 20 years or so. Mike lent me a cot to sleep on in the tent I borrowed from Micha, so I was pretty darn comfortable.
I returned to Houston early Sunday afternoon for a second visit to the Rodeo to see that lil' old band from Texas, ZZ Top. I started listening to them a year or two before the release of Eliminator to some of their earlier more bluesy albums like Tres Hombres and Tejas. It was the first time I have seen them, and while it wasn't the best venue to see a show in (as I chronicled in my post about the Sheryl Crow show) they put on an amazing show, all the more so considering that they've been together and making music for close to forty years now. Here's the set list as best I was able to notate in text message form on my phone:
Ring of Fire (June Carter Cash)
I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide
Pincusion
Beer Drinkers, Hell Raisers
Cheap Sunglasses
Pearl Necklace
Just Got Paid
Waltz Across Texas (Ernest Tubbs)
Gimme All Your Lovin'
Sharp Dressed Man
Viva Las Vegas (Elvis Presley)
Legs
La Grange
Baby Why Don't You
Tush
Lots of surprises and good old material in there. The show finished nice and early as well, giving me the opportunity to get home and sleep like a log, which was nice because it's been a rare occurrence lately. As a matter of fact, I can hear the bed calling me right now, so I'll sign off...
I returned to Houston early Sunday afternoon for a second visit to the Rodeo to see that lil' old band from Texas, ZZ Top. I started listening to them a year or two before the release of Eliminator to some of their earlier more bluesy albums like Tres Hombres and Tejas. It was the first time I have seen them, and while it wasn't the best venue to see a show in (as I chronicled in my post about the Sheryl Crow show) they put on an amazing show, all the more so considering that they've been together and making music for close to forty years now. Here's the set list as best I was able to notate in text message form on my phone:
Ring of Fire (June Carter Cash)
I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide
Pincusion
Beer Drinkers, Hell Raisers
Cheap Sunglasses
Pearl Necklace
Just Got Paid
Waltz Across Texas (Ernest Tubbs)
Gimme All Your Lovin'
Sharp Dressed Man
Viva Las Vegas (Elvis Presley)
Legs
La Grange
Baby Why Don't You
Tush
Lots of surprises and good old material in there. The show finished nice and early as well, giving me the opportunity to get home and sleep like a log, which was nice because it's been a rare occurrence lately. As a matter of fact, I can hear the bed calling me right now, so I'll sign off...
Friday, March 16, 2007
Reward for Service Rendered
I don't come from a hardcore military family. A relative on my mother's side of the family fought for the Union in the Civil War. My Grandfather enlisted in the Navy and served one stint before World War I. My father was drafted in the mid Fifties and served his tour as a clerk in a Signal Company. So I have no personal axe to grind as far as the subject of this post goes. I do have friends who have served in the recent past. A former coworker at the theatre served in the Marine Corps. One of my engineers has a brother in the Army who is based out of Fort Hood here in Texas. He just got back from Iraq a few months ago, and is scheduled to return for another rotation later this year. I wrote about the ridiculousness of short rotations off for the personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan here and here. Another former coworker has a brother who is currently deployed in Iraq. I imagine that I share these examples of two and three degrees of separation with about everyone in the US these days.
I do have an axe to grind about the dignity and honor that is the right of every man and woman who takes the oath to defend the Constitution and the US as a member of the Armed Forces. In doing so, they are choosing to place their lives on the line to preserve our right to (for the moment) live where we want, associate with who we want, and say what we want about pretty much anything we want to. Whether or not I agree with the policies of an administration that sends them off to fight an ill advised war, I have the utmost respect for the commitment of these individuals.
This latest example of inane, gross neglect in the VA hospital scandal is too extreme for words and almost unbelievable to me. The fact that a decorated veteran would be shunted around like this and then dumped off in his own driveway to die underscores the root dehumanization of anyone who is part of the mechanisms that the current administration is using in its illegal excursions and adventures throughout the world.
The military personnel serving and returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need to know that the government is going to be there for them to uphold its end of the agreement they embarked upon when they signed their Oath of Service, which, by the way, is to the Constitution and the Country, not the aspirations of the administration currently in place. Part of this oath is an implicit trust placed in the officeholder of the Presidency that, as their Commander-in-
Chief, that individual will be able to differentiate between politics and the practical defense of the Country and its citizens. It may be a naive expectation, but it is there, and the abuse of it is unforgivable, especially from a group such as the current administration and some of its former members (save one exception who didn't exactly distinguish himself during the first administration) who have very little active military experience and who have been shown to have done whatever they could to avoid service when the call was likely to come.
