Friday, September 30, 2005

HOW INVOLVED WITH DELAY'S CORRUPTION IS BLUNT?  VERY!

Moments after GOP House whip Roy Blunt, a crooked GOP pol from Missouri, went screaming all over Capitol Hill that David Dreier (R-CA) sucks you-know-what for real, Denny Hastert backed down on making Dreier Congress' first flamboyantly gay Majority Leader. So now, as my most literate friend, "D" (not the right-wing Depeche Mode fan from Dallas/Normal, the other one) says, "we have Blunt, the erstwhile whip (whips, hammers...we're waiting for high-heel boots, probably a pair of them) who has always fit in well with the Repug House heirarchy's Encyclopedia of Ethics--no jokes please about the world's thinnest book."

Today's L.A. TIMES points out that the new Majority Leader may be almost as tainted by corruption as the indicted one. The TIMES says that "records on file with the Federal Election Commission show that since 2003, Blunt's political action committee has paid $94,000 in salary to the consulting firm of Jim Ellis, a longtime associate of DeLay. Ellis has been indicted in the same case as DeLay, for allegedly conspiring to illegally influence the outcome of Texas legislative elections by channeling corporate money to Republican candidates." Actually Ellis has been indicted in more than just this one instance. He is facing several indictments for his criminal behavior on behalf of the GOP leadership. Blunt admits that Ellis, who was indicted last year, is still on his payroll. According to the TIMES, "One DeLay ally, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Blunt's employment of Ellis was seen as a gesture of support for a DeLay associate that DeLay and his allies believed had been unfairly under attack by Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney of Travis County, Texas, who sought the DeLay indictment." But paying criminals like Ellis to work for the GOP, isn't the only ethical questions Blunt is facing.

"The Washington Post reported in June 2003 that hours after DeLay elevated Blunt to be whip, Blunt tried to insert into a bill creating the Department of Homeland Security a provision that would have benefited Philip Morris USA Inc. Blunt had close ties to the tobacco company, which contributed heavily to his campaign PAC and was at the time dating one of its lobbyists, whom he later made into a-- relatively-- honest woman by marrying her. Even someone as ethically-challenged* as House Speaker Denny Hastert (with DeLay's OK, of course) was embarrassed enough by Blunt's stunt to pull the provision as soon as he saw it.





*Do a Google search by typing in the 3 words "Hastert," "Turkey," and "corruption." I got over 44,000 articles, many talking about Hastert being bribed by Turkey to screw the Armenian-Americans, their bitter enemies. The best explanation of why Hastert should be in prison instead on in the House of Representatives is in the VANITY FAIR article. As "D" points out, "today we like Turkey for a few minutes because a caucus of that nation's most prominent politcal women (an audience FINALLY not chosen by the US Ambassador) to meet Karen Hughes, now traveling with a huge entourage through the Middle East to make the world a place of cultural cuddliness, gave such hell about Iraq to our goodwill Ambassadress to The Muslim world, that she gurgled, flushed and blushed, and fled from the meeting. The excuse, we hear, was either something about caves in Afghanistan where her strategic expertise was urgently needed, or cramps from a lunch of Black Sea sardine mousse."

US ARMY TARGETS YOUNG MUSIC FANS

You have a kid who likes music? The Army wants him (or her). Check this out:


http://www.clk4.com/NGD_10359/index.cgi

NOW THAT DELAY HAS STEPPED DOWN AS MAJORITY LEADER HE CAN SPEND ALL HIS TIME AND ENERGY ON WHAT HE DOES BEST-- LYING

This morning I woke up and turned on CNN. I listen to it for a couple minutes between opening my eyes and urinating. Their was a talking (air) head on the screen, babbling pleasantly that now that "Scooter" Libby was going to be named as Judith Miller's source, Karl Rove was in the clear. Could Fox be any more effective in getting out the Regime's talking points? Well, Fox needs help because they're working 24/7 on getting out indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's talking points. DeLay and his spokesmen and spinning up yarn after yarn and when Fox's own propagandists aren't the ones doing the spinning, they're just spewing the lies out for DeLay day and night. My pal Jim, who lives in DeLay's district, sent me a great press clip today that something tells me Fox "News" won't bother to run (nor, regrettably, will CNN nor anyone else in corporate mass media). In DeLay Lie #384 (on Chris Matthews' pathetic MSNBC GOP infomercial last Wednesday) he claimed that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle never talked to him or asked him to testify. "Never asking me to testify, never doing anything for two years," DeLay said in the interview. "And then, on the last day of his fourth or sixth grand jury, he indicts me. Why? Because his goal was to make me step down as majority leader." He told the AP that "I have not testified before the grand jury to present my side of the case, and they indicted me."

However, DeLay's own attorney, Dick DeGuerin, corrected his truth-impaired client's claim on Thursday, admitting that DeLay actually was invited to appear before the grand jury, where he would have been under oath. ("under oath" and "DeLay," of course, is something they have every intention of avoiding, just like DeLay's pals in the Mafia do.) DeGuerin says The Hammer didn't appear in front of the Grand Jury, not because he wasn't invited or because he was afraid of being "under oath" but because he was afraid of being "brow-beaten." (I'm not making this up. DeGuerin said if DeLay had appeared before the grand jury, he could not have been accompanied by his lawyer inside the hearing and there would have been "no judge to prevent prosecutors from brow-beating" him. "The prosecutor has all of the advantages in a grand jury setting. The prosecutor controls the information a grand jury gets. The defense has no right to call witnesses, to cross-examine or to be present to be sure that the rules are followed.") And here I always thought DeLay was a law-and-order man! I guess he meant law-and-order for poor people, not for the rich and powerful.

Meanwhile the Grand Jury foreman, William Gibson, Jr., also contradicted DeLay's lie. Gibson, a retired state insurance investigator, said the Travis County grand jury waited until Wednesday, the final day of its term, to indict him because it was hoping he would accept jurors' invitation to testify.
Gibson also said that District Attorney Earle did not pressure the panel to vote to indict: "He wanted us to listen to the facts presented. If we needed additional information they presented it. But he did not in any way say, 'We want this done.'"

But if you want to hear more DeLay lies and how the vast right-wing propaganda machine is spinning this, just turn on Limbaugh or O'Liely or anyone on Fox-- or most anywhere on corporate mass media.

BE PREPARED. OR TRUST IN YOUR LOCAL FAITH-BASED IMBECILES



Texas A&M is the nexus of radical right-wing ideology and... alcoholism. You probably remember it as the school with so many engineering students and yet with an inability to build a bonfire that doesn't kill people. Recently the faith-based Aggies prepared for Hurricane Rita.

RIGHT WINGERS THINK KATRINA'S DEVASTATION WAS GOD'S PUNISHMENT FOR... (fill in the blank)

It was making me crazy to hear the religionist loons-- the national televangelist crackpots selling- salvation-praising-Bush phonies, not the earnest, hard-working local churches-- blaming Katrina on God's wrath against gays and sinners and women who expose their boobs at Mardi Gras and on over-advertised videos WHILE these same pious hucksters applied for federal taxpayer dollars for their faith-based-fraud operations. Local pastors and church groups all over Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, regardless of politics, have been on the ground offering every kind of assistance man can offer to the victims of Katrina and Rita. To the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, RJ Rushdoonys, Fred Phelpses and all the other little Republican Elmer Gantries, these tragedies were simply opportunities to pursue their missions of hatred and bigotry and, most important, self-enrichment. They did nothing to help the victims, just talked smack about them and applied for grants from BushCo. But the hucksters and maniacs aren't all behind pulpits either. Hank Erwin serves in the Alabama State Senate (instead of a state mental institution where he clearly belongs). The extreme right wing Republican with a "degree" from Southwestern Bible "College" was widely considered to be certifiably psychotic when he was a hate-talk radio host. This week he wrote a column about Hurricane Katrina after wasting taxpayer dollars of a trip through the devastated areas of his state and neighboring Mississippi. Erwin, who is best known in Alabama for his obsessive and vicious homophobia, claims that Katrina was God's punishment for its "gambling, sin and wickedness." Of course he didn't mean that God was punishing the people for their support of the satanic BushCo. "Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded. So why were we surprised when finally the hand of judgment fell? ... Sadly, innocents suffered along with the guilty. Sin always brings suffering to good people as well as the bad ... New Orleans has always been known for sin ... The wages of sin is death." (Funny how these lunatics always fail to mention that the heart of their idea of sin, the very gay, very libertine French Quarter, was the least effected part of New Orleans-- obviously spared by "God.") According to a poll yesterday on Alabama's NBC-TV affiliate one third of the state agrees with him. And remember, these primitive reactionaries each has a vote-- just like you do-- and, even worse, they live in our country.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

STEVE YOUNG FOR CONGRESS UPDATE-- TOM TANCREDO HELPS WHERE RAHM EMANUEL GETS READY TO DO WHAT HE DOES BEST: NOTHING AT ALL

Recently I spent some time with a roomful of well-connected Democrats. We pretty much see eye-to-eye on most stuff-- although hardly any of them would agree with me that Inside-the-Beltway Democrats are as useless and harmful to America as Republicans. And when something pops up that we DON'T agree on, I KNOW they're getting their bad ideas from those Inside-the-Beltway connections. The pathetic DCCC seems to have already written off Chris Cox's old Orange County seat, even though a Special Election could well see a progressive Democrat triumph. If the DCCC would pull it's head out of its ass long enough to take a look at the rules of this election they'd realize why their counterparts at the GOP are freaking out. In fact, the only thing calming Republicans down about the race is how lame the DCCC is! Take a look in the Archives at the story I wrote on September 15-- "CAN A DEMOCRAT WIN IN ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S REDDEST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS?" The answer was yes and it's the story of how Steve Young is going to become a Congressman from Orange County. The DCCC should be out in full force for this. But they're even more pathetic and into proving what complete losers they are for this one than they were in Ohio's 2nd district where Paul Hackett's grassroots campaign surprised them as much as it did Republicans!

In fact, Steve Young, is getting great news about his race-- not from the professional losers at the DCCC, but from a most unlikely source. One of the Republicans' craziest and most extreme elected officials-- and, believe me, with that lot that is saying A GREAT DEAL-- could have just made Young's job of getting elected (without DCCC help) quite a bit easier. (Fortunately Young has plenty of money, being personally wealthy, and plenty of expertise, having virtually Hackett's whole team working for him.) Anyway, Congressloon Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a 2008 presidential aspirant from the Party of Hatred and Bigotry and a leading congressional advocate of imposing a radical crackdown on immigration, broke with the GOP and formally endorsed his pal, the American Independent Party nominee Jim Gilchrist. There are 10 Republican candidates in the race but Gilchrist is the founder of the Minuteman Project (citizen border patrols/vigilantes). "I need Jim Gilchrist with me in Congress. Together Jim and I can fight to stop illegal immigration," said Tancredo. Tancredo has pretty much guaranteed a 3-way run-off in the GOP district that will pit Young against a right wing Republican and this KKK imbecile, who will cannibalize each other's bases. Go, Tom, go!


FRIDAY UPDATE:

If Orange County neo-fascists and xenophobes were still unconvinced that Gilchrist is an even better bet than the corporate GOP has to offer, another off-the-edge Republican extremist has weighed in. The always whacky wing-nut Alan Keyes, currently collecting unemployment but still hopeful that someone will find him something someday somewhere, somehow managed to get himself to California and is about to endorse Gilchrist in Tuesday's primary.

IF THE LAME DCCC CAN'T FIND SOMEONE TO BEAT POMBO, A DECENT REPUBLICAN MAY!!

Back on July 15 I did a blog entry called "IF YOU THOUGHT "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM WAS BAD, WAIT TIL YOU MEET RICHARD POMBO." These days more and more humans are becoming aware of who-- and what-- Richard Pombo is, and what a danger he is to America. A couple nights ago I was celebrating Tom DeLay's resignation from the fascist hierarchy with some friends. Almost half thought that Pombo can now be considered the single worst Republican on Capitol Hill. And apparently, it isn't only Democrats who see what Pombo is.

This week Nick Juliano wrote a story for the San Joaquin News Service explaining that revulsion for Pombo crosses party lines. "Richard Pombo may have a sooner-than-expected fight to keep his seat in the US House of Representatives, as a former congressman announced his intention Monday to find a primary challenger for the Tracy Republican in next year's election." Pete McCloskey, another Bay Area congressman (1967-'83), prior to the Republican Party becoming an out-and-out fascist organization, says "The Republican values that I grew up with, Pombo is not espousing."

"The former Congressman, according to Juliano, "said he's been working for three months to find a primary challenger. If one doesn't emerge, the 77-year-old Republican said he may move to the district to challenge Pombo himself. McCloskey, a co-author of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was among a panel of farmers, fishermen and environmentalists at a press conference who criticized Pombo's proposed overhaul of the landmark environmental legislation. Pombo has lost touch with his Republican roots, McCloskey charged, and is now more concerned with supporting his campaign contributors than his constituents in California's 11th Congressional District." McCloskey may not have been paying attention as the GOP itself lost touch with its roots and has become a party working strictly for the interests of huge corporations and big campaign contributors. Pombo claims not to be worried and one of his "consultants" laughed when told of McCloskey's potential candidacy, calling McCloskey a liberal. "It's not correct to say that he represents moderate Republicans because he doesn't," said Wayne Johnson, Pombo's campaign consultant.

"At Monday's press conference," according to Juliano, "McCloskey said Pombo's bill undercuts and reverses the most important facets of the legislation he helped write 32 years ago. One change could remove the government's ability to designate 'critical habitat' so species that are declining in number can recover. Another suggested change to the law would give the Interior Secretary authority to decide on what is the 'best available science' when it makes a decision that involves an endangered species. McCloskey complained that could lead to politics muddying scientific data. 'This is an administration which has repeatedly derogated or suppressed scientific opinion which opposed the agenda of the politicians,' McCloskey said. McCloskey also criticized an idea floated by Pombo last week to sell off national parks, slap advertisements on the sides of parks service vehicles and drill for oil off the California coast. 'It's so transparent ... these guys are selling the store,' McCloskey said."

ROBERTS CONFIRMED. GOD HELP AMERICA!

Roberts was confirmed today, 78-22 vote. 23 Dems voted yes, 22 Dems voted no. The Democrats who voted to confirm should be remembered when they solicit contributions. Here's the list:


Max Baucus of Montana
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Bill Nelson of Florida
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Ken Salazar of Colorado
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Carl Levin of Michigan
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Tom Carper of Delaware
Patty Murray of Washington
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
James Jeffords (I) of Vermont
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia

Needless to say, every single member of the fascist-oriented Republican Party voted to confirm the right-wing corporatist operative.

SENSENBRENNER, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT AND EXTREME IN CONGRESS, GETS AN EFFECTIVE CHALLENGER

When you look at the lists of likely Democratic wins in the 2006 midterm congressional elections, Wisconsin's 5th District doesn't show up. When you hear about the worst congressmen in America, Wisconsin's 5th District ALWAYS shows up. The mid-Wisconsin district is represented by Jim Sensenbrenner, a vicious and partisan fascist. Before he became famous as one of only 11 congressmen to vote "no" on relief aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he was famous for his narrow-minded and dictatorial manner of chairing the House Judiciary Committee. A huge amorphous blog of a man and an unabashed glutton, Sensenbrenner brooked no debate on his so-called Patriot Act, demanding C-Span cameras be shut off, gaveling a meeting over and running out of the room with the gavel when Democrats started asking questions about violations of free speech, freedom of the press, human rights and the right to privacy. (Even earlier Sensenbrenner got a national reputation as one of the House managers of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.) Earlier this year Sensenbrenner again made national news when it was widely reported that he has had lobbyists pay for his transportation, a violation of congressional rules. His total travel expenses are higher than any other congressman (and that isn't because he's charged by the pound).

This year Bryan Kennedy is taking on Sensenbrenner again. (In 2004, the corpulent right-winger beat him with 66.6% of the vote.) Kennedy has just started running his first ad targeting his opponent, probably the first TV ad for the midterms. The ad is pretty aggressive but insurgent Democrats need to be aggressive against powerful, corporately-funded and well-entrenched incumbents like Sensenbrenner.

You can view Kennedy's ad (WMP, Real and QT) here:

http://www.bk2006.org/preview.mgi

COULD MISSISSIPPI GO A LITTLE BLUE?

You know how I'm always railing against the Inside-the-Beltway folks? Well my pal Willard doesn't count. He's not only smart, he's also completely dependable and will never lose touch with who he is and why he's involved in politics. Willard is also one of the most astute observers of politics I know. A couple days ago he mentioned a possible Senate seat change no one is thinking about. Imagine Mississippi with a Democratic U.S. Senator! It's pretty public that Trent Lott is thinking about retiring next year. He needs to make money and thinks going into lobbying is the key to his financial well-being. If he does, how does the GOP go about appealing to African-Americans, who now make up 38% of the voting population? Is the Republican candidate going to run on their core issues of "gay marriage" and abortion when people are desperate about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Do you think someone who can't declare bankruptcy even though his former house and business are at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is going to want to hear about how 2 lesbians getting married is going to be more of a threat to him than GOP policies have been? Will the GOP be at the polls to intimidate poor voters who will have problems identifying themselves? These voters will be both black and white and many in southern Mississippi have lost everything, including all their ID. And will Bush be able to come down and campaign for this open seat? Remember Cheney was told to go fuck himself in Gulfport, MS not in New Orleans, LA.

Mississippi could be a big sleeper race in 2006.

A CHALLENGER FOR THE REPUBLICANS' FAVORITE RIGHT WING DEMOCRAT?

Since I don't even remotely consider Zell Miller a Democrat, if there's one Democrat upon whom I would call down otherworldly wrath, were I given the opportunity, it would be the pious crook from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, not just an arch hypocrite and the face of EVERYTHING that is wrong with today's Democratic Party, but also someone who craves the corporate media spotlight and wins it by always being ready to attack other Democrats. Like many progressives I was sickened to find out that there would be no primary challenge for the DLC asshole from Stamford. So wasn't I delighted today when my copy of the NEW HAVEN INDEPENDENT arrived before morning coffee and I saw that Lowell Weicker is mulling over a challenge to the right-wing, war-mongering piece of shit!
Paul Bass reports in a story called "Sleeping Bear Grudge Match?" that Weicker is considering an independent run for his old U.S. Senate seat next. 74 year old Weicker, a former liberal Republican and true progressive, who turned independent in 1990 after he left the Senate to run successfully for governor, was viciously attacked by Lieberman from the Right in their 1988 Senate match-up.

"If he does run," says Bass, "he'll need the support of progressive Democrats to beat Lieberman, the way progressive Democrats catapulted him to the governor's office in 1990. And statewide progressive Dems have been scouring the state for someone to challenge the conservative-leaning Lieberman. There already had been rumblings in the southern part of the state about Weicker possibly running. A Weicker candidacy would focus on the war in Iraq. Lieberman has been a leading supporter of that war from the outset. If Weicker does run, he'll at least have a chance for revenge on a sore point about that nasty 1988 race. Lieberman attacked Weicker then for missing votes in the Senate; he aired a TV commercial of a sleeping bear, an effective personal shot that ushered in a new era of nasty political campaigning in Connecticut. Lieberman's point was that Weicker had become too cavalier about voting and doing his job after three terms in office. Yet Lieberman ended up repeating that record in his third term as a U.S. senator. He spent much of 2003 running for president--and away from his job as senator. He skipped 54 percent of all Senate votes that year. He was absent for every vote on 63 of the 115 days in which the Senate cast votes. According to one estimate, that meant the taxpayers overpaid Lieberman $38,828.79 in salary that year."

I'd expect Independent Weicker to vote to organize the Senate with the Democratic caucus, the way Jeffords has, and I wouldn't hesitate for one second to support him.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

FRANCINE BUSBY-- A GREAT BET TO REPLACE TOM DELAY'S FUTURE CELL-MATE, RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM

Last Friday I introduced to two names, and, coincidentally... or maybe inevitably, they came together this evening. First was Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate who may be able to capture the "red" congressional seat "Duke" Cunningham will be resigning from in the next few weeks --after he gets indicted (see "GRASSROOTS, NON-DLC DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS IN '06"). And the other is my old bud, Rick-- see "FABIAN NUNEZ-- THE REAL DEAL." Rick had hosted the shindig for California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez at his home, and tonight he invited me to meet Francine Busby at a small get-together in B Hills.

You may recall that last week I thought Francine's statement for Democracy For America was outstanding and made me eager to write her a check. Rick's invite saved me the postage. And in person Francine was even better than the statement! Even though she's not an Iraq War vet, she comes across as a perfect candidate for the Democratic Party-- passionate, intelligent, well-spoken, VERY knowledgeable, great sense of humor... and she positively EXUDES "winner." You can check out her state of the art website at http://www.francinebusby2006.org/

If Howard Dean and the DNC and the DCCC, all of whom are backing her race, find more candidates of Busby's calibre, the Democrats will be looking at a major take-over of the House of Representatives in November, 2006. This is a race I'll be covering here at Down With Tyranny as events unfold.

BILL BENNETT RUNNING A KKK MEMBERSHIP DRIVE ON HIS RADIO HATE-TALK SHOW BUT JANET JACKSON DIDN'T FLASH ANYONE SO WHO CARES?

Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"


Before Bill Bennett was unmasked as a compulsive gambling addict he was widely considered the GOP's point man on morality. Now he is less widely considered that but still beloved by the True Believers on the extreme fringes of the neo-Nazi right. Over a million people listen to his hate-filled talk show on one of the Bush propaganda networks, Salem Radio's BILL BENNETT'S MORNING IN AMERICA. The America Bennett pushes, though, is a very different America from the real one we live in. His is firmly rooted in some kind of distorted dream/nightmare from the 1950's. Any KKK member from those glory days of Republicanism would feel right at home. Today Media Matters caught Bennett in one of his hate-filled screeds.

"Addressing a caller's suggestion that the 'lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years' would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such 'far-reaching, extensive extrapolations' by declaring that if 'you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.' Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies 'would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,' then added again, 'but the crime rate would go down.'"

What's in these people's hearts?

DELAY IS PROBABLY THE MOST CORRUPT CONGRESSIONAL LEADER IN HISTORY. BUT IS HE ALSO INVOLVED IN MURDER??

Tom DeLay, the former exterminator turned extreme right-wing Republican congressman and ultra-authoritarian House Majority Leader, is the unquestioned posterboy for over-the-top corruption, graft and political strong-arm tactics. When the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee reprimanded him-- THEIR OWN LEADER-- for glaring ethics violations he simply replaced the Republicans who voted against him with GOP hacks who are nearly as corrupt as he is. DeLay's handpicked new chairman, Baby-Doc Hastings (R-WA), promptly maneuvered the Ethics Committee shut, which suited DeLay's needs perfectly. But with more and more DeLay "associates" being arrested and with his crime family crumbling all around him, the beleaguered Sugar Land, Texas Republicrook is being hounded by an incorruptible District Attorney in Austin. (DeLay's screams of "partisan witch hunt" ring completely hollow since this particular D.A. has gone after more Democratic pols than Republicans in his crime-fighting career.)

The biggest fish hauled off to jail from DeLay's mammoth crime organization so far was Jack Abramoff, DeLay's consiglieri. Abramoff will face a myriad of changes involving corruption and various degrees of financial manipulations. And possibly murder. Tuesday Fort Lauderdale police charged 3 hitmen in the 2001 gangland-style murder of Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, a Florida businessman who was gunned down in his car months after selling a casino cruise line to Abramoff, his crooked partner Adam Kidan and some other shady Abramoff/DeLay "associates." Kidan claims the gunmen (Gambino crime family member Anthony Moscatiello, Anthony Ferrari, and James Fiorillo) were only hired as "consultants," not as murderers. Abramoff and Kidan had bought the cruise line from Boulis in 2000 while Abramoff was one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington and well-known to be DeLay's #1 bagman. Abramoff and Kidan were indicted in August in relation to a $60 million fraud involving a casino purchase. Abramoff's casino ventures, which includes defrauding American Indians out of tens of millions of dollars that made their way into GOP campaign coffers, have entangled Senators Conrad Burns (R-MT), John Cornyn (R-TX), and David Vitter (R-LA) and Congressmen Bob Ney (R-OH), Richard Pombo (R-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), and Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), as well as Bush operatives David Safavian (arrested last week) and Ralph Reed. Fellow Republican legislator, John McCain was so shocked by Abramoff's wheeling and dealing on behalf of DeLay that he was moved to comment: "Even in this town, where huge sums are routinely paid as the price of political access, the figures are astonishing."

Both DeLay and Ney were involved with Kidan and Abramoff's cruise line deal, Ney even placing comments in the Congressional Record about it! Kidan and Abramoff, old pals from that always sterling organization, College Young Republicans, made sure to be conveniently out of the country when they had Boulis killed and claim not to know anything about the murder. Abramoff has avoided the Florida police, who want to interview him for his role in the killing, for several years. Although DeLay was a key component in the financing of the deal, he now says he doesn't remember anything and won't even confirm that he hosted a key money lender in his skybox at a Redskins-Cowboys game (although there are plenty of witnesses). Kidan claims the $145,000 he paid Moscatiello to kill Boulis wasn't for murder, just for consulting and catering and site inspections. According to court documents there is no evidence that food or drink was provided or that any consulting documents were prepared. This wasn't the first time Abramoff's and Kidan's "consultant" made the news. In 1983 Moscatiello was indicted on federal heroin-trafficking charges along with Gene Gotti, brother of John Gotti, then head of the Gambino family. DeLay and Ney are both supporters of the War of Drugs (of course).

Meanwhile, today the Texas Grand Jury finally indicted DeLay, along with 2 of his associates, with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme. DeLay hasn't been directly linked to the murder yet. An AOL poll shows that 92% of people voting have an overall negative impression of DeLay and that 5% have a positive impression. (3% are neutral or haven't made up their minds yet.) DeLay will probably have to step down as House Minority Leader, although with BushCo in charge, who knows what will happen!


