When Pat Tillman left a multimillion dollar NFL career on the table to go join the army Rangers after September 11, he was hailed as a larger than life hero. Then when he was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, the cover up began almost immediately. And his family, led by his mother Mary, could have simply accepted the silver star that Pat was awarded posthumously and played along with the charade. But a charade it was, and is. So Mary Tillman continues to press for the truth-- the whole truth.
And it is well known by now that Pat himself was critical of the war in Iraq, believing that it was a dangerous and unjustified diversion from the job of finding and fighting terrorists. As an army member however, we have learned his views over time as the men he served with have left the army and been free to share the conversations that he had with them.
What some people still don't know is that when Pat joined the Rangers, he joined his little brother Kevin in doing so. What does Kevin think about the war in Iraq? He couldn't say anything about that until he was discharged from the army last year.
Well, he is now free to talk about it, and he has posted what he thinks, as a guest poster on the blog, Truthdig.com, in a post called After Pat's Birthday
It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.
Much has happened since we handed over our voice:
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,
Kevin Tillman
This is not the first such testimonial we've seen from former soldiers who have left the service after going to Iraq, though it is certainly among the best written and from a name that people will recognize. And as more and more of them muster out and are no longer muzzled by their service agreements, you will see more of these testimonials. Our soldiers are doing the best job they could be given the circumstances they have been sent to war under, but the lie that the right has perpetrated that the war is uniformly supported by the soldiers who have fought in it, is starting to unravel.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Chinese diplomats put the chill on Kim's bluster
Apparently, after U.N. sanctions on North Korea only created more intransigence and bellicosity from the regime of Kim Jong Il, a pair of Chinese diplomats went to Pyongyang this week and brought about a change of attitude. In stark contrast to the second test they were threatening earlier in the week, the Chinese visit brought about an expression of 'regret' from the North Koreans (in other words, they said they are sorry.)
What exactly the Chinese said is a matter of speculation, but it is clear that they command the respect and attention of Kim Jong Il. Whereas we do not.
Why is this? Well, there are a number of reasons. And there is one reason I will say is not the fault of the Bush administration. It is simply the existence of China, and the fact of history that is the Korean war; the last time we sent an army in to overrun North Korea, we ended up in a war with China and after several years of fruitless attrition Dwight Eisenhower wisely saw the benefit of making peace (pity the Republican President we have today doesn't have Dwight's understanding of war). I wrote in a July post called The price of making threats you can't back up,
the Chinese would no more put up today with an American army overrunning North Korea than they did in 1950. The North Koreans feel emboldened by this fact, and sometimes act like a feisty tyke, standing in front of big brother and shouting insults, secure in the knowlege that no matter how much big brother may hate it, he won't let you give junior the pop in the mouth that he so richly deserves.
Well, maybe not, but apparently after this latest outrage, big brother felt it was time to put his foot down. So the North Koreans have abruptly changed their attitude. We will see how long that lasts.
However, this begs the question, even with the military option effectively neutered, why are we so toothless? China isn't going to invade North Korea either, and the North Koreans know that. So why do they respect China but not us?
One reason is trade. By far their biggest trading partner is China. And it probably will continue to be that way no matter what else happens. However, as I wrote in a post last week,
As I've said before, what brought down the Soviet Union was not our thousands of nuclear missiles, which remained unlaunched (as did theirs). It was the desire of their people to be done with the regime, and to have more of what we have.
Consumerism is a strong force. I've said it in at least a couple of other recent posts, but it seems to me that if we traded with the North Koreans, especially consumer goods, they would experience a revival of the hopes and dreams of their own people-- and that is an even stronger force. Why conservatives, of all people, can't recognize the best weapon we have-- capitalism, and be ready to use it, is beyond me.
Not only would it make the threat of sanctions actually realistic if we actually had something that we could quit trading with them, but more importantly if we traded with them Kim Jong Il would suddenly be confronted with the one threat to his regime that he has no weapon that can defend against-- the aspirations of his people. Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikolai Cseaucescu, Erich Honecker-- what good did all their tanks, all their armies or all those Soviet nukes do when their people got tired of communism and wanted something better? But as long as we isolate Kim Jong Il, we can't really expect him to behave-- We've thrown all our boots at him, and we have no boots left to throw at him anymore. In the meantime, he gains power because he can blame all of his or the regime's failings on the Americans, and use that to ruthlessly crush any dissent.
A third reason we are toothless can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush. As I wrote in the first post I linked above, it really is about "The price of making threats you can't back up."
In this context, President Bush's description of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the 'axis of evil' which would require 'regime change' was pretty stupid. Threatening a country and then attacking them, as he did with Iraq, is inconsistent with American values and what we stand for, and I've blogged quite a bit about Iraq. But threatening someone who you don't have the means to carry out the threat is worse-- by first publically announcing that it had a nuclear program, then withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, announcing that it actually has nukes, threatening to shoot down our spy planes just before the Iraq war started (Bush's response was to ground the spy planes, which rewarded North Korea directly for making that threat), and now with the missile launches, they continue with one provocation after another after another, by which they hope to (and have) exposed America as a 'paper tiger,' and Bush as an emperor with no clothes. Far better to not have issued a threat than to be caught drawing a line, and then not being able to do anything when someone steps over it.
George Bush has for the last couple of years practically dared the North Koreans to cross the next line by promising 'serious consequences' each time they do. That would be fine if we were in a position to back the threats up, but instead by making the threats Bush has played the proverbial emperor and was wearing no clothes when they called him on it (yeah, I know it was a sanctions bill that was supposed to have 'teeth,' but I doubt if it worried the North Koreans much, at least until the Chinese diplomats came over.) Given Bush's initial description of North Korea as part of the 'axis of evil' (a speech that the North Koreans cited when they first made public their nuclear program) he has since ticked off most of the world, so that the North Koreans love to be the ones pulling his tail.
In contrast, some other Americans, notably Bill Richardson, have proven that they have the ability to reason with the North Koreans-- and that begins with actually sitting down and talking to them, instead of making threats over the airwaves. And it might be nice to not have to depend on the Chinese in the future.
What exactly the Chinese said is a matter of speculation, but it is clear that they command the respect and attention of Kim Jong Il. Whereas we do not.
Why is this? Well, there are a number of reasons. And there is one reason I will say is not the fault of the Bush administration. It is simply the existence of China, and the fact of history that is the Korean war; the last time we sent an army in to overrun North Korea, we ended up in a war with China and after several years of fruitless attrition Dwight Eisenhower wisely saw the benefit of making peace (pity the Republican President we have today doesn't have Dwight's understanding of war). I wrote in a July post called The price of making threats you can't back up,
the Chinese would no more put up today with an American army overrunning North Korea than they did in 1950. The North Koreans feel emboldened by this fact, and sometimes act like a feisty tyke, standing in front of big brother and shouting insults, secure in the knowlege that no matter how much big brother may hate it, he won't let you give junior the pop in the mouth that he so richly deserves.
Well, maybe not, but apparently after this latest outrage, big brother felt it was time to put his foot down. So the North Koreans have abruptly changed their attitude. We will see how long that lasts.
However, this begs the question, even with the military option effectively neutered, why are we so toothless? China isn't going to invade North Korea either, and the North Koreans know that. So why do they respect China but not us?
One reason is trade. By far their biggest trading partner is China. And it probably will continue to be that way no matter what else happens. However, as I wrote in a post last week,
As I've said before, what brought down the Soviet Union was not our thousands of nuclear missiles, which remained unlaunched (as did theirs). It was the desire of their people to be done with the regime, and to have more of what we have.
Consumerism is a strong force. I've said it in at least a couple of other recent posts, but it seems to me that if we traded with the North Koreans, especially consumer goods, they would experience a revival of the hopes and dreams of their own people-- and that is an even stronger force. Why conservatives, of all people, can't recognize the best weapon we have-- capitalism, and be ready to use it, is beyond me.
Not only would it make the threat of sanctions actually realistic if we actually had something that we could quit trading with them, but more importantly if we traded with them Kim Jong Il would suddenly be confronted with the one threat to his regime that he has no weapon that can defend against-- the aspirations of his people. Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikolai Cseaucescu, Erich Honecker-- what good did all their tanks, all their armies or all those Soviet nukes do when their people got tired of communism and wanted something better? But as long as we isolate Kim Jong Il, we can't really expect him to behave-- We've thrown all our boots at him, and we have no boots left to throw at him anymore. In the meantime, he gains power because he can blame all of his or the regime's failings on the Americans, and use that to ruthlessly crush any dissent.
A third reason we are toothless can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush. As I wrote in the first post I linked above, it really is about "The price of making threats you can't back up."
In this context, President Bush's description of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the 'axis of evil' which would require 'regime change' was pretty stupid. Threatening a country and then attacking them, as he did with Iraq, is inconsistent with American values and what we stand for, and I've blogged quite a bit about Iraq. But threatening someone who you don't have the means to carry out the threat is worse-- by first publically announcing that it had a nuclear program, then withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, announcing that it actually has nukes, threatening to shoot down our spy planes just before the Iraq war started (Bush's response was to ground the spy planes, which rewarded North Korea directly for making that threat), and now with the missile launches, they continue with one provocation after another after another, by which they hope to (and have) exposed America as a 'paper tiger,' and Bush as an emperor with no clothes. Far better to not have issued a threat than to be caught drawing a line, and then not being able to do anything when someone steps over it.
