April 30, 2005
Looks Like Somebody Forgot To Tune In
Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America. -- G. Bush, from his Thursday night Press Conference
Pumped up by persistently high energy prices, the oil industry maintained its streak of massive -- and growing -- quarterly profits this week, aggravating motorists and amazing financial analysts.
"I have been following this industry for 18 years, and I have never seen anything like this," Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit said yesterday. "It's like they're printing money."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:52 PM
| Comments (0)
Gabriel Kolko writes that:
But the historical blindness, and mind-boggling hypocrisy, extends beyond Presidential Administrations, verily permeating the entire culture. Consider:
• Results 1 - 10 of about 121,000 for "liberation of iraq" (0.22 seconds).
• Results 1 - 10 of about 2,140 for "liberation of vietnam" (0.51 seconds).
And it's not just that the Iraq war, being more current, is simply a much bigger story than is Vietnam: a search for "fall of baghdad" yields 114,000 pages. So, logically, a search for "fall of saigon" should yield about 2,000 results if that were the case, but instead turns up 71,500 pages.
Even more telling, perhaps, is the following:
Battlefield Vietnam is a very popular, very well-reviewed videogame, which has even spawned a loyal "community".
While the blowhards in the FCC are going apeshit over Janet Jackson's nipple, war games are all the rage. But, can you imagine the apoplexy that would result in a "Battlefield America" game in which the player takes on the role of an Islamic Jihadist, and whose objective is to successfully carry out suicide bombings throughout the United States? Or a "Battlefield Europe" game in which the player takes on the role of a grunt in the Nazi army, and whose objective is to finally be able to conquer England and Russia, and to be able to complete the "final solution"?
(In fact, if anybody reading this has any graphics and/or web-design skillz, get in touch. It would be interesting to create a mock advertisment and companion website for the aforementioned "Battlefield America" game and watch the reactions as we tried to get it placed into gaming and computer mags -- or the talk-radio shit-storm if the ad were actually accepted by some publications.)
So atrophied is our historical memory, in fact, that Creedence Clearwater and the Jefferson Airplane are now to be used to "drown out enemy gunfire":
But wait, it gets worse:
That's right. Napalm "can't do it all". But it certainly did plenty (so much so that it's been brought back for use in Iraq, alongside god-knows-what-else in Fallujah).
Back to our previous example, what would be the reaction to an ad for the "Battlefield Europe" game exhorting prospective players that the "ovens can't kill everybody"?
Well, we kinda already know how dastardly chemical weapons are considered to be when there's a chance that they might be used against us. But when we're the ones unleashing the WMD (as we almost always are), it's as a-okay now as it was thirty years ago.
Can hardly wait for the "Battlefield Iraq" game, in which we're duly warned that "Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs can't do it all", and whose soundtrack is supplied by Rage Against The Machine and the Dixie Chicks.
What you can do: Seriously, please do get in touch if you've web-design and/or graphical/photo-manipulation abilities, and we'll see what we can do. Otherwise, e-mail Electronic Arts and tell them that war isn't a fucking game, while requesting that all profits made from their war games are donated to victim-relief funds. Yours truly did so a while back, and did not receive a response. But, who knows what might happen if enough people register their opinions?
Thirty Years Later
Gabriel Kolko writes that:
There are so many obvious parallels with their futile projects in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and the lessons are so clear, that we have to conclude that successive administrations in Washington have no capacity whatsoever to learn from past errors. Total defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago should have been a warning to the U.S.: wars are too complicated for any nation, even the most powerful, to undertake without grave risk. They are not simply military exercises in which equipment and firepower is decisive, but political, ideological, and economic challenges also. The events of South Vietnam 30 years ago should have proven that. It did not.
But the historical blindness, and mind-boggling hypocrisy, extends beyond Presidential Administrations, verily permeating the entire culture. Consider:
• Results 1 - 10 of about 121,000 for "liberation of iraq" (0.22 seconds).
• Results 1 - 10 of about 2,140 for "liberation of vietnam" (0.51 seconds).
And it's not just that the Iraq war, being more current, is simply a much bigger story than is Vietnam: a search for "fall of baghdad" yields 114,000 pages. So, logically, a search for "fall of saigon" should yield about 2,000 results if that were the case, but instead turns up 71,500 pages.
Even more telling, perhaps, is the following:
Battlefield Vietnam is a very popular, very well-reviewed videogame, which has even spawned a loyal "community".
While the blowhards in the FCC are going apeshit over Janet Jackson's nipple, war games are all the rage. But, can you imagine the apoplexy that would result in a "Battlefield America" game in which the player takes on the role of an Islamic Jihadist, and whose objective is to successfully carry out suicide bombings throughout the United States? Or a "Battlefield Europe" game in which the player takes on the role of a grunt in the Nazi army, and whose objective is to finally be able to conquer England and Russia, and to be able to complete the "final solution"?
(In fact, if anybody reading this has any graphics and/or web-design skillz, get in touch. It would be interesting to create a mock advertisment and companion website for the aforementioned "Battlefield America" game and watch the reactions as we tried to get it placed into gaming and computer mags -- or the talk-radio shit-storm if the ad were actually accepted by some publications.)
So atrophied is our historical memory, in fact, that Creedence Clearwater and the Jefferson Airplane are now to be used to "drown out enemy gunfire":
But wait, it gets worse:
That's right. Napalm "can't do it all". But it certainly did plenty (so much so that it's been brought back for use in Iraq, alongside god-knows-what-else in Fallujah).
Back to our previous example, what would be the reaction to an ad for the "Battlefield Europe" game exhorting prospective players that the "ovens can't kill everybody"?
Well, we kinda already know how dastardly chemical weapons are considered to be when there's a chance that they might be used against us. But when we're the ones unleashing the WMD (as we almost always are), it's as a-okay now as it was thirty years ago.
Can hardly wait for the "Battlefield Iraq" game, in which we're duly warned that "Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs can't do it all", and whose soundtrack is supplied by Rage Against The Machine and the Dixie Chicks.
What you can do: Seriously, please do get in touch if you've web-design and/or graphical/photo-manipulation abilities, and we'll see what we can do. Otherwise, e-mail Electronic Arts and tell them that war isn't a fucking game, while requesting that all profits made from their war games are donated to victim-relief funds. Yours truly did so a while back, and did not receive a response. But, who knows what might happen if enough people register their opinions?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:43 PM
| Comments (4)
Translation: "We have 'every right in the world' to bomb the shit out of any of 70 (!) countries which maintain 'programs to build facilities underground'."
Translation A: "We don't fucking care that the National Research Council's just-released study of the matter concluded that 'something in-between' 'could not go deep enough to eliminate fallout, as some advocates have asserted, and it estimated that the victims in a nearby city could range from a few hundred to more than a million, depending on factors such as the weather and population density.' So long as they're niggers, we're happy to kill five million...twenty million...whatever it takes."
Translation B: "Are you people really this thick? It doesn't matter whether it works or not, it matters whether we can pay our friends in the military contracting industry billions and billions and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to study the matter. Haven't you idiots ever heard of 'National Missile Defense'? Sheesh."
April 29, 2005
Translations
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday it makes "all the sense in the world" to study the feasibility of designing a nuclear weapon capable of penetrating deeply buried targets.
Rumsfeld defended the proposed 8.5 million-dollar study of a "robust nuclear earth penetrator" at a Senate hearing after it came under fire from Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat.
Feinstein noted that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has acknowledged in previous hearings that no missile could bore deep enough into the earth to trap all fallout from a nuclear explosion. [...]
Rumsfeld said more than 70 countries have programs to build facilities underground, and have available to them equipment that can dig chambers the size of a basketball court from rock in a single day.
"We can't go in there and get at things in solid rock underground," Rumsfeld said.
Translation: "We have 'every right in the world' to bomb the shit out of any of 70 (!) countries which maintain 'programs to build facilities underground'."
"The only thing we have is very large, very dirty nuclear weapons. So the choice is: do we want to have nothing and only a large, dirty nuclear weapon, or would we rather have something in between. That is the issue," he said.
Translation A: "We don't fucking care that the National Research Council's just-released study of the matter concluded that 'something in-between' 'could not go deep enough to eliminate fallout, as some advocates have asserted, and it estimated that the victims in a nearby city could range from a few hundred to more than a million, depending on factors such as the weather and population density.' So long as they're niggers, we're happy to kill five million...twenty million...whatever it takes."
Translation B: "Are you people really this thick? It doesn't matter whether it works or not, it matters whether we can pay our friends in the military contracting industry billions and billions and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to study the matter. Haven't you idiots ever heard of 'National Missile Defense'? Sheesh."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:12 AM
| Comments (0)
Even some Republicans on the panel expressed reservations about the Bush approach, casting doubt on whether it can get through committee. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she did not want to tamper with Social Security's system of guaranteed benefits. Another Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, expressed reservations about the heavy borrowing that personal accounts would require.
