For my Homies on Thanksgiving

Not comfortable with the inky aura of very low wages and employee intimidation at the hands of its managers and CEOs, WalMart decided that the next best thing to paying its employees nothing was to get its employees who aren't starving to kick in a little extra somethin-somethin for Turkey Day.

For My Homies

Debunking More Neocon Outrage

Granted, this is a bit dated by now (I see articles, email them to myself, save then promptly forget about them.  Sue me), however, it is a poignant reminder regarding the right-wing outrage not too long ago, ginned up mostly by Rush Limbaugh and his infamous "slut" remarks over Sandra Fluke.

Fact Checking "free" Birth Control

And the thing is?  They still believe it today as strongly as they believed it then.  They are very good at never letting go a controversy of their own creation.

They Are Just Like US!

See folks, even the rich got it tough these days.  They are having a hard time putting all of their kids through near $40,000/year private schools.  They jokingly refer to their Porsches as "Volkswagens" (although, technically...).  The $17 large for doggie upkeep is getting a little too heavy.  And, by the sweet love of Moses, some of them even have to wash dishes by hand!  The horror, the horror:

No Bonus Check, No Trip To The Maldives This Year

And all because some are having their bonus checks cut or completely removed.  We really need to get together and help these poor rich people out.

A Case for Guns

Let me be absolutely clear on this; I have zero problem with people owning guns.  I do not own one, but I do like shooting them.  In fact, I might even pick me up an AR15 when I get back to the States (fuck AK47s); AR15s are W way more fun!

What I do not and can not agree with is how political gun ownership has become in our country and how polarizing an issue it is.  And while I do not always find agreement with the the pro gun lobby, as well, I do not always find agreement with the gun control lobby.  However, after reading about this jewel heist (I always love reading about jewel and art heists; just seems so glamorous and something I wish I could pull off ala Thomas Crowne), I find myself definitively on the side of pro guns and their argument that if more people were armed, there's be less crime.

Or Why I am in Favor of Guns

I mean, there were two, back to back, in which the robbers were armed and the guards were not.  And this quote from a non-profit director in Switzerland can be filed right alongside equally puzzling logic from the pro-gun crowd:

"Given that civilian possession of weapons is much less available, they're unlikely to have weapons because they're unlikely to be facing people with weapons."

I get it, I understand that this is Europe where not everyone is as trigger happy as those in the US, but being assigned to guard millions of dollars worth of jewels, and especially after there was a robbery just a little while ago and especially more so when the hotel and the area seem to have a penchant for having jewels stolen, it just seems to me, in my perhaps rather pedestrian world view, that had one guard at least had a handgun, perhaps things might have turned out different.

Still Making His Case For A Number One Douche Bag Status

Not content to rest on his laurels, or his penis, Anthony Weiner decided to to get tough with a man twenty years his senior, using tough guy bar speak:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/aarp-calls-weiners-grandpa-language-at-forum-unfortunate-95292.html

I understand that Weiner did a lot of good politically, and I also know full well the expression, "He's an asshole, but he's our asshole."  But I think that Senor Weiner should seriously consider golf.  In Rwanda.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oy, Oy, Oy!

Some say that life imitates art while others claim that art imitates life.  What happens when stupidity decides to double down?

Running for a seat in public office in the east Australian city of Brisbane, Stephanie Bannister was One Nation's candidate.  One Nation is virulently anti-immigration and clearly has deep-rooted issues with Islam.

In an interview with local media that she later claimed was edited to make her "look the fool" (sound familiar?), Bannister claimed the following: Islam is a country; referred to the Koran as the "Haran"; Judaism is predicated on the words of Jesus Christ; food prepared Al Halal (the Arabic version of Kosher) is being used to fund terrorism; she has been charged with putting stickers which proclaim the latter on food in markets.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/10/one-nation-s-stephanie-banister-withdraws-from-race-after-islam-comments

The question here, much like the question of why the GOP foisted Palin onto McCain, is why did One Nation pick Bannister?  I mean, really?  She was it?  Were they at a meeting and when asked who wanted to try and have a go at the seat, she was the only one who raised her hand?  She isn't all that charismatic, she clearly is not the sharpest tool in the shed and she is under criminal investigation.

Actually, in light of the above, Palin was a brilliant tactical decision.