11AM UPDATE: DELAY TO BE REPLACED AS HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER BY CALIFORNIA GAY CONGRESSMAN

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said. GOP congressional officials said Speaker Denny ("bulldoze New Orleans") Hastert (R-IL) will recommend that flamboyant gay California congressman David Dreier step into those duties. (For the full story on the GOP hypocrite and closet queen taking over from DeLay, take a look at my Saturday, Sept 17th blog: "SELF-LOATHING GAY HOMOPHOBE DAVID DREIER STRIKES AGAIN.") The Republican House caucus may meet tonight to act on Hastert's recommendation. Last November this same caucus, in a sign of blind obeisance to DeLay after the grand jury returned indictments against three of his criminal associates, repealed a rule requiring any of their leaders to step aside if indicted. The rule was reinstituted in January after chastened lawmakers returned to Washington where grassroots supporters had gone ape-shit and threatened to sit on their hands in the 2006 elections if DeLay was allowed to continue to run roughshod over the Congress. Since the charge carries a potential two-year sentence, House rules force DeLay to step down.


2:30PM UPDATE: HASTERT BACKS DOWN ON DREIER.

With Roy Blunt running all over Capitol Hill screaming "Fag!!!" ex-wrestling teacher Denny Hastert backed down from recommending a gay man (albeit a partially closeted one) as the new Republican Majority Leader. The about-to-be-annointed-Blunt-- who is burdened with his own record of corruption and ethics violations up the wazoo-- is the father of one of the country's most corrupt (and least popular) governors, Matt Blunt, another crooked Missouri pol. Meanwhile a CNN poll is showing that a full 18% of Americans do not think DeLay should resign from Congress. Presumably if he is found guilty of murder a few of those people might change their "minds" (unless Limbaugh and O'Liely tell them not to).


9:30PM UPDATE (TODAY'S FINAL)

You can read the actual indictment on this .pdf file. It's very simple and straight-forward:

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/092805_delayindictment.pdf

BUSHCO-- THE FILM VERSION

You know how every now and then I recommend a movie? Not many-- like 2 in fact: THE CONSTANT GARDENER and CRASH were the only ones this year. Well, here's a little tiny film that my pal Vicky sent me and I LOVE it... and you will too. It's only a couple minutes long and a sure crowd pleaser-- unless the crowd consists of people who think fascism is the way to go. Here's the movie:

http://filmstripinternational.com/

IS BUSH'S INCOMPETENCE A MASK FOR VENALITY? MOLLY IVINS ALWAYS WARNED US HE'S NOT AS DUMB AS HE LOOKS AND ACTS

Yesterday California Democratic Congresspersons Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman introduced the Anti-Cronyism and Public Safety Act, which would prohibit the President from appointing more unqualified individuals to critical public safety positions in the government. Waxman, who many people think is the sharpest knife in the congressional draw, opined that "President Bush has handed out some of the country's most difficult and important jobs-- leadership positions in public safety and emergency response-- to politically well-connected individuals with no experience or qualifications. This common sense legislation will end this practice and ensure that public safety is back in the hands of those who are trained and experienced in protecting the public."

The bill, which has zero chance of passing in DeLay's fascist Congress, would require any presidential appointee for a public safety position to have proven, relevant credentials for that position. In addition, the legislation bars from appointment to an agency any individual who has been a lobbyist for an industry subject to the agency's authority during the preceding two years. This, of course, completely flies in the face of DeLay's and Bush's whole crony strategy of rewarding donors with big jobs that they will fail at, thereby further eroding the citizens' confidence in government.

"As Hurricane Katrina tragically demonstrated, serious consequences result when unqualified cronies are appointed to federal public safety positions," added House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush Administration's culture of cronyism comes at the expense of public safety. It is unconscionable and must stop immediately - it is literally a matter of life and death. This legislation is critically needed, and I thank Mr. Waxman for his strong leadership in protecting the American people."

What Pelosi, Waxman and the media are entirely missing is that BushCo MEANS to screw things up. They WANT disasters and failures and they want people to say, "See the government sucks. Norquist was right. They should shrink it down and drown it in a bathtub." Could the Bush Regime, teaming with eager little authoritarians who DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT, but who do believe in their divine mission to dismantle it, actually be subverting the government? With his unending, now desperate, rounds of tax cuts, always skewed to the wealthiest Americans, in tandem with a 37% increase in federal expenditures and Bush's refusal to veto a single spending bill from the GOP-controlled Congress, so far the Bush Regime has managed to boost the national debt by 12% (with 3 years to go, unless he's impeached after the 2006 elections), to almost $8 trillion. America is increasingly a hostage of its foreign-- some of whom are not especially friendly to America and America's interests or values-- creditors. Aside from making the country less secure with his ill-conceived, arrogant, mishandled little adventure in Iraq (on top of his incompetent half-baked job in Afghanistan), Bush's economic policies have seriously eroded the foundations of American strength and security. And, on top of that, he persists in pushing forward insane programs which benefit his donors and cause hardship and misery to the neediest of citizens. Think only of his thoroughly moronic new prescription drug "benefit" for seniors-- a $139 billion handout to Big Pharma that actually does virtually nothing to help the elderly, other than elderly billionaires who own stock in the big drug companies. One might think that in light of Katrina and Rita, and the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS taxpayers will have to fork over to cover BushCo's gross negligence and incompetence, a leader (rotflmao) might say, "Hey, let's downsize that pork-laden $290 BILLION "highway" bill (the most expensive ever and the most pork barrel-oriented piece of legislation ever signed by any American president), which features, among other shameful boondoggles, $220 million for a road extension in Alaska that conservative REPUBLICAN Senator John McCain despairingly called as "a highway to nowhere."

In the TIME Magazine piece by Karen Tumulty that I referred to Sunday, "How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?" (and this was before we found out he's not even OUT THERE, but still IN HERE, re-retained by BushCo to try to cast blame on Democrats and shield Bush from responsibility), AMERICANS PAYING A HEAVY PRICE FOR BUSH'S INCOMPETENCE AND IDEOLOGICAL DECISION-MAKING, she begins with the Realpolitik observation that "in Presidential politics, the victor always gets the spoils, and chief among them is the vast warren of offices that make up the federal bureaucracy. Historically, the U.S. public has never paid much attention to the people the President chooses to sit behind those thousands of desks. A benign cronyism is more or less presumed, with old friends and big donors getting comfortable positions and impressive titles, and with few real consequences for the nation. But then came Michael Brown. When President Bush's former point man on disasters was discovered to have more expertise about the rules of Arabian horse competition than about the management of a catastrophe, it was a reminder that the competence of government officials who are not household names can have a life or death impact. The Brown debacle has raised pointed questions about whether political connections, not qualifications, have helped an unusually high number of Bush appointees land vitally important jobs in the Federal Government."

According to TIME, career civil servants, from senior administrators to clerk-typists, are being ill-treated and, even in serious matters-- matters that have allowed catastrophes like 9-11 (remember Coleen Rowley's bombshell memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller about Al-Qaeda BEFORE 9-11?) and the breaching of the New Orleans levees-- completely ignored. In Sunday's article I went into how Bush's cronyism has resulted in extremely serious consequences at the FDA. According to Tumulty "some of the appointments are raising serious concerns in the agencies themselves and on Capitol Hill about the competence and independence of agencies that the country relies on to keep us safe, healthy and secure. Internal e-mail messages obtained by TIME show that scientists' drug-safety decisions at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are being second-guessed by a 33-year-old doctor turned stock picker. At the Office of Management and Budget, an ex-lobbyist with minimal purchasing experience oversaw $300 billion in spending, until his arrest last week. At the Department of Homeland Security, an agency the Administration initially resisted, a well-connected White House aide with minimal experience is poised to take over what many consider the single most crucial post in ensuring that terrorists do not enter the country again. And who is acting as watchdog at every federal agency? A corps of inspectors general who may be increasingly chosen more for their political credentials than their investigative ones."

I hope you've been keeping up with the news about the highly-placed Bush aide who was hauled away by the FBI last week, David Safavian, a political hack with virtually no hands-on experience in government contracting who BushCo tapped 2 years ago to be its chief procurement officer. Tumulty points out that with no real experience, other than a college internship, the 38 year old Safavian was given a lucrative job as administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, putting him in charge of "the $300 billion the government spends each year on everything from paper clips to nuclear submarines, as well as the $62 billion already earmarked for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts." Ostensibly, "it was his job to ensure that the government got the most for its money and that competition for federal contracts—among companies as well as between government workers and private contractors—was fair." In reality it was a job to help steal and coerce money from contracting firms into GOP campaign coffers. And "it was his job until he resigned on Sept. 16 and was subsequently arrested and charged with lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the Federal Government."


According to TIME, "Safavian spent the bulk of his pre-government career as a lobbyist, and his nomination to a top oversight position stunned the tightly knit federal procurement community. A dozen procurement experts interviewed by TIME said he was the most unqualified person to hold the job since its creation in 1974. Most of those who held the post before Safavian were well-versed in the arcane world of federal contracts. 'Safavian is a good example of a person who had great party credentials but no substantive credentials,' says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit Washington watchdog group. 'It's one of the most powerful positions in terms of impacting what the government does, and the kind of job—like FEMA director—that needs to be filled by a professional.' Nevertheless, Safavian's April 2004 confirmation hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (attended by only five of the panel's 17 members) lasted just 67 minutes, and not a single question was asked about his qualifications.
The committee did hold up Safavian's confirmation for a year, in part because of concerns about work his lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies, had done that he was required to divulge to the panel but failed to. The firm's filings showed that it represented two men suspected of links to terrorism (Safavian said one of the men was 'erroneously listed,' and the other's omission was an 'inadvertent error') as well as two suspect African regimes. Ultimately, the committee and the full Senate unanimously approved Safavian for the post.
His political clout, federal procurement experts say privately, came from his late-1990s lobbying partnership with Grover Norquist, now head of Americans for Tax Reform and a close ally of the Bush Administration. Norquist is an antitax advocate who once famously declared that his goal was to shrink the Federal Government so he could 'drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' As the U.S. procurement czar, Safavian was pushing in that direction by seeking to shift government work to private contractors, contending it was cheaper. Federal procurement insiders say his relationship with Norquist gave Safavian the edge in snaring the procurement post. But Norquist has 'no memory' of urging the Administration to put Safavian in the post, says an associate speaking on Norquist's behalf. A White House official said Norquist 'didn't influence the decision.' Clay Johnson, who was designated by the White House to answer all of TIME'S questions about administration staffing issues and who oversaw the procurement post, says Safavian was 'by far the most qualified person' for the job. Perhaps it also didn't hurt that Safavian's wife Jennifer works as a lawyer for the House Government Reform Committee, which oversees federal contracting.
In addition, Safavian had worked at a law firm in the mid-'90s with Jack Abramoff, one of the capital's highest-paid lobbyists, a top GOP fund raiser and a close friend of House majority leader Tom DeLay. Abramoff was indicted last month on unrelated fraud and conspiracy charges. In 2002, Abramoff invited Safavian on a weeklong golf outing to Scotland's famed St. Andrews course (as Abramoff had done with DeLay in 2000). Seven months after the trip, an anonymous call to a government hotline said lobbyists had picked up the tab for the jaunt. That wasn't true; Safavian paid $3,100 for the trip. But the government alleges that he lied when he repeatedly told investigators that Abramoff had no business dealings with the General Services Administration, where Safavian worked at the time. Prosecutors alleged last week, however, that Safavian worked closely with Abramoff—identified only as 'Lobbyist A' in the criminal complaint against Safavian—to give Abramoff an inside track in his efforts to acquire control of two pieces of federal property in the Washington area."

TIME then goes into the disturbing story of another unqualified Bush nominee, Julie Myers, to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a crucial job in Bush's bogus "War" Against Terror. (I'm not going to go into the details of this one here. Let it just suffice to say that REPUBLICAN Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, after Meyers made an idiot of herself at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, looked the president's nominee straight in the eye and said "I'd really like to have him (Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff) spend some time with us, telling us personally why he thinks you're qualified for the job. Because based on the resume, I don't think you are." And she's not, but was she supposed to be?

On September 9th Paul Krugman wrote a column called "Point Those Fingers" in the NY TIMES. He mentioned Mike Brown's ex-college roommate and predecessor as FEMA chief, Joe Allbaugh, and how he emphasized two words-- RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY-- in a 2001 Congressional hearing. "What Mr. Allbaugh seems to have meant was that state and local government officials shouldn't count on FEMA to bail them out if they didn't prepare adequately for disasters. They should accept responsibility for protecting their constituents, and be held accountable if they don't." He went on to point out the unfortunate similarities about the grotesque incompetence displayed in the way BushCo handled Iraq and the way they screwed up in the aftermath of Katrina. "In Iraq, the administration displayed a combination of paralysis and denial after the fall of Baghdad, as uncontrolled looting destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure. The same deer-in-the-headlights immobility prevailed as Katrina approached and struck the Gulf Coast. The storm gave plenty of warning. By the afternoon of Monday, Aug. 29, the flooding of New Orleans was well under way - city officials publicly confirmed a breach in the 17th Street Canal at 2 p.m. Yet on Tuesday federal officials were still playing down the problem, and large-scale federal aid didn't arrive until last Friday. In Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran the country during the crucial first year after Saddam's fall - the period when an effective government might have forestalled the nascent insurgency - was staffed on the basis of ideological correctness and personal connections rather than qualifications. At one point Ari Fleischer's brother was in charge of private-sector development. The administration followed the same principles in staffing FEMA. The agency had become a highly professional organization during the Clinton years, but under Mr. Bush it reverted to its former status as a 'turkey farm,' a source of patronage jobs. As Bloomberg News puts it, the agency's 'upper ranks are mostly staffed with people who share two traits: loyalty to President George W. Bush and little or no background in emergency management.' All that's missing from the Katrina story is an expensive reconstruction effort, with lucrative deals for politically connected companies, that fails to deliver essential services. But give it time - they're working on that, too."

Barely two weeks have passed and BushCo has already begun shipping BILLIONS of dollars-- what will ultimately amount to $200 billion, not counting billions more for the devastation caused by Hurricane Rita-- in the form of no-bid, cost-plus contracts to egregiously crooked BushCo campaign donors, the same crooks who have stolen billions-- from American taxpayers-- in Iraq. FEMA, of course, is administering this, especially now that Safavian has been arrested. In last week's WALL STREET JOURNAL George Washington University contracting expert, Steven Schooner explained that one "can easily compare FEMA's internal resources to what you saw in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq: a small, underfunded organization taking on a Herculian task under tremendous time pressure. That is almost by definition a recipe for disaster." But not a disaster for Bush cronies and uber-generous donors at companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, and Fluor, at least two of which are being investigated for cheating and bilking the government on Iraqi reconstruction contracts. Another great example of how BushCo works (for itself and against America) is shown by FEMA's hiring Kenyon Worldwide Disaster Management, a subsidiary of funeral operator and longtime Bush Family contributor Service Corp. International (SCI). The Bush Brothers states of Texas and Florida settled class action lawsuits against SCI which had been digging up bodies and tossing them in the woods so the plots could be resold. FEMA hired them to collect human remains in the Katrina-stricken region.

And as wonderful as the disasters have been for Bush donor corporations, Bush's policies have been absolutely catastrophic for the non-rich-- catastrophic for young American men and women fighting in Iraq (not to mention the poor Iraqis) and catastrophic for working men and women in the states hit by the hurricanes. The head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, Edward Sullivan, referred to Bush's regard for the working poor as "legalized looting of these workers who will be cleaning up toxic sites and struggling to rebuild their communities, while favored contractors rake in huge profits." After he pulled his head out of his ass, put down the guitar and golf clubs and skittered back to the White House, one of Bush's very first responses to Katrina was to sign an executive order suspending contractors on Katrina-related work from federal law requiring employees be paid the local prevailing wage, which means many will be toiling for a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.

Bush and Cheney pride themselves about-- used to publicly brag about-- being CEOs and running a CEO type government. But like Bush and Cheney most of the prominent CEOs hired by the current regime aren't actual business people at all, but fake CEOs who after a life of partisan politics cashed in on brief stints as trophy CEOs at big firms looking for political connections before returning to pilfer public assets in BushCo. Cheney wasn't a businessman; he was an ideologue and hack. Ditto for Treasury Secretary Snow. And Bush, himself... what a complete joke. Every real business he ever touched went belly-up and when he was set up to make a fortune in baseball he wound up trading Sammy Sosa for someone no one ever heard about again. Unless you want to count plotting and conniving, George W. Bush has never done an honest day's work in his entire miserable life. Yet he's on a mission to tear down government and replace it with crony-capitalism, a business model that can ONLY bring about more 9-11's and more unrepaired levees and dead Americans.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

HAGEL'S ELECTRONIC THEFT OF A U.S. SENATE SEAT WAS A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR BUSH'S THEFT OF THE PRESIDENCY

I kind of like Chuck Hagel-- for a Republican, and for someone I've never met. (I think my friend "D"
shook hands with him at a Republican event in Omaha or Lincoln in a hotel where "D"-- not the Dallas Depeche Mode fan, another "D"-- was debauching and he is so proud that he hadn't washed his hands between the debauching and the hand-shake.) I especially like that Hagel has been speaking out, far more strongly than any cowardly Democrat careerist pols in the Senate, about what a catastrophe Bush has turned Iraq into. BUT... that doesn't lessen the gravity of the still investigated charges about how Hagel and the voting machine company he partially owns were able to steal elections for him and, eventually, pioneer the technological destruction of American democracy leading up to Bush's theft of the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, respectively in Florida and Ohio. Dr. Dennis Loo from Cal Poly in Pomona recently published an article, "NO PAPER TRAIL LEFT BEHIND: THE THEFT OF THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION," which I want to summarize before getting to the specifics of the Hagel case. Dr. Loo starts out prosaically enough, with 16 propositions. According to Loo in order "to believe that George Bush won the November 2, 2004 presidential election, you must also believe all of the following extremely improbable or outright impossible things.              
1) A big turnout and a highly energized and motivated electorate favored the GOP instead of the Democrats for the first time in history.            
2) Even though first-time voters, lapsed voters (those who didn’t vote in 2000), and undecideds went for John Kerry by big margins, and Bush lost people who voted for him in the cliffhanger 2000 election, Bush still received a 3.5 million vote surplus nationally.             
3) The fact that Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties, merely shows Floridians’ enthusiasm for Bush. He managed to do this despite the fact that his share of the crossover votes by registered Democrats in Florida did not increase over 2000 and he lost ground among registered Independents, dropping 15 points.              
4) The fact that Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as 8%, do not indicate a rigged election.             
5) Bush won re-election despite approval ratings below 50% - the first time in history this has happened. Truman has been cited as having also done this, but Truman’s polling numbers were trailing so much behind his challenger, Thomas Dewey, pollsters stopped surveying two months before the 1948 elections, thus missing the late surge of support for Truman. Unlike Truman, Bush’s support was clearly eroding on the eve of the election.             
6) Harris' last-minute polling indicating a Kerry victory was wrong (even though Harris was exactly on the mark in their 2000 election final poll).              
7) The “challenger rule” - an incumbent’s final results won’t be better than his final polling - was wrong;              
8) On election day the early-day voters picked up by early exit polls (showing Kerry with a wide lead) were heavily Democratic instead of the traditional pattern of early voters being mainly Republican.              
9) The fact that Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote doesn’t cast any suspicion upon the official tally.             
10) Florida computer programmer Clinton Curtis (a life-long registered Republican) must be lying when he said in a sworn affidavit that his employers at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI) and Tom Feeney (general counsel and lobbyist for YEI, GOP state legislator and Jeb Bush’s 1994 running mate for Florida Lt. Governor) asked him in 2000 to create a computer program to undetectably alter vote totals. Curtis, under the initial impression that he was creating this software in order to forestall possible fraud, handed over the program to his employer Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and was told: “You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in south Florida.” (Boldface in original).            
11) Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell’s declaration in a August 14, 2003 letter to GOP fundraisers that he was "committed to helping Ohio to deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" and the fact that Diebold is one of the three major suppliers of the electronic voting machines in Ohio and nationally, didn’t result in any fraud by Diebold.               
12) There was no fraud in Cuyahoga County Ohio where they admitted counting the votes in secret before bringing them out in public to count..              
13) CNN reported at 9 p.m. EST on election evening that Kerry was leading by 3 points in the national exit polls based on well over 13,000 respondents. Several hours later at 1:36 a.m. CNN reported that the exit polls, now based on a few hundred more - 13,531 respondents - were showing Bush leading by 2 points, a 5-point swing. In other words, a swing of 5 percentage points from a tiny increase in the number of respondents somehow occurred despite it being mathematically impossible.              
14) Exit polls in the November 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections, paid for in part by the Bush administration, were right, but exit polls in the U.S., where exit polling was invented, were very wrong.             
15) The National Election Pool’s exit polls were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible.              
16) In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush, even though statistical probability tells us that any survey errors should show up in both directions. Half a century of polling and centuries of mathematics must be wrong."

Dr Loo points out this list is far from exhaustive and doesn't take into account all the other irregularities, documented vote tampering, and all the tried and true methods the Right uses to discourage minority voters from exercising their franchise. He concludes that "a plethora of reasons clearly exists to conclude that widespread and historic levels of fraud were committed in this election" and then shows how public officials with the connivance of the corporate mass media covered the whole thing up. First off, they labeled the exit polls as spectacularly wrong and then claimed that the recently dubbed "moral values" voters in the so-called "red states" were the reason for Bush's so-called victory (even though the conservative-leaning ECONOMIST pointed out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern (22%) is actually down from 2000 (35%) and 1996 (40%). "And third, people who brought forth any of the evidence of fraud were dismissed as 'spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists' while mainstream media censored the vast majority of the evidence of fraud so that most Americans to this day have never heard a fraction of what was amiss."  

The Hagel case was covered spectacularly well by Thom Hartmann for CommonDreams.org in a piece he wrote January 31, 2003, "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines." Please bear in mind that Hagel's theft of the Nebraska senate seat was not the ONLY dress rehearsal for Bush's Ohio grand finale's of 2004. Loo also points out that on "Nov. 3, 2002, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll showed Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49-to-44 point lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The next day, Chambliss, despite trailing by 5 points, ended up winning by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. This was, in other words, an unbelievable 12-point turn around over the course of one day!               
In the Georgia governor's race Republican Sonny Perdue upset incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. This was especially strange given that the October 16-17, 2002 Mason Dixon Poll (Mason Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C.) had shown Democratic Governor Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent, with a margin of error of ± 4 points. The final tally was, in other words, a jaw dropping 16-point turn-around! What the Cleland 'defeat' by Saxby and the Barnes 'defeat' by Perdue both have in common is that nearly all the Georgia votes were recorded on computerized voting machines, which produce no paper trail.              
In Minnesota, after Democrat Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash death, ex-vice-president Walter Mondale took Wellstone’s place and was leading Republican Norm Coleman in the days before the election by 47 to 39 percent. Despite the fact that he was trailing just days before the race by 8 points, Coleman beat Mondale by 50 to 47 percent. This was an 11-point turn around! The Minnesota race was also conducted on electronic voting machines with no paper trail.               
Welcome to a world where statistical probability and normal arithmetic no longer apply! The Democrats, rather than vigorously pursuing these patently obvious signs of election fraud in 2004, have nearly all decided that being gracious losers is better than being winners, probably because – and this may be the most important reason for the Democrat’s relative silence - a full-scale uncovering of the fraud runs the risk of mobilizing and unleashing popular forces that the Democrats find just as threatening as the GOP does."          

Hartmann postulates that it is POSSIBLE that Nebraska radio talk show host Chuck Hagel honestly won both U.S. Senate elections (and that "maybe it's true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was, as his successful Republican challenger suggested in his campaign ads, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate. Maybe George W. Bush, Alabama's new Republican governor Bob Riley, and a small but congressionally decisive handful of other long-shot Republican candidates really did win those states where conventional wisdom and straw polls showed them losing in the last few election cycles.") But his article for CommonDreams doesn't make it sound probable.

He points out that "perhaps, after a half-century of fine-tuning exit polling to such a science that it's now sometimes used to verify how clean elections are in Third World countries, it really did suddenly become inaccurate in the United States in the past six years and just won't work here anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots.
But if any of this is true, there's not much of a paper trail from the voters' hand to prove it.
You'd think in an open democracy that the government - answerable to all its citizens rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders - would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts." But, he concludes, "You'd be wrong."

And now, as promised, the dope on Hagel. Hartmann draws on research from The Hill (www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) to confirm that former conservative radio talk-show host, Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska. "Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's 'Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election.' According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska. Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel 'was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska.'
What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.
'This is a big story, bigger than Watergate ever was,' said Hagel's Democratic opponent in the 2002 Senate race, Charlie Matulka (www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm). 'They say Hagel shocked the world, but he didn't shock me.' Is Matulka the sore loser the Hagel campaign paints him as, or is he democracy's proverbial canary in the mineshaft?
'The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected,' wrote Thomas Paine over 200 years ago. 'To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery...'
That slavery, according to Hagel's last opponent Charlie Matulka, is at our doorstep.
'They can take over our country without firing a shot,' Matulka said, 'just by taking over our election systems.'
Taking over our election systems? Is that really possible in the USA?
Bev Harris of www.talion.com and www.blackboxvoting.org has looked into the situation in depth and thinks Matulka may be on to something. The company tied to Hagel even threatened her with legal action when she went public about his company having built the machines that counted his landslide votes. (Her response was to put the law firm's threat letter on her website and send a press release to 4000 editors, inviting them to check it out.
'I suspect they're getting ready to do this all across all the states,' Matulka said in a January 30, 2003 interview. 'God help us if Bush gets his touch screens all across the country,' he added, 'because they leave no paper trail. These corporations are taking over America, and they just about have control of our voting machines.'
In the meantime, exit-polling organizations have quietly gone out of business, and the news arms of the huge multinational corporations that own our networks are suggesting the days of exit polls are over. Virtually none were reported in 2002, creating an odd and unsettling silence that caused unease for the many American voters who had come to view exit polls as proof of the integrity of their election systems.
As all this comes to light, many citizens and even a few politicians are wondering if it's a good idea for corporations to be so involved in the guts of our voting systems. The whole idea of a democratic republic was to create a common institution (the government itself) owned by its citizens, answerable to its citizens, and authorized to exist and continue existing solely 'by the consent of the governed.'
Prior to 1886 - when, law schools incorrectly tell law students, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are 'persons' with equal protection and other 'human rights' - it was illegal in most states for corporations to involve themselves in politics at all, much less to service the core mechanism of politics. And during the era of Teddy Roosevelt, who said, 'There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains,' numerous additional laws were passed to restrain corporations from involvement in politics.
Wisconsin, for example, had a law that explicitly stated:
'No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.'
The penalty for violating that law was dissolution of the corporation, and 'any officer, employee, agent or attorney or other representative of any corporation, acting for and in behalf of such corporation' would be subject to 'imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than one nor more than five years' and a substantial fine.
However, the recent political trend has moved us in the opposite direction, with governments answerable to 'We, The People' turning over administration of our commons to corporations answerable only to CEOs, boards, and stockholders. The result is the enrichment of corporations and the appearance that democracy in America has started to resemble its parody in banana republics.
But if America still is a democratic republic, then We, The People still own our government. And the way our ownership and management of our common government (and its assets) is asserted is through the vote.
On most levels, privatization is only a 'small sin' against democracy. Turning a nation's or community's water, septic, roadway, prisons, airwaves, or health care commons over to private corporations has so far demonstrably degraded the quality of life for average citizens and enriched a few of the most powerful campaign contributors. But it hasn't been the end of democracy (although some wonder about what the FCC is preparing to do - but that's a separate story).
Many citizens believe, however, that turning the programming and maintenance of voting over to private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their owners, officers, and stockholders, puts democracy itself at peril.
And, argues Charlie Matulka, for a former officer of one of those corporations to then place himself into an election without disclosing such an apparent conflict of interest is to create a parody of democracy.
Perhaps Matulka's been reading too many conspiracy theory tracts. Or maybe he's on to something. We won't know until a truly independent government agency looks into the matter.
When Bev Harris and The Hill's Alexander Bolton pressed the Chief Counsel and Director of the Senate Ethics Committee, the man responsible for ensuring that FEC disclosures are complete, asking him why he'd not questioned Hagel's 1995, 1996, and 2001 failures to disclose the details of his ownership in the company that owned the voting machine company when he ran for the Senate, the Director reportedly met with Hagel's office on Friday, January 25, 2003 and Monday, January 27, 2003. After the second meeting, on the afternoon of January 27th, the Director of the Senate Ethics Committee resigned his job.
Meanwhile, back in Nebraska, Charlie Matulka had requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel. He just learned his request was denied because, he said, Nebraska has a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel.
Matulka shared his news with me, then sighed loud and long on the phone, as if he were watching his children's future evaporate.
'If you want to win the election,' he finally said, 'just control the machines.'"