April 28, 2005
Fucking Liberal Republicans
Even some Republicans on the panel expressed reservations about the Bush approach, casting doubt on whether it can get through committee. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she did not want to tamper with Social Security's system of guaranteed benefits. Another Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, expressed reservations about the heavy borrowing that personal accounts would require.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:01 PM
| Comments (0)
That's a lot of lies per word, even by Bush Administration standards.
First of all, if we'll recall last year's fiasco, it had nothing to do with methodology. Rather, it was caused by the Administration's having "neglected" to include the final two months of 2003 in its 2004 report. Honest "mistakes", not political pressure, were to blame for the undercounting, according to Colin Powell. Either way, there wasn't any need to "revamp the process" -- just to include the entire year under study in the yearly report.
Secondly, even supposing the "process" were in need of being "revamped", one might -- just might -- think that rather than scotching the entire report (which report is, after all, mandated by law) without even telling anybody until the news is leaked on a former analyst's blog, it could simply have been announced at some point in the following year that the "process" had been "revamped".
Note too that Colin Powell was, at the time of last year's brouhaha, quick to point out that the report is not just a compilation of statistics, but rather a narrative -- and that the statistics could only be fully understood when taken in the context of the narrative. So if you've nothing to hide, why not release the report this year, with the same proviso?
Thirdly, even if the "process" has been "revamped", it'd be extremely easy to compare the "numbers" in a "meaningful way": simply retroactively apply the new methodology to the previous twenty years' data, et voila!, the "numbers" have now been normalised -- a solution that any fucking third-grader would be able to produce in a moment's time.
Fourthly, the Administration wants us to believe that it "revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment". Yet when the story first broke (all of twelve days ago) we were told that:
So, if we assume that the Bush Administration is not lying to us (har har), that means that the new methodology -- instituted to correct for last year's "flawed" report -- has flaws in it (necessitating the scotching of this year's report)! If they're not lying (har har), they're perhaps the most incompetent boobs in the history of counting. In which case, if there aren't some god damned medals handed out in the aftermath of this SNAFU, we'd better get to writin' some outraged letters!
Uhhhh...wow. That, right there, is some seriously incompetent lying. Forget third-graders: are there any kindergartners that couldn't see through this? More analysts searching for terror attacks "results" in a much higher total that meet the criteria for classification as attacks (including, apparently, some "incidents" that "may not have been terrorism", yet meet the criteria anyway)? Who the fuck is supposed to believe this shit? Seriously, if these motherfuckers are not lying, could we maybe get some fucking pre-school class to compile the report next year? A fucking pack of rhesus monkeys? Fuck, we could probably even get some niggers to do the job, and still be relatively confident that they'd be able to figure the damned thing out.
In the meantime, expect the Bush Administration to soon announce that as a consequence of more people having been invited to this year's Whitehouse Easter Egg Hunt than in previous years, more eggs were found than were actually hidden (including some eggs that may not have been eggs despite their meeting the government's criteria for classification as eggs).
Understand? We're not putting out "these numbers" because we're genuinely interested in informing the public of what we're up to, nor even because it's mandated by law -- we, after all, are above the law -- but only because we, the Republican Party, the absolute bedrock of ethical administration, don't want our name dragged scurrilously through the mud.
And, oh yeah, the other only reason we're putting "these numbers" out is because we got caught trying to sweep them under the rug, so we really don't have much choice.
That's right: before this there weren't any questions concerning that matter. At least not in the media. But back here in the "reality-based" world, one might well ask for one single piece of evidence to indicate that the Bush Administration is winning the "War On Terrorism".
Here's Tom DeLay's brilliant analysis (circa December, 2003):
And here's Dick Cheney's brilliant analysis (via his "Winning The 'War On Terror' Tour" undertaken last year):
To his credit, Dubya did, during last year's Republican National Convention, attempt to quantify the Administration's supposed success :
Notice, though, what he didn't say. He didn't say, "And therefore, the 'War On Terror' is 75% finished. We should have it wrapped up by next summer, after which we'll no longer need to worry about terrorism, and we can spend the rest of our days vacationing on our respective ranches."
Uh-uh. In fact, Dick Cheney has predicted that the "War On Terror" will "not end in our lifetime", and Dubya hisself has allowed that he does not think that "you can win it".
So, yeah, his flight-suit-strutting and "Hoo-ah!"-speechifying antics are indeed pretty meaningless.
Meanwhile, not only are terrorist attacks on the rise (including, it must be stated, those perpetrated and/or funded and/or supported by the United States), but so is terrorist recruitment -- in sharp contradistinction to U.S. military recruitment. So the Bush Administration is getting its ass kicked ten ways from Sunday. But of course, this failure of execution (and, much more importantly, philosophy) hasn't affected his ability to vacation at the ranch.
Rather, it redounds to the rest of us in the form of crumbling infrastructure, sharp cuts in social programs, and increased global instability. But that's okay: it'll all be worth it so long as Dubya will receive a medal or two for his magnificent stewardship of the "GWOT".
Yawn...More Lies
Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration reversed gears yesterday and released a report showing an upsurge in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 after first withholding the statistics from the public.
The number of "significant attacks" grew to about 651 last year, from 208 in 2003, according to statistics released by the National Counterterrorism Center. The 2004 total includes 201 attacks in Iraq.
But senior officials said the threefold increase was a result of changes in methodology and urged reporters not to compare this year's terrorism numbers with previous ones. [...]
"The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way," said John Brennan, acting head of the center, which compiled the statistics. He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks.
That's a lot of lies per word, even by Bush Administration standards.
First of all, if we'll recall last year's fiasco, it had nothing to do with methodology. Rather, it was caused by the Administration's having "neglected" to include the final two months of 2003 in its 2004 report. Honest "mistakes", not political pressure, were to blame for the undercounting, according to Colin Powell. Either way, there wasn't any need to "revamp the process" -- just to include the entire year under study in the yearly report.
Secondly, even supposing the "process" were in need of being "revamped", one might -- just might -- think that rather than scotching the entire report (which report is, after all, mandated by law) without even telling anybody until the news is leaked on a former analyst's blog, it could simply have been announced at some point in the following year that the "process" had been "revamped".
Note too that Colin Powell was, at the time of last year's brouhaha, quick to point out that the report is not just a compilation of statistics, but rather a narrative -- and that the statistics could only be fully understood when taken in the context of the narrative. So if you've nothing to hide, why not release the report this year, with the same proviso?
Thirdly, even if the "process" has been "revamped", it'd be extremely easy to compare the "numbers" in a "meaningful way": simply retroactively apply the new methodology to the previous twenty years' data, et voila!, the "numbers" have now been normalised -- a solution that any fucking third-grader would be able to produce in a moment's time.
Fourthly, the Administration wants us to believe that it "revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment". Yet when the story first broke (all of twelve days ago) we were told that:
Several U.S. officials defended the decision, saying the methodology used by the National Counterterrorism Center to generate statistics had flaws, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.
So, if we assume that the Bush Administration is not lying to us (har har), that means that the new methodology -- instituted to correct for last year's "flawed" report -- has flaws in it (necessitating the scotching of this year's report)! If they're not lying (har har), they're perhaps the most incompetent boobs in the history of counting. In which case, if there aren't some god damned medals handed out in the aftermath of this SNAFU, we'd better get to writin' some outraged letters!
This year, Brennan said, 10 full-time intelligence analysts -- up from three part-timers -- searched for terrorist incidents to include, resulting in a much higher total than met the government's criteria for classification as a "significant" attack.
Uhhhh...wow. That, right there, is some seriously incompetent lying. Forget third-graders: are there any kindergartners that couldn't see through this? More analysts searching for terror attacks "results" in a much higher total that meet the criteria for classification as attacks (including, apparently, some "incidents" that "may not have been terrorism", yet meet the criteria anyway)? Who the fuck is supposed to believe this shit? Seriously, if these motherfuckers are not lying, could we maybe get some fucking pre-school class to compile the report next year? A fucking pack of rhesus monkeys? Fuck, we could probably even get some niggers to do the job, and still be relatively confident that they'd be able to figure the damned thing out.
In the meantime, expect the Bush Administration to soon announce that as a consequence of more people having been invited to this year's Whitehouse Easter Egg Hunt than in previous years, more eggs were found than were actually hidden (including some eggs that may not have been eggs despite their meeting the government's criteria for classification as eggs).
Although the officials called the data seriously flawed, they said they issued the report to avoid criticism that the State Department was trying to avoid admitting setbacks in the fight against terrorism by not publishing the data.
