Some questions by Cindy Sheehan

I'm linking you to an eloquent article by Cindy Sheehan called "When Will We Ever Learn?". Here are the questions that caught my attention:

I often have to ask myself why we, as Americans, so blindly follow our leaders down this path of violent destruction, and it has always been so. From the genocide and virtual extinction of our native population to dehumanizing black people so that they could be used as human chattel and still be oppressed, even today, to still be the only so-called "civilized nation" that executes people. Why do we allow our leaders to kill and oppress people in our names? Is it so we won't have to look at our own destructive behavior?

Are we as a nation so devoid of hope that we are ready to live our lives in "quiet desperation" watching BushCo destroy Iraq, destroy the USA and destroy the world for their own wicked ends? Do we see any difference in jumping in our huge, gas guzzling and polluting SUVs to go to a job we hate to be able to buy things we don't need in contrast with invading a country to control its oil reserves to give the people who run companies that profit from death and destruction more money so they can buy their jets and build palaces that they don't need?

Are our visions of a future that is one endless war after another in competition for resources and for a dwindling planet so bleak that we are condoning the destructive behavior of the Bush administration because we are competing with our neighbors to have the best and brightest new thingamajig that Madison Ave tells us that we need?

Why don't we ask these questions as a society? Thank God there are voices - albeit few - who are asking them for us.

Cancelling climate satellites

This is simply unconscionable:

NASA is canceling or delaying a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth's changing climate and environment.

The space agency has shelved a $200 million satellite mission headed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor that was designed to measure soil moisture -- a key factor in helping scientists understand the impact of global warming and predict droughts and floods. The Deep Space Climate Observatory, intended to observe climate factors such as solar radiation, ozone, clouds, and water vapor more comprehensively than existing satellites, also has been canceled.

And in its 2007 budget, NASA proposes significant delays in a global precipitation measuring mission to help with weather predictions, as well as the launch of a satellite designed to increase the timeliness and accuracy of severe weather forecasts and improve climate models.

The changes come as NASA prioritizes its budget to pay for completion of the International Space Station and the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020 -- a goal set by President Bush that promises a more distant and arguably less practical scientific payoff. Ultimately, scientists say, the delays and cancellations could make hurricane predictions less accurate, create gaps in long-term monitoring of weather, and result in less clarity about the earth's hydrological systems, which play an integral part in climate change.

We need those satellites.

The above article is from the Boston Globe and is entitled, "NASA shelves climate satellites: Environmental science may suffer".

Zarqawi's death

Here's a comment I found on AMERICAblog that sums up my position pretty well:

I've been noticing how much the media is playing up the "al Qaeda" angle, giving everyone the impression that killing Zarqawi is a blow to the same organization of 9-11 and Osama bin Laden.

There's absolutely NO discussion of how these two al Qaedas are basically unrelated organizations with no reported organizational ties, and that Zarqawi is pretty much just a wannabe who changed the name of his group to "al Qaeda in Iraq" in order to glom onto the original al Qaeda's notoriety.

I suppose that most of the media thinks this point is too "subtle" for most Americans to grasp? Or maybe they don't even know themselves, because so many "journalists" nowadays are nothing more than White House stenographers?

I'm also disgusted by the rejoicing that's going on in the press. We call terrorists and insurgents barbaric when they kill helpless people and show it on the web. And yet we're allowing our basest instincts and desire for revenge and aggression take over in our response to Zarqawi's death.

How do we look to other people around the world when we respond like this? We're certainly not presenting an admirable or moral face to the rest of the world. And we're also not setting a good example for our own children, either.

It's too much to hope for really to expect the press to do its job.

I know I'm being cynical today. Sorry. But I think it's warranted.

Friday cat blogging!

Leroy

Photo by Ellie Finlay

That vast right-wing conspiracy

It's for real, actually. And the press is in collusion.

I want to call your attention today to an article entitled, "How the press discriminates against Democrats". The subtitle is, "John Murtha, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are just the latest Democrats to face biased media coverage -- but they won't be the last."

I've blogged about this before, as you know, and I just can't overemphasize how harmful this is and what an uphill battle we have. Here's how it gets started:

Last week, MediaMatters wrote:

"At this point, you'd have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can't continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It's all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her. The smearing of Jack Murtha should prove that to anyone who still doubts it."

The recent media treatment of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) illustrate this point: No matter who emerges as a progressive leader, or a high-profile Democrat, they're in for the same flood of conservative misinformation in the media. Too many people chalk up outrageous media treatment of, say, Al Gore or John Kerry to the men's own flaws, pretending that if they were better candidates, they'd have gotten better press coverage. That's naïve. The Democratic Party could nominate Superman to be their next presidential candidate, and two things would happen: conservatives would smear him, and the media would join in. To illustrate this, we look back over the last dozen or so years.

Go on and click through to the rest of the article to read the examples. It's a long article but we really need to be informed about how this stuff goes down. I'm afraid I'm very pessimistic about the possibility of change. Why does the press still favor Republicans and smear Democrats when Bush's poll numbers are so low? Undoubtedly it's because they've been thoroughly bought out by big business.

Americans want universal health coverage

Well, this is very interesting. Take a look at a CNN article entitled, "Americans want universal health coverage, group says":

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government should guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage, says a committee set up by Congress to find out what people want when it comes to health care.

"Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility," says the interim report of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.

The committee describes its recommendations as a framework. The recommendations don't say who would pay for universal health coverage or how much it would cost. The concept of government-guaranteed coverage runs counter to the Bush administration's position that consumers should bear more responsibility for their initial medical expenses.

The group's findings will be officially presented to the president and Congress in the fall, but first comes 90 days of public comment. The president will submit to Congress his response, and then five congressional committees will hold hearings.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said he and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, came up with the idea for establishing a group that would work outside of Washington to find out what Americans want. He said they were tired of years of gridlock on health care issues.

CNN also took a Quick Vote on the issue. Here are the results so far:

Would you support government-guaranteed health care for all Americans?

Yes 79%

No 21%

Okay. So now we know. The public wants guaranteed health care. Now let's see what the Bush administration does with that information.

Well, this is encouraging.

A typically conservative population now believes in global warming and that something should be done about it. Take a look:

A new poll of hunters and fishermen finds the majority think the country is on the wrong track with its energy policy and should be a leader in combating global warming. In the poll of licensed hunters and anglers, 76 percent said global warming is occurring and 73 percent believe it is impacting or will impact hunting and fishing conditions. A full 78 percent said the solutions should involve conserving more energy, developing fuel-efficient vehicles and expanding the use of renewable sources.

The nationwide poll of 1,031 hunters and anglers was conducted by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia for the National Wildlife Federation.

The respondents had voted for President Bush in 2004 by about a 2-to-1 margin, and half of them identified themselves as evangelical Christians.