Anthony Weiner: Making His Case For A Number One Douche Bag Status

?Illegitimi non carborundum" should be the new Weiner campaign slogan.  Regardless of how many women he's sexted pictures of his penis to, regardless of being forced to resign from Congress in disgrace, regardless of the shame and humiliation he rains on his wife, Anthony Weiner has vowed to press on, stating emphatically that: "Quit isn't the way we roll' in NYC"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/30/weiner-new-york-mayor-resign-sexting/2601211/

He reminds me of the people portrayed in Bud Light's "Real Men of Genius" commercials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrWZsYYJOQ

The Stolen Kingdom Has Its Revenge

While it is well known that many US cities will scoop of their homeless and bus them out of town, sort of like a combination between "Soylent Green" and the trains that the Nazis loaded Jews onto, Hawaii, the 50th state, has introduced a new policy regarding its homeless population: a one=way ticket to the mainland:

Hawaii Offers Homeless One-Way Tickets

That's right folks; LAX, SFO, OAK; you name it, soon not only will you be battling taxis, buses, the screeching whistles of airport police, now you will also have to do battle with a swarm of shuffling vagrants blinking at the sun, their pockets filled with small bags of complimentary pretzels and honey roasted peanuts.  Wait in line for your baggage, load aunt May into the SUV and give a homeless person a ride to the nearest park.

Good times!

Thanks Hawaii!

Sears/Kmart overseas labor practices: Like!

In this article I discovered from Business Insider, apparently, over the years, Chinese who have been forced into labor camps where such things as Halloween decorations are made, have been secretly stashing letters begging for help into boxes of those products.  Subsisting on around $1.50/month and miserable living conditions some of these "criminals of the state" have managed to squirrel away letters of despair and tragedy.  Reading the story I suppose, considering what you think or know about China, one might shrug their shoulders or be horrified.  I was a little of both.  However, what really caught my eye was at the end of the article.  Sears Holdings, owner of Kmart, apparently did an internal investigation and when asked by The New York Times to comment on the investigation, informed the Times that there was "no violations of company rules that bar the use of forced labor."  In the words of the Church Lady, "Isn't that special?"

Crazy-ass Wingnut Emails and the Meltdown of the GOP

The meltdown is so apparent it’s like that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazis all start melting after being exposed to the contents of the Ark of the Covenant. OK, perhaps that imagery is a push which should not be shoved this time of year; I mean as to not so-veiled Nazi/Republican conflations and the whole Obama as Messiah/Ark of the Covenant thing. Some people might read this and presume that I was biased. God forbid…

Anyway, those crazy Internets are full of “emails” which mysteriously appear in random inboxes like tatters of paper drifting down from Calvary, warning us of the impending arrival of the Anti-Christ in the form of Senator Barrack Obama. Either that or emails outlining Obama’s many terrorist connections. Or his history of Communist/Marxist/socialist involvement (apparently these magical mystery emails can not discern one –ism from another…

But this gem was just way too good to pass up.

After months of reading threads conflating Hitler with Obama (not the men, per se, but their oratory styles. That’s all…) turns out that there is indeed something to this oration business after all; Barrack Obama employs, sitting down?, the power of mass hypnosis.
That’s right. Mass hypnosis.

Remember the other day when Obama was speaking to something like 100,000 people in Saint Louis, MO? Hypnotized. Every single one of ‘em. That guy, waaayy in the back? The one who just locked his bicycle to that tree, swigging down the last of his latte (‘cause what else would an elitist Democrat Obama supporter be drinking at that hour of the day, or any hour for that matter?) Stone-cold hypnotized my friend.

And you. And me. But only if we’re Democrats.

You see, Republicans have been given special hats and earplugs to help stifle the hypnotic lullaby sung on honey smooth waves of creamy milk, licking your ears like the warm tongue of a lover, caressing their way around your brain, spooning you in the embryonic bed of what will ultimately be the end of America. Jesus, now I’m excited…

But enough about me, just read the story:

Obama's Use of Hypnotism

The Palin Gambit

A while back I was commenting to some friends that the real consternation amongst Republicans this presidential election year was that once again, they were up against charisma.

The last truly charismatic presidential nominee, and subsequent president, The GOP had was Ronald Reagan. Since then the GOP has earnestly been searching for the next Reagan.

Perhaps they were looking for love in all the wrong places.

According to linguist and political pundit, George Lakoff, in this article, "In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors."

In other words, what the GOP has known since their disastrous defeat in 1964, a paradigm shift was needed if they were going to win the presidency.

And so began a subtle re-alignment of what had previously been known as "the issues", to "values". That is, the issues really are values, and values are the issues.

As well, the modern Conservative movement was born with Senator Goldwater, but more importantly, a young recently-turned Republican politician from California was being hastily groomed through the right-wing ranks as Republican focus shifted from its older, East coast liberals to newer, West coast conservatives; Ronald Reagan.