This pack of privileged back scratching opportunists who have wormed their way into the highest levels of our government and are abusing and desecrating every and any part of the government that, however disfunctional it may be, does keep the country going and places, for the most part, the welfare of its citizens at the top of the list of priorities. The only way that there is even a prayer of a chance for this issue to get addressed properly is for the representatives in Congress to keep hearing about it and how unacceptable it is from their constituents, not just from the mainstream media while it's the hot story in the current news cycle (unlike the independent media, which broke the story two years ago).
I'm off to Mike and Julie's farm in Moravia for a few days to recharge my batteries and help them celebrate their third anniversary. I can't decide whether I'm going to take the Compy with me, so there may be nothing from this end of things for a day or two. Everyone have a great weekend!
I do have an axe to grind about the dignity and honor that is the right of every man and woman who takes the oath to defend the Constitution and the US as a member of the Armed Forces. In doing so, they are choosing to place their lives on the line to preserve our right to (for the moment) live where we want, associate with who we want, and say what we want about pretty much anything we want to. Whether or not I agree with the policies of an administration that sends them off to fight an ill advised war, I have the utmost respect for the commitment of these individuals.
This latest example of inane, gross neglect in the VA hospital scandal is too extreme for words and almost unbelievable to me. The fact that a decorated veteran would be shunted around like this and then dumped off in his own driveway to die underscores the root dehumanization of anyone who is part of the mechanisms that the current administration is using in its illegal excursions and adventures throughout the world.
The military personnel serving and returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need to know that the government is going to be there for them to uphold its end of the agreement they embarked upon when they signed their Oath of Service, which, by the way, is to the Constitution and the Country, not the aspirations of the administration currently in place. Part of this oath is an implicit trust placed in the officeholder of the Presidency that, as their Commander-in-
Chief, that individual will be able to differentiate between politics and the practical defense of the Country and its citizens. It may be a naive expectation, but it is there, and the abuse of it is unforgivable, especially from a group such as the current administration and some of its former members (save one exception who didn't exactly distinguish himself during the first administration) who have very little active military experience and who have been shown to have done whatever they could to avoid service when the call was likely to come.
This pack of privileged back scratching opportunists who have wormed their way into the highest levels of our government and are abusing and desecrating every and any part of the government that, however disfunctional it may be, does keep the country going and places, for the most part, the welfare of its citizens at the top of the list of priorities. The only way that there is even a prayer of a chance for this issue to get addressed properly is for the representatives in Congress to keep hearing about it and how unacceptable it is from their constituents, not just from the mainstream media while it's the hot story in the current news cycle (unlike the independent media, which broke the story two years ago).
I'm off to Mike and Julie's farm in Moravia for a few days to recharge my batteries and help them celebrate their third anniversary. I can't decide whether I'm going to take the Compy with me, so there may be nothing from this end of things for a day or two. Everyone have a great weekend!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Words, Now... Action?
Joe Biden is pissed.
It's great to see this sort of debate and passion on the Senate floor about the Iraq War. Hopefully it will be followed up with actions that befit the fiery words.
"Are we gonna break this man and woman's army? What are we gonna do here? How many times are we going to ask those 175,000 to rotate, three, four, five, six, seven times?"
This is one of the key points in this issue which I wrote about here. The fact that there US Ground Forces were barely at strength to embark on this excursion and have since been stretched paper thin in four years (along with the National Guard, much to the detriment of states which depend on them almost annually) has seemingly never been recognized by the architects of this current course we're on. Not only is there a question of the Army and Marines breaking on an operational level, but there is the question of the individuals breaking down on multiple levels, and, after being deigned unfit to serve, simply dumped back into society with no support system in place to help them reorient themselves and deal with the crippling physical, mental and emotional aftereffects of their experience in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Instead of working to fix the broken support system, the current administration is focusing on luring more young men and women into the system in order to feed them into the abbatoir that is the Civil War in Iraq and the front against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were anything to happen in another part of the world that the US would traditionally respond to (in its imperialistically minded fashion) it would be nigh on impossible to put an effective force in place, because such a force does not exist. If there is another terrorist attack on par with 9/11 the super intelligence machine that is the FBI/CIA/NSA would come up with someone that they could plausibly point a finger at and then go in and bomb the Hell out of them, but then there would be no one to send in after the bombing to shoot at the rubble and see if there were any survivors to send off to undisclosed locations for "interrogation". Even now, there aren't enough forces available for the newest surges to be implemented efficiently. More often than not, new fresh troops are not introduced into either Iraq or Afghanistan because they don't exist. Previously deployed forces are merely moved from one theater to another, or their deployments are simply extended with no regard to the physical and mental strain put on the military personnel.