Labels: , ,

WHAT'S WITH ALL THE NEW BROUHAHA OVER PAT TILLMAN? PLENTY-- READ ALL ABOUT IT!


One of my favorite websites, Ron Gunzburger's Politics 1 has a summary this morning called "A WAR HERO FOR THE LEFT." He explains that "If those progressives who oppose the Iraq War want a fallen military hero to adopt as a martyr, the soldier should clearly be Pat Tillman. Check out the detailed new profile (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL/) from the San Francisco Chronicle, in which Tillman's immediate parents, close friends, and fellow Rangers all cooperate to present a detailed look at the life and death of this former pro football star. It turns out Tillman gave up the NFL and joined the Army post-9/11 in his hope to fight Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan." Gunzburger goes on to explain that while the neo-fascist and raving maniac Ann Coulter praised him after his death as "an American original -- virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be" (although he doesn't mention anything about Coulter's adam's apple of sex change operation), it turns out Tillman was a liberal. "He opposed the Iraq war as 'illegal,' urged his fellow Rangers to support John Kerry for President, and leftist Noam Chomsky was his favorite author. His family is still pressing for a truthful full-scale investigation into his death by friendly fire and the resulting cover-up. The Pentagon just launched a fourth formal review of his death, agreeing the previous three were highly flawed and misleading. 'Pat was a real hero, not what they used him as,' said Tillman's mother, referring to the Bush Administration."

DownWithTyranny has obtained an e-mail sent from Mike Hawk ("Special Officer: GOP- The Christian Unit; 101 st Laptop Division" in Econdido, California) to Bill O'Reilly at the Fox "News" Corporation's O'Reilly Factor. Don't ask me how I got it.

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

My name is Mike Hawk and my life has been a real tough go the last few years. A real living hell! No matter what I do, I can't seem to get myself completely right with the lord or....with anyone really. It's not that I'm a bad guy. Heck, I'm just like you a walking, talking, breathing poster child/man for good clean traditional living and for fighting the right fight when its right to fight the right fight for the right to fight for the right!
I'm righting to you today Bill because I'm a big fan of your "no spin zone" and I believe deep down that I know the perfect way for us both to avenge ourselves from the latest beat downs we've taken from those hate filled lefties. One strong man of values, helping another strong man. Mike Hawk and you! (I love the sound of that phrase.) Can you hear it?
Recently, I was attacked by some skanky liberals in my neighborhood for trying to recruit young, able bodied men to go fight in this war, our leaders triumphant war in Iraq. Yet, I was accused of lurking and loitering near young able bodied men even though I support this war day in and night out with my red, white and blue flashing lights and with my life size paper mache commander Bush "mission accomplished " statue which stands in front of my condo.
Bill, I want to make it clear to you that I am not a lurker of young men. Heck, I'm a conservative GOP patriotic warrior fighter just like you. A man! A masculine mean wild boar of a man! And just like you Bill, I can give a woman an orgasm like she'll never forget and just like you I enjoy to loofa a woman and rub her boobs at the same time!
Anyway, I'm 100 percent Republicanista but gosh darndit I'm having a real rough time with my tough guy image like you are these days. And Bill also like you my image in the eyes of the lord Jesus has gone to hell in a poop holder.
Now, for instance I saw you take a beating from that Phil Donahue guy the other night and it made me realize how you have to be fair and balanced sometimes and let them rip you to shreds now and again. I understand!
But now Bill its really time to attack again and I know the perfect target. Pat Tillman! I'm sure you know that he and his followers are now against our war in Iraq and slamming our Bush just like that Islamic woman Cindy Sheehan has done. When you attacked her on TV you shined bright and made it look easy. You showed her to be the greedy traitor that she is. We can both do the attacking now together against Tillman, his parents and his followers. I Mike Hawk want to help you start a divine smear campaign against him and his family.
His mother will be easy to shout down and your fancy technique of screaming at people to "shut up" on your show, which btw, I use at the mall all the time, it will be a real WMD! He he he!
I can coordinate the campaign from here in California or you can fly me to the Fox news studios in NYC and we can brainstorm together. I can also enlist The General JC Christian to fight from his compound in Utah. Gosh, you and me, two tough guys fighting evil for America!
Bill, I'm sure once we get rolling we'll even have Karl exacting his ROVENGE on these traitors and then God will no longer be angry at us both for having been taken down by liberal anti war wimps!
I wait for you now to plan this campaign with me.

Valiantly yours,

Mike Hawk

I DON'T CARE ABOUT DAVE FREUDENTHAL

Did you already read your copy of today's JACKSON HOLE STAR-TRIBUNE? If you haven't gotten to it yet, I'll save you the trouble. Wyoming is a GOP bastion (to put it mildly)-- with Repugs controlling the state legislature and all the statewide offices including both Senate seats and the lone congressional seat-- but with a first term, and very popular, Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal. Freudenthal was able to capitalize on a "time for a change" approach in the otherwise one-party state (where Bush got about 70% in 2004). This past weekend the state Democratic Party had a meeting; I guess in a state with more Democrats it would have been called a convention. Freudenthal said Wyoming Democrats "should distance themselves from liberal national party leaders whose agenda frequently differs from" Wyoming's. Wyoming Democrats should instead focus on local issues that relate to Wyoming residents... I don't care about Howard Dean."

All 75 Democrats in the state were there, as was DNC Vice Chairman Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA). "This is a party that's not afraid of firearms," Freudenthal blathered on, probably forgetting that Dean is not only an NRA member but also a candidate who was endorsed by the NRA. "It's a party where people are interested in whether the governor managed to shoot an antelope with one shot."

Honda, probably shocked by the yahoo Governor trying to make cheap points at Dean's expense, even though Dean is the Party's BIGGEST champion of state organizations, said Democrats have learned a lot of hard lessons in the last few years and are ready now to move forward. "We have a hard time deciding what our core values are and what are issues," he said. "Howard Dean gets that. He's going around the country talking to people." Local policy variances are also something that the DNC can accommodate, he said. "Different places have different culture, and we have to deal with it," Honda said. "Your politics are pretty good. They're down to earth." Freudenthal and Honda both agreed on how the party could gain more power: Focus on local elections and local issues.

However, when asked whether this is the year for big Democratic gains in Wyoming, Freudenthal, sounding like any of the DLC pols who have wrecked the Democratic Party before a grass roots anti-Establishment movement gave Dean the Party chairmanship, said: "I wouldn't hold your breath."
Two names surfaced at the meeting as potential congressional candidates next year: Dale Groutage, a Fremont County Solid Waste Disposal District board member (U.S. Senate) and Gary Trauner, chairman of the Teton County School Board, (for the at-large House seat). The STAR-TRIBUNE reports that neither would go into any detail about their ideology or platform should they choose to run.

Monday, September 26, 2005

BROWNIE'S GOT SOME HEAVY DUTY DIRT ON BUSHCO-- REHIRED BY FEMA

The Bush Regime's designated fall guy for the catastrophic breakdown of government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Michael Brown, was fired after a public outcry about his gross incompetence-- and that of his boss, George Bush. Originally hired because he was a college roommate of one of Bush's closest and most corrupt cronies, Joe Allbaugh, it was hoped Brown would take one for the team and fade quietly into the background. Rumors are flying in D.C. about what dirt the former Arabian horse contest judge has on the Bush crew and tonite CBS News is reporting that BushCo has rehired Brown as a "consultant," presumably to keep him quiescent. He spent the last 10 days shopping his resume and trying to peddle... his reputation?... in an unproductive attempt to find a job.

CINDY SHEEHAN ARRESTED AT THE WHITE HOUSE

This weekend as many as 300,000 people showed up to protest Bush's illegal and disastrous occupation of Iraq. (And there was a very sad counter-demonstration by about 60 pro-war people, mostly young congressional staffers from Capitol Hill, the same kind of white collar hooligans who rioted while the Florida election commissioners were trying to count votes in 2000.) Today Cindy Sheehan, holding a photograph of Casey, was arrested and dragged away from the White House for leading the demonstration. According to the Associated Press, Scotty McClellan, Bush's press secretary and an employer of male prostitutes posing as journalists, mumbled that "it's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views. And that's what you're seeing here in Washington, D.C." There were too many people watching and too many television cameras (mostly from other countries) for Cindy to be roughed up or taken to Guantanamo for a little Rumsfeld torture. One of the criminals with whom Bush surrounds himself, Karl Rove, dismissed Cindy and called her "a clown." It's ironic that she's in prison for using the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and he's still not in prison for High Treason. But, then again, none of the Bush Crime Family associates-- from Kenny-boy Lay to Tom DeLay and Bob Ney-- are in prison yet.

AL GORE-- THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

A few days ago I ran a little interview with "D" the Depeche Mode fanatic from Dallas (via Normal, IL) in a piece called "MORE WINDS THAN KATRINA AND RITA ARE BLOWING." It struck me as odd that even after all we've been through as a nation, "D" was still harkening back to GOP propaganda about Bush being good for business and being a swell guy who one ("D") could enjoy a beer with. Even if Bush HAS fallen off the wagon again and is back to being an uncontrollable lush, it's unlikely that he'll be drinking any brewskis with the "D"s of this country who have been so thoroughly suckered by his down-home image (complete with stage set homestead/KKK pig farm-turned-reality-show-backdrop). It still surprises me that "D," given the chance, would vote for Bush again instead of Gore. 27-year old "D," while acknowledging the U.S. is in the midst of tough times, is still regurgitating the impressions Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the rest of the Far Right Noise Machine etched into his mind. "Gore is like a robot...a president should have charisma...I feel like I could have a beer with Bush...with Gore...very stiff....very scripted." (All those "....s" were what he wrote to me, not me making him look like an idiot.)

One thing "D" and I agree on, though, is that Hillary Clinton is not a good idea for president. To him she's too far to the left. To me, on the contrary, she just seems a bit too corporately-oriented and kind of like a finger-to-the-wind opportunist, NOT A LEADER. I'm sure she'd be a better president than ANY Republican. But that doesn't do much for me. And I have no doubt that I'd vote for her in a general election, not just against a neo-fascist like Brownback or Barbour or Allen or Frist (RIP) or Gingrich, but even against a so-called "moderate" like McCain or Hagel or Guiliano. (How bizarre would it be for the Republicans to field someone like Hagel, talking sense about getting out of Iraq, against Clinton babbling in a mindless-macho manner that over-consulted/DLC Democrats like her think is de rigeur about "staying the course," as she does now?)

So what are progressives to do? I was kind of excited about Wisconsin reformer/Iraq-sensible Russ Feingold-- until he voted to confirm Bush's nomination of Roberts last week. I hope he has a long career in the Senate-- and that when he learns the lesson about what that vote for Roberts meant it isn't a lesson too costly or catastrophic for ordinary Americans. A funny little tinge has been percolating in the recesses of my cranium over the last few months. The tinge-- don't twinge-- is named Al Gore. Look, I wasn't all that excited about him either. I positively detest that vicious censorious wife of his and it rankles me no end to think of that pious hypocrite as First Lady. And his selection of Joe Lieberman as his running mate was one of the worst betrayals of progressives by a Democrat in recent years. But... I really believe that Al Gore has gone through a gigantically character-building crisis in fire since the 2000 election was stolen from him by BushCo. EVERYTHING points to him being a very much better man and a very much better candidate.

Andy is another blogger (http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com) and this week he did a couple of pieces on why he feels Gore may wind up our next president. Almost as though he were answering Dallas "D" he points out that "Back in 2000, to many, Al Gore was an uptight, wonkish bore. But the events of the last 5 1/2 years have greatly enhanced Gore's image. What Al Gore represents today is honesty, integrity and a continuance of the peace and prosperity of the 1990's that he and Bill Clinton masterminded. Bush may still be the guy some want to have a beer with, but Gore's the guy you want running the country... Since 2000, Gore's become an extremely passionate and rousing speaker. He's dropped the stiff wonkish routine and found his mojo. Plus, he's rested, he's confident... He's also squeaky-clean, with no skeletons in his closet, as 2000 proved." Andy feels Hillary appeals to the left of the Democratic Party (though every left-leaning Democrat who hears her positions on Iraq backs away from her really fast). He thinks, probably correctly, that Gore would unite the entire spectrum of Democrats and that he would be overwhelmingly embraced by independents. I think he's right. The only letter I ever had published in the L.A. TIMES was an explanation of why I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000. (A perceived, albeit untrue, tightening of the race forced me to vote for him-- and worse, Lieberman-- in the end.) Now I'm feeling fairly enthusiastic about him.

Unlike most of the other candidates-- including Clinton, the hapless Kerry, and arch-corporatist Biden, all of whom voted in favor of the war against Iraq, with Clinton and Biden still STRONGLY supporting it-- Gore, like Howard Dean, opposed it from the beginning, and for all the right reasons, reasons that have proven prescient (and should disqualify those who supported Bush). Over 60% of Americans now say attacking Iraq was a mistake and way more feel the occupation is a disaster and should end immediately. For many Democrats, Gore, a kind of president-in-exile who at minimum won the popular vote (and to virtually every person who pays attention also the electoral vote, before BushCo was able to steal Florida), is looking like a comeback kid. It plays into a piece of American mythology that voters will respond to very positively.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

AMERICANS PAYING A HEAVY PRICE FOR BUSH'S INCOMPETENCE AND IDEOLOGICAL DECISION-MAKING

A week or two ago I recommended a film, THE CONSTANT GARDENER. I didn't really talk much about the plot, just how much I liked the actors and the film-making itself. But just now, reading Karen Tumulty's piece in next week's TIME Magazine (HOW MANY MORE MIKE BROWNS ARE OUT THERE?), the story line from THE CONSTANT GARDENER came back to me... very strongly. (I won't give anything away, so if you haven't seen it yet, don't worry.) The movie takes place in West Africa (and England), and one of its themes concentrates on how Western pharmaceutical companies with high-up political (hand-and-hand with financial) connections can run rough-shod over the health and welfare of... the natives. Well, reading Tumulty's piece made me realize that it isn't only the Kenyans but also us Americanos who are "the natives" being (rough-)shod on. The film makes a point about how British/multi-national policy, a policy operating on the peripheries of what we like to think of in the West as our electoral democracy, leads very directly to abuses like murder, torture, maybe a little genocide. Of course with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and people like that in charge, do we really have to worry about surreptitious murder, torture and genocide?

The story in TIME is about how Bush's appointments to the federal bureaucracy have been catastrophic in more ways than just Mike "Brownie" Brown's at FEMA. I've been working on doing a longer piece on that topic, and how the Bush Regime has become a dumping ground for incompetent cronies, political hacks and starry-eyed, faith-based neophytes, far right ideologues and a bizarre array of extremist misanthropes, and I hope to have it done soon. Meanwhile, though, I want to get right to a section of Tumulty's story on the Food and Drug Administration (which I dealt with recently because of Bush's tendency to appoint religionist nuts/veterinarians to jobs which seem to call for medical experts and people with mind's dedicated to the scientific process).

"Nowhere in the federal bureaucracy," explains Tumulty, "is it more important to insulate government experts from the influences of politics and special interests than at the Food and Drug Administration, the agency charged with assuring the safety of everything from new vaccines and dietary supplements to animal feed and hair dye. That is why many within the department, as well as in the broader scientific community, were startled when, in July, Scott Gottlieb was named deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, one of three deputies in the agency's second-ranked post at FDA. His official FDA biography notes that Gottlieb, 33, who got his medical degree at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, did a previous stint providing policy advice at the agency, as well as at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. What the bio omits is that his most recent job was as editor of a popular Wall Street newsletter, the Forbes/Gottlieb Medical Technology Investor, in which he offered such tips as 'Three Biotech Stocks to Buy Now.' In declaring Gottlieb a 'noted authority' who had written more than 300 policy and medical articles, the biography neglects the fact that many of those articles criticized the FDA for being too slow to approve new drugs and too quick to issue warning letters when it suspects ones already on the market might be unsafe. FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford, who resigned suddenly and without explanation last Friday, wrote in response to e-mailed questions that Gottlieb is 'talented and smart, and I am delighted to have been able to recruit him back to the agency to help me fulfill our public-health goals.' But others, including Jimmy Carter-era FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy, a former Stanford University president and now executive editor-in-chief of the journal Science, say Gottlieb breaks the mold of appointees at that level who are generally career FDA scientists or experts well known in their field. 'The appointment comes out of nowhere. I've never seen anything like that,' says Kennedy. Gottlieb's financial ties to the drug industry were at one time quite extensive. Upon taking his new job, he recused himself for up to a year from any deliberations involving nine companies that are regulated by the FDA and 'where a reasonable person would question my impartiality in the matter.' Among them are Eli Lilly, Roche and Proctor & Gamble, according to his Aug. 5 'Disqualification Statement Regarding Former Clients,' a copy of which was obtained by TIME. Gottlieb, though, insists that his role at the agency is limited to shaping broad policies, such as improving communication between the FDA, doctors and patients, and developing a strategy for dealing with pandemics of such diseases as flu, West Nile virus and SARS. Would he ever be involved in determining whether an individual drug should be on the market? 'Of course not,' Gottlieb told TIME. 'Not only wouldn't I be involved in that ... But I would not be in a situation where I would be adjudicating the scientific or medical expertise of the (FDA) on a review matter. That's not my role. It's not my expertise. We defer to the career staff to make scientific and medical decisions.'
Behind the scenes, however, Gottlieb has shown an interest in precisely those kinds of deliberations. One instance took place on Sept. 15, when the FDA decided to stop the trial of a drug for multiple sclerosis during which three people had developed an unusual disorder in which their bodies eliminated their blood platelets and one died of intracerebral bleeding as a result. In an e-mail obtained by Time, Gottlieb speculated that the complication might have been the result of the disease and not the drug. 'Just seems like an overreaction to place a clinical hold' on the trial, he wrote. An FDA scientist rejected his analysis and replied that the complication 'seems very clearly a drug-related event.' Two days prior, when word broke that the FDA had sent a 'non-approvable' letter to Pfizer Inc., formally rejecting its Oporia drug for osteoporosis, senior officials at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research received copies of an e-mail from Gottlieb expressing his surprise that what he thought would be a routine approval had been turned down. Gottlieb asked for an explanation. Gottlieb defends his e-mails, which were circulated widely at the FDA. 'Part of my job is to ask questions both so I understand how the agency works, and how it reaches its decisions,' he told TIME. However, a scientist at the agency said they 'really confirmed people's worst fears that he was only going to be happy if we were acting in a way that would make the pharmaceutical industry happy.' The Oporia decision gave Pfizer plenty of reason to be unhappy: the drug had been expected to produce $1 billion a year in sales for the company. Pfizer's stock fell 1.4% the day the rejection was announced. The FDA has not revealed why it rejected the drug, and Pfizer has said it is 'considering various courses of action' that might resuscitate its application for approval. Health experts note that Gottlieb's appointment comes at a time of increased tension between the agency and drug companies, which are concerned that new drugs will have a more difficult time making it onto the market in the wake of the type of safety problems that persuaded Merck to pull its best-selling painkiller Vioxx from the market last year. The agency's independence has also come under question, most recently with its decision last month to prevent the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B from being sold over the counter, after an FDA advisory panel recommended it could be. That Gottlieb sits at the second tier of the agency, critics say, sends anything but a reassuring signal."

Many voters in this country laughed at Bush's studied goofiness in 1999 (and brushed off his long history of alcohol and cocaine abuse) and comforted themselves that his dad had found "adults"-- Cheney and Rumsfeld-- to watch him and help him understand things that were clearly beyond his ken. But we learned the hard way that a steep presidential learning curve comes with a price tag, a price tag paid for by the victims of 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina, two egregious examples. In both cases Bush and his Regime, including "the adults," were asleep at the wheel-- at best.

Labels: ,

Saturday, September 24, 2005

CINDY SHEEHAN-- STILL SPEAKING FOR ME, IN FACT... MORE THAN EVER!

Everything I've been reading so far points to a big success for Cindy's anti-war rally in DC today. Here's a copy of the speech she gave:


Ahhhh, I love the smell of Patriotic Dissent in the afternoon!

As we stand here on the grounds of a monument that is dedicated to the Father of our Country, George Washington, we are reminded that he was well known for the apocryphal stories of never being able to tell a lie. I find it so ironic that there is another man here named George who stays in this town between vacations and he seems to never be able to tell the truth. It is tragic for us that our bookend presidents named George have two completely different relationships with honesty.

I also find it ironic and heartbreaking that my son, Casey, who was a brave person, tall and proud, who loved his country and was honest beyond measure, could be sent to his death by someone who is even too cowardly to meet with a broken hearted mom, let alone go and fight in the illegal and immoral war of his generation. We are losing our best and our brightest in a country that we are destroying that was no threat to the United States of America. Iraq was and still is no danger to our safety and security, or to our way of life. The weapons of mass destruction and mass deception reside in this town: they are the neocons who pull the strings and the members of Congress who have loosened the purse strings with reckless abandon and have practically given George and company a blank check to run our country into monetary and moral bankruptcy. We are out here in force today to take our country back and restore true democracy and sanity to our political process. The time is now and we are here because we love our country and we won't let the reckless maniacs destroy her any further.

We, as a young colony of Great Britain, broke from another tyrant, King George the Third. Well, I wish our George the Third were here today to see us out here in force protesting against his war and against his murderous policies. George is not here, though, because he is out gallivanting around the country somewhere pretending that he cares about the people who are in the path of hurricane Rita. We know that he cares nothing for the people of America: Katrina, Iraq, and his idiotic response to 9/11 are evidence of that. He is just out and about play-acting like a President whose country is in crisis, just like he pretends to be a Commander in Chief and a Cowboy (I wonder if before he took off to Texas or Colorado or wherever he went, he watched a movie like Independence Day to see how that other fake president acted?). The reason he is out today is that his handlers told him that he got a little flak for playing golf and eating birthday cake with Senator McCain while some of his employers were hanging off rooftops and treetops in New Orleans. He swaggers around arrogantly like he is a macho dictatorial tyrant who doesn't have to answer to his employers, the people of the United States of America. Those days are over George, we are here today to tell you that we are a majority and we will never rest until you bring our young people home from the Middle East and until you start putting money into rebuilding OUR communities: the ones natural disasters destroy with your help, and the ones which your callous and racist war economy are decimating. We won't allow you to take anymore money out of social programs to finance Halliburton to rebuild the Gulf States: there is no money. Our bank account is empty. George, this is our rainy day and you have failed us miserably. Stop pouring money into the pockets of the war profiteers and into building permanent bases in Iraq. It is time to bring our billions of dollars home from Iraq too!!!

One thing the Camp Casey movement that hunkered down in Crawford, Texas this past August taught us is that we the people of America have the power and we can and should name our national policy and make sure it is carried out. I constantly get asked if we are making a difference and if we think (like we're naïve boobs) that we will actually stop the war. Well, looking back at how Vietnam was ended and looking back in the history of our country, most notably in the suffragette, union, and civil rights movements, we the people are the only ones who have been able to transform history and affect true and lasting change here in America: so to those people who question if we are making a difference: I tell them to go back to school and read their history books!! And another thing these questioners overlook is that WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!! And we are here to tell the media, Congress, and this criminal and criminally negligent administration: WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!!

We in the peace movement need to agree on one thing: yes we need an exit plan, but it is not a strategy, it is a command. The command should be: have all of our military personnel and paid killer mercenaries out of Iraq within 6 months and the generals carry out the command. Simple, it's not brain surgery and I think it is so easy even George Bush can sign the order. We can't give the homicidal maniacs any wiggle room or long term strategy sessions. For one thing, when our leaders strategize, we are put in even more jeopardy, they have proven that they are not too bright or even a little compassionate. But the most important thing is that people die everyday in Iraq for absolutely no reason and for lies. We have to say NOW because the people on the other side are saying NEVER. We can't compromise, we can't say please, and we can't retreat. If we do, our country is doomed. We have to honor the sacrifices of our loved ones by completing the mission of peace and justice. It is time. Bring our troops home, NOW!

