Who cares?

Free MP3 download

2005-08-12T07:09:00.000+09:00

Support Cindy Sheenan. For those of you who have been in a cave for the past few weeks, she's the lady whose son was killled in Iraq. For what? That's exactly what she wants to know, and she's camped out at George W. Bush's vacation spot, trying to get an answer.

http://www.crawfordpeacehouse.org/ or http://www.meetwithcindy.org/

Support her with a postcard to:

Cindy Sheehan

c/o Crawford Peace House

9142 5th Street

Crawford, TX 76638-3037

I wrote a song ("Dead Men's Eyes") to protest the way in which Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, have waged an illegal invasion and occupation while avoiding all the unpleasant aspects of war (death, injury, etc.) and are refusing to do their duty as human beings, let alone as politicians, by refusing to acknowledge the human personal costs of war. Whether the dead men's eyes are American or Iraqi is irrelevant - George W Bush is responsible for these deaths, and he needs to look the tens of thousands of dead men in the face. Cindy Sheenan is asking him to do just that.

The song was written and performed by me in my back room before her protest, but it's relevant and appropriate. Although I'm pleased with the song itself, I'm not that pleased with the singing and I am sure that other people could make a better job of it. Feel free to contact me if you want to make your own version of this, but please don't do it without my permission.

Please feel free to share this music (7MB download) under the pretty easy terms outlined by the license below. Play it often, play it loud, and make sure that Bush and the rest of the neo-Cons hear it.

Dead Men's Eyes written and performed 2005, Hugh Ashton

This music free to share under a Creative Commons Music Sharing License.

Clicking here will typically allow you to play the tune in your browser or helper application. From there (or by right-clicking), you should be able to save it to your own hard disk in the usual way.

And if you have time, drop an e-mail message to h52r-qu3j at spamex dot com to let me know what you thought of the music.

"War on terror"

2005-07-11T16:18:00.000+09:00

I get really hacked off with the term "war on terror" - it's only the American mass media that use this phrase in a non-ironic way.

With this in mind, I just sent this to CNN - please help me make this change to the American media language.The "war on terror" is a meaningless phrase, as anyone who takes the trouble to think will appreciate.

First, how can you have a "war" against a state of mind?

Secondly, "war" is the wrong term for a struggle against terrorist groups. A "war" by definition is between nations, not groups. The UK was not "at war" with the IRA for 20+ years, not is the USA "at war" now against terrorists.

Please follow the example of the British press, and put your president's fatuous phrase in quotation marks and/or add "so-called" to the term.

Thank you.

Thoughts to move forward by...

2004-11-05T12:24:00.000+09:00

A few more views from an outsider, now that the dust has settled in my head a little. I don't expect everyone to agree with all these points, but I hope they'll serve as a stimulus for debate and moving forward. I personally find this exciting, in many ways. This is a chance to be "Present at the Creation" - much as Lincoln and Seward must have felt when the old Whig Party collapsed, and there was a chance to build something new from the ashes.

A) The Image of Americans Abroad

Not something that concerns me personally, but I don't want to see my American friends vilified and despised for something that isn't their fault. I think there needs to be some kind of symbol for Democrats Abroad (and all anti-Bush Americans abroad) that instantly and wordlessly brands the wearer as American and anti-Bush. A lapel pin/button with the American flag, together with a defaced Bush-Cheney head-shoulders shot? This has two purposes: it protects the wearer from verbal (or even physical) abuse, and it also demonstrates publicly that there are many Americans who are proud to be American but who do not see Bush as the representative of their country. This needs to be done soon - in the next few weeks, to show the world that there are "decent Americans".

If anyone has good ideas or designs, I am very willing to act as the collection point for them, pending the return of the Gator party from Florida, and I can stick them up on the DAJ blog - there can be a vote and we can get CafePress or someone to make them up?

B) Remaking the Democratic Party

Is this something Democrats Abroad can do alone? No. Is it something they can assist with? Yes, of course. The experience of people outside the USA is invaluable. If the Democratic Party is to remodel itself along the lines of a European social democratic party, such as Britain's New Labour (let's not quibble too much about this example, please), etc., the experiences of DA members living in a country with such a party are invaluable. DAJ members have the experience of living in a (mostly) benevolent corporatist state (again, we can quibble over definitions, but the point is that it is a system of government and a social system that is unlike the US, and there are points to be learned from it). Most DCers don't have this in-depth experience or knowledge. DA is a vital part of revitalizing the opposition to Bush/Cheney.

Ideas such as the shadow cabinet are an excellent example of what can be creatively borrowed from other countries. Without transforming the existing system, it instantly provides a focus for issues and for constructive opposition. How much better to hear "Howard Dean, the Democratic Shadow Secretary for Health and Welfare, stated..." than "a Democratic spokesperson on health issues said...".

DA has an important role to play in the remaking of the opposition. Maybe even non-American DA supporters :-).

C) A Politically Responsible Managed Fund

This requires maybe more than any of us can achieve by ourselves, but I am sure we have enough contacts to at least get this idea floated seriously. Socially and ethically responsible funds have been around for some time now. These are good things, and they do actually provide some kind of lever to force some companies into aiming for the goals set by these funds (fair policies in employment, towards the third world, in the environment, etc.

Why not a fund which invests only in those companies which are on record as being against the Republicans? And label it clearly as such. Wave labels in the face of the opposition. Call it "The Liberal Fund". Call it the "Anti-Bush Fund". As JJ said in the DAJ list: "Got a ^&&*^&* problem with that?"

And then invest in it. Put your money where your mouth is.

D) Crazy conspiracy time

Bush is not a well man. I think this is obvious to anyone who saw him speak in the debates (and elsewhere). Is it premature dementia brought on as the result of earlier alcoholism (Korsakov's)? Or cocaine flashbacks? Or autism? Or all of the above? In any case, I would not be surprised (it may not be likely, but I would not be surprised anyway) if Bush announced he could no longer serve "for reasons of health", having done his duty as the puppet to give Cheney another term.

E) Trashing the Republicans

A lot of people aren't going to like this, but hear me out. Bush won, not because of what he did, but because of what he appears to be. Issues and a firm agenda don't matter. Kerry could have promised free health care on the UK model, a living minimum wage and jobs for all, but lost the election at least partly because of some chickenrice issue regarding gay marriage. "Values", as the Bush camp framed it - in other words, emotional triggers, are the key to mobilizing voters.

We are told that Bush lost a lot of the vote in 2000 because of the disclosure of his DUI charges. How much of the "godly" support would he lose if the abortion rumor was floated round and researched a little more? No, this isn't going to get him out of office, but it's going to cost him popular support. Dirty tricks? You bet. Should the Democrats rise above this kind of cheap and mean trick? Yes. Will that do any good? No. Al Gore failed to win 2000 decisively enough because of Kenneth Starr. By effectively hogtying Clinton as a Gore campaigner, Whitewater gave Bush a chance at the presidency. Our mission, should we decide to accept it, is a swift knee to the groin, followed by a rabbit punch to the back of the neck, and finishing with a boot to the kidneys.

We don't have to make up the kind of crap the the Republicans used against Clinton - there's enough stuff out there which can be used to attack his "moral" superiority -- but just suppose speculation was floated more loudly, and that then someone came out with confirmation of either a Rice-Bush relationship or renewed drinking habits (or both!). Let's drag Harken out into the open. Let's get some more of his "patriotism" out there. Let's put the little slimeball on the defensive. What was that bulge under the President's coat, Mr. Spokesman? We think you've been lying about it. Let's see the word "liar" in print a little more. Don't forget that Commandment about "bearing false witness".

And let's attack the man's patriotism at every turn. Support for veterans. Support of families at soldiers' funerals. Providing proper equipment for troops. Back-door deals with Saudi Arabia. The fact that his closest ally appears to be an ex-KGB officer. Take back the flag (it seems to matter to Americans) and leave George W Bush shivering naked in the cold wind of reality. No need to be rational about these things - the people we're trying to reach are not rational and won't respond to these things. What they will respond to is gut punches like the fact that Bush cares more for "heathen" Muslims than for decent American Christians. False flag operations? That's another subject, and *very* dirty pool.

Yes, I've just read the recent posting on the DAJ list about how the "heartland" has rejected all sense of decency in choosing the people to represent them. The first assumption is that they are choosing representatives who share their "values". But I think that this is more a case of giving support to the "godly" Bush who still enjoys a clean reputation, thanks to the media support up to now.

Republicans who go along with the Bush agendas are going to find their seats very vulnerable as the fundies desert the sinking shit [sic]. And Bush could find himself in Clinton's position -- unable to show his face in public to stump for his successor (or even for midterm elections).

Remember the scene in "Indiana Jones" when the flashy sword-wielding opponent is dispatched by Harrison Ford with a single pistol shot? For too long the Democrats have been displaying flashy ineffectual sword-play, when what's been needed has been a sub-machinegun.

Enough ranting.

