February 24, 2006
What If?
What if the voters of Washington state, via its infamously cantankerous initiative procedure, were to accept Osama bin Laden's truce offer of a few months ago?
What would such a decision mean in practice? On our end, it might mean that Washington businesses and citizens would be forbidden to aid the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Palestine, too, might as well -- although bin Laden didn't stipulate this in his offer).
So, Boeing's military division would be forbidden from providing materiel and weapons systems that would or could be used to propagate the occupations. Assuming that Microsoft provides software to the Pentagon, it would be forbidden to continue doing so. Naval and military bases would be given the heave-ho. And so on.
Private citizens would be forbidden from paying their Federal Income Taxes until a mechanism were developed allowing the taxes to be allocated only to non-military means.
And for bin Laden's part, he would agree to not launch an attack within our state's borders.
Objections to such a scheme would surely be raised.
First and foremost, no doubt, would be the charge that giving in to terrorists only enables them. Any persons who would bring such a charge are, to put it bluntly, fucked in the head.
First of all, it's incredibly shameful that it takes the fear of getting our white asses blown off to compel us to even consider the withholding of our contributions to the commission of mass atrocities.
Nobody knows how many innocent people we've slaughtered in Afghanistan, but it's well into the thousands. In Iraq, it's likely gone past 200,000 by now. This is in addition to the unknown scores of thousands maimed and tortured, and the future generations still to be poisoned by our toxic weaponry and radiological munitions, and blow up by our unexploded bomb-lets.
We ought, in other words, to consider not taking part in the commission of mass atrocities because, uh, you know, it's not very nice to take part in the commission of mass atrocities. That it'd also save us getting our asses blown off is, to be sure, a nice little bonus. (As is bin Laden's claim that the Muslim world will rebuild the war-torn countries on its own, without seeking reparations.)
Second, the assertion that blowing up tens of thousands of innocent people somehow lessens the threat posed by bin Laden and co. ("puts them out of business", to use McClellan's turn of phrase) couldn't -- if one were to judge by employing the somewhat-arcane mathematical method of totting up the number of attacks before and after the advent of the "War On Terror" -- be further from the truth.
A second objection might be that such an initiative would impose unacceptable strictures on individual liberties. A valid point. As valid as noting that laws forbidding citizens to commit mass atrocities against fellow citizens are a violation of our "liberties". Those on the receiving end of our munificence might note that blowing them up by the tens of thousand simply because one is able to do so with impunity is a violation of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A third objection might be that a lot of people would be put out of work. It seems highly unlikely that we wouldn't be able to make use of their skills in other sectors of the economy. But if that were the case, with the money saved in unpaid Federal taxes, we could easily afford to train them to perform tasks that didn't contribute to the mass slaughter of scores of thousands of innocent people.
A fourth objection might be that it would invite reprisals from the Bush Administration, which would quickly move to cut off all manner of funding. Probably true. But, again, the money saved by not paying Federal taxes would likely greatly outweigh the money lost.
In truth, passage of such an initiative would probably be tantamount to a declaration of secession from the union. Wouldn't be such a bad thing to do, in this blogger's eyes. Could such an initiative pass, given the implications? Perhaps not. But if placed on the ballot, it would certainly make for some interesting discussions in the weeks and months leading up to the plebiscite.
That alone would surely make it worth the effort.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:36 PM
| Comments (0)
"But our message to Iraqis is what I think others around the world would say, as well: Exercise restraint. Violence will only contribute to what the terrorists want." -- Scottie McClellan
Quote Of The Moment
"But our message to Iraqis is what I think others around the world would say, as well: Exercise restraint. Violence will only contribute to what the terrorists want." -- Scottie McClellan
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:01 AM
| Comments (2)
Extreme cold, equipment failure blamed By Kieran Nicholson Denver Post Staff Writer Extreme energy demand coupled with natural gas suppliers' equipment problems led to Saturday's rolling power blackouts, according to an Xcel spokesman.
February 19, 2006
It's Not Only Iraq That Can't Keep The Lights On
Extreme cold, equipment failure blamed By Kieran Nicholson Denver Post Staff Writer Extreme energy demand coupled with natural gas suppliers' equipment problems led to Saturday's rolling power blackouts, according to an Xcel spokesman.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:54 PM
| Comments (0)
To slow its rising medical expenses, the Pentagon wants to triple the health-insurance premiums for its 3 million military retirees and families. [...]
The plan was tucked away amid the billions for new jet fighters and warships that the Pentagon requested this week in its proposed budget for fiscal 2007.
February 18, 2006
Fuck The Troops
To slow its rising medical expenses, the Pentagon wants to triple the health-insurance premiums for its 3 million military retirees and families. [...]
