Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Marshmallows



David Brooks's columns are like marshmallows. They look all pink and puffy and chewable but if you do chew them you experience nothing but a puff of rather unpleasant smelling air. You may notice that I don't like marshmallows, and I don't like Brooks's columns, either, partly because I'd be better at his job which is pretending to be a sociologist studying the good America (wingnuts) and the evil latte-sipping America (moonbats). At least I know how to read statistics and how to make studies seem to support a particular point of view. Brooks just makes up things out of pure air. Or foul-smelling air, mostly.

Recently Brooks went on air and said this about immigration to the United States:

BROOKS: This is important. This is important -- it's not racist -- when the immigrants -- Listen, I'm for pretty open immigration. But when the immigrants come, they come with a culture of criminality. It's out of control, and I can see people wanting to put the system in control.

Culture of criminality! Do you think that Brooks has ever looked up United States in those pesky international statistics about crime rates and murders and rapes? It is quite difficult to enter this country with a higher culture of criminality than the one awaiting here, actually, though it can be done.

If you found the above paragraph insulting to Americans everywhere consider how Brooks's comment comes across to us immigrants. We are coming in with the intention to ravage and to pillage?

Here is my whole criminal life in this country:

I once got a parking fine, because the meter was broken. I put in fifty cents for a ten minute parking which required a dime, but the meter didn't budge. I left the car there anyway because it was my birthday and I was picking up the cake and people were waiting. I got fined and paid it. Even though the real criminal was the parking meter. But Brooks would probably blame my antecedents for the whole incident. The culture of criminality creeping in here, in the ominous shape of immigrant goddesses.

The Gray Lady On Her Knees?



The Los Angeles Times finally answers the question I have posed a couple of times on this here blog: when, exactly, did the New York Times know about Bush's illegal spying on American Citizens. I was curious if this story was being sat on while we were doing the re-electing of George Bush.

Now my curiosity has been slaked. The NYT could have published the story before the 2004 elections. But the LA Times article makes this revelation into the best he-shaid-she-said quasi-objective bullshit:

The Times report has created a furor in Washington, with politicians in both parties and civil libertarians saying that President Bush was wrong to authorize the surveillance by the National Security Agency without permission from a special court.

Bush and his supporters have fired back, saying that the eavesdropping was needed to protect Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. On Monday, the president called the public reports on the once-secret surveillance "shameful."

Politicians, journalists and Internet commentators have feverishly aired the debate over the timing of the New York Times story in the last four days — with critics on the left wondering why the paper waited so long to publish the story and those on the right wondering why it was published at all.

Conservatives suggested the Times had timed the story to persuade members of Congress to oppose reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the federal law that granted the government sweeping surveillance powers.

They also charged that the newspaper wanted to short-circuit good news for the Bush administration — Iraq's high-turnout, relatively violence-free elections.

See how everything is now a question of opinion? The timing of the story hurts the wingnuts, too! Somehow we are forgetting the fact that the New York Times KNEW over a year ago that the president was spying on American citizens and didn't tell the American citizens. If there were true security reasons for not publishing the story then, have these reasons now evaporated?

Nah. The Gray Lady was scared and fawning on this administration which employs Karl Rove to keep people quiet. They only came out with the story because one of their reporters was going to talk about it in a forthcoming book. This and the Judith Miller debacle may well spell the end of the Gray Lady. Too bad. At least they employed the most inane opinon columnist in the whole world: David Brooks.

Be Afraid!



The FBI has found it worthwhile to monitor such frightening organizations as the Catholic Workers:

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The enemies are everywhere, and only George Bush stands between us and an utter apocalypse.

An Announcement



There will be no Christmas this year. Some of you will feel sad about this, but many of you will stand up, throw away the brooms and the dustclothes and rejoice in the knowledge that no in-laws will arrive in a few days' time. Yet others will have the yoke of lists and wrapping paper and cards miraculously disappear, leaving them free. For there will be no Christmas this year.

As you may have heard from Bill O'Reilly, a war was declared against Christmas by the evil leftist. And they won. Christmas has been killed, the weapons of mass destruction it has harbored will no doubt be found soon, and the masses of people it has tortured over the years with excessive ham and turkey and nuts and eggnog and bills upon bills are all now freed! A new air of freedom is marching on. The elves at Santa's workshop have unionized and will no longer have to work overtime towards the end of the year. The reindeer have been released into the wilderness.

Jesus's birthday is moved to a more temperate time of the year. The festivals of this time of the year have been returned to their original owners: the druids, who will also have the rights for commercial campaigns from now on. For there will be no Christmas this year.

Jonathan Alter on Snoopgate



Snoopgate isn't really an adequately nasty name for this latest scandal but it must do for now. Alter's article is brilliant:

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.

Now isn't that cute? The president having a chat with the top brass of the New York Times? I would like to know if they had another similar talk right before the 2004 elections, to postpone the publication of their little bomb until after the elections. And I would like to know if that little talk led to the supposed Bush victory. Just imagine what might have happened if we had learned about the Snoopgate before the elections!

Well, perhaps nothing would have been different. Sometimes I despair over the apathy of the American voters. But it seems very wrong to me for the Times to have sat on this article for one full year, very wrong indeed.

I wish to apologize for harping on this one topic. But it is a very important topic and deserves a lot of harping.

Monday, December 19, 2005

From My Mailbag



This might interest you:

December 19, 2005



The Honorable James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

House Committee on the Judiciary

2138 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515



Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner:



We, the undersigned Members of the House Judiciary Committee, write to urge you to convene hearings as soon as possible to investigate the President's ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to engage in espionage of persons inside the United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants authorizing these searches.



On December 16, the New York Times reported that since 2002, the NSA has monitored international telephone calls and email messages of hundreds and possibly thousands of people inside the United States without warrants pursuant to an order of the President of the United States. Yesterday, the President confirmed that he secretly ordered the NSA, whose mission is to conduct foreign surveillance, to engage in domestic spying by intercepting the communications of American citizens and terrorist suspects inside the United States without obtaining warrants.



The December 16 New York Times report states that, even according to its own officials, such domestic espionage is unprecedented in the NSA's history. It is apparent that such domestic surveillance violates section 1802(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a). That law permits electronic surveillance of communications without a court order only if the Attorney General certifies that (1) these communications are exclusively between or among foreign powers; and (2) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.



The Administration even temporarily suspended the program last year because of concerns about its legality.

Chairman Specter has already stated that the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct hearings concerning this matter, and we ask that you, too, convene hearings to investigate why the President circumvented the system established under current law, which permits him to seek emergency warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct domestic surveillance. It is imperative we understand the legal authority upon which it is claimed these activities are based and the scope of the activities undertaken.



