What DON'T we know?

I've just discovered the web page of Grant Gerver. I've seen him quoted over on All Hat No Cattle from time to time but hadn't thought to do a search on him. Here's something he just said:

IT'S PERSONAL NOW: I saw President "Spying Liar" speaking with Jim Lehrer last night on PBS. I have never witnessed a bigger embarrassment in my life. Lehrer was unyielding about the NSA spying scandal, torture, the Patriot Act, DeLay, Libby, and "THE LEAK." Bush was a fidgeting mess. He was so non-credible you could tell HE didn't even believe his own bullshit. You just knew he was coached by Scott McClellan. How anyone in their right-wing mind could honestly believe and support this unpatriotic bastard of a president is seriously beyond my comprehension. How ANYONE could look at this tyrant and feel good about being an American would require an overdose of ecstacy. I am ashamed he is my President, I am ashamed for what he's done to our Country, and I am ashamed of what he has done to the World. Ladies and gentlemen: George Walker Bush is unquestionably the TERRORIST we must fear most. AND, knowing what we know now, WHAT DON'T WE KNOW?!

That's right. What DON'T we know???? It's really unnerving to think about it that way but I believe we must. This president is simply shredding the Constitution and not only does he not deny it, he's PROUD of it.

We have lost our freedom

I suppose when I lose my ability to be shocked I will have turned truly cynical. I'm not there yet because the president's defense of domestic spying shocked me. Apparently it has shocked others as well. The Washington Post has an article about it called, "Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers". Here's how it gets started:

In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.

The president's emphatic defense yesterday of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and residents marked the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

Defiant in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has portrayed each surveillance initiative as a defense of American freedom. Bush said yesterday that his NSA eavesdropping directives were "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." After years of portraying an offensive waged largely overseas, Bush justified the internal surveillance with new emphasis on "the home front" and the need to hunt down "terrorists here at home."

Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as "plenary" -- a term defined as "full," "complete," and "absolute."

Well! With that argument, all Bush has to do is keep us perpetually at war and he becomes, in effect, a dictator. Wake up, people! It is happening here.

Liberal basics

Liberals have been blamed for all the ills of society by the right-wingers. Sometimes it's easy to forget just what it means to be liberal. I'm sharing an article with you today called "A Manifesto (for Democrats & Liberals)" that outlines the basics. Here are some examples:

Safety.
That means National Security. We don’t want angry foreigners flying planes into the World Trade Center.

That means law and order. We don’t want home grown wackos blowing up federal buildings. We want our homes to be safe, our streets to be safe, our schools to be safe.

Work.
Everybody should be able to get some kind of job. Anybody who works deserves a living wage. And appropriate benefits. Those who can’t work – because they’re children or too old or ill or disabled or because there are no jobs available – still need to eat. And live in tolerable conditions. We need to continue to make sure that happens. Those who have worked and have earned social security, health care and pensions, deserve to get what they have earned. We need to protect that.

Business.
The Democratic Party is the party of business.

Here’s a really bizarre statistic for you. The Dow Jones average today is almost exactly where it was the day George Bush came into office. If you take inflation into account that means over the course of five years it’s gone down about 8%. From the time Bill Clinton came into office and the time he left, the Dow went up 320%.

The Republican Party is good for Enron types. It’s good for people who want short term windfall profits – oil, pharmaceuticals and big government contractors like Halliburton. It’s good for people who don’t work but inherit money and live off of dividends and capital gains while they sip daquiris in Palm Beach. But it’s not good for business.

Government.
Government is necessary. It’s good for a lot of things. Indeed it does many things better than business can: defend the country, wage war, reinforce the levees when the hurricanes are coming, rebuild countries, provide infrastructure and education, save business from its own excesses and much, much more. We believe in doing those things well. The Republicans believe in only doing them some way that someone profits from them. Which is why they do them so badly.

Religion.
We believe in religion. Faith. Spirituality.

This country was founded in large part by people who wanted freedom to worship their own way. We know from them – and from current events - that when religion and government mix, the first thing that happens is that someone else’s right to worship is oppressed.

The best thing that government can do for religion is stay out of it.

That's just the start. Go read the article. All of it. It's worth sending to your Republican friends. (Or not. Depends on how much conflict you want!)

A former Republican speaks out.

Okay. Click right on through to Smirking Chimp and read this article - all of it. It's entitled, "Are we really this stupid?" and here's how it gets started:

The deficit is careening out of control. Health care costs are through the roof. We've started a disastrous war in Iraq that threatens the stability of the whole region. Osama bin Laden has never been caught. The 9/11 Commission says four years after the attacks on this country, we are failing to protect the American people.