Tuesday, Bloody Tuesday

2004-11-04T08:54:00.000+09:00

I've been thinking about this some more, and the more I think about it, the more certain I am that there was something rotten, not only in the state of Ohio, but in many other states as well.

If you wanted to steal the election for the Republicans, how would you do it? Well, first off, you wouldn't start by going for something like a 65%/35% popular split. There have been more than enough signs in the heavens and two-headed calves born recently for the pundits to swallow that one.

Nor would you want to take the election with a popular majority of less than 250,000 (preferably greater than 500,000). A 1%-2% popular margin would do it well.

Nor do you want to take every swing state and make it look like a landslide for the Thing From Texas. This would go against every prediction that's been made over the past few months. So you let the Democrats win the unimportant, pissant little states, with 4 or 5 EC votes, and you save the plums for yourself, these being Florida and Ohio (also the ones, of course, with the biggest media ballyhoo). Again, to win these states, you can't let Kerry win the surrounding states by more than a few per cent. One, it eats into the popular national margin, and two, it looks really weird when the key swing states come through as Bush states.

For the same reason, Ohio and Florida can't be seen to be won overwhelmingly -- Ohio's not Utah, after all, and in Florida you've got Democratic lawyers crawling up your ashcroft. As I said yesterday. pointing at the sun while pissing on your shoes is a good tactic, and I think in this case, Florida successfully drew the attention of the Democratic activists (not to denigrate the great work done by the Gators and others -- we were all fooled here).

I first got the gut feeling when all the northern "battleground" states started falling into the Kerry column, not by much, but by slim margins of 1-2%. And then Ohio, similar demographically to those other states (but with perhaps slightly more reason to vote Kerry, due to the job losses), reverses the trend of that region. So what was different about Ohio and Florida? Unverifiable voting machines, basically.

When in doubt, apply Occam's Razor. What is more likely? That all the pre-election polls, predictions, exit polls, omens and gut ground feeling were wrong? Or that the Bush Gang cheated again (they've done it before in 2000 and 2002)? On the subject of exit polls, I heard that CNN reversed their published exit poll findings, from a Kerry to a Bush lead, with no word of explanation, halfway through the process. Exit polls are generally regarded as reliable indicators of whether fraud took place and a 2% - 4% swing halfway through the day is not simply a matter of gender demographics.

Greg Palast has estimated that even before the election, George W Bush's gang had taken a million votes through fraud. I'm on the train now, so can't give you a link, but you can get there through http://www.buzzflash.com - just hunt through the headlines. Have any international observers come up with reports yet?

Of course, nothing can alter the fact that millions (probably over 45%) of American voters prefer an ant-intellectual ex-alcoholic psychopath to an educated cultured thinker, but then that's the nature of the beast. Maybe I don't want to believe that 52% of Americans are that out of touch with reality (my own form of reality denial), but I honestly don't believe these results.

And so I don't think the Democrats have to indulge too much in breast-beating and "where did we go wrong" self-torture. Mistakes were made, for sure, but the Bush team made many more "traditional election" mistakes. What they knew, and we didn't, was that the election was a farce -- Bush was going to be the next president. If Kerry had responded swiftly and smartly to the Swift Boat liars, or if he had torn off GWB's back-mounted "box" in the second debate and waved it in front of the cameras, or exposed Dick Cheney's lust for underage female armadillos, he'd still have lost. Because that was the way it was going to be from the start.

Thank you, Diebold, etc. for wrecking the world. Now we have four more years of a madman controlling a rogue state, raping the global environment, and listening to his "divine" inner voices telling him in which country he can next kill hundreds of thousands of people. I hope that the makers and implementers of these untested, unverifiable voting systems rot in hell for eternity.

Molly Ivens on point again

2004-10-31T15:52:00.001+09:00

WorkingForChange-Debate this:
"Public interest groups finally managed to get some records from Dick Cheney's energy task force. Surprise, they show that industry lobbyists not only played a pivotal role in making the policy, they wrote much of it themselves. Judicial Watch obtained maps of the Iraqi oil fields from the energy task force, along with charts, developments, project costs, etc., as well as a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." They are dated March 2001. This is of particular interest because the staggering profits of the last three years have left the oil companies with billions of dollars they want to invest in undeveloped world reserves.

Bin Laden for Bush? ha ha ha

2004-10-31T15:52:00.000+09:00

Well, the pundits all seem to think that OBL on the news is good for Bush. Is the American public insane? Bush said that he was going to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive".

And he's failed - after more than three years - the world's most expensive and powerful armed forces have failed - not because the troops are necessarily incompetent, but because the political leadership has demanded stupid tactics (B-52 strikes against guerillas) and strategy (moving the focus to another country).

The September 11 attack happened on Bush's watch - after he'd taken a month-long vacation in which it is apparent he was warned that al Qaeda was about to attack. And he did nothing. His Soviet-era NSA did nothing - except push forward with a plan for an obsolete boondoggle pork-barrel project for missile defense.

He has failed to take any steps to change the rationale for Bin Laden's enmity. I believe that if the USA were to change its actions to appear less anti-Islam (drop knee-jerk support for Israel - there's no such thing as "the Jewish vote" any more - like Christianity, it seems to have polarized into zealots and commonsense; stop supporting corrupt secular dictators; stop insisting that a secular democracy is the only way to run a country; etc.) much of the hostility, and many of the hostile acts against America and its allies would disappear. Instead, Bush has given pious Muslims more legitimate (in their eyes, at least) reasons for hating and perpetrating violence against America.

The fact that no attack on American soil has happened in over three years means nothing. Bin Laden is not working to a four-year re-election cycle - he and the millions behind him can wait and wait until the time is right (Bush's Inauguration day parade?). Bush has given no indication of understanding this elementary fact.

Basically, GWB has screwed up in every way possible regarding terrorism.
But Bush is the man to keep America safe? If these people who are apparently influencing public opinion seriously believe this, they deserve Bush. Trouble is that more than 50% of the population don't believe this bullshit, and neither does the rest of the world.

My thoughts on the media

2004-10-30T08:37:00.000+09:00

FWIW, this is what I see as the overall press mood:

Bush is now perceived as incompetent in his handling of Iraq, terrorism, international relations, and the domestic economy. Even of it's with great reluctance, and a feeling that their arms are being twisted, journals like the Economist, which is read by that portion of the population most likely to be traditional Bush supporters, are finding that they cannot support Bush, not on ideological grounds, but on grounds of sheer incompetence.

Some journals are taking it a stage further and calling Bush not only incompetent, but dishonest in his treatment of the facts, and dishonest in allowing his campaign to be fought the way it is.

All stuff we've known for a long time - maybe our collective contributions on blogs, letters to the editor, etc. have finally permeated to the mass media.

But do note that many endorsements of Kerry are actually Anyone But Bush endorsements - they're not a real preference for Kerry's core beliefs - it's simply that Bush has fouled up so badly that only fools and lunatics (and those who know they will be beaten like a redheaded stepchild (to use a favorite HST phrase) in an honest administration will support him now. When Kerry gets in (and note the "when"), expect a flakstorm from the media - I don't think the country is willing to go through another Ken Starr fiasco, but it wasn't willing to go through the first one.

I really want to see the title "ex-Congressman Tom DeLay", though. If he loses his seat, the Republitoads have lost the dictatorship of the House, even if they have a majority. Support Morrison (DeLay's opponent).

Washington Post endorses Kerry

2004-10-24T17:43:00.000+09:00

Hurrah (I suppose).

It's a very half-hearted endorsement, and it reflects a flawed viewpoint in many ways, for example: "His (Bush's) commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism." In my opinion, it reflects no such thing. It reflects a narrow, parochial view of other cultures which assumes that the whole of the rest of the world wants to be like America. This is manifestly not the case.

"But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators." Oh, so now Saddam Hussein's not friendly, it's OK to destroy him, while supporting the Saudi royal family, the Emirs of the UAE and the Sheik of Kuwait, Musharraf of Pakistan, etc.? And let's not even talk about Israel and the bloody-handed Sharon, shall we?

"Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention." Afghans in Kabul may be better off in some ways. Outside Kabul? Doubtful. And I very much doubt if US security is better off as the result of an invasion of Afghanistan.

"We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily." Wrong word. The word missing from the whole of this editorial is LIAR. The fact that George W. Bush talks about the UN inspectors not being allowed into Iraq when he addresses US audiences, but omits this "exaggeration" when talking to the UN shows that he is perfectly aware of the fact that he is lying.

"We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts." These are more lies, which he never had any intention of seeing through into anything like a real state of maturity, as they are mostly untenable slogans. For proof, look at the decline in Texas school standards since Bush played around with these concepts. A little homework on the part of the Post might well have found out that many of these programs are doomed from the get-go, simply on grounds of ideology.

About Kerry: "He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy."

But with friends like this, who needs enemies? No, although I'm glad that the WP has come out against Bush and for Kerry, they are missing the truth of the matter: the Bush administration is twisted as a knotted corkscrew, and cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about any situation, let alone do the right thing. Liars certainly, traitors probably, fools and rogues for a surety, and definitely in the lowest category of scumbags.