Sincerely,





Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Rick Boucher (D-VA)

John Conyers, Ranking Member (D-MI)

Howard L. Berman (D-CA)

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Robert C. Scott (D-VA)

Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)

Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Martin T. Meehan (D-MA)

William Delahunt (D-MA)

Robert Wexler (D-FL)

Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY)

Adam B. Schiff (D-CA)

Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)

Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)


On Music And Happiness



The president of Iran has banned Western music, including classical music, from Iran's state-run television:

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from
Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Elsewhere, presidents spy on their own people, the climate is warming and AIDS strides like the Evil Prince across continents.

On the other hand, happiness makes us successful and happy....:

Happiness, rather than working hard, is the key to success, according to research published today. Cheerful people are more likely to try new things and challenge themselves, which reinforces positive emotion and leads to success in work, good relationships and strong health, say psychologists.

The findings suggest that happiness is not a "feelgood" luxury, but is essential to people's wellbeing. What is more, happiness can also extend across an entire nation, with people in "happy" nations being more likely to have pro-democratic attitudes and a keenness to help others.

I don't really believe that it's possible to study happiness like that, because the very definition of happiness is hard to compare across people and there are too many problems in trying to assign causality this way. But there is a lot to be said for plain simple respect towards human beings. That is a good basis for happiness or joy or at least a peaceful life. Respect towards AIDS sufferers would make us work harder to guarantee treatment for every one of them. Respect towards the American people would stop illegal spying on their lives. Respect towards the Iranian people would let them listen to Beethoven or Mozart when they are tired and need refreshment.

But respect is not the flavor of this decade. Rather, fundamentalism is the new black. Fundamentalism makes me very unhappy, as you may have noticed if you have read this blog before. Fundamentalism may well be the main reason I write publicly.

But I would write for myself anyway, because it makes me happy, because I feel an internal wind, a breeze of something that flows through me, not from me, and I happily go along with it and interpret what it feels like in my writing. It's like opening some mysterious gate to a world that can't be described, though happiness is as good a term as any for it.

Music can do the same thing: pick us up and take us away, make us larger and more open, calm us and nurture us.

Is that why it must be banned? When will these fundamentalist weirdos feel happy? When we all are nothing but little machines controled by some central authority, whether god or not?

The Spying Will Continue



So we are told by George Bush. He states speed as the reason:

U.S. President George W. Bush said he has the constitutional authority to approve eavesdropping on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism.

``To save American lives we must be able to act fast,'' the president said in a news conference at the White House. The surveillance ``has been effective in disrupting the enemy.''

Telephone calls and e-mails have been monitored in about 500 instances since October 2001, according to an administration official, who spoke on the condition on anonymity.

But this excuse doesn't wash, because the law allows the secret court to be contacted up to three days after the spying has commenced. So there was never any delay to begin with.

No, the reason why Bush insists on this policy must lie elsewhere. Several hypotheses float around the blogosphere, from just arrogance to the idea that Bush has been spying on people the court would never allow: other politicians or journalists or members of the armed forces. Or the wingnuts that make up his base.

Bush is asking us to trust him in this. I have a lot of trouble trusting a president who has been caught lying so many times.

Time Magazine's People Of The Year And The Alternative



They are Bill and Melinda Gates and the singer Bono, for their charitable activities.





Last year the person of the year was George Bush, perhaps for his noncharitable activities? I really must stop being so nasty to poor George.

Many of us feel that the Force of the Year was Mother Nature, but she probably wouldn't turn up for a photograph or award ceremonies, and in any case we don't respect her enough to give her anything. Certainly not awards. Mostly we just try to rape her as much as we can get away with. And then we complain when she sends us various catastrophies. We have a totally human-centered view of them, never thinking that Mother Earth may just be applying some anti-flea shampoo on her surface vegetation, after having patiently suffered our attacks on her skin.

It is such an odd little quirk of the human mind: to ignore that everything we have is from her. Even our major religions carefully obliterate the mother-aspect of us all and imply that we don't need to worry about the health of this earth because we will soon go to a better place: the father's house.

Imagine what would change if we called earth Father Earth. Would we still feel so free to tinker with plants and animals? Would we still see earth as something that we must conquer? Perhaps, just perhaps, we might even respect our little planet if we called it a he?

This has veered quite far from the People Of The Year. But that was my intention: to point out how people-centered our understanding is and how that might be a the Biggest Mistake Of The Year both this year and in the near future.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

And A Shorter Version of the Speech



Most of you probably won't want to read the very long post next on Bush's speech. Sniff. I don't blame you, really. I didn't want to read the speech to begin with, and what did I do with it? Made it twice as long!

So here is the short version:


Bush: "I'm the Merkin prezdent. I went to war in Iraq on wrong grounds and it's a mess but if you're not for me you're for the terrorists. Those who criticize me are to blame if the Iraqi experiment fails.


Bush's Speech, With Echidne's Commentary



Apologies for this being very very long. This is because I am taking Bush's blah-blah-terror-blah-blah-fear-blah-blah-methebighero-blah-blah-sacrifice, and adding to it my own biting blah-blahs. I have taken the speech from Think Progress, an excellent blog for political news. The comments I'm taking from my bile and my butt, largely.

To make the epistle easier to follow I will bold the bits in Bush's speech that I especially hate. So here it goes:


Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders – a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted … a new government formed … and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.

Yup. They will have American firms running their capitalistic markets and most likely a shariah law running the lives of their women. But purple ink is great.


This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote – 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world – means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.

All who had a part in this achievement – Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners – can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions … violated a cease-fire agreement … sponsored terrorism … and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator … we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction … but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.

In other words, Bush decided to go to war on grounds which turned out to be totally wrong, at a time when we had a real problem in our hands in Afghanistan, one called bin Laden. But Bush's war wasn't really a mistake because he says so.


Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum – and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant – only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.

Note how Bush says nothing about the costs of removing Saddam, about the numbers of slaughtered and mutilated people that have paid the full price of this betterment of the world. Note how Bush pretends that the choice to remove Saddam had no negative consequences. How many lives is Saddam's capture worth? Forty thousand?


Since the removal of Saddam, this war – like other wars in our history – has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols – fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists – has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation – and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.


This tiny paragraph is crucial. Crucial! Here Bush is pretending that the terrible incompetency of his administration in running the Iraq war is just a usual aspect of wars in general!


That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals – to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield – and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

Here we get several tricky falsehoods in a nicely wrapped up package. The first one makes up a strawman about Bush's critics arguing that if terrorists were left alone they wouldn't attack us. No critic is arguing that. What the critics are arguing is that what Bush is doing serves to GROW MORE TERRORISTS. And he is not addressing this criticism at all. Next Bush brings in the terror and fear aspect, the dreadful bogeymen who hate our values and want to oppress the women among us, especially. The terrorists do want to do that, of course, but so do many of Bush's wingnut friends. And the number of terrorists has never been adequate to achieve those goals, though Bush has certainly made them a little more realistic.

