Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Where's Your Mandate Now?
A spot of tea for the victors!I can't wait to hear Bush solemnly retract his assertion that his 2004 election was a "mandate" for his paleolithic social policies and imperialistic foreign agenda, and grudgingly acknowledge that his "political capital" that he "earned" from that election has long since been spent.
I gotta admit, I don't like some of these Democrats (most of them, actually, sparing a small handful of the good ones, like John Conyers, for whom I have one message: IMPEACH HIM!), but what I did enjoy (and will continue to enjoy throughout the day) was watching so many corrupt Republican politicians get shot down in glorious, beautiful flames - it was like watching the Northern Lights, friends.
But it's not all celebration. I have some fears for this new Democratic Congress. These are, for the most part, the very same Democrats who voted to authorize George Bush with the ability to declare war in 2002. And while most of them now regret it (presumably because of the growing public opposition to the war), I can't help but question their judgment. Most of them describe themselves as "moderate" or even "conservative" Democrats - this is a trend we should be very wary of, comrades.
We must not put too much faith in these people. Even though they're better than Republicans - if only by nature of the fact that they're not Republicans - they are still politicians, and there's no such thing as an honest politician. I think everyone can agree on that.
So, our job becomes clear: we must do what we can to keep them honest and make sure they keep Bush in check, and if it comes time that they aren't doing their job, I hope we'll remember what happened last time we voted Republican, and instead elect Green candidates in '08!
*End pipe dream*
But for now, we bask in the revelry following the defeat of one of the most corrupt, regressive legislative branches in American history - and, just maybe, the beginning of the end of the Republican reign of pro-business, anti-personal freedom, anti-woman, anti-homosexual, pro-fundamentalist idiocy. posted by SwiftyLeZar at 7:49 AM 1 comments
Friday, November 03, 2006
A Short Comment on Terrorism
I normally don't reduce myself to name-calling, but I get really sick of pundits' outrage at people like Cindy Sheehan calling George Bush a terrorist.So let's examine why such a name is not only justified, it's pretty much mandatory, unless we'd rather ourselves be hypocrites than our president be a "terrorist."
The USA PATRIOT Act defines "domestic terrorism" as any act intended to:
a. intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
b. influence the policies of a government through intimidation or coercion; or
c. affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Now it's easy to take media-friendly despots like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il and call them terrorists because they fit one or all of those definitions. And that would be fair and accurate.
But oh, how it can hurt to take that very same light and shine it on ourselves. It must be done, though, if we have even the vaguest delusions of objectivity.
Look at George Bush's actions in Iraq and say with a straight face that he was not attempting to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction. Even if you agree with the thing, that's what he was doing, there's not much denying it. If you really believe he wanted to make Iraq a democracy, then you must also believe that the way he did so was through military action - or, to put it a harsher but equally accurate way, through mass destruction.
Look at George Bush's statement to the nations of the U.N. that they are "either with us or against us in the War on Terror," and tell me he wasn't trying to influence the policies of a government through intimidation or coercion (well, multiple governments).
And as for intimidating a citizenry, well, most would say that it would be cheap and debatable (not debatable on any level of legitimacy, but that's seldom stopped any debate) to say that he used the threat of WMDs to intimidate the country into supporting a war, but Bush also used the threat of imminent collapse to frighten the citizenry into supporting Social Security "reform" (newspeak for "privatization"), and the threat of terrorist attacks to intimidate the civilian population into voting Republican in '06 ("It sounds like they [Democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again." - Bush in a speech in California, October 2006).
Bush fits not just one of the criteria for the definition of "domestic terrorist" that he himself approved, but all criteria. Ergo, by our nation's own definition of "terrorist," George W. Bush is a terrorist.
QED.
STFU.
posted by SwiftyLeZar at 6:20 PM 0 comments
Friday, October 27, 2006
Shame
One of the most fundamental characteristics of the human psyche is the conscience. The conscience is what causes us to feel regret, remorse, or shame, when we do or say wrong. It causes us to reexamine our behavior, perhaps reverse our wrongdoing, and helps us maintain our moral compass. Michael J. Fox, an actor who rose to fame in the 80's with his roles films such as Teen Wolf and the Back to the Future series, recently made a campaign commercial in support of Democratic Senate hopeful Claire McCaskill. His reason for doing so was McCaskill's support of stem-cell research. Fox, who is afflicted with Parkinson's Disease, has supported numerous politicians who he believes will help in the fight for stem-cell research. In his most recent outing, however, he found himself under accusations of fraud from Rush Limbaugh, a radio personality famous for his virulent denial of most tenants of science and rationality, including the capability of smoking to cause cancer, the existence of global warming, and the idea that new species evolve from existing ones through a process of natural selection (and he's also known for his love of Oxycontin, another story for another day).In order to understand the debate, however, it's important to understand the issues in question, a seemingly obvious strategy which Rush naturally overlooked.