This is from an article entitled, "Hunters and Fishermen Want Action on Global Warming".

Interestingly, I used to live in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Very conservative part of the country.

Some history on the oil lobby

Today I got an email from the Organic Consumers Association and I learned something disgusing about the petroleum lobby. Take a look at this:

* Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine, designed it to run on vegetable and seed oils like hemp. In fact, when the diesel engine was first introduced at the World's Fair in 1900, it ran on peanut oil.

* Two decades later, Henry Ford was designing his Model Ts to run on ethanol made from hemp. He envisioned the entire mass-produced Model T automobile line would run on ethanol derived from crops grown in the U.S.

* Even in the 1920s, the oil industry had massive lobbying power in Washington. Lobbyists convinced policymakers to create laws favoring petroleum based fuels while disgarding the ethanol option.

* Nearly a century later, amidst oil wars in the Middle East, Global Warming, and a nearly depleted oil supply, the U.S. government is finally shifting attention to fuels that are more along the lines of Diesel and Ford's original ideas.

* In an interview with the New York Times in 1925, Henry Ford said: "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

Just imagine how different our situation today would be if we had supported ethanol as a fuel all these years. You can learn more about this right here.

The true moral outrage

I found this comment on Father Jake Stops the World:

If people are so concerned about the moral health of our nation, then they should take a look at what Congress is about to do; repeal the estate tax. Now there's a real affront to all morals and decency.

The richest Americans are about to get what amouts to a government subsidy paid for by all the rest of us, and taking bread out of the mouths of the poor. Paris Hilton is about to get a huge multi-million dollar tax break while New Orleans still lies in ruins and our veterans (especially from the reserves) return from combat forced to buy their own health care coverage, and to benefits drastically cut by all those same chicken hawk legislators who yell the loudest to support the troops.

If you want to see a real scandal, then quit peaking in bedsheets and take a look at C-Span.

I just can't believe they're going to do this - and with our deficit too. It's obscenely immoral.

What is a progressive? The contest results

Well, I got an email today from Campaign for America's Future. Here is the winning entry answering the question, "What is a progressive?"

A progressive is someone who understands that it is the people of our country who make it great, and unless we take care of the people first, we'll never be successful in maintaining our greatness. Taking care of people means providing healthcare for everyone. It means keeping the environment clean, safe and preserved. It means great schools and great jobs. It means improving the lives of families, rather than lining the pockets of big business, or big politicians. It means taking care of each other here, and around the world. We're all in this together.

And here's the first runner up:

Progressives believe that a better life is possible for everyone. They know that when we make room at the table for everyone, we are all enriched. Progressives actively pursue new, more effective solutions to the problems we face as a people. Status quo is not a given -- it is a challenge to do better.

And the second:

A progressive is someone who believes in the common good -- in a fair shake for every person -- and is willing to fight for it.

All excellent. All inspiring.

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

What Osama wanted

Could be:

I hate to say it, but that murdering terrorist Osama has really kicked America's ass right where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. He knew Bush would overreact. And, it could end up costing us our Country...just the way he planned it.

-- Grant Gerver - Shot Off the Press

A light bulb campaign

I got an email today from the Environmental Defense people asking me to pledge to switch one incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent bulb. Actually, I've already done that but I'm pledging to switch one more. Here's part of what they said about it:

Join Environmental Defense's Make the Switch Campaign - a national campaign to reduce global warming pollution through the use of energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

Our goal for the Environmental Defense community - to switch ONE MILLION light bulbs over the next year.

Here's what you need to know:

* Changing a light bulb makes a difference. If every US household replaced three 60-watt incandescent bulbs with CFLs, it would be like taking 3.5 million cars off the roads!

* CFLs save you money. A 20-watt CFL, which screws into an ordinary light socket, is just as bright as a 60-watt incandescent.

* Today's CFLs are dramatically better than a few years ago. You won't miss your incandescent bulbs.

We're asking every member of the Environmental Defense community to pledge to switch at least one bulb in the coming year. If you and two friends do it, we'll easily meet our million bulb goal!

This is a painless way to reduce your personal contribution to the problem of global warming. You can take the pledge right here.

Hunger awareness

I discovered that today is Hunger Awareness Day on the blog, Father Jake Stops the World.

It's common in hunger awareness articles to talk about how children are affected but today, instead, I'm going to give you information about seniors. Take a look at this:

* The Census Bureau reported in their most recent release that 6.5 percent of households with an elderly person are food insecure. Over 460,000 of those households experienced food insecurity with hunger during 2004.

* 9.8 percent of the elderly live below the poverty line - nearly 3.5 million older Americans. The rate of food insecurity among elderly households with incomes at or below 130% of the poverty line is 18.2 percent.

* Elderly households are much less likely to receive food stamps than non-elderly households, even when expected benefits are roughly the same.

* Seniors require greater consideration towards their health and medical needs that can become compromised when there is not enough food to eat. A study which examined the health and nutritional status of seniors found that food insecure seniors had significantly lower intakes of vital nutrients in their diets when compared to their food secure counterparts. In addition, food insecure seniors were 2.33 times more likely to report fair/poor health status and had higher nutritional risk.

* For seniors, protecting oneself from food insecurity and hunger is more difficult than for the general population. For example, a study that focused on the experience of food insecurity among the elderly population found that food insecure seniors sometimes had enough money to purchase food but did not have the resources to access or prepare food due to lack of transportation, functional limitations, or health problems.

I found the above information on the website of America's Second Harvest.

Finally, I leave you with this:

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

- Matthew 25:35-40

Simply unbelievable

You know, I'm not easily shocked, but this shocked me:

You know, not even the Red Cross was interested in taking $1 million in donation for charity from us. We got a nice letter saying, thanks, but no thanks. Every tour cycle we donate money to a charity and we had wanted to put our money where our mouth was. When they turned down our money it made me so sad this could run so deep. You feel like all of a sudden you're poison.

- Martie Maguire, Dixie Chicks Fiddler

Of course, I made up my mind never to donate to Red Cross because of their incompetence during the Katriana disaster but this is beyond reprehensible. I had no idea their collusion with the Bush administration was so deep.

UPDATE: If you want the scoop on contributions to the Red Cross please read this article from the Los Angeles Times entitled, "The Red Cross money pit".

What you eat and climate change

It matters. Not only to your health and the well being of other animals besides humans, it also matters to the environment. Take a look at this excerpt from an article entitled, "Does meat-based diet contribute to global warming?":

What we eat affects not only our health but also our environment. Any nutritionist will tell you that most Americans are damaging their health by over-consuming meat and animal products, while under-consuming healthy and nutritious whole foods -- fresh fruits, vegetables, grains and beans.