And what are the Republicans talking about? Tax cuts that go largely to the upper class. The war on Christmas. The gay marriage amendment. Flag burning. Does anyone believe these are the real pressing concerns of the American people? Is our top problem that the rich don't have enough tax breaks?

I'm a former Republican and I understand the value of tax cuts and I am strictly opposed to class warfare. But are there no bounds of reason? We have record deficits that only promise to get worse. Our national debt is over eight trillion dollars! That means we owe over $27,000 for every man, woman and child in America. In the midst of this financial recklessness, the Republicans are passing even more tax cuts.

Last week, the Republican House voted for $95 billion of new tax cuts. This is fiscal insanity. They were so proud of themselves for tightening their belt on spending by cutting $50 billion in Medicaid, food stamps, and federal student loans. And I might have supported this if it were part of a package to truly balance the budget. But when they turned around and added $45 billion more to the deficit with their reckless tax cuts, their position became untenable.

These guys are like a bunch of spoiled kids who don't understand the concept of a budget. We desperately need some grown-ups back in government.

Mind you, I don't believe in screwing the poor in order to balance the budget but his point that the Republicans have become completely unreasonable is an important one. Then later the author says the following after first ranting about no-bid contracts and bribes:

The Democrats use to be the tax and spend party. Now, it looks like the Republicans are the tax and steal party. How much of this are we going to tolerate?

Apparently a lot, because God forbid we should have gays getting married or for someone to say "Holiday" instead of "Christmas." Are we really this stupid as a nation?

While this administration and Congress rob us blind and give hundreds of billions of tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, we sit around worrying about whether someone says Happy Holidays.

I hate to say it but, yes, we are really this stupid. It's embarrassing. And depressing as hell.

Friday cat blogging!

Here's Henry - sitting in the window:


Photo by Ellie Finlay

Head Start

I got this message from True Majority this morning:

Dear Ellie,

To fund tax cuts for millionaires, Congress is poised TODAY to remove 35,000 kids from HeadStart – widely regarded as one of the government’s most successful programs at lifting people out of poverty.

Two years ago, TrueMajorityACTION members swung into action and successfully stopped proposed cuts then. Amazingly, the budgeteers have chosen the Holiday Season to launch yet another attack on Head Start. So our friends at the National Head Start Association are mounting another defense of the kids living in poverty who benefit from this program.

Please take just a minute to check this out and take action. It’s fast, easy and the right thing to do this season.

Take Action

Duane PetersonTrueMajorityACTION

The summer between my freshman and sophomore years as an undergraduate I worked as a teacher's aide for Head Start. It is a wonderful program and does terrific things in enriching the lives of young children while preparing them for school. The very idea of cutting this program is beyond reprehensible.

Polar bears are drowning

O God. This just kills me. The article is from the Wall Street Journal and it's entitled, "Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?" Here's what it says:

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.
...
While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.

The environmental group Greenpeace began airing a 30-second commercial yesterday in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities showing an animated adult polar bear and a cub on a cracking ice floe. The two bears, nowhere near land, slip underneath the water. "Polar bears may soon be extinct because of global warming," the voice-over states. It ends with "Global Warming: It's the Real Thing," a takeoff of a Coca-Cola Co. commercial featuring polar bears.

Of course, the right-leaning Wall Street Journal had to give equal time to the people who say global warming has nothing to do with emissions of greenhouse gases. Shame!

Wikipedia vindicated

The wonderful website Wikipedia has come under criticism lately because someone posted a fraudulent article on it. CNN tells the story:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found -- including misinterpretations of important concepts -- four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Florida-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Any reference work can contain errors. What is wonderful about Wikipedia is that it is a self-correcting process. I just love it. Of course, for any serious research, more than one source is needed. But for background information or raising one's level of awareness, Wikipedia can't be beat.

Bill O'Reilly again

Look, I'm sorry to bring you more information about the right-wing's belief in a "war on Christmas" but it's just getting ridiculous. Media Matters has two articles today on Bill O'Reilly's nonsense. His attitude is bad enough. He's also simply lying or at least not bothering to check his facts. First of all, he is claiming that the Post Office is no longer offering a religious Christmas stamp. That is patently false. I just bought two books worth of the Madonna and Child stamp on Monday. That article is entitled "O'Reilly falsely claimed that "spiritual" Christmas stamps are no longer being offered". Here's an excerpt:

A December 2 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about "the Internet and public conversation awash with horror that no new religiously themed stamp was printed for the 2005 season" quoted Diana Svoboda, a spokeswoman for the USPS' Pittsburgh district, stating that reports of the Postal Service planning to discontinue religiously themed Christmas stamps were "absolutely not true." The Post-Gazette article went on to report that although a new design is typically chosen for the "Madonna and Child" every year, this year USPS opted not to print a new design, due to an overstock of 37-cent "Madonna and Child" stamps left over from the previous Christmas season. USPS is increasing the price of first-class stamps to 39 cents on January 8, and "[t]he Postal Service ... didn't want a fresh crop of outdated stamps sitting in the drawers for next year," the Post-Gazette reported.