New support from unexpected quarter for Bush-Cheney ticket

2004-10-13T13:52:00.000+09:00

New support from unexpected quarter for Bush-Cheney ticket

Self-advertisement time again, folks. enjoy.

Americans are soft...

2004-10-10T11:02:00.000+09:00

Differences Sharpened in Debate : "Mark Jeffrey, a 45-year-old St. Louis businessman, said the president had impressed him [n the second Prez debate].

'I think he did a good job of trying to address some of the issues. We're really up against the wall with the war on terror,' said Jeffrey, who was leaning toward Bush before the debate.""

Oh me, oh my. "Up against the wall?" Well, Mr. Weenie-whiney American, most of Europe has had terrorism (not "terror" - that's a state of mind, you illiterate Republican) for years. Even when the IRA nearly blew up our Prime Minister, we British didn't feel we were "up against the wall". More children die of malaria each day than died in the World Trade Center attack on September 11. And you have the nerve to say this kind of thing?

Jesus versus Dubya

2004-10-09T15:11:00.000+09:00

An anti-Jesus ad as it might be.

A triple whammy

2004-10-09T08:34:00.000+09:00

When i was at school in the UK, we were taught that the US constitution provided for checks and balances in the use and abuse of power, by splitting the functionality into three parts: the executive, legislative and judiciary.

Right now, the US is faced with a crisis of confidence in all three branches, at the highest level:

The President and Vice President, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are almost definitely proven as liars, whose disregard for the truth has cost the lives of tens of thousands. The VP is also widely suspected of corruption and collusion on a massive scale. The president is, of course, almost universally seen as an idiot everywhere except the USA.
The Majority Leader of the House, Tom DeLay, is likely to be indicted any day now on a variety of charges including coercion, bribery. He is generally regarded as a greedy, lying thug, even by members of his own party.
Many of the Supreme Court justices are regarded as unsound in law and immoral in their practice (Justice scalia's friendship with the corrupt VP is a good example). The Attorney-General is an incompetent (0 for 5,000 in terrorism cases over 3 years!) and lunatic (draping a nude statue) fanatic (having himself "annointed" with cooking oil).

And the things they have in common? They're all Republicans, and they all believe in that peculiar brand of American Christianity which unilaterally asserts a moral superiority over the rest of the world, along with a nationalism which reminds us uncomfortably of fascism.

If these are traditional American values, I'm glad I am not a traditional American.

A reworking of the 23rd psalm

2004-09-26T12:46:00.000+09:00

Posted to the Democrats Abroad Japan mailing list -- not by the author. If anyone knows who the author is, I will gladly credit her (or him), so let me know.

Bush is my shepherd, I shall be in want.
He maketh me to lie down on park benches,
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my doubts about the Republican Party.
He leadeth me onto the paths of unemployment for His cronies' sake.
Yea, though no weapons of mass destruction have been found,
He maketh me continue to fear Evil.
His tax cuts for the rich and His deficit spending discomfort me.
He anointest me with never-ending debt.
Verily my days of savings and assets are kaput.
Surely poverty and hard living shall follow me all the days of His
administration,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

Is the U in USA a reality?

2004-09-26T11:29:00.000+09:00

An American friend I was talking with yesterday suggested, only half-jokingly, that those states which support the war and return Bush electors should be split off from the rational "sensible" states that can see past the war rhetoric, and left, as a separate country, to the tender mercies of the GOP's economic policies.

He pointed out that those states which vote for Bush typically produce the lowest Federal tax revenues and receive the largest Federal subsidies. All the time whining about the evils of "big government" and "socialism". The only problem I see with that problem is that the Democrats in those states would suffer (as well as innocent children). It may be, though, that the "United" part of the USA is actually a fiction - it seems to me that much of New England has more in common culturally with Toronto than it does with Tampa (to take two T-cities at random). In fact, should the USA try to preserve a unity which seems to be rapidly disintegrating, and where the U is as illusory as the U of the USSR? I'd be interested to see what anyone thinks about of the future unity of the USA.

Miserable failure

2004-09-25T22:44:00.000+09:00

It was said some time ago, and it's still true. The presidency of George W. Bush has been a miserable failure.

Consider. The United States entered World War 2 in December 1941. By August 1945, just over three and a half years later, the European Axis powers and Japan had surrendered. In September 2001, a terrorist organization launched an attack on American targets. In September 2004, just over three years later, the USA seems no closer to defeating the terrorist group who perpetrated the attack.

In World War Two, America was fighting on two fronts simultaneously, and was almost totally unprepared for war when the attack on Pearl Harbor took place. In September 2001, America had been for a number of years the most prolific producer and consumer of killing machines in the world. Furthermore, there was one clearly defined target. But, like the British and Russians before them, the Americans got bogged down in Afghanistan, and failed to achieve their objectives.

George W. Bush and his henchmen shrugged, and decided to mount a disinformation game in preparation for their attack their real target -- Iraq -- headed by Donald Rumsfeld's old buddy, Saddam Hussein. Naively believing that "the enemy of my enemy is always my friend", they expected the US troops to be greeted by a shower of rose petals. Approximately tens of thousands of lives later (these people are so arrogant, they can't even be bothered to try to keep count of how many people have lost their lives as the result of American aggression), it's obvious that this was not ever going to be the case. US service deaths are relatively few, thanks to technical improvements in personal protection, but severe woundings and maimings are high, for the same reason. Eighteen months after a successful blitzkrieg operation, the US (or the puppet government) has yet to control a major Iraqi city effectively.

But wait, you say. In 1941, the USA had allies. Sure -- but Big George didn't need allies, he thought. USA! USA! We can kick your ass! Apart from the UK, no country has contributed to a significant degree to help the Bush Empire-building exercise. Sure, there are a few hundred Dutch Marines, etc. and some Japanese military engineers staying in their camp and providing a few buckets of clean water each day for the neighboring village. But most of the rest of the world is, quite rightly, telling George to sweep up his own cheneying mess. And mess it is -- the corruption and underhand dealing that has gone into the occupation of Iraq, with billions of dollars simply missing as a result of the incompetence of the illegal CPA, headed by those selected for political loyalty, not their abilities, is staggering.

So much for the "war presidency" of George W. Bush, a "war presidency" like that of so many other monomaniac dictators and would-be dictators, who attempt to secure a place for themselves in the affections of their countrymen by waging a colonial war (parallels with Mussolini spring to mind). Despite Bush's flip-flopping from the "war president" to the "peace president" and back again, the fact remains that he is a miserable failure, no matter what criterion you judge him by. The most expensively-equipped army the world has ever seen has been stopped (once again) by patriotism backed up with AK-47s. The occupation of Iraq has been marked by criminal excesses of the worst kind, reminiscent of the brutal regime that was the pretext for the invasion. And George W. Bush blithely continues to assert (having visited the place once, for two hours, in a heavily-guarded military compound, accompanied by a plastic turkey, nearly a year ago) that everything is just fine. Funny how the troops over there don't agree.

"Miserable failure" doesn't really go far enough. "Miserable criminal failure" covers the bases more fully. When Bush loses in November, I do hope that a truly patriotic USA will hand him and the rest of the failures over to the World Court for judgment.

Why Iraq is important

2004-09-25T09:40:00.000+09:00

What's Wrong With John Kerry?
Is it the hair? The lack of charisma? Or do we just wish he was more angry and ruthless?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

He is not Bill Clinton.

Just gotta say it again, right off, because it is, quite possibly, still the most difficult fact for most moderates and Demos to accept, even now: Kerry is not Clinton. Kerry is not JFK. Kerry is not quite even Al Gore. We have to accept it. Let's go from there.

... read the whole thing - it's entertaining, and it makes good points

But I suppose this is the saddest part of all. That is, how cheerless and heartbreaking is it when you are essentially forced to wish that your candidate would be more ruthless, more cutthroat, more ferocious. When deep down you long for a little dignity among your leaders, some humanitarian deftness, some way to salvage a shred of spirit and hope amongst the political carnage.

Not this time. After all, sometimes, when playing badminton with the devil, you gotta screw the birdies and lob a couple grenades.

For once, I disagree somewhat with Mark Morford. I do agree that John Kerry lacks the instant charisma of Bill Clinton, or the down-home folksiness of Jimmy Carter. I also have been disappointed that Kerry and Edwards, up to now, have been playing softball.

But now, with over a month to go, they're coming out serving grenades:
"George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority," Kerry said. "I will finish the job in Iraq and I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror." says Kerry.

Not only did Bush pick the wrong fight, in other words, he cheneyed it up. And even though the war in Iraq is far from being the major problem that Americans face (it may be the major problem that America as a nation faces, which is slightly different), that and the "war on terror" are the main attack points where Kerry must go in on.

After all, Kerry's accused of being a flip-flopper. Bush is seen as the unswerving leader pursuing the course of righteousness. And look where it's got him. Tens of thousands dead. Terrorism increasing. The USA hated around the world.