FDA CHIEF ABRUPTLY RESIGNS-- BUSHCO'S CONSUMER HEALTH POLICIES COMPLETELY GONE TO THE DOGS (PUN INTENDED)

When Bush appointed that religionist-nut veterinarian, Norris Anderson, to be Director for the Office of Women's Health, albeit briefly (approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes) it infuriated women's groups on all sides of the political spectrum. But it made me wonder if the only people with medical bona fides BushCo could round up for their anti-Science jihad were veterinarians. And then yesterday comes the big news about another doggie doctor being forced to resign by the Bush Regime he was serving-- this one, Lester Crawford, who was only just confirmed by the Senate, in a very bitter and embarrassing process, 2 months ago, was head of the Food and Drug Administration. Crawford had been serving as the acting commissioner for over a year during the lengthy and acrimonious confirmation process. He eventually won the Senate's grudging approval in July only after promising that the agency would make a final decision on legalizing Plan B (a morning-after contraceptive that GOP mullahs oppose) for over-the-counter sales by Sept. 1. He had been lying, however, prompting the FDA's top woman's health official to resign... angrily.

People concerned about consumer well-being-- the reason the FDA was founded in 1906-- were overjoyed to hear Crawford was forced out. Two leading Senators, one moderate Democrat and one very conservative Republican, were publicly relieved-- if not jubilant-- to see Crawford go. "The American consumer should shed no tears at Mr. Crawford's resignation," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). "The fact is, he took the side of the pharmaceutical industry and against consumers at virtually every opportunity." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has spent 18 months investigating the agency, pointed out that "In recent years, the FDA has demonstrated a too-cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and an attitude of shielding rather than disclosing information." If Grassley was willing to go that far, it is probably the prelude to a major revelation about wrong-doing that will further shake the corruption-and-scandal-ridden Bush Regime.

Labels:

THE POPE MAY NOT SMOKE DOPE... BUT HE DOES SMOKE POLE!

Last night I spent part of the evening at a political gathering. I wound up in a conversation about how Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) is a vicious, consistent and virulent homophobe-- and, at the same time, is as gay as Liberace. (I did a blog piece on it last weekend.) On the way home I was listening to Air America's "Majority Report," on which Sam Seder interviewed Steve Clemons, author of The Washington Note, an awesome website at http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/ My jaw dropped when Clemons, an EXTREMELY reliable source, asserted that Pope Ratzinger is not just instituting aggressively homophobic policies but that he himself, like Dreier, is gay! Rather than summarize it, I'm reproducing the piece I found on Clemons' website.

Time to Do Some "Outing" in Vatican City

I visited the Vatican in early August and met a person who is deeply "embedded" in the world of those who run Vatican City and who govern the global machinery of the Catholic Church.
According to this person's estimation, he guesses that a "conservative estimate" of those cardinals and senior church officials who are gay is about 50%. Practicing, as opposed to just flirtatious, homosexuals at the highest levels of the church are probably about 30%.
When I asked whether homosexuals would be better served under Pope Benedict XVI than under John Paul II, he responded, "Don't think that we will be any better served under a gay pope than a straight one."
While there wasn't much love lost between Pope John Paul II and the homosexual community, John Paul didn't spend his every waking moment thinking about how to screw over the gay community. This very-connected individual I got to know in Italy had a different view (let's just leave it at that) of Benedict XVI.
But here's the deal. The Vatican is now readying a new policy on gay priests -- working harder to ban them before ordination and pretty much symbolically lumping in predatory pedophiles with those who are gay -- which I find outrageous.
From a report by the Washington Post's Alan Cooperman:
The agency said the new document would indicate that men with homosexual tendencies shouldn't be ordained even if they are celibate "because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers."
In an apparently new element, the agency said the document would also say that already ordained priests, if they have homosexual tendencies, would be "strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood."
The American prelate overseeing the evaluations, Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, said earlier this month that most gay candidates for the priesthood struggle to remain celibate and the church must "stay on the safe side" by restricting their enrollment. He stressed that the church was not "hounding" gays out of the priesthood, but wants to enroll seminarians who can maintain their vows of celibacy.
The document has been controversial from the start, and there had been speculation that it may never be released because of its sensitive nature. Some priests have said the document is sorely needed. Others say it will do more harm than good, antagonizing existing homosexual priests and driving others underground.

I am generally opposed to "outing" those who are homosexual unless they are engaged in political activity that helps to repress others in society who are also gay.
I really do think that it is time to OUT specific cardinals and other senior church officials who contribute to this policy. Vatican City is a recognized city state -- and thus is subject as well to the currents of politics.
It is time that some of the currents ran back against this bigoted policy.
Note to John Aravosis and other bloggers -- time to direct some blog time to some Vatican confessions.
-- Steve Clemons

Friday, September 23, 2005

FABIAN NUNEZ-- THE REAL DEAL

A few months ago a friend of mine, Armen, a really savvy guy I met at an early Howard Dean planning session, invited me to an intimate reception he was co-hosting for California Comptroller (and soon to be gubernatorial candidate) Steve Westley. Armen's originally from Armenia and he's very politically active in the large Armenian community in L.A. and Glendale and the Westley shindig was basically for Armenian-Americans (+ me and a Chinese guy). Aside from learning our state's Comptroller is really dull and totally devoid of charisma, I also learned, first-hand, about the art of pandering. Westley could be declared an honorary panda bear. From his speech one would have certainly believed that he had entered politics to devote himself solely to the agenda of the Armenian community. Frankly I was stunned. And when I later heard he had decided to run for Governor-- once Arnold's approval ratings started following Bush's into the toilet-- I was mortified.

Ironically, another person who was at that same Dean meeting where I had first met Armen-- someone who Dean had told me to trust and work with, Rick-- invited me to his house to meet the Speaker of the California State Assembly. I was a little wary because of how turned off I was to Westley's pandering and I suspected that the get-together at Rick's might also lend itself to this kind of approach from a politician since it was looking like it would be a houseful of well-off gay people. But Rick's great and I know he always has good catering, so I said sure and... tonight was the night. The Speaker of the Assembly is Fabian Núñez and you probably know about as much about him as I do-- or as I did. He represents a district that covers downtown L.A., Pico-Union, East Los Angeles, Vernon, Maywood, Huntington Park... lot of poverty, lot of immigrants, lot of urban woes.

Núñez is 38 but I would have guessed closer to 30. Before being elected to the Assembly in 2002 he had been the political director for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and then the government affairs director for the Los Angeles Unified School District. He was elected Speaker of the Assembly last year and has effectively confronted Schwarzenegger's reactionary agenda and pushed forward the Democrats' progressive ideas at the same time. One of the things I most appreciated about him tonight was that he gave a speech that he could easily have given to any group of Californians. He talked about the issues that mean the most to him, particularly strengthening public education, rather than grandstanding about gay issues. Rick and some others aside, I had the impression that Núñez was a bit more progressive than the room (I mean this was Beverly Hills, not Silver Lake or even West Hollywood). He seemed like a fighter without being a rabble-rouser, someone who espouses cutting edge ideas-- but in a non-threatening, even moderate manner. But I think what I liked best about his little speech was when he talked about how important it is for progressive politicians to be themselves with voters and not to try to guess what voters want to hear and offer that up. That's the kind of thinking that can take the Democrats back to majority status in the rest of the country. Fabian Núñez is a good antidote not just to Steve Westley but to finger-to-the-wind Democrats like Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton.

GRASSROOTS, NON-DLC DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS IN '06

Last week I mentioned that Democracy For America, Howard Dean's old grassroots organization, now being run by his brother Jim, was doing a little on-line balloting to see who we want to be our first endorsed candidate (a prize probably worth as much as $100,000 in online contributions). This week they have the Top 10 vote-getters up and by the end of the week they'll have the winner. Each of the top 10 candidates has written an introductory piece about himself or herself. Some of them are good and some of them... are less good. These are all grassroots candidates who will be fighting in the trenches in the crucial 2006 congressional elections and they all seem worthy of support to me. I was a little disappointed that one of the candidates, Bryan Kennedy, had someone else write his letter, a bad sign of detachment for a challenger in a tough race in a red district. But let me reprint the letters from the candidates who got me most worked up-- Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania, Francine Busby in California and Christine Cegelis in Illinois.

All 3 had very direct statements, and all were inspiring and spelled out clearly why they deserve support. Christine and Francine are running in open seats. So let me start with Patrick, who is challenging first term incumbent Michael Fitzpatrick in a moderate suburban district near Philly (which includes Bucks County with its large gay population). Fitzpatrick, a cultural right-winger, opposes abortion rights and stem cell research, and is well to the Right of the district. He pretty much toes the DeLay Party Line. As I read about Patrick, Paul Hackett immediately came to mind. An Army Captain, he served as a constitutional law professor at West Point, in Bosnia and in the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad where he received the Bronze Star. Here's the statement he wrote for Democracy For America that I found so compelling:

"I am leading the charge to bring progressive leadership back to Washington and would appreciate your vote for DFA's early endorsement. Time and again, Republicans have shown they're more concerned about accumulating power than they are about leading or governing. I am standing up against the Bush Administration, standing up for the truth, and standing up for what's right. That is why I am running for U.S. Congress and why I will become the first Iraq War veteran elected.
Too many Americans are one Katrina away from complete ruin—and I don't mean another natural disaster. For many families without health insurance, a serious illness is just as devastating. For working men and women who see their jobs shipped overseas because of a bad trade deal, CAFTA may be their Katrina. For veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and came home needing psychological or physical treatment, only to find their local VA hospital shut down, the President's cuts to veterans' benefits hurt just as much as Katrina.
This administration's failure to lead when the hurricane hit the gulf coast was not an isolated incident. Far too often they have been missing in action. We need leaders who stand up and tell the truth and who provide a vision to make things right. I am that progressive leader and I need your vote today.
If I were in Congress, the bankruptcy bill that trapped people under mountains of debt—even victims of natural disasters, would never have been passed without a fight.
I would never support unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthiest while millions of middle class families are hanging on by their fingernails. It appalls me that many current legislators can look these families in the eye and tell them that these cuts were in the best interest of our country.
The pattern of arrogance that has driven this administration's decisions to ignore experts in favor of cronies and yes-men—whether in Iraq or the Gulf Coast—must end. And I will do my part in Washington by always standing up to speak the truth.
If you're tired of these failures and want leadership that trusts and values the grassroots, I need your support. If you want a progressive leader who will fight for an exit strategy in Iraq, who believes in raising the minimum wage today, who taught constitutional law at West Point and advocates for a woman's right to choose, who believes the equal protection clause applies to all Americans, and who knows it is morally wrong that so many Americans go without basic human needs including health insurance, I need your support!
Make no mistake: voting today is not about me, or about any one of these 10 candidates. It is about building a movement to take back our country and stand up to the administration. It's about standing up for the truth, and having the guts to be truly compassionate to those who need it most.
Thank you for your time and hopefully your vote."

In 2004 Francine Busby ran against Randy "Duke" Cunningham, of whom I've written quite a lot and who will soon be residing in a Federal Penitentiary. He won't be running again. Francine has built a good following in a pretty red district just north of San Diego. Her statement was also well-done:

"I'm running in the seat being vacated by Duke Cunningham—the same Duke Cunningham who is a poster boy, along with Tom Delay, of the culture of corruption in Washington. I'm running to change that culture and restore honesty, integrity and accountability to Congress. We must get back to making government work for the common good of its people.
For too long, national Democrats and beltway pundits have ignored this district because they thought that it was "too Republican". But we know that times are changing and so is this district. I am poised to prove that when we show up and fight in districts like mine, we win.
I ran against Duke Cunningham in 2004, even though he was a powerful Republican in a Republican leaning district, because I felt so strongly that our country was being lead in the wrong direction. Although we didn't win, we created a groundswell of grassroots support and energized a progressive community here in the 50th district. I'm so thankful for all the grassroots supporters.
Now, with an open seat or possible special election, everything has changed. This will be a highly competitive race and we are ready to build on the momentum we created last cycle. It's an example of why it's so important to run strong campaigns in every district every cycle.
I truly believe that people in this district, and in this country, are ready for change. The slow and inept response to Hurricane Katrina showed the American people how out-of-touch and unaccountable our government has become. The Republican "Every man for himself" philosophy has not served us well.
I will continue to speak out with clarity and passion in support of our shared progressive ideals as I campaign to change the direction and leadership of our country. I carry our message of hope and opportunity for every American family. I oppose the policy of unjustified, pre-emptive war that has unnecessarily squandered precious lives, taxpayer dollars and our military preparedness. I demand the political discipline needed to cut our budget deficit because it is immoral to pass that debt to our children. I stand firm in my commitment to preserve the environment, protect a woman's right to choose and ensure that families have accessible and affordable health care and quality education.
I pledge to you that when I am elected to Congress, I will always put the people of the United States first—ahead of personal political gain and powerful special interests. I don't say this out of idealism or as a cheap political promise. I say it because I believe that our democracy depends on it.
Thank you for your passion and commitment to change. I hope you will join my fight to restore honesty and integrity to our government."

Christine Cegelis was also inspiring-- and also ran against an entrenched right-wing incumbent in 2004, Henry Hyde, who she shook up quite a bit, probably helping him decide to finally retire. This time the GOP in the district has managed to come up with someone even more of an extremist loon, State Senator/DeLay clone Peter Roskam. It's a red district and Cegelis will have an uphill battle, but one worth supporting. She's well-known in a district where people are starting to realize extreme ideological positions don't solve real-world problems and they see that the Republicans' answers to the issues facing the country have been disastrous. Christine is clearly playing that up:

"Like many of us, in 2003 I was wondering what had happened to our country. Fewer people could afford health care. Good-paying jobs were heading overseas. Education was becoming less and less affordable. And we had entered a war that seemed foolish and unnecessary.
It seemed that the American Dream was becoming a mirage for my two college-aged sons and their generation. Henry Hyde was doing little about this.
Hyde seemed more concerned with Washington special interests than with the declining state of the country. I decided to do something about it and ran against Hyde in 2004.
Although I was a successful information technology consultant, I didn't have a lot of money, name recognition or a large staff or party support. I didn't have any of the things that "conventional wisdom" says you need in order to do well against an entrenched incumbent in a "conservative" district. But I ran anyway.
What we did have in our campaign were dozens of dedicated, hard-working volunteers. They joined me in the fight for affordable health care, good-paying jobs and education access. With their hard work and support, I earned 44.2-percent of the vote against Hyde, the best ever by a Democrat against the 15-term incumbent. Every vote I received was earned "on the ground." Because of this strong grassroots support, Howard Dean included me in the Dean Dozen.

Not wanting to have to battle for his seat, Hyde opted to retire. But the man slated by Republicans to replace him is even more conservative, even more out of touch with the values and concerns of everyday Americans. A former aid to Tom DeLay, he has fought against workers' rights, against a living wage, against separation of church and state, against well-funded schools and against a woman's right to control what happens to her body.
The stakes are high in 2006. We have all seen what happens when those who do not believe government has a role control the levers of power. But we can change this.
We can bring health care to those without it. We can make education affordable and accessible. We can preserve the rights of workers and women. We can make this a country that works for everybody, not just the rich and powerful in Washington.
That is what this campaign is about. We're not just working to bring progressive values to Illinois's 6th congressional district. Volunteers from the first race are fighting to win local and state elections. The 2004 campaign gave them hope and opened the political process to them. A victory in 2006 will push the movement forward and encourage other future leaders.
We're building on the momentum of the last race to send me to Washington in 2006 so we can work to restore the common values of justice, equality of opportunity, and fair play to Congress. Help me recognize my dedicated volunteers by supporting me as the DFA Grassroots All-Star."

If you go to the Democracy For America website, you can read all the statements and you can vote.
I think tomorrow is the last day. The url is democracyforamerica.com/

Thursday, September 22, 2005

REPUBLICAN RELIGIONIST NUTS HAVE SHREDDED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AGAIN & DISMANTLED THE WALL BETWEEN STATE & CHURCH

While the corrupt far right government demonstrates in Texas that they can't do ANYTHING right other than blovate and steal, the Republican House passed the most egregious piece of legislation in... weeks. Hard to keep up with their egregitude. In a fairly party-line vote-- so who says there are NO differences?-- The House voted today to let Head Start take someone's religion into consideration when hiring workers, overshadowing moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances. Religionist panderer and arch crook, Tom DeLay and his neo-fascist leadership forced The House to approve a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars. Americans in favor of keeping the U.S. Constitution intact blasted that idea as discriminatory, but no one was moved to violence.
DeLay's dispute over religion eroded the bipartisan support for Head Start's renewal. The final bill passed 231-184 with only 23 Democrats voting for it.

GOP right-wingers, at the urging of extremist operatives in the White House, like Rove, contend that preschool centers should not have to give up their religious prejudices in order to receive federal grants. "Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL). Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) agreed: "The (Republican) majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan agreement." The House passed the amendment 220-196 along near party lines, with 10 Democrats voting with the Dark Forces of Fascism to destroy one of America's most important and cherished rights.

MORE WINDS THAN KATRINA AND RITA ARE BLOWING

My pal Johnny sent me some anecdotal evidence that the winds of change they are blowing. It was a story in KOS about a high school teacher from a red part of Florida. "For years all I ever heard," wrote the teacher, "were the typical right wing talking points from the kids, like how the liberals were cowards, 'flip flop, flip flop,' liberals hate America, and even some of the girls would talk about how cute they thought Duhbya was. During the last election it was unbearable. Just so you know I don't encourage or solicit any of these comments but if I'm asked about my political persuasion I tell them I'm a war disabled liberal Democrat. This school year has been very, very different. Kids are talking about how dumb Bush is and how much they hate him. The reason I'm calling this an indicator because children will normally parrot what they hear their parents say, so because of this I believe there is a real shift in this country away from conservatism. Just my $.02. [Update] I was asked by a group of students if I would be interested in sponsoring a 'Young Progressives' club for our school. I'm putting out some feelers to see just how much interest is there."

About 8 years ago I met a Depeche Mode fanatic. Never assume because someone likes good music (or good books or has a sense of taste in any field) that they have any political sense. (I still remember how dismayed I was when I was a student in NY hitch-hiking down to Texas-- on my way to Mexico-- to find that sme people with long hair who smoked dope and listened to The Dead and Big Brother were also reactionaries, racists and war-mongers.) Anyway, the Depeche Mode fanatic-- we'll call him D-- turned out to be a died-in-the-wool Republican. Coming from le petit bourgeoisie in Bumfuck, Illinois, I never had any reason to believe he was particularly racist or bigoted. He was always just a greed-and-selfishness Republican. I hadn't heard from him in years and yesterday he just popped up with an Instant Message about a Sex Pistols book he was reading that mentioned me. I asked him if he is still a Bush supporter and he hesitated and seemed to indicate that he's not too thrilled about the way things have gone in the past 5 years. I asked him if I could interview him for the blog and he readily agreed. I'm guessing he either likes abuse or wants to show his wife how famous he is.

DWT: How old are you?
D: 27
DWT: where were you born?
D: normal, IL
DWT: what is your occupation?
D: looking for employment
DWT: what field?
D: accounting
DWT: how do you support yourself?
D: investments
DWT: right... you have well-off parents, right?
D: separate investments
DWT: from money you made from your lemonade stand?
D: yeah..business is big with the heat
DWT: how long have you lived in Dallas?
D: 2.5 years
DWT: How old were you when you realized you were a Republican?
D: 11
DWT: what were the first manifestations of your Republicanism after 11?
D: environment grew up in. white collared territory
DWT: Why did you decide to vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004?
D: less government. more incentive for investment. less taxes. pro business.
DWT: In your opinion, how has Bush measured up to the expectations you just listed above?
D: business wise, less restrictions...taxation on dividends, etc. I think the is pro investment. with the natural disasters..more government which is fine...it is necessary and ok. economy is not the best...but hey...I think it is cyclical...if your their at the right time...the president reaps the benefits
DWT: Do you think his policies are more pro-business than Clinton's?
D: not necessarily...Clinton created NAFTA...look where the jobs went!
DWT: So you still support Bush?
D: socially democratic...financially republican. like many
DWT: so if you could vote again tomorrow, knowing what you know now, would you vote for Gore or Bush?
D: bush...gore is like a robot...a president should have charisma...i feel like i could have a beer with bush...with gore...very stiff....very scripted
DWT: Kerry or Bush?
D: kerry I like. but healthcare for everyone...who is going to pay for it. i view democrats as more government. bigger government. i do not like that. i want to make more of my own decisions.
DWT: Can you explain what he means when he talks about "the noble cause" in Iraq and can you tell me why more young Republicans like you-- from "white collar backgrounds"; isn't that how you put it?-- aren't enlisting?
D: the noble cause is democracy for Iraqis and to rid the terror. I think taking care of the What If's....is good...saddam tortured people.....
the army is not for everyone. I see your view. I am in school taking care of business
DWT: like Cheney did when he avoided Vietnam?
D: what about Clinton
DWT: he opposed the war
D: did he avoid it also?
DWT: you and cheney support it-- as long as some poor working class people fight it. Clinton avoided it too (me too)
D: i think to rid terror..you have to go to their turf....keep them on the run
DWT: when are you going?
D: in school....
DWT: you can always postpone school and come back after you've rid the world of terror
D: terror will never go away
DWT: certainly not the way Bush is encouraging it
D: you prospered from capitalism...less taxes...on income...
DWT: there was NO terror in Iraq (an authoritarian police state) until Bush took over
DWT: yes, capitalism is great. I'm very entrepreneurial
D: no terror...what about saddam torturing people
DWT: What about Rusmfield torturing people?
D: you're like me...pro financial republican..and socially democratic. welcome to the club
DWT: Unfettered capitalism leads to economic fascism (corporatism) which is a nitemare
D: you worked for a corporation for a long time
DWT: and now I teach business at Stanford, USC, Dartmouth and McGill. I'm a professor
D: can i take a course?
DWT: and corporatism is as bad a system as you can come up with.

So D still hasn't learned any lessons from 5 years of Bush. He's still mindlessly pushing the Limbaughesque/O'Liely propaganda he hears on the radio and Fox, still blaming Clinton, still deluding himself into thinking a plutocrat and son-of-a-bitch like Bush would have a beer with him. He thinks "less restrictions" on business means he has more choices because he sees himself as a potential exploiter in the future, rather than as a consumer who will be eating tainted meat, breathing toxic air and drinking polluted water. And, even if he isn't brilliant, he's not particularly retarded and he still harkens back to equating "terror" with Iraq-- just like the Right Wing Noise Machine has taught him to. The school teacher sees the winds of changes blowing in a northern Florida high school. I just ran across part of the 36-38% of Americans who still support Bush in a graduate school in Dallas. Come 2006, it looks like we'll be ready for a national mandate. Let's hope Diebold isn't doing the counting again.

THE MECHANICS OF HOW THE GOP PROPAGANDA MACHINE WORKS

Do you ever wonder why all the right-wing radio show hosts, right-wing TV show guests and newspaper columnists sound EXACTLY the same? It's simple: Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have orchestrated a system for getting out a talking points memo to all their propagandists-- from the
Limbaughs and O'Reillys to the George Wills and the Pat Robertsons. Think Progress was able to obtain a copy of the physical memo that went out to the propaganda machine in time for Bush's speech on Katrina. We've been hearing the results of this parrotted all over the Corporate Media all
week-- whenever one of these goons mentions Bush's speech.

* America and the Gulf Coast are recovering from one of the greatest natural disasters this country has ever faced.

* Tonight President Bush will talk about how there is some optimism that we can see as we move forward. We’re going to build a better Gulf Coast, a better New Orleans and we’ll work with local officials to make sure that happens.

* This will be a massive funding effort at every level of government. We shouldn’t just look at government - we’re seeing private charities, and the American people’s enormous compassion.

* There were breakdowns of communication and planning at all levels of government - federal, state and local levels. It is very critical we learn why those breakdowns took place in the first place.

* Many parts of this will be chalked up to the fact it was one of the worst storms our country has ever faced. But there were things in a post-9/11 world that our government at all levels should be doing better and President Bush more than anybody else wants to find out why it took place and how it took place to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

* Bottom line now is all levels of government must take responsibility. This President is taking responsibility and what we have to do now is look forward.

* Senator Frist and Speaker Hastert have indicated that Congress will conduct a thorough investigation modeled after some of the most serious investigations that Congress has ever undertaken: the 1973 Watergate Committee, the 1987 Iran Contra Committee, the 1994 and 1995 Whitewater Committees and the 1997 Campaign Finance investigation.

* Tonight President Bush will talk about specifically what we’ll talk about to help these tens of thousands of people who are literally living with only the shirts of their backs spread out throughout the country. We have to have a strategy for education and heath care, and he’ll spell those out.

* It’s wrong to say it’s either winning the war on terror or funding aftermath of Katrina. We have to do both that means we’ll have to cut spending where else to make sure we are fiscally prudent with the taxpayer’s dollars.

* There’s always discussion about raising taxes but right when businesses and people are trying to get back on their feet in the gulf coast region, the worst thing we can do with these families is pop them with another tax.

* This is going to require difficult decisions in Washington. It’s going to be important that we don’t have the same ol’ same ol’ that we see in Washington. Tough choices will be to have made and President Bush is willing to do that.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

IS BILL FRIST A CROOK? OF COURSE. BUT WILL HE GO TO PRISON?

Tennessee Senator and GOP Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist wants people to think it's just a coincidence. And in Tennessee many people may. But law enforcement authorities won't. Because it clearly wasn't. Frist, already one of the 2 or 3 richest men in the Senate just became considerably richer by selling millions of dollars of shares in his family's hospital corporation based on insider info just before the shares plummeted. Maybe he thinks he needs the money to finance his presidential run in 2008.

He sold all his stock in his family's Nashville-based Hospital Corporation of America about two weeks before it issued a really bad earnings report that caused the stock price to fall by 15%. Although Frist's shares are in a "blind trust" (a complete joke), he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell all his, his wife's and their kids' HCA shares. (HCA, always in trouble with the law for shady dealings and stealing money from MediCare is the largest for-profit hospital chain in the U.S., the McDonald's of hospital care.

Frist, who refuses to say what his haul from this dubious transaction was, gained as much as $35 million from his lucky sale-- considerably more than the pittance Martha Stewart gained by her use of insider info a couple years back.

Blind trusts were set up to avoid conflicts of interest for government officials but are routinely used by Republican pols (and corporate Democrats) to avoid the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. In a state like Tennessee, where voters don't seem to mind this kind of corruption, it's relatively safer for a crook like Frist to game the system to the tune of tens of millions of dollars than it would be for someone to shoplift a loaf of bread to feed a starving family.

