Oh, you were probably wondering that now our banner has been approved (by taking out the word sucks... yes that means our approved banner doesn't actually mention our site by name), what our traffic has been from the banner. Well, I am proud to say we have a click-thru rate of .37% since we began running the banner (4/16/2003). Not great, but not bad.

Oh, now you are probably wondering how many clicks-thrus the number actually represents. Um... Well.... One. Okay. One person clicked on my banner. Happy now?

- rob 9:29 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Just catching up on some interesting links that you all might like; I'll keep my commentary to a minimum (Thank God).

- rob 9:20 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Explanation for Bush's Carrier Landing Altered

They have to get this lying thing under control. The next thing you know they'll be making up reasons for going to war....

White House officials had said, both before and after Bush's landing in a Navy S-3B Viking jet, that he took the plane solely to avoid inconveniencing the sailors, who were returning home after a deployment of nearly 10 months. The officials said that Bush decided not to wait until the ship was in helicopter range to avoid delaying the troops' homecoming.

But instead of the carrier being hundreds of miles offshore, as aides had said it would be, the Lincoln was only about 30 miles from the coast when Bush made his "tail-hook" landing, in which the jet was stopped by cables on deck. Navy officers slowed and turned the ship when land became visible

- rob 9:15 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

For the "The Pope Is Catholic?" department: Halliburton No-Bid Contract Up to $76.7M

WASHINGTON - The no-bid contract that Halliburton Co. received to put out Iraqi oil well fires has risen to $76.7 million, pushed higher after the government gave Vice President Dick Cheney's former company the added job of restarting Iraq's oil industry.

- rob 9:13 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Time for another excellent Krugman piece: Into the Sunset

Chutzpah, according to the classic definition, is when you murder your parents, then ask for sympathy because you're an orphan. But what do we call it if after you are placed with foster parents, you try the same thing all over again?

I ask this question in light of the tax-cut package the House is expected to pass today — a package that relies on exactly the same bait-and-switch tactics used to sell the 2001 tax cut. Since the scam involved in the 2001 tax cut remains one of the wonders of modern political economy, it is a measure of our leaders' contempt for the intelligence of the public — or maybe for the press — that they think they can use the same tricks a second time.

Here's the story: in 2001, as now, some swing senators insisted on a budget resolution limiting the size of any tax cut. No problem. House-Senate negotiators pushed through a huge tax cut anyway, "saving" several hundred billion dollars by making the whole thing expire in the 10th year. Among other things, this "sunset clause" implied that heirs to large estates would pay no tax if their parents died in 2010, but would face significant taxes if their parents made it into 2011. At the time I suggested that it be renamed the Throw Momma from the Train Act of 2001.

- rob 9:09 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

IT'S THE FEROCITY, STUPID

Michael S. Dukakis served with honor in the U.S. Army for two years. Three decades later, he was ridiculed for riding in a tank while wearing a helmet and a goofy grin. George W. Bush, a simian-faced draft dodger, hitches a ride to an aircraft carrier decked out in full "Top Gun" regalia and CNN calls dubs him our "warrior president."
...
Go after Bush's ultimate Achilles' heel: run countless loops of the inarticulate Resident's clashes with the English language. "Too dumb to talk," a sinister voiceover reads. "Too stupid to trust." Use time-proven Republican methods, like name-calling: Extremist. Out of touch. Tax and spender. Hates workers. Racist. Homophobe. Corrupt CEO coddler. Idiot. Drunk. Cut to the post-pretzel-incident photo: "America needs a sober president."

Forget ideas--voters respond to the personal stuff. Dwell on the two years Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. "Brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam," a 30-second spot should intone as the camera pans over names of the fallen on the black wall in Washington. "Rich kid George W. Bush deserted. This coward snorted coke and drove drunk while other kids died." Who doubts that if Gore had played up Bush's DUI arrest, he would have picked up an extra 500 votes in Florida?

The stolen 2000 election shouldn't become a clarion call for pity votes--Americans hate sore losers--but presented as straightforward evidence of Bush's poor character. Contrast images of Gore's graceful concession speech with shots of the screaming young hoodlums dispatched by Karl Rove to intimidate Florida election officials. Remind, remind, remind: "I know I can beat George Bush," Lieberman said on May 4th. "Why? Because Al Gore (news - web sites) and I already did it." That's the snotty attitude Democrats need in order to prevail in 2004.

When the future of the country is at stake, perhaps polite politics can wait.

- rob 9:06 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Got this link from Jer:



Great movie too.