I don't know about you but that just seems sensible. Apparently there's less of a call for them or there wouldn't be so many left over from last year. Why does Bill O'Reilly get incensed about that?

The other article is entitled, "O'Reilly falsely claimed a Texas school district banned red and green clothing, called move "fascism":

On December 9, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed on both Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and the nationally syndicated The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly that the Plano Independent School District (Texas) "told students they couldn't wear red and green because they were Christmas colors." He labeled the alleged ban "fascism." On December 12, the school district released an official statement by Superintendent of Schools Dr. Doug Otto refuting O'Reilly's contention:

"The school district does not restrict students or staff from wearing certain color clothes during holiday times or any other school days," noted Dr. Otto, who said that the school district's attorney has requested that Mr. O'Reilly retract the statement.

I don't see how these so-called conservative people live with themselves given their willingness to play fast and loose with the truth.

Sickening

A lot of conservatives are upset that the White House Christmas card doesn't say "Christmas" on it. Have you heard this? It says "Happy Holidays," and they're mad. They're furious about this. Boy, times have changed, haven't they? Going to war for the wrong reason, that's okay, but send out the wrong card, "Oh, my gosh."

—Jay Leno

They're not conservative

One of the things that has really bothered me about today's right-wing ideologues is that they call themselves conservative but they, assuredly, are not. Today I found an article that makes this point called, "Conservative? No.Radical, Regressive, and Reckless? Yes."

Here are some passages:

Just because someone calls him or herself a conservative doesn't make it so. I regularly hear critics of the Bush Administration and its policies referred to as "conservative." Well, here's a news flash:

George W. Bush is not a conservative.
Richard B. Cheney is not a conservative.
Donald Rumsfeld is not a conservative.
Karl Rove is not a conservative.
Paul Wolfowitz is not a conservative.
John Bolton is not a conservative.
Grover Norquist is not a conservative.
Bill Bennett is not a conservative.
Pat Robertson is not a conservative.
James Dobson is not a conservative.
Jerry Falwell is not a conservative.
Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative.
And Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative.

No, indeed, this is a list of radical, regressive, and often reckless political partisans who have exhibited careless disregard for other people, often ignored traditional or established policies, and many of them have flouted the rule of law or have had their hypocrisy publicly exposed (Bennett and Limbaugh, for example). In the mouths of these people, the "conservative" mantle (with or without its alleged compassion) merely supplies the sheep's clothing to cloak their wolf-like avarice.

Webster's Dictionary defines "conservatism" as the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established". It is further defined as "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
...
The original species of "conservative" (perhaps best defined by Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative) seems now to be an endangered one. The current Administration has bloated the size of government, creating not one but two new federal agencies, the Department of Homeland Defense and the Transportation Security Agency. It has engaged in unprecedented deficit spending and trade deficits that are fast becoming matters of national security. And their idea of sacrifice in wartime is to give away tax receipts, mostly to the richest Americans. Only the poor have been asked to make sacrifices in a time of war.
...
Speaking of war, the Bush Doctrine was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine is, of course, a rationalization for "pre-emptive" war. In plain language, this means that the U.S. arrogates to itself the right to attack another nation which has not attacked us first; in other words, this Administration feels fully justified in starting a war without provocation. Can any reasonable person consider this "conservative"?

The problem is that they call themselves conservative. And uninformed people who want to support conservatives then vote for them.

About New Orleans

Here's something John Aravosis said over on AMERICAblog:

The Republican Congress is increasingly rumbling about not paying the $32 billion it would cost to rebuild New Orleans' levies to make them hurricane proof. But they have no problem passing four new tax cuts this week totaling $95 billion.

He goes on to point out that the administration is happy to let the city die because it's a liberal city and it's largely populated by black people. Scratch a right-winger and don't be surprised if you find a racist underneath.

The sheer ugliness of Bill O'Reilly

All right. Did you hear what Bill O'Reilly said about the so-called "war on Christmas"? Take a look:

I am not going to let oppressive, totalitarian, anti-Christian forces in this country diminish and denigrate the holiday and the celebration. I am not going to let it happen. I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that.