The third lie is the last sentence in the above paragraph. The reason Iraq may now be a hotbed of terrorism is because Bush made it so, quite on purpose. If he didn't intend this to happen he is even more incompetent than anybody knew.


The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere – they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens – they would be on the offense, and headed our way.


Ah, here come the easy and glib answers for those with simple and unquestioning minds. The terrorists hate our way of life and our deepest values. Probably true. But they also hate what is happening in Palestine and the whole history of colonialism in the Middle East. This will not be mentioned, however. And then Bush adds the flypaper theory of terrorism. It has worked beautifully in Madrid and London, for example.


September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq … we were not in Afghanistan … but the terrorists attacked us anyway – and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad … removing their safe havens … and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

Recapping his theories here and adding the necessary reference to 911 and how it changed everything. Which it really didn't, though it certainly gave Bush the arrogance to believe that he is above the laws.


This work has been especially difficult in Iraq – more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal – unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

Could the difficulties be partly because the Bush administration didn't prepare for the reconstruction effort beforehand? Because there were really no plans at all? Because the people sent over to work on some of these plans included twenty-something wingnuts with no qualifications but ideological purity?


Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose – and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult – it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal – a democratic Iraq that can defend itself … that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists … and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.

The U.S. firms benefiting from the Iraq operations certainly don't feel that no more money should be spent on the war effort. In fact, they are raking it in!


We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal – a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.

First, our Coalition will remain on the offense – finding and clearing out the enemy … transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units … and building up the Iraqi Security Forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy … more than 50 are taking the lead … and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

And here, finally, comes a plan for Iraq. I wonder if we are going to learn what the definition of victory is. Building up the Iraqi Security Forces is a good idea, as long as one can devise some plan for keeping them alive long enough to be trained and for discouraging them from jumping onto the other side once their training is complete. Other than that, a good idea.


Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls – including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love – and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" He responded, "I am Iraqi."

Here is the purple ink. I was getting all impatient about it. Now, it's a great thing to have the Iraqis vote, and I'm glad that they are voting. But that last sentence is very weird. The religious wingnuts in this country certainly put Jesus and the Bible ahead of such wispy pieces of paper as the Constitution and would like the Supreme Court to do the same. But we are to believe that the Iraqis put their country ahead of Islam? Some do, of course, but the majority will not and Bush knows this very well.


Third, after a number of setbacks, our Coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure – and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well – and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic – and that optimism is justified.

How about hiring Iraqi firms for the reconstruction effort? How about giving Haliburton a kick in the ass? Not gonna happen, of course, as these are Bush's mates.


In all three aspects of our strategy – security, democracy, and reconstruction – we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq – we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends – and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops – by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us – and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

This long bit says that Echidne shouldn't ridicule Bush's speech because it gives courage to the enemy and discourages our brave fighters in Iraq. And that Echidne should shut up and support Bush.


We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice – from our military … their families … and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders – not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory – and that is the road that will take them home.

In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war … to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing … and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country – victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much – but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss – and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial – yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

Here Bush tells us that he appreciates all the sacrifices of lives for the war that didn't have a reason to begin with. He also reiterates that Echidne shouldn't criticize him because he is the embodiment of this country and to criticize him is to endanger all of the Western civilization. I will take this under advicement, of course.


Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our Nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men."

Thank you, and good night.

And here Bush strikes a blow for Christmas in the O'Reilly wars, also a reference to his fundamentalist God for the radical religious cleric wing of the Republican party, and a general remindeer to all of us that Bush believes God has chosen him to be the savior of the world and that he doesn't need to hear anybody else's opinions on how to achieve that.

More For Your Outrage Meter

From today's Washington Post:

When Tim Holt spotted Maria Rabanales of El Salvador lying still in the Arizona desert this summer, he believed he had a God-given duty to save her.

He forced water through the woman's swollen jaws and poured ice down her shirt. Border Patrol agents later took Rabanales to a hospital, where she was revived.


Holt was praised by Humane Borders, sponsored by First Christian Church of Tucson, where he is a volunteer. But his actions that June day might soon be considered a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison or property forfeiture, if a Republican-sponsored bill that passed the House along partisan lines on Friday becomes law.

The bill -- endorsed by the Bush administration though it would have preferred a more comprehensive bill with a guest-worker program -- would make it a crime to assist undocumented immigrants who enter or attempt to enter the United States illegally. It has sent a chill through church organizations that help migrants in the belief that they are carrying out the will of God.

Maybe Bush got his heavenly telephone wires crossed with those coming from Hell?

Pictures of Our Dear Leader



I think the photographers have decided to show their respect for Bush recently:














Or maybe it's impossible to get better pictures...

I feel that this post might be wasted. After all, what could one possiby comment about here? To use the space for something, please comment if you are a lurker. Tell us who you are and stuff. Or even if you're not a lurker. Do I have lurkers? It would be nice to have some.


Saturday, December 17, 2005

The Czar of All America






Is it an accident that he is portrayed in front of a picture that looks like a lone cowboy? He seems to have taken the role of the lone cowboy, fighting evil all on his own, without the support or protection of laws. Too bad that he's the president of the country and can't do that sort of thing. Well, I think that he can't do it, but he thinks that he can do whatever the hell he wants to:

President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."

In an unusual step, Mr. Bush delivered a live weekly radio address from the White House in which he defended his action as "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." He also lashed out at senators - both Democrats and Republicans - who voted on Friday to block the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the president's power to conduct surveillance, with warrants, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The revelation that Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and suspected terrorists inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters, was cited by several senators as a reason for their vote.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Mr. Bush said forcefully from behind a lectern in the Roosevelt Room, next to the Oval Office. The White House invited cameras in, guaranteeing television coverage.

We cannot afford to be without "this" law for a single moment, but the president can decide to dispense with other laws at his own convenience. Like in ordering people within the United States to be wiretapped/wiretrapped without a court order. The laws are for the little people, it seems.

Bush's strategy is the expected one: He will simply deny having done anything wrong. He will raise the specter of fear and terror and he will argue that 911 changed everything. This country is now a playground for George Bush and whatever he says must be. The Russian czars ruled like that. But even they didn't have the right to keep the country in a war indefinitely as an excuse for the suspension of various civil rights, and it seems, the suspension of reality.

For what Bush did was indeed wrong:

But, by ordering the wiretaps directly, Bush may have violated laws requiring the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to sign off on intelligence surveillance on American soil.

People within the borders of the U.S. are typically protected from this kind of government activity by the Fourth Amendment, which reads in part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation ..."