"If we didn't put out these numbers today, you'd say we're withholding data. That's why we're putting them out," said Philip Zelikow, counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Understand? We're not putting out "these numbers" because we're genuinely interested in informing the public of what we're up to, nor even because it's mandated by law -- we, after all, are above the law -- but only because we, the Republican Party, the absolute bedrock of ethical administration, don't want our name dragged scurrilously through the mud.
And, oh yeah, the other only reason we're putting "these numbers" out is because we got caught trying to sweep them under the rug, so we really don't have much choice.
The totals raised questions about the administration's claims that it is winning the war on terrorism.
That's right: before this there weren't any questions concerning that matter. At least not in the media. But back here in the "reality-based" world, one might well ask for one single piece of evidence to indicate that the Bush Administration is winning the "War On Terrorism".
Here's Tom DeLay's brilliant analysis (circa December, 2003):
If we don't find weapons of mass destruction -- and I think we will, and we've already found evidence that not only did he have it, but he violated United Nations resolutions all along the lines, particularly when it comes to weapons instructions. So, you know, we are winning this war on terror.
And here's Dick Cheney's brilliant analysis (via his "Winning The 'War On Terror' Tour" undertaken last year):
The tour highlights John Kerry's inconsistent support for our troops and his troubling record on national security.
To his credit, Dubya did, during last year's Republican National Convention, attempt to quantify the Administration's supposed success :
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he would tell the Republican convention that three-quarters of known al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, an increase from an earlier estimate of two-thirds.
For months, the CIA had privately advocated switching to the 75 percent figure, though the White House balked at using it publicly. Critics say the estimate is meaningless as losses by a decentralized al Qaeda are ever harder to estimate.
Notice, though, what he didn't say. He didn't say, "And therefore, the 'War On Terror' is 75% finished. We should have it wrapped up by next summer, after which we'll no longer need to worry about terrorism, and we can spend the rest of our days vacationing on our respective ranches."
Uh-uh. In fact, Dick Cheney has predicted that the "War On Terror" will "not end in our lifetime", and Dubya hisself has allowed that he does not think that "you can win it".
So, yeah, his flight-suit-strutting and "Hoo-ah!"-speechifying antics are indeed pretty meaningless.
Meanwhile, not only are terrorist attacks on the rise (including, it must be stated, those perpetrated and/or funded and/or supported by the United States), but so is terrorist recruitment -- in sharp contradistinction to U.S. military recruitment. So the Bush Administration is getting its ass kicked ten ways from Sunday. But of course, this failure of execution (and, much more importantly, philosophy) hasn't affected his ability to vacation at the ranch.
Rather, it redounds to the rest of us in the form of crumbling infrastructure, sharp cuts in social programs, and increased global instability. But that's okay: it'll all be worth it so long as Dubya will receive a medal or two for his magnificent stewardship of the "GWOT".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:59 PM
| Comments (1)
...Dubya's "Cracker Dance" appears to be catching on!
April 26, 2005
Well, I'll Be Damned...
...Dubya's "Cracker Dance" appears to be catching on!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:00 PM
| Comments (0)
Growing at a rate of about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, the nation's prison and jail population rose to 2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents, the government reported yesterday.
By June 30, there were 48,000, or 2.3 percent, more inmates than the year before, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. [...]
In 2004, 61 percent of prison and jail inmates were of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. An estimated 12.6 percent of all black men in their late 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.7 percent of white men in that age group, the report said.
April 25, 2005
The Party Of "Small Government" Scores Again
Growing at a rate of about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, the nation's prison and jail population rose to 2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents, the government reported yesterday.
By June 30, there were 48,000, or 2.3 percent, more inmates than the year before, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. [...]
In 2004, 61 percent of prison and jail inmates were of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. An estimated 12.6 percent of all black men in their late 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.7 percent of white men in that age group, the report said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:43 PM
| Comments (0)
In other words, it's comprised not of just a few straggling "dead-enders" and "former Regime elements". Rather, it's a massive, popular resistance to the occupation. Straight from the General's mouth to McClellan's arse.
In Other Words?
"One of the insurgency's strengths is its capacity to regenerate," said retired Army General John Keane, who returned recently from a fact-finding mission in Iraq. "We have killed thousands of them and detained even more, but they are still able to regenerate. They are still coming at us."
In other words, it's comprised not of just a few straggling "dead-enders" and "former Regime elements". Rather, it's a massive, popular resistance to the occupation. Straight from the General's mouth to McClellan's arse.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:58 AM
| Comments (0)
Yeah, you know, because American foreign policy has (in the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld) "literally nothing to do with oil".
Now, what would happen if Venezuelan journalists were seen photographing American oil (or other infrastructure) facilities? Would they be detained, then freed; or would they be shipped straight away to Guantanamo?
Gee, I Wonder...
Warning of what he called a possible American invasion of Venezuela, Mr. Chávez said a female United States naval officer and some American journalists were temporarily detained recently in separate incidents for photographing a Venezuelan Army base and an oil refinery. [...]
He added that the journalists, whom he did not identify, were freed after they had been seen photographing El Palito oil refinery in Carabobo State. It was unclear why such photography was not permitted.
Yeah, you know, because American foreign policy has (in the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld) "literally nothing to do with oil".
Now, what would happen if Venezuelan journalists were seen photographing American oil (or other infrastructure) facilities? Would they be detained, then freed; or would they be shipped straight away to Guantanamo?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:32 AM
| Comments (0)
* * *
Do you ever get the feeling that most Congresspeople are very, very stupid? Of course you do. How's this for logic: private industry spends $166 Billion importing oil, and so taxpayer subsidies to those industries totting up to much less than $166 Billion are somehow justified on the grounds that they tot up to much less than $166 Billion?
Barton's certainly correct in stating that, "There's really no comparison." A shame, however, that he doesn't understand his own irony.
* * *
Of course they shouldn't. Just as private industries shouldn't generally be held liable for the "externalised" costs of doing business which are passed on to the public.
* * *
Who wouldn't like a taxpayer-funded revenue stream to clean up their own mess? Works for me!
April 24, 2005
Free Market Miracle #0020
Faced with soaring gasoline prices, Congress once again turned to energy legislation Wednesday intended to stimulate production of oil and gas while reducing consumption.
A leading point of contention this time is over billions in subsidies and tax incentives for oil companies. [...]
The bill includes $2 billion to spur deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, $2 billion to help oil companies phase out production of the gasoline additive MTBE and more than $3 billion in tax incentives for oil and gas production and distribution.
The debate comes as oil companies are reporting record profits. Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. alone had a $25.3 billion profit in 2004, up from $21.5 billion the previous year.
[Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas] defended the measure by saying its cost was much less than the country's oil import bill of $166 billion last year.
"There's really no comparison," he said.
Do you ever get the feeling that most Congresspeople are very, very stupid? Of course you do. How's this for logic: private industry spends $166 Billion importing oil, and so taxpayer subsidies to those industries totting up to much less than $166 Billion are somehow justified on the grounds that they tot up to much less than $166 Billion?
Barton's certainly correct in stating that, "There's really no comparison." A shame, however, that he doesn't understand his own irony.
What doomed the bill in the past remains central in the House version: liability protection for the makers of MTBE, who are the target of lawsuits across the country brought by drinking water suppliers.
Barton and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, say the petrochemical and oil companies that make MTBE as an additive for cleaner-burning gasoline should not be liable for leaking underground gasoline storage tanks.
Of course they shouldn't. Just as private industries shouldn't generally be held liable for the "externalised" costs of doing business which are passed on to the public.
Barton noted that the bill increases a clean-up fund collected from gasoline stations for leaking storage tanks.
Who wouldn't like a taxpayer-funded revenue stream to clean up their own mess? Works for me!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:06 PM
| Comments (0)
The Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.
Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.
April 23, 2005
They Oughta Spray It In The Chambers Of Congress!
The Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.
Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:59 PM
| Comments (1)
Forty-two percent! And that doesn't even account for the "legitimate" profits that Halliburton would realise without over-charging. Apart from the destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation (including the use of banned weapons -- Depleted Uranium, napalm and other chemical weapons, cluster bombs), this might be the biggest story of the war: the fucking Vice President's former company (from whom he still receives compensation) is sluicing billions -- BILLIONS -- of taxpayer dollars straight into said former company's coffers. The admixture of State and Corporate interests is the very essence of Fascism. Yet when it occurs in the baldest form imaginable, it's just barely a news item.
What you can do: Tax Resistance, people! This blogger has urged War Tax Resistance many, many times over. And he will now do so again.
Consequences? Yes, potentially. But they're miniscule compared with the certain consequences of consenting to pay one's taxes: thousands upon thousands murdered in cold blood, vast regions of the Third World irradiated (and DU is thought impossible to clean up once it has been introduced into the environment) and littered with unexploded ordnance, the militarisation of outer space, nuclear proliferation, post-traumatic time-bombs walking our streets, BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars sluiced into Dick Cheney's friends' pockets while the budget deficit spirals out of control.