You know what he's upset about, don't you? That people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in stores. What kind of Christian would want to bring horror into the world of people who have the good manners to use an inclusive greeting on the off-chance that they might not be talking to a Christian? Saying "Happy Holidays" is nothing new, by the way. It certainly goes back to my childhood at least (as does "Season's Greetings") and I'm no spring chicken.

This is really one massive attempt at distracting the populace. Here's what one commenter on Smirking Chimp had to say about it:

The silly uproar over Christmas is just another play to cover up a failed presidency. You might think it is another flagrant attempt to stir up the fundamentalist base, but that is really a side issue. The primary goal is to get opponents of the Chimp to expend energy on a topic that has no real world implications. At the end of the day the whole fuss is resolved by mediocre observations about how it is a tradition in the US to respect everybody's hallucinations, and then everyone goes back to sleep. The Chimp's lectures on the war have a similar objective. His handlers don't aim to convince anyone. They just want you to get bored and go to sleep. If nothing else, it takes your mind of Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay. These guys are just trying to run out the clock while they finish ransacking the nation.

They are ransacking the nation. While all this hateful silliness about Christmas has been going on, Congress has passed four new tax cuts which, despite the cuts in desperately needed social programs, will only enlarge the already terrifyingly large deficit. And in the meantime, the right-wingers want to coerce people into using the December greeting that's associated with their religion. Well, they sure went to a different Sunday School than I did. I was taught that Christianity was about loving your enemies, doing good to those who despitefully use you, and taking care of the needy. I've yet to see any real Christian spirit among the right wing goons making so much noise today.

More on the "War on Christmas"

Actually, the accusation by the right that there's a liberal war on Christmas is more serious than first meets the eye. The dynamics of this are explored by Robert Parry in his article entitled, "The meaning of (the war over) Christmas". Here's the big point he makes:

While an outsider arriving in the United States might see a nation celebrating Christmas with an unrivaled intensity and extravagance, the Right's media has created another world for its followers - where Christians are persecuted for celebrating their faith, where they are repressed by cruel non-Christians and evil secularists.

This perceived persecution exists even as America's downtowns and shopping malls are bedecked with the red-and-green Christmas colors and Christmas symbols are everywhere, even in cities like New York with large populations of Jews and Muslims.

It's the drumming up of a belief in victimhood by what is really a powerful group that has Parry concerned:

There is, of course, a danger whenever a powerful group begins to view itself as the victim, because their real power allows these ersatz oppressed to inflict far greater harm on their enemies than could a group without power.

Historically, the world has seen this phenomenon many times, for instance, when Christians in Europe convinced themselves that they were at the mercy of cunning Jews. Many of the continent's anti-Jewish pogroms were conducted by Christians convinced that they were simply defending their way of life, that they were the real victims.

Now, the United States is witnessing a similar exploitation of Christian fears and the fanning of Christian anger. The "war on Christmas" theme is one manifestation of this growing chip on the shoulder.

The Right has learned well how it can deploy its powerful media to make even the most ludicrous notion seem real - both frightening and infuriating - to millions of Americans.

Well, I'm glad I've finished my Christmas shopping. I don't want to be in a store where some clerk wishes me a "Merry Christmas" and I won't know whether it's a genuine greeting or political one-upmanship.

Questions for Bush supporters

Here's an article I'd like you to take a look at called, "Questions for those still approving of Bush". (We are talking about something like a 40% approval rate.) There are 15 questions in all. I'll share a few of them here for you and you can click through to the article if you'd like to read them all:

1. Do you understand that no tangible, truthful reason has ever been given for the invasion of Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission Report – which is the de facto, official findings of our government – says there was no reason whatsoever for this war?

2. Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memos? Would it interest you to know that these official notes, from the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, show that the Bush administration was dead-set on war with Iraq and twisting intelligence to fit that goal? "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," reported the secret memo, later published in the Sunday Times of London. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
You can go here to learn more.

3. When you look at the picture of even one military man or woman killed in Iraq and imagine the pain their family must feel, can you multiply that by 2,134 and believe that was a worthwhile down payment on removing Saddam Hussein from power? Before you answer, are you aware that Iraq had nothing to do with any attacks on our country and that it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no capability at all to harm our people?
See the 9/11 Commission Report for more information.

4. Do you approve of how ineffective the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been rendered since 2000 and the deadly results in our inability to protect our own people in disasters -- even those for which we have plenty of warning? Were you surprised to find out that the campaign contributor President Bush appointed to be the recently-disgraced head of FEMA had no experience at all in disaster management?