Let's hope we see some action to back up this passion. Politics can not play a part in anything the Congress does to address this situation, as it did here and here. Only a sense of empathy with their fellow men and women who have been tasked with a nigh on impossible mission, as well as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose lives have been ended or shattered by this seemingly endless, ill-advised and now unjustified (WMDs? NOT!, Iraq-Al Qaeda connection? NOT!) occupation, can drive them to do what is necessary.
It's great to see this sort of debate and passion on the Senate floor about the Iraq War. Hopefully it will be followed up with actions that befit the fiery words.
"Are we gonna break this man and woman's army? What are we gonna do here? How many times are we going to ask those 175,000 to rotate, three, four, five, six, seven times?"
This is one of the key points in this issue which I wrote about here. The fact that there US Ground Forces were barely at strength to embark on this excursion and have since been stretched paper thin in four years (along with the National Guard, much to the detriment of states which depend on them almost annually) has seemingly never been recognized by the architects of this current course we're on. Not only is there a question of the Army and Marines breaking on an operational level, but there is the question of the individuals breaking down on multiple levels, and, after being deigned unfit to serve, simply dumped back into society with no support system in place to help them reorient themselves and deal with the crippling physical, mental and emotional aftereffects of their experience in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Instead of working to fix the broken support system, the current administration is focusing on luring more young men and women into the system in order to feed them into the abbatoir that is the Civil War in Iraq and the front against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were anything to happen in another part of the world that the US would traditionally respond to (in its imperialistically minded fashion) it would be nigh on impossible to put an effective force in place, because such a force does not exist. If there is another terrorist attack on par with 9/11 the super intelligence machine that is the FBI/CIA/NSA would come up with someone that they could plausibly point a finger at and then go in and bomb the Hell out of them, but then there would be no one to send in after the bombing to shoot at the rubble and see if there were any survivors to send off to undisclosed locations for "interrogation". Even now, there aren't enough forces available for the newest surges to be implemented efficiently. More often than not, new fresh troops are not introduced into either Iraq or Afghanistan because they don't exist. Previously deployed forces are merely moved from one theater to another, or their deployments are simply extended with no regard to the physical and mental strain put on the military personnel.
Let's hope we see some action to back up this passion. Politics can not play a part in anything the Congress does to address this situation, as it did here and here. Only a sense of empathy with their fellow men and women who have been tasked with a nigh on impossible mission, as well as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose lives have been ended or shattered by this seemingly endless, ill-advised and now unjustified (WMDs? NOT!, Iraq-Al Qaeda connection? NOT!) occupation, can drive them to do what is necessary.
So Much For Don't Ask Don't Tell
Raw Story:
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today circulated a letter among his Senate colleagues for signature that will be sent to President Bush in support of General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The letter will be sent to the White House tomorrow.
Coverage of General Pace's comments
and of his subsequent backtracking...
Because what the Pentagon (and the Republican Party) needs right now is more controversy...
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today circulated a letter among his Senate colleagues for signature that will be sent to President Bush in support of General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The letter will be sent to the White House tomorrow.
Coverage of General Pace's comments
and of his subsequent backtracking...
Because what the Pentagon (and the Republican Party) needs right now is more controversy...
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
When Rainouts Become the Norm...
Just got back from a friend's house where we watched the 'Stros younger players come into a tie game with the Braves and completely blow it open. Maybe there is some hope for this season with this crew of youngsters. They're sure going to make some decisions on the final cut day hard for Garner and company, especially Hunter Pence. He'll probably start the season in AAA at Round Rock, but I'm looking for him to come up to Houston by midseason.
Meanwhile, it's refreshing to see other media outlets paying attention to the Global Warming issue, even if they are riding on the back of the hot story topic of the month (although Al Gore's documentary was released last summer, and the subject of reports like this and this has been talked about for years...)
Sports Illustrated(italics are mine):
Global warming is not coming; it is here. Greenhouse gases -- most notably carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and gas -- are trapping solar heat that once escaped from the Earth's atmosphere. As temperatures around the globe increase, oceans are warming, fields are drying up, snow is melting, more rain is falling, and sea levels are rising.
All of which is changing the way we play and the sports we watch. Evidence is everywhere of a future hurtling toward us faster than scientists forecasted even a few years ago.
Here's the entire article.
Meanwhile, it's refreshing to see other media outlets paying attention to the Global Warming issue, even if they are riding on the back of the hot story topic of the month (although Al Gore's documentary was released last summer, and the subject of reports like this and this has been talked about for years...)
Sports Illustrated(italics are mine):
Global warming is not coming; it is here. Greenhouse gases -- most notably carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and gas -- are trapping solar heat that once escaped from the Earth's atmosphere. As temperatures around the globe increase, oceans are warming, fields are drying up, snow is melting, more rain is falling, and sea levels are rising.
All of which is changing the way we play and the sports we watch. Evidence is everywhere of a future hurtling toward us faster than scientists forecasted even a few years ago.