The plan was tucked away amid the billions for new jet fighters and warships that the Pentagon requested this week in its proposed budget for fiscal 2007.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:06 AM
| Comments (0)
From Donald H. Rumsfeld's February 17 appearance on Charlie Rose:
• "The Airwaves are filled with lies."
• "I speak to the truth all the time."
• "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize."
February 17, 2006
Quote Of The Moment
From Donald H. Rumsfeld's February 17 appearance on Charlie Rose:
• "The Airwaves are filled with lies."
• "I speak to the truth all the time."
• "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:21 PM
| Comments (0)
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government succeeded Wednesday in pushing through a controversial law that makes the "glorification" of terrorism a criminal offense.
February 16, 2006
Great Moments In Free Speech
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government succeeded Wednesday in pushing through a controversial law that makes the "glorification" of terrorism a criminal offense.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:27 PM
| Comments (1)
Who says the White House Press Corps can't sink its teeth in deep? Just look at hellacious tenacity displayed in Monday's Press Conference, keeping Scottie dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof:
There's plenty more where that came from: I've only selected the choicest, most funniest bits. (The harvest is so fecund that in choosing a personal favourite, the best I could possibly do is narrow it down to the best three or four: "Q Was it Cheney's gun? Is that his gun, that shotgun?"; "Q When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter?"; "...who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to?"; "Q I don't understand what information had to trickle in?"; "Q Who was the third hunter?"; and, of course, "Q Isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Scott, isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Aren't they a member of the AP?".)
As I say: hellacious tenacity; cat on a hot tin roof. But now look what happens when the topic turns to Iran. Recall that during roughly the same news cycle that it was learnt that the VP had gunned down a fellow human being, it was also reported that an attack upon Iran (which may or may not occur on March 28) is expected to kill thousands of people "in the first wave of attacks".
While one would perhaps expect that it was this news that sent the "three people from each news organization" scurrying to the briefing room; in point of fact he quail-hunt-from-hell occupied some 5,300 words of the Press Corps' and Scottie's time; possible war with Iran, 574.
So that gives us an idea of the Press Corps' priorities.
And while the Corps did a "relatively" decent job of making Scottie feel uncomfortable, notice that it didn't dare ask the most important question that arises; to wit, why in fuck is the Vice President out hunting quail rather that hunting "terrorists"? Or saving Social Security? Everything's all fixed now? We can all go back to sleep? No more phone calls to listen in on? No more gajillion-dollar budget deficits? No more twenty-year-old grunts getting their asses blown off in Iraq? No more polar bears on the endangered species list?
I mean, that's what one would logically think, right, if the Vice President has nothing better to do with his time than to go hunting?
Has, by the way, McClellan ever, once been asked if the Vice President will be "made available, himself" to answer questions regarding his ties to Halliburton, or (to take another recent news item) allegations that he personally oversaw the "fixing" of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq?
Or has he ever been asked whether, under International Law, the invasion of Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) was a "possible cri
minal offe nse"?
So, lesson learned: blow up whomever you want, whenever you want; just make damned sure that you inform the Press Corps in a timely manner.
Now, who was the third hunter? For the love of god, who was the third hunter?????
Update: More hilarity (the "chain of custody of the information"!) from Tuesday's Press Conference:
So now we've got two pressing questions that still need answering: Who informed the Situation Room?, and Who in the fucking hell was the third hunter?
February 14, 2006
The Bulldog Press (Or, The Last Days Of Rome)
Who says the White House Press Corps can't sink its teeth in deep? Just look at hellacious tenacity displayed in Monday's Press Conference, keeping Scottie dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof:
Q Scott, is it really appropriate for the --
Q So as the Press Secretary, are you satisfied with the way this was handled? [...]
Q But let's just be clear here. The Vice President of the United States accidentally shoots a man and he feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who witnessed this to tell the local Corpus Christi newspaper, and not the White House press corps at large, or notify the public in a national way? [...]
Q But were you aware they were just going to allow a private citizen to inform a local paper of this, and not beyond that? Did you not have a suggestion on how to inform the public? [...]
Q What time on Sunday morning did you learn that Vice President Dick Cheney was the shooter? [...]
Q Was it Cheney's gun? Is that his gun, that shotgun?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Was it the Vice President's gun?
MR. McCLELLAN: You ought to talk to the Vice President's Office and check that fact.
Q You don't know?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can check with their office. [...]
Q This doesn't make any sense, though. This happens at 5:30 p.m. on Saturday, and you're saying that until the morning, the President of the United States --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. I said there was additional information coming in later that evening and into the morning hours of Sunday.
Q You've got to clarify this timeline, Scott; it just doesn't make any sense.
Q When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter? What time? [...]