George Bush has for the last couple of years practically dared the North Koreans to cross the next line by promising 'serious consequences' each time they do. That would be fine if we were in a position to back the threats up, but instead by making the threats Bush has played the proverbial emperor and was wearing no clothes when they called him on it (yeah, I know it was a sanctions bill that was supposed to have 'teeth,' but I doubt if it worried the North Koreans much, at least until the Chinese diplomats came over.) Given Bush's initial description of North Korea as part of the 'axis of evil' (a speech that the North Koreans cited when they first made public their nuclear program) he has since ticked off most of the world, so that the North Koreans love to be the ones pulling his tail.
In contrast, some other Americans, notably Bill Richardson, have proven that they have the ability to reason with the North Koreans-- and that begins with actually sitting down and talking to them, instead of making threats over the airwaves. And it might be nice to not have to depend on the Chinese in the future.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Willing to say anything to get elected.
Well, I guess if you are behind in the polls, the Big Lie is in order. At least that seems to be the case for our Congressman, Rick Renzi, who was four points down to Ellen Simon in a recent poll.
Renzi is running an ad in which he says that "Simon was the President of the ACLU, an organization which defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association."
Well, at lest the second half of that is right. Sort of. The implication of course is that the ACLU supports the rights of the pedophiles to destroy children, when in fact the ACLU in their press release on the decision of their Massachusetts affiliate to represent members of NAMBLA in court says,
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech."
However these kinds of distortions are everywhere in political ads these days. However, the first half of Mr. Renzi's statement, saying that Ellen Simon was the President of the ACLU is flat out and demonstrably wrong. The President of the ACLU since 1991 has been Nadine Strossen (Incidentally, she is the first woman to ever head the organization). Strossen succeeded Norman Dorsen, who served as the President of the ACLU from 1976-1990. So the contention that Ellen Simon was 'the President of the ACLU' is a flat out, bald faced lie, and a very easy one to prove false with a few minutes and a search engine. She was involved with the ACLU in Ohio, being the President of their Cleveland affiliate, but of course an ACLU member in Ohio could not have been responsible for a decision made by a Massachusetts affiliate, so in order to complete his chain of spurious logic trying to paint her as a defender of pedophiles, he had to invent a new resume for her (which is interesting-- if she lied on her resume, it would be a major scandal. But if he lies on her resume, it's just politics as usual.) But if Rick Renzi is so concerned about defending pedophiles, I would only ask him whether he plans to vote for Dennis Hastert as speaker of the house, since the revelation that Congressman Reynolds told the speaker there might be a problem involving Mark Foley but Hastert chose to ignore it instead of dealing with it then.
Not that this is anything new for Renzi, either. In the 2002 campaign he ran ads claiming that George Cordova embezzled money from a business he was a partner in and then wired it out of the country to an uncle in Mexico. Of course if this were true then Cordova would have gone to prison for a long, long time. But he not only did not go to prison or have any charges filed against him, but he sued Renzi after that election for libel and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of cash. You figure it out.
Heck, it isn't even the first big lie that Renzi has told this year. Earlier this year he claimed that he had been endorsed by former Navajo Nation President Albert Hale. Only it wasn't true. Hale, irked at the fake endorsement, publically asked Renzi for an apology and to retract the endorsement. Far from an apology, Renzi's response was to personally attack Hale and call him a 'convicted felon' (also a big lie). Hale, who had planned to pretty much sit this election out, immediately endorsed Ellen Simon.
One has to wonder why people keep voting for a guy who has now proven over and over and over again that he is willing to outright lie in order to get elected.
Renzi is running an ad in which he says that "Simon was the President of the ACLU, an organization which defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association."
Well, at lest the second half of that is right. Sort of. The implication of course is that the ACLU supports the rights of the pedophiles to destroy children, when in fact the ACLU in their press release on the decision of their Massachusetts affiliate to represent members of NAMBLA in court says,
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech."
However these kinds of distortions are everywhere in political ads these days. However, the first half of Mr. Renzi's statement, saying that Ellen Simon was the President of the ACLU is flat out and demonstrably wrong. The President of the ACLU since 1991 has been Nadine Strossen (Incidentally, she is the first woman to ever head the organization). Strossen succeeded Norman Dorsen, who served as the President of the ACLU from 1976-1990. So the contention that Ellen Simon was 'the President of the ACLU' is a flat out, bald faced lie, and a very easy one to prove false with a few minutes and a search engine. She was involved with the ACLU in Ohio, being the President of their Cleveland affiliate, but of course an ACLU member in Ohio could not have been responsible for a decision made by a Massachusetts affiliate, so in order to complete his chain of spurious logic trying to paint her as a defender of pedophiles, he had to invent a new resume for her (which is interesting-- if she lied on her resume, it would be a major scandal. But if he lies on her resume, it's just politics as usual.) But if Rick Renzi is so concerned about defending pedophiles, I would only ask him whether he plans to vote for Dennis Hastert as speaker of the house, since the revelation that Congressman Reynolds told the speaker there might be a problem involving Mark Foley but Hastert chose to ignore it instead of dealing with it then.
Not that this is anything new for Renzi, either. In the 2002 campaign he ran ads claiming that George Cordova embezzled money from a business he was a partner in and then wired it out of the country to an uncle in Mexico. Of course if this were true then Cordova would have gone to prison for a long, long time. But he not only did not go to prison or have any charges filed against him, but he sued Renzi after that election for libel and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of cash. You figure it out.
Heck, it isn't even the first big lie that Renzi has told this year. Earlier this year he claimed that he had been endorsed by former Navajo Nation President Albert Hale. Only it wasn't true. Hale, irked at the fake endorsement, publically asked Renzi for an apology and to retract the endorsement. Far from an apology, Renzi's response was to personally attack Hale and call him a 'convicted felon' (also a big lie). Hale, who had planned to pretty much sit this election out, immediately endorsed Ellen Simon.
One has to wonder why people keep voting for a guy who has now proven over and over and over again that he is willing to outright lie in order to get elected.
Madonna and Child
I have to wonder about my own good sense when I feel the need to defend Madonna twice in less than two months. In August I put up a post defending her in the face of intimidation by German police. This despite the fact that I have concluded that she actually has talent-- considering that the words, 'offensive' and 'vapid' are very nearly antonyms, she had to have some kind of talent to figure out how to fit both of those adjectives at the same time. I guess you could say that her work can provoke a strong yawn.
However, this time the pop diva finds herself under fire by human rights groups for her recent adoption of a baby boy from an orphanage in Malawi. The child, named David, was sent there by his father after his mother died in childbirth and the father was unable to afford the child. The boy's father is in fact ecstatic about the adoption, and should be, knowing that far from the uncertain future of struggling to survive that he would face had he stayed in Malawi, he will grow up with all of his material needs provided for and be able to attend quality schools and get a very good education. And Madonna clearly wanted this child. In the orphanage he would have received little in the way of love, but he now has it.
As to the 'human rights' groups who are grumbling about her adopting and removing from Malawi a child who had kinfolk in the country (even though it was his nearest kin, his father, who put him in the orphanage to start with), what exactly did they do for this boy when he was in the orphanage? Did they give him any of what Madonna will give him? He has a future now, but none of those 'human rights' groups were offering him anything other than the remote possibility that someday some relative might change their mind and take him in.
There is also the issue of whether she was able to bend the rules as a wealthy celebrity, and cut through a lot of the red tape that you or I would face if we wanted to adopt a child from the same orphanage (although Madonna insists that she followed the letter of the law both in Malawi and in England, where she will be raising the child). My question would be what if she did manage to bend the rules? If that is a problem, well maybe then the rules should be easier to work through in general. There are certainly millions of orphans in Africa and other impoverished places in the world who would benefit from adoption. The biggest concern of course is that some could be adopted by pedophiles or other nefarious characters. However that doesn't justify the long wait time or the red tape; it is hard to know what could be discovered in a year or two that can't be discovered within a week by someone who is competent to conduct background checks, particularly in this information age. And somehow I doubt whether during the long and extended wait time, that the Government of Malawi or any other entity has an army of detectives on the case digging into every facet of the background of the potential adoptive parent(s). But every day wasted with red tape is a day lost forever. Children grow up too fast for the red tape to delay international adoptions for as long as it does now.