Here's the entire article.
The New Boss: Slightly (insert difference here) than the Old Boss
I don't know how Arthur managed to type this out without smashing his keyboard. He seemed a little more himself later...
Nicole at Crooks and Liars:
I'm so angry about this that my fingers are literally shaking as I type. The reasonable adult side of me is trying to find a reason why they are doing this–not enough votes, too much real work on their plate now to deal with a hypocritical issue, trying to keep focused on specific issues, etc.–but the far less reasonable part of me is ready to throw something. How many more people have to die for lies? How much more destruction must we wreak globally before we can count on our elected representatives actually doing what is right, not what is political?
Indeed...
Quite a second coming the Democrats' retaking of the Congress is turning out to be...
Nicole at Crooks and Liars:
I'm so angry about this that my fingers are literally shaking as I type. The reasonable adult side of me is trying to find a reason why they are doing this–not enough votes, too much real work on their plate now to deal with a hypocritical issue, trying to keep focused on specific issues, etc.–but the far less reasonable part of me is ready to throw something. How many more people have to die for lies? How much more destruction must we wreak globally before we can count on our elected representatives actually doing what is right, not what is political?
Indeed...
Quite a second coming the Democrats' retaking of the Congress is turning out to be...
They're only mistakes if you get caught...
Raw Story:
At a press briefing this afternoon, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made in the firing of US attorneys, and promised to "find out what went wrong, so it won't happen again."
Gonzales continued to assert that he stood by the decision to fire the attorneys.
"I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision," he said.
So, he's promising to "find out what went wrong" with the process of the firing, and not whether the firings were justified and not politically motivated?
How many other 'mistakes' are out there that we don't know about simply because the right person hasn't spoken up or incriminating emails haven't been opened by the wrong person?
At a press briefing this afternoon, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made in the firing of US attorneys, and promised to "find out what went wrong, so it won't happen again."
Gonzales continued to assert that he stood by the decision to fire the attorneys.
"I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision," he said.
So, he's promising to "find out what went wrong" with the process of the firing, and not whether the firings were justified and not politically motivated?
How many other 'mistakes' are out there that we don't know about simply because the right person hasn't spoken up or incriminating emails haven't been opened by the wrong person?
The Tenacity of Amendment I (despite repeated assaults)
The one thing I neglected to mention in my last post was the fact that the opportunity to express one's thoughts in a blog or any forum is an invaluable one. There aren't many other places in the world where it is as easy and permitted as here in the US. And yet there are people everywhere who risk life and limb to speak out and try to get their voices heard.
So, another reason to blog: Because you can.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, another reason to blog: Because you can.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Please do not feed the overactive brain...
My brain drives me crazy a lot of the time. It has this propensity to take off on its own and go wandering through the wilds of speculation on an infinite number of subjects. This happens without warning, and can last less than a minute, or it can go on for hours without affecting what I'm engaged in currently at work, or home, or in the truck, etc. The subject matter can range from the mundane details of my personal life (see this post), to why the world seems to be exceptionally FUBAR these days, to the more philosophical lines of thinking.
Not long after I started writing as regularly as I can I saw a post by Atrios which attempted to answer the apparently common wailing cry of many bloggers about why no one reads their writing, and it got me thinking about how I'm approaching it and why this blog's readership not a life and death affair.
I started writing back in April of 2006 not long after I created my Myspace profile in an attempt to chronicle the various trials and tribulations that I had and was still experiencing with my old Chevy trucks. After catching up to the present, I continued to write infrequently about what was going on in my life and what my thoughts were about certain subjects that I was moved to comment on. I vaguely thought that it might be interesting back-round and fleshing-out material for someone who might stumble across my page and wonder "well, all this is kinda interesting, but what's this clown's real deal?" Maybe it's a little bit of an ego trip, but, so be it. Once I saw that there were a few folks out there reading on a regular basis, I found that it was a good forum for me to write about some of the issues I'm more passionate about and get some feedback and/or other views.
I can't find the post to link to for the life of me, but Arthur Silber wrote that a blog is in essence an intimate emotional and intellectual diary the sort of which has never been known before (or words to that effect). This kinda cuts to the root of the whole affair, although I think he lays it on a bit thick with the whole "I don't care if anyone reads any of these posts/rants/essays" here. He may feel that way, but when one keeps repeating something over and over again, it gains the appearance of being an attempt to convince oneself (nonetheless, I enjoy his writing and hope that the pieces that I link to are useful to you). Maybe that's what this is for me, but I hope not. I like to think that I"m fairly well aware of my own self and what my intentions are.