Still some Tennesseans concerned with simple ethics, have been criticizing Frist since he was elected to the Senate in 1994, for maintaining the holdings while dealing with legislation affecting the medical industry and managed care. The Frist family is worth over a $1 billion, financially, although other ways to value worth would find them extremely impoverished. HCA, of course, has been a top contributor to the senator's campaigns, donating almost $85,000 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wonderers are wondering again how much of an impact the ethically-challenged Senate Majority Leader has been able to have on the family business from which he and his have benefited so richly, often at the expense of patients, employees, communities and, most of all, taxpayers.

THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER'S TELL ALL BUSH STORY: GEORGE IS A PATHETIC DRUNK (AGAIN)

Paul Krugman is one of the most brilliant political observers and writers in America and his NY TIMES columns should never be missed. Rich Frank does a great job there too. But I have a feeling that at this point, these brilliant minds are preaching to the choir. I doubt BushCo gives a damn what anyone at the NY TIMES has to say. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, on the other hand, is probably reaching an audience BushCo counts on to bolster its dwindling support. So today's scathing attack on Bush-- while neither as incisive as Frank nor as analytically revealing as Krugman-- will have probably ruffled a lot of White House feathers, a lot more than anything in the TIMES would.

No, they're not telling the story about Bush's deal with interstellar travelers to warm up the surface of our planet to make it more hospitable to their species. It's an expose many Bush observors were already painfully aware of-- the CEO of BushCo and illegitimate occupant of the White House has fallen off the wagon... in a big way! In short, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned from reliable sources that George W. Bush is "falling apart." If he turns up in a pool of vomit on the floor of the Capitol Rotunda, corporate lackeys like Wolf Blintzer and Howard Kurtz may report the same thing... though I doubt it.



BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS

By Jennifer Luce and Don Gentile

Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources add.

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want to replay that nightmare — especially now when it's such tough going for her husband."

Bush is under the worst pressure of his two terms in office and his popularity is near an all-time low. The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses in Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

A Washington source said: "The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him — but the word is his drinking has been going on for a while in the capital. He's been in a pressure cooker for months.

"The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him. He takes every soldier's life personally. It has left him emotionally drained.

The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope. "And now with the worst domestic crisis in his administration over Katrina, you pray his drinking doesn't go out of control."

Another source said: "I'm only surprised to hear that he hadn't taken a shot sooner. Before Katrina, he was at his wit's end. I've known him for years. He's been a good ol' Texas boy forever. George had a drinking problem for years that most professionals would say needed therapy. He doesn't believe in it [therapy], he never got it. He drank his way through his youth, through college and well into his thirties. Everyone's drinking around him."

Another source said: "A family member told me they fear George is 'falling apart.' The First Lady has been assigned the job of gatekeeper." Bush's history of drinking dates back to his youth. Speaking of his time as a young man in the National Guard, he has said: "One thing I remember, and I'm most proud of, is my drinking and partying. Those were the days my friends. Those were the good old days!"

Age 26 in 1972, he reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his 16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight.

On November 1, 2000, on the eve of his first presidential election, Bush acknowledged that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Maine. Age 30 at the time, Bush pleaded guilty and paid a $150 fine. His driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

"I'm not proud of that," he said. "I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." In another interview around that time, he said: "Well, I don't think I had an addiction. You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted... and they required hitting bottom (to start) going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

During his 2000 presidential campaign, there were also persistent questions about past cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine after 1992, then quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974, when he was 28.

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

NO PLACE FOR A POET AT A BANQUET OF SHAME

My dear old friend Ellen just sent me this letter, reprinted in the October 10th issue of THE NATION, from Sharon Olds, a much-acclaimed 63 year old NYU creative writing professor poet and author of 7 volumes of poetry. Her 1966 book, THE WELLSPRING, shares with her previous work the use of raw language and startling images to convey truths about domestic and political violence, sexuality, family relationships, and the body. The reviewer for The New York Times hailed Olds' poetry for its vision: "Like Whitman, Ms. Olds sings the body in celebration of a power stronger than political oppression." For some reason Laura Bush got it in her head to invite her to a DC shindig-- maybe because she is the recipient of so many prestigious awards (including the San Francisco Poetry Center Award, the Lamont Poetry Prize, The National Books Critics Circle Award, and the T. S. Eliot Prize).

THE NATION introduced the letter with the following paragraph: For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at New York University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival's White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War ("Mr. Feiffer Regrets," November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year's event consider following their example.   --The Editors


Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House

Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war.
But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.

Sincerely,

SHARON OLDS

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS VOTING WITH RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS TO BETRAY AMERICA. WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT THEM? MAYBE NADER WAS RIGHT!

Today People For the American Way put out a press release, "LEAHY MAKES CASE AGAINST ROBERTS, THEN SUPPORTS HIM," bemoaning the tendency of Democratic legislators, even good ones like Leahy, to support what amounts to the ongoing fascist take-over of our country. Does Patrick Leahy still not understand what the Bush Regime is and the irreparable damage it is doing to our great country? Following the announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) that he will support Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas had the following statement:
 
“Senator Leahy eloquently made all the arguments against the confirmation of Judge Roberts, and then made a decision that contradicted his own compelling reasoning.  His decision was inexplicable, and deeply disappointing.
 
“When John Roberts becomes Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women’s rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy’s support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.”

Labels: , ,

ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION COULD BE ANOTHER HORNETS NEST FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY

These days it seems like Roland's greatest joy is in his third grade students. He's so excited about how smart they are and how they seem to crave education and how well they respond to him. He teaches in one of the "worst" school districts in the U.S., one whose high school was just de-accredited. I'm not sure how many of his students were born in the U.S.-- not many-- but he did say that virtually none of the parents who showed up for parent-teacher night spoke English. But he was glowing about how the parents' positive and supportive attitudes towards education for their boys and girls.

So you'd never believe the kinds of arguments Roland and I get into over immigration. I'm not even sure what he really believes, but for the past dozen years, his views on immigration have fairly-well parroted those espoused by Limbaugh, O'Reilly and other right-wing propagandists trying to use their divisive lies to push the Republican corporate agenda. In short their argument goes like this: the Democrats (liberals, bleeding hearts...) want to let the country be over-run by "scary others." The irony of the right-wing argument is that it is always the establishment Republicans (the part of the party that serves the interests, embodies the interests, of big business and Corporatism) who are desperate for the kind of cheap labor that will hold down labor costs and erode the bargaining power of the dreaded labor unions. They can't have slavery but they always try to get as close to their favorite social institution as possible. Pushed by alarmed labor unions, Democrats tend to oppose this and make the case that if you let them in, you have to treat them humanely and the same as everyone else gets treated. The GOP strategists, not to mention arch-reactionary neanderthals like Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have been able to use the issue for a racist, populist, divisive appeal.

Interestingly, a very under-reported story emerged from a fax sent to a wrong fax number. The fax came from the Capitol Hill office of lunatic fringe congressman Lamar Smith (who is on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims as well as the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity), meant for Bush's tubby Rasputin, Karl Rove. It was accidentally sent to a similar fax number belonging to a Democratic congressman. Smith's memo, addressed to "Hon. Karl Rove" (although where the honorific comes from for the unelected, treacherous and traitorous Rove is unclear, unless it is short for "honey), was in preparation for a meeting about how to twist and distort Democrats' positions on the issue. "Immigration needs to be considered in the context of: (1). Media Bias, (2). Animosity toward the president and (3) the feelings of the Republican base," Smith's memo states. He goes on to obliviously that "Liberals can easily and accurately be painted as opposing enforcement."

Ironically, Republican establishment politicians may have stirred up a real hornets nest. You have a drooling fascist like Tancredo threatening to run for president and showing the vicious, racist, ugly face of the GOP in his blatantly anti-Latino attacks. And in the race to replace Christopher Cox in an ultra-safe Republican congressional seat in Orange County, CA, you have the head of the Minutemen, a KKK-like anti-immigrant redneck organization, looking like he will throw the congressional election to a Democrat in what has become a 3-way race (with the establishment Republican representing greed and selfishness and the KKK guy representing hated and bigotry-- a rendering asunder of the basic GOP coalition).

Monday, September 19, 2005

A VIEW FROM DEEP INSIDE THE FAR FAR RIGHT-- DESPAIR AND A SINKING FEELING

THE SPECTATOR is a lame right-wing propaganda rag. You can pretty much count on finding all the wackiest neo-fascist clap-trap, overwhelmingly lies and distortions, on it's Melon-Scaife-funded pages. They've been watching the Bush Regime fall apart and the principals are in a state of despair. Today one of their most paranoid and shrill columnists, "The Prowler" (and believe me, if you wrote the kind of garbage he pukes out, you wouldn't use your name either), bemoans the fate of a Bush Regime exposed in all its inglorious ineptitude, greed, selfishness, bigotry, and sheer incompetence in a piece appropriately called "That Sinking Feeling-- Dead Agenda."

Funded by Melon-Scaife, of course they have to try to connect every negative thing to Bill Clinton, and this imbecile makes a half-hearted stab at it (rumor has it that Scaife bonuses every writer for every negative mention of Clinton). His pathetic attempt is to call Bush's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina "Clintonian," which is ironic when one considers how well FEMA was working for the 8 years Clinton was in charge and how Bush destroyed its viability for an ideological (and cronyistic) agenda. Anyway, from there he goes on to lament that "at this stage of the game, barring some imaginative political moves that bear some resemblance to the Bush Administration circa 2002, Republicans on Capitol Hill and even some longtime Bush team members in various Cabinet level departments say this Administration is done for. 'You run down the list of things we thought we could accomplish and you have to wonder what we thought we were thinking,' says a Bush Administration member who joined on in 2001. 'You get the impression that we're more than listless. We're sunk.'"

And the pessimism doesn't stop there. He claims that "rumors are flying through various departments of longtime senior Bush loyalists looking to jump, but with few opportunities in the private sector to make the jump look like anything more than desperation. Almost daily, complaints from Cabinet level Departments come in to the White House about lack of communication coordination on even basic policy matters." He points out that politically connected but incompetent BushCheney retainers were promoted way over their heads, depressing more able people who couldn't get out soon enough. And the feelings of despair-- soon to turn to panic-- aren't isolated in the White House. The Prowler goes on to bemoan that "congressional committee sources on both sides of Capitol Hill predict tough slogging on anything of policy consequence. 'Social Security is dead as far as my chairman is concerned. So are the tax cuts,' says a Ways and Means staffer of Chairman Bill Thomas."

No mentions of suicides yet. Have faith.

BUSHCO: LET THE FAITH-BASED VET TAKE CARE OF THE BITCHES

If you're very wealthy (like bringing in over $1,000,000 per year) and you're a white Christian male and you generally conform to societal norms and you don't care about abstract things like the "future of the world" or "other people" or stuff like that, right-wing parties (like the Republicans) are probably not a terrible idea for you. But I can't count the numbers of times I've pondered how minorities identify with right-wing parties-- or is it only self-loathers with severe psychological issues in this group? And, yes, there were Jews and there were gays who voted for Hitler in the early 30's. And yes, there are American Jews and gays and African-Americans, and Latinos who vote Republican and supported Bush in 2000 and even in 2004 after he had proven what many people feared before the first disastrous term. And even though he's committed to ending women's right to choice and even though he started a discretionary war, almost half the female voters in the country voted for him.

Friday the Bush Regime showed how they feel about women-- at least about non-rich women. They sent out a press release saying that they had appointed Norris Anderson to be the Acting Director for the Office of Women's Health to fill the position that was vacated when Susan Wood recently quit to protest Bush's ideology-over-science policies. Forget for a moment that they probably should have figured a woman is better suited for this position. Much worse than Anderson's gender are his credentials. Although best known as a creationist loon whose life's mission is to make sure school text books teach religion instead of science, Anderson does have some medical expertise-- as a veterinarian!

The former director of an Elmer Gantry type outfit calling itself Cornerstone "Ministries," Anderson is as ill-suited to be running the Office of Women's Health as Michael Brown was to head FEMA. Bush has turned real jobs that have real consequences on real people's lives (though not rich Republican's lives) into dumping grounds for incompetent misfits, drinking buddies, religionist fanatics, yes-men and self-serving crooks.

Salon points out that soon after a shit-storm broke lose about this incompetent ideologue getting the appointment the FDA went into overdrive re-writing history. Not only did they put out a release claiming Theresa A. Toigo had been made the acting director, they erased any trace of the release and the website mentions of the religionist veterinarian! Several progressive organizations have captured the original statements, which have now all been deleted or changed! I mean could it be MORE 1984?

Sunday, September 18, 2005

MORE PROOF THAT DIEBOLD RIGGED THE 2004 ELECTION RESULTS FOR BUSH

A few years ago, sometime during Bush's first (stolen) term, I was at a Board meeting of one of the large national progressive non-profit advocacy organizations and I mentioned that unless the absolute integrity of the electoral system was secured, NOTHING else mattered. It wasn't on the agenda and it wasn't seriously discussed. Then Bush stole his second term with the help of the most corrupt political machine of any state, the Taft/Blackwell Ohio GOP. Now everyone is crying about how Bush appointed a crypto-fascist to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and demanding a battle. Well that battle should have been after Katherine Harris rigged Florida in 2000 or after Ken Blackwell rigged Ohio in 2004. After letting Bush illegitimately occupy the White House was someone expecting he would nominate Bill Clinton or Mario Cuomo to the be Chief Justice? It doesn't work that way. A few days ago I got a solicitation note from Hillary Clinton who probably notice the large contributions I had made to her husband's campaign but who had, no doubt, ever noticed what I have to say about her in Down With Tyranny. ("Uh... Hillary, bad, ok?" as SOUTH PARK guidance counselor Mr Mackey would say.) Anyway, Hillary's solicitation note included a multiple choice question about what were the biggest problems facing the country-- Iraq, Social Security, education, etc etc. Not included was any mention of electoral integrity. How crucial is this really? Well, The BRAD BLOG has an interview with
a Diebold insider that shows how easily Bush (with Diebold's publicly trumpeted connivance, by the way), was able to steal the 2004 election. His Dieb-Throat insider reaffirms what I've been trying to get progressives to understand: technologically rigged elections are one of the greatest threats democracy has ever come up again!

"In exclusive stunning admissions to The BRAD BLOG some 11 months after the 2004 Presidential Election, a 'Diebold Insider' is now finally speaking out for the first time about thealarming security flaws within Diebold, Inc's electronic voting systems, software and machinery. The source is acknowledging that the company's 'upper management'-- as well as 'top government officials'-- were keenly aware of the 'undocumented backdoor' in Diebold's main 'GEM Central Tabulator' software well prior to the 2004 election. A branch of the Federal Government even posted a security warning on the Internet."

The source is requesting anonymity for now (Diebold threatened to dismiss anyone who discusses this stuff and one can only imagine what people like Bush and Rove would do to prevent a serious investigation of how they stole the 2004 election). "I believe that top Government officials had an understanding with top Diebold officials to look the other way," the source explained, "because Diebold was their ace in the hole." BRAD BLOG goes on to remind everyone that Walden O'Dell the CEO of Ohio-based Diebold and an outspoken partisan Bush supporter and big-time financial contributor, promised, at a 2003 GOP fund-raiser, to held "Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." And this he certainly did! BRAD BLOG's source states unequivocally that "one malicious person can change the outcome of any Diebold election."
And it's not complicated to do! I strongly recommend that you read the whole article in the BRAD BLOG (www.bradblog.com/).

IF ANYONE GETS TO INTERVIEW JEB'S SON JOHN ELLIS BUSH, MAYBE THEY CAN ASK HIM WHAT THE NOBLE CAUSE IS

A couple years ago I had a most unlikely friendship with a pretty violent, even bloodthirsty young man from rural North Carolina. He was a marine who had just gotten back from Iraq and was stationed at Camp Pendelton in Southern California. Except that he was completely anti-racist, everything about him seemed like an unfortunate stereotype I had avoided my whole life. Of course as I got to know him better a lot of the stereotype stuff went away-- although I never quite got over the fact that he ate all his meals in fast food restaurants. And that his idea of a good time on the weekends was to go out with some buddies, get plastered, spend all their money in strip joints and then go pick a fight with a bunch of Navy guys. Anyway, Brian came to mind today because of all the press about the latest Bush to make the news-- a real chip off his uncle's block. 21 year old John Ellis Bush (son of Jeb and that shoplifting mother, brother of the pill-poppin'/perscription forgin'/crack usin' Noelle, nephew of a bankrobber, etc, etc) was booked for resisting arrest and public intoxication. Somehow our Society judges that John Ellis is from a "nice" family or a "good" family or something ("wealthy, powerful family" might be a more apt description) and he's gonna get a (very gentle) slap on the wrist. Brian wasn't. His family was dirt poor and had no connections. So when he got in a little trouble, at a slightly younger age than John Ellis, he was given a different set of choices-- jail or the military. He "volunteered" for the Marine Corps.

Brian never gave any thought to Bush's "noble cause." He kind of liked Bush because he was convinced that Bush was "pro-military" and gave them pay raises. (He never voted though.) But Brian wasn't looking forward to going back to Iraq because of any of that. He just liked killing. Eventually that basic brutish attitude was too much for our friendship to sustain. John Ellis, on the other hand, must have thought about the "noble cause." I'm sure it's discussed at family get-togethers, right? No doubt 21 year old John Ellis has had every opportunity to have it explained to him. So how come he's roaming around the streets of Austin drunk and fighting with policemen instead of fighting against terrorists in Iraq? And did you read Cindy Sheehan's contribution to Buzzflash today? It's called WHAT NOBLE CAUSE?


It has been one month, one week, and 4 days since I sat in a ditch in Crawford, Tx. My request was very simple: I wanted to speak to the man who has sent over a million of our young people over to fight, kill, and die in a country that was absolutely no threat to the United States of America. I wanted to ask him: "What is the Noble Cause that you keep talking about?"

Well, we all know now that George Bush never came down the road to talk to me. Thank God! Many people have been saying that I am the "spark," "catalyst," "face of the anti-war movement" etc. I beg to differ. George Bush and his arrogant advisers are the spark that lit the prairie fire of peace activism that has swept over America and the entire world. If he had met with me that fateful day in August it would not have been good for him (because I knew he was going to lie and I would have advertised that fact) but it would have had less of an impact on the peace movement if he had.

Upon reflection on the events of this past August, I have come up with two reasons why George could not meet with me: He is a coward and there is no Noble Cause. If George had as much courage and integrity in his entire body as Casey had in his pinky, he would have met with me. But, ironically, if George had that much courage and integrity he never would have preemptively invaded a practically defenseless country. His sycophantic cabinet and hangers-on are also incontrovertible evidence that he is a coward. No one better dare disagree with him. How dare a mom from Vacaville, Ca. have the nerve to contradict the emperor of Prairie Chapel Road!!??

All of the "Noble Cause" reasons that George has variously given for the invasion and continued illegal occupation of a sovereign nation are also patently false and ridiculous. He has been claiming recently (since he admitted a long time ago that Iraq had no WMDs or links to 9/11) that this occupation of Iraq is spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. Really? Does he have any idea that the constitution that the Iraqi governing body is working on is based on Sharia and that it undermines the freedoms of women? Does he realize that for over 50 years women had equal rights with men in Iraq? Does George realize (of course he does) that the puppet government the US put in place in Iraq is comprised of the very same people who encouraged the invasion to line their own pockets? What kind of freedom and democracy is this? If George is so hell bent on freedom and democracy for Iraq, then why doesn't he practice it here in America? Up to 62 percent of Americans believe that what George has done in Iraq is a mistake and we should begin to bring our troops home. Well, George, 62 percent is a clear majority and you should begin to listen to the people who pay your salary.

He has also claimed that what we are doing in Iraq is "making America safer." Another statement that is easier to disprove than the "freedom and democracy" baloney. To disprove this little bit of deception, all we have to do is look at the Gulf States. Ask the people of New Orleans, especially, if they feel safer. By misappropriating all of our personnel, equipment and pouring billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, George has made our country more vulnerable to attack by outside forces. Also, from the cold and callous statements of people like Michael Chertoff and George's own mama, the people of New Orleans seem to be "acceptable" collateral damage to the ruling elite of this country. It is my humble opinion that the only thing that will make America safer is to get George and his unfeeling and dangerously incompetent supporters out of our White House.

We all now know the reason that we are in Iraq. George told us so from a break he was taking from Crawford in San Diego on the same day that Katrina was hitting the Gulf States: it is for oil. It is so George, Dick, and their evil buddies can rape more profits from our children's flesh and blood. This is not a Noble Cause, as a matter of fact, it is the most ignoble cause for a war that has ever been waged. We as Americans knew either in the front of our brains, or in the back of our consciousness, that this war was to feed the corporations. 15 brave young Americans have been killed so far this month while our attention has been focused, and rightfully so, on the Gulf States. Over 200 innocent and unfortunate Iraqis have been killed in this week alone. How much more blood are we as Americans going to allow George, Congress, and the corporations to spill before we demand an end to this war and an accounting for the lives that have been needlessly ruined?

It is also time to stop hemorrhaging money in Iraq. I witnessed the abject poverty and sense of abandonment the less fortunate people of New Orleans were living in even before the levees broke. It is time to start pumping hope back into our own communities. It is time to start taking care of Americans. How many millions of our tax dollars are we going to allow George, Congress and the corporations to misuse and waste in Iraq?

Not one more drop of blood. Not one more life. Not one more penny for killing.

If you love our country and want to see a change for the better, come to DC on the 24th of this month and stand up and be counted for peace. The entire world is counting on you.

Saturday, September 17, 2005

SELF-LOATHING GAY HOMOPHOBE DAVID DREIER STRIKES AGAIN

I want you to read over this voting record of a Los Angeles suburban congressman. In 1996 he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and opposed the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program. In 1997 he opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and voted against increases in state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs. 1998 was a big year. He voted to prohibit gays and lesbians in the District of Columbia from adopting children and opposed restoration of funding to the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program. In 1999 he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (again). In 2001 he supported legislation allowing federally funded charities to discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite local laws. And this year he voted for the Marriage Protect Act. Oh, and last week he voted against an amendment to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act by Congressman John Conyers that added "sexual orientation" to the bill. 30 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the amendment. But DeLay and the most hard right homophobic Republicans, including the suburbanite from Southern California voted against it. In fact, he votes against virtually every bill that comes up that could be considered "pro-gay." And what he does is important because he's the Chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee (since 1999). Oh, and it's also important because he's a flamboyant homosexual-- flamboyant in an in-the-closet Republican way. You know, over-paying his live-in lover (with taxpayer dollars) and taking exotic vacations with him to the kinds of places lovers love to love (Italia, Espana, Sri Lanka, even the most au courant gay in-crowd hang outs for jet-setters, Iceland and Micronseia-- again all courtsey of the taxpayers. In fact the two love-birds have been to at least 25 countries together, not counting Mexico or Canada, in the last 3 years. Hey, that's more than me!) And the lover is the chief of his staff! And at $156,600 (about what Karl Rove and Andy Card make) I bet his does a great job on his staff!

So who's this gay bashing gay caballero? David Dreier from the San Gabriel Valley, northeast of L.A. Dreier's 26th Congressional District, brimming over with wealthy suburbs, looks like it was tailor-made for a Republican-- and it was. Towns like San Marino, La Cresecenta, La Canada, Altadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Glendora, La Verne, San Dimas, Claremont, Upland, Montclair and Rancho Cucamonga are
pretty friendly territory for conservatives. Still the 2004 election was a close call for Dreier. In fact it was the closest call for any California incumbant of either party. Against an unknown, under-financed lesbian Democrat, Dreier garnered only 53.7% of the vote, the lowest of any incumbant and tied for the smallest victory in the state (with Jim Costa, a Democrat winning an open seat).

Good thing the local papers (Pasadena Star-News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin)-- all owned by Texas right wing loon/publisher Dean Singleton (Media News Group)-- NEVER mention that the gay-bashing congressman is gay. And, despite L.A. papers and radio stations talking about it openly, the papers in the district have a STRICT code of silence. Reporters have been told that mentioning it means immediate dismissal. And with the local papers protecting his little secret, Dreier has amassed an antigay voting record so solid that it has helped insure him an approval rating from the Christian Coalition above 90%-- despite the fact that he admits being a "Christian Scientist," considered to be a cult by the Christian Coalition. Not everyone on the Far Right has been as mum as the media monopoly that Singleton operates. No less a right wing elitist than old Barbara Bush herself turned out to be sceptical of Dreier's make-believe heterosexuality, complaining to friends that when he dated her daughter Doro for a year, Doro couldn't ever get any action. "He (Dreier) never laid a hand on her,” the vicious old bitch complained to a friend at Camp David while her husband was still president.

Labels: , ,

HOLLYWOOD CAN MAKE GOOD MOVIES TOO-- THE CONSTANT GARDENER IS ONE

Here's a semi-non-Bush-bashing blog entry-- although I must say that sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Roland's advise to tone down the Bush-bashing-- 2 in 2 days.

From the mean things I said about generic movie producers in the piece yesterday, you might think I hate Hollywood movies. Misunderstanding. Although the VAST majority are mass consumption cheap-thrills-garbage, sometimes they make a good one. Remember how good CRASH was a few months ago? My drummer friend whose Texas ancestors included the KKK grand dragon (and local sheriff; he was both at the same time, an ole southern tradition) who owned the pig farm Bush now uses as the ranch-prop/backdrop in his reality TV show ("THE DISASTROUS PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W BUSH")? He talked me into going to see a movie a couple weeks ago. It was a life-changing experience. I WILL NEVER GO SEE A CRAPPY HORROR MOVIE AGAIN NO MATTER WHAT. This one was called THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (I think) and-- you'll have to have seen it to understand this-- I have woken up at 3AM every night since. It totally sucked and, as though that weren't bad enough, it planted these gratuitously fucked up terror thoughts in my head. Yesterday I went to another movie and this one was excellent-- THE CONSTANT GARDENER. I'm not a big fan of love stories but this one was thrilling, the polar opposite of insipid, and quite moving (and beautiful, talented Rachel Weisz reminded me of my friend beautiful and talented Ann-Marie Shields). On top of that, and the uber-realistic African scenery and camera angles, it shows viscerally how Bush's brand of unfettered corporatism is probably the worst political/economic system man has come up with yet. I noticed in the reviews it is being dismissed by the socially handicapped as "left wing propaganda." Be sure to see it.