Stem-cells are, in essence, generic cells which can, through cell division, differentiate into specific cell types which can then form organs. Their interest in the science world lies in their ability to adopt a cell specialization and replenish specialized cells.
The controversy arises in the form of embryonic stem-cell research. The right wing has been so effective in injecting its Christian followers with a reflexive, sheeplike condemnation of any scientific procedure involving the words "embryo" or "fetus," that this entirely rational proposal is met with actual resistance.
Research of this type does require the destruction of an embryo, however, what those who seek to gain politically from this issue fail to tell their supporters is that most of the embryos used in stem-cell research are donated and, if not used for research, will be destroyed or maintained indefinitely. In other words, they ain't going anywhere.
These embryos could be used to save countless thousands of lives, or they can go to waste. Very few issues in life are this simple.
If you'd like to better understand Limbaugh's mindset, however, I advise you ignore all of that, and shed any sense of decency which may have kept you up to this point from openly taunting the handicapped. Recently, Rush had this to say about Fox's commercial:
This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication, or he's acting, one of the two.I recommend watching this footage of Rush's broadcast that day. Hearing Rush make fun of another person's disability is one thing, but actually seeing him imitate Fox's involuntary muscular actions is truly appalling. I would say the obvious, but predicting that Rush has finally hit rock bottom is sorta like predicting that Keith Richards is going to die "this year." People have been doing it for as long as I've been alive and they'll just never learn.
Later in the show, Limbaugh, apparently realizing he might have overstepped his boundaries with his earlier comments, gave a very reluctant and very cheap apology, saying, ""I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances," before returning to several reiterations of the new Michael J. Fox talking-point, saying that the Democrats are exploiting Fox's illness, etc etc.
Characteristically, Limbaugh omitted a few interesting bits of information. One of these is, as the Washington Post points out, Fox's movements are not caused by going off his medication, rather, they are a result of taking it.
It's also very curious that, 2 years ago, Fox made a very similar commercial for Republican senator Arlen Specter, with the very same message, and yet Rush was strangely silent. I swear, If I didn't know that all partisan rancor in American politics was the vile machination of Democrats, something like that might make me sit down and think.
But this is Rush. Rush lies, from time to time. Rush makes mistakes (though rarely corrects them), Rush has problems, Rush has feelings (primarily feelings of prejudice, but, I mean... Those are feelings).
Yes, he fits nearly every single one of the requirements; one could say that Rush is almost human.
The only thing that's missing is the thing that makes us apologize when we lie about other people's illnesses. It's one of the main things that separates us from the apes from which Rush does not believe we evolved.
Shame. posted by SwiftyLeZar at 2:04 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
It's All About Perspective
A few recent epiphanies of mine have yielded a new understanding of what I think might be two of the most critical problems in American political discourse. One of the main problems in political discourse is that the right wing has successfully twisted and mutilated the mainstream political spectrum, by simple redefinition. What was once known as moderate is now known as the far left. What was once known as the far right is now merely the right, and the actual far left is not acknowledged.This is something that's been getting some play among the blogosphere and the bookosphere - being the only media remaining in which the actual left isn't totally excluded. There are, however, two peculiarities of our unique political climate that haven't been getting quite the same attention (except for the occasional Daily Show joke). One of them I'll discuss now:
It's something I have dubbed, in a particularly coarse attempt at creativity, Underdog Syndrome. It's easy to explain, and even easier to observe. Underdog Syndrome is the tendency of a group that is and, let's face it, always has been in power, to attempt to portray itself as somehow downtrodden, oppressed, and subjugated. And it has, in recent years, become a leading hallmark of the right wing.
It's not difficult to see why they would want to use it, either. People like to get together and root for the underdog. The sympathies of the average person rarely lie with those in corridors of power. Underdog Syndrome is conservatives' attempt to have their cake and eat it too; they have the power that allows them to dominate everything from the media to the government, and now they also want that special brand of scrappy, ragtag charm that can only come from a destitute rebel fighting for the right to have his say.
There are plenty of examples of this mentality in today's political climate. Some of the most prevalent examples - the kind that are really shameless, and just painful to watch - come from Christianity. For the sake of perspective, Christianity has over 2 billion adherents and is the largest religion in the world. In America, roughly 80 percent of the population is Christian. With the exception of about 4, all of our presidents have been Christians. Christians overwhelmingly dominate Congress and the Supreme Court. As of 1999, 51% of Americans say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist if one ran for office [1].
Despite all this power, some Christians (not all, of course), for some reason, have the strange idea that they're on the receiving end of one of greatest miscarriages of justice in history: oppression at the hands of an invisible secular majority.