And this is touted as Bush's only "success". The rest of his record (health, education, environment) is just lies. Iraq is only distortion. After Bush and Cheney are defeated, and safely locked up in cages with Saddam Hussein for company, then America can get on with the important business of providing a social structure for its citizens which comes up to the standards of the rest of the world.

An immodest proposal

2004-09-24T11:26:00.000+09:00

Sorry about the delay in writing - things have been somewhat hectic recently.

Anyway, my idea is that there are a number of different words we use in everyday speech (well, I do, anyway) that are generally banned as obscene and/or have lost their original force.

My suggested replacements to be used in everyday speech:

cheney - as in "go and cheney yourself", "what a cheneying loser" or just "cheney off"

rice - for another four-letter word - both steaming warm substances - "what a load of rice", or just "oh, rice!"

ashcroft - even sounds a little like the word it's replacing - "stupid ashcroft", "what an ashcroft", "don't be such an ashcroft"

rumsfeld - sounds just right for a part of the male anatomy - "what a dumb rumsfeld", "rumsfeldhead", etc.

But what about "bush" - where do we use the Dear Leader's name. Or DeLay or Wolfowitz (that last one's crying out for some use).

Leave a comment if you have better ideas or additions.

Un-wind the spin

2004-09-11T12:47:00.000+09:00

StraightTalk:

This looks like a valuable resource to help debunk the spin and deceit
surrounding the Bush administration.

Political haiku

2004-09-08T14:09:00.000+09:00

Drop into Democrats Abroad Japan and add your own haiku to the list.

These are mine (I don't have permission to reproduce the other folks', so you'll have to drift over there and see for yourself -- they're better than my efforts).

"Mission accomplished"
Saddam Hussein is now gone
Terrorists flourish

bin Laden/Hussein
No ties, and thousands are dead
How are we safer?

Rumsfeld's own blitzkrieg
"Catastrophic victory"
Where is bin Laden?

How many have died?
No weapons of destruction
And no bin Laden

From the Gutter

2004-09-06T10:35:00.000+09:00

Actually, I don't think you can count the Philadelphia Inquirer as real gutter press. It publishes an article that concludes:

"Less than 60 days remain for Democrats to learn. Republicans are obscene in their shamelessness. No Bush family campaign is acquainted with honor. And for Kerry to win, he needs to scrape the mud off and throw it back!"

It has to be "no more, Mr. Nice Guy", otherwise Kerry will go down as another Dukakis. There is enough true and documented mud that can be slung without making the Democrats look petty-minded.

GOP name goes public - to be sold to highest bidder

2004-09-05T10:09:00.000+09:00

GOP name goes public - to be sold to highest bidder:

"In an attempt to raise more money for incumbent President Bush's campaign bid, the Republican Party has come up with a novel strategy -- open corporate sponsorship.

"Ben Dover and Taykett Leiker-Mann, GOP financial strategists, were the architects of the new idea, details of which were hammered out at the Convention in New York last week. "Corporations are giving us money all the time, and they're grumbling that there's no visible return on their money," explains Dover. "Sure, we've done a lot in the last four years to give them a decent return on their contributions. Just look at the environmental record," he giggles."

More vanity publishing - click the link above to read and rate the whole thing.

The high road or the gutter?

2004-09-03T14:44:00.000+09:00

On a discussion list recently, one person wrote that Democrats typically want to avoid the gutter and to take a higher moral tone when it comes to political discourse, hence the quiet understated tone of the Democratic convention (as opposed to an earlier suggestion from someone else that Kerry had walked into a Republican strategic trap).

But my take is that "avoiding the gutter" means not telling the truth about GWB and giving him a free pass on his lies, theft, fraud, etc. "Oh, we mustn't attack the President - that wouldn't be gentlemanly - we must be above that kind of thing and point out the advantages of Kerry"?

There is much more evidence that Bush is psychotic than that Kerry wounded himself/lied about his medals. Seen any discussion in the mainstream press about this? Seen any mainstream Democrat discussing it? Is it really descending to the gutter to examine publicly whether a man with the power to destroy the whole world with a nuclear strike is or is not on prescription mind-altering drugs? The way I'd spin it is probably something like "Doubts surface about the President's insecurity and mental stability after questions are raised about the use of drugs prescribed for a psychiatric condition." There is some evidence out there suggesting that this is indeed true. See my earlier August piece on Bush's sanity for references.

To simply say Democrats must continue the work to get out the vote, because that is what will defeat Bush is, I fear, too sanguine. Yesterday I had a talk with someone I met for the first time, who is even more rabidly anti-Bush than me.

But... He mentioned that he comes from a large family. One of his siblings has only one book in the house - by Rush Limbaugh. Others call my new friend a traitor to America for pointing out that al Qaeda had no connection with Iraq. To these people, George W. Bush is a man truly sent by God to lead God's country to righteousness (some of his siblings are born-again Christians who don't believe in state education and don't really care that the home schooling they're providing is inadequate because the Rapture will happen soon). Now these people are not "typical Americans" any more than members of DAJ are "typical Americans" - America is too vast and diverse for such a label. They do, however, represent a large and vocal voting base which may not be easily overcome with a GOTV effort. Not that I decry such an effort - it's valuable, and conventional wisdom tells us that increased voter turnout results in a more left-leaning vote.

In addition, we know the Bush-ites cheat. They have cheated before, they have been caught cheating again this year, and we know that there are severe problems with the use of electronic voting machines and the tabulators, which could well result in a reported popular vote for the Bush administration (and a Bush-ite Congress) despite the fact that there was a majority voting against the Republicans and for the Democratic Party.

I really take issue with the idea that the rumpus stirred by the GOP convention will just blow over. Yes, the 2-point (or whatever) bounce will rebound. We hope. But until yesterday, I really didn't know that there were so many ordinary people (not the mad blog-sters and Rush Limbaughs of this world) who have been brainwashed into the "Four legs good, two legs better" anti-logic of the Bush Administration and its attendant Christian Taliban hangers-on/puppetmasters. I was terrified by what I heard, and its implications for the world. I hope that my earlier long-range diagnosis (and that of Michael Moore) of the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) is more accurate and typical of Middle America than the small sample whose ravings I was introduced to yesterday.

Are Democrats who refuse to point out the obvious flaws in Bush's character and history (Harken, Texas Rangers, Texas State Lottery, possible psychiatric instability, etc.) and those who refuse to bring Cheney's dirty deals into the spotlight really DINOs (Democrats In Name Only)? Or are they actually the true heart of the Democratic Party, exemplars of the high moral standards of that group.

I'd like your comments on this, please.

Are Americans gullible?

2004-08-30T18:54:00.000+09:00

The answer is that they're probably not. It's just that the media is crooked.

Greg Palast writes about GWB's National Guard days, and the deals made to ensure silence.

Still Unreported: The Pay-off in Bush Air Guard Fix: "By the way: I first reported this story in 1999, including the evidence of payback, in The Observer of London. US media closed its eyes. Then I put the story on British television last year in the one-hour report, 'Bush Family Fortunes.' American networks turned down BBC's offer to run it in the USA. 'Wonderful film,' one executive told me, 'but Time Warner is not going to let us put this on the air.' However, US networks will take cash for advertisements calling Kerry a Vietnam coward."

Blair impeachment

2004-08-29T14:48:00.000+09:00

the Mail online | News | Blair 'should be impeached':
Raking over old coals in a firefight I've been having on a mailing list, yes, I do believe that Americans are more duped by the news.

"'Misleading': Prime Minister Tony Blair
Tony Blair should be impeached for misleading the public over the Iraq war, the Mail online can reveal.

"An all-party group of MPs is hoping to use the ancient Parliamentary mechanism to bring the Prime Minister to account.

"Our poll - which you can still take part in - revealed a staggering 88 per cent of our readers believe Blair should be brought to trial in Westminster Hall. A mere 12 per cent of readers say it's time to leave Blair alone and move on.

"The overwhelming push to have Blair impeached can mean only one thing - British people feel deceived. This means public distrust of the Prime Minister has reached new levels. It is one thing to exaggerate the truth in everyday politics, another when those embellishments and misleading words are used to justify a war in which our soldiers are killed, and innocent children die."

When was the last American poll that showed anything like this level of support for bringing Bush to justice? All right, the Mail is a conservative (by British standards, which means it's a moderate Democrat by American standards) and it's an Internet poll, but still - this is not a loony left organization.

FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe

2004-08-28T16:26:00.000+09:00

CNN.com - FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe - Aug 28, 2004: "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI has evidence that a person who has been working at high levels in the Pentagon may be a spy for Israel, senior U.S. officials have confirmed to CNN.

The alleged 'mole' working for Israel could have been in a position to influence Bush administration policy toward Iran and Iraq, one of the officials said on Friday.

However, another government official said the suspect is 'not in a level to influence policy.'

'He is an analyst in an undersecretary's office,' this official said.

Sources said the FBI investigation has been going on for many months and more than one government employee is under investigation."