Oh, and there are the ideological objections from both left and right. From the left we hear that this could be close to 'baby selling.' I don't see it. True, I'm sure that the Government of Malawi is making a few dollars on this, but the boy's father isn't making a dime, and it's not like the high-minded objection does anything to fix the situation. And yes, the boy is black and Madonna is white, but that doesn't make any difference to her, so why should it make a difference to anyone else? I have trouble understanding why anyone would object to an interracial adoption if it is in the child's best interest. He will still be just as black when he grows up, but he will be an educated, probably well off, black man in a position to do some good wherever he wants to, instead of being a poor black man in a poverty stricken country maybe not even surviving to adulthood. Besides, were there any black adoptive parents who wanted to take this boy? No. Alright then, so why should't Madonna? And on the right, we hear the objections that Madonna has offended some people with the lyrics and actions she has put on stage. So what? Is that so bad that she shouldn't be allowed to provide a home for this child? Whatever her problems are, I don't see how they prevent her from helping this child. Maybe motherhood will cause her to consider what is offensive and what isn't, and not put anything on stage that she wouldn't want her child watching. But even if that isn't the case, it is hard to argue that this boy would have been better off where he was.
Frankly I don't care about Madonna. And I don't care about the various groups who now seem to find lots of time to complain about it, but who didn't offer to adopt and raise another child themselves. But I was happy to hear of this adoption, because at least now there is one child who will have a much better life than he would have had. And that is worth celebrating.
However, this time the pop diva finds herself under fire by human rights groups for her recent adoption of a baby boy from an orphanage in Malawi. The child, named David, was sent there by his father after his mother died in childbirth and the father was unable to afford the child. The boy's father is in fact ecstatic about the adoption, and should be, knowing that far from the uncertain future of struggling to survive that he would face had he stayed in Malawi, he will grow up with all of his material needs provided for and be able to attend quality schools and get a very good education. And Madonna clearly wanted this child. In the orphanage he would have received little in the way of love, but he now has it.
As to the 'human rights' groups who are grumbling about her adopting and removing from Malawi a child who had kinfolk in the country (even though it was his nearest kin, his father, who put him in the orphanage to start with), what exactly did they do for this boy when he was in the orphanage? Did they give him any of what Madonna will give him? He has a future now, but none of those 'human rights' groups were offering him anything other than the remote possibility that someday some relative might change their mind and take him in.
There is also the issue of whether she was able to bend the rules as a wealthy celebrity, and cut through a lot of the red tape that you or I would face if we wanted to adopt a child from the same orphanage (although Madonna insists that she followed the letter of the law both in Malawi and in England, where she will be raising the child). My question would be what if she did manage to bend the rules? If that is a problem, well maybe then the rules should be easier to work through in general. There are certainly millions of orphans in Africa and other impoverished places in the world who would benefit from adoption. The biggest concern of course is that some could be adopted by pedophiles or other nefarious characters. However that doesn't justify the long wait time or the red tape; it is hard to know what could be discovered in a year or two that can't be discovered within a week by someone who is competent to conduct background checks, particularly in this information age. And somehow I doubt whether during the long and extended wait time, that the Government of Malawi or any other entity has an army of detectives on the case digging into every facet of the background of the potential adoptive parent(s). But every day wasted with red tape is a day lost forever. Children grow up too fast for the red tape to delay international adoptions for as long as it does now.
Oh, and there are the ideological objections from both left and right. From the left we hear that this could be close to 'baby selling.' I don't see it. True, I'm sure that the Government of Malawi is making a few dollars on this, but the boy's father isn't making a dime, and it's not like the high-minded objection does anything to fix the situation. And yes, the boy is black and Madonna is white, but that doesn't make any difference to her, so why should it make a difference to anyone else? I have trouble understanding why anyone would object to an interracial adoption if it is in the child's best interest. He will still be just as black when he grows up, but he will be an educated, probably well off, black man in a position to do some good wherever he wants to, instead of being a poor black man in a poverty stricken country maybe not even surviving to adulthood. Besides, were there any black adoptive parents who wanted to take this boy? No. Alright then, so why should't Madonna? And on the right, we hear the objections that Madonna has offended some people with the lyrics and actions she has put on stage. So what? Is that so bad that she shouldn't be allowed to provide a home for this child? Whatever her problems are, I don't see how they prevent her from helping this child. Maybe motherhood will cause her to consider what is offensive and what isn't, and not put anything on stage that she wouldn't want her child watching. But even if that isn't the case, it is hard to argue that this boy would have been better off where he was.
Frankly I don't care about Madonna. And I don't care about the various groups who now seem to find lots of time to complain about it, but who didn't offer to adopt and raise another child themselves. But I was happy to hear of this adoption, because at least now there is one child who will have a much better life than he would have had. And that is worth celebrating.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Guess who was wearing a "Michael Steele for Senate" t-shirt this week?
How about Mike Tyson? And he had it on while he was spewing his latest bit of insanity, suggesting that he would like to 'fight women.' Yeah, I guess he still misses smacking Robin Givens around.
That's right, Maryland Senatorial candidate Michael Steele is getting help from Tyson.
Steele is the brother of Monica Turner, who was married to Tyson for five years.
Tyson, a walking disaster who is best remembered for spending five years in prison for rape, and for biting a piece off of Evander Holyfield's ear in the ring, said just this weekend that he would like to 'fight women, children and celebrities.' The obvious fact that he was convicted of raping a minor and has been a wife-beater aside, Tyson only makes himself seem like more of a buffoon every time he makes a statement like that. But when he made that statement while wearing one of Michael Steele's t-shirts, you'd think that Steele's campaign would condemn it. After all a member of the U.S. Senate will be expected to deal with domestic violence issues and shouldn't have to think twice about condemning this kind of stupid statement.
Steele's camp said that Tyson is not involved in the campaign. Probably a good decision, but not one made by Steele. Earlier this year Steele said in response to a request by Tyson to campaign for him that he would welcome the help "in a heartbeat."
There are some people who should never open their mouth, but if they do, then hope it isn't to praise you.
That's right, Maryland Senatorial candidate Michael Steele is getting help from Tyson.
Steele is the brother of Monica Turner, who was married to Tyson for five years.
Tyson, a walking disaster who is best remembered for spending five years in prison for rape, and for biting a piece off of Evander Holyfield's ear in the ring, said just this weekend that he would like to 'fight women, children and celebrities.' The obvious fact that he was convicted of raping a minor and has been a wife-beater aside, Tyson only makes himself seem like more of a buffoon every time he makes a statement like that. But when he made that statement while wearing one of Michael Steele's t-shirts, you'd think that Steele's campaign would condemn it. After all a member of the U.S. Senate will be expected to deal with domestic violence issues and shouldn't have to think twice about condemning this kind of stupid statement.
Steele's camp said that Tyson is not involved in the campaign. Probably a good decision, but not one made by Steele. Earlier this year Steele said in response to a request by Tyson to campaign for him that he would welcome the help "in a heartbeat."
There are some people who should never open their mouth, but if they do, then hope it isn't to praise you.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Weldon sounds desperate
Curt Weldon is still claiming the current scandal is politically motivated, and questioned the timing of this morning's FBI raid on his daughter's home, the same daughter that he accused of helping to get a lobbying position by leveraging his influence in Washington. Weldon said today that the raid came in response to an allegation by the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
OK, suppose that the Congressman is right. The FBI (a branch of Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Department-- no use looking for Democrats there) doesn't just go storming into the home of a family member of a Congressman based on a flimsy, unfounded allegation as the Congressman is suggesting. They are professionals who know enough to understand that probable cause is needed to obtain a warrant. And just an unfounded allegation is not probable cause.
Hence the FBI considers that there is something there. Maybe they found it-- we probably won't know that until after the election, because the FBI works at its own pace.
OK, suppose that the Congressman is right. The FBI (a branch of Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Department-- no use looking for Democrats there) doesn't just go storming into the home of a family member of a Congressman based on a flimsy, unfounded allegation as the Congressman is suggesting. They are professionals who know enough to understand that probable cause is needed to obtain a warrant. And just an unfounded allegation is not probable cause.
Hence the FBI considers that there is something there. Maybe they found it-- we probably won't know that until after the election, because the FBI works at its own pace.
Monday, October 16, 2006
New Renzi scandal
I've been having to post every so often stories about the ethical lapses of my Congressman, Rick Renzi. Renzi of course is still trying to get enough people here to do what his wife can't do-- vote for him (Mrs. Renzi is still living in the same Burke, Virginia home where the Renzis have lived for a decade. But don't worry, 'Mr. family values' still lives there too-- his house in Flagstaff is purely for show.)
Anyway, a new scandal has popped up, and it has to do with how Renzi found the big bucks he needed to buy a Congressional seat in 2002. As a Virginian with no real roots in the district, Renzi had to defeat Navajo County councilman Louis Tenney and several other candidates to win the 2002 Republican primary. He then had to beat George Cordova to win the general election that year. In order to do it, he had to have a lot of money very fast.
So where did it come from? Well, the answer appeared last week in the Phoenix New Times. Only, he was apparently trying to pay it back-- out of the Federal till.
Congressman Rick Renzi was poised to push congressional legislation involving a former business partner's land — but says that he washed his hands of the deal after a lobbyist questioned their ties....
Renzi, who is currently running for a third term representing a district that stretches from Flagstaff to southeast Arizona, sold off a half-interest in his real estate investment business to a fellow investor, Sandlin, just before filing to run for Congress for the first time in 2002.
Sandlin paid $200,000 cash. And within months, Renzi plowed all his profits into his congressional campaign — an infusion that allowed Renzi to outspend his opponents and squeak into office with 49 percent of the vote.