- rob 9:01 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

What the hell? How has it come to this? Why aren't people rioting? If the N.I.H. scientists have to speak in code about AIDS, how long before they won't be allowed to speak at all?

"I would recommend avoiding all electronic communication to any N.I.H. office," one scientist warned in one of many e-mail notes buzzing among AIDS researchers. "Phone communication does not appear tapped at this time. Even so, I am advising staff to speak `in code' unless an N.I.H. staff member indicates you can speak freely. In short, assume you are living in Stalinist Russia when communicating with the United States government."

This time it isn't me who's paranoid.

- Michael 10:44 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Paranoid: The reelection campaign started with Afghanistan, the ball skilfully kept in play in Iraq, and now the GOP is hawking Bush as warboytoy, which is making me think some pretty scary thoughts as the campaign really gets under way, and Convention 9/11 is feeling more and more like kickoff, after first-term halftime. Think about it. The GOP is using the attack and two wars as a rallying point for Bush, with NYC as a patriotic backdrop. That means war and victims are being used to advance an agenda. So what does this mean? That we can expect more wars against Muslims and more United States victims to get a Christian reelected, right? Or do the fundamentalists have something else in mind, like maybe the Crusades? Thought from an atheist: God bless the other America.

- Michael 9:03 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Hey, our shirt should be even more out of date then it is

Right now our Orange Level tshirt harks back to a more frightened time. The days in March where we hid in our house afraid to go to films, diners... work. But now we are at Yellow and the orange level shirt is just another piece of instant nostalgia that is so popular in our culture today. But after reading this statement from the State Department: [The world is experiencing] the lowest level of terrorism in more than 30 years. I'm wondering why we aren't at Green, or perhaps Blue (Blue is guarded and that seems reasonable... we wouldn't want to get over confident and all 'Green' like).

Seriously though. This would seem to be the kind of information that the Bush Admistration should be yelling from the roof tops. It would make it seem like they really are doing something. But it would lessen Fear. And the fact that they aren't trumpeting this report is a sign that Fear to them is more important politically than an appearance of getting results. That is both odd and scary.

Here's more from the report:

There were 199 international terrorist attacks during 2002. That represents a significant drop from the previous year – 44% fewer attacks. In fact, it is the lowest level of terrorism in more than 30 years. The last time the annual total fell below 200 attacks was in 1969, shortly after the advent of modern terrorism. This is a remarkable achievement.

There are several reasons for the decrease. First, there was a sharp drop in the number of oil pipeline bombings in Colombia. There were 41 such attacks last year, down from 178 the year before.

Second, there are increased security measures in place in virtually every nation. They are most noticeable at airports and at border crossings.

Third, a large number of terrorist suspects were not able to launch an attack last year because they are in prison. More than 3,000 of them are al-Qaida terrorists and they were arrested in over 100 countries.

Lastly, I would credit the overall post-9/11 worldwide security environment. Nations are on guard against terrorism. They are sharing intelligence and law enforcement information, they are arresting suspects, they are thwarting attacks. Governments and financial institutions are drying up the terrorist sources of revenue. Regional security organizations are steadily improving their counterterrorism capabilities.

Funny I still feel scared.

- rob 4:59 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Hmm... having some trouble with that link. I wonder why? Here's the Margaret Drabble piece:

I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world
By Margaret Drabble
(Filed: 08/05/2003)


I knew that the wave of anti-Americanism that would swell up after the Iraq war would make me feel ill. And it has. It has made me much, much more ill than I had expected.

My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness. I now loathe the United States and what it has done to Iraq and the rest of the helpless world.

I can hardly bear to see the faces of Bush and Rumsfeld, or to watch their posturing body language, or to hear their self-satisfied and incoherent platitudes. The liberal press here has done its best to make them appear ridiculous, but these two men are not funny.

I was tipped into uncontainable rage by a report on Channel 4 News about "friendly fire", which included footage of what must have been one of the most horrific bombardments ever filmed. But what struck home hardest was the subsequent image, of a row of American warplanes, with grinning cartoon faces painted on their noses. Cartoon faces, with big sharp teeth.

It is grotesque. It is hideous. This great and powerful nation bombs foreign cities and the people in those cities from Disneyland cartoon planes out of comic strips. This is simply not possible. And yet, there they were.

Others have written eloquently about the euphemistic and affectionate names that the Americans give to their weapons of mass destruction: Big Boy, Little Boy, Daisy Cutter, and so forth.