Surprise, surprise. Many people outside the USA have believed for a long time that the USA's Middle Eastern policy was being dictated by Israel. Is this just the confirmation of this suspicion?

Smear Effort Not The Most Swift Of Ideas

2004-08-27T19:46:00.000+09:00

Smear Effort Not The Most Swift Of Ideas: From The Tampa Tribune: "Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan."

The final paragraph of a mainstream paper in Florida. Read the whole article. If GWB finds himself as president again, expect to see many more people round the world who loathe and despise everything that he is and that he stands for.

Want some real slime? Read what you're allowed to about the glorious war herodom of GWB (about the same as you were allowed to see of Stalin's revolutionary records). And people actually vote for this thing?

I hardly ever wish ill on anyone, but in GWB's case, I'll gladly make an exception.

More vanity publishing

2004-08-25T18:35:00.000+09:00

You might want to check out this article, and also this one, and rank them if you like them.

We now return you to your scheduled whatever it was that you were doing...

Enemy of the State?

2004-08-25T15:47:00.000+09:00

Telegraph | News | Airline terrorism checks ground Kennedy:
"Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the most recognisable politicians in America, has complained that he was prevented from boarding aircraft by security staff because his name was on a "no fly" list.

The senior Democrat from Massachusetts, who has held his seat in America's upper house for 42 years and is the sole surviving brother of John and Bobby Kennedy, was rejected by airline staff five times earlier this year for flights to Boston, Washington, Palm Beach and New York."

As Kennedy points out - it's funny when it's one of the most recognizable men in America - not so funny when you're Joe Blow and you're not allowed to fly "and we can't tell you why"

Freedom? democracy? America? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Bush's Bogus Medals

2004-08-25T09:49:00.000+09:00

Bush's Bogus Medals - A BuzzFlash Guest Contribution: "Thomas Burns

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Bob Fertik, Democrats.com

In the picture linked to above, George W. Bush is wearing an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA - the ribbon on the left) and a Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR - the ribbon on the right).

Walt Starr is making a convincing case that Bush had no right to wear the AFOUA wing.

For the past month, the Swift Boat Vets have insisted Kerry did not legitimately earn his medals. Those assertions have all been discredited. Fairness now requires similar scrutiny to Bush's medals.

Wearing an unearned medal is certainly a 'character' issue of the highest order.

In 1996, when Admiral Jeremy Boorda, Chief of US Naval Operations, was presented with evidence that he wore medals that he had not earned, he committed suicide in disgrace.

And this is not the first time a prominent Bush has been accused of unearned medals. Bush's grandfather Prescott was caught with bogus medal claims during WW I, a humiliation that drove him out of his home town of Columbus OH.

The media needs to demand the truth from Bush about his medals -- and about his still-unexplained grounding.

Just a thought

2004-08-23T18:19:00.000+09:00

(from a Canadian friend) Why isn't George Bush Sr. campaigning as hard as he can go for his son? What's wrong?

More on Bush's sanity

2004-08-23T14:27:00.000+09:00

I had assumed that Capitol Hill Blue was essentially a parody site and that its reports of Bush's increasing mental instability were satire.

See this report which includes this paragraph:

"Bush?s erratic behavior and sharp mood swings led White House physician Col. Richard J. Tubb to put the President on anti-depressant drugs after he walked off stage rather than answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay."

And also this one , which covers much the same ground, including this really bizarre statement:

One long-time GOP political consultant who ? for obvious reasons ? asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

This one, which is basically a review of Dr. Frank's book.

And this one, which really started the whole thing:

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as ?enemies of the state.?

White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

As I say, I'd written the site off as a parody site, much along the lines of the White House parody site. But more and more it seems to me that Capitol Hill Blue is indeed serious. My sincere apologies to you good people at CHB. Looking at the FAQ, I see:

What are your politics?
None. We believe it is the job of journalists to report the news, not be influenced by political beliefs or bias. Our publisher took break from journalism in the 80s to work for Republicans but is, and always has been, a registered independent voter. Neither he nor our editor have ever voted a straight ticket. We consider ourselves recovering newspapermen. A few also served sentences on Capitol Hill. Experience in either, or both, of these endeavors creates political agnostics.

We subscribe to legendary Chicago journalist Finley Peter Dunne's belief that it is the role of a newspaperman to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Should we believe what you print simply because you say it is so?
Absolutely not. You should read many publications and draw your own conclusions. We insist that every story published on Blue have at least two independent, verifiable sources [my emphasis] for any and all of the information in that story. We have a good track record but, as with any product produced by human beings, we can -- and do -- make mistakes. But when we are wrong, we admit it. Thankfully, we seldom have to. Our publisher has a motto that hangs over his rickety, old, roll-top desk: If your mother says she loves you, get a second source.

Who owns Blue?
Blue is owned by The Save America Foundation, a private foundation funded entirely out of Thompson's personal resources. Like its benefactor, Save America has no political leanings, no hidden agenda and owes nothing to nobody. Our only goal is to follow the truth wherever it leads and then print it. Once we do, we don't much care who gets mad about it.

So, Capitol Hill Blue may not be 100% accurate, but it's more than possible that it is correct. So, we have a series of stories, which have escaped from one of the most secretive administrations in American history, and basically say that the current President is unfit to hold office on health grounds (I don't think that anyone who is on mood-altering drugs such as anti-depressants should be trusted with nuclear weapons -- ever seen the warnings on the labels of these things?).

Is this DC's best-kept secret - that there's a raving lunatic running the USA? I've believed this for a long time -- as a layman, I cannot find myself able to believe that Bush is sane, in the usual sense of the word, and I once wrote a parody, which may turn out not actually to be a parody, it appears. God help us all.

---fiction starts here ----
Officials today refused to confirm or deny reports that the Presidential Protection Detail of the Secret Service have been issued with tranquilizer dart guns in the event of President Bush's suddenly running amok in public.

"It is not policy to comment on the methods used to protect the President from members of the public, or even the other way around," said an unnamed spokesman. "All I can say is that we are watching the President very carefully at this time."

The reports come hot on the heels of reports of the President's increasing mental instability. Some White House staffers allege that Mr. Bush's rapid mood swings, which go from Bible-quoting homilies to obscene tirades against real or imaginary opponents, are becoming more frequent and that verbal and physical violence is becoming an almost everyday occurrence in the Oval Office. "Last week alone, we had to replace three water carafes and the frame and glass of a signed photograph of [U.N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan," claimed one aide.

Commentators have remarked on Mr. Bush's appearance at public events, noting that medication for a psychiatric condition might be a factor in his notoriously poor language use and communication skills. The possibility of a Presidential rampage is also in the minds of some Congressional Republicans.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one senior GOP Senator said, "Quite frankly, we're terrified. Many of us have seen the President in private moments when we were, shall we say, less than convinced of his sanity. Our fear is that he will forget to take his medication, or that his tolerance to it will build up, and that the 'calm, reasonable' mask will slip at a public moment. We've been told that the SS [Secret Service] have been issued with dart guns to bring him down and make it look like an accident if this happens, but it might be too late by then."

A Republican Congressman's aide alleged, "We all knew about a recent 'cycling accident' in Texas which was blamed on rainy conditions, even though weather records showed no rain had fallen for a week. It was hardly a coincidence that both the Secret Service and the President's physician were riding with him when he 'fell' from his bicycle. I suppose we were lucky that this didn't happen at a public event. The fundraisers are another matter ? we can keep the general public out, and his long ramblings, which quite frankly make no sense, have been kept out of the media so far. But we're living on a knife edge."

An unnamed Republican Party source commented, "Why do you think we're pre-screening the crowds at the rallies? One hostile slogan on a T-shirt, or one heckler, and the man could blow at the seams. We've got to keep him under control until election day. And quite frankly, we don't know what to do about the televised debates."

White House spokesmen refused to comment on the record about these matters.
--- fiction ends here----

I'm not going to try to be nice...

2004-08-23T09:52:00.000+09:00

Because I'm not a nice person, and neither is Dick Cheney. I fail to see why we should pretend that these are ordinary politicians currently occupying the government of the United States. They're thieves and rogues who are interested in money and power (I don't know enough about what goes on in their filthy little minds to say in what order).

OK, proof? you say. What proof? Shall we just take a look at the graph on this page to see just how Halliburton's benefitted from the Bush II regime's policy of "war when we feel like it, against who we want"? Hmmm.... Seems like anyone who's receiving "unvested stock options" (the technical term for post-dated bribes which can't be put into a blind trust) is on a roll. And guess who's got lots and lots of these unvested stock options? Wouldn't be the Vice President, now, would it?

This article reckons that there'll be a need for defense attorneys for the Bush administration civil servants and laments the fact that Bush can't be impeached out of office. Well, he can still be tried for other crimes, and so can Cheney. I look forward to seeing them in orange jumpsuits, with handcuffs on their wrists. Maybe Bush will do one of his hilarious "Please don't kill me" impressions for the cameras.

Hey, Big Dick (that's not a compliment, you know). I have two words for you. One is "off" and the other you know pretty well already. You're not needed by the rest of the world outside the Halliburton boardroom.