I'm sure we all remember the holiday specials of The O'Reilly Factor in which he railed against the evils of the "War on Christmas," where Christmas faced such powerful foes as private businesses who chose to change "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" so as not to lose the patronage of that 20% of the country who doesn't allege to follow the teachings of Christ. I will agree with Bill on one thing: that any real meaning or spirit of Christmas - religious or otherwise - has been sucked up in a vortex of rabid consumerism. Although I think this is more a fault of Bill's beloved capitalism than any armies of secular humanists storming the doors of Bastille de Christianisme (in fact, if one were to look at it from the angle that capitalism has done more to damage Christmas than liberalism - and that the upper echelons of corporate America are the brooding grounds for a large concentration of conservatism - and that pundits don't seem to mention anything about capitalism in their tirades about the War on Christmas - one could make the argument that the War on Christmas is actually being waged by the right).
The War on Christmas is not something new. The John Birch Society wrote a pamphlet in 1959 about the Red conspiracy to destroy Christmas. Notorious anti-semite Henry Ford also mentioned it in his publication, "The International Jew:" "It is not religious tolerance in the midst of religious difference, but religious attack that they [Jews] preach and practice."
Scaremongering has always had a pattern. The names may change - throughought the years, the fear of Jews and Communists seems to have diminished, giving rise to a new one-size-fits-all boogeyman: secular humanists; however, the idea remains the same: scare the stupid people so they'll give you what you want [2]. For the record, Christmas remains the only religious holiday that is federally recognized.
I've trailed a bit from the main topic, but the point is, the War on Christmas is no more real now than it was when it was "waged" by Communists or Jews.
Nor is the much larger and more dastardly "War on Christianity."
In describing this war, it seems many myths are being dusted off and repeated. Myths such as the fact that "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Myths that really no longer deserve dignified, thoughtful response. So I'll instead respond to such myths by reminding the public that all people who believe such things are bed-wetting doody heads.
One of the most interesting examples is a recent conference called "The War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006," hosted by Rick Scarborough. Among the persecuted who attended were former House majority leader and Christ-figure Tom DeLay, and the usual lineup of Phyllis Schlaflys, Gary Bauers, and Alan Keyeses (?).
One Jewish speaker, Michael Horowitz, noted that "You guys [Christians] have become the Jews of the 21st century."
I'll digress now, so that the shamelessness of that statement can fully sink in. Also, I want to give the younger readers time to look up a 7-part series of newsreels called Why We Fight. Hey kids, be sure to pay extra close attention to part 2! posted by SwiftyLeZar at 2:10 PM 1 comments
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Talkin' Un-American
Republicans like to talk about what is un-American. From the top of the ladder on down, president to pundit, they all seem to have a bizarre fixation with trying to define "American" and "un-American." Those of you who follow current issues might have heard through the grape vine that President Bush has authorized wiretaps of Americans. The President, his press secretary, his ever-anxious lapdogs in the craft of right-wing punditry, all seem to have the same excuse: it's his Constitutional right to do so, and if you disagree you must want the terrorists to win.This is nothing new. Once again, we the people are traitors if we question the president's authority. It's also nothing new that they lied. The Constitution doesn't give him the right to wiretap without a warrant. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by quoting the fourth amendment, but for those who aren't familiar with the Constitution (like Bush, apparently), the short version is that you can't invade someone's privacy, or get a warrant to invade someone's privacy, without probable cause.
"The enemy," they argue, "could attack at any time and we need the information on their plans as soon as possible. We don't have time to get a warrant!" Ahh, what a sensible conclusion.
Too bad somebody already thought of it. That's why the president has 72 hours after he begins surveillance to obtain a warrant.
Those of you who watched the State of the Union, which just ended about 30 minutes ago saw a more nuanced defense of the wiretapping (or, if you prefer Rove's linguistic retooling of the phrase to neuter it of any negative meaning, "terrorist surveillance program"): that Bush is just doing what presidents before him have done. The exact line was:
Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have.Notice he doesn't mention which presidents? I can think of one:
Of course, that won't happen here. We live in different times; where there was an independent media during Nixon's time, there is just a mass of corporate subsidiaries who transcribe talking points. If Bush hasn't been impeached for...- The Bush Administration's ties to Enron and Ken Lay
- The massive pre-9/11 intelligence failure which included the President not reading memos with titles like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US"
- The Abu Gharib prisoner torture scandal
- The search for WMDs that has yielded nothing and has thus far claimed tens of thousands of lives
But back to the original topic: what is un-American? Well, I think it's a stupid term, personally. To me it's an utterly meaningless brand word, the kind of word politicians use to coax that kneejerk response out of the masses of the ignorant.
But I'll play ball.