We are accustomed to these sobriquets; to phrases such as "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" and "pre-emptive strikes". We have almost ceased to notice when suicide bombers are described as "cowards". The abuse of language is part of warfare. Long ago, Voltaire told us that we invent words to conceal truths. More recently, Orwell pointed out to us the dangers of Newspeak.

But there was something about those playfully grinning warplane faces that went beyond deception and distortion into the land of madness. A nation that can allow those faces to be painted as an image on its national aeroplanes has regressed into unimaginable irresponsibility. A nation that can paint those faces on death machines must be insane.

There, I have said it. I have tried to control my anti-Americanism, remembering the many Americans that I know and respect, but I can't keep it down any longer. I detest Disneyfication, I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history.

I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win.

On April 29, 2000, I switched on CNN in my hotel room and, by chance, saw an item designed to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. The camera showed us a street scene in which a shabby elderly Vietnamese man was seen speaking English and bartering in dollars in a city that I took to be Ho Chi Minh City, still familiarly known in America by its old French colonial name of Saigon.

"The language of Shakespeare," the commentator intoned, "has conquered Vietnam." I did not note down the dialogue, though I can vouch for that sentence about the language of Shakespeare. But the word "dollar" was certainly repeated several times, and the implications of what the camera showed were clear enough.

The elderly Vietnamese man was impoverished, and he wanted hard currency. The Vietnamese had won the war, but had lost the peace.

Just leave Shakespeare and Shakespeare's homeland out of this squalid bit of revisionism, I thought at the time. Little did I then think that now, three years on, Shakespeare's country would have been dragged by our leader into this illegal, unjustifiable, aggressive war. We are all contaminated by it. Not in my name, I want to keep repeating, though I don't suppose anybody will listen.

America uses the word "democracy" as its battle cry, and its nervous soldiers gun down Iraqi civilians when they try to hold street demonstrations to protest against the invasion of their country. So much for democracy. (At least the British Army is better trained.)

America is one of the few countries in the world that executes minors. Well, it doesn't really execute them - it just keeps them in jail for years and years until they are old enough to execute, and then it executes them. It administers drugs to mentally disturbed prisoners on Death Row until they are back in their right mind, and then it executes them, too.

They call this justice and the rule of law. America is holding more than 600 people in detention in Guantánamo Bay, indefinitely, and it may well hold them there for ever. Guantánamo Bay has become the Bastille of America. They call this serving the cause of democracy and freedom.

I keep writing to Jack Straw about the so-called "illegal combatants", including minors, who are detained there without charge or trial or access to lawyers, and I shall go on writing to him and his successors until something happens. This one-way correspondence may last my lifetime. I suppose the minors won't be minors for long, although the youngest of them is only 13, so in time I shall have to drop that part of my objection, but I shall continue to protest.

A great democratic nation cannot behave in this manner. But it does. I keep remembering those words from Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the dynamics of history at the end of history, when O'Brien tells Winston: "Always there will be the intoxication of power… Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

We have seen enough boots in the past few months to last us a lifetime. Iraqi boots, American boots, British boots. Enough of boots.

I hate feeling this hatred. I have to keep reminding myself that if Bush hadn't been (so narrowly) elected, we wouldn't be here, and none of this would have happened. There is another America. Long live the other America, and may this one pass away soon.

- Michael 12:20 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Well I just finished reading what Margaret Drabble has to say about this country. Long live the other America. Amen.

- Michael 11:54 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

I wrote this to the NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd on Dec. 9, 2002. Rob's post made me think of it, nostalgically. Here it is.

Dear Maureen:

Immediately following the attacks in New York and Washington, as you may recall, Bush disappeared. He wasn't heard from. Rudy Giuliani was all over the site, covered in ash, surrounded by precarious debris and unstable buildings, commandeering his forces and generally keeping an open line to the public and media trying however he could to get a handle on chaos and secure as many lives as possible, at great risk not only to himself but to all rescue operators exposed to what then were unknown dangers. In short, he led. Hate and fear him as I do, he nevertheless acted in the interests of all of us who were there, and all who were watching. When Bush finally emerged from his hidey hole after the coast was clear, he lied about what happened on his lookout and the government's immediate response. We were fed a story. It unsettled me, and gave me a true sense of our vulnerability and his failure to lead under attack. He ran for it. When it was safe, he came to New York and grandstanded with a bullhorn on top of the dead people, swearing vengeance to a cheering crowd, promising things he had neither the intention nor the wherewithal of carrying out. Instead we invaded Afghanistan. I wrote a missive then, invoking the specter of Vietnam, and called it a spectacular failure in moral leadership, and that the war accomplished nothing. It only served the egos of a handful of arrogant men, who lied to those who gave their lives in a spurious cause. The only good thing I can say about that war is that it happened someplace else. Leaving geopolitics aside for the moment, we were lied to consistently by our leaders, the Pentagon Papers proved it, and the consequences were dire, because the myth of war was exposed. It galled the nation. Kissinger featured prominently in all of this. The war ended but the lies continued. Nixon fired his entire cabinet, then resigned in disgrace. The Republicans were fuming. Then Reagan came along and told us it was morning in America, and that was fine with us. It made us patriotic again, and the Republicans were thrilled; in fact they were fired up, because here, finally, was a real leader. He could lie with impunity. No scandal could touch him. Bush pere was at the time head of the CIA and running the South American operation during Iran-Contra, undermining Congress and violating the U.S. Constitution, and even when they were caught lying, it didn't matter. Scandals were a thing of the past. As long as we were invading someone, somewhere, it was all good. After all, we weren't the ones facing death squads in Guatemala, battling Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan (Osama was our novice), or dying in the Middle East (Saddam was our man), or getting blown up in the Balkans (Milosevic was our Bush and Baker boy). Even when it became widely known that Reagan was already in the throes of Alzheimer's, he still was our Great Sloganeer, waving his arm and threatening Russia with a big smile. That was good too. Never mind that the Soviets had an advanced chemical and bioweapons program and a nuclear arsenal available to whoever wanted them for cash -- because Reagan made them broke in an unprecedented arms-race buildup -- and that the Balkans were about to explode, which we helped fuel -- the important thing was to destroy the Evil Empire, and to hell with the consequences. Let them clean up their own goddamn mess. It was the beginning of compassionate conservatism. Tough love. Just say no. It worked like a charm. Bush won an easy victory, and embroiled us in a Middle East war -- in which chemical and biological weapons were used -- but we were lied to about that and it didn't matter, because war with Iraq was fun. It was entertainment. We could watch the official news (as opposed to those messy, controversial Vietnam images) on TV and not worry too much, because we were creaming them. And Saddam Hussein was a dictator, so it was OK to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. They were as good as dead anyway, right? Well, maybe not, but who cares? Important oil was at stake, not like in Vietnam. And if any of our guys and gals got poisoned and sterilized, we sure didn't know about it, the Pentagon made certain of that. But that's okay too, we didn't really want to hear about it anyway. The important thing is that we kicked ass and did the American thing by rescuing our oil -- I mean, Kuwait.
Then our economy tanked. Did it have anything to do with rising international corporate greed and crimes, the triple deficit spending that was a legacy of Reagan and his so-called voodoo economics, and our balance of trade? Or the S&L bailouts? Or the gazillion-dollar unpayable third-world loans made by Citibank et al.? Or even the inflation from the Vietnam war, for which all of us are still paying? None of that mattered until Bush said the magic words, "No new taxes." Well, say good-night, Gracie. That finished him. Nine percent unemployment, stagflation and recession didn't help. Some chickens had come home to roost. We still had the Japanese economy, though, and along came Clinton, with more fairy tales. Everything was good news with Clinton. Here was a leader who was actually offering something, with bragging rights. He took credit for all of it. The stock market rose to dizzying heights, and we were amazed. We were giddy. Twenty-two-year-olds could suddenly retire. Manhattan became a playground for millionaires overnight. The fact that millions were dying in genocidal conflicts in Kosovo and Rwanda made us concerned -- but not too much. There was that unfortunate bungle in Somalia, but we swept that under the rug. There were some really scary biological and nuclear