11/1/06 Olbermann?s Special Comment

An incredible piece of oratory.

Crooks and Liars » Olbermann?s Special Comment : There is no line this President has not crossed ? nor will not cross ? to keep one political party, in power.:

"And finally tonight, a Special Comment.

On the 22nd of May, 1856, as the deteriorating American political system veered towards the edge of the cliff, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, shuffled into the Senate of this nation, his leg stiff from an old dueling injury, supported by a cane. And he looked for the familiar figure of the prominent Senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner.

Brooks found Sumner at his desk, mailing out copies of a speech he had delivered three days earlier ? a speech against slavery.

The Congressman matter-of-factly raised his walking stick in mid-air, and smashed its metal point, across the Senator's head.

Congressman Brooks hit his victim repeatedly. Senator Sumner somehow got to his feet and tried to flee. Brooks chased him, and delivered untold blows to Sumner's head. Even though Sumner lay unconscious and bleeding, on the Senate floor, Brooks finally stopped beating him, only because his cane finally broke.

Others will cite John Brown's attack on the arsenal at Harper's Ferry as the exact point after which the Civil War became inevitable.

In point of fact, it might have been the moment ? not when Brooks broke his cane over the prostrate body of Senator Sumner - but when voters in Brooks's district started sending him new canes.

Tonight, we almost wonder to whom President Bush will send the next new cane.

There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame.

There is no line this President has not crossed ? nor will not cross ? to keep one political party, in power.

He has spread any and every fear among, in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears ? some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency.

And now it is evident that it no longer matters to him, whether that effort to avoid the judgment of the people, is subtle and nuanced ? or laughably transparent.

Senator John Kerry called him out Monday.

He did it two years too late.

He had been too cordial ? just as Vice President Gore had been too cordial in 2000 ? just as millions of us, have been too cordial ever since.

Senator Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor, he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial.

He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education ? that quote "if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq."

The Senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid.

The context was unmistakable: Texas;the state of denial;stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.

And Mr. Bush and his minions responded, by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid.

They demanded Kerry apologize ? to the troops in Iraq.

And so he now has.

That phrase "appearing to be too stupid" is used deliberately, Mr. Bush.

Because there are only three possibilities here:

One, sir, is that you are far more stupid than the worst of your critics have suggested; that you could not follow the construction of a simple sentence; that you could not recognize your own life story when it was deftly summarized; that you could not perceive it was the sad ledger of your presidency that was being recounted.

This, of course, compliments you, Mr. Bush, because even those who do not "make the most of it," who do not "study hard," who do not "do their homework," and who do not "make an effort to be smart" might still just be stupid ? but honest.

No; the first option, sir, is, at best, improbable. You are not honest.

The second option is that you and those who work for you deliberately twisted what Senator Kerry said to fit your political template. That you decided to take advantage of it, to once again pretend that the attacks, solely about your own incompetence, were in fact attacks on the troops ? or even on the nation itself.

The third possibility is, obviously, the nightmare scenario; that the first two options are in some way conflated.

That it is both politically convenient for you, and personally satisfying to you, to confuse yourself with the country for which, sir, you work.

A brief reminder, Mr. Bush: You are not the United States of America.

You are merely a politician whose entire legacy will have been a willingness to make anything political ? to have, in this case, refused to acknowledge that the insult wasn't about the troops, and that the insult was not even truly about you either ? that the insult, in fact, is you.

So now John Kerry has apologized to the troops; apologized for the Republicans' deliberate distortions.

Thus the President will now begin the apologies he owes our troops, right?

This President must apologize to the troops ? for having suggested, six weeks ago, that the chaos in Iraq, the death and the carnage, the slaughtered Iraqi civilians and the dead American service personnel, will, to history, quote "look like just a comma."

This President must apologize to the troops ? because the intelligence he claims led us into Iraq proved to be undeniably and irredeemably wrong.

This President must apologize to the troops ? for having laughed about the failure of that intelligence, at a banquet, while our troops were in harm's way.

This President must apologize to the troops ? because the streets of Iraq were not strewn with flowers and its residents did not greet them as liberators.

This President must apologize to the troops ? because his administration ran out of "plan" after barely two months.

This President must apologize to the troops ? for getting 2,815 of them killed.

This President must apologize to the troops ? for getting this country into a war without a clue.

And Mr. Bush owes us an apology? for this destructive and omnivorous presidency.

?

We will not receive them, of course.

This President never apologizes.

Not to the troops.

Not to the people.

Nor will those henchmen who have echoed him.

In calling him a "stuffed suit," Senator Kerry was wrong about the Press Secretary.

Mr. Snow's words and conduct ? falsely earnest and earnestly false ? suggest he is not "stuffed" - he is inflated.

And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.

He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.

Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.

He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.

Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.

And exploit all the veterans, and all the still-serving personnel, in a cheap and tawdry political trick, to try to bury the truth: that John Kerry said the President had been stupid.

And to continue this slander as late as this morning ? as biased, or gullible, or lazy newscasters, nodded in sleep-walking assent.

Senator McCain became a front man in a collective lie to break sticks over the heads of Democrats ? one of them his friend; another his fellow veteran, leg-less, for whom he should weep and applaud, or at minimum about whom, he should stay quiet.

That was beneath the Senator from Arizona.

And it was all because of an imaginary insult to the troops that his party cynically manufactured ? out of a desperation, and a futility, as deep as that of Congressman Brooks, when he went hunting for Senator Sumner.

This, is our beloved country now, as you have re-defined it, Mr. Bush.

Get a tortured Vietnam veteran to attack a decorated Vietnam veteran, in defense of military personnel, whom that decorated veteran did not insult.

Or, get your henchmen to take advantage of the evil lingering dregs of the fear of miscegenation in Tennessee, in your party's advertisements against Harold Ford.

Or, get the satellites who orbit around you, like Rush Limbaugh, to exploit the illness ? and the bi-partisanship ? of Michael J. Fox ? yes, get someone to make fun of the cripple.

Oh, and sir, don't forget to drag your own wife into it.

"It's always easy," she said of Mr. Fox's commercials ? and she used this phrase twice ? "to manipulate people's feelings."

Where on earth might the First Lady have gotten that idea, Mr. President?

From your endless manipulation of people's feelings about terrorism?

"How ever they put it," you said Monday of the Democrats, on the subject of Iraq , "their approach comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses."

No manipulation of feelings there.

No manipulation of the charlatans of your administration into the only truth-tellers.

No shocked outrage at the Kerry insult that wasn't; no subtle smile as the First Lady silently sticks the knife in Michael J. Fox's back; no attempt on the campaign trail to bury the reality that you have already assured that the terrorists are winning.

Winning in Iraq, sir.

Winning in America, sir.

There, we have chaos: joint U.S./Iraqi checkpoints at Sadr City, the base of the radical Shiite militias ? and the Americans have been ordered out by the Prime Minister of Iraq? and our Secretary of Defense doesn't even know about it!

And here ? we have deliberate, systematic, institutionalized lying and smearing and terrorizing ? a code of deceit, that somehow permits a President to say, quote, "If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one."

Permits him to say this while his plan in Iraq has amounted to a twisted version of the advice once offered to Lyndon Johnson about his Iraq, called Vietnam.

Instead of "declare victory ? and get out"? we now have "declare victory ? and stay, indefinitely."

And also here, we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition. True domestic terror:

? Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax.

? Braying newspapers applaud, or laugh, or reveal details the FBI wished kept quiet, and thus impede or ruin the investigation.

? A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper that published "national security information" ? that was openly available on the internet.