Friday, September 16, 2005

MY OLD BOSS AND BUD, RUSS ALWAYS TOLD US TO LOVE EACH OTHER... HE SURE HAD IT RIGHT

I'm getting really bored writing about Bush. He's the worst president in history and everything he touches turns to shit. Not only is he arrogant and ignorant-- a terrible combination-- he's also terribly unlucky. When people tell me they wish he would die I want to discuss why so many of our fellow citizens voted for him. Sometimes that's as depressing as watching cable news' reporting on Hurricane Katrina (although I notice they're trying to make the story-line more upbeat this week). Roland tells me this blog has become a Bush bashing machine-- and the hate mail has picked up a lot lately, which usually invigorates me but is just getting kind of beyond boring now. So I'm gonna take some time off... until I boil over again. Not time off from writing; time off from writing about Bush. Besides, there's something else I want to get out that's been in my head for a few weeks.

I'm from NY originally (although I left when I was like 21). But I learned to drive in NY. Ever hear the term "NY driver?" The dictionary definition could have my photo next to it. And it gets worse. When I left NY, I went straight to Weisbaden in Germany. There was only one thing there-- the VW plant. I bought a VW van and drove all over Europe, down to Morocco and then across Asia to India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. And if you think there's something wrong with NY drivers, wait til you drive in Paris or
Rome or Lisbon... or Tehran or Calcutta. Anyway, that was a long roundabout way of saying I'm a wild take-no-prisoners kind of driver. My horn works and I curse people driving slow in the right lane. But if some slowpoke is blocking traffic and I'm wishing I had a machine-gun mounted on my hood and then I see a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker or some kind of progressive sign on their car, I calm right down. Being a fellow patriot trumps bad driving habits. Does that tell you how important that stuff is to me? Hold it in your mind while I take another tangent.

When I first moved to L.A. I met people in The Biz. Here that means the entertainment industry-- and not just the relatively sane music business I was in, but also the Movie Biz. OMG! It was hate-at-first-sight. Some big-shot (almost-household-name) producer wanted to use some music from one of my bands for the blockbuster (or overpriced stiff) he was making and I wound up hanging out at the film studio. The guy was a first class jerk. He donates generously and regularly to Democrats and progressives but he-- like SO MANY in his field-- seemed to believe that the universe outside of his little film project comes to a HALT in light of his... crusade. There is nothing important but-- and no one important not connected to-- the making of the film, NOTHING... and no one. I got the idea if he was late for a shoot and he ran over an old woman in a cross walk he would rationalize it pretty fast as he sped away (even faster) while she bled to death. Not nice. I avoided that scene for the next 15 years. I have found so many film folks who have the same progressive politics that I have be complete dickheads that it made me understand how easy it is for right-wing demagogues and propagandists to caricaturize Hollywood so effectively and so devastatingly. I mean most of these movies just suck anyway and lose money, so why get so overwrought and psycho and... you know, be so mean and fucked up to people?

And then I discovered something even worse. Politicians-- sometimes better at hiding it-- are the same way. Their little Inside-the-Beltway aerie world, in their minds, trumps all else. You want to talk about self-important egomaniacs? It's more than just Hollywood or Wall Street. I mean, maybe a doctor in the middle of discovering a cure for cancer can be forgiven for being a jackass to everyone around him. But a pol? A public servant? A partisan manipulator? Uh... no.

Sure, I'd expect that kind of behavior from someone like Tom DeLay or George Bush or, frankly, from anyone who made a conscious decision to run for office as a Republican. I mean it's the party of Selfishmess, Greed, Hatred, Bigotry and all that, but I don't find people I feel an ideological kinship with to be any better than the fascists. Really. And shouldn't they be? That's what I mean sometimes when I write that these career politicians in Washington have more in common with each other, regardless of party, than they do with the folks who vote them into office. It's like with the movie biz guys: the world stops, nothing else exists compared to their "earth-shaking" preoccupations. And there's no respect for people in the real world-- the people who are, ostensibly, their bosses-- and no empathy whatsoever. I can see how societies developed bogus "religions" or belief systems that called for human sacrifices.

Last night I was thinking about something I read a couple weeks ago flying back from seeing Cindy Sheehan in Crawford. I had been reading THE SINS OF SCRIPTURE by Bishop John Shelby Spong-- which I highly recommend-- on the plane and I came across a passage I underlined. It might not be as powerful outside the context of the book-- it's on page 290-- but last night it made me think about the film guys and the politicians and everyone else who gets so grand and self-absorbed that he loses his place in Humanity. "Are males superior to females," asks Spong, "free people superior to slaves, parents superior to children, heterosexuals superior to homosexuals, white people superior to people of color?" (The whole premise of his book is that there are primitive and sometimes misinterpreted-- and sometimes tragically fallible-- places in the Bible which have engendered these ideas deep within us and they are WRONG.) "That is the wisdom of a world dedicated to survival and driving all things into power relationships. BUT HUMANITY IS ALWAYS IMPAIRED WHEN IT BUILDS ITS SENSE OF WORTH BY DENIGRATING THE WORTH OF ANOTHER. (Emphasis is mine-- for you.) What the Jesus experience showed was a vision of a new humanity and in that vision no one is diminished." Amen, Bishop, amen. Tell it to the film guys and tell it to the politicians. (His brother was a U.S. Senator from Virginia.)

There are some people who I want to tell it to as well, people imbued with a crucial sense of mission, who want to save our country from the clutches of fascism and authoritarianism, people who spend their days working their asses off to make our country a better place for those in the worst position to defend themselves from the encroachments of unbridled power. Sometimes there's a darker side to... selflessness. Sometimes it seems to grant a certain kind of permission to overlook a sense of personal decency and a sense of relating to Humanity. People on our side can be as awful and thoughtless as the people whose reactionary values they think they're fighting. Sometimes it's pretty important to just take a step back and get in touch with our basic values and principles and look
at why we're progressives and not reactionaries and see what that means in the way we relate to the people around us. Jesus, that sounded as sappy as what some kooky senator was babbling about today when he was talking about people with hard hearts and bleeding hearts at the Roberts coronation.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

GUEST EDITORIAL: HOWARD DEAN ON WHY JOHN ROBERTS IN THE WRONG MAN FOR CHIEF JUSTICE

THE VERDICT IF JOHN ROBERTS
by Howard Dean

John Roberts is a decent family man and a bright, articulate, thoughtful judge. He has a quality absent in previous right wing candidates like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, namely a judicial temperament that makes litigants feel that they have been respectfully heard whether they are on the winning or losing side of a verdict.
    But John Roberts is the wrong man for the job. Despite the fact that the White House has withheld key documents either out of incompetence or a fear that those documents might prove embarrassing, we have learned enough from the files on Roberts at the Reagan Library to make it clear that he should be rejected.
    This conclusion has only been solidified by Roberts' testimony during this week's hearings. He has been a polished performer, but in failing to present clear answers to straightforward questions, Roberts missed a crucial opportunity to answer legitimate concerns about his record and show compassion for those who have been excluded from the American Dream. The consistent mark of Roberts' career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.
    He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls and young women to have the same opportunities in sports as boys and young men. He has argued that politicians, not individual women themselves, ought to control women's reproductive health care. He has opposed various remedies for the racial injustices which have occurred in America since slavery and which persist today. He has consistently joined the radical right in seeking to weaken voting rights protections, in essence attacking the rights of black and Hispanic voters to cast their ballot without paying poll taxes or being subjected to intimidation or gerrymandering. He fought against protecting all Americans from workplace discrimination. Most worrisome, he refused to answer questions on his limited view of the right to personal privacy that most Americans take for granted.
    Over the last half century, we have made great progress in promoting equal opportunity for all Americans, but there is still much work to be done. Hurricane Katrina was more than the most catastrophic natural disaster in American history. Those who have in so many ways been denied the opportunity for full participation in our society once again suffered disproportionately in this tragedy - seniors, African-Americans and those burdened by poverty.
    Now is not the time for a Chief Justice who is bent on turning back the progress we have made in moving America forward.
    Judge Roberts is said to love the law, but loving the law without loving the American people enough to protect their individual rights and freedoms will make our American community weaker. And the exercise of the law without compassion - something that Judge Roberts and so many on the far right have consistently been guilty of - undermines the grace and wisdom of the founders whose sense of balance and fairness made this country great.
    In the past few weeks we have seen what happens when politics and indifference supercede compassion and organization. The enduring lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that there still are too many Americans who are disproportionately vulnerable. Despite the fact that they worked hard and played by the rules, their luck ran out. Americans are a compassionate, fair-minded people. Our nation is great and strong because of that compassion, not just because we have a strong military. We also have strong moral values which include an innate sense of justice often absent in many other parts of the world.
    Our Government today shrinks from compassion. In doing so they have first diminished America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and now they have diminished America in the eyes of our own people. This is a time for justice tempered with mercy and understanding. There is no evidence of either in Judge Roberts's career. The President should be denied this confirmation.

----------------------

I'm anxious to see how many Senate Democrats will see it the same way as Dean. I wonder if anyone is taking bets. After his big show this week, how's that performing seal Biden going to vote? And Feinstein?

JOE BIDEN EPITOMIZES EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH THE INSIDE-THE-BELTWAY MENTALITY. HE'S WORSE THAN A REPUBLICAN

Maybe I'm going batty but does anyone think it's possible that Hillary agreed to make Biden Secretary
of State if he runs to her right and makes her look like less of a sell-out, Republican-lite doofus? The idea of Biden running for president (as a Democrat) is really ridiculous, although his acting role on the TV reality show, THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, this week fooled my politically-naive friend A. in a Florida suburb. A. was shocked when I unleashed a torrent of vitriol towards Biden this morning. "He was the toughest questioner against Roberts," said A. Yes, he played that role. But Biden is as phony and two-faced and insincere as someone can be. Matt Drudge is reporting that Biden was overheard ingratiating himself with the future Chief Justice, saying "You're the best I've ever seen before the committee." If you believe a thing Biden says you might as well just believe all the Bush crapola. It comes from the exact same place: self-serving powermongerism.

Today's BOSTON GLOBE bought it hook, line and sinker, or at least Nina Easton did. "It was a week of political dejà vu, as Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, prospective Democratic presidential nominee, emerged as the most animated inquisitor of Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr. Biden seemed to be using the hearings to jump-start a presidential run, just as he used the 1987 hearings into Robert Bork's nomination to prepare for his 1988 run, which abruptly ended after he was accused of cribbing a speech from a British Labor Party politician... The Delaware senator's machine-gun style questioning on Tuesday prompted the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to intervene repeatedly so Roberts could finish his answers. Yesterday, Biden grilled Roberts on his views of end-of-life issues, such as the Terri Schiavo case, before throwing up his hands with this pointed declaration: 'We are rolling the dice with you, judge.'"

If Hillary is defeated maybe Biden can give up politics and try acting... on the big screen.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS AS OBSTRUCTIONIST AND CONTEMPTUOUS OF DEMOCRACY AS THEIR SENATE COUNTERPARTS

Yesterday I wrote a short piece called "NOT ONE REPUG VOTED IN FAVOR OF ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT NON-PARTISAN COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE KATRINA AFTERMATH." Which was basically a quick rant about how the Senate Republicans are desperate to cover Bush's ass in the wake of his criminal negligence around Katrina and therefor voted en masse-- with the only non-nay GOP vote coming from Louisiana's disgraceful David Vitter who abstained-- to block a non-partisan independent investigation in favor of a committee whose results they can determine.

Just a matter of hours later their brothers and sisters in the House shoveled out more of the same in regard to Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. If you want to go back to the August Archives, there's a piece called "SOME DEMOCRATS DO CHALLENGE BUSH'S PUSH TOWARDS FASCISM" (August 29) which talks about Barbara Lee offering a "Resolution of Inquiry" that would force BushCo to reveal all the dubious shenanigans they were up to in regard to the propaganda campaign in the build up to the attack on and occupation of Iraq. Much of this comes under the heading "the Downing Street memos." Bush, of course, is as likely to give this up as Cheney is going to let us know how much of the Bush Regime's so-called "energy policy" was dictated by Ken Lay and other BushCheney campaign high rollers.

Anyway, yesterday House Repugs killed the attempts of Democrats (and a Republican or two) to look at the documents on the Iraq invasion and on Karl Rove's decision to illegally expose CIA operative Valerie Plame. The party-line votes to kill the inquiries in the House Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insure that they will not be publicly debated on the House floor. DeLay and his capos are desperate to avoid either of these crucial matters coming before the whole House because they fear there are enough Republicans either sick of Bush's lies and manipulations in regard to Iraq and the Plame case (or who are just in fear of being defeated by disgruntled voters in 2006) to guarantee that one could succeed-- something that would be a death blow to whatever is left of the Bush Regime's credibility.

CAN A DEMOCRAT WIN IN ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S REDDEST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS?

Although Orange County has changed fairly significantly-- less white, less Stepford-- since the bad old days when it was to the GOP what Bavaria had been in the 40s to a certain German political party with a similar world view, the 48th Congressional Dirstrict would still have to be considered friendly-- VERY friendly-- turf for a Republican. Conventional wisdom would dictate that a GOP primary winner just has some early November formalities before moving his family to DC. If you know South California at all, consider these 48th CD towns and tell me what chances you think a Democrat, let alone a progressive Democrat, has: Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, San Joaquin Hills, Lake Forest, Newport Beach...

And yet... There's a story brewing down in O.C. Even in the Republican heartland people are starting to feel suckered by the Bush Regime and their brand of far right extremism they've been passing off as Republicanism. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no actual success in Iraq, no Osama bin-Laden, spiralling deficits, incredibly high gasoline prices (in a district with virtually no public transportation), the disgrace of the response to Hurricane Katrina... and a creeping feeling that George Bush is both incompetent and a liar. The district's long time congressman, Christopher Cox, in line with Bush's unswerving policy of appointing foxes to guard chicken coops, is giving up his seat to ruin the Security and Exchange Commission. The last time Cox faced his constituents, in 2004, he took 65% of the votes cast (having spent $1,038,914 against his hapless opponet, John Graham, who spent $1,528). Well this time it won't be quite as easy for the Republicans to hold onto that seat.

A primary will be held on October 4th with the top vote-getters from each party going on to the December 6 runoff. Steve Young, endorsed by the local and state Democratic Party and by lots of local civic groups, is virtually assured the Democratic spot. (Although there are a couple of minor Democratic candidates running, Young is widely considered THE Democrat, making for a relatively united party.) The 10 Republicans running, on the other hand, are savagely-- and publically-- tearing each other apart. AND, as though the Republicans aren't right-wing enough, the founder of the Minutemen, a KKK-lite organization of xenophobic vigilantes, Jim Gilchrist, is also in the race-- and he'll be in the December 6 runoff and will no doubt draw votes away from the Republican (something which should even the playing field a bit in this district where only 27% of voters are registered as Democrats).

Young is a 51 year old charismatic trial lawyer from Newport Beach. He is tech savvy, progressive, ready to spend $1,000,000 of his own money, and has attracted much of the team that nearly beat the Republicans in Ohio's even redder 2nd district in August (nearly getting Paul Hackett into Congress). If you check out his website (steveyoungforcongress.com) you'll find a very 21st Century operation. It starts with a simple, to the point greeting from Young:

"Friends,

My name is Steve Young and I am running for Congress from California’s 48th District because I believe the time has come for a new American prosperity founded on the values of the hard-working residents of our District.

I want to build a coalition of small businesses and working families to reclaim the middle class from the tragedy of outsourcing. Job outsourcing is anti-family. It erodes our job base and replaces good jobs with poverty-wage jobs that don’t pay enough to support a family. Outsourcing exports opportunity. It drains us of jobs and prevents the average American from being able to put resources back into the U.S. economy. When we export jobs, we export prosperity.

I have an aggressive plan to reinvigorate our economy and I invite you to come have a look around my website to learn more. Come see where I stand on all the issues that are important to California’s 48th District.

I would also like to hear which issues are most important to you – please email me anytime at steve@steveyoungforcongress.com. Together, we will create a brighter future for Orange County.

Please take a few minutes to visit our website and learn more about these and other important issues."

And then he identifies his main issues in one simple sentence and provides a link to each one so that anyone interested in following up in depth or examining his solutions, can get as much information as needed. His issues, in order of his priorities, are: "1- Reinvigorating the Economy- When we outsource our jobs, we outsource opportunity; 2- Education- An investment in education is one of the keys to a renewed American prosperity; 3- Immigration- We must look to the root of the problem if we want to affect real and lasting change; 4- Environment- Responsible consumption and alternative energy exploration will mean a cleaner planet for our children and grandchildren; 5- Social Security- The Social Security trust fund is not a political ATM that should be raided by Congress to cover reckless Washington spending; and 6- The War in Iraq- The question America now faces is how to get our troops home as quickly as possible, alive and not in body bags."

He invites interested parties to e-mail him with questions. So I did. This is what I wrote:

"I saw your website-- good job-- and decided to take you up on your offer to hear what issues are most important to me. First of all, almost ANY Democrat would be a blessing after the pompous right-wing jerk who has represented the 48th until now. However, before I get out the old check book I want to know how progressive you actually are. Would you be prepared to become a co-sponsor of Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry (House Res. 375), the one that asks the tough questions about the Downing Street Memo? There are 52 Democratic co-sponsors (+ one Republican and, of course, Bernie Sanders). Every Democrat I know personally is sick of hearing reactionary, hawkish Bush-lite bromides from Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Many of us are looking for Democrats who will offer a CLEAR AND COMPELLING alternative to Bush's disastrous policies..."

His answer was pretty direct: "I think Barabra Lee is an American hero. She was the only one to oppose going to war. I would be honored to sign her resolution of inquiry so we can finally get the answers America deserves."

Hence, this little blog entry-- and a check to Steve Young For Congress.

Labels: , ,

ADVISE ABOUT HOW TO TAKE BACK THE CONGRESS-- FROM AN OLD DEMOCRATIC WARHORSE

A long time ago, when presidents were chosen by actual votes cast by actual voters, President Clinton invited me to a dinner at someone's home in L.A. I got to talk with him briefly about some Music Business business-- internet copyright protection-- and he got to ask me questions about Joni Mitchell. At dinner I was seated next to a rather conservative Democrat from Texas, Martin Frost, who was at the time chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He was more recently gerrymandered out of his Fort Worth seat by the machinations of the execrable Tom DeLay (see entry below). Anyway, Frost now works as an in-house Democrat for Fox "News" and Fox posted a memo Frost sent to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who holds his old job as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Sen. Chuck Schumer who heads the Senate version of that committee, and Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The memo, dated September 12 is called "Let's Get Ready to Run." And in it Frost tells them to cast conventional Inside-the-Beltway "wisdom" to the wind and, instead, come out swinging and fight to win. I know our dinner conversation had a lot less impact on his "radicalization" than did the sting of DeLay's scapel.

"It’s time to throw out the traditional playbook and be bold as you plan for the 2006 elections," said the very traditional Frost. "There is a real possibility that next year’s contest will be a landslide for Democrats and you need to be prepared to win." Echoing what progressive activists (and Howard Dean enthusiasts have been clamoring for, he went on to say, "Specifically, Emanuel and Schumer should file candidates for every single Congressional seat and every single Senatorial seat in the country, even those that have traditionally been Republican. And the DNC should be encouraging state legislative leaders throughout the country to take similar action on the state house and senate levels." I don't think he has to worry about the DNC but Emanuel, and to a lesser extent Schumer, can use some bucking up. They've both spent a long time Inside-the-dreaded-Beltway and tend to get caught up in its traditions and (unfortunate) truisms.

"In 1964, Democrats picked up 37 House seats. Republicans picked up 54 House seats, in 1994. At the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, Democrats picked up 90 House seats" he explained and then went on to warn that "History could repeat itself in 2006, but only if Democrats expand the playing field. Why do I think big Democratic gains loom? The public is rapidly coming around to the view that Republicans lack the ability to handle the big issues facing our country. It’s one thing to be right-wing ideologues, but it's quite another to not be able to put one foot in front of another.
First, you have the Iraq War, which was undertaken on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction and then conducted in a shabby way after the initial successful phase of fighting. Troops were not sent in adequate numbers and were not given adequate body armor or sufficiently armored vehicles. In short, there was no coherent plan for how to occupy the country and rebuild the nation.
Then, the Bush administration undertook an ill-conceived plan to privatize Social Security — something the public didn’t support and something that would have done nothing to help the long-term solvency of system. And now, the administration has demonstrated significant incompetence in the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was slow off the mark and placed FEMA in the hands of political cronies rather than experienced veterans of disaster relief."

Frost is picking up on what pollsters are sensing but still unable to prove with statistics-- that people are sick and tired of the incompetence, the lying and the self-serving nature of the Bush Regime and that they are ready-- even CRAVE-- a change in direction. He continues his memo with some comments on strategy. "Ever since losing the House and Senate in 1994, Democrats have narrowed rather than expanded the playing field. The theory was to concentrate resources in those races where we had the best chance to win. That strategy was successful for House Democrats in 1996 and 1998 when we picked up a total of 14 seats despite being badly outspent by Republicans. But it didn’t get us back into the majority and it led to a stalemate in the next three elections. Senate Democrats picked up a few seats last time around, but ultimately were dealt a significant loss in 2004. It’s now time to shoot the moon. Recruit and file everywhere and then late in the cycle decide which races present the best opportunities. Be prepared to win some seats that you don’t deserve because the 'force is with you.' If necessary, the Party should pay the filing fees to encourage some candidates to enter the fray. Remember that the Republicans elected some 'accidental Congressmen' in 1994 that only lasted one term — like those who defeated Dan Rostenkowski and Jack Brooks — but were there when they took control. It is important to step up recruiting now because some states like Illinois, Texas and California have early filing deadlines in December and January. It would be great poetic justice to make the Republicans defend everywhere rather than just concentrating their resources in certain races. Even if Republicans have more money, they won’t have enough to fund candidates everywhere and may leave some races short."

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

NOT ONE REPUG VOTED IN FAVOR OF ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT NON-PARTISAN COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE KATRINA AFTERMATH

As sickening as it was to watch the snake who will soon be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sit all day and worm his way out of answering any substantive questions while smiling blandly at inappropriate random moments, there was something even worse happening in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans there scuttled an attempt by Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, non-partisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina. It was a decent idea from Clinton, which would have been asked to make recommendations on how to improve the government's disaster response apparatus, but failed to attract a single Republican vote. Clinton got only 44 votes, all from Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Fifty-four Republicans all voted no. The cowardly (far right-wing) Louisiana Republican freshman in the Senate, David Vitter, hid under his bed and refused to come to work for the vote. Recall is already being discussed. (Louisiana's senior senator, Mary Landrieu voted yes.) Congressional Republicans-- and Bush-- fiercely resisted the establishment of the 9/11 Commission as well but were shamed into by public opinion polls which showed overwhelming support for the idea. And guess what! In a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll taken this week, 70% favor an independent panel to investigate the government's response to Katrina. The Republicans, of course, want a panel they can control so they can make sure the official report doesn't damage Bush's already severely tarnished reputation.

BUSH WAS POLITE AT THE U.N.-- ASKED CONDI IF HE COULD GO TO THE BATHROOM


Everyone knows how George I hired a Stanford big-name prof to teach his borderline retarded son
that foreign affairs went beyond getting drunk and laid in Nuevo Laredo. He didn't learn much but he so appreciated his teacher than when his dad's friends stole the presidency for him he appointed her National Security Advisor (during which she presided over 9-11 and helped fake evidence so he could invade Iraq for no discernible strategic reason) and later, as people with a shred of integrity were jumping ship, he made her Secretary of State. He still relates to her as though she were his teacher and today while at a meeting with actual heads of governments at the UN, he politely wrote her a note asking if he could go to the potty. When my pal at the Secret Service sent me the photo I thought he was joking. But the photo comes from Reuters and it's being printed all over the civilized world.

The Reuters caption reads:

U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York September 14, 2005. World leaders are exploring ways to revitalize the United Nations at a summit on Wednesday but their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war. REUTERS/Rick Wilking



Please notice that Laura cleaned his fingernails for him today. The note says "I think I may need a bathroom break." Who
thinks Rick Wiking's gonna get in trouble?

THIS IS WHAT MICHAEL MOORE AND SOME CONCERNED CITIZENS HAVE ACCOMPLISHED. IMAGINE WHAT THE RACIST, CLASSIST PIG OF A THIEF IN THE WHITE HOUSE COULD DO

... IF HE CARED EVEN A LITTLE TINY BIT!

Many of us have already gotten this e-mail from Michael Moore. If you haven't, it is very much worth reading.