In Reagan, the GOP had an unbeatable combination; Republican strength had shifted from north to south, from east to west, and Reagan was the physical embodiment of that shift. Young(ish), charismatic, wanna' be cowboy, great orator and staunch conservative, he was, in some ways, quite literally, the right-wing Superman whose magic elixir saved this country and the world.

And who have the GOP been able to put on stage since? As Margot Kidder's Lois Lane told Christopher Reeve's Superman, "You're kind of a hard act to follow, you know?"

And that's why the Republicans seethe at the mere mention of Bill Clinton; Clinton and the DNC stole pages directly from the RNC playbook. Twice. I believe that a large part of the acerbic animosity directed at Bill Clinton stems from a jealousy of Clinton's charisma.

I've noticed a political tendency favored by Republicans during presidential election season when they are faced with a clearly more charismatic opponent than their offering; they tend to attack the Democrat candidate on his "values", or lack thereof, which is really the point they try to drive home. Their intent, near as I can figure it, is to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans based purely upon mythological images of American values, somehow completely unique than those of any other country, sacrament for, of and to the Republican party, and of course, completely at odds with Democrat values. In this way, the particular candidate is not attacked based upon his, or her, stance regarding the issues, rather their complete lack of character.

George HW Bush was no Reagan, and he was in part punished for his short-comings by Republicans who did not vote for him in 1992. This was a part of why Clinton won, but the number one reason was his over-arching charisma; the Clinton/Gore ticket was, in the end, simply sexier than the Bush/(Noe means noe)Quayle.

George W Bush has proven to be no Reagan either, but that has been through no fault of the RNC; the transformation of George W Bush, long in the line of deep political and financial connections, he from deep money dating back to the Mayflower, and he of New Haven, Connecticut, Yale and Harvard to just good ole' boy W with whom most Americans admitted they wouldn't mind having a beer with will, in my mind, no doubt go down as the greatest shell game in the history of mankind. He has been the most charismatic nominee and president the GOP has had since The Gipper, and let's face it; even that is a very long stretch of those pointy ears.

But in essence, the GOP has been putting up old white guys since Lincoln, and in all honesty, that's all they had lined up for quite some time.

Senator John McCain was not the GOP's first choice. I can assure you that. But 2008 is payback for McCain sucking it up after the 2000 smear campaign.

Many on the extreme end of conservative Republicans were less than enthused, to say the least, of McCain's candidacy throughout the primaries, with such notables as Coulter and Limbaugh threatening to vote for Clinton or simply not vote at all.

However, when Romney bowed out, essentially giving the nomination to McCain, Republicans were suddenly faced with a great conundrum and their greatest fear. They were faced with the very real possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that person would either be Clinton, or more than likely, Obama, two people greatly loathed by Republicans, especially conservatives. Their only hope was someone they wanted in the White House only as an "in case of an emergency"-type situation; John McCain.

Media focus shifted from the Republican primaries, now, despite Huckabee's dogged determination, and focused squarely on the bitter Democrat slug-fest between Clinton and Obama. And the Republicans were silently grateful.

For once not whining about lack of coverage, Republicans the country over had to do some serious soul-searching, because the way things were shaping up, there was, and is, every possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that more than anything, was what began the silent rally; Republicans would more than likely vote this year, and they were going to vote for McCain.

Then comes a governor.

Far outside of the so-called liberal MSM, conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity and of course the afore mentioned Rush Limbaugh, the two topics of discussion are Obama and Palin and only Obama and Palin. And just how is that being done? Why framing them in terms of their values, of course.

To the right-wing media, it's as if George W Bush and Dick Cheney have already left the White House, putting the key under the fake stone partly hidden behind a small plant (dare, a bush?...) by the front stoop. I mean, seriously, has anyone seen Cheney? Who? And McCain doesn't even rank 3rd most important topic; that spot is reserved for Senator Joseph Biden. It's as if the Right are quite literally acknowledging the complete lack of importance McCain holds for them, and quite clearly showing just how important Sarah Palin is to them.

I was indifferent when I first learned of McCain's VP pick; I had no idea who Palin was. The original reports on her seemed like Democrat reaches to try and dig up dirt on her. I waited, and so too did the US and the world; the GOP was keeping Palin well away from the press until they could sit down with her, find out everything they could because clearly McCain had not done much, if any, vetting, bot most importantly, the GOP needed to drill into Palin their talking points.