? One radio critic receives a letter, threatening the revelation of as much personal information about her as can be obtained ? and expressing the hope that someone will then shoot her with an AK-47 machine gun.

? And finally, a critic of an incumbent Republican Senator, a critic armed with nothing but words, is attacked by the Senator's supporters, and thrown to the floor, in full view of television cameras, as if someone really did want to re-enact the intent and the rage of the day Preston Brooks found Senator Charles Sumner.

Of course, Mr. President, you did none of these things.

You instructed no one to mail the fake anthrax. Nor undermine the FBI's case. Nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times. Nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller. Nor beat up a man yelling at Senator Allen. Nor have the first lady knife Michael J. Fox. Nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry.

No, you did not.

And the genius of the thing, is the same, as in King Henry's rhetorical question about Archbishop Thomas Becket: "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

All you have to do, sir? is hand out enough new canes."

Happy Halloween

The Cheney's Home at the Naval Observatory Has Important Guests

Guess we know a bit more about what the Cheney's are thinking now that we know that Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services was seen at their home earlier this month.

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally

In a last ditch effort to place blame squarely where it belongs, Bush finally explains to us who the real enemies are.

Remarks by the President at Georgia Victory 2006 Rally:

"So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.)

In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done."

Extra credit to the first of us to use this in a final exam question.

Bush "Upbeat" on Iraq?

Just to add to the head-shaking about how far this can go before something, anything, gives...

Bush "Upbeat" on Iraq?: " Last week, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and senior White House officials, in hopes of shoring up the GOP's sagging poll numbers before the November 7 midterm election, went on a media blitz, granting on-the-record interviews to dozens of conservative print and broadcast reporters. One of those interviews resulted in a backlash against the White House when Cheney told a reporter that, for him, water-boarding, a controversial technique used against terror suspects that simulates drowning, was a 'no brainer.'

But poring through another transcript revealed statements made by President Bush during a lengthy interview at the White House with conservative columnists that are equally disturbing but that have not been reported with the same gusto and zeal as the reports that Cheney backed water torture.

While discussing the situation in Iraq and explaining the reasons the United States launched a pre-emptive strike against the country, Bush told the journalists that 'I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing,' according to a transcript of the interview."

State of the Presidential Press Briefing October 2006

I've got zero time right now, but I just can't let this friday's Press Briefing pass without documentation.

This might get long, but read on if you want a synopsis of the misama of misinformation that is the relationship between press and administration. Dick's balls got way out in front of him again, and now the WH team has to spin like there is no tomorrow to manage what could have been the admission of a war crime by a chief executive.

I don't know what pains me more...The insanity involved in grown ups talking to each other like this, or the total powerlessness of all legal or political institutions to hold the administration accountable.

10/27 Press Briefing by Tony Snow:

Q Tony, your argument that Vice President Cheney didn't know that he was being asked about water boarding or wasn't being asked about water boarding and didn't intend to give an answer that suggested he was saying the United States uses water boarding, it doesn't follow when you read the transcript and it doesn't follow sort of common sense.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what he --

Q How can you really make that argument?

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what he said. He was asked the question, "You dunk somebody's head in the water to save a life, is it a no-brainer?" And also, if you read the rest of the answer, he also -- the Vice President, who earlier had also been asked about torture, he said, "We don't torture."

Snow here shows some of his cards...No one brings up the issue of international law and just how serious such an admission would be legally and yet he intones:

Let me give you the no-brainers here. No-brainer number one is, we don't torture. No-brainer number two: We don't break the law, our own or international law. No-brainer number three: The Vice President doesn't give away questioning techniques...The Vice President says he was talking in general terms about a questioning program that is legal to save American lives, and he was not referring to water boarding.

He didn't say what he said. Besides, he would not have said it anyway.

Q Then how can you say that he's not referring to water boarding, when it was very clear, when you look at the whole context, not only that specific question --

MR. SNOW: Does the word --

Q -- but the one before?

MR. SNOW: Did the word "water boarding" appear?

Q It came up in the context of talking about interrogation techniques and the entire debate that has been conducted in this country.

Well, I've been reading these gaggles and briefings pretty regularly for the last six years, and I must admit that this was one occassion in which the press corps members were not willing to give the Administration the last word on anything.

Q Let's back it up here for a second, because what we're saying is -- and I've got the transcript -- "Would you agree a dunk in water is a 'no-brainer' that can save lives?" Vice President: "It's a 'no-brainer' for me." Tony --

MR. SNOW: Read the rest of the answer.

Q What could "dunk in the water" refer to if not water boarding?

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you -- I'm telling you the Vice President's position. I will let you draw your own conclusions, because you clearly have. He says he wasn't talking --

Q I haven't drawn any conclusions. I'm asking for an explanation about what "dunk in the water" could mean.

MR. SNOW: How about a dunk in the water?

Alright, it is obvious to all thinking creatures that they've got no option left but deny deny deny. But still, how could he say it? What the hell could he be thinking of when he allows these words to pass over his lips?

But the press throws it right back in his face:

Q So, wait a minute, so "dunk in the water" means what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo, and they go swimming?

MR. SNOW: Are you doing stand up?

...

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you what the Vice President says. I can't go any further, and I'm not going to engage in what-could-he-mean because he said what he meant. He said -- he said he wasn't talking about water boarding.

Again we seen signs that the WH has tacitly or explicitly admitted that IF Dick HAD been talking about water-boarding as a tactic we use, THEN he'd be fucked.

Q One follow on this, because what you said in the morning was, "You think Dick Cheney is going to slip up on something like this?" Is it possible that he's not slipping up at all --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q -- but that he's winking to the base and saying --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q -- "of course we water board, and of course we'll do anything we need to to get the information because he knows that what they do --

MR. SNOW: I think you just won the cynical question of the year award. No, I don't.

Q How is that cynical?

Q No, no, no. There are more.

MR. SNOW: Jim, you can bang away as much as you want. I'm telling you what the Vice President's -- I talked to Lea Anne about it. She says no, he wasn't referring to water boarding; he was referring to using a program of questioning -- not talking about water boarding.

Let me put it this way. You got Dick Cheney, who had been head of an intelligence committee. He's been the Secretary of Defense. He's been the Vice President. He's not a guy who slips up, and he's also not a guy who does winks and nods about things that involve matters that you don't talk about for political reasons. Sorry.

But this time they fire back:

Q Why did the Vice President then, when the inference was clearly there from the questioner, who more than once referred to a dunk in the water --

MR. SNOW: I believe that his office is --

Q Let me finish. He, in the questioning, talked about how his radio listeners believe that this is a useful tool. "If it takes dunking someone in order to save lives, isn't it a silly debate to even be questioning that?" The Vice President says, "I do agree," later says, "That's been a very important tool that we've been able to secure the nation" -- referring to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

If the Vice President is so careful, why did he allow himself to answer a question in which "dunking in the water" was a part of that question?

MR. SNOW: The answer -- look, he was answering a question. And also as you know, he went on to talk about torture. Look, I've said what I'm going to say on it. I can't -- I really -- what you're asking me to do is to deconstruct something. I've asked what he meant. I've told you what he said he meant. I can't go any further than that, so you can ask all the whys and wherefores.

Did you catch that? Derrida's revenge?

And the hits keep on coming...

Q He was asked about a technique, and he responded to a technique, and said that he agreed --

MR. SNOW: No, he was not asked -- he was not asked, no.

Q Informally, he did.

MR. SNOW: No, informally doesn't work.