So what are the potential consequences of WTR? They do not include jail time (except in extremely rare cases). They boil down to a chance that the IRS will eventually be able to, by various measures, collect the owed taxes, plus interest and penalties. There are ways of preventing this from happening, and ways of minimising the impact when it does happen.
Note, by the way, that "Tax Day" doesn't arrive once a year -- it arrives twice monthly, assuming Federal Income Taxes are withheld from one's paycheck (there are ways of preventing this from happening, too).
See more responses to common concerns regarding WTR. And then, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee can put you in touch with a WTR counselor in your area.
By taking control of our paychecks, we not only tell the warmongers/Fascists where to stick it, we also take a concrete step in withholding from them the means to conduct their madness. What could be more important?
Update, 4/25/05:
That's Taxation Without Representation, folks. Are you really going to continue to give these fuckers your money? There's a fun slogan -- "Don't vote: it only encourages them" -- a Google search for which returns 2,350 hits. But an equally appropriate slogan -- "Don't pay taxes: it only encourages them" -- doesn't return a single hit. Why so?
Update, 4/26/05: Fabulous Op-Ed from Robert Scheer in today's LA Times:
April 22, 2005
What Could You Do With $2 Billion?
The Halliburton corporation, already the Iraq war's poster child for "waste, fraud, and abuse", has been hit with a new double-whammy.
A report from the U.S. State Department accuses the company of "poor performance" in its $1.2 billion contract to repair Iraq's vital southern oil fields.
And a powerful California congressman is charging that Defense Department audits showing additional overcharges totaling $212 million were concealed from United Nations monitors by the George W. Bush administration.
The new over-charges bring to $2 billion, or 42 percent of the contract amounts, the grand total of questionable bills from Halliburton.
Forty-two percent! And that doesn't even account for the "legitimate" profits that Halliburton would realise without over-charging. Apart from the destruction wrought by the invasion and occupation (including the use of banned weapons -- Depleted Uranium, napalm and other chemical weapons, cluster bombs), this might be the biggest story of the war: the fucking Vice President's former company (from whom he still receives compensation) is sluicing billions -- BILLIONS -- of taxpayer dollars straight into said former company's coffers. The admixture of State and Corporate interests is the very essence of Fascism. Yet when it occurs in the baldest form imaginable, it's just barely a news item.
What you can do: Tax Resistance, people! This blogger has urged War Tax Resistance many, many times over. And he will now do so again.
Consequences? Yes, potentially. But they're miniscule compared with the certain consequences of consenting to pay one's taxes: thousands upon thousands murdered in cold blood, vast regions of the Third World irradiated (and DU is thought impossible to clean up once it has been introduced into the environment) and littered with unexploded ordnance, the militarisation of outer space, nuclear proliferation, post-traumatic time-bombs walking our streets, BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars sluiced into Dick Cheney's friends' pockets while the budget deficit spirals out of control.
So what are the potential consequences of WTR? They do not include jail time (except in extremely rare cases). They boil down to a chance that the IRS will eventually be able to, by various measures, collect the owed taxes, plus interest and penalties. There are ways of preventing this from happening, and ways of minimising the impact when it does happen.
Note, by the way, that "Tax Day" doesn't arrive once a year -- it arrives twice monthly, assuming Federal Income Taxes are withheld from one's paycheck (there are ways of preventing this from happening, too).
See more responses to common concerns regarding WTR. And then, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee can put you in touch with a WTR counselor in your area.
By taking control of our paychecks, we not only tell the warmongers/Fascists where to stick it, we also take a concrete step in withholding from them the means to conduct their madness. What could be more important?
Update, 4/25/05:
Federal agencies under the Bush administration are sweeping vast amounts of public information behind a curtain of secrecy in the name of fighting terrorism, using 50 to 60 loosely defined security designations that can be imposed by officials as low-ranking as government clerks.
No one is tracking the amount of unclassified information that is no longer accessible.
For years, a citizen who wanted to know the name and phone number of a Pentagon official could buy a copy of the Defense Department directory at a government printing office. But since 2001, the directory has been stamped ''For Official Use Only," meaning the public may not have access to such basic information about the vast military bureaucracy.
That's Taxation Without Representation, folks. Are you really going to continue to give these fuckers your money? There's a fun slogan -- "Don't vote: it only encourages them" -- a Google search for which returns 2,350 hits. But an equally appropriate slogan -- "Don't pay taxes: it only encourages them" -- doesn't return a single hit. Why so?
Update, 4/26/05: Fabulous Op-Ed from Robert Scheer in today's LA Times:
We need to put such gargantuan numbers in some perspective. The emergency funding that the Senate passed 99 to 0 last week gives the military roughly $80 billion and pays for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan only through September. That is twice what President Bush insists he needs to cut from the federal support for Medicaid over the next decade.
Already the red state of Missouri is set to end its Medicaid program entirely within the next three years because of a lack of funds. As the Los Angeles Times reported, that will save the state $5 billion, but at the cost of ending healthcare for the more than 1 million Missourians enrolled in the program. That sum is less than half of what Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, alone has been paid for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without much to show for it in terms of improving the Iraqis' quality of life. [...]
"Government is not here to do everything for everybody," admonished Missouri state Rep. Jodi Stefanick, a Republican representing suburban St. Louis. "We have to draw the line somewhere." Just not in Iraq, apparently.
Welcome to late-era Rome, where mindless militaristic expansion is considered patriotic and where demagogues who recklessly waste taxes and young lives in empire-building are deemed valorous.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:28 PM
| Comments (0)
Enquiring minds may really be wondering what's between Condi's ears after her latest attempt at diplomacy:
You can see our dilemma, here. If Condi -- never known 'round these parts as possessing anything approaching the supreme intellect for which she's so often credited -- is really so stupid that she fails to notice the glaring hypocrisy dripping from her every word, that would quite possibly make her stupider than even The Superbrain himself. But if that were true, it would spell an existential crisis for the space-time continuum.
So we must assume that she knowlingly perpetrates such crimes of knowledge. If so, though, how does she do so with a straight face? Is she, like her President, a cyborg? Pehaps, but her eyes, speech patterns, and motor skills don't suggest as much.
So Condi's a bit of a riddle.
Kidding aside, one has to wonder just what the Bush Administration hopes to gain by its provocations. Condi's remarks came shortly after similarly insulting words care of Gee-Dub. And "lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to suspend Russia from participation in the G-8 because, they say, it is no longer a democracy."
If we accept the premise that the downfall of the Soviet Union was accomplished solely (with maybe a little bit of help from the Pope) by St. Reagan's having guilely bogged it down fighting Islmaic guerillas in Afghanistan while also conniving it into trying to match the U.S. of A. missile-for-missile (never mind Reaganomics' long-term effects upon the United States); it's not too difficult to imagaine a similar reverse scenario developing at the present moment.
The United States is bogged down by Islamic guerillas in Iraq, so much so that its military is on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile, "Iraq-style resistance is to be activated in Afghanistan", according to the Asia Times (which also reports that Pakistan is in danger of boiling over).
Forget, on the other hand, about Russia's presumably idle claim that it "will develop missiles impervious to any defense". Russia is already supplying Syria and Iran with weaponry, and has planned joing military exercises for later this year with China (whose military, oh-by-the-way, Blowback author Chalmers Johnson notes, quoting professor Arthur Lauder, "is the only one being developed anywhere in the world today that is specifically configured to fight the United States of America").
Oh yeah, Russia has also struck deal to sell 100,000 AK-47s and "as many as 50 Russian attaack helicopters" to Venezuela. (Ever game, Donald H. Rumsfeld says he "can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s". What are the odds, do you suppose, that Donald H.'s confusion will be cause enough for the Russians to reconsider?)
One could conceive, in other words, of the United States battling Russian-supplied guerillas in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela; and/or of Islamic fundamentalists in control in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and/or of the United States embroiled in a war with China -- a war, according to Johnson, that it "would almost surely lose".
If that's not enough, investment adviser Jephraim Gundzik recently warned that:
If she keeps it up, not only does Condi personally risk getting whacked over the head by a chess-board, but the Bush Administration may well find itself on the losing end of a Cold War rematch.
Sure, Condi's charges are by and large accurate. But when have such principles ever been any concern of hers, her President's, or the United States'? So, what does the Bush Administration hope to gain from its badgering? Beats me.
And back to the initial question: what's between Condi's ears? Rocks? Air? Circuitry? It's a conundrum.
April 21, 2005
Cold War 2.0?