Q Katherine Armstrong talked to CNN Sunday evening. She said that she thought this was going to become a story, so she was going to go to the local press. She also told CNN that she did not believe the Vice President's Office was aware that she was going to go to the local press. How do you square that with your account that they were coordinating their --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President spoke with her directly and they agreed that she would make it public.
Q So you're saying that she is lying, that her statement is not correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You ought to check with her.
Q Well, we did check with her. So you're saying that's not correct? [...]
Q Scott, it's getting very confusing to try to figure out who knew what when, and why, you know, once Mr. Whittington's immediate medical needs were being addressed, it sounds like everything just shut down. Was there no staff member with the Vice President -- [...]
Q Who was gathering the facts? Who was doing that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think there's the information on the ground there, as well as information then being provided -- from the ground there being provided back here.
Q Right, and who was doing -- who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to? [...]
Q So he knew Saturday evening? Scott, definitively, did the President know or --
Q -- the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- some additional information, yes, and the Vice President --
Q -- or hear that it was the Vice President?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that the Vice President was involved, but didn't know the full facts of what had occurred.
Q How is that possible?
Q He did know -- wait -- details here. Scott, he knew Saturday night?
MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead.
Q Straight chronological questions. We don't have to yell it.
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. [...]
Q All right, if I may then, the Chief of Staff, at 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., tells the President that there was an incident. Later in the evening, the Deputy Chief of Staff tells the President that the Vice President was, in fact, the shooter; is that what you're telling us? [...]
Q Wait, wait, hold on. Human beings are not normally this inefficient. I mean, was the Vice President immediately clear that he had accidentally shot his friend, or not? Or did that information become available later? You make it seem like there's all this information that had to develop.
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't suggest that at all. I'm sure that that was the case. I mean, Mrs. Armstrong was there and saw that --
Q I don't understand what information had to trickle in? [...]
Q But you've got a Situation Room here, you've got people who monitor stuff -- it's impossible to find out -- I mean, the Vice President knew immediately, oh, no, I've shot somebody accidentally, and it takes 22 hours for that --
MR. McCLELLAN: And you know what his first reaction was? His first reaction was go to Mr. Whittington and get his team in there to provide him medical care.
Q I'm sure his first reaction -- absolutely. But why is it that it took so long for the President, for you, for anybody else to know that the Vice President accidentally shot somebody?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, early the next morning, Mrs. Armstrong reached out to the Corpus paper -- that's her local paper --
Q Oh, come on.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- to provide them information.
Q But that's ridiculous. Are you saying that you don't know within the White House? What took you so long? [...]
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Bill. We've got three people from each news organization here -- [...]
Q Are you kidding? They're right there, they're out there with him. They have communications -- [...]
Q And it also sounds as though your suggestions about how to handle this were disregarded by the Vice President's Office.
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'll keep those conversations private.
Q Well, you might as well say that. [...]
Q I just want to clarify one thing. Is it appropriate for a private citizen to be the person to disseminate the information that the Vice President of the United States has shot someone? [...]
Q Has the Vice President always had a hunting license whenever he's gone hunting? There was an item in one of the wire stories this morning that he had a license prior to November, but other stories say he goes every year to Texas --
MR. McCLELLAN: Check with his office. I don't have those facts.
Q Do you know whether he's taken a hunting safety course? [...]
Q Has he also -- has he taken a hunting safety course in Texas?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'd check with his office. I don't have those facts, Mike. I haven't checked into that.
Q Will the Vice President be available soon to answer all questions, himself, about the incident?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you ought to direct questions like that to his office. He has a press office you can direct questions to.
Jessica -- keeping with the practice of at least two or three reporters from each news organization today.
Q You've repeatedly said that the Vice President's Office will share this information with us. Will you tell us -- will you now ask them to share this information with us, because they're not.
MR. McCLELLAN: Share what information?
Q Details of what happened during the shooting and more information about --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mrs. Armstrong provided that information. She was the eyewitness to what took place.
Q Can we get someone from his office in here to answer --
Q Why can't we get someone from his office to answer some questions?
Q Or get him?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to his office. I think they have provided a response to the questions.
Q Not that information.
Q We're not getting any of that information.
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Connie. [...]
Q Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's an absurd question. Go ahead, Ken. [...]
Q Who was the third hunter?
MR. McCLELLAN: Check with his office; I don't know. [...]
Q Scott, when you consider the chronology you're trying to go through here, and all of the various wrinkles of how long it took for the primary information that the Vice President was the person who shot this fellow to get through to the President, himself, is there any notion here of reviewing your own communications apparatus? I mean, this is sort of reminiscent of the levee story, frankly, you know?