Cheney's Grand Teton visit ruffles feathers

2004-08-23T08:34:00.000+09:00

Cheney's Grand Teton visit ruffles feathers - billingsgazette.com

Just in case you thought Dick Cheney was an ordinary nice guy under all that bluster. No, he's still a selfish greedy bastard, intent on disrupting the lives and welfare of those around him, just so he can enjoy himself.

And the environment? The environment can go and cheney itself, as he might say.

This scum belongs behind bars (preferably in an Iraqi prison, for crimes against the Iraqi people).

Unfit to hold office

2004-08-20T10:51:00.000+09:00

Herald Sun: Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' [19aug04]:
Do we really need any more proof that George W. Bush's mental state is not of the standard that he should be acting as Chief Executive?

"US President George W, Bush spoke today of "the Soviet dinar," – appearing to mix up the Russian rouble and the Iraqi dinar.

"Recalling a White House meeting earlier this year with an Iraqi man who had his arms cut off by the Saddam Hussein regime, Mr Bush said the man, who worked as a jeweller, was accused of illegal currency trading.

""And he had sold dinars on a particular day to buy another currency, euros or dollars, so he could buy gold to manufacture his product," Mr Bush said.

""And because the Soviet dinar had devalued, Saddam Hussein plucked this guy out of society to punish him, and six other small merchants, for the devaluation of their currency. He just summarily said, 'you're it, come here' – and cut his hand off.""

Never mind the dinar/rouble mixup - after all, the US has only been intimately involved with Iraq and its economy for 18 months or so. It seems to take longer than that for any fact to lodge itself in the empty space between Bush's ears.

The Soviet Union, Mr. Bush, has been dead and gone for over 12 years now. There is no Soviet rouble any more. There hasn't been for 12 years.

If you want proof that these guys are real dinosaurs, this is it. Something tells me that GWB's getting flashbacks to his glory days as Daddy's campaign manager. The tranks are either too strong or not strong enough.

Seriously, this is not a joke - this is a symptom of something very, very wrong within the Bush administration mindset and could be made to explain a lot about the administration's actions. Condi, Donald, Dick and George are all using Iraq as a substitute Soviet Evil Empire in order to keep the military-industrial complex happy, and the people in fear. Do we need any more proof?

Kerry - the fighter

2004-08-20T10:05:00.000+09:00

Isn’t it great that Kerry’s starting to take the gloves off and really fight hard? Turning Bush's own words against him in the "Bring it on" taunt. If you were Karl Rove or Karen Hughes, how the hell would you get Bush to avoid the debates? Kerry's going to rip off both Bush's arms and beat him over the head with the soggy ends (to quote a weird cousin of mine).

The press is getting sick of the "aw shucks" small-town nice-guy image - they realize it's a fake - the anti-intellectualism is not going to go down with the press, even if Middle America loves it, the coastal regions are tired of it - the facts are against him on the war, economy, security - and we have a Kerry and an Edwards who are bounding around like the Energizer bunny on meth-amphetamine."

Bush's handlers have got a job and a half to do to get him through to November without his shooting himself in both feet on prime time TV.

Hot and cool media

2004-08-19T13:36:00.000+09:00

Kevin and I were talking on the train into Tokyo this morning about Marshall McLuhan and hot and cool media. We came to a sort of conclusion - that the old division no longer held good.

The whole discussion came out of my mentioning that I was reading a book with a wireless-LANned laptop beside me, and looking up references as I read. Kevin mentioned that some of his friends had read "the Da Vinci Code" in the same way, checking every reference and painting as they read through the book.

From "The Medium is the Message", we moved onto a discussion of how the younger (or younger-minded) generation takes an active approach to its information -- either checking facts on the fly, or actively producing informed publicly-available and contestable opinion in the form of Web sites, blogs, etc.

It strikes me that people like George W. Bush are chosen by the "TV generation" -- who are used to passively consuming data, rather than checking or creating it. Howard Dean, as Joe Trippi well knows, is not a product of TV -- in fact, what you read about is what you get -- a false image cannot be maintained to a criticality through the transparency of the Internet.

Smoking Goats

2004-08-18T19:46:00.000+09:00

This is interesting. Buzzflash tells the story of the "smoking goat"; i.e. what George W Bush was doing in that Florida school on September 11, 2001. It contains links to the original video at the bottom of the page (that is, the one before the Goebbels/Rove team suppressed the more damaging parts) and it shows Bush sitting for five minutes at least, after the news of the second plane crash was brought to him. I haven't put a link to the movie itself because it is in various formats and sizes, depending on the type of computer and the type of Internet connection that you may have.

After watching Fahrenheit 911, a friend made the point that Michael Moore might have selectively edited the movie in order to show only those parts which made George W. Bush look like a fool. Well, after watching the whole five minutes between his being informed of the second plane crash and is leaving the room, I think it's fair to say that Michael Moore may well have picked the worst parts in order to make his point but the rest is not markedly better.

If anyone reading this has a Republican friend who feels that George Bush is a decisive leader, capable of defending the United States (or if by some strange chance a Republican is actually reading this) I recommend this movie clip. It shows a strangely indecisive man, acting in a way that would seem to reflect the actions of a small business owner who has discovered a clerk has run off with the petty cash, rather than the president of the United States realizing that his country is under attack.

Another friend has made the point that Bush's reaction on this occasion may well be a "Oh my God, I fouled up" moment. He had been told by the CIA and other intelligence agencies that Muslim extremists were planning an attack on the United States. He had even been given some idea of methodology and timing, and he had done absolutely nothing about it. If, by some strange chance, you found yourself in that position, how would you behave? My guess is that you might actually end up looking somewhat like Bush--dazed and confused, and unable to react coherently. Of course, you are more intelligent than George W. Bush--after all, you're reading this. George W. Bush doesn't read.

What I think is even more strange than Bush's behavior is the behavior of the Secret Service. Why, when their mission is to protect the president of the United States, did they not scoop him up and bundle him into a safe method of transportation? Did they ( and possibly other members of the administration) know something about the events of September 11th in advance, which even Bush didn't know?

I think it's extremely unlikely that we will ever know the whole truth of the administration and its reaction to September 11th, anymore than we will ever know the true story of the Kennedy assassination. However, this is a mystery with as many, or more, implications for the people of the whole world and the JFK affair. As soon as Bush and Cheney leave office, they should be subpoenaed as private citizens and put under oath to reveal everything that they know or knew about September 11th prior to the events.

Shut It Down

2004-08-18T14:32:00.000+09:00

Shut It Down

NYC's response to the 3-ring circus, with the elephants and clowns, coming to town next month.

Sign this

2004-08-18T11:30:00.000+09:00

MoveOn PAC

Let the Coward In Chief know what ordinary folk think about the "Swift Boat" lies.

Get out the (young) vote

2004-08-16T11:28:00.000+09:00

Younger Voters Rapidly Deserting Bush (washingtonpost.com): "Younger Voters Rapidly Deserting Bush"

No matter what we think of how Kerry looks and behaves, he's more attractive than Bush to the younger voters.

"In the latest Post-ABC News poll, taken immediately after the Democratic National Convention, Kerry led Bush 2 to 1 among registered voters younger than 30. Among older voters, the race was virtually tied. About 1 in 6 voters in 2000 was between 18 and 29 years old."

Does this say anything significant about America?

Hecklers Banned At Bush Rallies

2004-08-14T19:53:00.000+09:00

CBS News | Hecklers Banned At Bush Rallies | August 13, 2004 21:09:18:
I'm just reading Volkogonov's "Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire". The parallels between the Bolshevik dictators and their publics and Bush's hand-picked cheering crowds are quite disturbing.

"And that [the fact that there are no questions and no dissent] doesn't seem to bother the president's supporters.

'I think it was more of a rally to get the supporters rallied up, so I think it served its purpose,' said a guest.

But what about inviting some voters who haven't yet made up their minds?

'You mean the people who don't support Bush? They're only gonna sit and chat and you won't get to hear anything,' said a backer.

It's all about getting out the message without any distractions, and making sure that there's no public argument to spoil the party."

Liberal Media - Hoffmania!

2004-08-13T21:54:00.000+09:00

Liberal Media - Hoffmania!: "Look, I completely understand Kerry's 'nuanced' response, but these animals don't know nuance. They don't know a lot. They only know what they want to hear - and they run with it and hammer it and hammer it and hammer it into submission. And the press cares even less about nuance. They want a clever sound bite and Bush is delivering it for them at Kerry's expense.

Team Kerry. Please. You have to know your opposition. They're not subtle. They're not patient. They don't like detail. They do understand one thing: Kicking someone really hard and really swiftly in the nuts. They do it all the time. It makes them feel powerful. The response? You have to kick these guys in the nuts hard and you have to kick them in the nuts often. Because while nuance works for thinking people, it's ice cold death against these insane freaks. Next time, Mr. Kerry, just say 'no.'"

Couldn't put it better myself. This is no time for gentlemanly liberalism. This is a time for all out balls-to-the-wall fighting.