Enquiring minds may really be wondering what's between Condi's ears after her latest attempt at diplomacy:
"The centralization of state power in the presidency at the expense of countervailing institutions like the Duma or an independent judiciary is clearly very worrying," Rice said, referring to the lower house of Russia's parliament. "The absence of an independent media on the electronic side is clearly very worrying." [...]
...the former Soviet specialist said the concentration of power should not begin to "mimic the Soviet state". [...]
Rice also warned Moscow that its role as chair of a meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized democracies next year will require it to demonstrate a commitment to democracy. [...]
"Moscow should make every effort to convince the world that they understand those responsibilities that attend inclusion in organizations such as the G-8," Rice said. She said the G-8 was intended to be a "a group of democracies" committed to "free-market principles, free trade, the rule of law".
You can see our dilemma, here. If Condi -- never known 'round these parts as possessing anything approaching the supreme intellect for which she's so often credited -- is really so stupid that she fails to notice the glaring hypocrisy dripping from her every word, that would quite possibly make her stupider than even The Superbrain himself. But if that were true, it would spell an existential crisis for the space-time continuum.
So we must assume that she knowlingly perpetrates such crimes of knowledge. If so, though, how does she do so with a straight face? Is she, like her President, a cyborg? Pehaps, but her eyes, speech patterns, and motor skills don't suggest as much.
So Condi's a bit of a riddle.
Kidding aside, one has to wonder just what the Bush Administration hopes to gain by its provocations. Condi's remarks came shortly after similarly insulting words care of Gee-Dub. And "lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to suspend Russia from participation in the G-8 because, they say, it is no longer a democracy."
If we accept the premise that the downfall of the Soviet Union was accomplished solely (with maybe a little bit of help from the Pope) by St. Reagan's having guilely bogged it down fighting Islmaic guerillas in Afghanistan while also conniving it into trying to match the U.S. of A. missile-for-missile (never mind Reaganomics' long-term effects upon the United States); it's not too difficult to imagaine a similar reverse scenario developing at the present moment.
The United States is bogged down by Islamic guerillas in Iraq, so much so that its military is on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile, "Iraq-style resistance is to be activated in Afghanistan", according to the Asia Times (which also reports that Pakistan is in danger of boiling over).
Forget, on the other hand, about Russia's presumably idle claim that it "will develop missiles impervious to any defense". Russia is already supplying Syria and Iran with weaponry, and has planned joing military exercises for later this year with China (whose military, oh-by-the-way, Blowback author Chalmers Johnson notes, quoting professor Arthur Lauder, "is the only one being developed anywhere in the world today that is specifically configured to fight the United States of America").
Oh yeah, Russia has also struck deal to sell 100,000 AK-47s and "as many as 50 Russian attaack helicopters" to Venezuela. (Ever game, Donald H. Rumsfeld says he "can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s". What are the odds, do you suppose, that Donald H.'s confusion will be cause enough for the Russians to reconsider?)
One could conceive, in other words, of the United States battling Russian-supplied guerillas in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela; and/or of Islamic fundamentalists in control in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and/or of the United States embroiled in a war with China -- a war, according to Johnson, that it "would almost surely lose".
If that's not enough, investment adviser Jephraim Gundzik recently warned that:
In 2005 Russia is likely to surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil exporter. This, combined with continued contraction of global oil stocks, gives Moscow enormous leverage over international oil prices. Russia could easily push the price of crude oil above $100 per barrel by reducing oil production. No other oil-producing country, including Saudi Arabia, has sufficient spare production capacity to counter a production cut by Russia.
By effectively controlling international oil prices, Russia could undermine U.S. economic growth. More importantly, Russia could encourage the devaluation of the dollar by redenominating its substantial energy trade with Europe from dollars into euros. Redenomination, which is supported by both Russia and the European Union, would force Europe's central banks to rebalance their foreign exchange reserves in favor of the euro.
Rather than establishing economic and geopolitical hegemony around the world, the "war on terrorism" is making the U.S. increasingly vulnerable to a sharp economic recession delivered to Washington by Moscow.
If she keeps it up, not only does Condi personally risk getting whacked over the head by a chess-board, but the Bush Administration may well find itself on the losing end of a Cold War rematch.
Sure, Condi's charges are by and large accurate. But when have such principles ever been any concern of hers, her President's, or the United States'? So, what does the Bush Administration hope to gain from its badgering? Beats me.
And back to the initial question: what's between Condi's ears? Rocks? Air? Circuitry? It's a conundrum.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:43 PM
| Comments (1)
President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador received a serious setback yesterday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed to delay a vote on his nomination to investigate fresh allegations of improper conduct.
The decision came after Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, shocked fellow Republicans by saying he wanted more time to study the charges against John Bolton, the State Department's top arms-control official.
"I've heard enough today to give me some real concern," Voinovich said. "I don't feel comfortable voting today."
Update, 4/23/05: President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was put in further peril Friday when a fourth Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed concern about him and a former Bush ambassador called his behavior "undiplomatic".
* * *
General Powell has let it be known through aides that he did not instigate contacts with the two senators -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- and merely responded to their inquiries.
His views still carry much weight among Republican moderates, and he has sent two clear signals of how he feels. The first was his failure to sign a letter from former Republican secretaries of state and defence endorsing the nominee; the second was a statement by his former chief-of-staff Lawrence Wilkerson that Mr Bolton would make an "abysmal" ambassador to the UN.
Fucking Liberal Republicans
President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador received a serious setback yesterday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed to delay a vote on his nomination to investigate fresh allegations of improper conduct.
The decision came after Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, shocked fellow Republicans by saying he wanted more time to study the charges against John Bolton, the State Department's top arms-control official.
"I've heard enough today to give me some real concern," Voinovich said. "I don't feel comfortable voting today."
Update, 4/23/05: President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was put in further peril Friday when a fourth Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed concern about him and a former Bush ambassador called his behavior "undiplomatic".
General Powell has let it be known through aides that he did not instigate contacts with the two senators -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- and merely responded to their inquiries.
His views still carry much weight among Republican moderates, and he has sent two clear signals of how he feels. The first was his failure to sign a letter from former Republican secretaries of state and defence endorsing the nominee; the second was a statement by his former chief-of-staff Lawrence Wilkerson that Mr Bolton would make an "abysmal" ambassador to the UN.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:10 PM
| Comments (0)
We need clear definitions of right and wrong, good and evil. We need leaders who give us reasons to strive to be better than we are. It is in this arena that I see the greatness of men like Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II (and, dare I say it, even our current President Bush!). They called us to a higher standard.
Quote Of The Moment #0095
We need clear definitions of right and wrong, good and evil. We need leaders who give us reasons to strive to be better than we are. It is in this arena that I see the greatness of men like Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II (and, dare I say it, even our current President Bush!). They called us to a higher standard.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:08 PM
| Comments (0)
A quick glance at Google News suggests that it may be. Doesn't "reality" understand that Dubya earned political capital in November?
April 19, 2005
Reality-Based World Spinning Out Of Control?
A quick glance at Google News suggests that it may be. Doesn't "reality" understand that Dubya earned political capital in November?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:20 PM
| Comments (0)
Right. And the "repository" is so fucking reliable that the number of significant terror attacks has increased so greatly that the Feds are now hiding the relevant data.
This is supposed to be news? Newsweek reported more than eighteen months ago that bin Laden already has biological weapons, and is now trying to find a way to deliver them.
Even if it weren't the case, any kidnergartner could tell you that he's "pursuing" them.
Again, where's the news here? If this is what the Bush Administration considers its top-line intelligence extractions, it's no wonder the number of terrorist attacks has been spinning out of control.
Valuable intelligence would indicate when and where future attacks would be staged -- information which, of course, the detainees would not have access to (not only because they've been held incommunicado for three years, but also because al Qaeda's cell structure precludes one cell having any knowledge of others' operations).
If the Bush Administration were interested in reducing the threat of future terrorist attacks, it'd be very easy to do (as bin Laden himself has explained on numerous occasions): stop bombing Third World countries, stop supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and remove the American military presence from the Middle East.
If, on the other hand, the above passage is intended to indicate that the detainees are dangerous terrorists who cannot be released, why fabricate such "intelligence" data? Why not simply bring out evidence at trial demonstrating their guilt? Because, obviously, there isn't any evidence to bring out.
Let Us Count The Lies
Three years after it began, the prison experiment known as Camp Delta at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has reached a crossroads in its incarceration of those captured in the war brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Military officials have completed tribunal hearings for all 558 detainees and have compiled their most comprehensive report detailing what they have learned about potential terrorist attacks. [...]
The new report appears to buttress the military's claim that it should be allowed to run Camp Delta without outside intervention because the camp has become "the single best repository of al-Qaida information".
Right. And the "repository" is so fucking reliable that the number of significant terror attacks has increased so greatly that the Feds are now hiding the relevant data.