Once he got into office, Renzi sold his remaining interest in the company to Sandlin, earning somewhere between $1 million and $5 million, according to public disclosure forms.
And that's why it seems like more than a coincidence that, last October, Renzi publicly announced that he'd be proposing legislation that would include Sandlin's acreage in a land swap. Sandlin sold the acreage to a group of experienced swappers a week later, records show, for what appears to be considerably more than he paid for it, though he insists he could have gotten more.
Incidentally, I can also tell you where some of the remaining cash went. During his 2002 campaign, Renzi ran ads against Cordova in which he claimed that Cordova had misrepresented the nature of a business account to several of his business partners, embezzled funds minutes after they put it in and wired it to his uncle in Mexico. Aside from being a slick way to play the race card (letting people know that Cordova had an uncle in Mexico) what Renzi claimed was a lie. Period. And people who thought it through realized that, or do now, since if it were true then Cordova would be guilty of fraud, embezzlement, and then of Federal racketeering charges for sending it out of the country. But Cordova is a free man today because none of it was true. He is also a rich man today. That's because after the election Cordova sued Renzi for slander over the commercials. The suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money. Well, Renzi had it, so he could spend it. He ended up with the real prize-- the seat in Congress.
The issue now is why, after already being on the dirty list for having illegally laundered $369,000 in corporate donations also in that 2002 campaign (as reported by the Federal Elections Commission), and having sponsored legislation to benefit his father's business, Renzi was stupid enough to propose late last year this land swap. Clearly it was a payback to Sandlin, who made a profit on it. Coming on top of all the other scandals (last month's I blogged on here) one has to conclude that Rick Renzi's primary interest in Congress is helping out himself, his family and his friends.
And that is one more reason to relieve him of having the distraction of having to visit Arizona now and then, so he can concentrate on spending more time at home with his family.
Anyway, a new scandal has popped up, and it has to do with how Renzi found the big bucks he needed to buy a Congressional seat in 2002. As a Virginian with no real roots in the district, Renzi had to defeat Navajo County councilman Louis Tenney and several other candidates to win the 2002 Republican primary. He then had to beat George Cordova to win the general election that year. In order to do it, he had to have a lot of money very fast.
So where did it come from? Well, the answer appeared last week in the Phoenix New Times. Only, he was apparently trying to pay it back-- out of the Federal till.
Congressman Rick Renzi was poised to push congressional legislation involving a former business partner's land — but says that he washed his hands of the deal after a lobbyist questioned their ties....
Renzi, who is currently running for a third term representing a district that stretches from Flagstaff to southeast Arizona, sold off a half-interest in his real estate investment business to a fellow investor, Sandlin, just before filing to run for Congress for the first time in 2002.
Sandlin paid $200,000 cash. And within months, Renzi plowed all his profits into his congressional campaign — an infusion that allowed Renzi to outspend his opponents and squeak into office with 49 percent of the vote.
Once he got into office, Renzi sold his remaining interest in the company to Sandlin, earning somewhere between $1 million and $5 million, according to public disclosure forms.
And that's why it seems like more than a coincidence that, last October, Renzi publicly announced that he'd be proposing legislation that would include Sandlin's acreage in a land swap. Sandlin sold the acreage to a group of experienced swappers a week later, records show, for what appears to be considerably more than he paid for it, though he insists he could have gotten more.
Incidentally, I can also tell you where some of the remaining cash went. During his 2002 campaign, Renzi ran ads against Cordova in which he claimed that Cordova had misrepresented the nature of a business account to several of his business partners, embezzled funds minutes after they put it in and wired it to his uncle in Mexico. Aside from being a slick way to play the race card (letting people know that Cordova had an uncle in Mexico) what Renzi claimed was a lie. Period. And people who thought it through realized that, or do now, since if it were true then Cordova would be guilty of fraud, embezzlement, and then of Federal racketeering charges for sending it out of the country. But Cordova is a free man today because none of it was true. He is also a rich man today. That's because after the election Cordova sued Renzi for slander over the commercials. The suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money. Well, Renzi had it, so he could spend it. He ended up with the real prize-- the seat in Congress.
The issue now is why, after already being on the dirty list for having illegally laundered $369,000 in corporate donations also in that 2002 campaign (as reported by the Federal Elections Commission), and having sponsored legislation to benefit his father's business, Renzi was stupid enough to propose late last year this land swap. Clearly it was a payback to Sandlin, who made a profit on it. Coming on top of all the other scandals (last month's I blogged on here) one has to conclude that Rick Renzi's primary interest in Congress is helping out himself, his family and his friends.
And that is one more reason to relieve him of having the distraction of having to visit Arizona now and then, so he can concentrate on spending more time at home with his family.
U.N. passes more sanctions on N. Korea. Maybe we need to try a different approach
The U.N. this weekend passed harsh sanctions on North Korea.
And I suppose that given the lack of other options, it was about all that they could do. And certainly there will be some suffering in the country, as this article North Korea faces hungry winter points out. And don't shed any tears for the regime either-- one of the problems they have is that they, the North Korean government, refused to accept enough food from the World Food Program to feed about four million people earlier this year. They do face a shortage of about 800,000 tons of grain this winter, less than ten percent of which is expected to be made up by the world community despite the fact that the sanctions imposed this weekend specifically exempt food. There are also hints already that China, fearing a flood of refugees, may not comply with all of the sanctions which they themselves voted for.
It is also true that Kim Jong Il will eat well. Those who suffer will be outside of his palace walls, not inside. This is a regime that doesn't care a whole lot if people starve, as long as they are free to pursue their weapons programs.
And one risk we run as well is that if the sanctions bite too hard, it may push the country into exactly the scenario that we fear most-- that they will sell their nuclear technology, such as it is, to the leadership of al Qaeda (who despite the Bush administration's claims to the contrary, still control enough money to make a serious offer on it) or to other would be terrorists or terrorist nations.
Am I the only one who believes that our strategy towards nations like North Korea and Iran is exactly the opposite of what it should be?
I mean, we have been attempting to diplomatically and economically isolate them for the past half a century. And it has been about as successful as our similar efforts in regard to Fidel Castro have been. Maybe it's time to try something different.
As I've said before, what brought down the Soviet Union was not our thousands of nuclear missiles, which remained unlaunched (as did theirs). It was the desire of their people to be done with the regime, and to have more of what we have.
Consumerism is a strong force. I've said it in at least a couple of other recent posts, but it seems to me that if we traded with the North Koreans, especially consumer goods, they would experience a revival of the hopes and dreams of their own people-- and that is an even stronger force. Why conservatives, of all people, can't recognize the best weapon we have-- capitalism, and be ready to use it, is beyond me.
And I suppose that given the lack of other options, it was about all that they could do. And certainly there will be some suffering in the country, as this article North Korea faces hungry winter points out. And don't shed any tears for the regime either-- one of the problems they have is that they, the North Korean government, refused to accept enough food from the World Food Program to feed about four million people earlier this year. They do face a shortage of about 800,000 tons of grain this winter, less than ten percent of which is expected to be made up by the world community despite the fact that the sanctions imposed this weekend specifically exempt food. There are also hints already that China, fearing a flood of refugees, may not comply with all of the sanctions which they themselves voted for.
It is also true that Kim Jong Il will eat well. Those who suffer will be outside of his palace walls, not inside. This is a regime that doesn't care a whole lot if people starve, as long as they are free to pursue their weapons programs.
And one risk we run as well is that if the sanctions bite too hard, it may push the country into exactly the scenario that we fear most-- that they will sell their nuclear technology, such as it is, to the leadership of al Qaeda (who despite the Bush administration's claims to the contrary, still control enough money to make a serious offer on it) or to other would be terrorists or terrorist nations.
Am I the only one who believes that our strategy towards nations like North Korea and Iran is exactly the opposite of what it should be?
I mean, we have been attempting to diplomatically and economically isolate them for the past half a century. And it has been about as successful as our similar efforts in regard to Fidel Castro have been. Maybe it's time to try something different.
As I've said before, what brought down the Soviet Union was not our thousands of nuclear missiles, which remained unlaunched (as did theirs). It was the desire of their people to be done with the regime, and to have more of what we have.
Consumerism is a strong force. I've said it in at least a couple of other recent posts, but it seems to me that if we traded with the North Koreans, especially consumer goods, they would experience a revival of the hopes and dreams of their own people-- and that is an even stronger force. Why conservatives, of all people, can't recognize the best weapon we have-- capitalism, and be ready to use it, is beyond me.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on corruption.
After posting two consecutive stories on corrupt Republicans, I checked the news again and discovered this story, about William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democratic congressman who is being investigated by the FBI and who was found to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer:
Jefferson loses endorsement of Democratic Party.
BATON ROUGE, La. - An eight-term Democratic Louisiana congressman whose Capitol Hill office was raided earlier this year as part of a bribery investigation failed Saturday to win the endorsement of the state's Democratic Party.
Rep. William Jefferson was passed over by the party's State Central Committee in favor of state Rep. Karen Carter.