The right says that the opponents of the president's wiretapping authority, by even debating this issue, are giving the terrorists too much information about our activities. Un-American, they say. Now, let's assume for a moment that un-American actually means something. What would that something be? I would think it would be anything that goes against the founding principles of America.
So, with that in mind, I'm thinking that those who would be willing to sell out our essential freedoms and liberties to get themselves that needle fix of security would be the ones who are un-American.
Of course, like I said, I'm just playing along with the right-wing here, I don't really care about American and un-American. I just think that if you're going to play the game, you should at least play it right. posted by SwiftyLeZar at 10:06 PM 4 comments
Saturday, November 12, 2005
O'Reichly, Bush, and the GOP Usher in a Golden Age of Hypocrisy
Thanks to the rise of the Republican juggernaut to its full hideous strength earlier in 2005, hypocrisy has seen one of its biggest years in the spotlight since Tricky Dick accused communists of being traitors to America. And Americans have actually noticed this, too, leaving Bush grasping at the sort of mid-thirty percent approval ratings Tricky Dick himself might've grabbed for to keep away from the Roaring Twenties (which, by the way, the new, trickier Dick is down below that).Briefly, I'd like to talk about Bush's statements made yesterday about the War in Iraq, which were, to be sure, hypocrisy of such an unfathomable level that the word "hypocrisy" seems hardly fit to describe it, giving me want to invent a new word, knowing that I lack the linguistic skills to do so. Then, I'd like to spend some time on Bill O'Reilly's statements made last night in response to San Franciscans voting against some O'Reilly-favored measures, which were hypocrisy of such an exceedingly unfathomable level that if I had invented that new word for "hypocrisy," it would hardly be fit to describe this level of hypocrisy.
During his annual Veteran's Day speech, in which it is customary that the President honor United States veterans, Bush decided this would be an appropriate time to attack critics of his war. Viciously, he did so. Here's a choice quote:
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.Now, what I noticed the first time I read that quote, and what I later found Senate Democrats characteristically failed to point out, is that "rewriting history" is exactly what Bush and his administration did in the actual run-up to the war! It's a documented fact! See for yourself.
Here's the truth:
The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, 'We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.'And here's the George Bush revised version of the truth:
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.I suppose I'll digress here. Of course, there are other examples, largest of which is the rewriting of the piece of history that said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (by the way, I'd like to take a tick here give mad props to the Rotten Library - subsidiary of the famous Rotten.com; it is, surprisingly, an extremely helpful source of information, and I recommend you check out the section on Iraq WMDs for more on Bush's rewriting of history).
Intermission before we move onto the real shocker, Bill O'Reilly...
Okay, here's the story.
Yesterday, Bill O'Reilly was pissed. San Franciscans had not only voted for a ban on gun ownership, they had voted against allowing military recruiters on public school campuses. O'Reilly fumed at the treasonous voting habits of the Castro-loving San Franciscans:
Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.Suggesting that because San Franciscans voted against something O'Reilly wanted, San Francisco should secede from the United States? The typical O'Reilly bullshit. Utterly banal. Familiar territory. Not the kind of thing that would prepare a casual listener for the following journey into the surreal:
And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.Bill O'Reilly is soft on terrorism? Now that's kinda weird, but we expect Bill to change his principles every now and then to whatever best panders to the right wing. O'Reilly's downward spiral to partisan madness climaxes:
You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.Wow. Wow. I think this might top the shocking revelation made a couple of months ago that Bill Bennett is a racist prick.
Now, as you may know, Bill O'Reilly has something of a history of labeling leftists as "un-American" or "traitorous." As an example, take Arianna Huffington. Here's what he had to say about her book Fanatics and Fools and her comrades on the left:
You can understand how people like me and maybe a lot of people watching think you are a loony lefty when your book, 'Fanatics & Fools,' which I like the title, but I hope you are not in that group, is endorsed by the following: Molly Ivins; Bill Maher, Bill Moyers; and Larry David. Why don't you get Che Guevara on that, oh, he's dead. How about Fidel Castro? Come on, they are the far left fringe. That's who you're hanging with, Arianna.I leave you now with a question to ponder. Which is more un-American:
- Writing a book endorsed by Molly Ivins and Bill Moyers, or
- Inviting a radical anti-American terrorist group to destroy a major American city?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The Cheney Cash-In Crasstravaganza!
Already, it's underway!
The Navy has hired Houston-based Halliburton Co. to restore electric power, repair roofs and remove debris at three naval facilities in Mississippi damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Halliburton subsidiary KBR will also perform damage assessments at other naval installations in New Orleans as soon as it is safe to do so.
KBR was assigned the work under a "construction capabilities" contract awarded in 2004 after a competitive bidding process. The company is not involved in the Army Corps of Engineers' effort to repair New Orleans' levees.
Read it here!