Friends,
Last week I closed my New York production office and sent my staff down to New Orleans to set up our own relief effort. I asked all of you to help me by sending food, materials and cash to the emergency relief center we helped set up on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain with the Veterans for Peace. We did this when the government was doing nothing and the Red Cross was still trying to get it together. Every day, every minute was critical. People were dying, poor people, black people, left like so much trash in the street. I wanted to find a way to get aid in there immediately.
I hooked up with the Vietnam veterans and Iraqi war vets (Veterans for Peace) who were organizing a guerilla, grass-roots relief effort. They were the same group that had set up Cindy Sheehan's camp in Crawford and now they had moved Camp Casey to Louisiana.
I have good news and horrible news to report. First, your response to my appeal letter was overwhelming. Within a few days, a half-million dollars was sent in through my website to fund our relief effort. This money was immediately used to buy generators, food, water, a mobile medical van, tents, satellite phones, etc.
Others of you began shipping supplies to our encampment. People in communities all over the country started organizing truck caravans to us in Louisiana. Twenty-two trucks from southern California alone have already arrived. A semi-truck from Chicago delivered ten tons of food. A group of friends in New Jersey got two 24 foot trucks, got their community to load them up with goods, and arrived in Covington tonight. Fifteen iMacs are inbound from California. One man gave us his pick-up truck and another donated truck is en route from Houston.
Your response to my appeal has been nothing short of miraculous. And it has saved many, many lives.
A number of you decided to just get in your cars and drive to our camp to volunteer to help. We now have had 150 volunteers here doing the work that needs to be done. Last night they unloaded twenty tons of food from a tractor trailer in under two hours. Each day more volunteers arrive. Everyone is sleeping on the ground or in tents. It is a remarkable sight. Thank you, all of you, for responding. I will never forget this outpouring of generosity to those forgotten by our own government.
My staff and the vets spend their 18-hour days delivering food and water throughout the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas. What they have seen is appalling. I have asked them to post their daily diaries on my website (www.michaelmoore.com) along with accompanying photos and video so you can learn what is really going on. What the media is showing you is NOT the whole story. It is much, much worse and there is still little being done to bring help to those who need it.
Our group has visited many outlying towns and villages in Mississippi and Louisiana, places the Red Cross and FEMA haven't visited in over a week. Often our volunteers are the first relief any of these people have seen. They have no food, water or electricity. People die every day. There are no TV cameras recording this. They have started to report the spin and PR put out by the White House, the happy news that often isn't true ("Everyone gets 2,000 dollars!").
The truth is that there are dead bodies everywhere and no one is picking them up. My crew reports that in most areas there is no FEMA presence, and very little Red Cross. It's been over two weeks since the hurricane and there is simply not much being done. At this point, would you call this situation incompetence or a purposeful refusal to get real help down there?
That's why we decided not to wait. And we are so grateful to all of you who have joined us. The Veterans for Peace and my staff aren't leaving (and that's why we are hoping those of you who can't get to Covington will make it to the Veterans for Peace co-sponsored anti-war demonstration in DC on September 24: www.unitedforpeace.org.)
If you want to help, here's what we need in Covington right now:
Cleaning Supplies (glass cleaner, bleach, disinfectant, etc.)
Aspirin and other basic over the counter drugs.
Bottled Water
Canned Goods
Hygiene Supplies
Baby Supplies - Baby Food Formula, diapers #4, #5, Wipes, Pedialyte
Sterile Gloves
Batteries - All kinds, from AA to watch and hearing aid batteries.
Volunteers with trucks and cars
Self contained kitchens with generators, utensils, workers
Consider sending supplies in reusable containers. List the contents on the outside of the package so the folks in the warehouse can easily sort the items.
Clothes are not needed. If you go, keep in mind that you MUST be self-sufficient. Bring a tent and a sleeping bag. People are driving to Covington from across the country and often have extra room in their cars for you or for an extra box of supplies. For more information, go to the Veterans for Peace message board: www.vfproadtrips.org/katrina/.
Send supplies via UPS to:
Veterans for Peace
Omni Storage
74145 Hwy. 25
Covington LA
Thanks again for funding and supporting our relief efforts. It has been a bright spot in this otherwise shameful month.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mike@michaelmoore.com

THE NOOSE TIGHTENS AROUND THE HAMMER'S NECK

"The Hammer" is not a name his Democratic opponents and detractors have Tom DeLay. It was bestowed on the most blatantly and egregiously corrupt Speaker of the House by his allies and admirers. And he wears the moniker proudly-- and literally. DeLay has been the ruthless and authoritarian leader of the Republican congressional caucus, one who doesn't mind getting his hands dirty. Unlike the aloof, detached, pseudo-aristocratic Bush, always trying to project a veneer, no matter how frayed, of fairness and decency, DeLay is an out-and-out no-holds-barred thug, a veritable mafia don in charge of the House of Representatives! He gets away with it because he has been like a vacuum cleaner sucking up tens of millions of campaign "contributions" (and protection money). Those who go along, get a taste. Those who won't... well, we've all read about what happens to Republicans who cross The Hammer. Unfortunately for DeLay, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is not a Republican. He's a fair-minded prosecutor who has a long record of going after corrupt politicians regardless of political party. (In fact, despite DeLay's baseless assertions that Earle is on a partisan witch-hunt against him because he's a Republican, even the briefest examination of Earle's record as a prosecutor-- something the mass media seems either incapable or uninterested in-- shows he has gone after more Democrats than Republicans!)

In any case, unless you get all your news from the corporate mass media, you are probably already aware that various DeLay cronies and capos in his criminal gang have been indicted. One of his biggest "fund-raisers," lobbyist Jack Abramoff has already been arrested and dragged off to jail for a plethora of criminal activities. And last week the Travis County grand jury indicted Texans for a Republican Majority, a front organization started and run by DeLay, along with the Texas Association of Business, a GOP-connected bribe funneling machine, in connection with 2002 campaign contributions. There were 5 felony indictments were handed down Sept. 8. "All five of these indictments involve the misuse of corporate money to influence Texas elections in 2002," District Attorney Ronnie Earle said. The indictments clearly show that the 2 shady organizations conspired to get around the law in order to pour massive amounts of corporate wealth into GOP campaign coffers.
A money-laundering operation that would make any Colombian drug cartel look mickey-mouse, sent large illegal contributions to at least 21 Texas House candidates allowing Republicans gain a majority in the chamber in the 2002 election, the first time since Reconstruction, and in time for a dubious redistricting of the state's congressional districts in order to insure a GOP majority in the U.S. House (and DeLay's role as Majority Leader).

Texas House Speaker, the sleazy far right extremist, Tom Craddick, has been subpoenaed in the investigation and questioned about acting as middleman in delivering the $100,000 check from a nursing home owners group to Texans for Republican Majority. Craddick has not been charged yet. A year ago a grand jury had indicted three officials with Texans for a Republican Majority: John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis and Warren Robold of Washington, D.C., each charged with an assortment of counts for money laundering and unlawful acceptance of corporate political contributions. All are awaiting trial. And then this week, the investigation moved even closer to the former bug-extreminator-turned-GOP-leader. Two of his closest associates, Ellis (who headed Americans for a Republican Majority for DeLay) and Colyandro (the former executive director of the same outfit), were indicted on additional felony counts of criminal conspiracy to violate Texas election laws. Colyandro who is already facing 13 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contributions, now must contend with these new money laundering charges stemming from $190,000 in corporate funds that were sent to the Republican National Party, which then spent the same amount on seven candidates for the Texas Legislature. (Coincidence? The grand jury didn't think so.) Money laundering is a first-degree felony punishable by 5 to 99 years in prison, even for Republicans.

When Earle announced the indictments Thursday he was a little vague on whether he was investigating DeLay, suggesting that one reason the majority leader hadn't been charged had to do with jurisdictional issues. Charges involving state campaign laws can be filed only in a person's home county. Media Matters has closely monitored news coverage of all the DeLay-related ethics allegations and report that much of the corporate media has uncritically repeated DeLay's insistence that the charges against him are a conspiracy by Democrats, George Soros, and the "liberal media," and can always be counted on to parrot baseless charges by DeLay and his defenders that Earle is engaged in a partisan witch hunt. On April 12 former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who knows quite a lot about ethics violations) bluntly dismissed DeLay's transparent attempts to blame Democrats for his ethics problems. Gingrich said that "DeLay's problem isn't with the Democrats. DeLay's problem is with the country," adding that the Texas Republican needs to "get everything out in the open" and that the burden "is on him to prove [his case]." Good luck finding that interview in the corporate media!

VOTE TO END FASCIST DOMINATION OF THE CONGRESS-- THIS WEEK!

Democracy for America is conducting an online vote to choose their first "A-List" endorsement. The first round, taking place Tuesday, September 13th through Saturday, September 17th, will narrow a field of 30 candidates down to 10, followed by a second round beginning Tuesday, September 20th through Saturday, September 24th for the final endorsement. You can vote here:

www.democracyforamerica.com/housevote

And you can use that url to find out a bit about some of the more progressive candidates fighting the good fight already.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

THE PARTY OF GREED, THE PARTY OF CORPORATE OVER-INDULGENCE AND GRAFT

I've mentioned a few times how revolted I was by the horrendous bankruptcy "reform" that the Republicans allowed the credit card companies to write and how disappointed I was at all the corporate Democrats who joined them in passing it. Many people thought that in light of the disastrous consequences of Hurricane Katrina and the catastrophic results of Bush's criminal negligence in terms of the levees and in terms of his and FEMA's inept response, the Republicans would be shamed into re-addressing some of the most egregious sections. Or at least that they would take a second look at the amendment Democrats offered to exempt victims of floods. Today, however, we find out-- once again-- that these selfish monsters have no sense of shame whatsoever.

Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a far right extremist and corporate toadie, who happens to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pompously announced that he has no intention of reopening bankruptcy law he was so happy about passing. Even proposals to specifically exempt just Hurricane Katrina victims from some of its provisions was scorned by him. I wonder what exactly it means when Bush says he bears responsibility. He's certainly not going to commit hara-kiri or even resign. The LEAST he could do would be to tell a reactionary asshole like Sensenbrenner to lighten up on the victims of Republican negligence. But he won't.

Sensenbrenner, an actual fascist, preemptively declared he would not even consider allowing a hearing in his committee on a bill by the panel's ranking Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, and 31 other Democrats attempting to ameliorate the damages the bill will do to Hurricane Katrina victims. The law, which makes it next to impossible for heavily indebted Americans-- like say, someone paying a mortgage for a home or store floating in the Gulf of Mexico-- to file for bankruptcy the way GOP backing corporations can (and do), goes into effect on October 17.

Although Sensenbrenner** preemptory rejection of hearings has doomed proposals in the House, over in
the Senate, Russell Feingold (D-WI) has introduced legislation that would let Katrina victims file under the old bankruptcy law for another year. Even before the hurricane, record numbers of people were rushing to file for bankruptcy before the more stringent new law goes into effect. The American Bankruptcy Institute said recently that quarterly filings for the period from April to the end of June were the highest in U.S. history at 467,333 -- up 11 percent from the same quarter a year earlier. Welcome to George Bush's America; pray you never need a helping hand.



** Good news: Sensenbrenner has a first class opponent in the 2006 congressional elections. Bryan Kennedy deserves support in Wisconsin's 5th CD. I'll write more about him and about this crucial race later in the season.

CAN DEMOCRATS TAKE BACK THE CONGRESS FROM THE FORCES OF DARKNESS IN '06?

Chances are you never heard of Stu Rothenberg or of THE ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT but to those inside the Beltway-- or aspiring to that fate-- it's considered gospel. A new edition just came out and apparently the non-partisan Rothenberg is NOT seeing any evidence of a seismic shift in this country's political alignment in time for the 2006 midterm elections. He acknowledges that "Democrats have recruited more top tier challengers than have the Republicans" but he warns that Democrats "don't now have enough opportunities to net 15 seats and control of the House of Representatives. Still, atmospherics could give Democrats a significant boost next year, handing the party a few seats that they would not win in a neutral political environment. For that reason, we would expect modest but not insignificant Democratic gains in the order of 4-6 seats, or possibly even a bit higher. Democrats would need a major wave to exceed those levels." (According to Rothenberg, the Republicans-- even with their HUGE corporately-financed campaign coffers-- see '06 as "a test of whether they can hold what they've already won..." (with) "few Democratic targets next year."

Progressives reveling in Bush's abysmal-- and still sinking-- poll ratings or who see that Mr and Mrs. John Q Voter are finally awakening to the adverse impact of the basic GOP political philosophy that has caused our country such grievous harm under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan, are hoping for the 50-60 seat net gain for the Democrats in the House (and 6 or 7 in the Senate) to potentially impeach Bush and spare the country another 2 years of his disastrously debilitating and corrupt regime.

Democratic Beltway "leaders," Republican-lite DLC parasites, and self-serving elected officials like Biden, Lieberman and Clinton may think WAITING and HOPING for the favorable "atmospherics" Rothenberg referred to, the kind that could focus national revulsion with Bush's governance onto the midterms and send the message to "kick out the bums" (the way Gingrich did with his Contract With America), will just drop in their laps. It won't. It needs effort, the kind of grass roots work being done by DNC Chair Howard Dean along with a new breed of state party leaders like the ones in North Carolina and Arkansas. And it needs the work of non-Beltway citizens concerned not with political careers but with the good of our nation. Obviously what goes on in Washington is far too important to leave in the hands of the self-servers and careerists (of either party).

THE REPUBLICAN CONCEPT OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY-- BLAMING THE VICTIMS

If "Beck" rings a bell in most consciousnesses these days, it's probably not guitarist Jeff Beck anymore but rather, just plain Beck ("In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey"). But if you type in "Beck" on google, after "Beck" and "Jeff Beck," up pops "Glenn Beck." And it turns out that this Beck is a talk show host and one whose vitriolic right-wing message of hatred and lies is pumped by the Bush propaganda network, Clear Channel, into the heads of 3 million Americans each and every week (via 160 radio stations controlled by the conglomerate). Media Matters had a shocking story last week about Glenn Beck's response to the Katrina catastrophe. At a time when most Americans are asking what they can do to help the victims, this uber-Bush supporter called the survivors "scumbags" and gratuitously added-- this being the season-- that he "hates" the 9-11 Families!

Glenn Beck inadvertently acknowledged, what many observers of his pro-Bush, hate-filled screeds have long understood-- that he is mentally ill-- by saying that "nobody in their right mind is going to say this out loud, and then proceeded to say it out loud and on the radio. Yesterday, when I saw the ATM cards being handed out, the $2,000 ATM cards, and they were being handed out at the Astrodome. And they actually had to close the Astrodome and seal it off for a while because there was a near-riot trying to get to these ATM cards. My first thought was, it's not like they're going to run out of the $2,000 ATM cards."

Glenn Beck has never lost his home and has never starved and watched his children starve and Glenn Beck, apparently isn't as savvy as the people scrambling to get the $2,000 ATM cards, which they knew and now we ALL know-- despite Glenn Beck's scornful prediction-- did indeed run out, in a matter of hours, leaving most people still desperate and destitute, refugees in their own country.

"You can wait!" Beck continued to mock. "You know, stand in line. Maybe it's because I'm the kind of guy, when I go to a buffet, I either have to be first in line, or I'm the very last. Because I know there's going to be extra food, and I just won't stand in the line. I'll wait until all the suckers go get their food, and then I'll go get mine. Or if I'm really hungry, I hate to admit this -- and really, I don't even have to be really hungry. If I'm really being a pig, I will kind of, like, hang out around the buffet table before the line is -- you know, chat with people right around the table: 'Oh, they just opened the line! Let's go!' And then you're first in line."

Maybe Ken Mehlman should hire him to revise the Republican Party website so that everyone can understand what being part of the GOP really means. He certainly expresses that correctly. It's all about Selfishness, Greed-- "I'll get mine and FUCK YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE!"

Addressing the problem as though it concerned people trying to get into a tractor pull of a Clint Black concert, Glenn Beck continued mock-addressing the desperate survivors: "When you are rioting for these tickets, or these ATM cards, the second thing that came to mind was -- and this is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this -- you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, 'Let's give them money, let's get this started.' All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it's only about 10. But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys -- you know it's really sad. We're not hearing anything about Mississippi. We're not hearing anything about Alabama. We're hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and -- 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans!"

Yes, there was a horrible natural catastrophe all along the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina and its winds blew furiously all over Louisiana and Mississippi and, to a lesser extent, Alabama. But the tragedy in New Orleans-- one Republicans like George Bush and Glenn Beck seem to still be having a problem grasping-- was not just about bad winds and rain. The catastrophe in New Orleans was about the Federal government failing-- due to right wing ideology-- to heed ceaseless pleas for the funds to maintain and repair the levees that keep water out of low-lying regions like New Orleans (or Holland). Bush thought the money would be better spent in Iraq and that's where he put his bet. So now it will cost taxpayers 10 times, 20 times, 100 times what it would have cost and the price in human lives is incalculable (something else that people like Bush and Beck with no ability to empathize will other folks don't grasp).

But Glenn Beck was on an attack roll and he continued: "And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out!"

Yeah, only the desperately poor didn't-- enough proof for anyone practicing the satanic Republican religion that their gawd doesn't value them.

"It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention. It's exactly like the 9-11 victims' families. There's about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody." I'd rather leave the reader to reach his or her own conclusions than for me to start ranting, so I'll just leave it there.

Monday, September 12, 2005

OPERATION: CEASEFIRE

My friend Scott worked tirelessly and effectively on punkvoter.com and now he's got another project going that is worthy of attention and support. You can check it out here-- www.opceasefire.org




Sept. 24, 2005 - A FREE MUSIC FESTIVAL TO STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ!
 
THIEVERY CORPORATION - BOUNCING SOULS
LE TIGRE - THE COUP - STEVE EARLE - TED LEO + THE PHARMACISTS
WAYNE KRAMER OF THE MC5 WITH THE BELLRAYS
HEAD-ROC - HOSTED BY JELLO BIAFRA
 

Join Operation Ceasefire, a new coalition of concerned musicians, for a massive anti-war concert/rally at the Washington Monument on September 24th. This event will be a centerpiece of what is expected to be 4 days of enormous protests in nation's capital in support of a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from the quagmire in Iraq. The concert will bring together musical acts such as: Thievery Corporation, punk rock and independent musicians LeTigre, Bouncing Souls, Ted Leo & The Pharmacists; country music artist Steve Earle, rock and soul band the Bellrays; latin musicians Machetres, socially conscious hip-hop groups The Coup and Head-Roc; and even long time activists Wayne Kramer of the MC5, Jello Biafra and Greg Palast will be involved in this event!
 
With over 60% of the public currently opposed to the war in Iraq, this concert is a fun way we can all come together and demand that this Congress and this administration bring our troops home and start a well over due Ceasefire!
 
This is a FREE concert, so if you can please send a few bucks our way to help put this show on!
Send your check to United for Peace and Justice attn:Operation Ceasefire-1858 Mintwood Place, NW #4 Washington, DC 20009

Sunday, September 11, 2005

REPUBLICANS KEEP CHIPPING AWAY AT THE BARRIER BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

A great many people were very much offended by Bush funneling tax dollars meant to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina through the "faith-based" organizations set up by fake (if not satanic) preachers, like Pat Robertson and his disgraceful Operation Blessing. These right-wing political preachers are collecting money and votes for Republicans and being rewarded with unaudited public funds under the guise of alleviating the tragedy in New Orleans. This is particularly ironic in light of the speeches coming out of many of these delusional religionist bigots who seem to have convinced themselves that their primitive Old Testament wrathful God has called down the hurricane to punish gays and women who show their breasts in public. The only assistance the government should be giving these raving lunatics is Medicare so they can attend to their mental health problems. But Bush and his regime just keep shoveling our taxes in their direction.

Today my friend Jim, a Texan, sent me an article from the Austin Statesman about the extreme right-wing Governor of that state, Rick Perry, cavorting around with a deranged pastor at right-wing political events while the so-called pastor ranted and raved about how Katrina was Gawd's way to kill queers (and "purify" the nation). Perry didn't find this insanity offensive in San Antonio or Houston events he attended for the Texas Restoration Project (a GOP/religionist right powerplay to try to use churches to win power again. Take a look at the blog piece from a few days ago called FUNDAMENTALIST FASCISM VS AMERICA, which contains an incredible speech on that neo-fascist organization by Bill Moyers). The fake "reverend" was Dwight McKissic, a pastor-of-hatred from Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, a suburb of Dallas. "At some point, God will hold us accountable for our sins," he boomed. And referring to New Orleans, "They have devil worship. They advertise 'Sin City' tours. They celebrate Southern Decadence. Girls Go Wild in New Orleans. This may have nothing to do with God being offended by homosexuality. But possibly it does," he said. The
Texas Restoration Project, which seeks to recruit 300,000 new GOP voters, has drawn some 2,000 pastors and spouses to 6 events with Perry and politico-religionist leaders since May.

There were really excellent reasons why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about erecting a wall of separation between Church and State, a wall the Bush Regime and its allies have been seeking to dismantle every single day since they stole the 2000 election. Edwin S. Gaustad in his brilliant book FAITH OF OUR FATHERS: RELIGION AND THE NEW NATION writes "Across the ages, clergy have been interested [according to Jefferson] not in truth but only in wealth and power; when rational people have had difficulty swallowing 'their impious heresies,' then the clergy have, with the help of the state, forced 'them down their throats.' Five years later, he [Jefferson] wrote of 'this loathsome combination of church and state' that for so many centuries reduced human beings to 'dupes and drudges.' Sounds a lot like what we see all over the Old Confederacy 200 years on! Not that Jefferson, a near idol to both Republicans and Democrats, didn't warn us. In 1800 he wrote "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man" and the same year, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, he wrote "The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." And in 1813 he warned that "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." A year later he reminded Americans what so many need to be reminded of again today: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." Does he sound like he's talking about Bush and Robertson?

I DON'T ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRATIC AND I'M NOT 100% ANTI-BOY BAND! JUSTIN JEFFRE FOR MAYOR OF CINCINNATI

There hasn't been much national coverage of the Cincinnati nonpartisan mayoral primary this week. The only thing I saw about it was that a pretty radical right religious fanatic running as the GOP candidate, Rev. Charlie Winburn, was endorsed by ex-NYC Mayor/future candidate-for-something-big Rudy Giuliani. That interested me because Giuliani is supposed to be the GOP's safe, "moderate" face and the loon he traveled to Cincinnati to endorse is best known for insisting that wives need to learn their "place" and for this quote: "We Christians must clean up politics. It is our job to elect only born-again believers to public office. If office holders aren't Christian and refuse to obey the laws of God, we must work hard, under the law, to unseat them." I guess that means he won't be reciprocating Roman Catholic Giuliani's endorsement anytime soon. Not that it matters; even before "Republican" became a dirty word in Ohio politics (google: "Noe" + "corruption," "Ney" + "corruption," "Blackwell" + "theft of 2004 presidential election," and last but not least "Governor Taft" + "lowest approval ratings for any governor in America"), Winburn was given next to no chance to even make it into the run-off against a field of Democrats.

The smart money says it's coming down to a race between State Senator Mark Mallory, City Councilman David Pepper and Vice Mayor Alicia Reese. They range from Establishment-moderate to kind of progressive. But a longshot candidate, largely ignored by the "serious" political media, caught my attention. First a disclaimer: I'd rather listen to Metallica, Revolting Cocks and Nine Inch Nails than 98 Degrees and I pretty much see eye-to-eye with Eminem on his view of boy groups. That said, 32 year old ex-bass singer for multi-platinum boy group 98 Degrees, Justin Jeffre, had been endorsed by the Green Party and is clearly the most progressive and anti-Establishment candidate in the race. The Establishment recognizes that and has banded together to ignore him and marginalize his campaign. But the city that elected Jerry Springer mayor-- AFTER he resigned from the City Council for using a personal check to pay a prostitute-- could surprise everyone. And, after reading what Jeffre hopes to accomplish as mayor, he certainly looks like he'd be a LOT better in public service than fellow entertainers Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Former bandmate and current NEWLYWEDS star Nick Lachey and his wife Jessica Simpson have been campaigning for Jeffre.

Jeffre, who supported for Ralph Nader for president, is running as an Independent (and has been endorsed by the Green Party). I noticed the other day that he donated 10% of all his campaign contributions to the Red Cross for victims of Katrina, asking his opponents to do likewise. His campaign website-- no mp3s (I promise)-- is http://www.justinjeffre.com/ and the reason he gives on it for running as an Independent appealed to me: "As an Independent non-partisan, I am beholden only to the people of Cincinnati. The big Political parties divide people and foster exclusion from the process. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of people. 83 percent of us are independent non-partisans. We need to make our voices heard and end partisan politics-as-usual."

One little addendum: today a group of well-known conservative Republicans, embarrassed by the religionist clown put forward by the GOP, is urging Republicans to vote for Jeffre. Here's the official announcement that got their Vote Justin movement going: "As a Cincinnati Republican, I have grown increasingly distressed with the local GOP's inability to mount a successful campaign inside Cincinnati. With our high taxes, budget deficit, and population loss, the Queen City could benefit from some conservative leadership. However, the area GOP mixes the kind of conservativism that can lead in times of trouble with right-winged, religious zealots and clownish personalities. Instead of really letting useful, moderate, conservative ideologies attempt to save our city, the GOP runs someone like Charlie Winburn who has turned himself into a circus. I will never encourage anyone to refrain from voting, and I don't think conservatives in Cincinnati should choose the lesser of evils on the liberal ticket. Voting for David Pepper continues to give power to the Cincinnati Democrats, and a more powerful Democratic Party is not in the interests of Conservative citizens. We need to vote in a manner that supports our interests, and Charlie Winburn represents everything that is wrong with the local Republican Party. That is why my friends and I decided to post this announcement. We want all Cincinnati Republicans to vote Justin Jeffre for the Mayoral Primary. We do not believe Justin Jeffre can win, but we want every percentage point he earns to stand as a message to the Republicans. If we can get his results to break 10 percent (or even to match or pass Winburn, who we do not think will place very well anyway), we can send a strong message of no confidence to the GOP. Until the Republicans get serious about running candidates with appropriate political philosophies, we will continue to be a joke in local elections. Please consider voting Jeffre as a vote of no confidence in Charlie Winburn." They could be in for a HUGE surprise on Wednesday evening.

BUSH'S LITTLE TRIP TO SAN DIEGO (WHILE NEW ORLEANS DROWNED) REVISITED

Some years ago the then fledgling Right-wing attack machine/echo chamber manufactured some preposterous story about President Clinton holding up air traffic at L.A.X.-- to the cost of millions of dollars-- while he got a haircut on the runway. The idiotic canard spread like wildfire among the gullible and naive and when it was eventually shown to just be another right-wing lie, many people had heard it repeated enough times by the Limabughs and Coulters and Hannitys and O'Reillys that they either consciously believed it or had been deceived by a lasting subconscious impression that Clinton had done something bad... again. So far-- and not unexpectedly-- not a peep out of any of these media propagandists about a similar and far more egregious incident involving their ill-starred hero, George Bush. In late August, just as people were beginning to die in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and FEMA's criminally negligent response, Bush decided to fly off to San Diego to raise money for Republicans from wealthy bribers and to play a round of golf. Miriam Raferty reports in the SAN DIEGO UNION that this wasn't all that happened. The article, "San Diego hospital closed to accommodate Bush visit; No chemo," has had virtually no coverage in the mass media. San Diego's Balboa Park Naval Medical Center was shut down to accommodate Bush's Aug. 30 visit, forcing patients to cancel hundreds of scheduled appointments including chemotherapy treatments. They shut down the pharmacy, the emergency room and even told cancer patients who needed their chemo-therapy treatments that day that they would not be allowed on the base. All this for a photo-op (which is what BushCo has Bush doing to make him-- and everyone else-- think he's a "leader"). And the photo-op was canceled. The SAN DIEGO UNION found that although many staffers at the Naval Medical Center were concerned about the shut-down "none were willing to go on record by name for fear of retaliation, such as loss of jobs or revocation of healthcare privileges. Off the record, one hospital volunteer expressed shock and disappointment at the apparent disregard for patient welfare. "I think it's disgusting," THE UNION reported. "People who are getting chemotherapy or radiation are on a very set schedule. They are not supposed to miss a session or put it off by even a day, because it's based on the life cycle of a cancer cell," the volunteer said, adding that some patients had waited weeks for appointments. "Some had to postpone for quite a while, because the radiation and chemo rooms were full on other days," she added. "They closed everything down just so he [Bush] could have his photo op in the lobby with the corpsmen." This is what it must have been like is Tsarist Russia!