The horror, the horror...

2004-08-13T10:56:00.000+09:00

For some reason, my TV diet hasn't included Iraq footage recently. Partly because the Bush Cartel now claim the "war" is over, and so the Japanese media believe it, partly because I've had other things to do.

But last night, NHK showed some of the fighting, and it was appalling to come back to, after the relative drought of Iraqi footage. I cannot believe that the USA has invaded another sovereign state in this way, and is killing so indiscriminately and bloodily.

George W Bush and his henchmen come out of this as butchers - probably as war criminals, and if there was any justice in the world, they would be seized and locked up for the rest of their natural lives. I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I wouldn't make their lives comfortable, either. Time for the rest of the world to impeach Bush.

Friends in the White House Come to Coal's Aid

2004-08-11T18:51:00.000+09:00

The New York Times > Washington > Friends in the White House Come to Coal's Aid: "Safety and environmental regulations often shift with control of the White House, but the Bush administration's approach to coal mining has been a particularly potent example of the blend of politics and policy."

How the Bush White House is killing working people by repealing safety regulations, and returning America to the 19th century. Time Bush was stuffed down a coal mine for a long, long time.

IHT: Bush's policy endangers U.S. security

2004-08-09T22:31:00.000+09:00

IHT: Bush's policy endangers U.S. security: "While unexpected, the decision by the Bush administration last month to oppose inspections and verification as part of the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty is not surprising. Since taking office, the administration has taken a number of steps that have undermined the ability of the United States and the world community to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

But given the fact that Bush agrees with most analysts that the greatest danger facing the United States is a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a rogue state or terrorist group, his actions are counterproductive and defy good sense."

Not my headline - not my words - I just call them as I see them.

Rice as a source of truth?

2004-08-09T18:47:00.000+09:00

AP "reports" Bush Aides Believes Terrorists Set Back: "Both Townsend and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, praised Pakistan's efforts.

``Three years ago, Pakistan was not a fighter in the war on terrorism,'' Rice said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``And here you have them able to take down terrorists and to provide information, which then could be shared."

And no-one in the press asked questions about Pakistan's export of nuclear technology to rogue nations?

What is wrong with America?

Scared by the Terror! Terror! Terror! chant from Bush and Co?

Let Freedom Reign!

2004-08-09T16:38:00.000+09:00

Except, of course, where the Iraqi government might find itself embarrassed. Looks like the "new" Iraq's going to be a typical US puppet state; secret police and torture, heavy censorship, a lack of an elected government, etc. All the things that the rest of the world has learned to associate with US-backed governments.

Can Cheney go over there and sort things out - he seems to have nothing better to do than repeat the same old lies again and again. With luck, he might find an unexploded Weapon of Personal Destruction to go off as he walks over it.

The Great Commander Speaks!

2004-08-09T09:13:00.000+09:00

My opponent said something the other day I strongly disagree with — he said that going to war with a terrorist is actually improving their recruiting efforts," Bush said, referring to a remark Kerry made Monday.

"Now, that's upside-down logic," Bush said. "It shows a misunderstanding of the enemy."

From a news report of a speech made by the Chickenhawk-In-Chief.

Of course, Bush would know all about this kind of thing - how to fight terrorists - from his great and glorious Vietnam record, bravely facing the Commie hordes in the skies over Texas. Leaving aside that many of the countries whom he spurned have vastly more experience fighting well-organized groups of terrorists than America, it's common sense that you don't fight terrorism in a "war" - you fight fire with fire.

And bombing civilians has always been shown to strengthen the resolve of fighting forces, let alone invading and occupying another country.

And let's remind Americans (the rest of the world knows it already, but Pravda/Fox/CNN seems to have obscured the fact):

Iraq had cheneying nothing to do with September 11 (except in George W Bush's drug-addled brain)

Sister Terror

2004-08-07T13:46:00.000+09:00

Ashcroft is counting nuns as terrorists, as well as those who dare to criticize the wisdom of the Great Leader.

In this case, three nuns who prayed for peace (and defaced military property) were given prison sentences and classified as "national security threats". Guess Bush is really shaking in is shoes at the thought that nuns might take over the USA. Still, if the Pope really believes GWB is the Antichrist...

To bring up the numbers of the "terrorists" and to show the efficiency of the USA PATRIOT Act, for example, in New Jersey, the authorities added 65 visa violations to the mere two possible terrorist cases they were able to drag up.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military was heavily criticized for its obsession with body counts as a misleading measure of the progress of a war and, worse still, an inducement to use lethal force to get the numbers up. Despite these hard lessons, a similar body count culture has taken hold under Ashcroft at the Justice Department, where prosecutors are being pressured to rack up national security indictments for annual reports showing success in the war on terrorism.

As in the Vietnam War, the Ashcroft body count policy has produced an indiscriminate targeting of anyone who can be remotely classified as a terrorist or national security threat. Where soldiers would sometimes shoot water buffalo and civilians in rice paddies for body count reports, prosecutors are pursuing artists, protesters and academics.

All reported here.

The whole thing is beginning to seem more and more like the KGB chiefs trying to fulfill their quota of arrest in order to satisfy Moscow. And of course, it all makes work for the prison guards, whose numbers show the only real job growth in America under Bush.<

Paul Krugman speaks sense

2004-08-07T10:53:00.000+09:00

Paul Krugman makes some excellent points:

For example: The thing is the United States is a huge, wealthy, extremely powerful country, which means that you can screw up very badly, and the consequences take awhile before they become obvious.

Read his points about the media (click the headline to read his interview with Buzzflash) - how the publishers have an inbuilt bias to the right, while the journalists who write the stories before they're edited it appears, seem to have a bias to the left.

At least they're laughing at Bush.

An honorable man?

2004-08-06T12:41:00.000+09:00

Well, McCain is a good Party man, at the least. He's come outunequivocally against the anti-Kerry ad and asked the Bush campaign to condemn it (of course, they haven't).

"McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."" I don't know about that, John. Bush has pulled some cheaper stunts in the pasy.

Is the GOP playing good cop, bad cop with the American public? Meanwhile, one of the really bad cops of the GOP, Tom DeLay continues to bribe his fellow Congressmen on the Ethics Committee.

What if Bush is Right?

2004-08-04T15:23:00.000+09:00

Tom Junod, in Esquire, August 2004 writes at length and with a certain degree of detachment about the possibility that GWB might be right in his determination to fight "terror" (by which Bush means "terrorism" – terror is a state of mind) and remove Saddam Hussein. He comes over as a Bush-loather; by no means a knee-jerk Republican supporter who supports "my President, right or wrong".

He makes a comparison with Lincoln, who fought a bloody war, with little room for compromise, in which he suspended habeas corpus, ran up an enormous national debt and eventually re-established the Union and freed slaves. Now Lincoln is a hero, but at the time, he was as loathed and despised (and not just by Southerners) as much as GWB is now.

But the comparison is disingenuous – Lincoln was forced into a war with the South, or else he had to let the erring sisters depart in peace. Bush was not forced into any such either-or choice with Iraq. In fact, the invasion and occupation was and is condemned by the rest of the world. Much of the rest of the world supported the Union in the War Between the States, seeing it as a war against slavery rather than a war to preserve the union.

Many religious leaders supported the Union cause – virtually no church has supported the "Christian" Bush in his fight against Iraq.

But the most important point about Tom Junod's article is that he has fallen prey to the Bush-induced confusion between September 11 and the invasion of Iraq. Need we spell it out one more time?

There is no proven connection between the events of September 11 and the regime of Saddam Hussein

Junot's rather breathless, semi-hysterical account of al-Quaeda ("The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that delights in the potential for martyrdom expressed in the squalls of the newly born. It is a movement that is about death—that honors death, that loves death, that fetishizes death, that worships death, that seeks to accomplish death wherever it can...") does two things:

First, it ignores the fact that Muslims feel that they have had a rough deal at the hands of the USA, due to the USA's uncritical acceptance of Israel's actions, with hardly any support for any opposing point of view, over a period of many years.

Secondly, it distorts the basic credo of the Muslim religion, even the violent offshoots of Islam, beyond recognition. It would be possible to write an account of "Christianity" which was almost equally distasteful, based on (say) John Ashcroft's view of morality.

From there, Junot leaps to Iraq, just as the Bush administration leaped to Iraq. Although he says "the issue is no longer Bush's moral intention but rather his simple competence", this assumes that Bush was being honest when he cited "terrorism" as a reason to invade Iraq. Every piece of evidence seems to indicate the opposite – the war seems to have had the enrichment of prominent Republicans and their supporters as one of its primary goals.