Of course House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had earlier this year tried to strip Jefferson of his committee assignments, sending a clear message that she won't put up with any of this. This stands her in sharp contrast to Dennis Hastert.
Further, Republicans in Texas had no problem with handing Tom DeLay victory in his primary (though it backfired on DeLay as he fumbled his resignation a month later and has all but handed the seat to Democrat Nick Lampson). Republicans in Ohio willingly renominated Bob Ney even though by the May primary he was already hip deep in corruption. The result looks like it may be another Democratic pick-up for Zack Space because of Ney's backing for his handpicked successor as GOP nominee. Republicans here in my district in Arizona willingly renominated my own ethically challenged Congressman, Rick Renzi. A poll out this week by majority watch shows Renzi four points behind Ellen Simon.
Contrast that to ethically challenged Democratic congressmen. The Democratic voters in Georgia fired Cynthia McKinney earlier this year, and now it looks like the Democratic party in Louisiana is getting ready to fire William Jefferson (In Louisiana they have an open primary; Carter and Jefferson are among a number of candidates who will appear on the ballot. If no one wins a majority, which seems likely, there will be a runoff in December between the top two. Carter will have the full support of the party organization both during the November election and the runoff.)
So the bottom line is this: Democrats are proving through the actions of our voters, our House leadership and our state parties that we don't tolerate corruption and we are willing to police ourselves. Would you rather have Democrats running things or count on Republicans who don't seem to be able to part with a corrupt congressman until literally the day when he is driven from office by the criminal justice system?
Jefferson loses endorsement of Democratic Party.
BATON ROUGE, La. - An eight-term Democratic Louisiana congressman whose Capitol Hill office was raided earlier this year as part of a bribery investigation failed Saturday to win the endorsement of the state's Democratic Party.
Rep. William Jefferson was passed over by the party's State Central Committee in favor of state Rep. Karen Carter.
Of course House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had earlier this year tried to strip Jefferson of his committee assignments, sending a clear message that she won't put up with any of this. This stands her in sharp contrast to Dennis Hastert.
Further, Republicans in Texas had no problem with handing Tom DeLay victory in his primary (though it backfired on DeLay as he fumbled his resignation a month later and has all but handed the seat to Democrat Nick Lampson). Republicans in Ohio willingly renominated Bob Ney even though by the May primary he was already hip deep in corruption. The result looks like it may be another Democratic pick-up for Zack Space because of Ney's backing for his handpicked successor as GOP nominee. Republicans here in my district in Arizona willingly renominated my own ethically challenged Congressman, Rick Renzi. A poll out this week by majority watch shows Renzi four points behind Ellen Simon.
Contrast that to ethically challenged Democratic congressmen. The Democratic voters in Georgia fired Cynthia McKinney earlier this year, and now it looks like the Democratic party in Louisiana is getting ready to fire William Jefferson (In Louisiana they have an open primary; Carter and Jefferson are among a number of candidates who will appear on the ballot. If no one wins a majority, which seems likely, there will be a runoff in December between the top two. Carter will have the full support of the party organization both during the November election and the runoff.)
So the bottom line is this: Democrats are proving through the actions of our voters, our House leadership and our state parties that we don't tolerate corruption and we are willing to police ourselves. Would you rather have Democrats running things or count on Republicans who don't seem to be able to part with a corrupt congressman until literally the day when he is driven from office by the criminal justice system?
Curt Weldon investigated by FBI
Hoo, boy.
I just get done posting one story on a corrupt Republican congressman and I check the news and another one comes right up. And it's a name that some people may recognize.
FBI probes Curt Weldon.
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.
We will see where the investigation leads. Of course some Republicans will claim that the Democrats are behind it. I guess they pretty much have to say that because they can say nothing else, leading up to the election. But the last time I checked, the FBI was a branch of the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, which is headed by President Bush. So to claim that Democrats are behind this one would be quite a stretch.
Of course it was Weldon who last year told the New York Times that Clinton official Jamie Gorelick had in September had prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information about terrorists, including Mohammed Atta. This was immediately seized upon by the right. They of course conveniently forgot that even if everything Congressman Weldon said was true (ignoring his partisan motivation) then said policy existed for four months of the Clinton administration and eight months of the Bush administration (which John Ashcroft could have reversed with the stroke of a pen), but hey, it was a chance to bash Bill Clinton so the right was quick to the feeding trough.
That policy has of course been reversed since 9/11. So I guess we can presume that whatever the FBI has learned about Curt Weldon, the CIA has access to it.
UPDATE (Monday): The FBI this morning raided the home of Weldon's daughter.
I just get done posting one story on a corrupt Republican congressman and I check the news and another one comes right up. And it's a name that some people may recognize.
FBI probes Curt Weldon.
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.
We will see where the investigation leads. Of course some Republicans will claim that the Democrats are behind it. I guess they pretty much have to say that because they can say nothing else, leading up to the election. But the last time I checked, the FBI was a branch of the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, which is headed by President Bush. So to claim that Democrats are behind this one would be quite a stretch.
Of course it was Weldon who last year told the New York Times that Clinton official Jamie Gorelick had in September had prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information about terrorists, including Mohammed Atta. This was immediately seized upon by the right. They of course conveniently forgot that even if everything Congressman Weldon said was true (ignoring his partisan motivation) then said policy existed for four months of the Clinton administration and eight months of the Bush administration (which John Ashcroft could have reversed with the stroke of a pen), but hey, it was a chance to bash Bill Clinton so the right was quick to the feeding trough.
That policy has of course been reversed since 9/11. So I guess we can presume that whatever the FBI has learned about Curt Weldon, the CIA has access to it.
UPDATE (Monday): The FBI this morning raided the home of Weldon's daughter.
Too little too late-- the Speaker says he will fire Ney.
Representative Bob Ney struck a deal with prosecutors in September in which he agreed to plead guilty to multiple counts of corruption. He announced he was vacating his nomination to seek re-election, and then worked to see that the GOP nominated Joy Padgett to replace him on the ballot. Not that it has done much good since Padgett is now running behind Democrat Zack Space in the polls-- voters there consider her too close to Ney.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn't mind letting Ney continue to serve in Congress though after he agreed to plead guilty. So why is he promising to expel Ney if he doesn't resign before Congress returns in November for the lame duck session? Yesterday's guilty plea-- for which Ney faces up to two years in prison-- is only the formality that culminates the agreement he reached with prosecutors in September. Has Hastert suddenly decided that Ney's corruption, including a $150,000 golf trip he took to Scotland with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is now wrong, something Hastert didn't think was the case in September?
No, not exactly. I don't think Hastert has had a sudden change of mind on what is wrong and what isn't. What has changed is that it is politically damaging. At least Mark Foley had the good sense to resign. This despite the fact that Foley has not as yet been charged with a crime, and he may not be charged with a crime. In fact, Foley, had he remained in the House would probably have received a censure but been allowed to remain as long as the voters in his district let him. This was the punishment handed out to former Congressmen Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Dan Crane (R-IL) in 1983 for scandals involving pages.
Ney, however, is going to prison (maybe he will even get to share a cell with Duke Cunningham, his colleague in the present Congress.) And after the Foley resignation the questions that have been raised since September (in fact before that in many quarters) about whether Ney should remain in the house have grown louder and more annoying to Hastert. So Hastert, still under fire for allegations that he covered up key aspects of the Foley case is now willing to cast Ney overboard-- an act which he should have done last month, but to say it now only shows it as a political calculation.
For Ney, it means he may be the first congressman who will lose his Congressional pension after being expelled-- a 'reform' that Congress passed in the wake of the Cunningham scandal.
But the Republicans' problem with corruption has now moved beyond Bob Ney. It is Dennis Hastert who now has the most to lose. And if he loses his speakership it will be a good move towards cleaning the House.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn't mind letting Ney continue to serve in Congress though after he agreed to plead guilty. So why is he promising to expel Ney if he doesn't resign before Congress returns in November for the lame duck session? Yesterday's guilty plea-- for which Ney faces up to two years in prison-- is only the formality that culminates the agreement he reached with prosecutors in September. Has Hastert suddenly decided that Ney's corruption, including a $150,000 golf trip he took to Scotland with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is now wrong, something Hastert didn't think was the case in September?
No, not exactly. I don't think Hastert has had a sudden change of mind on what is wrong and what isn't. What has changed is that it is politically damaging. At least Mark Foley had the good sense to resign. This despite the fact that Foley has not as yet been charged with a crime, and he may not be charged with a crime. In fact, Foley, had he remained in the House would probably have received a censure but been allowed to remain as long as the voters in his district let him. This was the punishment handed out to former Congressmen Gerry Studds (D-MA) and Dan Crane (R-IL) in 1983 for scandals involving pages.
Ney, however, is going to prison (maybe he will even get to share a cell with Duke Cunningham, his colleague in the present Congress.) And after the Foley resignation the questions that have been raised since September (in fact before that in many quarters) about whether Ney should remain in the house have grown louder and more annoying to Hastert. So Hastert, still under fire for allegations that he covered up key aspects of the Foley case is now willing to cast Ney overboard-- an act which he should have done last month, but to say it now only shows it as a political calculation.