Q It does in the context of a radio interview --

Q You're quibbling over semantics, to borrow your phrase. You're quibbling over semantics.

MR. SNOW: I know. But, no, I think -- I actually think --

Q He's in a conversation with a radio audience to speak to the American people.

MR. SNOW: I understand all that.

Q It doesn't have to be legally precise. The Vice President understood what the questioner was asking.

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you -- and I will tell you once again -- the Vice President says that he refers to the fact that when you're questioning people, you don't torture. You obey the law, and you protect the American people. We're not going to go any further.

Q Tony, is it not possible that the two are not mutually exclusive? In other words, that the Vice President does not construe water boarding as torture, and therefore, to him --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, no --

Q -- when he says "dunk in the water," that's a serious question. You can't just sort of beg off and say, I'm sorry, I'm not going to deconstruct it.

MR. SNOW: No, but, Jennifer -- Jennifer, you've listened -- there have been statements out of that office for two consecutive days that say they don't talk about water boarding, they don't talk about torture, they don't condone torture. They're not going to talk about techniques.

Q All we're asking is, what's a "dunk in the water"?

Q He agrees with it. We want to know what that means.

MR. SNOW: All right.

Q If he agrees with a "dunk in the water," then --

I guess grown ups do occassionally get tired of having to have discussions such as these. Exhibit A:

Q To say that Vice President Cheney doesn't make mistakes like this, he did go up and curse a senator to his face on the Senate floor, and accidentally shot his friend, so he's not perfect. (Laughter.)

Here comes Helen Thomas. Tony Snow's smart, though. He knows who she is and where she's coming from. She's one of "You Guys".

Q Is the emphasis on "we don't torture" when we send captives to notorious places that do torture? Does that absolve you?

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- as we've said many times, when we move people to another place, we have to have assurances that there will be no torture, and the treatment will be in accordance with international law.

Q Why do you send them there? Why? Why don't you keep them in your own captivity?

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute, I thought you guys wanted to close off Guantanamo. The only way you do that -- we quite often try to repatriate people to places --

I think Snow's assignment was to keep saying "VP meant dunk in water, like he said." And to say absolutely nothing more than this. Oops. Now watch him try to close THIS door. Exhibit B

Q I think the larger issue is credibility -- yours and the White House's. We're talking both in this instance and yesterday about very clear -- about specific language where you refute the semantic differences within the language and refuse to acknowledge what's very clear.

MR. SNOW: No, I can understand that people will look at this and draw the conclusions that you're trying to draw, as for yesterday.

I understand this. We will try to deal with it. I think you guys are -- maybe it's the end of the week. You're getting whipped into a frenzy.

Exhibit C

Q Do you have contempt for the American people, do you think they don't understand?

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying -- no, I think it is because you guys know Dick Cheney. You know the issue. I will go back and I will try to find some language for you.

Q We don't know him.

Q That's a logical fallacy.

Q Will he disavow dunking people in water as a part of the robust interrogation --

Q Clarify something. A couple seconds ago, you said, "I can understand why people look at this and draw this conclusion."

MR. SNOW: Well, because you're going to talk about dunks in the water, and I know people say, "oh, that must mean water boarding." I mean I understand that you'd draw that, so we'll get into it.

Q Wouldn't you draw that conclusion if you were reading this?

MR. SNOW: No, I wouldn't because I know the Vice President, and I know the way people think in the White House.

Ah, well, that settles it then.

The real meaning of Obama's speech. - By Amy Sullivan - Slate Magazine

The real meaning of Obama's speech. - By Amy Sullivan - Slate Magazine:

This is not to the point of the article, but a wonderful rendition of the DB value (which I put at -6.54) of Bush w/ regard to those voices he hears:

"For the past six years, the most prominent Christian in America has been the president. His belief is not of the 'God said it. I believe it. That settles it,' sort that fundamentalists embrace. Rather, Bush subscribes to a syllogistic doctrine of presidential infallibility: God works through Christians; I am a Christian; I have decided to do X; therefore, X is God's will."

Coming War w/ Iran (among others...)

Ellsberg's open call for insider disclosure of Iran Plans:

The Next War (Harpers.org): "A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark. The current situation is very like that of 1964, the year preceding our overt, open-ended escalation of the Vietnam War, and 2002, the year leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In both cases, if one or more conscientious insiders had closed the information gap with unauthorized disclosures to the public, a disastrous war might have been averted entirely."

The complete work of Charles Darwin:

"The largest collection of Darwin's writings ever assembled"

Nov. 5th Surprise

In case you guys didn't see this piece in the Nation.

The US-backed special tribunal in Baghdad signalled Monday that it will likely delay a verdict in the first trial of Saddam Hussein to November 5. Why hasn't the mainstream media connected the dots between the Saddam's judgment day and the midterm elections?

Absolute Freedom and Terror

WSJ.com:

"A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting 'existential terror' in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes."

Bush Increasingly Finds Reality "Unacceptable"

Bush Confounded by the 'Unacceptable' - washingtonpost.com:

"President Bush finds the world around him increasingly 'unacceptable.'

In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems 'unacceptable,' including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[snip]

But a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.

In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes "unacceptable" or "not acceptable" as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. They number 37 so far this year, as opposed to five in 2003, 18 in 2002 and 14 in 2001."

Chickens comin'...

Aide says White House mocked evangelicals: "A former senior presidential aide has accused the Bush administration of using evangelical Christians to win votes but then privately ridiculing them once in office. The allegations by David Kuo, the former deputy director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives, come at a devastating time, when the administration is counting on born-again Christians to vote in sufficient numbers to save the Republicans' hold on Congress in the November elections."

Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000

Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates - WSJ.com:

"WASHINGTON -- A new study asserts that roughly 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a figure many times higher than any previous estimate.

The study, to be published Saturday in the British medical journal the Lancet, was conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health by sending teams of Iraqi doctors across Iraq from May through July."

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Gaza sliding into civil war

Gaza sliding into civil war:

When they buried Rafiq Siam, the traffic stopped and hundreds of armed men, some firing into the air, gathered at the Gaza mosque. Eight men wearing red berets and black combat uniforms lifted his body wrapped in a white shroud and Palestinian flag and carried it inside with as much ceremony as the pressing crowd would allow.

As Yusuf Siam stood to greet mourners, a boy arrived with a handful of papers marked from the al-Aqsa Brigade, a Fatah-affiliated militant group, and handed them out. The letter offered condolences to the family and then vowed revenge. 'For the families of the people who lost their sons at the hands of Hamas we swear that their blood will not be spilt for nothing,' it said. 'We will give a lesson to Hamas.'

There are signs that this is more serious than rhetorical rivalry between militants. 'The Palestinian situation is marred by sharp divisions and battling; it is a misery and shameful for any Arab and any Palestinian,' Egypt's foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who has tried to mediate in this crisis, told the Al-Ahram newspaper this week. Some senior Palestinians are openly warning now of the danger of civil war."

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Japan bans all trade with North Korea

Bush on the 'well, he started it' defense...

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Japan bans all trade with North Korea: "Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, urged Pyongyang not to escalate an already 'extremely difficult situation'.

He urged the US to enter direct talks with North Korea, something which Washington consistently refuses to do. 'I have always argued that we should talk to parties whose behaviour we want to change,' Mr Annan said.

Mr Bush rejected criticism from Democrats that he had failed to build on a 1994 deal with North Korea agreed by then president, Bill Clinton.'It is the intransigence of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, that led to the current situation,' said Mr Bush."

US Soldiers Wounded in Iraq Reaches Highest Monthly Level

US Soldiers Wounded in Iraq Reaches Highest Monthly Level: " The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003."