incidents in Eastern Europe (and some here as well) for which there were the usual cover-ups, but in the end the lie sufficed. What mattered is that after a century of world wars, cold war, Southeast Asian conflicts and dilly-dallying in the Middle East, the United States was finally at peace, and now we could concentrate on domestic agendas close to our heart, such as welfare, health care, education, etc. Nation-building became a dirty word. Then a bomb went off in the World Trade Center in New York. That was fucked up. Some of us were close to that, and it was as if all hell broke loose. Every firetruck in the city was there, you could hear the sirens for miles and miles around. But that turned out to be the work of some kooks, who couldn't even do the job right. We nabbed them quickly, and found out they were fanatics of Osama's, who somewhere along the line turned against us. Some people in high places told Clinton he really ought to take the guy seriously, but the president couldn't be bothered. Best to ignore a problem; it will likely go away. For a politician, anyway. Don't fuck with a good thing, right? The important thing is to give the illusion of caring. That way, people will vote for you the next time. Bush seems to have learned this at Clinton's knee. Anyway, the going never got tough, but Clinton got going, the Republicans made sure of that. They were launched on a crusade, to redesign government (i.e., smash our founding institutions of checks and balances and constitutional protections), and they had the money and the political clout to do it. Plutocracy was in the air. Suddenly we were all convinced that what the country really needed was an administration of C.E.O.s, and Bush was our man. That he was a stooge is beside the point; he has good people. That these were the same fossils from a bygone era with outdated views and a cold war mindset is beside the point as well. No one gave a mind to an unstable Middle East, a collapsed balkanized superpower, the emergence of terror states with nuclear, biological and chemical arsenals, and superempowered angry fundamentalists. What matters most is stealing all the candy out of the store, and the job still isn't done. That the market lost $8 trillion in less than two years doesn't matter either. Neither does your grand-daddy's recession. Neither does the fact that your campaign contributors are all crooks who rigged our capital markets, deregulated everything, and stole everybody's retirement; these are the ones who must be rewarded, with cabinet posts and policymaking and legislative authority, so that no one goes to jail and the system never gets fixed. After all, the fix was in from the beginning; why change the status quo? And we're here with the blessing of the American people, because now we're at war, and this is serious. You can't trust a Democrat in a situation like this. What we really have to do -- as far as homeland defense is concerned -- is to lock in permanent tax cuts and make sure that no one gets a job in the near future. Anything we do now is too late anyway; can't use monetary policy anymore, fiscal's a bust. Hey, it's not our fault. And to prove it, let's fire the Secretary of the Treasury and his minion, as a show of faith. It's the genius of politics. He had nothing useful to say. "Ask not what your President can do for you, but what you can do for your President." We is us. Us is them. Next comes Medicare and Social Security. Remember that domestic agenda so near and dear to our hearts, and what I said about nation-building? Well, so long Charlie. This is war. Somebody has to pay for all those future occupations, and it sure won't be our allies like the first Iraq war. This one is for keeps. That's why we need the tax cut, so you can pay for our war. Meanwhile, even though al-Qaeda got away, regrouped, and is now threatening us with more attacks, we toppled the Taliban, and what's more important, we're going after Saddam, who is a much greater threat. Too bad Bush's own CIA director warned him (and us) two days after the "We're going after Saddam" speech that he does possess weapons and has no recourse but to use them; in fact, Tenet unwisely (for him) pointed out, there is a great likelihood that Saddam would NOT use such weapons if we DO NOT attack, because weaponized smallpox doesn't discriminate, and it's a winner-take-none scenario: everybody loses. He wants to stay in power, to a ripe old age. Faced with certain death, however ... Well that was a career ender for George Tenet. I just read yesterday that Bush wants to create a new cabinet post that would combine the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Now there's a leaderly solution. Bureaucratize all the committees into lots and lots of little committee feifdoms, so that NOBODY takes the blame when the smallpox hits. Oh, and by the way, the vaccines don't work. That's another lie -- one that could well bite us in the ass. These are vaccine-resistant weaponized strains developed by the Soviets and sold to terrorists. But we need to invade right away, especially because we know he's got them and has the ability to deploy them. This is called being a strong leader, making the tough decisions.
My question is, when the shit comes down -- and I'm talking about shit that will make 9/11 look like a dummy run -- will Bush and Co. do a vanishing act? Judging from the way these peerless C.E.O.s managed their own companies -- by changing legislation, stealing all the money and running their companies into the ground, employees be damned -- I'm not at all sure these people are acting in the national interest, in fact I'm the opposite of fearless, I'm plain scared.