For Ney, it means he may be the first congressman who will lose his Congressional pension after being expelled-- a 'reform' that Congress passed in the wake of the Cunningham scandal.
But the Republicans' problem with corruption has now moved beyond Bob Ney. It is Dennis Hastert who now has the most to lose. And if he loses his speakership it will be a good move towards cleaning the House.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Fines: just another way to do business, Wal-Mart style
There is not much to say anymore about Wal-Mart. We know about the foreign sweatshops, where workers, including children, are paid pennies a day to make sure they have 'always low prices.' We know about their long history of operating some local stores at a loss for as long as it takes to drive nearby local competitors out of business.
And we know about their history of legal problems. We know about the sex discrimination lawsuit they lost some years ago when they thought they could pay women less for doing the same jobs as men. We know about their violations of child labor laws, when they have been caught making teenage employees work longer than they legally could, during school hours, or making them work in dangerous jobs they were not qualified for. We know about the lawsuit they settled out of court a couple of years ago after their cleaning crews in 23 states were found to include undocumented aliens, some of whom were paid as little as $2 for a night's work.
We know that Wal-Mart screws their employees. We know that in many, many places full time Wal-Mart employees are uninsured because the only health insurance they are offered will eat up almost half of their paycheck, that Wal-Mart employees are often on public assistance, and that they in effect are forcing taxpayers in those communities to subsidize their employment costs by helping pay those employees enough so that they can live. We know that last year they were caught circulating a memo on how to terminate employees who were approaching the time with the company when they would become eligible for retirement benefits.
We know Wal-Mart screws their customers. Our Attorney General, Terry Goddard recently filed suit against Wal-Mart for systematically misleading customers about the price of items they were purchasing.
So should I really be surprised when today a Pennsylvania jury ruled that Wal-Mart was guilty of forcing employees to work during breaks or off the clock for no pay at all? The jury recommended that Wal-Mart pay $62 million in restitution and damages. Pennsylvania becomes the third state in which a jury has reached the same verdict against Wal-Mart (Colorado and California are the other two; Wal-Mart paid the Colorado damage award and is appealing the California award.)
Now why would a company that is trying to get people to buy its products want to always be in the news for something like this? Well, we can get a hint from their settlement on the undocumented worker case. They agreed to donate $11 million to programs designed to deter illegal immigration. Then they rang that up on their cash registers over the next ninteen minutes.
So maybe its because for Wal-Mart, any fines or other consequences they receive as a result of their brazen disregard for the law of for society have already been factored in-- "just the cost of doing business."
And we know about their history of legal problems. We know about the sex discrimination lawsuit they lost some years ago when they thought they could pay women less for doing the same jobs as men. We know about their violations of child labor laws, when they have been caught making teenage employees work longer than they legally could, during school hours, or making them work in dangerous jobs they were not qualified for. We know about the lawsuit they settled out of court a couple of years ago after their cleaning crews in 23 states were found to include undocumented aliens, some of whom were paid as little as $2 for a night's work.
We know that Wal-Mart screws their employees. We know that in many, many places full time Wal-Mart employees are uninsured because the only health insurance they are offered will eat up almost half of their paycheck, that Wal-Mart employees are often on public assistance, and that they in effect are forcing taxpayers in those communities to subsidize their employment costs by helping pay those employees enough so that they can live. We know that last year they were caught circulating a memo on how to terminate employees who were approaching the time with the company when they would become eligible for retirement benefits.
We know Wal-Mart screws their customers. Our Attorney General, Terry Goddard recently filed suit against Wal-Mart for systematically misleading customers about the price of items they were purchasing.
So should I really be surprised when today a Pennsylvania jury ruled that Wal-Mart was guilty of forcing employees to work during breaks or off the clock for no pay at all? The jury recommended that Wal-Mart pay $62 million in restitution and damages. Pennsylvania becomes the third state in which a jury has reached the same verdict against Wal-Mart (Colorado and California are the other two; Wal-Mart paid the Colorado damage award and is appealing the California award.)
Now why would a company that is trying to get people to buy its products want to always be in the news for something like this? Well, we can get a hint from their settlement on the undocumented worker case. They agreed to donate $11 million to programs designed to deter illegal immigration. Then they rang that up on their cash registers over the next ninteen minutes.
So maybe its because for Wal-Mart, any fines or other consequences they receive as a result of their brazen disregard for the law of for society have already been factored in-- "just the cost of doing business."
Sooner or later, you knew this story would become reality.
A homeless, jobless, sixty three year old man has found a way to keep a roof over his head and enough food to survive on. He robbed a bank explicitly to go to prison.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A man who couldn't find steady work came up with a plan to make it through the next few years until he could collect Social Security: He robbed a bank, then handed the money to a guard and waited for police.
On Wednesday, Timothy J. Bowers told a judge a three-year prison sentence would suit him, and the judge obliged.
"At my age, the jobs available to me are minimum-wage jobs. There is age discrimination out there," Bowers, who turns 63 in a few weeks, told Judge Angela White.
The judge told him: "It's unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation."
Bowers said he had been able to find only odd jobs after the drug wholesaler he made deliveries for closed in 2003...
He pleaded guilty to robbery, and a court-ordered psychological exam found him competent.
"It's a pretty sad story when someone feels that's their only alternative," said defense attorney Jeremy W. Dodgion, who described Bowers as "a charming old man."
Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.
"It's not the financial plan I would choose, but it's a financial plan," prosecutor Dan Cable said.
Of course we have seen Republicans cut, cut and cut more from the social safety net until there are holes that are big enough for a truck to fall through. And all of it to finance the trillions in corporate welfare that they have handed out in legislation like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill.
So now we finally see the day when voluntarily committing a felony in order to go to prison is the only option left for an honest citizen who just wasn't one of the winners in the new game of Social Darwinism.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A man who couldn't find steady work came up with a plan to make it through the next few years until he could collect Social Security: He robbed a bank, then handed the money to a guard and waited for police.
On Wednesday, Timothy J. Bowers told a judge a three-year prison sentence would suit him, and the judge obliged.
"At my age, the jobs available to me are minimum-wage jobs. There is age discrimination out there," Bowers, who turns 63 in a few weeks, told Judge Angela White.
The judge told him: "It's unfortunate you feel this is the only way to deal with the situation."
Bowers said he had been able to find only odd jobs after the drug wholesaler he made deliveries for closed in 2003...
He pleaded guilty to robbery, and a court-ordered psychological exam found him competent.
"It's a pretty sad story when someone feels that's their only alternative," said defense attorney Jeremy W. Dodgion, who described Bowers as "a charming old man."
Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.
"It's not the financial plan I would choose, but it's a financial plan," prosecutor Dan Cable said.
Of course we have seen Republicans cut, cut and cut more from the social safety net until there are holes that are big enough for a truck to fall through. And all of it to finance the trillions in corporate welfare that they have handed out in legislation like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill.
So now we finally see the day when voluntarily committing a felony in order to go to prison is the only option left for an honest citizen who just wasn't one of the winners in the new game of Social Darwinism.
Getting Local
A lot goes on locally in various states that the polls and national stories may not pick up. For that reason, I tend to rely on the experience and views of local bloggers, at least those who I believe are reliable.
Of course in my links I have two Arizona bloggers who focus mainly on local stories, Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (who is unabashedly a Democrat, in fact recently a candidate until he lost a primary race for state legislature) and Jane Arizona at Arizona Congress Watch who, as the name implies, focuses nearly exclusively on the eight members of our Congressional delegation, our two Senators, and their opponents and the races for those seats this year.
I've now started a new section, down below 'Blogs not on the Left.' If you know of a good local blog in your state, please give me the URL and I will check it out. These should be blogs which focus exclusively or almost exclusively on local political matters, which have the integrity to (even if there is obvious spin or bias) report things essentially as they are, and which are updated daily or a reasonably close approximation to daily (so if the last post is dated in August don't bother to tell me about it no matter how good the blog looks.) I will look it over and if it looks good enough I will include it in the new sidebar. I've already found a handful.
Of course in my links I have two Arizona bloggers who focus mainly on local stories, Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (who is unabashedly a Democrat, in fact recently a candidate until he lost a primary race for state legislature) and Jane Arizona at Arizona Congress Watch who, as the name implies, focuses nearly exclusively on the eight members of our Congressional delegation, our two Senators, and their opponents and the races for those seats this year.
I've now started a new section, down below 'Blogs not on the Left.' If you know of a good local blog in your state, please give me the URL and I will check it out. These should be blogs which focus exclusively or almost exclusively on local political matters, which have the integrity to (even if there is obvious spin or bias) report things essentially as they are, and which are updated daily or a reasonably close approximation to daily (so if the last post is dated in August don't bother to tell me about it no matter how good the blog looks.) I will look it over and if it looks good enough I will include it in the new sidebar. I've already found a handful.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Chris Shays tries to steal anti-war slogan, not realizing the irony.
Chris Shays, attempting to excuse Dennis Hastert's fumbling response to the congressional page scandal, brought up Chappaquiddick and said that in the page scandal, 'at least no one died.'
And yes, he is right that one person did die as a result of Ted Kennedy's drunk driving binge in 1969.