5. Do you have health insurance? Are you aware that almost 46 million Americans have no medical insurance and that the Bush administration thinks this works just fine? Most of us parents have seen our young children suffer with a common ear infection. Imagine watching your child in that pain and how you would feel being powerless to get antibiotics to ease your child's suffering. Are you comfortable with children in America living in situations like that – and worse?

6. Is your family better off and more stable socially, medically and economically now than when Bill Clinton was president? Even assuming you are not an economist, how do you compare the 22.7 million jobs created by President Clinton's administration with a net loss of jobs -- a 4.6 percent decrease in total employment -- since Bush took office?

The article has nine more questions like the ones above. They're all good. And I wish the Bush supporters out there would think about them.

Would someone please ask Mr. Bush, and Ms. Rice, who are stating we do not torture, what was going on in those Abu Ghraib pictures?

—Zings!

Friday cat blogging!

Here's Cynthia's wonderful kitty, Simon, just resting in the sun:


Photo by Cynthia Burgess

Holiday donations

Looking for a good cause to donate to before the New Year? The Nation has provided a wonderful list in an article called, "Ho-Ho-Holiday Donations, Early Edition". Let me also recommend PETA, The Humane Society and Noah's Wish. Animals particularly need protection this time of year.

Condi and torture

I want to share an article with you by Sidney Blumenthal entitled, "Condi's Trail of Lies". Here are some passages:

Condoleezza Rice's contradictory, misleading and outright false statements about the US and torture have taken America's moral standing - and her own - to new depths.
...
Rice arrived as the enforcer of the Bush administration's torture policy. She reminded the queasy Europeans that their intelligence services, one way or another, are involved in the rendition of hundreds of suspected terrorists transported through their airports for harsh interrogation in countries like Jordan and Egypt or secret CIA prisons known as "black sites." With her warnings, Rice recast the Western alliance as a partnership in complicity. In her attempt to impose silence, she spread guilt. Everybody is unclean in the dirty war and nobody has any right to complain. "What I would hope that our allies would acknowledge," she said, "is that we are all in this together."
...
Rice arrived in Berlin on the heels of a Washington Post report about the rendition, to a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan called the Salt Pit, of a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, who was tortured and imprisoned for five months in a case of mistaken identity. After meeting with Rice, Merkel announced that Rice had acknowledged that the U.S. had made a "mistake" in the case. But Rice countered with a statement denying she had said that at all. The reconciliation with Germany was botched; Merkel was embarrassed; and Rice's credibility, at least in the German press, was left in tatters.

Rice had hoped to quell the controversy before she landed. On Monday, as she boarded her plane at Andrew Air Force base in Washington, she delivered a lengthy statement on torture. Her speech was remarkable for its defensive, dense and evasive tone. It was replete with half-truths, outright falsehoods, distortions and subterfuges.

Her remarks can never sway or convince any European leader, foreign ministry or intelligence service, which have the means to make their own judgments. In her effort to persuade world opinion and reassure the American public, she raised the debate over torture to greater prominence and virtually invited inspection of her claims.

And this woman is the Secretary of State of the United States of America. It's shameful. Just shameful.

More tax cuts

Here's what CNN says today:

Voting mostly along party lines, the House narrowly passed a $56 billion, five-year package of tax cuts that retains reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends in 2009 and 2010. The vote was 234-197.

Republicans said their record of tax cutting revitalized a sluggish economy, and the White House praised the bill. "These extensions are necessary to provide certainty for investors and businesses and are essential to sustaining long-term economic growth," the president's budget office said in a statement.

Democrats said tax cuts for investment income, and much of the GOP's economic agenda, help Republican friends and ignore average workers.

"Everybody loses under this bill. Everybody, that is, except the top one-fifth of 1 percent," said Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia. "Some might call them the superrich. Apparently, the majority calls them donors."

HOW can they justify this, the deficit being what it is? What about our children and grandchildren? What about the national debt? What happens when China decides to cash in its U.S. Treasury bonds? It makes me think that the Republicans actually WANT to destroy the country.

UPDATE: Here's a comment I found on AMERICAblog about the tax cuts:

This is another brilliant step forward in the Republicans 30 year strategy to bankrupt government. Soon there will be no money left for anything except the military and corporate assistance.Should the Democrats somehow manage to beat the voting machines and get back into power, they will be forced to raise taxes, mostly to pay interest on the neverending debt. Higher taxes without benefits -- the Dems are screwed! Kudos to Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. They are truly jeenyuses.

Sickening, isn't it? And undoubtedly true.