This could not have been made more clear to any non-partisan observer than with the Gibson and Hannity interviews; when it came to actual policy questions, she was a well-trained tape recorder who clearly had little to no real ideas of her own in regards to those areas (remember, she is the one who admitted that she had no idea what the vice-president actually did...) But partisan hacks, that is those people who crowd the Hannity.com boards loved her because she seemed like "one of them". And if we all can remember back just eight years ago, that was perhaps the biggest selling point for Bush's candidacy; "I'd have a beer with Bush."

But why the passion for Palin from the hard-core political insiders? Look no further than George W Bush.

In an article yesterday on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington noted that, according to one Republican insider, Palin is the perfect vessel for the neocons; "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."

Remind you of anyone else?

"That's why the Palin pick was so brilliant. On the outside, she's exponentially more likable and talented at connecting with people than Cheney ever was. But on the inside, once she graduates from the neocon finishing school, she'll be a complete and total Dick. Cheney. With lipstick."

Let's face it; the GOP has not had a charismatic presidential nominee since Reagan, and they are bitterly upset over the popularity of the Clintons, Gore and Obama. They know they are essentially backing a dead horse with McCain, so their only shot was sliding Palin onto the ticket; she has energized the base like no other candidate would have done, and if they do not win the White House this year, they have groomed, trained and prepped quite possibly the next GOP presidential nominee.

For McCain, what has he got to lose? He already bit the bullet once for the GOP in 2000, and this is his payback. If he does not win, there will be no 2012 for him, so it's now or nothing and Palin was most likely his one and only chance.

However, for the GOP, it really is a win-win situation. If McCain/Palin get in, they've quite possible got the White House for at least the next 12 years. If not, they have re-paid their debt to McCain and cleared the books with military veterans and the 60+ crowd, but they have also stacked the deck in their favor for the next go-round.

That's why Palin is such an intelligent move.

The GOP has only been able to put up old white men for president, and looking back on it, that's all they would have had for at least the next couple of elections. Democrats meanwhile had put up a charismatic woman with serious connections and experience, and a very charismatic and young black man. In the face of that, the GOP knew they were facing a potential sea change in voting demographics in this country, and in light of that, selecting on older Jewish former Democrat who is pro-choice, a charismatic, intelligent but Mormon, or a liberal-leaning Evangelical, there really was no choice if they wanted to be viable in the future.

So, see you in '12 when things get really interesting!

Backdooring the environment

No; that's not a sexual reference. In this case, it's of political nature, as in creating a backdoor into something. And in that case, what Bush is doing to the Environmental Protection Act of 1978.

To wit:

"The proposal, which does not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years. Developers welcomed the plan, while environmentalists derided it.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming.

The proposal would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects."

This one sounds like something from a Daily Show skit:

"The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft.

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said."

But wait, there's more:

"The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to a source with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.

In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.

Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes."



The Bush Administration: making sure that you have the God-given right to shoot wolves from airplanes and helicopters, drink poisoned water and ensuriing that if there is a Yellowstone Park, you will be able to ride your snowmobile through it.

Ari Fleischer - Come sit at the Master's knee

This morning, as the news of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's tell-all book consumed Clinton's Kennedy comments, another former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer was asked by MSNBC anchor, Norah O'Donnell what his thoughts were on the book and on McClellan himself. Watch and learn:



Notice the following from Fleischer:

1) Look of complete sincerity.

2) Reiterate the unnecessary: That McClellan has the "right" to print thin book. Thanks for that reminder and the little American flag lapel pin...

3) Repeat the talking points which will be later echoed by the White House: Several times Fleischer mentions of McClellan that he, Fleischer, is confused, that McClellan never mentioned any of this while Press Secretary, that this is not the Scott he knew.

4) And pay attention to the masterful dodge when O'Donnell asks Fleischer point-blank, at about 2:30 regarding McClellan's remarks that he, McClellan and Fleischer were used to sell an "unjust war" as part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, does he, Fleischer, "deny that?” Fleischer never answers her question nor McClellan's allegations but instead answers with a truthful assertion about something else entirely.

5) Blame others and Clinton as soon and as often as possible: When asked about the information regarding Hussein's WMD "stockpiles", Fleischer immediately throws George Tenet under the bus, but not without first mentioning that he was previously Bill Clinton's Director of CIA.

6) Make not-so subtle suggestions regarding the person's character: After briefly mentioning that "we all were wrong", Fleischer then turns to subtly dismantling McClellan's credibility, saying that his words sounded like somebody who was an opponent of Bush. Later, someone from the White House will say that McClellan is just "disgruntled".