But... just supposing that Iraq had been sponsoring terrorist groups to act against the USA? Would this justify an invasion? The answer is probably "yes" (insofar as any war can be moral), if the rest of the world, as represented by the United Nations, were to come to a consensus (formal or otherwise) on the matter. And indeed, that's what happened with Afghanistan. The evidence was strong enough that Osama bin Laden was being actively supported and sheltered by the rulers of Afghanistan, and that bin Laden had some responsibility for the events of September 11 that the USA was supported in its decision to overturn the government and capture bin Laden. The fact that bin Laden remains uncaptured after nearly three years, that George W. Bush has publicly stated that he doesn't care about bin Laden any more, that the country is now in a state of anarchy outside the ex oil-consultant-ruled Kabul, and that the Taliban were receiving aid and support from the USA until the invasion, are irrelevant to the morality of the action.

Was George W. Bush right to remove a nasty dictator, as Junot claims: "We might as well credit the president for his one great accomplishment: replacing but with and as a basis for foreign policy. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of him."? To me, this rings hollow. The thousands of deaths, and thousands of maimed boys and girls who will have to live with the lasting reminders of Bush's incompetence and Cheney's greed until the day they die, would seem to give the lie to that. One might just as well credit Hitler with the removal of many bloody-minded and murderous Soviet commissars in the war, ignoring the millions of innocent Soviets and Germans dead on the battleground, and the millions of others killed in extermination camps.

At the end of the piece, Junot's rhetoric gets in the way of his logic: "He [Lincoln] didn't lose [the Civil War], at least in part because he was able to both inspire and draw on the kind of moral absolutism necessary to win wars. Bush has been unable to do the same, at least in part because he is undercut by evidence of his own dishonesty, but also because moral absolutism is nearly impossible to sustain in the glare of a twenty-four-hour news cycle. In a nation incapable of feeling any but the freshest wounds, Bush cannot seek to inspire moral absolutism without his moral absolutism becoming itself an issue—indeed, the issue. He cannot seek to engender certainty without being accused of sowing disarray. And he cannot speak the barest terms necessary for victory in any war—that we will stay the course, through good or through ill, because our cause is right and just, and God is on our side—without inspiring a goodly number of his constituents to aspire to the moral prestige of surrender". I am really not sure what all of this is meant to mean. That modern Americans can't accept moral absolutism? That Americans have a short attention span?

But to quote George W. Bush's favorite "political philosopher": "By their fruits ye shall know them". What are Bush's other "fruits"? Nothing in Bush's history or current policy seems to indicate that he is anything other than devious, dishonest, and above all, not a man who cares for his fellow human beings. Bush's constant words in favor of his version of morality don't count as fruits. His deeds which seem to contradict his words (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-poor people, anti-peace – almost a reversal of the Beatitudes) are the true fruits, and I think we know Bush from them – not from the removal of one dictator, when he and his administration are busy coddling so many more dictators who may be even worse than Hussein. Of course a blind pig may find an acorn, and the removal of Saddam Hussein will remain GWB's acorn. But it doesn't stop Bush from continuing to be a blind pig.

It may well be true that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. However, it is much more certain that the world will be better off with Bush, and those who advise him, out of office, and brought to justice.

Poverty-stricken Republicans

2004-08-02T11:56:00.000+09:00

My heart bleeds for Tom Ridge. At a mere $175,000/year, he's going to have difficulty putting his kids though college, says CBS.

Poor Tom. And the job is exhausting him. Seems like he's out of his mental depth.

Maybe Dick Cheney could lend him a few Halliburton stocks or something. Seems like he's got enough money to put a lot of families' children through college, and Iraq's making more money for him every day. Enjoy it while you're a free man, Dick.

What I see...

2004-07-31T17:18:00.000+09:00

I wrote this a few weeks ago, but not a lot has changed so it basically still applies. Kerry and Edwards have identified many of these problems, and rightly so, and they are now proposing some solutions. Let's hope they can find the answers before it's too late. Already, Democrats Abroad are having to defend themselves vigorously against anti-Americanism in Europe and explain that they are working to change the situation.

Right now, I look into America from Japan, through the filter of non-American media, and I see chaos.

I see a President who pays more attention to the voices he hears in his head than he does to his highly-trained experienced intelligence professionals. The "God" whose voice he hears is telling him to attack other countries, and also to despise women, homosexuals, and those who do not share his narrow-minded beliefs.

I see a Vice President whose massive greed and corruption dwarfs even the massive graft practiced in Japan, the land of billion-dollar roads to nowhere.

I see a National Security Adviser who seems not to to understand the scope and responsibilities that come with her position, and who is stuck in the Cold War, unwilling and/or unable to accept the fact that the world has changed.

I see a Secretary of Defense who seems determined to run the Pentagon like a dot-com, outsourcing and "streamlining", oblivious of the fact that the dot-com model crashed and burned years ago, and oblivious to the advice provided by his professional generals and admirals.

I see an Attorney-General who seems like something out of the McCarthy era, with a truly Victorian prudishness and a backing of religious zeal that seems to verge on the psychotic.

I see a shadowy cast of "neo-conservatives", seemingly accountable to no-one, who urge the invasion of other nations on grounds put forward by convicted shysters and crooks.

And, maybe most worryingly, I see an America that has lost its way, floundering on decisions which have been made years ago in other countries (abortion, gay rights and so on), ignoring the basic welfare, health and education of the majority of its own citizens, while all the time establishing a "superclass" of ultra-rich rulers. An America which ignores the rest of the world's concerns regarding the environment, justice and peace, seeking only to promote its own selfish greedy interests.

As a result, the USA has forfeited the respect of other nations. The next time that any U.S. President talks about "freedom" or "democracy", the result will be a hollow laugh from the rest of the world, in much the same way that pronouncements by the Soviet Union on the same subjects were greeted.

In order for the USA to regain the respect of other nations, and to restore its credibility, it is necessary to carry out at least two trust-restoring measures:

Firstly, the current malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors committed by this administration must be investigated publicly and punished according to the appropriate laws and regulations in force (including international systems of justice if necessary). It must be made obvious that this is not a personal vendetta against the individuals committing these crimes, but an attempt to expose and redress the wrongs that have been committed during this administration, which have exceeded the worst imaginings of the opponents of the Bush administration in 2000.

Secondly, America must propose a new initiative for global cooperation in which it appears not as the "world cop", but as the "first among equals", recognizing that the responsibility of being the world's sole superpower includes the responsibility of listening to the rest of the world. As nations throughout history have found, actions resulting from the idealism of a dream founded on abstract principles often provoke hostility from those who do not share that dream. America must realize that its ideals are not those of the rest of the world and must be prepared to listen to the wishes and needs of other members of the world community.

Unless this is done, the USA will find itself relegated to the dust heap of history as surely as the former Soviet Union, and for many of the same reasons: an outdated rigid system of morality which at the same time manages to condone massive corruption, an attitude which encourages aggression towards those who do not share its opinions, and a callous disregard for the lives and welfare of its own citizens.

How (not) to win voters...

2004-07-31T17:17:00.000+09:00

Seems like Cheney's too scared to speak in public. Like the old Soviet leaders, or like some of the 1930s European Fascists, he only wants to preach to the converted.

This article explains how there is never any public dissent against Cheney, because he never allows the opposition near him. Maybe he's scared that he'll get a repeat of the debacle at the Yankees game, where it was reported that the Secret Service had to remove him from the stadium for his own safety. The New York Times only reported boos.

But it doesn't seem to be the best way to get swing voters on your side, if that's the aim of these events. Or are they just to pump up the man's ego?

News you didn't see

2004-07-31T09:06:00.000+09:00

If you're an American, that is.

Here's how freedom and democracy "reign" in the "liberated" Iraq: the new Prime Minister allegedly personally shoots prisoners in cold blood, according to the rest of the world's press, but not according to the American press.

Common Dreams has the details.

Wonder how Bush reconciles that with his conscience? Just what exactly are the 140,000 US soldiers doing over there? The US taxpayer is already paying $60,000,000 to replace incompetent security forces with other ones. Thought Iraq was meant to be self-financing? Only to Dick Cheney and his gang, obviously. The American taxpayer doesn't count, except as a way of helping Halliburton make more money.

Kerry on TV

2004-07-30T19:55:00.000+09:00

It's a bit unfair to judge people by their looks, and it has to be said that Kerry's looks have worked against him to a certain extent.

He certainly hasn't looked exactly happy and joyful until recently, but the acceptance speech at the DNC seems to have changed him a bit. Certainly, there's a real sense of happiness coming out of the man now, and, more importantly, there's a sense that he's starting to get serious.

Health care is a priority, as it should be. At last Americans are waking up to the fact that it doesn't just have to be rich people who can be healthy – health care is for everyone.

And with his Strong Respected America, he's coming round to what James Carville (and I) have been saying for a long time.

Let me just remind you once again of James Carville's points in "Fighting Back"

A strong America that's a good neighbor
Change versus more of the same
It's the people, stupid – all of the people

Kerry seems to have been listening.

My first post

2004-07-30T18:16:00.000+09:00

It's always seemed a little ridiculous that I write so much for semi-public consumption and never really expose it to the full glare of open criticism.
So here goes with my attempt at a blog. I hope that some of this stuff will be food for thought -- it's ridiculous to expect everyone to like everything I write, but if it challenges received wisdom, that's good enough for me.