However for Shays, who supported the Iraq war from the beginning, and is now questioning it only because he is facing a tough re-election fight against an anti-war Democrat, to use this phrase is the height of irony.
I wonder how many times he has seen the now ubiquitous anti-Iraq war slogan, 'when Clinton lied, no one died?' a reference to the Downing Street memo and reports of cooked intelligence before the war.
No wonder Chris Shays is behind in the polls.
And yes, he is right that one person did die as a result of Ted Kennedy's drunk driving binge in 1969.
However for Shays, who supported the Iraq war from the beginning, and is now questioning it only because he is facing a tough re-election fight against an anti-war Democrat, to use this phrase is the height of irony.
I wonder how many times he has seen the now ubiquitous anti-Iraq war slogan, 'when Clinton lied, no one died?' a reference to the Downing Street memo and reports of cooked intelligence before the war.
No wonder Chris Shays is behind in the polls.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Whoops, an oversight of the first magnitude
I made a post before we left this weekend for vacation describing how I was featured on Sar's blog. I forgot to mention (though I've since edited and corrected the matter) that I am also the featured guest on Shayna's music highway project. In it Shayna asks a blogger each week four questions designed to draw out a little bit of personality.
I may have been dreaming of pumpkins the size of small refrigerators but that is hardly and excuse.
Shayna as usual has done an excellent job.
I may have been dreaming of pumpkins the size of small refrigerators but that is hardly and excuse.
Shayna as usual has done an excellent job.
North Korean Nuclear Test
It appears based on news reports out early this morning that North Korea has carried through with its pledge to test a nuclear weapon.
There will of course be sanctions voted on the hard line Stalinst regime by the U.N. Security Council.
I'd like to make a number of observations.
1. The sanctions won't amount to anything. Most of the world already conducts very little trade with North Korea, and as it is the people there are starving because the government prioritizes long range missile and nuclear weapons development ahead of food. The only country that could really hurt North Korea in terms of sanctions is China, but China won't because 1) the old line communist regime on its Manchurian border is less of a threat to China politically than a democracy would be there, and 2) serious sanctions would send a flood of refugees into China, which the Chinese don't need.
2. The North Koreans once again show the U.S. to be impotent. We can scold them, but we can't do anything about them militarily. True, there are some good reasons for that and they predate the Bush administration (including the fact that the North Koreans have 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that could all but obliterate the South Korean capital within minutes if we attacked them, and also the fact that the last time the U.S. invaded North Korea the Chinese counterattacked with 2 million troops, and the possibility that history could repeat itself has to enter into any U.S. military calculation.) However, that said, the failure to respond militarily to North Korea helps radical Islamicists who suggest that the U.S. is only interested in making war upon Muslim countries (and in particular Muslim countries with large oil reserves, as in Iraq and Iran.) It does not matter if the Islamicists are right about that or not. That is how it is read in the Muslim world, and that is how they pitch it. It also points out how thinly stretched our military is, so that we can't even threaten to deploy enough troops to the region to make the North Koreans break a sweat because we don't have them available.
3. It is laudible to attempt to 'keep the nuclear genie in the bottle,' but let's be honest-- it left the bottle years ago. For us to think that technology that we developed sixty years ago is somehow inaccessible to other countries is to delude ourselves. Not that we shouldn't continue to make the effort to make it difficult for countries to obtain and trade nuclear technology, parts and fuel, but we have to be realistic and acknowlege that it will happen. It is happening, maybe even in some countries where we've never suspected it, and it will continue to happen no matter how hard we try. On my second ever blog post, On nuclear proliferation and Iran, I dealt with this and suggested that we move the 'line in the sand,' which has been made a joke out of repeatedly by the rising tide of nuclear proliferation to a higher 'line in the sand,' in which we pledge to retaliate militarily against any nation that USES a nuke (as opposed just to building one). This post was written before the continuing failures in Iraq made it clear that a war against the U.S. is no longer to be feared as a deterrent as it once was, but if we could get other countries to go along with it, so that any nation that actually used a nuclear weapon would immediately be at war with all of the nations that signed on to this 'new line,' (with luck the five permanent members of the security council though that might be hard) it could have the potential to hold firm.
4. Given the availability of nukes in the world, we have to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and inspect 100% of cargo containers coming into the country. Right now, only 2% are inspected. Yet this is the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack in the U.S. I'm not saying we should discount the possiblity of a nuclear missile strike on our territory from, say, North Korea (missile defense being one of the few issues in which I've reversed my position from where it was just a few years ago, in light of small rogue states which may be less rational than were the Soviets,) but I do think that we have to focus more on smaller weapons which a single person can transport (and which, unlike a crude ICBM, can with 100% accuracy be guided to their exact target before detonation.)
5. We also have to redouble our efforts to catch and get rid of the leadership of al-Qaeda. Unlike the various small disorganized cells around the world, the leadership (likely still) possesses the kind of cash that could get the attention of the North Koreans or other potential sellers. Obviously if bin Laden or one of his senior leadership were to arrange such a deal and obtain a nuke, there is little doubt that they, being no more at danger for it than they are now, would in fact use it.
6. And finally, don't panic. We had nuclear armed opponents during the Cold War. But we survived that. We did it by appealing to the people in those countries, not by military force, but by the advantages of our system. It took a long time, but eventually it worked. Like I wrote in a post not so long ago, also about Iran, in contrast to ineffective sanctions, trade with them until they can't stand it any longer.
we have the perfect weapon to deal with Tehran. The same weapons that brought down the thousands of nukes in the former Soviet Union, and the same weapons that we haven't used against North Korea or Cuba (hint: alone among old line traditional communist societies, they still stand.)
Disney. McDonalds. Hillary Duff. MTV.
And with products, inevitably follow ideas.
I'm surprised conservatives (who are still railing for an invasion of Iran, as if we have some secret armies somewhere that are just waiting for the command) don't see this. If anyone would see it, I'd expect it to be conservatives.
In North Korea, millions of people are oppressed and have no freedom, no food, in fact pretty much nothing at all. So I'd think this would work just as well (if not better) with North Korea than it would with Iran.
Cross posted at Night Birds Fountain
There will of course be sanctions voted on the hard line Stalinst regime by the U.N. Security Council.
I'd like to make a number of observations.
1. The sanctions won't amount to anything. Most of the world already conducts very little trade with North Korea, and as it is the people there are starving because the government prioritizes long range missile and nuclear weapons development ahead of food. The only country that could really hurt North Korea in terms of sanctions is China, but China won't because 1) the old line communist regime on its Manchurian border is less of a threat to China politically than a democracy would be there, and 2) serious sanctions would send a flood of refugees into China, which the Chinese don't need.
2. The North Koreans once again show the U.S. to be impotent. We can scold them, but we can't do anything about them militarily. True, there are some good reasons for that and they predate the Bush administration (including the fact that the North Koreans have 10,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul that could all but obliterate the South Korean capital within minutes if we attacked them, and also the fact that the last time the U.S. invaded North Korea the Chinese counterattacked with 2 million troops, and the possibility that history could repeat itself has to enter into any U.S. military calculation.) However, that said, the failure to respond militarily to North Korea helps radical Islamicists who suggest that the U.S. is only interested in making war upon Muslim countries (and in particular Muslim countries with large oil reserves, as in Iraq and Iran.) It does not matter if the Islamicists are right about that or not. That is how it is read in the Muslim world, and that is how they pitch it. It also points out how thinly stretched our military is, so that we can't even threaten to deploy enough troops to the region to make the North Koreans break a sweat because we don't have them available.
3. It is laudible to attempt to 'keep the nuclear genie in the bottle,' but let's be honest-- it left the bottle years ago. For us to think that technology that we developed sixty years ago is somehow inaccessible to other countries is to delude ourselves. Not that we shouldn't continue to make the effort to make it difficult for countries to obtain and trade nuclear technology, parts and fuel, but we have to be realistic and acknowlege that it will happen. It is happening, maybe even in some countries where we've never suspected it, and it will continue to happen no matter how hard we try. On my second ever blog post, On nuclear proliferation and Iran, I dealt with this and suggested that we move the 'line in the sand,' which has been made a joke out of repeatedly by the rising tide of nuclear proliferation to a higher 'line in the sand,' in which we pledge to retaliate militarily against any nation that USES a nuke (as opposed just to building one). This post was written before the continuing failures in Iraq made it clear that a war against the U.S. is no longer to be feared as a deterrent as it once was, but if we could get other countries to go along with it, so that any nation that actually used a nuclear weapon would immediately be at war with all of the nations that signed on to this 'new line,' (with luck the five permanent members of the security council though that might be hard) it could have the potential to hold firm.
4. Given the availability of nukes in the world, we have to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and inspect 100% of cargo containers coming into the country. Right now, only 2% are inspected. Yet this is the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack in the U.S. I'm not saying we should discount the possiblity of a nuclear missile strike on our territory from, say, North Korea (missile defense being one of the few issues in which I've reversed my position from where it was just a few years ago, in light of small rogue states which may be less rational than were the Soviets,) but I do think that we have to focus more on smaller weapons which a single person can transport (and which, unlike a crude ICBM, can with 100% accuracy be guided to their exact target before detonation.)