The nation's largest civil liberties group flatly labeled the program illegal.

"Eavesdropping on conversations of U.S citizens and others in the United States without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is both illegal and unconstitutional," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, in a written release. "The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law," she said.

Fredrickson called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the program and said that "Congress must investigate this report thoroughly."

One top Senator and member of Bush's own party vowed to do just that.

The wiretaps are "wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, quoted in various wire reports.

Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, promised that a Senate probe of Bush's actions will begin "as soon as we can get to it in the new year -- a very, very high priority item.''

And note that Bush could have used the existing laws to wiretap those with clear Al Queada connections by simply using the secret court orders. He didn't want to bother with that, because he is the czar of all America. And that is what is really frightening of this whole situation; not the terror or the fear but the good likelihood that our whole democracy, such as it is, but with some balances and checks built in, will be allowed to go down the drain of fear, terror and czarism.

Saturday Doggy Blogging









And very happy dogs they are, because the white cool stuff came down from the skies. Sniffing is more interesting through it. So is leaping around like a crazed bunny rabbit or two. But then it's nice to go into the warm lair and chew on a frog or two if you are Hank. If you are Henrietta you will spend the time more productively by pondering some deep philosophical dilemmas.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Hair-Pulling Thought For The Day



Remember the New York Times article that told us about Bush eavesdropping on us, possibly illegally? Remember this part of it:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Now comes the hair-pulling part: Did the New York Times know about this before the 2004 elections? If so, how did they justify keeping it secret from the voters?

Fashion News




The radical religious right is not opposed to women's fashions, as long as they are demure and properly dignified. In Bangladesh it means this:

A banned Islamist militant group blamed for a series of bombings in Bangladesh has threatened to kill women, including non-Muslims, if they do not wear the veil, a statement said.

The statement by the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen came hours after Thursday's suicide bomb attack in a northen town that killed at least eight people, the latest of a series of blasts blamed on militant groups in their campaign for an Islamic state.

"Women will be killed if they are found to move around without wearing burqa (veil) from the first day of Jilhaj," the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen said in the statement sent to a Dhaka newspaper office.

Jilhaj refers to the Arabic month beginning early January.

"Women, including non-Muslims, are hereby advised not to go out of home without burqa. Seclusion has been made compulsory for you," said the statement in Bangla language, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Friday.

In the United States matters are much more degenerate, natch. This is, after all, the corrupt West. So women can even go swimming, provided that they are demurely covered, like this.

I wonder about the god of all those fundamentalists. Why did he create women so awkwardly that they must always be covered? Or rather, why do the followers of this god believe that they know better than the supposed creator of all those sinfully attractive women? And what about the alternative, and simple, idea of having those men who are bothered by women's bodies avert their eyes as modesty requires?

But then the alternatives in women's fashions stink, too. Not into burqas or Victorian swimwear? Then how about wearing nothing but a corset, a G-string and high-heeled stilettos? If this doesn't look good we can build your breasts up artificially and cut off the toes that stick out of the shoes. Even here it's the female body that is somehow wrong.

Sometimes these seem the only choices:





It's a good thing I'm naturally covered with snake scales.

The Koufax Awards



These are the awards of the lefty blogosphere. You can nominate blogs in various categories, such as the best professional blog, the best group blog, the best overall blog and the best new blog. They don't have a category for divine bloggers which is too bad because I'd do well in that category: not much competition. As things are, well, you could nominate me for writing fairly legibly in a second language. Couldn't you?

I hate this stuff, I really do. But marketing is soooo important.

Pro-Life Objectivity



The feministing.com posted about South Dakota's Abortion Task Force Report a few days ago:

South Dakota's abortion task force has completed its report. Its introduction states that "the unborn child from the moment of conception is a whole separate human being."

And it gets worse. Because, of 17 task force members, only two were pro-choice (State Sen. Stan Adelstein and Planned Parenthood's Kate Looby). Among the other members are a representative of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, seven anti-choice state legislators, and a chiropractor whose wife runs the largest "crisis pregnancy center" in the state. The pro-choicers were not allowed to submit a minority report.

So what does the task force recommend the state legislature do to reduce the number of abortions?

* Amend the State Constitution to provide the unborn child, from the moment of conception, with the same protection of the law that the child receives after birth and also provide protections for the mother-child relationship. (In other words, criminalize abortion.)

The other recommendations are similar or worse, and equally poorly thought out. To give an example of the problems, note that this recommendation could get a woman sued for child abuse if she gets treated for some serious illness while pregnant (giving a minor illegal drugs). She might also be legally banned from entering any space in which children are not allowed (bars, casinos and places of work where children are not allowed).

The whole report makes interesting reading. Here is what it says about rape and incest in the context of abortions:

Since abortion advocates so often explain the need for legalized abortion by pointing to the pregnancies that result from rape and incest, the Task Force finds that it is appropriate to address this issue briefly.

Dr. J.C. Willke, founder of the Right to Life organization and President of the International Right to Life, testified before the Task Force on September 21, 2005. Dr. Willke noted that only approximately 0.01% of rapes result in a pregnancy. In his book, he writes: "We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second
violent act - that of abortion? Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed." (Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, p. 263, 2003). (See Section III of this report for suggested legislation in regarding reporting illegal sexual activity.)

Dr. Donald Oliver is a pediatrician who has practiced in Rapid City, South Dakota, for 25 years and who is board certified with the National Board of Medical Examiners and American Board of Pediatrics. In telephone testimony to the Task Force, Dr. Oliver said, "I was asked to share some genetic information with you regarding the issue of incest. As many of you are aware, the union of two closely related people may result in an infant with genetic deformities or retardation. That is why in the United States we have laws against close relatives marrying. What you may not be aware of is that deformities and/or retardation occur in the smallest minorities of these instances. Ninety-seven percent of the time, these children are normal."
"Just two months ago, I personally took care of a baby boy born to a very young teenage mother who was allegedly raped by her brother. So here we have the two scenarios brought forth most often by those on the pro-abortion side, rape and incest. This brave young lady carried her child to term and delivered a healthy normal boy. Here is an interesting fact that you may not be aware of. Just as two bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can pair up, and the infant of this incestuous relationship, may become the brightest person in the family—sometimes in the genius range of intellect. They are normal children at least 97 to 98 percent of the time. This young teenage mother that I just spoke of, when she found out she was pregnant, felt that besides herself, the only other really innocent person in this sad situation was her baby, and he certainly didn't deserve capital punishment for her brother's sins. What great insight for someone so young! I wonder how many employees of Planned Parenthood would have encouraged and supported this young lady's courage to choose life for her newborn son."

Wow. I never realized that I could have created a genius by having sex with my brother. What you learn from an abortion report! I also didn't realize that getting raped is almost like automatic contraception!