When I started writing about the current course that the US is on at the encouragement of Arthur, I knew that there would be some folks reading what I had to say, which was encouraging, but not the primary motivator. I think I write for three reasons:
I like to write. I did a lot of it when I was in high school, and am not sure what happened in college and afterwards to diminish my output. Time was more of a commodity, but time is never a real factor if you really want to do something, as is evidenced here.
I feel very strongly about many issues in our world these days, and I feel that the more people know about them and how they are affected by them, the better. Even if they don't immediately act on them or never act on them at all, the fact that they were made aware of the issue in question is never a bad thing. this element was a less frequent (but highly amusing to some, the Jaybird in particular, mainly in terms of its format)facet of the blog until very recently.
My mind. My hyperactive, scatterbrained, sock-worrying mind. Hopefully this is a good way to relieve the pressure on my skull from all the thoughts cranked out by that overactive little bugger. Hopefully the release of some of those thoughts will also decrease the chance of catastrophic internal spontaneous combustion resulting from the high friction generated by all those random lines of thought rubbing against each other. I'm hoping it'll help with my dreams as well, since a lot of this cranial material will be put down on paper for all to see as opposed to clanging around for a while, getting bulldozed down into my subconscious only to be spewed back up when I'm in deep REM sleep in the form of wacky dreams that fade away before I'm even half awake (except for the one about the brown bag lunch where it was brainstormed to use "Like A Rock" for the Moon radio spot, right Skye?) I have no idea if there is any credence to this theory, but it sounded good when I read it in Christine long ago.
So here it is, in all its undiluted glory. I'm glad those of you who have been reading for a while are sticking it out. I am certainly not trying to tout myself as some genius prolific thinker on a level higher than everyone else. I have a tendency to rip off posts and throw them up after a cursory proof, mainly to catch spelling, grammatical, and HTML tagging errors, which results in some posts going up that have a slightly different tone to them than intended. If I piss you off, sorry, but I think that too much second guessing ultimately dilutes the attempt to convey true feeling and opinion. If I'm dead wrong on something I'm citing or trying to say please say something. Those of you who know me might be saying to yourselves "oh yeah, he always takes criticism well" and your experience justifies that, but I"d like to think that I've mellowed slightly over the years...
Not long after I started writing as regularly as I can I saw a post by Atrios which attempted to answer the apparently common wailing cry of many bloggers about why no one reads their writing, and it got me thinking about how I'm approaching it and why this blog's readership not a life and death affair.
I started writing back in April of 2006 not long after I created my Myspace profile in an attempt to chronicle the various trials and tribulations that I had and was still experiencing with my old Chevy trucks. After catching up to the present, I continued to write infrequently about what was going on in my life and what my thoughts were about certain subjects that I was moved to comment on. I vaguely thought that it might be interesting back-round and fleshing-out material for someone who might stumble across my page and wonder "well, all this is kinda interesting, but what's this clown's real deal?" Maybe it's a little bit of an ego trip, but, so be it. Once I saw that there were a few folks out there reading on a regular basis, I found that it was a good forum for me to write about some of the issues I'm more passionate about and get some feedback and/or other views.
I can't find the post to link to for the life of me, but Arthur Silber wrote that a blog is in essence an intimate emotional and intellectual diary the sort of which has never been known before (or words to that effect). This kinda cuts to the root of the whole affair, although I think he lays it on a bit thick with the whole "I don't care if anyone reads any of these posts/rants/essays" here. He may feel that way, but when one keeps repeating something over and over again, it gains the appearance of being an attempt to convince oneself (nonetheless, I enjoy his writing and hope that the pieces that I link to are useful to you). Maybe that's what this is for me, but I hope not. I like to think that I"m fairly well aware of my own self and what my intentions are.
When I started writing about the current course that the US is on at the encouragement of Arthur, I knew that there would be some folks reading what I had to say, which was encouraging, but not the primary motivator. I think I write for three reasons:
I like to write. I did a lot of it when I was in high school, and am not sure what happened in college and afterwards to diminish my output. Time was more of a commodity, but time is never a real factor if you really want to do something, as is evidenced here.
I feel very strongly about many issues in our world these days, and I feel that the more people know about them and how they are affected by them, the better. Even if they don't immediately act on them or never act on them at all, the fact that they were made aware of the issue in question is never a bad thing. this element was a less frequent (but highly amusing to some, the Jaybird in particular, mainly in terms of its format)facet of the blog until very recently.