- Michael 12:22 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

There are times when people rise to the occasion.

People are often saying that with 9/11 Bush rose to the occasion. He did not, he kept reading about goats and then flew about the country scared as all get out. Rove certainly did rise to the occasion though, but not in a good way.

No, I’m talking about people who really became better than they are when the moment called for it. We can all debate the obvious flaws of Giuliani, but without a doubt he was a great man on 9/11 and the days that followed. The President was missing and when he did appear he certainly did not give you confidence, but when Giuliani appeared he was human. He knew of the tragedy, and he hurt. He talked of continuing on. He loved New York, and you knew it. Quickly though he and we were back to normal, but for those few days, he should always be praised. Now for the rest of the time....

I’m also talking about Robert Byrd. Here’s a guy who’s past includes the KKK, and who never saw a government program he didn’t like, as long as it could be based in West Virginia. But now, he sees America’s sense of itself at risk. He sees freedom and the constitution in jeopardy. He’s not alone in that, of course, but he’s in the Senate, he is eloquent, and he is vocal. In these moments there are no obvious flaws in Byrd. Here’s his most recent speech. Unedited.

Senate Remarks: Making the Military a Stage Prop for Politics

In my 50 years as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege to witness the defining rhetorical moments of a number of American presidents. I have listened spellbound to the soaring oratory of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I have listened grimly to the painful soul-searching of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Presidential speeches are an important marker of any President's legacy. These are the tangible moments that history seizes upon and records for posterity. For this reason, I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush's remarks to the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq. As I watched the President's fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the President's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a deskbound President who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.

As I watched the President's speech, before the great banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," I could not help but be reminded of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors. I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.

What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

We are reminded in the gospel of Saint Luke, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Surely the same can be said of any American president. We expect, nay demand, that our leaders be scrupulous in the truth and faithful to the facts. We do not seek theatrics or hyperbole. We do not require the stage management of our victories. The men and women of the United States military are to be saluted for their valor and sacrifice in Iraq. Their heroics and quiet resolve speak for themselves. The prowess and professionalism of America's military forces do not need to be embellished by the gaudy excesses of a political campaign.

War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech.

- rob 4:54 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

This is not a "Good" business man.

I'm not an "anti-business" kind of guy. I honestly believe "good business" is good for the nation. Good business is not cronyism. Good business is not using the government as a support system and lead generator. That is corporate socialism, and that is what we have here. Much is made about all the CEOs in the Bush administration. But not one of these people is an entrepreneur. (‘That’s the problem with France, they have no French word for entrepreneur' as the new joke goes). They all made money from industries that make money with extreme governmental involvement. They are not free market capitalists. They are failed business men who got favors from people holding our money (the government… whether local, state, or federal).

“Good Business:” you create a product or service that people will pay for. To maximize the longevity of the business you treat everyone fair in your dealings, including your employees, and you alert potential users with honest (or at least entertaining... please) advertisements. You are a good member of the community. If you don’t do these things you become resented and your business fails, then you change your name, spend ads just to project the concept that you are a “good business” rather than be one. You will ultimately fail or you will run to the government for handouts (“Bechtel anyone?” They could not survive in the real world).

And then there is Richard Perle (above).

Advisor Perle has given seminars on ways to profit from possible conflicts discussed by defense board he sits on.

Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle briefed an investment seminar on ways to profit from the conflict in Iraq and North Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government briefing on the crises in the two countries, the Los Angeles Times reported.
….

One of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's closest advisers, he was a vocal advocate of going to war against Iraq and publicly questioned the reliability of some longtime U.S. allies, including France and Saudi Arabia.

This isn’t good business or good government. It’s fat old white men in a smoke filled room wondering why the servants aren’t genuine when they say “yessum.”

More Here

- rob 2:29 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The Chicks Are Alright

You'd think America would have gotten over its fury at the Dixie Chicks by now.

But no. Ever since lead singer Natalie Maines proclaimed from a London concert stage that "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas," the backlash has come hard and fast and enduring.
...

It's possible to dismiss this incident as nothing more than a tempest in a pop-culture teapot, but that would be a mistake. Americans demonstrated an unsettling impatience with dissent during Gulf II; the prevailing attitude among war supporters held that critics, especially vocal ones, should be punished rather than appreciated, squelched rather than heard.

It's difficult, but essential, to understand why. After all, "Red-State" America has its president, its Congress, its pickup trucks, its NASCAR on Fox, its domination of the political media, and its war. You'd think that Red-Staters would be feeling fat and happy. Why then do they sound so culturally insecure? And why do they manifest that insecurity with such testosterone-fueled rage?
...

And so it's not surprising that some Americans want to take them down a few pegs. The Dixie Chick-bashers translate their socio-economic anxiety and threatened masculinity into misogyny, fear and violence. And then they call it patriotism.

Read the full article, its great. It includes Bush's patronizing reaction to the phenomenom: "They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out." Noting that the chicks were never complaing about their feelings.

- rob 1:30 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Okay you are going to read a lot of writings from the nattering nabobs of negativism below, so let me just report:

Everything is Fine in Iraq

Looters have plundered seven atomic sites in Iraq that contained deadly nuclear materials, radioactive waste and biohazards, U.S. officials admitted yesterday - saying it is impossible to tell how much is missing from the plants or who has run off with what.