Later on, Fleischer again lays the blame on "foreign nations, the Clinton administration..."

This is classic stuff from the man who threatened the White House press corps shortly after 9/11 to watch what they say and who also said, after stepping down as press secretary that "I am leaving the White House but I am not leaving President Bush."

Hmmm...

Doublespeak and the War on Terror

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”
-George Orwell, 1984

“Freedom has been attacked, but freedom will be defended”
-George W Bush, 2001 (Not, technically a Space Odyssey, but an odyssey none the less)


Writing for the Cato Institute, arguably a mostly Conservative-leaning think-tank, Timothy Lynch references Orwell’s seminal novel, 1984, citing the author’s creation of “doublespeak” and writing, “Doublespeak perverts the basic function of language, which is to facilitate a common understanding between human beings.” in his paper titled “Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism”

Essentially a litany of the abuses of power by the Bush II administration, Lynch cites where, time and again, the current administration has been able to sidestep laws, regulations and private rights previously thought unassailable, inalienable, by manipulating the very language used to create, grant and assure those laws, regulations and rights. In what can really only be seen as Orwellian, this administration has created such progressions as “material witness” to “enemy combatant” to “imperative security internee”, each time creating the new definition after the Supreme Court has stepped in declared the previous classification illegal. It’s kind of like opposite day, every day, these days.

Another interesting point brought up by Lynch, if I can be so bold as to use so euphemistic a descriptor as “interesting”, is this government’s manipulation of the meaning of “terrorist”. Dictionary.com defines the word as: A person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism; A person who terrorizes or frightens others; One that engages in acts or an act or terrorism. But, hey, that’s just a dictionary, and the only thing you get from reading books is learning. According to the Bush II administration, “terrorists” now include anti-war demonstrators, political activists, a Catholic nun, drug addicts/users, and, among others, just about anyone flying commercial airlines these days as federal air marshals, needing to meet quotas of “suspicious persons”, will, apparently, enter just about anyone into their databases as potential terrorists.

However, perhaps the most startling and frightening revelation in Lynch’s paper is when he writes about the president’s use of the word “freedom” to frame the national debate in terms of freedom v. terror. In this way, Lynch argues, Bush is able to equate freedom with power in that he, Bush, and parts of government need to expand their power, be granted new powers if they are to combat terror. In other words, freedom is good, terror is bad and the only way to defeat terror is by spreading freedom, and the only way to do that is through unchecked power. Amazing.

Clear and concise, well-researched, Lynch’s paper is clean and neat, not partisan and, if possible, not political as it sheds a moral light on the so-called values of our current administration. I believe that Lynch in particular, and the Cato Institute in general represent true Conservative ideals, a label that this administration has slapped on its lapel underneath its American flag pin.

Link here: www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp98.pdf

Osama bin Laden, Ultimate Puppet Master?

John Tierney’s Op-Ed in NYT, titled: “Osama’s Spin Lessons” 12 September, 2006



Ronald Wardaugh writes about what he refers to as an “interventionist” approach to sociolinguistics as being one that examines language used by people in power, and “how even those who suffer as a consequence fail to realize how many things that appear to be ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ are not at all so. They are not so because it is power relations in society that determine who gets to say what and who gets to write what.”

If Wardaugh is correct in his theory that those who are not in power, in other words those who do not get to say and write what they want, are unaware that their very language is being used against them, then according to Tierney’s article, George W Bush is the unwitting puppet of Osama bin Laden, and it that is the case, then according to critical discourse theory, that makes bin Laden the ultimate master of power and politics, at least when it comes to his relationship with the US.

Tierney argues that by engaging Al Queda in the first place, the Bush II administration paid them the ultimate compliment; it made AQ appear as not only a legitimate threat, but one that had worldwide implications, one with armies spread across the world, ready to strike at any moment. This was not the case, Tierney writes, but by using a seething hatred of America and anything Western amongst mostly poor Muslims, bin Laden cast himself and AQ in a jihadic struggle for world domination which only served to bolster his image and the ranks of AQ.

By sitting in a case, presumably, somewhere in the middle of apparently nobody knows where, and releasing even old video footage to the world, OBL is able to bait the Bush administration into taking the hook and running with it. Everytime someone within the administration cites OBL or, better yet, quotes him, and even, as Tierney points out, uses the same language, that person simply gives more credence and hence more power to OBL.

Tierney points out that bin Laden’s language and tactics prompted George W Bush to proclaim that we, presumably meaning the so-called “free world”, or the West, but in reality probably means just the US, are in a worldwide war with terrorists and that “We will accept nothing less than complete victory” To this Tierney writes, “When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.”