My mind. My hyperactive, scatterbrained, sock-worrying mind. Hopefully this is a good way to relieve the pressure on my skull from all the thoughts cranked out by that overactive little bugger. Hopefully the release of some of those thoughts will also decrease the chance of catastrophic internal spontaneous combustion resulting from the high friction generated by all those random lines of thought rubbing against each other. I'm hoping it'll help with my dreams as well, since a lot of this cranial material will be put down on paper for all to see as opposed to clanging around for a while, getting bulldozed down into my subconscious only to be spewed back up when I'm in deep REM sleep in the form of wacky dreams that fade away before I'm even half awake (except for the one about the brown bag lunch where it was brainstormed to use "Like A Rock" for the Moon radio spot, right Skye?) I have no idea if there is any credence to this theory, but it sounded good when I read it in Christine long ago.
So here it is, in all its undiluted glory. I'm glad those of you who have been reading for a while are sticking it out. I am certainly not trying to tout myself as some genius prolific thinker on a level higher than everyone else. I have a tendency to rip off posts and throw them up after a cursory proof, mainly to catch spelling, grammatical, and HTML tagging errors, which results in some posts going up that have a slightly different tone to them than intended. If I piss you off, sorry, but I think that too much second guessing ultimately dilutes the attempt to convey true feeling and opinion. If I'm dead wrong on something I'm citing or trying to say please say something. Those of you who know me might be saying to yourselves "oh yeah, he always takes criticism well" and your experience justifies that, but I"d like to think that I've mellowed slightly over the years...
Any further right and they'll be on the left...
John issued a challenge to everyone to find examples of Fox's right wing slanted coverage of... well, everything, it would seem. There's a great compilation of some of the more extreme instances of this practice here.
Meanwhile, the list of fall guys in the Army Hospital Scandal keeps growing. I guess when a step like this is taken, our fearless leaders feel they have earned the latitude to go forward with a plan like this. I hate to think what the men and women in the military are feeling about the treatment they're getting from the government of the country they are serving to defend and protect. You have to think that they can only take so much mistreatment before something gives. With things progressing as they are, there's going to be another generation of neglected, misunderstood, angry veterans with nowhere to turn. What will happen when they decide to take matters into their own hands and make a statement of some sort to call attention to the shortcomings of the government that they fought for which has since turned its back on them? We saw what happened when Timothy McVeigh's frustration with our government boiled over after our last excursion into Iraq...
Some resources that are providing support to veterans and those currently serving can be found here, here, here, and here.
Meanwhile, the list of fall guys in the Army Hospital Scandal keeps growing. I guess when a step like this is taken, our fearless leaders feel they have earned the latitude to go forward with a plan like this. I hate to think what the men and women in the military are feeling about the treatment they're getting from the government of the country they are serving to defend and protect. You have to think that they can only take so much mistreatment before something gives. With things progressing as they are, there's going to be another generation of neglected, misunderstood, angry veterans with nowhere to turn. What will happen when they decide to take matters into their own hands and make a statement of some sort to call attention to the shortcomings of the government that they fought for which has since turned its back on them? We saw what happened when Timothy McVeigh's frustration with our government boiled over after our last excursion into Iraq...
Some resources that are providing support to veterans and those currently serving can be found here, here, here, and here.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The continuing (mis)adventures of the Shrub's Cranium...
I saw this and wanted to zip off a quick word about it before slipping into a food coma from a fantastic omelette from The Daily Grind down on Washington. The jalapeno cheese grits were delectible as well...
Looks like the slimy fingerprints of the brain behind the curtain weren't erased as completely as desired in the case of the US attorney firings . The machinations of Rove have leeched their way into every nook and cranny of our government and it's high time for him to be called to account before Congress to testify about his actions. They've done as much, if not more, damage to our country and the World than W could ever dream of doing...
Looks like the slimy fingerprints of the brain behind the curtain weren't erased as completely as desired in the case of the US attorney firings . The machinations of Rove have leeched their way into every nook and cranny of our government and it's high time for him to be called to account before Congress to testify about his actions. They've done as much, if not more, damage to our country and the World than W could ever dream of doing...
Good Morning... Do you know what time it is (and where your civil liberties are)?
There is a new Inspector General's report about how the FBI has been blatantly ignoring the guidelines outlines by the Patriot Act regarding the acquisition of phone and financial records. I wrote about it after hearing an interview with Paul Craig Roberts last Sunday.
Hope everyone remembered to set their clocks back!
Hope everyone remembered to set their clocks back!
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Surging the... Surge?
Just got back from some late night card slingin'... Walked away from a $.50-$1.00 cash game of No Limit Hold 'Em with $16 more than I started with. Any night where you walk away up is a good night...
Unlike this leap of faith that the Shrub is taking, possibly in response to the Dems finally showing some cojones when it comes to committing more forces in Iraq...
Unlike this leap of faith that the Shrub is taking, possibly in response to the Dems finally showing some cojones when it comes to committing more forces in Iraq...
Love your Boston Terrier? Better get a bumper sticker...