All this wetted my curiosity. I had to find out more about this South Dakota Abortion Task Force and its members. Here is Dr. Allen Unruh, a chiropractor whose wife runs a crisis pregnancy center:

What I have found interesting is the people who are abortion advocates have tried to suppress testimony from women who have had abortions calling it anecdotal evidence. But that's where the rubber meets the road: how abortion affects real people. Hitler said, "One death is a tragedy, a million is merely a statistic." We're not just compiling statistics. The evidence is overwhelming on the devastating effects of abortion on this great country. Let us pray that the SD Legislature will weigh this evidence and do their duty according to principle in the best interest for the people of SD.

You will hear from those on the task force who are pro-abortion that they are a minority on this committee. I would remind you that the purpose of the legislature was to research and discover, based on new evidence what the consequences of abortion really are. It was not to weigh this committee with a majority who would purposely deny, and discredit the evidence every way they know how. Only the truth will gain freedom for the unborn and all those who have been victims of abortion.

This committee has taken its job very seriously and the report will represent a painstaking effort which is unprecedented on this issue. It has been an honor to be on this committee to hear this testimony. It is a huge responsibility to make sure this report reveals the truth about abortion and how abortion has affected this country.

For the sake of South Dakotans I hope that Dr. Unruh is a better physician than he is a writer or a thinker, though to be fair to Dr. Unruh, he never argues that the report was objective, only that it was "painstaking" in revealing the "truth" about abortion.

What about the two pro-choice members of the Task Force? One of them, Stan Adelstein, tells us a little more about what took place during the Task Force meetings. Here he is discussing the issue with Elizabeth Kraus, the only woman (!) who was involved in writing the Report, and an avid pro-lifer:

Adelstein supported two resolutions offered by Dr. Marty Allison, chairwoman of the panel, which were defeated.

One would have supported a ban on abortion except in cases where there was "undue and serious risk to the health or life" of the women; where the child "would have no medically accepted possibility of surviving birth or early infancy;" and in cases of rape and incest.

"I tried to do exactly the same thing," Adelstein said, referring to legislation he has proposed in the past. "I just wish I had used her words. She did it as a doctor, and I did it as an engineer."

Kraus said the question of health of the woman has become "too broad." She also said that instances of rape and incest "are extremely rare." And she said, "There are so many people waiting to adopt."

The other resolution called for a "comprehensive sex- education curriculum … with a strong emphasis on abstinence" with the goal of preventing pregnancies.

"This was a wonderful amendment," Adelstein said. "There is not a single reference to sex education and reductions of abortions. Abortions could be reduced through education," he said.

Kraus characterized the proposal as "not bad" but said that there is no definition of comprehensive.

"We all agree with abstinence as a message," she said. "I'm not against sex education that is within boundaries that parents can agree on. … Parents need to be involved in sex-education material in the schools."

Adelstein said that a walk-out last week by some task force members — including him — in protest of the defeat of several amendments might not have happened "if a minority report had been allowed."

"They basically weren't going to listen to anything," he said.

Kraus said the proposals were "out of the reasonable thinking of most people of South Dakota."

This, my dear readers, might be the new definition of objectivity in the faith-based society. A painstaking and careful attempt to present one-sided information and to stomp the opposition into silence. You might be interested in learning that the possible health risks of abortion are widely discussed but delivering a child is apparently without any risks whatsoever. Or that all the "victim statements" of abortion sufferers came through one person in Texas. Or that the Report argues for abstinence-only education in the Brave New World that would be created if its other recommendations are followed. Imagine that: you can give birth to a baby because your brother raped you but you can't learn about condoms.

Not all South Dakotans are crazy, of course. Those who are not have inquired about the obvious lack of objectivity in the Report. Here is how Brock Greenfield, another Task Force member, responds to such worries:

Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, another member of the task force, said the report accurately reflects the testimony and written evidence the panel received during its meetings in recent months.

"As I took in the testimony and made many, many notes, it was evident to me the act of abortion has significantly hurt women and families," said Greenfield, who is also director of South Dakota Right to Life.

"For people to suggest there was no objectivity, that it was a preconceived or predetermined outcome, is a little disingenuous to the process," Greenfield said.

Ah.

Eavesdropping



Have you ever wondered what the origin of this term might be? I like this explanation the best:

Eavesdropping: To be caught eavesdropping implies that a person has been deliberately trying to overhear a conversation not intended for their ears. The word and its implication go back centuries to the time when most houses had no gutters; the rain dripped off the roofs but the roofs themselves projected well beyond the walls. This area inside where the water dripped was known originally as the Eavesdrip and later as the Eavesdrop. People sheltering here were somewhat protected from the rain,but could also overhear what was going on in the house.

Now guess who might be eavesdropping on you. That's right, our government:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

I think the correct reaction to this in the new faith-based U.S. would be either "duh" or "whatever". Though this bit in the NYT article does raise my eyebrows:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

What else do you think they are holding back from us peons?

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Slippery Eels



There are some men just too difficult to catch. Like Osama bin Laden (remember him?). And also, it seems, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Well, to be precise, he may have been caught but not for long:

Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday.

Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.

A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it.

"It is plausible," he said.

Thursday's news tops a list of reports of missed opportunities to capture the 39-year-old terrorist mastermind. An official said the military receives frequent reports of al-Zarqawi sightings, all of which are investigated. (View profile on al-Zarqawi)

In April, U.S. troops stormed a hospital in Ramadi based on credible intelligence that terrorists were hiding there, but no suspects were found, military officials said in early May.

A high-ranking Iraqi Army officer said there were rumors that al-Zarqawi was at the Ramadi medical center, and several groups affiliated with the al Qaeda operative issued statements saying the same.

Iraqi Lt. Gen. Nasser Abadi said Thursday that al-Zarqawi was taken to the hospital. He added that he didn't believe Kamal's report was correct.

"When we got the news, we rushed there, but he was out of there," the general said.

The Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was almost captured in February, too, after troops received a tip that he was heading to a meeting in Ramadi, said Pentagon officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

What does this remind me of? This:

Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw--
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime--Macavity's not there!

Macavity, Macavity, there's no on like Macavity,
He's broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity.
His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,
And when you reach the scene of crime--Macavity's not there!
You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air--
But I tell you once and once again, Macavity's not there!

Except that Eliot wrote about something fun and al-Zarqawi is not. Still, the bumbling of the authorities here is very similar to the way it is described in the poem. Now how did I get from eels to cats? Hmm.

On The Iraq Elections



I hope that they will go extremely well and that the Iraqis choose widely, though I still think that they are going to have a civil war first and then an Islamic theocracy. This is bad news for women and all non-muslim Iraqis. But I really hope that I am overly pessimistic and that the elections are a great success for everyone. Whatever that means.