If you are going to eat meat, consume it in moderate quantities, and limit your intake to organic products coming from healthy animals that are grass-fed and raised humanely. Keep in mind that the bird flu pandemic, looming ominously on the horizon, is a direct result of raising larger and larger numbers of poultry under unhealthy and inhumane conditions.

Every day, for example, several hundred chickens routinely are crammed into manure-saturated 8-by-8-foot cages on poultry farms across China and other Asian countries. Living in filthy conditions, reared on contaminated animal feed laced with dioxin residues, antibiotics and slaughterhouse wastes; these animals are a biological time bomb waiting to explode.

On the environmental and climate change front, the facts are equally clear. Unless the U.S. and other nations drastically reduce the amount of our climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases by at least 75 percent over the next decade, our children and grandchildren will be condemned to live in a chaotic and dangerous world, where food and energy shortages will become the norm.

To avoid climate chaos, Americans must change our lifestyles and diets. We must decrease our consumption of energy and chemical intensive meat and animal products, along with highly processed and packaged convenience foods transported over long distances.
...
Organic farms worldwide use 50 percent less petroleum-derived fuel and inputs than conventional farms.

I buy organic food whenever possible because I don't want to consume pesticide residue. I'm also a vegetarian because animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends. But now there's another good reason to be faithful to both of those principles. Because I'm a vegetarian and buy organic I'm contributing less to global warming than I would be otherwise.

Please think about it.

The biased press

I said below that the press (with the notable exception of Rolling Stone Magazine) has refused to report on what was definitely a stolen election and I linked to a Media Matters article about how the press smears and slams Democrats in areas where they give Republicans a pass. Here's a telling quote by Lawrence Grossman, longtime head of PBS and NBC News.

The job of the President is to set the agenda and the job of the press is to follow the agenda that the leadership sets.

Well! I thought the job of the press in a free society was to act as a watchdog with regard to the government and to report the news objectively and accurately. Even though Bush's poll numbers are in the toilet right now, I'm pessimistic about the country because the press is simply not doing its job.

Bush definitely stole Ohio

You just gotta read this article. Go read the whole thing. It's entitled, "Bush, the most hated president ever, stole both elections". Well, I've believed this all along but this article nails it. Here are a few excerpts:

The latest polls say Americans now dislike Bush more than any other president including even Tricky Dick. It only took the public five and half year to see through him.

That said, I wonder how long it will take people to accept the news that Bush never won either election and the country is in such a mess that it will take 50 years to get back to how it was when Bush took office.
...
Some people ended up standing in line for up to 12 hours. But only those people who could miss work and go without pay for a whole day and not get fired for not showing up. And as we all know those people who could not wait in line were certainly not Republicans.

I had never seen anything like it in my life. I knew Bush stole the election by the time the polls closed in Ohio.

I knew it because in working for a major media outlet, by late afternoon I knew that all the exit polls had Kerry winning. But by the time I left work to go home, the news channels were saying "all the exit polls" are wrong. Yea right, all the exit polls were wrong.

Don't people realize how impossible that would be?

I proceeded home to watch the returns and I for sure knew that Bush stole the election the minute the news programs showed him sitting with his family pretending to be all apprehensive when his face and body language told me that he somehow knew there were no ifs about it, his second term was in the bag.
...
Its worth noting here, that there were no problems with the Republicans voting. No waiting in line for hours or anything else. Check it out on the internet by reviewing the news articles in Ohio at the time, all went well in their neighborhoods.
...
And top that off that with the outright fraud that shows that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry in one county were counted for Bush instead. "That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes," says Mr. [Robert] Kennedy [Jr.], "enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."

Do you realize what a different country we would have today if Kerry had become president? Just think of the Supreme Court for starters. And environmental laws. And we wouldn't be saber rattling with regard to Iran. Oh, I could go on and on.

If the press were doing its job, we'd have investigative reporting on the validity of that election. But the press as a whole shills for the Republicans and slams Democrats. If you don't believe me go read what Media Matters has to say on the subject in an article about media treatment of Democrats. It will truly make you sick.

UPDATE: Read this:

The story of the stolen election of 2004 has FINALLY busted into the mainstream media, thanks to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Rolling Stone Magazine.

We all owe them great thanks.

Now we'll see if there's any further media follow-up. And if the Democratic Party actually DOES SOMETHING about the fact that America is about to be hijacked again in 2006, and then for the third straight presidential race in 2008.

The massive article in this week's RS focuses on the impossible contrast between exit polls showing a clear and overwhelming Kerry victory versus bogus "official" vote counts giving George W. Bush four more catastrophic years in the White House. It also details some of the horrific intimidation, manipulation and outright theft used by Ohio's GOP Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell to deny hundreds of thousands of mostly Democratic voters their right to a ballot. And it discusses in some depth the fact that Diebold and other electronic voting machine and software producers make it possible for any inside operator to use a laptop and a few keystrokes to flip an entire election in a matter of seconds.

The above passage is from an article entitled, "RFK and Rolling Stone nail Ohio's stolen 2004 election, but much more must be done". Now let's see what the rest of the press does with this. Will Rolling Stone be denounced, supported, or met with media silence?

Here's the complete Rolling Stone article.

Presidential gay-bashing

CNN's Jack Cafferty said the following:

Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?

Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

Pure bigotry. How can people live with themselves carrying around such hate?

I found this on AMERICAblog, by the way and John (of AMERICAblog) found it on Eschaton so it's making it's way around the blogosphere.

Fear of sex

Okay, I don't know if I've blogged about this before or not. But I hope it has come to your attention that there now exists a vaccine that could erradicate cervical cancer in women if administered to all girls before they become sexually active. But the so-called conservatives think that having sex should be punishable by death. So they're against the vaccine. Here's an excerpt from an article entitled, "Conservatives Favor ‘Purity’ over Cancer Vaccine":

Late last month a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV). The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations opposed it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that it appears certain that the FDA will approve the vaccine, conservatives are attempting to discourage its use.

The pharmaceutical giant Merck produced the vaccine known as Gardasil. It will be nothing short of a lifesaver for many women. Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer killer among women in America, striking nearly 14,000 women each year. Of those, nearly 4,000 die annually. Poor women and women of color will benefit the most from the vaccine, as Latino and black women have the highest rates of cervical cancer. Lower-income women typically lack the funds and health insurance necessary to have regular screenings for HPV.

Despite the benefits of the vaccine, conservative organizations began to rally against it last year. One of the most vocal opponents was the Family Research Council. The council “promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.” Last October the council’s president, Tony Perkins, spoke decidedly against the vaccine. Mr. Perkins proclaimed, “Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence. It sends the wrong message.” He even stated that he would not vaccinate his 13-year-old daughter.