In the hairballs section of this week's Houston Press, the latest cutting edge tactics employed by the HPD were profiled much to the chagrin of yours truly and many others throughout the City who want to express their patriotism, support their favorite team or sports figure, espouse their love for their pet, or just communicate whatever personal message they choose.
I remember back when your friendly neighborhood officer had to find something else to pull you over for before giving you the third degree about a frame or cover or anything obstructing any part of the license plate on your car. I remember it clearly because I got pulled over, in front of the theater, for having a headlight out. Ironically, I had the purchased new headlight that morning and had not had a chance to install it before the show call. Now here I was, with a suspicious cop asking to see my hands, pulling me out of my truck, patting me down, and loading me into the back of the cruiser, all because my Pennsylvania license didn't have a handy dandy easily computer readable magnetic strip, therefore necessitating the manual entry of the information.
The initial suspicion was due to the fact that I had a clear plastic cover over my license plate in order to thwart miscreants in Philly from snapping off the end of the plate which had the current registration sticker on it so as to sell said sticker illicitly. I tried to explaining this to the officer, and he grudgingly bought it. However, after typing in my info and waiting for it to be read and processed, the screen that came up on the computer in his cruiser had the word 'suspension' in it somewhere, resulting in the aforementioned search and placement in the back of the car.
Meanwhile, time is creeping by, time that I, a newly hired sound engineer at a major regional theatre in the country, need to be using to get ready for the show and do a sound check... The information finally came back, there were no suspensions or outstanding warrants on my record, I think to the disappointment of the officer, and he had to settle for giving me the $50 ticket for the headlight. I zipped into theatre, did the fastest power up and sound check I think I've ever done in my life, and had a slightly surreal story to tell all my co-workers (some of whom can be quoted as saying "that was YOU?!? I wondered who that loser was who got pulled over right in front of the entrance to the garage..."
So, now the HPD doesn't need to wait and spot something like a burnt out headlight. They can pull you over for the frame or anything else covering any part of the plate. Another form of self expression falls victim to the Man...
I remember back when your friendly neighborhood officer had to find something else to pull you over for before giving you the third degree about a frame or cover or anything obstructing any part of the license plate on your car. I remember it clearly because I got pulled over, in front of the theater, for having a headlight out. Ironically, I had the purchased new headlight that morning and had not had a chance to install it before the show call. Now here I was, with a suspicious cop asking to see my hands, pulling me out of my truck, patting me down, and loading me into the back of the cruiser, all because my Pennsylvania license didn't have a handy dandy easily computer readable magnetic strip, therefore necessitating the manual entry of the information.
The initial suspicion was due to the fact that I had a clear plastic cover over my license plate in order to thwart miscreants in Philly from snapping off the end of the plate which had the current registration sticker on it so as to sell said sticker illicitly. I tried to explaining this to the officer, and he grudgingly bought it. However, after typing in my info and waiting for it to be read and processed, the screen that came up on the computer in his cruiser had the word 'suspension' in it somewhere, resulting in the aforementioned search and placement in the back of the car.
Meanwhile, time is creeping by, time that I, a newly hired sound engineer at a major regional theatre in the country, need to be using to get ready for the show and do a sound check... The information finally came back, there were no suspensions or outstanding warrants on my record, I think to the disappointment of the officer, and he had to settle for giving me the $50 ticket for the headlight. I zipped into theatre, did the fastest power up and sound check I think I've ever done in my life, and had a slightly surreal story to tell all my co-workers (some of whom can be quoted as saying "that was YOU?!? I wondered who that loser was who got pulled over right in front of the entrance to the garage..."
So, now the HPD doesn't need to wait and spot something like a burnt out headlight. They can pull you over for the frame or anything else covering any part of the plate. Another form of self expression falls victim to the Man...
Thursday, March 8, 2007
The Feline Felon's 15 minutes of fame
Divine Providence was apparently looking in on me yesterday and dropped a pair of tickets to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo into my lap. A friend of mine and I had been talking about going to see Sheryl Crow when she appeared last night, but all it turned out to be was talk until the email hit my in box and I called the ticket donator within three seconds to claim them. So after rushing home to pull on a pair of boots and grab a decent shirt, it was off to South Houston for a night of good food, good music (her vocal mix was slightly harsh in a bright kinda way, but that's just me being a sound guy, a hat I will always be wearing to some degree for the rest of my life, I imagine) and general merriment.
Poputonian has some thoughts about how the coverage of and wailing over the conviction of my cat's namesake is as relevant to the larger picture of what's happening in the country as I write this as the frantic coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death and the ensuing custody scramble for her daughter was to the other news last week, namely the emerging Army Hospital Scandal, which continues to grow in leaps and bounds (but is also starting to fade away in the mainstream media...) with the help of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Poputonian has some thoughts about how the coverage of and wailing over the conviction of my cat's namesake is as relevant to the larger picture of what's happening in the country as I write this as the frantic coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death and the ensuing custody scramble for her daughter was to the other news last week, namely the emerging Army Hospital Scandal, which continues to grow in leaps and bounds (but is also starting to fade away in the mainstream media...) with the help of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
My Cat is a Felon!