Meanwhile, in the other budding theocracy here at home, a wingnut has sought a U.S. House of Representatives passage to a resolution expressing support for the symbols and traditions of Christmas. Because, as you may remember, the wingnuts (who are in power) are oppressed by the rest of us who have nothing better to do with our time than attack Christmas. Sigh.

Just For Fun



I stole this one via Ruenil:




O-oh!



It's not good news for Rumsfeld that Bush thinks:

"He's done a heck of a job. He's conducted two wars, and at the same time is out to transfer my military from a military that was constructed for the post-Cold War to one that is going to be constructed to fight terrorism."

Remember who the last person was that got this accolade from Bush? Yep, it was Brownie of the FEMA disaster fame.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

This Week's Most Inane Quote



Comes from a review of the movie "Syriana":

Still, if it is going to say anything, then it ought to say something smart and timely. But, the cynicism of "Syriana" is out of time and place, a homage to John le Carre, who himself is dated. To read George Packer's "The Assassin's Gate" is to be reminded that the Iraq war is not the product of oil avarice, or CIA evil, but of a surfeit of altruism, a naive compulsion to do good. That entire collection of neo- and retro-conservatives -- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and particularly Paul Wolfowitz -- made war not for oil or for empire but to end the horror of Saddam Hussein and, yes, reorder the Middle East.

They were inept. They were duplicitous. They were awesomely incompetent, and, in the case of Bush, they were monumentally ignorant and incurious, but they did not give a damn for oil or empire. This is why so many liberals, myself included, originally supported the war. It engaged us emotionally. It seemed . . . well, right -- a just cause.

Now I can't get the image of these bumbling, duplicitous, incompetent do-gooders out of my head. Being cynical is so out-dated, don't you know. All people in the know are into starry-eyed naivete. Ho, ho.

Hap-p-py?



Are you happy? The reason I'm asking is that my posts for some time now have been either angry, grumpy or sulky. Not happy at all. I can do whiny, if I try, but I don't think I can do happy. They begin to sound like the seven dwarves...

Which naturally leads me to fairy tales. Most of this world's wisdom is somewhere in a fairy tale and so are most of this world's follies and biases. The Emperor's New Clothes told us all we needed to know about George Bush and the American public long before the emperor himself admitted that he was bare-bottomed (which happened today), and the Princess and the Pea is a precise psychoanalysis of me as a feminist blogger. Every single misogynistic pea leaves a bruise on me unless I blog about it.

Maybe that is the reason why I don't have more happy posts? When I'm all happy I'm not going to sit down and type away for hours, am I? I'll be out carousing with my muse. He is happy, by the way, mostly because he is as thick as a board though a lot more handsome. As muses go I could have done worse.

That's about as happy as I can manage today. Because I just remembered the main thesis of fairy tales: the glorification of female passivity. Just think of the Sleeping Beauty or Rapunzel in her tower or the Snow-White in her coffin. All waiting for the prince to come and rescue them, and to what purpose? At least Cinderella went to the ball, but even she then had to wait for someone to come and offer her the glass slipper.

The fairy tales always end with everybody living happily ever after, but the story isn't telling us how that can be managed. Maybe because happiness is boring and not easy to write about?

Mea Culpa



Finally George Bush takes the blame for the "faulty" intelligence that supposedly made him attack Iraq:

President Bush accepted responsibility on Wednesday for going to war with faulty intelligence, but firmly defended a decision that has deeply divided the country. "We cannot and will not leave Iraq until victory is achieved," he said.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," the president told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq's first permanent, democratically elected government. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

What a mess. We have broken into the wrong house and totalled its contents. Some of the inhabitants lie dead or bleeding. And now we are just going to do what? Put the chairs back up and prop the corpses on them, close the door and leave? Say we are sorry?

The elections better be good.

The Token Woman



Amanda at Pandagon has an excellent post on the perks of being the token woman, the only one admitted to the boys' treehouse, the one, who like Pallas Athene, burst out of the Father's head without any of that feminine slime attached to her. The one who is "one of the guys".

Not all token women are honorary males, of course. Some are just put into the slot which tells the rest of the world how egalitarian some organization is. Look! We hire women here! Or at least one woman. If she happens to be a minority woman, so much better. More slots will remain free for the regular guys.

But once you are a token the dangers of becoming an honorary male are great. For the alternative is that you will be viewed as the total of all womankind. Whenever there are news that concern women you, the token, are supposed to express the woman's point of view. Whenever there is a dispute about bathrooms, you, the token, are expected to inform the rest about how much toilet paper women need. And you are the one whose presence might make the tit-and-ass brigade feel uncomfortable while they wish to end a business trip with a nice little trip to a bordello. Truly, the choices the token woman has are between being an honorary male or a generic female.

So in a sense I'm not blaming those tokens who decide that an artificial pair of balls is a better defense than trying to be all-women-all-the-time. It's an easier life. But Amanda is also right when she states this:

If you want to see a no-holds-barred portrayal of people relishing the opportunity to be tokens, you can't do much better than Susan Faludi's Backlash. She has a long section where she interviews a series of prominent anti-feminist women in order to get at how they resolve the hypocritic stance of going out into the public sphere to have exciting, interesting jobs telling other women that the public sphere and exciting, interesting jobs are just not for them. A lot of the "honorary man" thing is going on with these women, a feeling that they are somehow just better than other women and that's why they get to have the access they would deny to others.

"The feeling that they are somehow just better than other women." Yes, this is a neat solution to the problem all women face: how to live in a sexist world. It lets the token woman think that there is nothing wrong with misogyny and such. The other women, the inferior ones, deserve that. The good women get to be taken up to the boys' treehouse.

I wonder if such a token woman notices that it's usually her job in the treehouse to write about those inferior creatures and to keep them off the tree. So she is not really one of the boys, never will be. And should the boys turn against her and push her down the tree, what then?

All token women, whether honorary males or not, are ultimately judged as women. That is the real paradox of the tokenism. The solution, of course, is to hire more women.

And in case you are interested, yes, I have been a token woman, and no, it was not fun.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Whining Wingnuts



Wingnuts want victimhood. It's really hard to gain when one is in power but never mind. Someone, somewhere must be oppressing the wingnuts-who-are-in-power. If nothing like that is happening (and how could it, given that the wingnuts are in power) then something must be made up. It's important that the wingnuts (who are in power) are always the oppressed ones, the ones whom nobody understands, the ones whom the media ridicules (except here where the wingnuts are in power).

Hence the war on Christmas. Consider this seriously: a country where the majority of people are Christian, a country where Christmas advertizing starts right after Labor Day, a country where you cannot escape hearing "Dreaming of A White Christmas" has a war against Christmas, a war so powerful that this majority is on its knees, silenced, driven out of the public space. What utter crap. Who are these powerful enemies of Christmas, pray, tell me. Where can I tune in to hear about their heinous plans to assassinate Santa Claus or make Jesus speak Swahili (rather than the medieval English everybody knows he spoke)?