Another organization that promotes abstinence is the Physicians Consortium. The head of the consortium, Dr. Hal Wallis, was also critical. In his opinion, “If you don’t want to suffer these diseases, you need to abstain, and when you find a partner, stick with that partner.” The founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse also opposed the vaccine. This organization was formed “to promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence (purity) until marriage.” Leslee Unruh, the organization’s founder, stated firmly, “I personally object to vaccinating children against a disease that is 100 percent preventable with proper sexual behavior.”

Now that FDA approval is all but certain, conservative organizations are strategizing to blunt acceptance of the vaccine. Much of this effort is directed toward the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is a part of the Centers for Disease Control, and is responsible for establishing the classification of vaccines that the government recommends. This recommendation prompts states to require a particular vaccination, typically guarantees that insurance companies will cover it, and determines the level of public funding.

What about the young woman who maintains her virginity until marriage but her husband was sexually active before marriage and therefore passes on the virus to her? Should she die too? What about forgiveness? What about a foolish young woman who's promiscuous and then has a conversion experience in her mid-twenties, say, and becomes sexually abstinent after that? Are they saying she should die too because of the foolishness of her youth?

The real question is, why are these people so afraid of sex? And why are they so obsessed with policing other people's sexual behavior?

Friday cat blogging!

This beautiful kitty, sadly now deceased, belonged to Cynthia's friend, Sandy.
Photo by Cynthia Burgess

Please don't shop at Wal-mart's - Part 11

I got an email from WalmartWatch today that makes me seriously wonder what's happening to the First Amendment. We have lost freedom of speech in this country when corporate interests can trump another organization's paid advertizing. Read this. It's really outrageous:

Last week, with the help of tens of thousands of supporters across the country, Wal-Mart Watch extended a hand to Wal-Mart's management and the Walton family. In a seven-point statement of shared principles, we offered to partner with Wal-Mart to help make America's largest company a true model for responsible business in the 21st century.

www.walmartwatch.com/handshake

To reinforce our offer, we contracted with Whistler Outdoor Advertising to post a billboard near Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. The billboard went up yesterday morning, just in time to greet visitors to Wal-Mart's Annual Shareholders Meeting being held today.

The billboard's message? -- a thoughtful, forward-looking quote from company founder Sam Walton:

"Maybe the most important way in which we at Wal-Mart believe in giving something back is through our commitment to using the power of this enormous enterprise as a force for change."

Yesterday afternoon, just hours after completing the billboard's installation at 1111 Sam Walton Boulevard, Whistler tore down our message. Company management has since told reporters that it was "duped" by Wal-Mart Watch. In reality, Whistler received our signed contract, payment, and artwork on May 25, 2006 and proceeded with the installation on schedule.

Whistler's management most certainly spent the day resisting withering pressure from Wal-Mart before finally giving in. While we hope that they will reconsider their action, we will accept our full refund and contribute that amount to the Bentonville Public Library.

So, while the first amendment doesn't seem to apply in the company town of Bentonville, our proposal to Wal-Mart still stands. Billboard or not, our hand is still extended. Is yours?

Please urge your friends to sign-on to our "Handshake with Sam" today.

Thanks for all you do,
Andrew GrossmanExecutive Director

Please take action via the above link and whatever you do, DON'T shop at Wal-mart!

You are NOT going to believe this

I just read this on ABC news:

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. (Click here for the actual document.) That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

The formula did not consider as landmarks or icons: The Empire State Building, The United Nations, The Statue of Liberty and others found on several terror target hit lists. It also left off notable landmarks, such as the New York Public Library, Times Square, City Hall and at least three of the nation's most renowned museums: The Guggenheim, The Metropolitan and The Museum of Natural History.

The form ignored that New York City is the capital of the world financial markets and merely stated the city had four significant bank assets.

New York City is home to Chase, JP Morgan, Citi Group, The New York Stock Exchange, The Commodities Exchange, American Express, George Soros funds, Michael Gabelli's funds, Lazard Frere and Salomon Brothers, to name just a few of the more prominent banking interests located there.

Un-freakin'-believable.

Letterman rules!

Good snark:

June 1st is the start of the hurricane season. President Bush is already stockpiling excuses.

--David Letterman

Why people hate

This is probably true:

I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

--- James Arthur Baldwin

A prediction

One of my favorite commenters on Smirking Chimp posts as JamesPB. Here's something he had to say today:

This is gonna be great. Aside from the arctic polar ice cap melting; gas is going to cost $15 a gallon; no employers will be offering pensions or health care insurance of any kinds; the average health care policy for a 40 year old and family will be $25,000 a year; employers will routinely fire people just because they don't want employees for more than five years; a college education will cost more than $250,000 and will mean little or nothing upon graduation; even doctors, lawyers and engineers will have trouble finding work at a professional salary. Also, Bush will have destroyed our public education system.

Maybe we can try, convict and sentence him at some time after he leaves office.

I wish I thought he was being unnecessarily alarmist. But I don't. I think what he is predicting is actually very likely.

More on the "unitary executive"

It's clear this president believes he is above the law. This has thrown us into a constitutional crisis according to Sidney Blumenthal as he explains in his article entitled, "A state of emergency":

Within the Bush administration something that senior officials call the "war paradigm" is the central organising principle. They do not use the phrase publicly, but they bend policy to serve it. After September 11 the war paradigm was instantly adopted. George Bush, who proclaimed "I'm a war president", assumed the paradigm as his natural state and right. According to its imperatives, the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances. Some of the paradigm's expressions include Bush's fiats on the treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance and international law, and his more than 750 "signing statements" - interpretations of laws that he claims he can implement as he chooses.
...
In the beginning, the elements of the war paradigm appeared to be expediencies, conceived as emergency measures in the struggle against al-Qaida. But their precepts were developed before September 11 by John Yoo, promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the department of justice, where he was tasked to write secret memos on torture, surveillance and executive power.

Once Bush approved them, the clerisy of neoconservative lawyers put them into effect. They believe fervently that the constitution is fatally flawed and must be circumscribed. The Bush administration's holy grail is to remove suspects' rights to due process, speedy trial and exculpatory evidence. The war paradigm is to be strengthened to conduct permanent war against terror that can never be finally defeated. There is no exit strategy from emergency.

Go on and read the rest of the article to see how this philosophy plays out. You already know a lot of it. But Blumenthal articulates what is happening very skillfully.

It just makes me sick. Yes, it does.

What is a progressive? Part 2

Campaign for America's Future is having a contest for a person to answer the question "What is a progressive?" in 30 seconds or less. They've narrowed it down to 10 finalists. Here's my favorite:

A progressive is someone who understands that personal wellbeing cannot be separated from the wellbeing of society, and that we are all better and stronger when we work together for the common good. From the air and water that we all depend on, to the education of our neighbors' children, a progressive understands that none is immune from the effects of community underachievement. Today's progressive understands that the individual is most effective when all in society function highly.