5. We also have to redouble our efforts to catch and get rid of the leadership of al-Qaeda. Unlike the various small disorganized cells around the world, the leadership (likely still) possesses the kind of cash that could get the attention of the North Koreans or other potential sellers. Obviously if bin Laden or one of his senior leadership were to arrange such a deal and obtain a nuke, there is little doubt that they, being no more at danger for it than they are now, would in fact use it.
6. And finally, don't panic. We had nuclear armed opponents during the Cold War. But we survived that. We did it by appealing to the people in those countries, not by military force, but by the advantages of our system. It took a long time, but eventually it worked. Like I wrote in a post not so long ago, also about Iran, in contrast to ineffective sanctions, trade with them until they can't stand it any longer.
we have the perfect weapon to deal with Tehran. The same weapons that brought down the thousands of nukes in the former Soviet Union, and the same weapons that we haven't used against North Korea or Cuba (hint: alone among old line traditional communist societies, they still stand.)
Disney. McDonalds. Hillary Duff. MTV.
And with products, inevitably follow ideas.
I'm surprised conservatives (who are still railing for an invasion of Iran, as if we have some secret armies somewhere that are just waiting for the command) don't see this. If anyone would see it, I'd expect it to be conservatives.
In North Korea, millions of people are oppressed and have no freedom, no food, in fact pretty much nothing at all. So I'd think this would work just as well (if not better) with North Korea than it would with Iran.
Cross posted at Night Birds Fountain
Friday, October 06, 2006
Guest post on Sar's blog leads to 'Fuzzy Math in a Nutshell'
I won't be here for the weekend, as we are going to head over to Moriarty, NM, where we used to live and take the kids to McCall's pumpkin patch (they get to pick out a pumpkin, but that is the last thing you do-- before that, the family we who runs it has made it a business and it's a lot of fun for the kids to go through their hay maze (or a fifteen acre corn maze if they are really adventurous) and play games (like 'gemstone panning' with a sluice box and lassoing and pedal cart racing) and just generally having a good time.
So what I would recommend you do if you want to read/comment on what I write is head over to Sar's blog, Belle of the Brawl, where I am honored to be the guest poster this week and posted why conservatives can't be trusted to lead the war on terrorism. I will probably repost it here next week sometime but I promised Sar I wouldn't post it anywhere else for a few days. Also, I am featured this week on Shayna's Music Highway Project.
I also will mention here that I got into a slightly off topic discussion in the comments over there in that a commenter started discussing fiscal conservatism and the deficit, so I made the following response (which has nothing to do with the war on terror but it's worth cutting and pasting here):
He [Bush] claims he is fiscally conservative as he cuts everything from the national parks to the veteran's administration. But look WHY the budget deficit has exploded (aside from the hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which were also geared towards the wealthy): Trillions handed out in corporate welfare, and almost all of it to industries or companies (like pharmaceutical companies and oil companies and credit card companies) that would be making billions even without all this government largesse.
True, the same industries gave millions to the GOP (and much smaller though still substantial amounts to Democrats) over the years.
So here is your fuzzy math: The wealthy corporations give millions to (mainly but not exclusively Republican) politicians, and also pay lobbyists to wine and dine said politicians when they are in Washington. They can do this because they are earning billions in profits. So then the politicians pass laws like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill that give them trillions in corporate welfare.
Oh, and then they go back home and campaign as 'fiscal conservatives' because they have tightened the rules on individual welfare and so cut some more people off the roles, even though the amount spent by the government on individual welfare is a tiny fraction by now of what is spent on corporate welfare, which they voted for.
So what I would recommend you do if you want to read/comment on what I write is head over to Sar's blog, Belle of the Brawl, where I am honored to be the guest poster this week and posted why conservatives can't be trusted to lead the war on terrorism. I will probably repost it here next week sometime but I promised Sar I wouldn't post it anywhere else for a few days. Also, I am featured this week on Shayna's Music Highway Project.
I also will mention here that I got into a slightly off topic discussion in the comments over there in that a commenter started discussing fiscal conservatism and the deficit, so I made the following response (which has nothing to do with the war on terror but it's worth cutting and pasting here):
He [Bush] claims he is fiscally conservative as he cuts everything from the national parks to the veteran's administration. But look WHY the budget deficit has exploded (aside from the hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which were also geared towards the wealthy): Trillions handed out in corporate welfare, and almost all of it to industries or companies (like pharmaceutical companies and oil companies and credit card companies) that would be making billions even without all this government largesse.
True, the same industries gave millions to the GOP (and much smaller though still substantial amounts to Democrats) over the years.
So here is your fuzzy math: The wealthy corporations give millions to (mainly but not exclusively Republican) politicians, and also pay lobbyists to wine and dine said politicians when they are in Washington. They can do this because they are earning billions in profits. So then the politicians pass laws like the energy bill and the prescription drug bill that give them trillions in corporate welfare.
Oh, and then they go back home and campaign as 'fiscal conservatives' because they have tightened the rules on individual welfare and so cut some more people off the roles, even though the amount spent by the government on individual welfare is a tiny fraction by now of what is spent on corporate welfare, which they voted for.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
How Bill O'Reilly makes sure Republicans don't get blamed for scandals
The right wing is always trying to claim that this scandal plagued Congress is 'bipartisan' scandal-plagued. Now, I'm not going to argue that there haven't been a couple of Democrats who have gotten into hot water, such as William Jefferson (the guy with the cash in his freezer) or Cynthia McKinney (who was thankfully defeated in a primary earlier this year). And there was the episode with Rep. Kennedy being drunk at 3 AM.
However, Democrats have a short list (and as the McKinney primary and Minority Leader Pelosi trying to strip Jefferson of his duties shows, the list they have, they take seriously). Comparing that to the scandal-plagued Republican Congress is like comparing a nice looking colt to Barbaro. There is a difference in magnitude that is astounding.
So, Bill O'Reilly, that 'fair and balanced' news anchor from FOX News, has hit on a new way to make it appear that scandals are bipartisan. Just label Republicans as Democrats. On a segment dealing with Mark Foley, the letter 'D' was carefully used in place of an 'R.' And then he repeated this on two other occasions, making it seem unlikely that it was a mere error.
What a sleazy tactic, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Hat tip to my lovely and charming sister, Miriam.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
GOP plans victory party for Iraq.
In the movie, A Bridge Too Far, about the ill conceived and poorly planned allied parachute attack on Arnhem during World War II, there is one scene I will always remember.
The paratroopers in the movie are in desperate straits, with communication lost, and the airdrop zone where they are to be resupplied with food and ammunition in the hands of the enemy. In one scene, one of the crates that is being dropped with supplies misses the drop zone and falls tantalizingly close to the men, but out in the open where the Germans can shoot at anyone who tries to get near it. Because things are so desperate and the allied troops are almost out of ammunition and water, one of them risks his life and runs out to the crate. He grabs it and it looks as if he might make it back, when he is cut down by a burst of machine gun fire. The crate falls open. It is full of red, ceremonial hats-- sent by commanders who have apparently been reading their own propaganda and want the paratroopers to be ready for the victory parade.
I was reminded of this scene when I read this article: Congress plans for victory party.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year's defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The money for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan was originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
Republicans have yet to claim responsibility for the provision. Democrats say it was likely added by the Senate's majority Republicans, and less than five weeks from congressional elections are pointing to it as another example of where the GOP has gone astray handling the war in Iraq.
Apparently someone in the GOP still thinks that victory is just around the corner (note that this is the authorization bill for this year only). This kind of out of touch with reality attitude is downright scary. But it goes along with what we've been hearing for the past three and a half years now, about how victory had already been achieved or was just about to happen, or whatever drivel they were framing on that day.
The paratroopers in the movie are in desperate straits, with communication lost, and the airdrop zone where they are to be resupplied with food and ammunition in the hands of the enemy. In one scene, one of the crates that is being dropped with supplies misses the drop zone and falls tantalizingly close to the men, but out in the open where the Germans can shoot at anyone who tries to get near it. Because things are so desperate and the allied troops are almost out of ammunition and water, one of them risks his life and runs out to the crate. He grabs it and it looks as if he might make it back, when he is cut down by a burst of machine gun fire. The crate falls open. It is full of red, ceremonial hats-- sent by commanders who have apparently been reading their own propaganda and want the paratroopers to be ready for the victory parade.
I was reminded of this scene when I read this article: Congress plans for victory party.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.
Lawmakers included language in this year's defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The money for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan was originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.
Republicans have yet to claim responsibility for the provision. Democrats say it was likely added by the Senate's majority Republicans, and less than five weeks from congressional elections are pointing to it as another example of where the GOP has gone astray handling the war in Iraq.
Apparently someone in the GOP still thinks that victory is just around the corner (note that this is the authorization bill for this year only). This kind of out of touch with reality attitude is downright scary. But it goes along with what we've been hearing for the past three and a half years now, about how victory had already been achieved or was just about to happen, or whatever drivel they were framing on that day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)