The war on Christmas tells us one thing and one thing only, and that is the power of the wingnuts to decide what the media talks about. The victimhood of the wingnuts (who are in power) is similar to a king moaning that he isn't allowed to have as much power over the masses as he used to have. It is not about oppression but about the right to dominate all others. That is what the crying and whining means.

Stanley Tookie Williams



I killed a man last night. His name was Stanley Tookie Williams. He may have committed four gruesome murders. He may not have been a good man. And I may not have had a choice about killing him, because the state did that in my name and in the name of all other citizens. Nevertheless, I committed a precalculated and cold-blooded murder last night.

This is why I don't want the death penalty to exist.

Froomkin and the Storm in the Teacup



Do you read Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing"? I do. It seems that I should have felt confused about the real nature of Froomkin's column, that I should have thought he might have been Washington Post's real White House reporter. Because people who read the Washington Post get confused very easily, it seems, and the real reporters at the Post are worried about Froomkin's column being so very opiniated and liberal. So now the Post is thinking that they might change the name of the column and add a right-wing blog to "balance" Froomkin. Then Froomkin can write something called "What's Wrong With the Government" and the right-wing blog can be "Bush is Perfect". Balance in the 21st century American journalism...

Though I like this idea of making all pundits have Siamese twins of the opposite political persuasion. Who should we link with Ann Coulter? Or with George Will? Or with Laura Ingraham? Hey, I spot something very odd here. We are not looking to twin any wingnuts, after all, just those ornery truthtelling liberals. Because Americans don't understand the media and must have everything spelled out to them in great detail, though only when the media voice is a liberal one. It reminds me of George Bush telling us, over and over, the same thing, in a louder and louder voice, because he is convinced that we will accept his beliefs as the truth if only he keeps at it.

Poor Froomkin. He is one of the victims of the new political correctness which is really just the only political correctness that ever worked: those in political power call the shots.

The Saudi Donation to Harvard and Georgetown Universities



Is interesting in some ways:

Harvard University and Georgetown University each announced yesterday that they had received $20 million donations from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a Saudi businessman and member of the Saudi royal family, to finance Islamic studies.
...
In making the two gifts, the prince focused on the importance of uniting disparate cultures.

Harvard's news release quoted him as saying that he hoped Harvard's Islamic studies program "will enable generations of students and scholars to gain a thorough understanding of Islam and its role both in the past and in today's world."

"Bridging the understanding between East and West is important for peace and tolerance," he said.

The Georgetown release quoted him as saying, "We are determined to build a bridge between Islam and Christianity for tolerance that transcends cultural and geographical boundaries."

With all due respect to Prince Alsaud, what is he doing about tolerance and peace at home? What programs is he financing in Saudi universities and schools on understanding the non-Islamic world? On tolerating it?

Tattoos



Margaret Cho has had her midriff tattooed with two snakes. Excellent taste she has. She also says this about tattoos:

I love tattoos because they represent a brief glimpse of person's insides, their passions, their true heart. It is like a riddle, a complex haiku that you may or may not be able to decipher, that you are fortunate to even have the opportunity. Even after the thrill is gone, the tattoo remains, as a reminder of a personal history, a life lived, flawed yet genuine, faded yet viable, and if it is visible to us, in daily life, it modifies the public personae in a way that no other physical alteration does.

I love heavily tattooed women. I imagine their lives are filled with sensuality and excess, madness and generosity, impulsive natures and fights. They look like they have endured much pain and sadness, yet have the ability to transcend all of it by documenting it on the body. Women's bodies are fraught with controversy, because it is believed that our bodies belong to the state. We are not supposed to choose what we can do with them. We don't have complete control over reproduction. Though we can get abortions (right now) we must be in the right place at the right time, and even then we might need the consent of someone else (a man) in order to take care of OURSELVES!!!

A lovely defence of tattoos. I especially like the idea of women taking ownership of their bodies by decorating them as they wish. Too bad that I still don't want tattoos, largely because of this bit Margaret said:

I love tattoos because they represent a brief glimpse of person's insides, their passions, their true heart.

I don't want anyone to see my insides! And in any case my passions and my heart are in a continual flux. But if I did have tattoos I'd want my whole face to be covered with black-and-white zebra stripes.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Boy Brains and Girl Brains



Go and read this post by Ampersand (and the previous one he wrote on the same topic). It is one of the best discussions I have read on the question why boys are not doing well at school and why, because it is actually based on some real data and not just propaganda.

The Texas Redistricting



It's going to be reviewed by the Supremes:

The United States Supreme Court agreed today to review the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting plan that was engineered by Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader until recently, and helped Republicans add to their majority from the Lone Star State.

The justices will consider several lawsuits by Democrats and minority groups challenging the redrawn maps of voting districts pushed through in 2003. The redistricting has been credited with helping Republicans gain five more seats in the Texas delegation to the House of Representatives in 2004, increasing the Republican ranks to 21, compared with 11 Texas Democrats.

Today's announcement by the Supreme Court comes 10 days after the Justice Department acknowledged that some of its top officials had overruled a determination by the agency's civil rights division staff in 2003 that the redistricting plan would dilute the voting strength of minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

This will be interesting to watch. That's all I have to say right now, except that the stakes are very high indeed.

The Anti-Feminist Drinking Game



The Countess has made this one up. The idea is to look for certain words in the posts of anti-feminist bloggers as incitement for drinking. Here is her list of cue words and how much to drink for each:

One shot each time an anti-feminist troll writes...

"equality"

"fairness"

"victim"

"misandry"

"FemNag"

"Feminazi"

"matriarchy"

Two shots for the following:

"equity feminist"

"gender feminist"

The equity and gender feminist labels are always a red flag for me, telling me that I'm reading a right-winger, because these classifications are not based on actual feminist thinking.

I'd add "drink the whole bottle" for the following phrases:

"chivalry is dead"
"won't open doors anymore"
"the dignity of women"


Race Riots in Australia






The fruit of 9/11, the Bali bombings, multiculturalism gone bonkers? Or of Bush's war on terror and the religious wars that are going on? Or of too rapid immigration of groups with too different values and customs? Or of plain old racism? You decide. You might as well, because nobody knows the correct answers. But Australia is experiencing something very similar to what happened in France just a moment ago: young men getting together to riot, and in both cases the planning takes place through mobile phones. The difference is that in France it was the minorities who rioted, in Australia it was the white non-Arab majority. But I'm thinking that in some deeper sense that difference isn't very large at all, for in both cases it is mostly young men who feel that their values are threatened who are doing this.