So, while some have argued that Bush is manipulating the meaning of the word freedom, it appears that he, in turn, is being manipulated by OBL. If the theories of Wardaugh and CDA are correct, and Tierney’s article is on the money, then where does that put us, those who are now apparently at least two steps removed from being able to say and write what we want?

Questions for Republicans

In researching Valerie Plame’s history with the CIA and the details surrounding Plamegate, I have read some very well-researched and thought-out articles arguing both sides.

Republican spin, from the White House on down has been one take after another: First was that the White House knew nothing about the leak, or the leaker, according to Bush in September, 2003, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of..." Second was that Plame really was of no consequence, that she was not in fact under cover, but instead “a desk-jockey” ergo; what does it matter that her identity was leaked to the public? Third was that the entire incident was actually centered on Joseph Wilson and his obvious attempt to smear and discredit a president and administration he openly spoke out against.

The next line of spin came after the grand jury inquisition was begun and people were called in to testify (Bush was called in, and he did submit to questioning, however, not under oath and with his lawyer at his side). Then, the spin was to move focus off of Cheney and Bush and onto Rove and Libby; it was really them who were responsible. Then the subtle shift was off of Rove and entirely onto Libby. Finally, when Libby was indicted, the spin was, incredibly, So what? It’s just an indictment; Libby has not been convicted of anything. Further, it was added that Plame was still inconsequential because she really was a nobody within the CIA.

Now that it has come out that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the leak, the defense is that they had the authority to do so.

If Republican pundits discuss the current situation of Plamegate at all, it is along the last point that they focus their attention. However, there are a couple of things I would like to know from those same pundits:

1) Regardless of the legality of having leaked Plame’s name deliberately, why didn’t Bush et al admit at the outset that they had done this? If in fact, they do have the legal right to do so, and if in fact that they did so not to punish Wilson and Plame, but to help clarify their case, why not come out the moment this story broke, defuse it and cop to it?


President Clinton was and is still, derided for his handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair. One of his greatest atrocities was that he “allowed” the Ken Starr investigation to drag on, doing his best to stonewall and hold-up the investigation, which, in the end, resulted in his being convicted of perjury. Now on this, I find myself along side those pundits. Regardless of the fact that Clinton now claims that he understood the Starr investigation for what it was; a concerted, politically partisan-driven attack on him and his presidency, and that he was fighting them off, tooth and nail, I have believed that Clinton fell right into the trap laid out by the Republicans by allowing them to politicize the issue and then turn it around on him. He should have been a man about it, and not allowed the Republicans to make a circus show out of the investigation by announcing publicly that he did have that affair, that he was sorry, but that this was not a political issue but one that was, in reality, a personal one between he and his wife.

2) Why do it at all?

What exactly is the point of outing Plame to the American press? Precisely how does that help their purported ultimate goal; the safety of the United States through a war on terror? Research I have done overwhelmingly agrees on two things: Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA who was actively running a covert investigation into the creation and trafficking of nuclear materials, technology and weapons. In fact, according to one source, it was Plame who was focusing most of her efforts and that of her investigation into Iran’s search for nuclear capability. Since she has been outed Iran has not only stepped-up its quest for nuclear capability, but they have made significant steps towards building nuclear weapons.

I find the Republican outrage over the leaking of information involving covert CIA and US military operations involving suspected terrorists or enemy combatants, along with the same outrage over the leaking of the Bush administration’s massive spy program, arguing that these are major blows to America’s war on terror and that the people responsible need to be rooted out and exposed as the traitors they are, just slightly disingenuous when compared to their silence regarding the deliberate outing of an undercover CIA agent and the covert operation whose actions were part of the war on terror.

I find the Republican defense of Bush and Cheney of their decision to not come forward immediately and reveal all that they knew regarding the incident, nearly three years ago, before a grand jury was convened, before everyone gave their testimony, before Libby was indicted and before this information became public utterly at odds with everything pundits such as Hannity and Limbaugh rail about everyday regarding the Republican party and Republicans in general as being morally and ethically better and more honest than Democrats. Republicans are part of the responsible party, the party of values, of the American way of life. In their argument for this position, they hold up as Exhibit A, Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. And yet, while, I believe, that lying about having an extra-marital affair with a consenting adult pales in comparison to what Bush and Cheney did, these two incidents are similar on one point only; both presidents knew of the problem because they were the source of the problem and both presidents did their best to thwart an investigation into the incident, including lying about the incident.