"September was horrific" in terms of the toll of wounded, and if the early October trend continues, this month could be "the worst month of the war," said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based Web site that tracks defense issues.

The Observer | World | Hidden victims of a brutal conflict: Iraq's women

The Observer | World | Hidden victims of a brutal conflict: Iraq's women: "They came for Dr Khaula al-Tallal in a white Opel car after she took a taxi home to the middle class district of Qadissiya in Iraq's holy city of Najaf. She worked for the medical committee that examined patients to assess them for welfare benefit. Crucially, however, she was a woman in a country where being a female professional increasingly invites a death sentence.

As al-Tallal, 50, walked towards her house, one of three men in the Opel stepped out and raked her with bullets.

A women's rights campaigner, Umm Salam - a nickname - knows about the three men in the Opel: they tried to kill her on 11 December last year. It was a Sunday, she recalls, and 15 bullets were fired into her own car as she drove home from teaching at an internet cafe. A man in civilian clothes got out of the car and opened fire. Three bullets hit her, one lodging close to her spinal cord. Her 20-year-old son was hit in the chest. Umm Salam saw the gun - a police-issue Glock. She is convinced her would-be assassin works for the state."

All Things Interesting

uber-amazing canolli made by Frodo...so good.

Adorno and Flat Daddy

No, its not an Adorno riff on Jazz.

Read this Times Article on the 'replacement' daddies that are being handed out by the military and then tell me that Adorno is wrong. Just in case you wonder what a flat daddy is:
"Flat Daddies have been used by military families since at least 2003, when Cindy Sorenson of Bismarck, N.D., ordered a life-size photo of her former husband, Capt. Dave Bruschwein, on a piece of foam board when he was stationed in Iraq with the North Dakota National Guard."

Adorno's reflections on saying good-bye today:

To be lastingly apart and to hold love fast has become unthinkable. ?O parting, fountain of all words,? but it has run dry, and nothing comes out except bye, bye or ta-ta. Airmail and courier delivery substitute logistical problems for the anxious wait for the letter, even where the absent partner has not jettisoned anything not palpably to hand as ballast. Airline directors can hold jubilee speeches on how much uncertainty and sorrow people are thereby spared. But the liquidation of parting is a matter of life and death to the traditional notion of humanity. Who could still love if the moment is excluded when the other, corporeal being is perceived as an image compressing the whole continuity of life as into a heavy fruit? What would hope be without distance? Humanity was the awareness of the presence of that not present, which evaporates in a condition which accords all things not present the palpable semblance of presence and immediacy, and hence has only scorn for what finds no enjoyment in such simulation. Yet to insist on parting?s inner possibility in face of its pragmatic impossibility would be a lie, for the inward does not unfold within itself but only in relation to the objective, and to make ?inward? a collapsed outwardness does violence to the inward itself, which is left to sustain itself as if on its own flame. The restoration of gestures would follow the example of the professor of German literature who, on Christmas Eve, held his sleeping children for a moment before the shining tree to cause a déjà vu and steep them in myth. A humanity come of age will have to transcend its own concept of the emphatically human, positively. Otherwise its absolute negation, the inhuman, will carry off victory.

CNN.com - Military official: Iranian millions funding insurgency - Sep 28, 2006

here we go again...another front in the propoganda war...

CNN.com - Military official: Iranian millions funding insurgency - Sep 28, 2006: "A Shiite Muslim militia involved in the warfare between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq has received 'millions of dollars' and an assortment of weaponry from Iran, a senior U.S. military official says.

The official said Iran -- which is overwhelmingly Shiite and largely Persian -- tries to spread its largess to other militants as well, but can wield only so much influence throughout Iraq -- which, while predominantly Shiite, is largely Arab.

He said Iran is not trying to fuel civil war in Iraq, but rather is trying to make sure it retains some influence with whichever group comes out on top in Iraq.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, briefed reporters Wednesday about the conflict in Iraq. A transcript of that briefing was issued Thursday. (Watch why the U.S. strategy may fail in Iraq -- 1:45)"

Bye-Bye Habeas Rights

Senate Narrowly Rejects Detainee Bill Amendment

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 12:42 PM

The Senate today narrowly rejected a measure that would have allowed suspected terrorists to challenge their detention in federal court, as the body moved closer to passing a White House-backed bill to authorize special military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

The article goes on to say that the full measure, which the House already passed toady, will likely be passed by the senate later today.

Something for them to take home to voters, I guess. "Well folks, I voted for the bill that lets us torture terrorists and detain them forever without any possibility of them ever seeing a judge." Build a fence around America, authorize torture, suspend habeas corpus, all in a day's work for the 109th Congress.

The Blog | Steve Clemons: BIG NEWS: John Bolton Confirmation Battle Really, Really Dead | The Huffington Post

The Blog | Steve Clemons: BIG NEWS: John Bolton Confirmation Battle Really, Really Dead | The Huffington Post: "The last pre-election loophole through which John Bolton's confirmation might have snuck through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at 2:15 this afternoon at a previously called 'business meeting' of the Committee.

That meeting has been cancelled -- and with it even the dimmest chance of John Bolton being confirmed as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Some have said that another effort could be mounted during a lame duck session of Congress, but there are several Republicans who will not feel bound by the White House in that circumstance; Dems as well -- who will vote against cloture on the floor of the Senate were it to get out of Committee then.

So, it's over. Wow.

John Bolton might agree to serve as the uncompensated Ambassador to the UN in a second recess appointment, or might agree to serve as a recess appointed political deputy at the UN and made 'acting Ambassador and Chief of Mission' at a pay cut.

Either way, Ambassador Bolton will fill his term as the only unconfirmed Ambassador at the United Nations in American history."

Chavez's Book Club?

After Chavez told everyone to read Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival, it lept to #1 on Amazon's best seller list. It was at around 20,000.

I heard this on the BBC this morning, but couldn't find a link to the story.

Diff between social and political philosophy

At times when I wonder what the real difference is between these, I think of Wolin's distinction below. So how do you sort out the answer to the question of difference here between social and political (and politics for that matter, e.g. do political philosophers necessarily do social philosophy?) ? This is from "Fugitive Democracy" in Benhabib's book "Democracy and Difference":

I shall take the political to be an expression of the idea that a free society composed of diversities can nonetheless enjoy moments of commonality when, through public deliberationsk collective power is used to promote or protect the well-being of the collectivity. Politics refers to the legitimized and public contestation, primarily by organized and unequal social powers, over access to the resources available to the public authorities of the collectivity. Politics is continuous, ceaseless, and endless. In contrast, the political is episodic, rare. (31)

English Russia » Soviet Propaganda Against USA (posters)

English Russia » Soviet Propaganda Against USA (posters)

Some very interesting historical pieces dealing with Vietnam and Chile too.
Russian below reads: Road to Peace

Washington Post: Innocent Canadian Tortured

washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com:

"TORONTO, Sept. 18 - Canadian intelligence officials passed false warnings and bad information to American agents about a Muslim Canadian citizen, after which U.S. authorities secretly whisked him to Syria, where he was tortured, a judicial report found Monday."

The geist of Phil Ochs

Here's to the State of Dick Cheney:

"In a solo acoustic remake of folk singer Phil Ochs? 'Here?s to the State of Mississippi,' Eddie Vedder takes on Chief Justice John Roberts, Dick Cheney, Jerry Falwell, Alberto Gonzalez and, of course, President Bush."