MR. McCLELLAN: I reject that. I disagree with that fully, Peter. I don't know what you're referring to there, but I reject the insinuation there. [...]
Q Well, surely they immediately knew that the Vice President of the United States shot someone?
MR. McCLELLAN: And you know what the immediate response was? To makes sure he was getting the medical care.
Q Yes, we --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, you may know that, but people that are listening need to hear that, too. The Vice President went over to him and was making sure that his team was getting to him and taking care of him. That's what the first priority always ought to be. Now I know that it's important to inform the media, and I have told you I believe it's important to get that information out as quickly as possible.
Q The immediate --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think he was informed in a relatively reasonable amount of time.
Q Relatively. [...]
Q Scott, under Texas law, is this kind of accidental shooting a possible criminal offense? [...]
Q Scott, would this be much more serious if the man had died? Would that change the -- [...]
Q Will the Vice President -- and the President, for that matter -- continue to go hunting? And is there some thought about maybe this is too dangerous an activity for such an important person? [...]
Q Can I go back to the topic du jour, if I may. How long did it take until everyone involved was sure that Mr. Whittington was in the proper medical care that he needed? Did it take 12 to 14 hours?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know all the specific facts. Mrs. Armstrong and/or the Vice President's Office may be able to provide you additional information. And, no, he was taken to a hospital that evening in Texas.
Q So any concern about making sure he had the medical attention he needed was quickly dissipated. That was not a reason for not divulging what happened, was it? [...]
Q Isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Scott, isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Aren't they a member of the AP?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure they are.
Q Why didn't the AP pick it up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Martha, go ahead.
There's plenty more where that came from: I've only selected the choicest, most funniest bits. (The harvest is so fecund that in choosing a personal favourite, the best I could possibly do is narrow it down to the best three or four: "Q Was it Cheney's gun? Is that his gun, that shotgun?"; "Q When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter?"; "...who was doing the providing, and who were they providing it to?"; "Q I don't understand what information had to trickle in?"; "Q Who was the third hunter?"; and, of course, "Q Isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Scott, isn't the Corpus Christi paper a member of the AP? Aren't they a member of the AP?".)
As I say: hellacious tenacity; cat on a hot tin roof. But now look what happens when the topic turns to Iran. Recall that during roughly the same news cycle that it was learnt that the VP had gunned down a fellow human being, it was also reported that an attack upon Iran (which may or may not occur on March 28) is expected to kill thousands of people "in the first wave of attacks".
While one would perhaps expect that it was this news that sent the "three people from each news organization" scurrying to the briefing room; in point of fact he quail-hunt-from-hell occupied some 5,300 words of the Press Corps' and Scottie's time; possible war with Iran, 574.
So that gives us an idea of the Press Corps' priorities.
And while the Corps did a "relatively" decent job of making Scottie feel uncomfortable, notice that it didn't dare ask the most important question that arises; to wit, why in fuck is the Vice President out hunting quail rather that hunting "terrorists"? Or saving Social Security? Everything's all fixed now? We can all go back to sleep? No more phone calls to listen in on? No more gajillion-dollar budget deficits? No more twenty-year-old grunts getting their asses blown off in Iraq? No more polar bears on the endangered species list?
I mean, that's what one would logically think, right, if the Vice President has nothing better to do with his time than to go hunting?
Has, by the way, McClellan ever, once been asked if the Vice President will be "made available, himself" to answer questions regarding his ties to Halliburton, or (to take another recent news item) allegations that he personally oversaw the "fixing" of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq?
Or has he ever been asked whether, under International Law, the invasion of Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) was a "possible cri
minal offe nse"?
So, lesson learned: blow up whomever you want, whenever you want; just make damned sure that you inform the Press Corps in a timely manner.
Now, who was the third hunter? For the love of god, who was the third hunter?????
Update: More hilarity (the "chain of custody of the information"!) from Tuesday's Press Conference:
Q That's fair, and that's your prerogative, and I've got my job to do, which is, try to get you to answer that question. Does the President think it's appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that I've expressed my views, and we went through this yesterday.
Q But that's a non-answer.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I was trying to indicate to you -- [...]
Q The Vice President basically decided on his own to not disclose this, which is at odds with how you do business and how the President does business, right?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't want to make this about anything other than what it is. It is what it is, David. [...]
Q I understand that, but I'm not getting answers here, Scott, and I'm trying to be forthright with you, but don't tell me that you're giving us complete answers when you're not actually answering the question, because everybody knows what is an answer and what is not an answer. [...]
Q I have one final question, since that one wasn't answered. Is it appropriate for the Vice President to have waited 14 hours after the incident before he spoke with local law enforcement officials? And do you think that an average citizen would have been accorded that same amount of time before having to answer questions about a shooting incident? [...]