Our Institutions of Fair Play are alive and well

And even though he wasn't on the Bechtel payroll, one of those working hardest to convince the Iraqis to hop into bed with the company was the macho man himself, Don "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Antiquities" Rumsfeld. While working as Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East in 1983, Rumsfeld met with Saddam personally and tried to convince him to sign on to Bechtel's pipeline pipe dream.

And Rummy isn't the only current administration official with a close encounter of the Bechtel kind on his CV. Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the agency responsible for handing the lucrative Iraqi rebuilding contract to Bechtel, used to be in charge of overseeing Boston's "Big Dig," a massive highway project managed by Bechtel that went from a projected cost of $4.5 billion to an actual cost of $14 billion.

In a scathing letter sent to Natsios, the Massachusetts Inspector General called Bechtel's handling of the Big Dig "an invitation to fraud, waste and abuse." Apparently, this amounted to a sterling recommendation in Natsios' eyes because, three years later, when the time came to draw up the very short list of companies invited to bid on $1.5 billion in Iraq contracts, he didn't hesitate to include the old gang at Bechtel. Hey, what's a little "fraud, waste and abuse" among chums?

- rob 3:14 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Freedom isn't easy. It requires constant work. For Freedom to work you need Democracy. Democracy is also pretty hard (As we saw in the year 2000, despite us having a lot of practice with it). For Democracy to work you need an Educated Electorate. Educating our children (future electorate) was more of a nineties thing though with every state having to slash education (and other) budgets to stay solvent. To get an Educated Electorate you need Information. You need the facts. Well, once again:

White House refuses to release Sept. 11 info

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and the nation's intelligence agencies are blocking the release of sensitive information about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, delaying publication of a 900-page congressional report on how the terrorist assault happened.

True there might be a few national security concerns in releasing some documents, but I think if that was the case the White House would be working with Congress to get that well defined. No I think the issue is that the White House doesn't want information to get to the people. Information that might make give us an Educated Electorate (well... just slightly more educated). An Educated Electorate that just might not re-elect Bush.

- rob 3:10 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Sure the Bush Administration hates France for trying to stop the war in Iraq. But now it is time to build a lasting peace, and freedom fries aside, you've got to do it with good food: Pastry Chef Flown in on Iraq Mission

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Pastry chef Yves Reynaud, with French colors on his collar, flew in a U.S. Air Force transport to Baghdad on a vital mission. Any search for peace goes better with cream puffs.

But they'd better keep this hush hush in the states, where we do our patriotic duty and vandalize French Wine stores (yeah, that'll show Bin Laden!)

- rob 3:02 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Ahhh Bush's proud moment in a flight suit:



Oh wait, that was the last time he was in a flight suit. It was during the Vietnam War, and he somehow (pure luck I'm sure) got into the Texas National Guard.

Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains unaccounted for. In November 1973, responding to a request from the headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote, ''Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.''

Which bring us to:



And that just makes us remember his embarrassing military career. Or at least it should:

Media AWOL in noting irony of Bush's flight

Last week, though, the president all but wore a "Kick Me!" sticker on the back of his flight suit when he decided to land on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot's seat of an S-3B Viking jet.

Imagine the derisive merriment in the columns and on the chat shows if former President Bill Clinton revived the skirt-chasing issue by touring a sorority house or if Gore delivered a lecture to the engineers at Netscape Communications Corp. Think of the snickering and the sardonic rehash of history.

But for Bush in flyboy attire, a discreet silence. The only voices I encountered raising this issue were David Corn in the Nation; Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin, who asked, "Tell me if you ever heard of anybody with as powerful a resistance to shame as Bush"; and talk station WLS-AM's token progressives Nancy Skinner and Ski Anderson, who spent a full hour Sunday afternoon savoring the irony of it all.

- rob 2:49 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Yesterday The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 108) Came out.

High-way-to-the-DANGERZONE! Goin'-right-in-to-the-DANGERZONE! Yes, Dubya tops the list this week for spending lots of taxpayer money on a photo-op, wasting the time of thousands of sailors who were just trying to get home, and pretending that he did something other than tequila slammers and kegstands during Vietnam.

- rob 2:37 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

I really hope the landing on the Abraham Lincoln last week was the turning of the tide. The time when, after constant pushing at the envelope of acceptible fascist imagery for American, Rove went too far. But so far I'm not sure. Thank God for Krugman to point out the truly horrible scene that speech was:

Man on Horseback

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.
...

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)
...