Hard to make out all the new lyrics (co-authored with Tim Robbins), but if you watch the whole video you learn that Phil planted secret messages to later generations in the techniques required to play him.

Setting up a Frak Party

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: In a replay of Iraq, a battle is brewing over intelligence on Iran

I understand that Rumsfeld has set up a new office in the Pentagon that has the same personnel and same task as the pre-Iraq invasion's "Office of Special Projects". And this time they also have some "old friends" on the inside to allow them their "Some people say". Why fix it if it ain't broke?

The Seattle Times:

"Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-contra scandal.

Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran's nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.

The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three."

Thai Prime Minister Declares State of Emergency - New York Times

Thai Prime Minister Declares State of Emergency:

"The sudden, well-orchestrated coup -- the first in 15 years and a throwback to an unsettled era in Thailand -- was likely to spark both enthusiasm and criticism at home and abroad. The military said it would soon return power to a democratic government but did not say when.

Striking when Thaksin was in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, army commander Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin sent tanks and troops into the drizzly, nighttime streets of Bangkok. The military ringed Thaksin's offices, seized control of television stations and declared a provisional authority loyal to the king."

U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel - washingtonpost.com

U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel - washingtonpost.com: "U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document 'outrageous and dishonest' and offering evidence to refute its central claims."

Snapshot of US public opinion, September 11 2006

Gotta love Doxastic Polling:

Rasmussen typically trends as a Republican polling outfit, for what it is worth...Many seem to be revising significant beliefs and adopting new self-understandings.

"Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many Americans have believed that the events of that horrible day changed the United States forever."

"In the immediate aftermath, 57% thought the nation had changed for the better. That number actually grew to 61% by January 2002. Now, half a decade later, just 21% of American adults hold that optimistic view. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the changes have been for the worse.

Three years ago, 67% of all Americans believed the world would be a better place if other countries were more like our own. Today, that number has fallen to 51%.

Early in 2002, 61% thought the country was safer than it was before 9/11 (about the same as believed that a year ago). Today, that number has fallen to 36%."

Today, 41% of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Two years ago, more than 50% held that view.

[snip]

"The increasing pessimism has caused Americans to revise their assessment of the way that President Bush responded to the terrorist attacks. Today, just 42% rate his performance as good or excellent. That?s down from 51% a year ago and 56% two years ago."

"Almost a third, 32%, now say the President?s response was poor."

A1 Washington Post, September 11 2006

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq:

"The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq."

Christian Science Monitor: Conservative declared winner in Mexico. Revolution?

At last, a victor in Mexico
[snip]
Unlike Al Gore in 2000, Mexico's runner-up Andrés Manuel López Obrador (aka AMLO) has refused to concede defeat. The populist leader - who has slept in a tent with his followers in the middle of Mexico City for more than a month - has vowed to set up a "parallel" government and says that Mexico needs a "revolution."

[snip] But, never underestimate the power of working together to stop 'unruliness':

"Both parties have pragmatic reasons to work together to counterbalance the unruly behavior of the PRD," says David Shirk, director of the Trans-border Institute at the University of San Diego. "It's actually a good thing, in terms of coalition-building, made possible by the PRI's weakness, the PAN's slight gains, and the fact that those two parties can identify a common adversary in the PRD."
[snip]
But, any sort of rebellion seems to depend on whether Obrador can get people to sit out in the middle of the capital until sept. 16:

On Mexico's Independence Day, Sept. 16, the day Obrador has called for the national convention and the day the military usually marches down streets that are now blocked by protesters, confrontations are expected. "It would not be hard to imagine that he gets the demonstrators to stay in place. This produces a clash with military. That will have reverberations that we can't anticipate," says Mr. de la Garza.

AlterNet: War on Iraq: The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers

AlterNet: War on Iraq: The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers: "Halliburton has become synonymous with war profiteering, but there are lots of other greedy fingers in the pie. We name names on 10 of the worst."

Mexico protesters silence president

Mexico protesters silence president: "In a move that should awaken Americans from their slumber, leftist leaders denied President Fox access to parliament to give his farewell speech. This in the face of a growing disagreement over voter fraud, the same which had occurred in the United States where the Conservative party denied Blacks the right to vote in key districts and used rigged voting machines to give Bush an advantage. With growing dissent in Mexico, the leader of the opposition, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has said that a government in exile will be establish if a vote by vote recount is not ordered."

British Police Arrest 14 Men in Anti-Terror Raids - New York Times

uh-oh, thought police held psychic surveillance for months and raid halal restaurant:

British Police Arrest 14 Men in Anti-Terror Raids - New York Times: "
?All I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in are into the thousands. That includes a whole range of people, not just terrorists, not just attackers, but the people who might be tempted to support or encourage or to assist,? he said."

Interesting Elitist Look at how the other 85% lives

From the Nyt: At 2-Year Colleges, Students Eager but Unready

Peak Oil

In case you guys didn't know, we're fucked. Even Bloomberg News has a report on it.

I think this site is fairly good at explaining it and dealing with counter args. Well, have a nice day.

PS where's my translation reward?

Repository's First-Ever Translation Contest

Who can be the first to give me any kind of translation help with the following:

Beisichsein

Prizes will be awarded

Bush, relating you to the Other

Bush Shifting Public Focus to Terrorism and Iraq War - New York Times:

"We face an enemy that has an ideology," Mr. Bush continued. "They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.?"

"Socialism can only arrive by bicycle."
- Jose Antonio Viera-Gallo, Chilean senator

Free Energy?! Perpetual Motion Machine!?

So, Funga got me back in and here is one thing for your consideration.

Steorn, an Irish company, announced with a full page ad in The Economist that they have successfully developed a machine that outputs more energy than you put into it with no degradation of the component parts. The stated purpose of the Economist ad was to get everyone's attention in order to put together teams of engineers and scientists to do independent tests of 'the gadget.' Of course, if true, the first law of thermodynamics is out the window. Thus, by modus tolens, it is not true? Might also check out SteornWatch or the Wikipedia entry.

How clearly he puts it...

President meets with soldiers' families:

"One anti-war widow said she used the opportunity to voice her objections to Bush's policies.

'I said it's time to stop the bleeding,' said Hildi Halley, whose husband, Army National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, died June 15 in Afghanistan. 'It's time to swallow our pride and find a solution.'

She said Bush responding by saying 'there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war.'"

Lebanon satellite images - Amnesty International

From the story about Israeli war crimes in Lebanon here, the images below are disturbing. There are no corpses, just aerial pics, but the devastation was on a scale I hadn't realized...

Lebanon satellite images - Amnesty International: "Before and after images of Lebanon. "

Background on the domestic wiretapping debate

Finished teaching this (and the Hamdan case right before that) in my phl of law class a couple of days before the ruling came down. Here are some more resources. Fun reading, seriously.

The main letters from the DOJ justifying the program along with resposnses by an organization of lefties including Dworkin, Tribe, and David Cole.

David Cole arguing that the Hamdan decision is basically a rejection of Bush's assertion of Presidential power."Why the Court said No."

My humble opinion, the cout is saying "look congress, get off your asses and actually authorize something if you're going to authorize it. You might be up for reelection, but we're here for life." The claim never really goes beyond that. Though, interestingly, if you look at the War Crimes Act of 1996, which says that any violation of the Geneva conventions is a war crime that can be prosecuted in the United States, and read it together with the Hamdan decision, which does come out and say that the Military Tribunals had already violated Hamdan's Geneva Convention rights, you have a case for trying a big chunk of the administration for War Crimes. Now, if we can just find a prosecutor.