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Suzanne, if you all want to continue to focus on this, you all can spend your time on it. We're going to keep focusing on the pressing priorities of the American people, like talking about how to make health care more affordable and accessible. We've got important work to do for the American people, and that's where we're going to keep our focus. You're welcome to continue to focus on these issues. I'm moving on. [...]
Q Two time line questions on this that I don't think was fully addressed yesterday. Could you tell us who it was in the Vice President's party who first informed the Situation Room? And could you tell us how it was that Mr. Rove learned of this and got involved enough, then, to call --
MR. McCLELLAN: I did answer that question yesterday. Karl spoke with Mrs. Armstrong.
Q But who informed -- I'm trying to understand the chain of custody of the information prior to that. In other words, who from the Vice President's party first informed the Situation Room? You told us the Situation Room --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he has an entourage that travels with him. I'm not going to get into -- he has an entourage that travels with him, from a military aide to Secret Service personnel. I'm not going to get into discussing specific people. I don't think that's -- I don't think it's necessary.
Q Can you tell us if it was a military aide or if it was a Secret Service person --
MR. McCLELLAN: David, I think I just answered your question. I'm just not going to get into naming specific people.
Q You're not going to tell us who informed the Situation Room?
MR. McCLELLAN: It was from the Vice President's traveling team.
Q We're asking, will you tell us who informed the Situation Room?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you. [...]
Q Okay. And then the third issue related to this is, we know and established yesterday through you that the President heard about it on Saturday evening. Could you explain to us why it is this piece of information was important enough for the President to hear about relatively quickly, within three hours of the event --
MR. McCLELLAN: David, as I --
Q -- but in your view, it was not important enough --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- as I indicated, there are some pressing priorities before the American people and they want us to spend our time on that, and that's where we're going to keep our focus today.
Q It's our briefing, we get to ask the questions. [...]
Q And could you provide cost estimates when the President [sic] takes these hunting trips -- like what it costs the taxpayers --
MR. McCLELLAN: Check with his office, Jim.
Q -- to bring both his staff and medical staff?
MR. McCLELLAN: Check with his office. I travel with the President. [...]
Q But, Scott, you didn't answer that particular question. You never answered why it took so long to inform you, who has a responsibility to inform the public. [...]
Q You said you found out, like 6:00 a.m. the next morning. Are you suggesting that he had plenty of ability to contact Washington and didn't use it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm suggesting that it's time to focus on the priorities of the American people, and that's what we're going to do. You're welcome to continue focusing on that.
Thank you. Go see the Longhorns.
So now we've got two pressing questions that still need answering: Who informed the Situation Room?, and Who in the fucking hell was the third hunter?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:06 PM
| Comments (0)
Plans for the 400-meter tunnel appear designed for an underground atomic-test detonation that one day might announce Iran's arrival as a nuclear power, the officials said.
By U.S. and allied intelligence estimates, that day remains as much as a decade away -- assuming Iran applies the full measure of its resources to the project and encounters no major technical hurdles. But whether Iran's leaders have reached that decision and what concrete progress the effort has made remain divisive questions among government analysts and U.N. inspectors. [...]
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, said he cannot judge Iran's program "exclusively peaceful". At the same time, Iran is "not an imminent threat", he said.
Until Iran operates an industrial-scale centrifuge cascade for the production of bomb-grade uranium, the country will remain as much as 10 years away from a weapon, say U.S. intelligence experts. [Emphases added.]
February 08, 2006
Hysteria Now! (Facts Be Damned)
Plans for the 400-meter tunnel appear designed for an underground atomic-test detonation that one day might announce Iran's arrival as a nuclear power, the officials said.
By U.S. and allied intelligence estimates, that day remains as much as a decade away -- assuming Iran applies the full measure of its resources to the project and encounters no major technical hurdles. But whether Iran's leaders have reached that decision and what concrete progress the effort has made remain divisive questions among government analysts and U.N. inspectors. [...]
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, said he cannot judge Iran's program "exclusively peaceful". At the same time, Iran is "not an imminent threat", he said.
Until Iran operates an industrial-scale centrifuge cascade for the production of bomb-grade uranium, the country will remain as much as 10 years away from a weapon, say U.S. intelligence experts. [Emphases added.]
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:26 PM
| Comments (1)
For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists are designing a new H-bomb, the first of probably several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards.
If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal, and a highly automated fac- tory capable of turning out more warheads as needed, as well as new kinds of warheads.
"We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory. [...]
The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of million of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into prototyping and production.
February 07, 2006
Quote Of The Moment
For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists are designing a new H-bomb, the first of probably several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards.
If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal, and a highly automated fac- tory capable of turning out more warheads as needed, as well as new kinds of warheads.