Basically the question is whether you adhere to the slogan, "You're on your own" or "We're in it together." The progressive believes that we're all in it together.

Still ANOTHER tax cut

They're insane. Or evil. Or both. Lately, I'm starting to think both. Read this excerpt from a Washington Post article entitled, "Estate Tax Lunacy":

Spring has given way to summer's full-furnace heat in Washington, apparently taking with it any scintilla of sense that Congress may yet possess.

In the House, Republicans who could not even raise an eyebrow at reports that the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans became instant civil libertarians when the FBI conducted a search of a congressman's office.

The Senate, meanwhile, is scheduled next week to take up legislation by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl that would permanently repeal the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, Kyl's bill would plunge the government another trillion dollars into the red during the first decade (2011-2021) that it would be in effect.

The Republicans hate the social safety net so much that they're willing to destroy the country over it. We simply cannot sustain our debt. The dollar is going downhill, next interest rates are going to go sky high and we'll all be in a serious pickle. But the wealthiest 1% have theirs so screw the rest of us, right?

Whistle blowers lose protection

Don't know if you've been following the Supreme Court lately but there's a new ruling that really undermines the First Amendment. I'm bringing you an article called, "Critics say court ruling leaves whistleblowers in fear". Here's how it gets started:

Critics today railed against a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court today that effectively bars public employees from reporting misconduct to their supervisors or within the chain of command, RAW STORY has learned.

In today's ruling, the high court determined that First Amendment protections do not apply to public employees who report government misconduct to their supervisors. The ruling does not, however, prevent them from reporting such incidents to the media.

"Open speech by a private citizen on a matter of public importance," Justice David Souter wrote in his dissent, "lies at the heart of expression subject to protection by the First Amendment."

The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos was argued before the court twice--once before and once after Justice Sandra Day O'Donnor's left the bench. On the second round, Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.

"Public employees should be encouraged to report misconduct," said Peter Eliasberg, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which submitted a friend-of-the-court filing in the case. "This opinion does the opposite and can only cause government employees who are weighing whether or not to expose wrongdoing to decide to remain silent for fear of losing their jobs."

This is very worrying. How will society expose wrongdoing if conscientious people are afraid to report it? And why, I want to know, do "conservatives" want to protect wrongdoing anyway? How is it they justify this?

Progressive values

I got an email from MoveOn.org today that listed ten positive goals for our country. They're having a contest to determine which are the "big three" to emphasize. Here are the choices:

* A living wage for all
* Global leadership through diplomacy
* Verifiable, accurate elections
* High quality education for all
* Balanced federal budget
* Health care for all
* Publicly funded elections
* Preserve our natural resources
* Energy independence: clean, renewable sources
* Restored constitutional rights

Which three would you most like to offer the country? You can vote right here.

Top scientist gives up on creationists

I came across an exasperated article today in the Guardian entitled, "Top scientist gives up on creationists". Here's part of what it says:

A leading British scientist said yesterday that he had given up trying to persuade creationists that Darwin's theory is correct after repeatedly being misrepresented and, he said, branded a liar.

Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival at Hay-on-Wye, the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones spoke of his frustrations when trying to debate with religious opponents.

"I don't engage with creationists directly," he said, saying that, when he had, they had frequently quoted him out of context or accused him of lying. "If somebody has decided to believe something - whatever the evidence - then there is nothing you can do about it."

The University College London professor spoke to the provocative title, Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right. He pointed out that acceptance of Darwin's theory on a global scale was a "minority belief". According to polls, 100 million Americans believe in creationism.

It's all very depressing, isn't it?

Just who served and who didn't?

Military Service Records, prominent Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68;Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans (and these are the guys sending our kids to war):
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* John Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers, etc.
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Source: Pam's House Blend

There is no "war on terror"

Here's a blog post from Fire Dog Lake called, "Memorial Day Truth: There is no 'War on Terror'". Take a look at how it gets started:

There is no "War on Terror."

There is, however, a "war" on the U. S. Constitution.

After September 11, 2001, we've learned that we can take a punch and move on. We've faced far worse threats to our national survival in our history - the Civil War, the War of 1812, World War II to name a few - but we never abandoned our Constitution. Until now.

Terror is an emotion. Emotions are part of human nature and cannot be eradicated. A "War on Terror" is therefore a war on humanity. The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil. Why?

The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money. We are witnessing a creeping coup in the United States, the overthrow of the idea, promulgated by our founders and by writers like Tom Paine, that the "Law is King."

But Bush believes that the "king" is law. And he's the king.

Yes, we are experiencing a "creeping coup" and yet we go right on having our Memorial Day barbecues and our Memorial Day mattress sales. Forgive me for being cynical but I wonder if, as a nation, we even deserve to be free.

Fake news

Well, it's not surprising that I found the following story in a British newspaper. If it's being reported in the U.S. it's well hidden. The story is certainly not on the CNN website. I refer to a report entitled, "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'". Here's how it gets started:

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

"We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air."

Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," she said.

The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission's enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group's report.

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

The dishonesty is simply staggering. One more reason why I'm glad I get my news from the internet.

Support our troops

I stumbled on a blog post that I really want to recommend. It's called Lions Led by Donkeys, the title being an allusion to World War I. It's an analysis of the current term "chickenhawk" to refer to those who are happy to send others to fight but refuse to go themselves. The posting also goes into what our responsibility is to those we send to war. Here's what we need to say to the young men and women we put in harm's way:

We will make sure you have the equipment you need.

We will make sure have a clearly defined mission.

We will make sure that such missions are as well-planned as possible.

We will take care of your families while you are gone.

We will take care of you when you come home.

That's what "support our troops" really means. As it is, our government is not supporting our troops. And that's shameful.

Remembering

This sums it up:

As we remember the dead, we should consider the living, and stop sending people by the thousands to pointless, unnecessary deaths.

-- Bob Herbert

Honor the fallen, not the war

Greetings to you all on this Memorial Day. It is painful, I know, to observe this day according to its true meaning (and not just as the start of summer) because of the men and women still dying in Iraq and because there is no end in sight. I want to share with you an article called, "Honor the Fallen, Not the War" by James Carroll. Here's how it ends:

This Memorial Day, especially, we yearn to honor the more than 2,700 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the proper way to remember them? Even in condemning what made it necessary, can we not acknowledge the selflessness of their sacrifice? At Troy, soldiers were roused to battle by the promise that their exploits would be sung of far into the future. Is it a betrayal of our soldiers that we no longer want to sing? Does it mean they died "in vain" if we insist that no one else should die?

Perhaps on Memorial Day we can also remember alternative hopes. Not soft-headedness, but tough-minded measures required to build a different world.