Let me be frank. Why is the failure to find any evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program, or vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons (a few drums don't qualify — though we haven't found even that) a big deal? Mainly because it feeds suspicions that the war wasn't waged to eliminate real threats. This suspicion is further fed by the administration's lackadaisical attitude toward those supposed threats once Baghdad fell. For example, Iraq's main nuclear waste dump wasn't secured until a few days ago, by which time it had been thoroughly looted. So was it all about the photo ops?

- rob 1:42 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Ahh modern America. A country which prided its freedom, a country that reveled in its ability to poke fun at Clinton's woes, a country which now suspends DJs for playing the number one Country song in the USA.

DJs Suspended for Playing Dixie Chicks

Country station KKCS has suspended two disc jockeys for playing the Dixie Chicks, violating a ban imposed after the group criticized President Bush.

Here's the bit I enjoy: "They [the DJs] made it very clear that they support wholeheartedly the president of the United States. They support wholeheartedly the troops, the military. But they also support the right of free speech," Grant said. And it was that last one that got them suspended.

- rob 1:31 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Ahh... but enough of this negativity. Things are going well in Iraq.

Nearly a month after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, the reconstruction effort is struggling to gain visibility and credibility, crime is a continuing problem, Iraqis desperate for jobs and security are becoming angry and the transition to democracy promised by President Bush seems rife with risk.

- rob 1:14 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

In case anyone ever doubted what the USA Patriot Act translates into in actual practice, read this and be forewarned. It has happened to me as well, and although I was not detained for hours on end, I did have automatic weapons with their safeties off pointed at my head point-blank with a terrifying black-clad jackbooted policeman screaming at me to get my hands up high while a virtual army in bulletproof vests and helmets stormed the place (it was a Mexican restaurant on Allen St. called Tres Azteca), abused everyone in there, made people get down on the floor on their hands and knees and hurled racist insults and threats during the entire experience. We never knew what it was about, no explanation was offered, no apologies. I am convinced that the raid took place because the owners were Mexican, and that was reason enough. God bless.

- Michael 10:53 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Okay, not much posted today, but come on! Check out Friday's posting blow out! Things were bound to slow down for a day or so. More tomorrow, hopefully.

In the meantime if you are feeling scared, why not read this article that my folks alerted me too: Iraqi Nuclear Site Is Found Looted. That'll cheer you up.

A specially trained Defense Department team, dispatched after a month of official indecision to survey a major Iraqi radioactive waste repository, today found the site heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing.

The discovery at the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility was the second since the end of the war in which a known nuclear cache was plundered extensively enough that authorities could not rule out the possibility that deadly materials had been stolen. The survey, conducted by a U.S. Special Forces detachment and eight nuclear experts from a Pentagon office called the Direct Support Team, appeared to offer fresh evidence that the war has dispersed the country's most dangerous technologies beyond anyone's knowledge or control.

Come on, wasn't it an obvious danger of waging a war that in the confusion Iraq's WMDs (if they existed) would be given to (or find there way to) happy go lucky terrorists. We could always count a little on Saddam's greed for power, and he knew that dealing that directly with terrorists would without a doubt end his reign, so he hadn't given the terrorists the weapons, so he could stay greedy and powerful. But as his reign was being lost, he no longer had any such restraits. The war increased the chance of any WMDs actually making it into terrorists hands.

Speaking of wanting to reduce the chance of WMDs (to use the new stupid acronym.. though I admit it is easier for a typo happy man like me to type than a full word like weapons... much less two words like 'unconventional weapons'): Why have we cut back on funds given to the Russians to dismantle their nuclear stockpile? Here is the worst case scenario, you've got nuclear missles guarded by underpaid unhappy soldiers, who basically have no supervision. Why worry about a country's potential of making weapons when you've got working nuclear missles up for grabs just a bit farther north.

- rob 6:00 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Subscribe to the TCS Feed

Having trouble with some of the poor English on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:

Search TCS

Archive

Archive Index Page

What is this?

This is a "team" blog.  We are a bunch of Americans, whose rising distress in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.  As Bush said, he's a "uniter."  Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.

This Century Sucks Store

Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.  

We have a little Store you can visit.  

Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come see what we have.

 

We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.

Search Now:

Sites we often like:

Tin Foil Caps

The Free Speech Zone

The office of the independent blogger

Buzzflash

Tom The Dancing Bug

VerifiedVoting.org

Get Your War On

This Modern World

Eschaton / Atrios

Daily Kos

Contribute to America's Future

It is now more important then ever.

Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee

Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Some More Site Mottos

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt



"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response."
 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison



"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

More Sites we often like:

more coming...

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.