"We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory. [...]
The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of million of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into prototyping and production.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:57 AM
| Comments (0)
Especially jarring, perhaps, is the piddling sum he had to "scrounge" for: we can afford to spend $100,000 per minute in Iraq if it's for gazillion-dollar weapons systems, and a new house in Florida for Dubya's "Uncle Bucky". But $700 on some schmuck-assed grunt who got his ass blown up (probably -- o, the irony -- because he had lousy body armor in the first place), and can't prove that he's not keeping the lousy body armor to sell on Ebay? Fuck him. Fuck him twice.
Fuck The Troops
The last time 1st Lt. William "Eddie" Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.
A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook’s right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.
But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.
He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle.
He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months.
Rebrook, 25, scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home to Charleston last Friday.
Especially jarring, perhaps, is the piddling sum he had to "scrounge" for: we can afford to spend $100,000 per minute in Iraq if it's for gazillion-dollar weapons systems, and a new house in Florida for Dubya's "Uncle Bucky". But $700 on some schmuck-assed grunt who got his ass blown up (probably -- o, the irony -- because he had lousy body armor in the first place), and can't prove that he's not keeping the lousy body armor to sell on Ebay? Fuck him. Fuck him twice.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:41 AM
| Comments (1)
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?
HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.
INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year...
HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.
HELPMANN: Thank you, David... and a very merry Christmas to you all.
* * *
Q Scott, I have two questions for you. It's coming up on five years since Osama bin Laden ostensibly fled Afghanistan. Isn't the President frustrated that all the intelligence sources, all these monitoring of communications, all the human intelligence, satellites can't find one tall man? What's the problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's al Qaeda that has been frustrated, first of all. We have already brought to justice, in one way or another, some three-quarters of their known leadership. We are winning this war on terrorism. But as the President said from the very beginning -- go back to 2001 -- this is going to be a long war. It is an unconventional war that we are fighting, as I talked about. This is a sophisticated enemy that we are up against. We have them on the run. They are under a lot of pressure. We have seen, time and again, that people have been brought to justice, people that are members of al Qaeda, as well as other terrorist organizations. And he is someone who is on the run, someone who is hiding. And we've talked about that. [...]
Q My second quick question is, how is your mother repaying you for your loyalty, a new pair of boots or home cooking? [Laughter.]
MR. McCLELLAN: My mother is doing great, thank you. I just saw her this weekend.
February 06, 2006
Separated At Birth?
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?
HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.
INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year...
HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.
HELPMANN: Thank you, David... and a very merry Christmas to you all.
Q Scott, I have two questions for you. It's coming up on five years since Osama bin Laden ostensibly fled Afghanistan. Isn't the President frustrated that all the intelligence sources, all these monitoring of communications, all the human intelligence, satellites can't find one tall man? What's the problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's al Qaeda that has been frustrated, first of all. We have already brought to justice, in one way or another, some three-quarters of their known leadership. We are winning this war on terrorism. But as the President said from the very beginning -- go back to 2001 -- this is going to be a long war. It is an unconventional war that we are fighting, as I talked about. This is a sophisticated enemy that we are up against. We have them on the run. They are under a lot of pressure. We have seen, time and again, that people have been brought to justice, people that are members of al Qaeda, as well as other terrorist organizations. And he is someone who is on the run, someone who is hiding. And we've talked about that. [...]
Q My second quick question is, how is your mother repaying you for your loyalty, a new pair of boots or home cooking? [Laughter.]
MR. McCLELLAN: My mother is doing great, thank you. I just saw her this weekend.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:40 PM
| Comments (0)
Here's an exchange that took place (under Scottie's watchful eye, no less) shortly after the New York Times' revelation of the existence of the NSA spying programme:
And here's Scottie hisself during Monday's Press Conference:
The assembled throng, asleep as usual, missed this blatant self-contradiction.
Scottie then continued:
One is to presume that the Administration perceives itself to have talked about it in such a manner as to not give away any operational details. Which brings the self-contradiction full circle: there was never any reason to hide the existence of the programme from the American people.
Which argument is not intended to confer any sort of legitimacy, in this blogger's eyes, upon the programme, nor upon international espionage operations of the type we've been engaged in for decades, nor of the "War On Terror" in general.
One matter, indeed, that this blogger (having first blogged the exact passage in question two-and-a-half years before Osama made it famous) and Osama see eye-to-eye upon is the William Blum method for putting a stop to terrorist attacks against United States interests:
Scottie Contradicts Own Administration, Media Yawns
Here's an exchange that took place (under Scottie's watchful eye, no less) shortly after the New York Times' revelation of the existence of the NSA spying programme:
Q General, what's really compromised by the public knowledge of this program? Don't you assume that the other side thinks we're listening to them? I mean, come on.