In any case, this is the sort of thing that happened down under:

A day of confrontations began at the southern beach of Cronulla, where 5,000 white youths, many of them drunk, wrapped in Australian flags and chanting racist slurs, fought a series of skirmishes with police, attacked people of Arab appearance and assaulted a pair of ambulance officers.

The violence was a reaction to reports that youths of Lebanese ancestry were responsible for an attack last weekend on two of the beach's lifeguards.

One white teenager had the words "We grew here, you flew here" painted on his back. On the beach, someone had written "100 per cent Aussie pride" in the sand.

Two paramedics in an ambulance were injured as they tried to get youths of Middle Eastern appearance out of the Cronulla Surf Lifesaving Club, where they had fled to escape one mob.

The mob broke the vehicle's windows and kicked its doors as the paramedics tried to get the group out.

TV broadcasts showed a group of young women attacking another woman. Her ethnicity was not immediately clear.

Days ago, police increased the number of officers patrolling the beach after mobile phone text messages began circulating calling for retaliation for the attack on the lifeguards.

Television images of the alcohol and hate-fuelled brawls sparked a string of retaliations in nearby suburbs with cars full of young men of Arab descent smashing 40 cars with sticks and baseball bats, police said.

Another man of Arab appearance was being hunted after stabbing a white man in the back outside a golf club.

And nearby, rioters pelted police in full riot gear with rocks and bottles.


Bubble Boy



That is one description for the leader of the free world, the man who has his finger on the nuclear button, the president of the United States. Well, we (supposedly) elected this man and his problems, so I guess we can live (or die) with them. Here is a taste of what is going on in the White House:

Bush may be the most isolated president in modern history, at least since the late-stage Richard Nixon. It's not that he is a socially awkward loner or a paranoid. He can charm and joke like the frat president he was. Still, beneath a hail-fellow manner, Bush has a defensive edge, a don't-tread-on-me prickliness. It shows in Bush's humor. When Reagan told a joke, it almost never was about someone in the room. Reagan's jokes may have been scatological or politically incorrect, but they were inclusive, intended to make everyone join in the laughter. Often, Bush's joking is personal—it is aimed at you. The teasing can be flattering (the president gave me a nickname!), but it is intended, however so subtly, to put the listener on the defensive. It is a towel-snap that invites a retort. How many people dare to snap back at a president?

Not many, and not unless they have known the president a long, long time. (Even Karl Rove, or "Turd Blossom," as he is sometimes addressed by the president, knows when to hold his tongue.) In the Bush White House, disagreement is often equated with disloyalty.
...
Bush seemed to have no idea. "I got the sense that his staff was not telling him the bad news," says the lawmaker. "This was not a case of him thinking positive. He just didn't have any idea of the political realities there. It was like he wasn't briefed at all." (Bush was not clueless, says an aide, but pushing his historic mission.)

In subtle ways, Bush does not encourage truth-telling or at least a full exploration of all that could go wrong. A former senior member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad occasionally observed Bush on videoconferences with his top advisers. "The president would ask the generals, 'Do you have what you need to complete the mission?' as opposed to saying, 'Tell me, General, what do you need to win?' which would have opened up a whole new set of conversations," says this official, who did not want to be identified discussing high-level meetings. The official says that the way Bush phrased his questions, as well as his obvious lack of interest in long, detailed discussions, had a chilling effect. "It just prevented the discussion from heading in a direction that would open up a possibility that we need more troops," says the official.
...
A foreign diplomat who declined to be identified was startled when Secretary of State Rice warned him not to lay bad news on the president. "Don't upset him," she said.

Do you feel comfortable knowing that the fate of this world lies in the hands of a man who cannot face any criticism at all? Who refuses to learn bad news? Who appears not to have earned the kind of maturity most of us have achieved by the age thirty? Oh well, I guess things could be worse, though I can't quite think of exactly how that could be arranged.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Time for Some More Bad Poetry!



I haven't done any for ages. Here is a good one:

Hotel Hilton

At the Hilton
businessmen end their dinner
with some choice Stilton
and the declaration of the winner
in their annual race
for the merchant with most money
and least grace.

For these men ethics
is a question of phonetics.
This is what the economy is built on.

A beauty, isn't it?

And this I really enjoyed making! It's a plot for a daytime soap and it's perfect as an example of bad poetry:


He came home in a fighting mood.
The day had been long, he was starving for
food.
But his wife, the slut, had scorched his steak.
Something snapped in his brain, he wanted to break
her neck.

Don't touch me, she cried,
shaking with fear.
Oh, honey, I tried,
and the children are here.
Don't hit me in front of them
please!
And she got down on her knees.

He felt suddenly shocked and sad.
Honey, I'm sorry, I must have been mad.
I'm so tired,
he said. Today I was fired.

She rose with a melting heart.
It is OK, she said, we'll make a new start.
Come here, poor thing, she said,
and I'll tuck you in our bed.

Don't touch me! he said,
shaking with fear.
Don't come near me,
he said, the children are here.
Don't paw me in front of them, whore.
And he walked out, slamming the door.

What do you think? Should I quit my day job? Heh.

The Trial



The Trial is one of Franz Kafka's great novels. It is the story of one Joseph K. who wakes up one morning accused of a crime he did not commit by a system he does not understand. The more he fights for his case the less understandable it becomes and by the end of the book he is executed for a crime that probably does not exist.

It's very depressing reading, as are all Kafka's books. But therein lies their fascination: they thoroughly capture the fears we all have about the world gone deranged, about a world we can't understand and in which anonymous others hold all power. At the end of the book we have the consolation that the real world isn't quite that bad, that it was all just a story.

Or was it? Consider this little piece of news from the United States of America in the year 2005 (via Washington Monthly):

A federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with what seems to be a straightforward question: Can Americans be required to show ID on a commercial airline flight?

John Gilmore, an early employee of Sun Microsystems and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the answer should be "no." The libertarian millionaire sued the Bush administration, which claims that the ID requirement is necessary for security but has refused to identify any actual regulation requiring it.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed skeptical of the Bush administration's defense of secret laws and regulations but stopped short of suggesting that such a rule would be necessarily unconstitutional.

"How do we know there's an order?" Judge Thomas Nelson asked. "Because you said there was?"

Replied Joshua Waldman, a staff attorney for the Department of Justice: "We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order." Even though government regulations required his silence, Waldman said, the situation did seem a "bit peculiar."

"This is America," said James Harrison, a lawyer representing Gilmore. "We do not have secret laws. Period." Harrison stressed that Gilmore was happy to go through a metal detector.
(Bolds mine.)

Secret laws? How do we know when we break one if we don't know what the laws are?
Welcome to Kafka's world:

Somebody must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.
(The Trial)