The Libby verdict has been known for less than twelve hours, and the volume of material written and distributed about it boggles the mind slightly. Arthur has a slightly giddy post written while listening to Limbaugh spin the results of the trial's outcome for the conservative nation, John has coverage of it here and here, and Fire Dog Lake has extensive coverage of the entire day, from the reading of the verdict to the courthouse steps press conference of the prosecution. John has the video of the Fitzgerald press conference here. Commentary on the verdict can also be found here and here.
Coupled with the escalating Army Hospital Scandal (I've stopped calling it the Walter Reed Scandal since it's a situation that is rife throughout the entire system) and the emerging machiavellian maneuvering behind the dismissal of multiple Federal Prosecutors, things are looking progressively more bleak for the Bush administration. One thing that concerns me greatly is the propensity of these neo-conservatives to lash out in a blindly defensive manner when backed into a corner--in this case, possibly by starting a new war to deflect attention away from all of the current political firestorm.
Coupled with the escalating Army Hospital Scandal (I've stopped calling it the Walter Reed Scandal since it's a situation that is rife throughout the entire system) and the emerging machiavellian maneuvering behind the dismissal of multiple Federal Prosecutors, things are looking progressively more bleak for the Bush administration. One thing that concerns me greatly is the propensity of these neo-conservatives to lash out in a blindly defensive manner when backed into a corner--in this case, possibly by starting a new war to deflect attention away from all of the current political firestorm.
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Walter Reed Snowball Keeps Growing...
but fear not, it'll melt pretty quick...
A quick update on the Walter Reed Military Hospital fiasco, then on to something much bigger. Hearings began today, with testimony from former and current patients. John has it posted here. Jack Cafferty returns to his segment during The Situation Room on CNN with some withering commentary on the scandal:
"Another glaring example of the Bush administration's lack of ability to deal with the consequences of its actions. Four years after invading Iraq, we're finding out that many of our returning wounded soldiers are being treated like garbage. And the government is quick to sing the chorus of, well, we didn't know."
Evidently there were some congressional members who tried to take some action to protect the government employees that were imperiled by the privatization of the hospital and have since left the facility in the wake of the mismanagement. They were dismissed by the Department of Defense and the Army, of course.
Here's the bigger item from the same folks that brought you the mess detailed above and also here, here, and here. The Guardian (NOTE TO SELF--NOT A MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA OUTLET) has received a memo out of the Pentagon that warns of dire consequences resulting from global warming affect that would political and economic stability world wide:
"The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'"
I have to believe that this is legit. The Guardian is one of Great Britains' most reputable news periodicals. And so, I find it scary as Hell. It was co-authored by one of the most respected advisors in the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, along with Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
When a former head of planning for Shell and the ranking (30 years of service) strategist in the Pentagon both sign on to an indictment of Global Warming such as this, one should tend not to look upon it a another episode of the proverbial Environmentalist boy crying wolf in order to garner attention...
John has more on it here.
A quick update on the Walter Reed Military Hospital fiasco, then on to something much bigger. Hearings began today, with testimony from former and current patients. John has it posted here. Jack Cafferty returns to his segment during The Situation Room on CNN with some withering commentary on the scandal:
"Another glaring example of the Bush administration's lack of ability to deal with the consequences of its actions. Four years after invading Iraq, we're finding out that many of our returning wounded soldiers are being treated like garbage. And the government is quick to sing the chorus of, well, we didn't know."
Evidently there were some congressional members who tried to take some action to protect the government employees that were imperiled by the privatization of the hospital and have since left the facility in the wake of the mismanagement. They were dismissed by the Department of Defense and the Army, of course.
Here's the bigger item from the same folks that brought you the mess detailed above and also here, here, and here. The Guardian (NOTE TO SELF--NOT A MAINSTREAM AMERICAN MEDIA OUTLET) has received a memo out of the Pentagon that warns of dire consequences resulting from global warming affect that would political and economic stability world wide:
"The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'"
I have to believe that this is legit. The Guardian is one of Great Britains' most reputable news periodicals. And so, I find it scary as Hell. It was co-authored by one of the most respected advisors in the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, along with Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
When a former head of planning for Shell and the ranking (30 years of service) strategist in the Pentagon both sign on to an indictment of Global Warming such as this, one should tend not to look upon it a another episode of the proverbial Environmentalist boy crying wolf in order to garner attention...
John has more on it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)