GENERAL HAYDEN: The fact that this program has been successful is proof to me that what you claim to be an assumption is certainly not universal. The more we discuss it, the more we put it in the face of those who would do us harm, the more they will respond to this and protect their communications and make it more difficult for us to defend the nation.
And here's Scottie hisself during Monday's Press Conference:
We know that al Qaeda is a very sophisticated enemy. They have sophisticated communications. They are trained in counter-intelligence and counter-surveillance operations.
The assembled throng, asleep as usual, missed this blatant self-contradiction.
Scottie then continued:
We know that they are constantly adapting and changing their tactics. And that's why it's important that we don't get into talking about programs of this nature.
Now, because of its disclosure, we have talked about it in a very limited way, and talked about what it is and what it is not. And we will continue to point that out to the American people.
One is to presume that the Administration perceives itself to have talked about it in such a manner as to not give away any operational details. Which brings the self-contradiction full circle: there was never any reason to hide the existence of the programme from the American people.
Which argument is not intended to confer any sort of legitimacy, in this blogger's eyes, upon the programme, nor upon international espionage operations of the type we've been engaged in for decades, nor of the "War On Terror" in general.
One matter, indeed, that this blogger (having first blogged the exact passage in question two-and-a-half years before Osama made it famous) and Osama see eye-to-eye upon is the William Blum method for putting a stop to terrorist attacks against United States interests:
As I've written elsewhere: If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions, and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:21 PM
| Comments (1)
But that's not all:
And not to mention:
Stay with us, folks:
So, totting up this week's budget action yields the following equation:
$40 Billion in spending cuts - $14 Billion in tax cuts - $20 Billion to blow the shit out of Iraq ($20 Billion more than in 2005, that is) - $20 Billion in new military spending = $14 Billion in additional debt.
This equation, in the sagacious words of Tom DeLay, "will lower the deficit and bring us to balance".
But even though tax cuts for the rich shift the tax burden to the poor (and, via the deficit, their children and grandchildren) while spending cuts for social programmes ensure that the poor will see fewer benefits from their expanded burden, and military recruiting targets this very same sector; at least all that military spending will take care of those who serve their country, right? Uh, not quite:
Nah, your tax dollars are being mainlined straight into Boeing and Lockheed executives' keisters (and, lest we forget, Halliburton's', whose 2005 was "the best" in their eighty-six-year history).
So, are you going to keep paying your Federal Income Taxes, or aren't you? If so, for god's sake why? Do yourself a favour, and consult a War Tax Resistance counselor in your area -- sooner than later.
Meanwhile, even as Oil War #1 falters, it looks to be full steam ahead for Oil War #2. Though #2 is a war from which all manner of Hell could break loose, #3 may already be well into the planning stage.
Maybe Iran will, in agreeing to let Russia enrich uranium for it, pull an Ohio State out of its hat. That would save it some time, but, ultimately, its goose is cooked. (Who wants to bet that the next terrorist attack on American soil will be blamed on the Iranians?) As is Chavez'.
This doesn't mean that future BushWars will be any more successful than his Iraq adventure. But either way, a lot of innocent people will be bombed to kingdome come -- unless Americans drop their car keys to the bottom of a very deep well.
If we really want to, we can stop the American military machine dead in its tracks. It's only a matter of doing so. And unless we do so, it's really not ours to complain.
February 03, 2006
A Gauntlet Has Been Thrown
The House narrowly approved on Wednesday a hard-fought, budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs from Medicaid and welfare to child support and student lending.
With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans.
Women on welfare are likely to face longer hours of work, education or community service to qualify for their checks. Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for nonemergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care.
College students could face higher interest rates when their banks get squeezed by the federal government.
And some cotton farmers will find support payments nicked. State-led efforts to force deadbeat parents to pay their child support may also have to be curtailed.
But that's not all:
The Senate passed $70 billion in tax cuts [over five years] Thursday, one step in an effort Republican leaders hope will preserve President Bush's tax reductions for capital gains and dividends.
And not to mention:
The White House said Thursday that it plans to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two countries to $120 billion this year, the highest ever.
Most of the new money would pay for the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
The additional spending, along with other war funding the Bush administration will seek separately in its regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War. [...]
No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said.
Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute.
Current spending in Afghanistan is about $800 million a month, or about $18,000 per minute.
Stay with us, folks:
President Bush next week will request a $439.3 billion Defense Department budget for 2007, a nearly 5 percent increase over this year, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
The spending plan would include $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which will get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.