What if we invested as much in preventing war as in the fighting of it? (What, say, would the Middle East be if the billions spent in Iraq had funded instead a new Palestinian economy?) Changes in the way we memorialize the past make possible changes in the way we envision the future. But here, too, it is the sacrifice of soldiers that makes possible such change. Indeed, it begins with them. The fallen heroes remind us with their lives that war must stop.

And yet how can Mr. Carroll write "that war must stop?" How can he have any hope that it will? I don't think it will stop. And yet those of us who believe in peace must bear witness to that belief as best we can.

No more deaths

My friend, Sally Lloyd, called my attention to a website entitled No More Deaths that is dedicated to immigration humanitarian work and doing something about the injustices involved. Read this:

No More Deaths volunteers, Shanti Sellz and Daniel Strauss, both 23, were arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol for medically evacuating 3 people in critical condition from the 105-degree Arizona desert in July 2005.

Shanti and Daniel were following the protocol of NMD training (acknowledged by NMD and US Border Patrol) by consulting medical professionals who advised them to evacuate the critically ill men to a medical facility, and then consulting a NMD attorney who approved the evacuation.

Their arrest and subsequent prosecution for providing humanitarian aid has shocked people of conscience around the world. These young humanitarians are facing prosecution by the US government which could result in a 15 year prison sentence.

We urgently need your help and support to stop this prosecution.

Statements from NMD representatives and supporters:

"...On the basis of the facts as presented, Amnesty International is supporting calls for the charges to be dropped in this case and considers that, if convicted and imprisoned, Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz would be prisoners of conscience."

Arresting people for saving lives is horribly wrong. Those of us with a conscience about peace and justice issues believe it is our moral obligation to care for the stranger regardless of whether or not that stranger is documented or undocumented.

John Kerry on Hayden's confirmation

Take a look:

I opposed the nomination of General Michael Hayden to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Circumstances make him the wrong nominee in the wrong place for the wrong job.

The abuse of the CIA by the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the Cheney White House has hurt our credibility with unfounded claims of ‘slam dunk’ evidence of mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I don’t think General Hayden is the person best equipped to restore the CIA’s independence and credibility. It’s not just that he comes from Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, but because he was the Administration’s principal spokesperson and defender of an illegal domestic spying program.

We are all committed to destroying terrorists and preventing terrorist attacks before they happen. But this vote was a test of this Congress’s willingness to restore the Founding Fathers’ checks and balances and stand up to a government run by people who hold themselves above the law. How many times will government secrecy shield decision-makers from any kind of accountability? It was a mistake to confirm General Hayden.

If you want a link it's here.

Good grief, this is horrible.

Look what I found on All Hat No Cattle:

An agent posing as a dealer called and asked to speak with Jeff. Nicole replied that he wasn't home, but gave the man a number where she thought Jeff could be reached. An innocent gesture? It sounds that way to me. But to federal prosecutors, simply giving out a phone number made Nicole Richardson part of a drug dealing onspiracy. Under draconian mandatory minimum sentences, she was sent to federal prison for ten years without possibility of parole.

-- Walter Cronkite, former Managing Editor and News Anchorman of CBS Evening News – Discussing the injustice and human toll of our current “war on drugs”, in “Telling the Truth about the War on Drugs”

Two peas in a pod

George & Tony sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G: your little lovefest has killed untold thousands, devastated a country, destabilized a region, and invited unending worldwide terror. HECKUVA JOB... -- Grant Gerver

Fascism = corporatism

I want to share an article with you called "Our Socialized Corporations: America's Hitler, the Conclusion" . This article is Part VI of a series. Here's how it gets started:

The final argument of those who say ‘of course Bush is not like Hitler’ is the argument that every repressive regime in history has been a regime of extreme national socialism and no one is more pro capitalist than Bush.

True enough. Except for the fact that he is so pro capitalist that virtually all corporations that supported his election bids are now firmly on the public dole -- the energy companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and above all, the military contractors.

Middle class taxpayers of this and future generations are subsidizing Bush’s largesse and his favored corporations’ greed and waste.

Because of the vast sums of money needed to run a successful campaign, and because of the funds the people who head them lavish on candidates running for political office, corporations have become ever more powerful. Consequently, to quote Ramsey Clark at the Washington anti-war rally in the fall of 2002 – another event ignored by the media -- “This is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy. The people don’t rule here, wealth rules, the corporations rule. They rule the Congress, they elect the President, they run the Pentagon, they own the media.”

Mussolini, himself the father of Fascism, adopted as his own the saying “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” If that is the definition of Fascism, we have been drifting toward it for some time, but under Bush the “drift” has become a gallop, and so can no longer be comfortably ignored. Not by anyone who is paying attention, at least. In a way, I guess you could say "the worst president in history" has done us a favor by forcing us to pay attention in a way previous presidents did not.

The courts have given corporations the rights of people. Unlike most people, they have the money to fight any actions brought against them. Therefore, there is no person whose welfare is more guaranteed -- more socialized in our country than that of giant corporations. Socialism for corporations is paid for by the taxpayers while “regular” people – the people government exists to look out for -- increasingly become poorer and less able to afford and obtain the necessities of life, such as food, housing, and health care.

Additionally, when people feel without hope they self-medicate with drink or drugs. Consequently, crime of all kinds, increases, from using and selling drugs, to domestic violence to robbery to??? In a Fascist state, the solution to crimes brought about by poverty and despair is to build more prisons. More people are in prison in America than in any other country in the world, and Halliburton recently received a contract for $500 million to build “detention centers” for unspecified purposes.

I'm really worried about those detention centers. I have a feeling that the mainstream news sources are not bringing this information to the American people. Once the camps are built, it's only a matter of time before some of us get that knock on the door in the middle of the night.

You may say, "Oh, I can't believe it would come to that." Well, there was a time that I would have said, "Oh, I can't believe we would start a war of aggression" or "I can't believe we would get to the point where torture was considered normal" or "I can't believe we would round up Muslims and detain them without charge or access to legal counsel." We've done all those things and more. All I can say is this: The camps are being built, my friends.

Friday cat blogging!

Here's Edgar lazing on the front porch.

Photo by Ellie Finlay

Here's our problem

Sad but true:

I belong to no organized party - I am a Democrat.

-- Will Rogers

Rush Limbaugh in England

Found this comment on Smirking Chimp about when Rush Limbaugh went to England:

[W]hen he came back to the radio program he praised that country for its cleanliness and social honesty. He said lawn chairs could be left in the parks because there was no threat of theft. Then he commented on the miniscule number of gun crimes in England. The people seemed happy.

All this was in contrast to the wretched situation in this country. The gun-deaths. The lazy creatures living out of dumpsters. The constant begging for government hand-outs.

Nowhere did the slob note that guns were a no-no in England, or that all people were valued in a system with universal health care and compensation for those times when the people cannot adequately provide for themselves.