The declassified summary cites more than 4,000 interrogation reports and says some indicated that al-Qaida operatives were pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
This is supposed to be news? Newsweek reported more than eighteen months ago that bin Laden already has biological weapons, and is now trying to find a way to deliver them.
Even if it weren't the case, any kidnergartner could tell you that he's "pursuing" them.
According to the report, captives have described how al-Qaida trained them to spread deadly poisons, and at other times armed them with such things as grenades stuffed inside soda cans, bombs hidden in pagers and cellphones, and wristwatches that can trigger remote-control explosions on a 24-hour countdown.
Again, where's the news here? If this is what the Bush Administration considers its top-line intelligence extractions, it's no wonder the number of terrorist attacks has been spinning out of control.
Valuable intelligence would indicate when and where future attacks would be staged -- information which, of course, the detainees would not have access to (not only because they've been held incommunicado for three years, but also because al Qaeda's cell structure precludes one cell having any knowledge of others' operations).
If the Bush Administration were interested in reducing the threat of future terrorist attacks, it'd be very easy to do (as bin Laden himself has explained on numerous occasions): stop bombing Third World countries, stop supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and remove the American military presence from the Middle East.
If, on the other hand, the above passage is intended to indicate that the detainees are dangerous terrorists who cannot be released, why fabricate such "intelligence" data? Why not simply bring out evidence at trial demonstrating their guilt? Because, obviously, there isn't any evidence to bring out.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:55 PM
| Comments (0)
One of the first orders to burn towns and villages that I found in the archives was in the far southeast of Korea, during heavy fighting along the Pusan Perimeter in August 1950, when U.S. soldiers were bedevilled by thousands of guerrillas in rear areas. On 6 August a U.S. officer requested "to have the following towns obliterated" by the Air Force: Chongsong, Chinbo, and Kusu-dong. B-29 strategic bombers were also called in for tactical bombing. On 16 August five groups of B-29s hit a rectangular area near the front, with many towns and villages, creating an ocean of fire with hundreds of tons of napalm. Another call went out on the 20 August. On 26 August I found in this same source the single entry: "Fired 11 villages." [...]
...the air war levelled North Korea and killed millions of civilians. North Koreans tell you that for three years they faced a daily threat of being burned with napalm: "You couldn't escape it," one told me in 1981. By 1952 just about everything in northern and central Korea had been completely levelled. What was left of the population survived in caves.
Over the course of the war, Conrad Crane wrote, the U.S. air force "had wreaked terrible destruction all across North Korea. Bomb damage assessment at the armistice revealed that 18 of 22 major cities had been at least half obliterated." A table he provided showed that the big industrial cities of Hamhung and Hungnam were 80-85% destroyed, Sariwon 95%, Sinanju 100%, the port of Chinnampo 80% and Pyongyang 75%.
April 17, 2005
The More Things Change
One of the first orders to burn towns and villages that I found in the archives was in the far southeast of Korea, during heavy fighting along the Pusan Perimeter in August 1950, when U.S. soldiers were bedevilled by thousands of guerrillas in rear areas. On 6 August a U.S. officer requested "to have the following towns obliterated" by the Air Force: Chongsong, Chinbo, and Kusu-dong. B-29 strategic bombers were also called in for tactical bombing. On 16 August five groups of B-29s hit a rectangular area near the front, with many towns and villages, creating an ocean of fire with hundreds of tons of napalm. Another call went out on the 20 August. On 26 August I found in this same source the single entry: "Fired 11 villages." [...]
...the air war levelled North Korea and killed millions of civilians. North Koreans tell you that for three years they faced a daily threat of being burned with napalm: "You couldn't escape it," one told me in 1981. By 1952 just about everything in northern and central Korea had been completely levelled. What was left of the population survived in caves.
Over the course of the war, Conrad Crane wrote, the U.S. air force "had wreaked terrible destruction all across North Korea. Bomb damage assessment at the armistice revealed that 18 of 22 major cities had been at least half obliterated." A table he provided showed that the big industrial cities of Hamhung and Hungnam were 80-85% destroyed, Sariwon 95%, Sinanju 100%, the port of Chinnampo 80% and Pyongyang 75%.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:01 PM
| Comments (1)
October, 2004: ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
April, 2005: The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
We already know that the Bush Administration is probably U.S. history's most depraved. But we might ask ourselves whether it's also U.S. history's most entertaining?
Update, 4/18/05: From today's Paul Krugman column:
Last week fears of a return to stagflation sent stock prices to a five-month low. What few seem to have noticed, however, is that a mild form of stagflation -- rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment -- has already arrived. [...]
Things could be, and have been, worse. But those whose standard of living depends on wages, not capital gains -- in other words, the vast majority of Americans -- aren't feeling particularly prosperous. By two to one, people tell pollsters that the economy is "only fair" or "poor", not "good" or "excellent".
Why, then, has the Fed been raising interest rates? Because it is worried about inflation, which has risen to the top end of the 2 to 3 percent range the Fed prefers. [...]
We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970s. But the fact that we're already experiencing mild stagflation means that there will be no good options if something else goes wrong.
Suppose, for example, that the consumer pullback visible in recent data turns out to be bigger than we now think, and growth stalls. (Not that long ago many economists thought that an oil price in the $50s would cause a recession.) Can the Fed stop raising interest rates and go back to rate cuts without causing the dollar to plunge and inflation to soar?
Or suppose that there's some kind of oil supply disruption -- or that warnings about declining production from Saudi oil fields turn out to be right. Suppose that Asian central banks decide that they already have too many dollars. Suppose that the housing bubble bursts. Any of these events could easily turn our mild case of stagflation into something much more serious. [...]
So if any of these things does come to pass, we'll just have to see how well an administration in which political operatives make all economic policy decisions, and the Treasury secretary is only a salesman, handles crises.
I think we all know precisely how the Bush Administration would handle the crisis: it would "create its own reality" by ceasing to make economic data available to the public.
April 16, 2005
Well, That's One Way To Create Your Own Reality
October, 2004: ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
April, 2005: The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
We already know that the Bush Administration is probably U.S. history's most depraved. But we might ask ourselves whether it's also U.S. history's most entertaining?
Update, 4/18/05: From today's Paul Krugman column:
Last week fears of a return to stagflation sent stock prices to a five-month low. What few seem to have noticed, however, is that a mild form of stagflation -- rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment -- has already arrived. [...]
Things could be, and have been, worse. But those whose standard of living depends on wages, not capital gains -- in other words, the vast majority of Americans -- aren't feeling particularly prosperous. By two to one, people tell pollsters that the economy is "only fair" or "poor", not "good" or "excellent".
Why, then, has the Fed been raising interest rates? Because it is worried about inflation, which has risen to the top end of the 2 to 3 percent range the Fed prefers. [...]
We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970s. But the fact that we're already experiencing mild stagflation means that there will be no good options if something else goes wrong.
Suppose, for example, that the consumer pullback visible in recent data turns out to be bigger than we now think, and growth stalls. (Not that long ago many economists thought that an oil price in the $50s would cause a recession.) Can the Fed stop raising interest rates and go back to rate cuts without causing the dollar to plunge and inflation to soar?
Or suppose that there's some kind of oil supply disruption -- or that warnings about declining production from Saudi oil fields turn out to be right. Suppose that Asian central banks decide that they already have too many dollars. Suppose that the housing bubble bursts. Any of these events could easily turn our mild case of stagflation into something much more serious. [...]
So if any of these things does come to pass, we'll just have to see how well an administration in which political operatives make all economic policy decisions, and the Treasury secretary is only a salesman, handles crises.
I think we all know precisely how the Bush Administration would handle the crisis: it would "create its own reality" by ceasing to make economic data available to the public.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:44 PM
| Comments (0)
Heavily restricted in the United States since 1972 and a declining problem for eagles, osprey and other predatory birds, DDT continues to show up in alarming levels in nonmigrating songbirds. Does that spell trouble ahead for these still-healthy species? Are humans at risk? No one knows. But one lesson seems clear: Beware of what you put into the environment, because it can be extraordinarily difficult to remove.
Another lesson might be to beware what you put into other people's environments -- for example, hundreds of tons of radioactive munitions. If not only because it can be extraordinarily difficult to remove, if not only because "no one knows" how much trouble it spells ahead for the environments' inhabitants, if not only because it's (presumably) a violation of the Golden Rule; then because it's likely to "blow back" at you.
So, when Osama finally figures out how to release toxic materials into our environment, what, exactly, are we going to say?
Lessons
Heavily restricted in the United States since 1972 and a declining problem for eagles, osprey and other predatory birds, DDT continues to show up in alarming levels in nonmigrating songbirds. Does that spell trouble ahead for these still-healthy species? Are humans at risk? No one knows. But one lesson seems clear: Beware of what you put into the environment, because it can be extraordinarily difficult to remove.