Clinton was eventually charged with perjury and he did apologize for the incident. It can be argued that he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist and that his apology was not sincere anyway. However, that is in the past, and unless Republicans want to see a repeat of the circus show and expenditure of more American tax dollars on another grand jury, they should not waste their moment in the light, as Clinton did before, and admit to the thing. They may not admit to its being right or wrong, morally or politically, but the least they can do to save their reputation is to fess up.

I doubt seriously that they will. They will instead fight to the bitter end, never admitting defeat or guilt unless it is literally dragged out of them. This, believe the Republicans, is their strength. Their great unity in the face of adversity, witness Bush’s refusal to do anything others want him to do, and it is this that binds them to the American public through the essence of the American spirit.

However, I believe that it will be this strategy which may result in their downfall in the 2006 election, and if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, I think we may see a split amongst Republicans, with some re-forming into one which more closely aligns itself with what are known to be the true Conservative ideology.

straight to hell

I'm listening to the Clash, "Straight to Hell" and I am going over the events post- and pre-11, September, 2001 ('cause no matter what Reagan said, we ARE connected to the world and therefore our system of numerology and dates should reflect the rest of the world...) and this is what I have (re)discovered: And these are just a FEW of the articles from which I have cut and pasted information, Thank you Bill Gates (even though you donate to the Republicans, you bastard! But then again you want to end world wide sickness, which gives to you a certain God-like personality, so, run with it my be-spectaled friend...)

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

Mr. Bush said last month that the dispute concerned "the presidential daily brief," a classified written intelligence report he gets each morning. The White House confirmed last year that one such report in August 2001, a month before the attacks, mentioned that al Qaeda might try to hijack U.S. passenger planes. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has described the report as an analysis, rather than a warning, and said hijacking was mentioned in a traditional sense, not as it was used on Sept. 11.

According to a Congressional probe into the Sept. 11 attacks, the president's Aug. 6, 2001 daily briefing included information "acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives." It referred to an al Qaeda support base in the United States, and FBI "judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Describing the White House's concerns about access to the document, Mr. Bush said it is important "for the writers of the presidential daily brief to feel comfortable that the documents will never be politicized and/or unnecessarily exposed for public purview."

The tug-of-war over the daily brief is not the first dispute over access to information involving the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney has fought the General Accounting Office and private watchdog groups who want access to the documents used by his energy task force. The Senate Committee probing prewar intelligence in Iraq has expressed frustration over delays in getting documents from the administration.

President Bush said Monday his staff is cooperating with the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, but stopped short of saying whether the White House would hand over top-level papers that may be subpoenaed. "Those are very sensitive documents," Mr. Bush said, adding that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was working with Thomas Kean, chairman of the commission, on this issue.

Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission said, "the president is correct on both counts. They are very sensitive documents. That's why we are having negotiations. These aren't things you just hand out to folks."

Mr. Bush's remarks were underscored later Monday by White House press secretary Scott McClellan. But McClellan, too, stopped short of saying the White House will turn over certain papers, such as transcripts of the president's daily terrorism briefings.

Kean's remarks to the Times were his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, which include Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush's desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. "I will not stand for it," said Kean, who is now the president of Drew University in Madison, N.J. "That means that we will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document." He told the Times that, while he had not directly threatened a subpoena in his recent conversations with the White House legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, "it's always on the table, because they know that Congress in their wisdom gave us the power to subpoena, to use it if necessary."

While Kean said he was barred by an agreement with the White House from describing the Oval Office documents at issue in any detail — he said the White House was "quite nervous" about any public hint at their contents — other commission officials said they included the detailed daily intelligence reports that were provided to Mr. Bush in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The reports are known within the White House as the Presidential Daily Briefing. Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.

The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks

"continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel."

While Kean said he was barred by an agreement with the White House from describing the Oval Office documents at issue in any detail — he said the White House was "quite nervous" about any public hint at their contents — other commission officials said they included the detailed daily intelligence reports that were provided to Mr. Bush in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11. The reports are known within the White House as the Presidential Daily Briefing. Despite the threat of a subpoena and his warning of the possibility of a court battle over the documents, Kean said he maintained a good relationship with Gonzales and others at the White House, and that he was still hopeful the White House would produce all of the classified material demanded by the panel without a subpoena.

critical discourse analysis and the abuse of language by our government

In his introduction, Ronald Wardhaugh writes about critical discourse analysis. "This work focuses on how language is used to exercise and preserve power and privilege in society, how it buttresses social institutions, and how even those who suffer as a consequence fail to realize how many things that appear to be 'natural' and 'normal' are not at all so." It was argued by Benjamin Lee Whorf that human beings created language and that in turn, created societies with common cultures and that it is language which helps to define our culture, which in turn is a reflection of us. Essentially, we create our own reality and we express that reality in our language. However, when certain people abuse the use of language, as Wardhaugh writes, "power relations in societ determine who gets to say what and who gets to write what." they do so by abusing our faith and certainty in the very words they use against us.