I haven't read this most recent court decision from the Detroit district court, so I don't know if she sites Hamdan or what.

ACLU v NSA

I thought we probably should take note of the recent decision by a US district court that the Bush administration's program of unwarranted wiretapping of US to Outstide US calls is unconstitutional and possibly a violation of criminal law.

I personally don't know how to evaluate this decision. To me the basic points of the judgment jive nicely with what my sense of constitutional law tells me a correct judgment in the case is. From the parts of it I've read, this extends to both the specific conclusions and reasoning used to justify the conclusions. But I've also seen a lot of sympathetic summaries of the judgment by those who adamently reject the rationale and use of precedent while accepting the judge's basic findings. So, just don't know how to judge this myself anymore. The facts of the case seem clear so it seems odd to me to think that a seasoned judge -- predisposed or not to supporting Bush's War on Terror -- would write a poor judgment. For those who see constitutional problems with warrentless wiretapping, the problems are fundamental ones that are obvious to anyone who understands what a law is and how it functions. The Judge's conclusions, as I understand them, are just reiterations of the basic point that the executive is not magically beyond the law (either constitutional or as passed by Congress). So, again, how couldn't any capable constitutional lawyer write a competent argument on the subject?

So, when it comes up for appeal, either there are lots of people who accept the judgment's conclusions yet grossly misjudge the strength of its reasoning (which I find hard to believe, personally, but it remains a hopeful possibility) or I have to come to terms with the fact that a clearly capable federal judge is unable to defend the rule of law.

Perhaps there is a kind of third alternative. I read one theory that claims that the decision was a kind of "punt" by the judge. Knowing that there are several basic issues at play that haven't typically been the subject of judicial review (perhaps because they just are so fucking obvious), she writes something in the spirit of the law, but doesn't bother to work out much of a decision because she knows its all going to be decided anyone it higher courts. Again, I haven't much of a clue how to evaluate the possibility of such a scenerio, but I find it hard to believe that a judge would have the obvious antipathy for the administration and its odious contempt for the law, and also know a little old case called Bush v Gore, and not want to go on the record making the strongest possible judgment you could make.

Some links

ACLU v NSA Decision
Different Programs in the Administration's unwarranted surveillance campaign and different pending lawsuits (Emptywheel is great, if you don't know her work yet!)
Sympathetic critique of Judge's Decision

Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

An unlikely source (and for some, a tired issue), but a good summary of the evidence thus far.

Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?:

A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush...A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004

''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

Iran and Turkey

Now Turkey has a partner in its operations we posited earlier

Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to
their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a
coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.

Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region
after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had
also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.

Living frugally on your 6-figure salary at Northwest Airlines

This is in response to the recently publicized tips on living with a smaller paycheck given to Northwest Airlines flight attendants by management. The tips included things like going through your neighbors' garbage.

Just a sample From Brain Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press:

? Energy-smart appliances pay. Over the course of a year, a cappuccino or espresso maker equipped with automatic shutoff can save savvy homeowners enough money to pay for another premium cable channel.

Get your kids involved. If your teenage son wants a new SUV, insist that he pay for at least a portion of the new vehicle's satellite radio service.

? Disconnecting towel heaters and bathroom floor warmers during the summer months can keep energy bills down without perceptible discomfort.

democracy died today...Or maybe it was yesterday

Bush reads Camus's 'The Stranger' on ranch vacation - Yahoo! News:

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: 'The Stranger.'

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English.

Even domestically, It gets worse and worse

From a Harris Poll taken from July5-11.

"Despite being widely reported in the media that the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly; more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005."

I heard the head of Harris Poll on "On the Media," and he speculated that the increase could because people don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq, but that he didn't have any data on it. [The other possibility mentioned: they closely read obscure reports released by Rick Santorum about 70 shells from the 80s and misconstrue those.]

As if that weren't bad enough:
"* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).
* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005)."

Good, Good.

Well, at least the poll accurately reports what it itself actually means:

"This Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between July 5 and 11, 2006 among 1,020 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.

All surveys are subject to several sources of error. These include: sampling error (because only a sample of a population is interviewed); measurement error due to question wording and/or question order, deliberately or unintentionally inaccurate responses, nonresponse (including refusals), interviewer effects (when live interviewers are used) and weighting.

With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite "margin of error" for any survey and the use of these words should be avoided.

With pure probability samples, with 100 percent response rates, it is possible to calculate the probability that the sampling error (but not other sources of error) is not greater than some number. With a pure probability sample of 1,016 adults one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points. However that does not take other sources of error into account."

Bush and Islam and Fascism

Today Bush called the planners (or someone) of the UK plane bombings "fascists." "They try to spread their jihadist message -- a message I call, it's totalitarian in nature -- Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom."

Well that really is the point of terrorism: kill the set of all people that love freedom.

Ridiculous. Even libertarians think so.

Anyway, that is not my worry. There are fascists in the world and they really are the folks that Bush is talking about. So, what does one do when Bush calls it like it is or at least gets an adjective right?

In a related story...A movie came out today.

And also there were primaries in which incumbents were actually defeated. We're almost back to soviet level democracy.

September 11 -- what year?

AP/Yahoo! News: WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the
Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

I love the smell of a partisan press in the morning...

FOX News wastes no time, eh?

(Screenshots by Kos)

Better version of touch screen video

Here

Not Exactly Fun With Google Earth:

Points of destruction in the current conflict, though, of course, the satalite images have not been updated recently.

Washington Post (on page A3, mind you) 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon:

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."

[snip]

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

[snip]

"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center."

Israeli hackers target hezbollah tv

From Agence France Presse via Aljazeera

One of the images shown on al-Manar television portrayed the body of a fighter lying face-down, wearing khaki trousers with a text in Arabic beneath: "This is the photograph of a body of a member of Hezbollah's special forces."

[snip]

Israel also recently hacked into FM radio stations and instead of normal programmes a two-minute recording was repeatedly broadcast.

"Hassan sent men to fight the Israeli army, an army of steel, without preparing them. Stop listening to patriotic hymns for a moment, reflect and bring your feet back to the ground," said the Arabic message.

Israel has reportedly used a variety of technological weapons to add a psychological dimension to its war in Lebanon.

Lebanese mobile phone users have also received text and voice messages saying the Israeli offensive was aimed against Hezbollah and not the Lebanese people.

Courtesy of the FreewayBlogger

Multi-touch screen by Jefferson Y.Han

I'm ready to give up the dream of the flying car now that I've seen this.

A call to any friends of the materialist dialectic

I'm having surprising difficulty tracking down the source (or even, apparently, the true quote) of the standard Hegelism that the act of reading the morning newspapers has become the "realistic" or "pragmatic" "morning prayer" of modern individuals.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

pf

Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Curiouser and Curiouser...

"Netanyahu discusses Iran with Cheney"

Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu met with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute World Forum at Beaver Creek in Colorado on Friday.

During the meeting Netanyahu spoke mainly about the threat of the Iranian nuclear program. According to Netanyahu's spokesman Cheney complimented him on the results of his fiscal policies as finance minister in the Sharon government."

Booman Tribune cites Jerusalem Post (Nexis only), June 18, 2006:

Compare with:

In a victory speech of sorts on Inauguration Day in January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney warned bluntly that Iran was "right at the top" of the administration's list of "trouble spots"?and that Israel "might well decide to act first" by attacking Iran. The Israelis, Cheney added in an obvious swipe at moderates in the State Department, would "let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

J. Bramford, Rolling Stone, July 24, 2006

Ahmedinejad meets 'brother' Chavez - Jul 29, 2006

Not to hard to guess what this AP editor thinks the important aspect of this story is...