Another lesson might be to beware what you put into other people's environments -- for example, hundreds of tons of radioactive munitions. If not only because it can be extraordinarily difficult to remove, if not only because "no one knows" how much trouble it spells ahead for the environments' inhabitants, if not only because it's (presumably) a violation of the Golden Rule; then because it's likely to "blow back" at you.
So, when Osama finally figures out how to release toxic materials into our environment, what, exactly, are we going to say?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:02 PM
| Comments (0)
"Bush Puzzled By U.S. Re-Entry Plan"
Don't miss the next episode of the thrill-a-minute "Bush Puzzled" series: "Bush Puzzled By Alphabet", to be followed by "Pretzels Profoundly Puzzle Prez".
"When I first read that in the newspaper, about the need to have passports, for particularly the day-crossings that take place -- about a million, for example in the state of Texas -- I said, 'What's going on here?"' Bush told the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "I thought there was a better way to ... expedite the legal flow of traffic and people."
We already know he's lying, because he says he read it in a newspaper -- even though he's previously made claim that he doesn't read the newspaper. Obviously, his handlers are simply trying to wash his hands of the matter, owing to the backlash.
Also, notice that an abvious analog -- the legal flow of traffic and people through airports -- doesn't merit, in Bushbrain, expediting. Does he really think that the frontier is any less fraught than the skies? No -- but if it becomes a PR headache, he's sure to change his mind.
But if we were to take him at his word, then what, exactly, are we supposed to think about his Administration's competence?
A senior U.S. government official said State and Homeland Security officials had vetted the change exhaustively with the White House before announcing it April 5.
Okay, so the White House was fully aware of the plan. But the fucking President of the United States of America was at the time apparently on another of his every-other-weekly vacations back at the ranch; and prior to his signing of one of the major bills of his prize "Homeland Security" initiative was sufficiently ignorant of the contents of the bill that he'd put pen to that his later exposure to a decidedly not-minor provision of the bill elicited Presidential Befuddlement. Is that about right? Is that what the President means by, "Protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people."
In other News Of The Wise One:
...Bush said it is going to "take a while" to persuade Congress to restructure the federal retirement program. "This is a heavy lift for a lot of people in Congress," he said.
Why is it a "heavy lift"? Because the privatisation plan is highly unpopular -- and Congress is at least somewhat accountable to popular opinion. So, Bush's vision to "spread freedom" to the American masses via "liberation" of their retirement funds works something like this: lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll. Then, after having determined that there're the population has been sufficiently hood-winked, commence "Operation: Social Even More Security".
April 15, 2005
Redundant Headline Of The Moment
"Bush Puzzled By U.S. Re-Entry Plan"
Don't miss the next episode of the thrill-a-minute "Bush Puzzled" series: "Bush Puzzled By Alphabet", to be followed by "Pretzels Profoundly Puzzle Prez".
"When I first read that in the newspaper, about the need to have passports, for particularly the day-crossings that take place -- about a million, for example in the state of Texas -- I said, 'What's going on here?"' Bush told the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "I thought there was a better way to ... expedite the legal flow of traffic and people."
We already know he's lying, because he says he read it in a newspaper -- even though he's previously made claim that he doesn't read the newspaper. Obviously, his handlers are simply trying to wash his hands of the matter, owing to the backlash.
Also, notice that an abvious analog -- the legal flow of traffic and people through airports -- doesn't merit, in Bushbrain, expediting. Does he really think that the frontier is any less fraught than the skies? No -- but if it becomes a PR headache, he's sure to change his mind.
But if we were to take him at his word, then what, exactly, are we supposed to think about his Administration's competence?
A senior U.S. government official said State and Homeland Security officials had vetted the change exhaustively with the White House before announcing it April 5.
Okay, so the White House was fully aware of the plan. But the fucking President of the United States of America was at the time apparently on another of his every-other-weekly vacations back at the ranch; and prior to his signing of one of the major bills of his prize "Homeland Security" initiative was sufficiently ignorant of the contents of the bill that he'd put pen to that his later exposure to a decidedly not-minor provision of the bill elicited Presidential Befuddlement. Is that about right? Is that what the President means by, "Protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people."
In other News Of The Wise One:
...Bush said it is going to "take a while" to persuade Congress to restructure the federal retirement program. "This is a heavy lift for a lot of people in Congress," he said.
Why is it a "heavy lift"? Because the privatisation plan is highly unpopular -- and Congress is at least somewhat accountable to popular opinion. So, Bush's vision to "spread freedom" to the American masses via "liberation" of their retirement funds works something like this: lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie take a poll, lie, take a poll, lie, take a poll. Then, after having determined that there're the population has been sufficiently hood-winked, commence "Operation: Social Even More Security".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:17 PM
| Comments (0)
Suppose the Bush Administration were to re-introduce the Draft? And suppose you were eligible (and given that the Army has recently raised the maximum recruiting age for the Reserves and the National Guard to 39, you may be more eligible than you think)? Would you participate? Would you consent to killing (let's be honest: slaughtering) for the State?
If your answer is, "Yes," and you've not yet enlisted, perhaps you should do so at this time. If your answer is, "No," or, "No, even if it means being locked up," then another question follows:
Would you consent to paying your Federal Income Taxes, even knowing that roughly 50% is allocated to the military? That is, would you consent to financing mass murder for the State, even though you were willing to spend time in jail in order to avoid physically participating?
If so, why?
If not, and you're not already a War Tax Resister, then, there's no time like the present!
Suggested surfing:
The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.
"Why Isn't Everyone Who's For Peace A War Tax Resister: Answers To Common Concerns".
War Tax Resistance: A Guide To Withholding Your Support From The Military.
April 14, 2005
The Taxman Cometh
Suppose the Bush Administration were to re-introduce the Draft? And suppose you were eligible (and given that the Army has recently raised the maximum recruiting age for the Reserves and the National Guard to 39, you may be more eligible than you think)? Would you participate? Would you consent to killing (let's be honest: slaughtering) for the State?
If your answer is, "Yes," and you've not yet enlisted, perhaps you should do so at this time. If your answer is, "No," or, "No, even if it means being locked up," then another question follows:
Would you consent to paying your Federal Income Taxes, even knowing that roughly 50% is allocated to the military? That is, would you consent to financing mass murder for the State, even though you were willing to spend time in jail in order to avoid physically participating?
If so, why?
If not, and you're not already a War Tax Resister, then, there's no time like the present!
Suggested surfing:
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:31 PM
| Comments (1)
Some historians see the fall of Napoleon as having begun in Spain, where 320,000 French troops were tied down and demoralized by guerilla warfare. But the real damage suffered by Napoleon in his disaster in Spain was the challenge to his image of invincibility.
April 13, 2005
Quote Of The Moment #0094
Some historians see the fall of Napoleon as having begun in Spain, where 320,000 French troops were tied down and demoralized by guerilla warfare. But the real damage suffered by Napoleon in his disaster in Spain was the challenge to his image of invincibility.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:50 PM
| Comments (0)
There's only so far you can go in trying to patent the ever-popular peanut butter and jelly sandwich. [...]
Smucker's 2-ounce peanut butter and jelly pockets come in two flavors -- strawberry and grape -- and are enclosed without a crust using a crimping method that the Orrville, Ohio, company says is one of a kind and should be protected from duplication by federal law.
The courts have said no...for now. What's next, one wonders, for the "Intellectual Property" mongers? Ice cream? Children's ice cream? How long before Bechtel attempts to patent the "process" of taking a shit?
Anyhow, guess how Smucker came upon the "rights" to make its ingenious take on the PBJ? That's right: it bought the "property" from the original "inventor":
Smucker already owns a general patent, which it purchased from Len Kretchman and David Geske, two Fargo, N.D., men who came up with the idea in 1995 and had been baking the products for schoolchildren.
The two cases before the appeals court involved two additional patents that Smucker was seeking to expand its original patent by protecting its method.
Somehow, the word "its" doesn't merit scare-quotes...
Score another triumph for "innovation", for the "entrepreneurial spirit" that drives our "Free Market" economy to such great heights.
The patent office received 376,810 patent applications last year. ... About 65 percent of all patents submitted are approved, Quinn said.
For those scoring at home, that's 250,000 approved patents per annum. 250,000 distortions of the operation of the "Free Market". Yet, somehow, the poor (especially those in the Third World) aren't allowed to benefit from the taxpayers' charity.
What you can do: "Steal" as much "Intellectual Property" as often as you can. Of course, there may be consequences. But our rights will wither and die if we don't assert them.
Remember, kids: "Property is theft."