George Lakoff writes about the use of words by politicians extensively in Moral Politics. Although Lakoff writes more about the use of language as a political tool; as a means to gain a politically favorable end, it can be argued that if that end is arrived at by deceitful use of language, then those words were abused. That is, we the listeners had our knowledge of and faith in those words abused. As a whole, I believe people when they tell me something. Unless given to think otherwise, I am not immediately suspicious of the things that people tell me. I trust the words they use to represent the truth. But when those words have more than a double-meaning, when they actually mean something else entirely; the exact opposite, then I have had my faith and my certitude in those words and my understanding of them undermined. And more than that, deliberately so in order that the person who did this may gain an advantage.

Faith and certainty are two buzz-words used a lot by Republicans and especially George W Bush and his administration (so are morals, values and responsibility, but discussing those would take more than I have time for) However, on a seemingly daily basis, the Bush administration abuses these two basic items of language, and language is considered to be the cornerstone of humanity. By degrading faith in the ability of language to tell the truth, the Bush administration is essentially creating a new lexicon from an existing language. Like the world in which Alice finds herself on the other side of her looking-glass, it appears as though our world is beginning to mirror a backwards-front, upside-down world where truths are lies, nobody does anything wrong and apologies are not necessary because mistakes are never made. In this world, everyone agrees with one another, there is no dissent and no differing opinion is ever given. This is a terrible reality, more horrifying than any imagined by Lewis or Lovecraft for that matter.

Since we are the creators of our language, which in turn creates our culture, then we are either content with this new reality or we need to take back our language from those who twist it against us.

re: movie quotes (mq)

Those of you who know me know that I am an unending well of useless trivia, especially quoting lines from movies. From this point forward, realising full well that not all of you may be as savvy, or at the least devote a large part of your memory skills to remembering things like, "Double-secret probation", I will, everytime I use such a quote, place in paranthetical notation, the letters mq. Just so ya know...

retroactive scare tactics

Now this is really something (mq)... First there was light, and it was good. Then there was the US Presidential election of 2000 and things were confusing. Then there was September 11th, 2001 and things were terrifying. Then there was the Patriot Act, then there was the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and things were supposed to be safer. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that was supposed to do precisely that.

It was committed in order to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists. It was done to prevent Saddam Hussein from aiding and abetting terrorists. It was done to avenge the acts of 11th Sep, 2001 and show those same terrorists we mean business. We all know now that, save for the last point, none of this is true. We now know that, according to many reports, the US is in fact less safe. We now know that there were no significant amounts of WMDs in Iraq and there were no tangible connections to terrorist groups, specifically al Qaida.

Instead of admitting to any of this, the Bush administration, or Team Bush as I like to call them, has instead decided to focus our attention not only on John Kerry's perceived weaknesses in handling terror as it exists now, post-Iraq invasion, as it will come to be (which, in his own words, not even W can predict...), but now, from our Veep, how it would have been.

This is either truly amazing or truly a new low. Or both. Our Prez has admitted, twice, that he can not in fact see into the future, no matter his connection with the Divine One, however, the ability to not only see into the future, but as well, a future that might have been is a special power that does not elude his second in command. VP Dick Cheney has the absolute fucking gall to come out on a public stage and declare, after telling people that voting for Kerry will indeed put US into peril, and speculate on a world wherein Kerry was president. In Cheney's crystal ball this is a world where tyrannies and dictators run helter-skelter across the globe, killing indiscriminately and handing out WMDs like so many lethal Pez. Speaking of WMDs, this quote is EXTREMELY interesting from Cheney's deranged world view; concerning Hussein and his role in Kerry's world, Cheney had this to say, "He might well have nuclear weapons," Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the MAIN POINTS in TB's trump hand for justifying the invasion of Iraq? Cheney actually came out on national television and told all of US that Hussein was creating a nuclear weapons program. Remember the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes? And this was happening in the TB world, not some fantastical Kerry world.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? More importantly, what is wrong with their rabid followers who actually not only believe this shit, but will not question anything they say? As long as Fox News backs it up, then that's allright with them. Holy crap, I have never been so terrified about an unknown future in my life.