Iran's Ahmedinejad meets 'brother' Chavez - Jul 29, 2006:

"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Anti-U.S. leaders Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad met in Tehran on Saturday, pledging mutual support for one another, state media reported."

Troop numbers soar, Financial Times calls it like it is

The US administration has quietly reversed its goal from whittling down troop numbers in Iraq before the mid-term congressional elections in November.

A Pentagon spokesman on Friday confirmed that US troop levels in Iraq rose to 132,000 during the past week ? the highest since late May ? from 127,000 at the start of the week. The spokesman said troop numbers often fluctuated and ?there might be temporary spikes during periods of troop rotation?.

However, analysts said an increase in troop numbers was more likely than a reduction because the number of sectarian killings in Iraq had almost doubled since the start of the year. The rise will prompt fears that the US is becoming increasingly bogged down in an unwinnable conflict.

More highly visble public protest today as protestor interrupts Bolton confirmation hearing

Think Progress:

"I have no representation on this panel or in this senate. I?m strongly opposed to the nomination of this man John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. He is a discredit to the United States. He is not a legitimate public representative of the United States. He should not go to the U.N. He is not representing our best interests. The man will only?"

Chicago Orders ?Big Box? Stores to Raise Wage - New York Times

Chicago Orders ?Big Box? Stores to Raise Wage - New York Times: "After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring ?big box? stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits."

Judge dismisses lawsuit over phone records

Business Week:

"4:27 P.M. ET Citing national security, a federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at blocking AT&T Inc. from giving telephone records to the government for use in the war on terror.

"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities,' U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said."

Arbitrary my ass. Yup, its just some kind of coincidence that social being determines thought

Research - Can Polling Location Influence How Voters Vote? - Stanford GSB: "Stanford Graduate School of Business researchers, doctoral candidates Jonah Berger and Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, associate professor of marketing, conclude that a much more subtle and arbitrary factor may also play a role?the particular type of polling location in which you happen to vote."

But what to tell the Turks?

Turkey's Impatience With the Kurds - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com:

"But what to tell the Turks, who over the last week lost 15 soldiers to terror attacks launched by sepa-ratist Kurds from neighboring Iraq? Many Turkish leaders are pressing for cross-border tactical air assaults on the guerrillas. "

Al-Manar, Hezbollah's TV station

http://www.manartv.com/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en

Billy Kristol's answer. Bomb Iran. A bad idea?

So, let's just assume that Hizbollah and Iran really want the destruction of Israel and generally a turn to Shia Islamic Governments. Let's also assume that Israel is one of these liberal regimes that believe in Enlightenment values. I want to ask you guys, why isn't Kristol right?

[snip]
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
[snip]

Here's a brief typology of the sort of arguments one might make off the top of my head:

1. The pacifist argument: War is never the answer
2. The non-pacifist moral argument: Bombing will kill innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the threat to enlightenment values, the threat to people, etc.
3. The strategic argument: Bombing Iran will quickly create a situation in which Iran feels it has nothing to lose and lashes out at Israel and invades/destabalizes Iraq. Or some such scenario in which the region is embroiled in a war that makes the current situation look great.
4. The long-term moral/strategic argument: Continuing the pattern of US 'hard' power as the answer to problems (whether the US's or someone else's) will only frustrate attempts to create a just world society.

Do these arguments even collectively answer Kristol (or some position like it)? This is the fundamental foreign policy program of the neo-cons. I'm throwing this out here, because I think it is important that we get clear on why this ideology is wrong with reference to a specific case.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Bush Blocked Justice Department Investigation (07/18/06)

I wanted to reposit something on the Gonzales revelation that Bush himself put an end to the Justice Department's investigation of the NSA wiretapping programs.

This is clearly not just a "Bush stops another investigation of his NSA program" story, although that is how it largely seems to be being presented in the papers.

Rather, as lots of others have pointed out, the Justice Department investigation WASN'T concerned with the constitutionality of the domestic spying program(s) per se, but rather it was an INTERNAL justice department investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility that was charged with making sure that the AG and others had not acted improperly in advising Bush about the constitutionality of the programs. This is kind of routine investigation is appartently the sole function of the Office Professional Responsibility. This is what these bureaucrats do. It was set up after Watergate to investigate all "allegations of misconduct involving department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice." And, according to Waas, at least, this internal investigation wasn't seeking any "secret documents" that were not already available to senior justice department officials.

So -- Bush personally quashes an internal Justice Department investigation into the question of whether or not he received good legal advice from the only folks who officially can give him legal advice. I guess this is how it's going to go: The Bush regime appears more and more like a gambit on behalf of one segement of the ruling classes. For it to work Bush must never EVER receive official legal advice that even suggests any of his grabs for power might run contrary to the constitution, because, when all has been said and done, Bush's argument won't be principled ("I did it because I truly believe in the 'unitary executive'"), and it won't be Nixionan ("When the President does it that means it's not illegal."). Rather, they've bet the house on plausible deniability ("I got me some bad legal advice from the chief egg-head lawyers. Sorry. Heh heh.")

This clearly is Bush's "Saturday Night Massacre" -- and it goes on almost entirely without public notice and outrage. I guess it's up to some career Justice Department folks to do some digging and leaking.


NATIONAL JOURNAL: Bush Blocked Justice Department Investigation (07/18/06):

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today that President Bush personally halted an internal Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales and other senior department officials acted within the law in approving and overseeing the administration's domestic surveillance program."

[snip]

The statement by Gonzales stunned some senior Justice Department officials, who were led to believe that Gonzales himself had made the decision to deny the clearances after consulting with intelligence agencies whose activities would be scrutinized, a senior federal law enforcement official said in an interview.

[snip]

Jesus - the same clearance was immediately given to Justice Department folks charged with investigating leaks about the NSA programs. Fuck...I guess we won't be hearing from any career Justice folks after all. Oh well, thus ends the rule of law.

H. Marshall Jarrett, OPR's lead counsel, wrote Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, on April 21, 2006, to point out that while OPR was denied security clearances to conduct its inquiry, requests from prosecutors and FBI agents tasked with investigating who first leaked details of the NSA surveillance program to the New York Times were "promptly granted."

Terkel wins peace prize

Chicago Tribune: "DAYTON, Ohio -- Chicago-based writer and oral historian Studs Terkel has been awarded the first Dayton Literary Peace Prize, an outgrowth of the Dayton Peace Prize that commemorates the 1995 agreement that ended the war in Bosnia."

Blogs from Lebanon

Lebanese Political Journal

Rampurple

Ramzi's Blah Blah

The Lebanese Bloggers

A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding

Quite interesting piece...One can only guess this social democrat approach may be effective in the media wars, but real substantial change?

A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding: "Matt Bennett, a vice president at Third Way, a centrist group that did not receive funding in the first wave of endorsements, said he believes that Democracy Alliance has merit. 'It will enable progressives, for the first time ever, to build a permanent infrastructure to beat the conservative machine,' he said."

Gingrich becomes the first...

The Seattle Times:

"Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president."

Rape? In a college town?

CNN.com - Police sergeant charged with rapes in college town - Jul 14, 2006:

"BLOOMINGTON, Illinois (AP) -- A police sergeant was charged with four rapes dating back to 2002 Friday, two days after he was charged with stalking a woman who found him lurking outside her home.

In addition to the rape charges, Bloomington Sgt. Jeff Pelo, 41, faces two counts of home invasion and charges of aggravated stalking and attempted residential burglary."