Nope. Limbaugh was sure his regular listeners would not (more likely could not) pick up on the contradictions.

The dishonesty and hypocrisy are just sickening.

Can Bush just do whatever he wants?

Here's an article that will really get your blood boiling. It's called, "Are you Bush defenders just blowing smoke, or do you really not get it?" and it's by Andrew Bard Schmookler. You really need to click through and read the whole thing to get the full impact but I'm going to give you this little tidbit:

Take for example the recent performance of President Bush's new press secretary, Tony Snow. In a recent press briefing, Snow was fielding questions about the NSA gathering of Americans' phone records.

Snow happily cited a quick poll indicating that almost two-thirds of Americans don't object to the government monitoring such records for the presumed purpose of catching terrorists. But when presented with other negative poll results, Snow declared that a president "cannot base national security on poll numbers."

A reasonable statement, but, as the press should immediately have asked: Mr. Snow, can a president base on poll numbers his decision whether or not to obey the law? And would you be interested in seeing what the American people would say to pollsters if asked, "Can the president do whatever he wants, regardless of the law?"

Who are you kidding, yourself or us? Do you really not get that the issue here is neither opinion polls nor national security, but rather a president who refuses to respect any legal limits to his powers?

This is the question: Can the president do whatever he wants, regardless of the law? The Bush defenders say "yes." What have we become? Dear God, what have we become?

Cheney to testify probably

Well, we all know by now that Cheney may well testify in the "Scooter" Libby trial. I want to show you what Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has to say about it. Here's just how he gets started in a column called, "What would Cheney say?"

Vice President Cheney's testimony in the criminal trial of his chief of staff -- suddenly a distinct possibility -- would appear to be crucial to the case.

The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that Cheney was at the epicenter of a White House campaign to discredit administration critic Joseph Wilson -- a campaign that ultimately included the outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame , as a CIA operative.

Cheney is obviously the person in the best position to either confirm or contradict one of the hardest-to-swallow elements of Scooter Libby's defense: That Libby and Cheney specifically discussed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative in early June 2003, and then again after columnist Robert Novak publicly outed her on July 14 -- but not in between.

This is a key element of Libby's defense, because in between, Libby has argued, he "forgot" that he knew.

Libby testified to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's grand jury that "it seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time" when NBC correspondent Tim Russert told him about Plame's CIA affiliation on July 10. Russert has denied that any such conversation took place.

Fitzgerald didn't buy Libby's story, and this past October charged him with five felony counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Now does anybody seriously think Cheney won't lie? These people have no consciences. I just hope Fitzgerald has enough evidence to catch him if he perjures himself.

Rant

One of my favorite commenters on Smirking Chimp wrote quite a long rant today and ended it with this:

The sad thing is that we have now had a President that has done his utmost to turn over Government to corporate interests and special interests. A pure, red blooded, rabid Communist couldnt have done more to destroy the fabric of America, than Bush has. He is America's worst nightmare come true. He is a 1000% lackey for corporate interests who would destroy the world in order to pay their CEO's salaries of $200 million a year, or more.

True. Devastatingly true.

An Urgent Appeal from the Climate Crisis Coalition

Today I got an email from the Climate Crisis Coalition that I want to reproduce here in its entirety:

Dear Friends,
Yesterday an important new documentary opened in New York City and Los Angeles. It is coming soon to other theaters around the country. "An Inconvenient Truth," featuring former Vice President Al Gore, is the most significant attempt to date to clearly communicate to all Americans the dangers that we face if we do not meet the reality of global warming.

"An Inconvenient Truth" has been hailed by critics: Claudia Pauig of USA Today as "illuminating, fascinating and sometimes frightening," A.O. Scott of the New York Times as "intellectually exhilarating...a necessary film," and Kevin Crust of the Los Angeles Times as "rousing." However, some pundits have labeled it “absurd,” and the ideas it inspires “destructive to the economy,” and many in the industry believe it is too unconventional to succeed at the box office.

We at the Climate Crisis Coalition believe it is essential that this film be a success. On behalf of Al Gore, we ask you to visit his site (www.climatecrisis.net) and pledge to see the film as soon as it opens in your community. Each person who signs this pledge will help ensure that the film is screened across the country. We hope that audiences will be convinced of its truth, no matter how inconvenient.

Please pledge to see the film here: http://www.climatecrisis.net/seethetruth.

We appreciate your help in promoting "An Inconvenient Truth."

The CCC Steering Committee.

For current news about global warming, and to learn additional things you can do to help this and other campaigns, visit our home page, climatecrisiscoaltion.org.

Also printed on the email was this address: http://kyotoandbeyond.org/

That 30%

Good question:

All right, out with it: which 30% of you morons who voted for W approves of the job he's doing? It's all you multi-millionaires, ain't it?!

-- Grant Gerver

Fines for being unmarried

Oh my. The marriage police are at it again. Here's an article in the Guardian entitled, "Not married, with children? Not in our town thanks" with this as the subtitle:

· Missouri council defends policy to 'protect values'
· Unmarried couple could be fined $500 a day

Here's an excerpt from the article:

The town of Black Jack, Missouri, got its name from the variety of oak tree that once grew nearby. "Those stately trees represent who and what we are today, a proud city with strong roots, providing the safety and respite of community," its promotional literature explains. It is the kind of place where family is valued - just as long as the family in question meets certain criteria. Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving's family, it seems, do not.

The couple could face fines of $500 (£270) a day, and Black Jack is already facing the unwelcome glare of national attention, as a result of a local regulation that bans unmarried couples with more than one child from occupying homes there.

"The character and stability of a city is not an accident, it is the result of years of hard work by the residents," Norman McCourt, the mayor of Black Jack, said in a statement after the city council rejected a proposal to abolish the regulation. Mr Loving and Ms Shelltrack now plan to file a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, while the US department of housing, in Washington, has launched an investigation to determine whether Black Jack's ban is illegal.

Mr Loving, 33, and Ms Shelltrack, 31, have lived together for 13 years. They have two children and also live with Ms Shelltrack's daughter, who calls Mr Loving her father. They bought their Black Jack home earlier this year.

"We're just like anybody else," Ms Shelltrack told the Guardian. "It's not like we're purple with polka dots or something. I just really feel like this shouldn't be anybody's business."

The couple were not opposed to getting married, she said, but wanted to wait until they could afford a "nice big wedding ... I don't think a piece of paper is going to validate our relationship, though. We love each other, and our kids are happy, healthy individuals. You can't define family."

I don't think it's anybody's business either. It think they're silly to be attached to the idea of a big wedding but, heck, they're entitled to be silly. It's not right to have a law against not being married.