So, totting up this week's budget action yields the following equation:
$40 Billion in spending cuts - $14 Billion in tax cuts - $20 Billion to blow the shit out of Iraq ($20 Billion more than in 2005, that is) - $20 Billion in new military spending = $14 Billion in additional debt.
This equation, in the sagacious words of Tom DeLay, "will lower the deficit and bring us to balance".
But even though tax cuts for the rich shift the tax burden to the poor (and, via the deficit, their children and grandchildren) while spending cuts for social programmes ensure that the poor will see fewer benefits from their expanded burden, and military recruiting targets this very same sector; at least all that military spending will take care of those who serve their country, right? Uh, not quite:
After 9/11, hundreds of thousands of America's part-time soldiers answered the call to serve. Along the way, some have asked whether the costs they bear -- from insufficient body armor to mounting debt for their families at home -- is fair.
Now, Massachusetts National Guard soldiers are taking the question straight to the top. They have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they are owed $73 million in food, lodging, and commuting expenses they paid out-of-pocket while activated under state orders to protect sites such as military bases and reservoirs from terrorist attacks.
Nah, your tax dollars are being mainlined straight into Boeing and Lockheed executives' keisters (and, lest we forget, Halliburton's', whose 2005 was "the best" in their eighty-six-year history).
So, are you going to keep paying your Federal Income Taxes, or aren't you? If so, for god's sake why? Do yourself a favour, and consult a War Tax Resistance counselor in your area -- sooner than later.
Meanwhile, even as Oil War #1 falters, it looks to be full steam ahead for Oil War #2. Though #2 is a war from which all manner of Hell could break loose, #3 may already be well into the planning stage.
Maybe Iran will, in agreeing to let Russia enrich uranium for it, pull an Ohio State out of its hat. That would save it some time, but, ultimately, its goose is cooked. (Who wants to bet that the next terrorist attack on American soil will be blamed on the Iranians?) As is Chavez'.
This doesn't mean that future BushWars will be any more successful than his Iraq adventure. But either way, a lot of innocent people will be bombed to kingdome come -- unless Americans drop their car keys to the bottom of a very deep well.
If we really want to, we can stop the American military machine dead in its tracks. It's only a matter of doing so. And unless we do so, it's really not ours to complain.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:15 PM
| Comments (0)
Cindy Sheehan, lamenting the state of the nation in the wake of her arrest yesterday:
Cindy is a true hero, but her anger seems to me misguided. It is in the very nature of any State to crush or marginalise dissenting voices -- and in point of fact, the United States is apparently unique in world history in the degree to which it allows dissenting views to be aired (though not, of course, necessarily heard).
So she shouldn't be angry at the State, really, for simply abiding by its nature. But the question arises: how could hundreds of fellow State-of-the-Union-Address attendees silently gawk at the cops dragging her away from her seat? They could easily have filled the aisles and prevented Cindy's removal from the seating bowl. What, the goons are gonna come in and tear-gas the friggin' State of the Union address shortly before it gets under way?
Sure, sure: a significant number (perhaps even a majority) of the attendees were in favour of her being hauled off of the hallowed grounds. But that is their shame -- not the State's.
A people that doesn't assert its rights probably doesn't deserve them. So how could the teevee-viewing public express its solidarity with Cindy Sheehan? Easy: vote out of office any congressperson who doesn't, in the next day or so, put into the official record his or her disgust at Sheehan's arrest, and promise to never let such a thing happen again.
If we can't even manage that, then we've only ourselves to blame at the erosion of our rights.
February 01, 2006
Cindy
Cindy Sheehan, lamenting the state of the nation in the wake of her arrest yesterday:
I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.
Cindy is a true hero, but her anger seems to me misguided. It is in the very nature of any State to crush or marginalise dissenting voices -- and in point of fact, the United States is apparently unique in world history in the degree to which it allows dissenting views to be aired (though not, of course, necessarily heard).
So she shouldn't be angry at the State, really, for simply abiding by its nature. But the question arises: how could hundreds of fellow State-of-the-Union-Address attendees silently gawk at the cops dragging her away from her seat? They could easily have filled the aisles and prevented Cindy's removal from the seating bowl. What, the goons are gonna come in and tear-gas the friggin' State of the Union address shortly before it gets under way?
Sure, sure: a significant number (perhaps even a majority) of the attendees were in favour of her being hauled off of the hallowed grounds. But that is their shame -- not the State's.
A people that doesn't assert its rights probably doesn't deserve them. So how could the teevee-viewing public express its solidarity with Cindy Sheehan? Easy: vote out of office any congressperson who doesn't, in the next day or so, put into the official record his or her disgust at Sheehan's arrest, and promise to never let such a thing happen again.
If we can't even manage that, then we've only ourselves to blame at the erosion of our rights.