Eat The Press | Eric Boehlert: CNN's Lebanon Problem | The Huffington Post

Eat The Press | Eric Boehlert: CNN's Lebanon Problem | The Huffington Post: "I was surprise yesterday afternoon when a Reuters article popped onto my computer screen reporting that 53 Lebanese civilians had been killed by Israeli forces, part of the suddenly chaotic two-front battle Israel's military is fighting in the Middle East. Surprised, because I had been monitoring the day's events on CNN and hadn't heard much about that kind of swelling Lebanese death toll."...

...Later, I went back and checked CNN's reporting, via TVeyes.com, and discovered that throughout the day CNN repeatedly reported on the lone Israeli civilian causality without making any mention of the more than 50 Lebanese civilian casualties. To be exact, CNN did that at 10:31 a.m., 11:02, 12:09 p.m., 12:19, 1:00, 1:30, 1:52, 2:00, 2:17, 2:30, 2:50, and 4:04.

Note that at 12:05 p.m. CNN did report that "at least 45 Lebanese civilians have been killed in this offensive," but that's because the news channel was airing a feed from CNN International, which seemed to understand one of its fundamental responsibilities in covering bloody, revenge-driven political conflicts was to report civilian deaths suffered on both sides. In fact, a check of CNN Europe's reporting yesterday afternoon showed CNN Europe routinely reported on the death of the Israeli woman and as well as death of nearly 50 Lebanese civilian. CNN's U.S.-based anchors and reporters though, seemed mostly unable or unwilling to do the same.

On Iran, Bush vs. Military

Another scoop from S. Hersh on Iran:

On Iran, Bush vs. Military: "Several current and former officials I spoke to expressed doubt that President Bush would settle for a negotiated resolution of the nuclear crisis. A former high-level Pentagon civilian official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the government, said that Bush remains confident in his military decisions. The President and others in the Administration often invoke Winston Churchill, both privately and in public, as an example of a politician who, in his own time, was punished in the polls but was rewarded by history for rejecting appeasement."

Rove appears at Aspen Ideas Fest

Aspen Times News for Aspen Colorado:

"Rove appeared to be on the defensive on questions about Guantanamo, the Valerie Plame affair, Iraq and other issues. "

Rove made jokes about his hecklers and at one point referred to them as "people who fly in and out of Aspen in their jets." But he had his moments with the crowd as well, drawing applause now and then, and silencing it with the comment, "Republicans will keep their majorities in the House and Senate."

[snip]

Audience dismay with Rove widened during an exchange on the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Isaacson recalled that both Gen. Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., recommended shutting down the detention center.

"And do what?" Rove responded. "When we close Gitmo, the question is 'What do we do with the bad guys at Gitmo?' What do you do with them?"

"That's my question," Isaacson shot back, to laughter.

He [Rove] placed the question in the realm of courts.

"We've been respectful of the courts while these issues worked their way through the courts," he said. Hissing from the audience drowned out the rest of his answer.

[snip]

As for the Plame affair, Rove stumbled and then refused to answer.

Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent whose identity administration sources revealed to conservative columnist Robert Novak after her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly challenged the administration's claims about Iraq's nuclear program. Her career with the CIA ended, and some of her sources may have been in jeopardy as a result of the leak.

Isaacson posed the question in the same way Clinton had Friday night. Issacson, parroting Clinton, pointed out that if a member of the Clinton administration had outed a CIA officer, "You'd be sending people to demand impeachment. You'd be playing it better than the Democrats can play it against you."

Rove then said that after a "careful, thoughtful, aggressive investigation," then the person responsible should be fired.

"Have confidence in the process," he said.

But Isaacson continued pressing on the issue asking, "Don't you have some regrets about that? That was [a] regrettable event."

"I'm going to respect the fact that there's an ongoing case," Rove said, again to hissing from the audience.

cbs2chicago.com - President Surprises Chicagoans At Popular Diner

This local Chicago TV news story is perfect and has everything! It is so sappy and is written like a love letter from a star-struck kid. And yet it captures something perfectly -- how differently workers and petit boug. see Bush and the real material basis for their views.

The lede on this story should be: "Bush NEVER thinks about you or your interests"

cbs2chicago.com - President Surprises Chicagoans At Popular Diner:

"As CBS 2's Sylvia Gomez reports, diners at one popular Chicago hang-out got more than their usual cup of morning coffee.

President Bush leaned in like an old buddy at Lou Mitchell's Friday morning. Charm is one of the president's great strengths.

'I'll tell you, he's a very good looking man. When you meet him in person, he's a very nice man. Very polite,' owner Nick Thanas said."

[snip]

But now the president has moved on. For a 23-year Lou Mitchell's veteran, Sheri Wassberg, it was just another day, and the president was just another customer who only ordered coffee and juice.

"We've waited on different movie actors and actresses," Sheri said.

When asked if he wasn't all that special, Sheri laughed.

"Well, he's the president, but, yes," she replied.

She might feel differently if only he had left her a tip.

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly gets his ass kicked by Phil Donahue!!

YouTube - "Bill O'Reilly gets his ass kicked by Phil Donahue!!"

Contender Alleges Mexico Vote Was Rigged

We've yet to comment on the recent Mexico elections. Let me just say this for starters: the US in 2000 and 2004, Italy in 2005, now Mexico (who else am I forgetting?). These razor thin electoral victories by capitalist class candidates can't be just a statistical coincidence, can they? At what point does the canard "a deeply divided electorate" become clearly bogus? How many elections have to come in just under the wire for the ruling classes for the gig to be up?


Contender Alleges Mexico Vote Was Rigged:

"López Obrador ignited the smoldering emotions of his followers Saturday morning, alleging for the first time that Mexico's electoral commission had rigged its computers before the July 2 election to ensure the half-percentage-point victory of Felipe Calderón, a champion of free trade. "

[snip]

López Obrador also told the crowd that he was organizing a march to the capital Wednesday from all over Mexico, including states hundreds of miles distant.

[snip]

After López Obrador left the stage Saturday, the crowd lingered. Someone started singing the national anthem, and countless voices joined in its rallying cry: "Mexicans, to the shout of war!"

American Neo-Nazis back in US Armed Forces

Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts - New York Times:

"A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed 'large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists' to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

'We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad,' the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. 'That's a problem.'"

Ann Coulter's Time is Short, but so is Adam Carolla's

Just in case you haven't heard this yet. Ahhh, what it must be to live the life of a B- celebrity.

Blogger Blog about Blogger unblogging their blog

Blogger's Spam Prevention Robots are defective

or a separate case here

Now obviously the problem is the spammers, but when your automated system generates both false postives and misses so much actual spam that certain sites just ban trackbacks from Blogger, what is one to do?

Socialist mayor Frank Zeidler dies at 93

If it isn't too presumptuous....Long Live Socialism

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Former Milwaukee Mayor Frank P. Zeidler, the last Socialist to run a major U.S. city, has died, a spokesman for a Milwaukee hospital said on Saturday.

Zeidler, 93, died on Friday of congestive heart failure.

The son of a German Lutheran barber, Zeidler led Milwaukee for three terms from 1948 to 1960 and also ran for president as a Socialist in 1976.

The Great Blog Black-out of 2006 has ended.

I think things have been straightened out between us and Blogger. Apparently we've successfully passed whatever kind of Turing Test they've invented. So, gentlemen, resume your normal posting.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Iran urged to release philosopher

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Iran urged to release philosopher: "International pressure is growing on Iran to release a prominent philosopher and writer, Ramin Jahanbegloo, who was arrested two months ago on unspecified charges."