Free Market Miracle #0018
There's only so far you can go in trying to patent the ever-popular peanut butter and jelly sandwich. [...]Smucker's 2-ounce peanut butter and jelly pockets come in two flavors -- strawberry and grape -- and are enclosed without a crust using a crimping method that the Orrville, Ohio, company says is one of a kind and should be protected from duplication by federal law.
The courts have said no...for now. What's next, one wonders, for the "Intellectual Property" mongers? Ice cream? Children's ice cream? How long before Bechtel attempts to patent the "process" of taking a shit?
Anyhow, guess how Smucker came upon the "rights" to make its ingenious take on the PBJ? That's right: it bought the "property" from the original "inventor":
Smucker already owns a general patent, which it purchased from Len Kretchman and David Geske, two Fargo, N.D., men who came up with the idea in 1995 and had been baking the products for schoolchildren.
The two cases before the appeals court involved two additional patents that Smucker was seeking to expand its original patent by protecting its method.
Somehow, the word "its" doesn't merit scare-quotes...
Score another triumph for "innovation", for the "entrepreneurial spirit" that drives our "Free Market" economy to such great heights.
The patent office received 376,810 patent applications last year. ... About 65 percent of all patents submitted are approved, Quinn said.
For those scoring at home, that's 250,000 approved patents per annum. 250,000 distortions of the operation of the "Free Market". Yet, somehow, the poor (especially those in the Third World) aren't allowed to benefit from the taxpayers' charity.
What you can do: "Steal" as much "Intellectual Property" as often as you can. Of course, there may be consequences. But our rights will wither and die if we don't assert them.
Remember, kids: "Property is theft."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:49 PM
| Comments (4)
I believe that Bush and company will prove to have been so stupendously irresponsible in failing to prepare the public for the hardships we face, that it might be considered an impeachable offense. Yeah, I know Cheney is lurking in the background. He can be impeached too, and so can that fat, useless prick Dennis Hastert.
Quote Of The Moment #0093
I believe that Bush and company will prove to have been so stupendously irresponsible in failing to prepare the public for the hardships we face, that it might be considered an impeachable offense. Yeah, I know Cheney is lurking in the background. He can be impeached too, and so can that fat, useless prick Dennis Hastert.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:04 PM
| Comments (0)
A suspect held at Guantanamo Bay asked his U.S. military judge a pointed question: "Is it possible to see the evidence in order to refute it?" In another case, a judge blurted out: "I don't care about international law."
April 11, 2005
Sometimes Words Are Worth More Than Pictures
A suspect held at Guantanamo Bay asked his U.S. military judge a pointed question: "Is it possible to see the evidence in order to refute it?" In another case, a judge blurted out: "I don't care about international law."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:45 PM
| Comments (0)
Chanting "Death to America" and burning effigies of President Bush and Saddam Hussein, tens of thousands of Iraqis flooded central Baghdad yesterday in what police called the largest anti-American protest since the fall of Baghdad, the capital, exactly two years ago.
(Firdaus Square pix spotted at the Iraq Occupation Watch Information Center.)
Is This What "Liberation" Looks Like?
Chanting "Death to America" and burning effigies of President Bush and Saddam Hussein, tens of thousands of Iraqis flooded central Baghdad yesterday in what police called the largest anti-American protest since the fall of Baghdad, the capital, exactly two years ago.
(Firdaus Square pix spotted at the Iraq Occupation Watch Information Center.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:31 PM
| Comments (0)
Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.
Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.
"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.
April 10, 2005
Fucking Liberal Republicans
Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.
Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.
"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:18 PM
| Comments (0)
There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong. -- Richard Perle
Yeah, that's right: Saddam planted "double-agents" in the United States in order to "suck" the United States into attacking his country and forcing him into a rat-hole for six months, and then into prison, and, finally to be (one presumes) executed.
It all makes perfect sense. You know: Saddam was just not getting enough excitement in his life.
And, er, those were only "estimates" given by Colin Powell before the United Nations? And, uh, all of Colin's audio-visual "proof" of the weapons' existence was, what? Actually Iran's WMD programmes -- just got the satellite co-ordinates mixed up?
April 08, 2005
Tricky Dick
There is reason to believe that we were sucked into an ill-conceived initial attack aimed at Saddam himself by double agents planted by the regime. And as we now know the estimate of Saddam's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was substantially wrong. -- Richard Perle
Yeah, that's right: Saddam planted "double-agents" in the United States in order to "suck" the United States into attacking his country and forcing him into a rat-hole for six months, and then into prison, and, finally to be (one presumes) executed.
It all makes perfect sense. You know: Saddam was just not getting enough excitement in his life.
And, er, those were only "estimates" given by Colin Powell before the United Nations? And, uh, all of Colin's audio-visual "proof" of the weapons' existence was, what? Actually Iran's WMD programmes -- just got the satellite co-ordinates mixed up?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:28 AM
| Comments (0)
Help us, uncle Sam, help us! The Free Market is kicking our dimpled white asses!
Carolyn Hern, spokeswoman for Rep. Robin Hayes, R-NC, said the textile industry is expected this week to formally ask the government to curb the Chinese surge in as many as 11 other textile and clothing items.
The administration took a major step to appease American companies Monday by agreeing to launch investigations into whether China was disrupting American sales of cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton trousers and underwear made of cotton and man-made fibers.
Update, 4/19/05: Just noticed that the following comment, which for some reason is tripping the comment-filter's alarm, has been removed from the thread (after we had appeared to have been able to bypass the filter). So, for the record, here it is (see the thread for context).
Update, 4/23/05: Finally figured out what the problem was (if anybody cares): the words "socialist" and "socialism" were causing the comment to be rejected for violating the "cialis" parameter. Duh. So that particular rule has been removed, and anybody should be able to use those two words when commenting (but I'm too lazy to put the comment back inside the thread...).
Update, 4/30/05: Have restored the wandering comment to the thread -- presumably for good this time (though note that it's now incorrectly queued).
April 05, 2005
Free Market Miracle #0017
Help us, uncle Sam, help us! The Free Market is kicking our dimpled white asses!
Carolyn Hern, spokeswoman for Rep. Robin Hayes, R-NC, said the textile industry is expected this week to formally ask the government to curb the Chinese surge in as many as 11 other textile and clothing items.
The administration took a major step to appease American companies Monday by agreeing to launch investigations into whether China was disrupting American sales of cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton trousers and underwear made of cotton and man-made fibers.
Update, 4/19/05: Just noticed that the following comment, which for some reason is tripping the comment-filter's alarm, has been removed from the thread (after we had appeared to have been able to bypass the filter). So, for the record, here it is (see the thread for context).
Update, 4/23/05: Finally figured out what the problem was (if anybody cares): the words "socialist" and "socialism" were causing the comment to be rejected for violating the "cialis" parameter. Duh. So that particular rule has been removed, and anybody should be able to use those two words when commenting (but I'm too lazy to put the comment back inside the thread...).
Update, 4/30/05: Have restored the wandering comment to the thread -- presumably for good this time (though note that it's now incorrectly queued).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:21 PM
| Comments (12)
"The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak." -- George W. Bush
Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.
* * *
But Hastert, in an interview to be published today by National Journal, cast doubt on the ability of Congress to deliver on such a rapid a schedule. He was asked what his timetable is for completion of a Social Security bill.
"Politically, we probably need to get something done by next spring, a year from now," he said. "You can't carry it right up to an election. That's just political dynamite." [...]
"Most members [of Congress], down in their heart, know that what we are trying to do is the right thing to do," he said. "It's a question of whether it's convenient politically, or whether they can stand the test back home. We have organized resistance on this thing, and you have to get through that."
If it were "right thing to do" for the general public then, obviously, it wouldn't be "political dynamite". But one wouldn't expect Hastert to let it slip so easily from his lips (after all, the "essence" of Congress is its mandate to obfuscate at all times) -- nor for him to openly acknowledge that he considers the "test" facing his colleagues is to be able "get through" public concerns rathern than to address them.
April 01, 2005
Politician Implicate Thine Self
"The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak." -- George W. Bush
Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.
But Hastert, in an interview to be published today by National Journal, cast doubt on the ability of Congress to deliver on such a rapid a schedule. He was asked what his timetable is for completion of a Social Security bill.
"Politically, we probably need to get something done by next spring, a year from now," he said. "You can't carry it right up to an election. That's just political dynamite." [...]
"Most members [of Congress], down in their heart, know that what we are trying to do is the right thing to do," he said. "It's a question of whether it's convenient politically, or whether they can stand the test back home. We have organized resistance on this thing, and you have to get through that."
If it were "right thing to do" for the general public then, obviously, it wouldn't be "political dynamite". But one wouldn't expect Hastert to let it slip so easily from his lips (after all, the "essence" of Congress is its mandate to obfuscate at all times) -- nor for him to openly acknowledge that he considers the "test" facing his colleagues is to be able "get through" public concerns rathern than to address them.