Reproductive health and enlisted women

I just got an email from NARAL Pro-choice that said the following:

For the 350,000 American women enlisted in the military, getting basic health-care services like emergency contraception and abortion care from military hospitals is extremely difficult. Congress won't allow military hospitals to provide abortion care, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest - and in the latter two cases, the woman must pay for the services herself. Military health-care facilities aren't required to carry emergency contraception like the morning-after pill, either.

Earlier this month, anti-choice leaders in Congress refused to even allow votes on two pro-choice measures that would have improved military women's access to birth control and abortion care. When will anti-choice leaders put the health needs of our brave servicewomen ahead of their far-right politics?

The situation is further explained in a short article entitled, "House Blocks Votes on Amendments to Improve Military Women's Health". It's subtitled with the following statement:

Anti-choice legislators deny improved health services for rape victims in the military, even as attacks against servicewomen rose 40 % since 2004

Service women should be protected from rape in the first place. It's beyond outrageous that they are not. And denying them appropriate reproductive health care is the establishment of religion pure and simple.

Do they practice what they preach?

Atrios says this on Eschaton:

A genuinely relevant political article in the New York Times would involve a detailed examination of the sex lives of all non-married members of the Bush administration. Abstinence-only education is a key policy feature of the Bush administration, and it would certainly be legitimate to ask if they are, in fact, saving it.

I would love to see such an article. Not jolly likely, however.

I should have known - Part 2

I posted below on the original "I should have known" entry that big corporations were going to benefit from Bush's new interest in border security. I definitely should have known that one of them would be Halliburton. Take a look at this excerpt from an article entitled, "Halliburton, Bechtel could be factors in border security plan":

Two big and controversial corporate names -- Halliburton and Bechtel -- could benefit from mammoth increases in federal spending on border security.

Federal and state efforts to bolster porous border security include plans for increased security infrastructure, expanded use of technology, including radar. Other plans include construction of more prison beds, and additional law enforcement operations, security roads and improved employment verification systems and ports of entry.

That will mean billions of dollars in border-related contract opportunities for defense, technology and other government contractors. A substantial number of border security contracts are expected to go to major contractors -- including big infrastructure, construction and contract management experts such as Halliburton Co. and Bechtel Corp.

"It's the big boys that will benefit from this," said Congressman Ed Pastor, a Phoenix Democrat. "Most of the big contracts are going to go out to the Halliburtons and Bechtels."

Those two companies are well-known for being politically connected and have received top infrastructure, energy and construction management contracts in Iraq. They also have critics who worry about their political ties to the Bush administration and Washington, D.C., power brokers.

Sickening. Just sickening. You know, I wouldn't mind except that they are well known for overcharging the government. Whatever happened to the concept of stewardship? Bush has an obligation to be a good steward of public resources. But he doesn't see it that way. Any way to make his already wealthy friends wealthier is the way to go as far as he's concerned.

That fence again

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said the following:

Show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.

Aptly observed.

U.S. moral authority

Here's the latest Quick Vote results on CNN International Edition:

Do you agree with Amnesty International that the U.S. has lost its moral authority?

Yes 77%

No 23%

I voted "yes", needless to say.

More on Goebbels

I found myself exploring the PBS web pages on the American Experience program I mentioned below. One page is devoted to questions and answers about Goebbels with Professor Martin Kitchen providing the answers. Here's part of what Kitchen has to say:

Goebbels' major contribution was to introduce what the German-Jewish philology professor Victor Klemperer, who survived under the Nazis in Dresden, called "Lingua Tertii Imperii -- The Language of the Third Reich," in which common words took on new meanings. This enabled people to accept certain aspects of Nazi policy, particularly anti-Semitism, in a way that they previously wouldn't have done, because they learned to think and speak in a different language.

Take for example the different words used to describe how the Nazis intended to deal with the "Jewish problem": "removal", "resettlement", "evacuation", "final solution", "eradication", "annihilation". Most of these words are imprecise and their real meaning changed until they all finally meant "murder". Endless repetitions, euphemisms and shifting meanings became internalized, lowered the threshold of acceptance, and individuals treated with indifference what they would have previously found morally questionable. As Schiller wrote: this was a new vocabulary that insidiously became "a language that writes and thinks on your behalf."

In part this is due to peculiarities of the German language. Hitler was always described as the Führer, a word that has many meanings in German. "Leader" is the best-known, but it also means "guide", or simply "person in charge."

"Faith" was the key word in the creation of the Hitler myth. As he himself said: "All certainty comes from faith". A faith that he contrasted to "sterile intelligence." He insisted that "feelings have to take the place of thinking." The amazing thing is the number of people who had an absolute faith in Hitler. As Goebbels said in 1944: "We do not need to know what the Führer is going to do -- we believe in him." Even after the war, there were people who said they still believed in Hitler. It was a kind of religious fervor that had nothing to do with the realities of the war situation itself. Hitler constantly talked about will. His attitude was, if you will it, you can do it. This was part of his appeal. People saw him as a strong figure, a man of destiny, able to convey the absolute conviction that he was correct. He had a mission and a will to fulfill it.

Just think about this analysis and then about what's going on in our country today. Just think. My only hope lies in the fact that Bush's poll numbers are low. But the Republicans are still able to frame the issues with their language. That's what's so discouraging.

I really love Bill Moyers

Please go on over to Common Dreams and read the Baccalaureate address by Bill Moyers to the graduating class of Hamilton College. It is truly moving. It really needs to be read in its entirety (it is short) as I can't do it justice with an excerpt. But I do want to give you these two paragraphs:

The hardest struggle of all is to reconcile life's polar realities. I love books, Beethoven, and chocolate brownies. Yet how do I justify my pleasure in these in a world where millions are illiterate, the music never plays, and children go hungry through the night? How do I live sanely in a world so unsafe for so many?

I don't know what they taught you here at Hamilton about all this, but I trust you are not leaving here without thinking about how you will respond to the dissonance in our culture, the rivalry between beauty and bestiality in the world, and the conflicts in your own soul. All of us have to choose sides on this journey. But the question is not so much who we are going to fight against as it is which side of our own nature will we nurture: The side that can grow weary and even cynical and believe that everything is futile, or the side that for all the vulgarity, brutality, and cruelty, yearns to affirm, connect and signify. Albert Camus got it right: There is beauty in the world as well as humiliation, and we have to strive, hard as it is, not to be unfaithful...in the presence of one or the other."

There is beauty in the world in spite of everything. Last night I watched American Experience on PBS which was about Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. The entire show was in his own words - from his diaries - and it was chilling, truly chilling. What sickened me is how much his time was like our own - the nationalism, the scapegoating and persecution of minorities, the militarism, the wars of aggression and, of course, the propaganda. We are living through a terrible time and yet there is beauty in the world. I remember that every day. Let us remember it together.

Some comic relief

My friend Walter Calahan sent me the following:

What if the hokey pokey really is what it’s all about?

"Thought provoking," he says! I love it!