Supposedly Bush was scheduled to have his photo taken thanking medics who aided tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and visiting wounded soldiers back from his catastrophic war in Iraq. But when the Bush motorcade reached the hospital he refused to get out of the limo and after sitting around for 15 minutes he departed for the airport. A local television station, KNSD, aired footage of a physically impaired Bush (apparently either on drugs or drunk) straining to climb the steps of Air Force One, aided by his wife, Laura. (This is right after the now well-known scene of Bush strumming a guitar with the presidential seal at an invitation-only ceremony across town.) The TV reporter pointed out Bush's wavering gait and noted that it was unusual for him not to stop to shake hands with well-wishers at the airport. The station later denied that the incident had ever occurred, claimed Bush had been in the hospital, visited the soldiers and so on. Forget Tsarist Russia; now we're back in the pages of Orwell's 1984!

One possibility-- other than a drunken stupor-- that kept Bush from being able to perform even his one pathetic role as subject-in-chief at a photo-op is his violent hatred of all the anti-war protesters who were everywhere. They had been at the North Island Naval Station when he was strumming his guitar and there were as many as a thousand in Balboa Park. The night before several thousand had held a candlelight vigil outside the luxury resort where he was spending the night. Bush doesn't like American citizens protesting him and he is known to react very badly. He must have been plenty pissed when activists lined a nearby beach and sang anti-war songs while he was trying to rest up for the following day's photo-ops. A performance of Taps to commemorate dead American soldiers was interrupted by shouts and curses from a small but violent group of neo-fascist Bush supporters. All this hubbub disturbs Bush's rest time and makes it impossible for him to keep to the trials and rigors of all his photo-ops. No wonder no one told him that America's biggest port was washing away, that one of our great cities was destroyed and that the organization he had gutted and rendered useless, FEMA, was complicit in one of the worst catastrophes to have ever afflicted our country (not counting his own illegitimate ascension to the White House).

Saturday, September 10, 2005

ANOTHER RAT ABANDONS THE FLOUNDERING S.S. BUSHCO

NEW YORK TIMES columnist Thomas Friedman has long been an intellectually dishonest apologist and enabler for the worst excesses of the Bush Regime. In some ways he has been even more dangerous than the paid clowns of the semi-official rightist propaganda machine (the Coulters and Limbaughs and Hannitys and O'Reillys et al, ad nauseum) because his proto-fascist writings have a patina of respectability while the others are... well, you know... ravings of drug addicts, sex maniacs and psychotics. But the Bush Regime's callous and incompetent reaction to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the flooding that ensued was too much for even for an asshole like Friedman. A few days ago Friedman's column in the TIMES almost admits he's been wrong about everything for the last 5 years. But not quite. He does admit that BushCo isn't the remedy needed to cure what ails America-- and that Katrina, and the Bush context of it's catastrophe, will probably spell the destruction of his tragic presidency.

On the day after 9/11, I was in Jerusalem and was interviewed by Israeli TV.
The reporter asked me, "Do you think the Bush administration is up to
responding to this attack?" As best I can recall, I answered: "Absolutely.
One thing I can assure you about these guys is that they know how to pull
the trigger."

It was just a gut reaction that George Bush and Dick Cheney were the right
guys to deal with Osama. I was not alone in that feeling, and as a result,
Mr. Bush got a mandate, almost a blank check, to rule from 9/11 that he
never really earned at the polls. Unfortunately, he used that mandate not
simply to confront the terrorists but to take a radically uncompassionate
conservative agenda - on taxes, stem cells, the environment and foreign
treaties - that was going nowhere before 9/11, and drive it into a post-9/11
world. In that sense, 9/11 distorted our politics and society.

Well, if 9/11 is one bookend of the Bush administration, Katrina may be the
other. If 9/11 put the wind at President Bush's back, Katrina's put the wind
in his face. If the Bush-Cheney team seemed to be the right guys to deal
with Osama, they seem exactly the wrong guys to deal with Katrina - and all
the rot and misplaced priorities it's exposed here at home.

These are people so much better at inflicting pain than feeling it, so much
better at taking things apart than putting them together, so much better at
defending "intelligent design" as a theology than practicing it as a policy.

For instance, it's unavoidably obvious that we need a real policy of energy
conservation. But President Bush can barely choke out the word
"conservation."
And can you imagine Mr. Cheney, who has already denounced conservation as a
"personal virtue" irrelevant to national policy, now leading such a campaign
or confronting oil companies for price gouging?

And then there are the president's standard lines: "It's not the
government's money; it's your money," and, "One of the last things that we
need to do to this economy is to take money out of your pocket and fuel
government." Maybe Mr. Bush will now also tell us: "It's not the
government's hurricane - it's your hurricane."

An administration whose tax policy has been dominated by the toweringly
selfish Grover Norquist - who has been quoted as saying: "I don't want to
abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag
it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" - doesn't have the
instincts for this moment. Mr. Norquist is the only person about whom I
would say this: I hope he owns property around the New Orleans levee that
was never properly finished because of a lack of tax dollars. I hope his
basement got flooded. And I hope that he was busy drowning government in his
bathtub when the levee broke and that he had to wait for a U.S. Army
helicopter to get out of town.

The Bush team has engaged in a tax giveaway since 9/11 that has had one
underlying assumption: There will never be another rainy day. Just spend
money.
You knew that sooner or later there would be a rainy day, but Karl Rove has
assumed it wouldn't happen on Mr. Bush's watch - that someone else would
have to clean it up. Well, it did happen on his watch.

Besides ripping away the roofs of New Orleans, Katrina ripped away the
argument that we can cut taxes, properly educate our kids, compete with
India and China, succeed in Iraq, keep improving the U.S. infrastructure,
and take care of a catastrophic emergency - without putting ourselves
totally into the debt of Beijing.

So many of the things the Bush team has ignored or distorted under the guise
of fighting Osama were exposed by Katrina: its refusal to impose a gasoline
tax after 9/11, which would have begun to shift our economy much sooner to
more fuel-efficient cars, helped raise money for a rainy day and eased our
dependence on the world's worst regimes for energy; its refusal to develop
some form of national health care to cover the 40 million uninsured; and its
insistence on cutting more taxes, even when that has contributed to
incomplete levees and too small an Army to deal with Katrina, Osama and
Saddam at the same time.

As my Democratic entrepreneur friend Joel Hyatt once remarked, the Bush
team's philosophy since 9/11 has been: "We're at war. Let's party."

Well, the party is over. If Mr. Bush learns the lessons of Katrina, he has a
chance to replace his 9/11 mandate with something new and relevant. If that
happens, Katrina will have destroyed New Orleans, but helped to restore
America. If Mr. Bush goes back to his politics as usual, he'll be thwarted
at every turn. Katrina will have destroyed a city and a presidency.

FUNDAMENTALIST FASCISM vs AMERICA

Today TomPaine.com published an article adapted from a speech Bill Moyers gave at NY's Union Theological Seminary on the fundamentalist-fascist approach to American poltics. The whole article is worth reading and you can find it at http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050909/911_and_the_sport_of_god.php. Meanwhle, here's an excerpt that captures the point:

True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals—this very seminary is part of that tradition; it’s the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties—the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is—and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.
What’s also unique is the intensity, organization, and anger they have brought to the public square. Listen to their preachers, evangelists, and homegrown ayatollahs: Their viral intolerance—their loathing of other people’s beliefs, of America’s secular and liberal values, of an independent press, of the courts, of reason, science and the search for objective knowledge—has become an unprecedented sectarian crusade for state power. They use the language of faith to demonize political opponents, mislead and misinform voters, censor writers and artists, ostracize dissenters, and marginalize the poor. These are the foot soldiers in a political holy war financed by wealthy economic interests and guided by savvy partisan operatives who know that couching political ambition in religious rhetoric can ignite the passion of followers as ferociously as when Constantine painted the Sign of Christ (the “Christograph”) on the shields of his soldiers and on the banners of his legions and routed his rivals in Rome. Never mind that the Emperor himself was never baptized into the faith; it served him well enough to make the God worshipped by Christians his most important ally and turn the Sign of Christ into the one imperial symbol most widely recognized and feared from east to west.
Let’s take a brief detour to Ohio and I’ll show you what I am talking about. In recent weeks a movement called the Ohio Restoration Project has been launched to identify and train thousands of “Patriot Pastors” to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement— the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus—casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between “the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell.” The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won’t teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the “secular jihadists” who have “hijacked” America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was “an avid evolutionist.” He links abortion to children who murder their parents. He blasts the “pagan left” for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that “homosexual rights” will bring “a flood of demonic oppression.” On his church website you read that “Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America’s youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation.”
One of the prominent allies of the Ohio Restoration Project is a popular televangelist in Columbus who heads a $40 million-a-year ministry that is accessible worldwide via l, 400 TV stations and cable affiliates. Although he describes himself as neither Republican nor Democrat but a “Christocrat”—a gladiator for God marching against “the very hordes of hell in our society”—he nonetheless has been spotted with so many Republican politicians in Washington and elsewhere that he has been publicly described as a“spiritual advisor” to the party. The journalist Marley Greiner has been following his ministry for the organization, FreePress. She writes that because he considers the separation of church and state to be “a lie perpetrated on Americans—especially believers in Jesus Christ”—he identifies himself as a “wall builder” and “wall buster.” As a wall builder he will “restore Godly presence in government and culture; as a wall buster he will tear down the church-state wall.” He sees the Christian church as a sleeping giant that has the ability and the anointing from God to transform America. The giant is stirring. At a rally in July he proclaimed to a packed house: “Let the Revolution begin!” And the congregation roared back: “Let the Revolution begin!”
(The Revolution’s first goal, by the way, is to elect as governor next year the current Republican secretary of state who oversaw the election process in 2004 year when a surge in Christian voters narrowly carried George Bush to victory. As General Boykin suggested of President Bush’s anointment, this fellow has acknowledged that “God wanted him as secretary of state during 2004” because it was such a critical election. Now he is criss-crossing Ohio meeting with Patriot Pastors and their congregations proclaiming that “America is at its best when God is at its center.”) [For the complete stories from which this information has been extracted, see: “An evening with Rod Parsley, by Marley Greiner, FreePress, July 20, 2005; Patriot Pastors,” Marilyn Warfield, Cleveland Jewish News, July 29, 2005; “Ohio televangelist has plenty of influence, but he wants more”, Ted Wendling, Religion News Service, Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2005; “Shaping Politics from the pulpits,” Susan Page, USA Today , Aug. 3, 2005; “Religion and Politics Should Be Mixed Says Ohio Secretary of State,” WTOL-TV Toledo, October 29, 2004].
The Ohio Restoration Project is spreading. In one month alone last year in the president’s home state of Texas, a single Baptist preacher added 2000 “Patriot Pastors” to the rolls. On his website he now encourages pastors to “speak out on the great moral issues of our day…to restore and reclaim America for Christ.”
Alas, these “great moral issues” do not include building a moral economy. The Christian Right trumpets charity (as in Faith Based Initiatives) but is silent on social and economic justice. Inequality in America has reached scandalous proportions: a few weeks ago the government acknowledged that while incomes are growing smartly for the first time in years, the primary winners are the top earners—people who receive stocks, bonuses, and other income in addition to wages. The nearly 80 percent of Americans who rely mostly on hourly wages barely maintained their purchasing power. Even as Hurricane Katrina was hitting the Gulf Coast, giving us a stark reminder of how poverty can shove poor people into the abyss, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that last year one million people were added to 36 million already living in poverty. And since l999 the income of the poorest one fifth of Americans has dropped almost nine percent.
None of these harsh realities of ordinary life seem to bother the radical religious right. To the contrary, in the pursuit of political power they have cut a deal with America’s richest class and their partisan allies in a law-of-the-jungle strategy to “starve” the government of resources needed for vital social services that benefit everyone while championing more and more spending rich corporations and larger tax cuts for the rich.
How else to explain the vacuum in their “great moral issues” of the plight of millions of Americans without adequate health care? Of the gross corruption of politics by campaign contributions that skew government policies toward the wealthy at the expense of ordinary taxpayers? (On the very day that oil and gas prices reached a record high the president signed off on huge taxpayer subsidies for energy conglomerates already bloated with windfall profits plucked from the pockets of average Americans filling up at gas tanks across the country; yet the next Sunday you could pass a hundred church signboards with no mention of a sermon on crony capitalism.)
This silence on economic and political morality is deafening but revealing. The radicals on the Christian right are now the dominant force in America’s governing party. Without them the government would not be in the hands of people who don’t believe in government. They are culpable in upholding a system of class and race in which, as we saw last week, the rich escape and the poor are left behind. And they are on they are crusading for a government “of, by, and for the people” in favor of one based on Biblical authority.
This is the crux of the matter: To these fundamentalist radicals there is only one legitimate religion and only one particular brand of that religion that is right; all others who call on God are immoral or wrong. They believe the Bible to be literally true and that they alone know what it means. Behind their malicious attacks on the courts (“vermin in black robes,” as one of their talk show allies recently put it,) is a fierce longing to hold judges accountable for interpreting the Constitution according to standards of biblical revelation as fundamentalists define it. To get those judges they needed a party beholden to them. So the Grand Old Party—the GOP—has become God’s Own Party, its ranks made up of God’s Own People “marching as to war.”
Go now to the website of an organization called America 2l (http://www.america21.us/Home.cfm ). There, on a red, white, and blue home page, you find praise for President Bush’s agenda—including his effort to phase out Social Security and protect corporations from law suits by aggrieved citizens. On the same home page is a reminder that “There are 7,177 hours until our next National Election….ENLIST NOW.” Now click again and you will read a summons calling Christian pastors “to lead God’s people in the turning that can save America from our enemies.” Under the headline “Remember—Repent—Return” language reminiscent of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell reminds you that “one of the unmistakable lessons [of 9/11] is that America has lost the full measure of God’s hedge of protection. When we ask ourselves why, the scriptures remind us that ancient Israel was invaded by its foreign enemy, Babylon, in 586 B.C. ….(and) Jerusalem was destroyed by another invading foreign power in 70 A.D. …. Psalm l06:37 says that these judgments of God …were because of Israel’s idolatry. Israel, the apple of God’s eye, was destroyed … because the people failed… to repent.” If America is to avoid a similar fate, the warning continues, we must “remember the legacy of our heritage under God and our covenant with Him and, in the words of II Chronicles 7:14: ‘Turn from our wicked ways.’”
Just what does this have to do with the president’s political agenda praised on the home page? Well, squint and look at the fine print at the bottom of the site. It reads: America2l is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to educate, engage and mobilize Christians to influence national policy at every level. Founded in l989 by a multi-denominational group of pastors and businessmen, it is dedicated to being a catalyst for revival and reform of the culture and the government .” (emphasis added).
The corporate, political and religious right converge here, led by a president who, in his own disdain for science, reason and knowledge, is the most powerful fundamentalist in American history.
What are the stakes? In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that “the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade.” To save the American Dream, “we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their “separate realities’ or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest.”
That was written 25 years ago, just as the radical Christian right was setting out on their long march to political supremacy. The forces he warned against have gained strength ever since and now control much of the United States government and are on the verge of having it all.
It has to be said that their success has come in no small part because of our acquiescence and timidity. Our democratic values are imperiled because too many people of reason are willing to appease irrational people just because they are pious. Republican moderates tried appeasement and survive today only in gulags set aside for them by the Karl Roves, Bill Frists and Tom DeLays. Democrats are divided and paralyzed, afraid that if they take on the organized radical right they will lose what little power they have. Trying to learn to talk about God as Republicans do, they’re talking gobbledygook, compromising the strongest thing going for them—the case for a moral economy and the moral argument for the secular checks and balances that have made America “a safe haven for the cause of conscience.”
As I look back on the conflicts and clamor of our boisterous past, one lesson about democracy stands above all others: Bullies—political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies—cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. This is never easy; these guys don’t fight fair; “Robert’s Rules of Order” is not one of their holy texts. But freedom on any front—and especially freedom of conscience—never comes to those who rock and wait, hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting. Christian realism requires us to see the world as it is, without illusions, and then take it on. Christian realism also requires love. But not a sentimental, dreamy love. Reinhold Niebuhr, who taught at Union Theological Seminary and wrestled constantly with applying Christian ethics to political life, put it this way: “When we talk about love we have to become mature or we will become sentimental. Basically love means…being responsible, responsibility to our family, toward our civilization, and now by the pressures of history, toward the universe of humankind.”
Christian realists aren’t afraid to love. But just as the Irishman who came upon a brawl in the street and asked, “Is this a private fight or can anyone get in it?” we have to take that love where the action is. Or the world will remain a theatre of war between fundamentalists.

Friday, September 09, 2005

ONE SMALL ACT OF HEROISM... FOR MANKIND

OK, imagine someone really smart, maybe a bit eccentric, but brilliant like Einstein, comes up to you and explains that he has a time travel machine and he needs a volunteer. You can go back in time and you'll know everything then that you know now. Hmmm... some good bets could be placed... Anyway, you're in an expansive mood and you go for it. The machine is built for 1928 and its going to land you in Germany. You're going to know something no one else in the whole world (then) knows-- that Hitler is soon going to be directly responsible for the deaths of something like 30 million men, women and children. And Professor Brilliant-Like-Einstein has put a mighty advanced weapon in your pocket as a goodbye present. (It was a one-way trip.) What would you do? What would you do even if you were certain to get caught (and killed) if you used that advanced weapon to stop the right-wing maniac from wreaking havoc on the world?

I don't know anyone with a time travel machine. But the other day we were all introduced, briefly, to a brave and courageous man who struck a blow for liberty. And he's from our time. And from Mississippi. I'm talking about the guy who said to Cheney in Gulfport last week exactly what Cheney said to Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor a couple years ago-- "go fuck yourself"-- Dr. Ben Marble. He's a young emergency room physician (and a punk rocker on the side). He lost his home in Hurricane Katrina. A tense, on-edge Dr. Marble wrote that he's "no fan of Mr. Cheney... I am not happy about the fact that thousands have died due to the slow action of FEMA, not to even mention the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. Iraq." He walked up the street from his destroyed home, got about 10 feet from Cheney and, while Cheney was doing public relations for BushCo on TV, he yelled "Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney! Go fuck yourself, you asshole!" Cheney made a concerted effort to drone on with his bullshit speech by a TV reporter interrupted him and made him acknowledge the verbal assault. Marble walked back to his house where he was picked up by military police brandishing M-16 rifles a few minutes later. They handcuffed him for about 20 minutes and-- probably because so much of this played out on national television-- released him (after carefully writing down his name and contact info).

His band, dR. O has songs you can hear on mp3 sites. He's also raising money by auctioning the videotape of the whole event on eBay (a page with around 3,000 views, bids over $1,200. The item # is 7712202734.) "The truth is even with all our losses, we are still luckier than many people down here because at least we didn't die," Marble wrote. "But I thought I could try to raise some awareness to the bad policies of the Dubya Gump administration and also possibly raise some money to replace the many things we lost, and so I decided I would auction the videotape my friend shot of the event. I will also grant an interview to the winner if so desired." Maybe this will encourage more of us to do little heroic deeds like this. God knows we can't count on the Democrats to do anything about these tyrants they allowed to seize the government!

IS JOHN ROBERTS REALLY ALL THAT BAD?

There's been a lot of verbiage floating around-- not to mention expensive TV ads-- about the suitability, and lack thereof, of Bush's nominee to head the Supreme Court. Like I've said before, Democrats should have thought about this when they refused to join Barbara Boxer and a handful of patriotic congressmen in challenging George Bush's 2004 theft of the presidential election in Ohio. Now Bush occupies the White House and has enough support from reactionary senators to confirm every the most egregious of far right judges (as we've already seen). There's no doubt in my mind that, barring a miracle, John Roberts will become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and will be every bit as horrible and reactionary as his contemptible, partisan, racist predecessor, William Rehnquist. But you'll be hearing a lot more about this over the next few weeks so I decided to post an advance of an extraordinary article in the next issue of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS by William Taylor (October 6).

JOHN ROBERTS: THE NOMINEE


The most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lacked his advantages. It is a question of great relevance to Roberts's candidacy for the Supreme Court. As the late Charles Black has written, no serious person is under the illusion that "a judge's judicial work is not influenced...by his sense, sharp or vague, of where justice lies in respect to the great issues of his time."
After a privileged upbringing in an Indiana suburb, attendance at an exclusive, expensive private school, high ranking at the undergraduate and law schools of Harvard, and clerkships with Federal Appeals Judge Henry Friendly and Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, John Roberts took a job in the Reagan administration. There he joined in its efforts to dismantle the civil rights gains of the 1960s and 1970s. His work as a young man in the 1980s established the pattern of his later public career.
Roberts was first employed in 1981 and 1982 as a special assistant to the attorney general, William French Smith. He went from there to the Reagan White House in November 1982, where he served as associate counsel to the President for three and a half years. During this period, Roberts played an important part in the administration's efforts to curtail the rights of African-Americans, to deny assistance to children with disabilities, and to prevent redress for women and girls who had suffered sex discrimination. He also justified attempts by the state of Texas to cut off opportunities for the children of poor Latino aliens to obtain an education. Roberts was in favor of limiting the progress of African-Americans in participating in the political process and of making far-reaching changes in the constitutional role of the courts in protecting rights.
In all of these efforts, which halted temporarily when Roberts left government for private practice in 1986, he was no mere functionary. Indeed, he often was prepared to go beyond his conservative superiors in the Reagan administration in mounting a counter-revolution in civil rights, expressing frustration with his conservative superior at the Justice Department, Theodore Olson, differing on a key constitutional issue with Robert Bork, and disagreeing on voting rights with Senator Strom Thurmond.
 

Court Stripping
The issue that has had the most far-reaching implications for civil rights was given the unilluminating name "court stripping." It was part of the continuing legal struggle over enforcing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education to end mandated racial segregation in public schools. Efforts to implement Brown had stalled until 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which declared school desegregation to be national policy and provided the means for enforcing it. There followed Supreme Court decisions adding legal content to the act, which then led to widespread desegregation of public schools throughout the South.
In 1980, segregationists in Congress led by Senator Jesse Helms responded with bills to prohibit the Justice Department from bringing action in the courts to desegregate schools, and to bar the courts from issuing remedies that would require the busing of students for that purpose. Similar bills were proposed in cases involving school prayer and abortion rights.
A fierce debate followed at the Justice Department and in the Reagan White House. Some lawyers recognized that a great deal was at stake in these bills—that they were an assault on the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of what the Constitution means as well as an assault on the separation of powers. David Brink, then president of the American Bar Association, described the court-stripping bills as "a legislative threat to our nation that may lead to the most serious constitutional crisis since our great Civil War," and the ABA House of Delegates "strongly objected" to the bills because they "propose to change the constitutional law by simple legislation, instead of by the means provided in the constitution."
In addition, the Conference of Chief Justices of the States resolved unanimously that court-stripping bills were a "hazardous experiment with the vulnerable fabric of the nation's judicial system." Within the Department of Justice Theodore Olson, then Roberts's superior and a lawyer with impeccable conservative credentials, worried about the advisability of supporting the legislation. Other constitutional conservatives, such as Yale Law School professor Alex Bickel (an ardent opponent of busing), and moderate Republicans, such as former Attorney General Elliot Richardson, as well as Robert Bork (who was to become a model of extreme legal conservatism), expressed concern publicly about the constitutionality and wisdom of court stripping. John Roberts had no such reservations. In memos deriding Brink and others, he claimed that Congress had the power to eradicate busing as a "failed experiment."


Roberts believed he had lost the internal debate with Olson even though Attorney General William French Smith testified in 1982 that while Congress could not interfere with the "core powers" of the Supreme Court, it could establish limits to the remedies approved by the courts. Smith's distinction failed to recognize that the bill's authors were proposing to abolish what in many cases would be the only effective judicial remedy for unlawful segregation. And in the end, it was a near thing. In his most substantial legal writing on the subject, an undated twenty-seven-page memo, Roberts conceded that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could pose a formidable barrier to legislation intended to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving school desegregation. But, he noted, the problem might be surmounted, since strict scrutiny would be applied only if there were "racial classification," and the legislation in question would only classify cases by type, i.e., not "race" but "school desegregation." Giving state courts the final say over school desegregation, he added, would not involve unequal treatment because white officials as well as black groups would lack the right to appeal. He did not suggest how likely he thought it would be for a state court to rule against the segregation practices of, say, Governor George Wallace.
Although the Senate passed the Helms-Johnston amendment to ban the use of busing to achieve desegregation, the House did not. Roberts did not give up easily, however. As late as 1984, from his office in the White House, he wrote his boss, Fred Fielding, a memo reiterating his views that Congress could legally bar the use of busing as a school desegregation remedy. But he concluded that given his lack of success "it would probably not be fruitful to reopen the issue at this point." Still, Roberts wavered on whether a ban on busing was good policy. In his 1984 memo to Fielding he wrote approvingly that the Department of Justice as a "matter of legislative policy" regularly argued in the courts that busing was "counter-productive." But later, in another memo to Fielding in 1985, Roberts, while repeating his position that stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over school desegregation was constitutional, said that he had thought banning busing was a bad "policy idea."
 

Voting Rights
In his views on court stripping, Roberts revealed a striking lack of interest in contemporary events. He adopted the unsupported finding that Helms and the Dixiecrats had placed in the voting rights bill, which held that busing as a desegregation remedy was a failure and led to white flight. He omitted to mention the fact that desegregation had spread throughout the South after the Supreme Court's landmark 1971 "busing" decision in the Swann case, and that the first major report by the National Assessment for Educational Progress showed that the achievement gap between whites and African-Americans had been cut in half during the 1970s, with the greatest gains coming among third-grade black children, most of whom were bused in the now desegregated Southeast.


But it was in the second major civil rights battle of the early Reagan administration that Roberts, winner of an undergraduate history award at Harvard College, revealed a surprising ignorance of America's racial past. The issue in 1981 was whether Congress should renew key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and overturn a 1980 Supreme Court decision that threatened to undermine the gains that African-Americans were making in securing their right to vote.
The history of discrimination was unambiguous. Despite the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment, from the end of Reconstruction in the late nineteenth century through the early 1960s the states of the Old Confederacy kept black people from registering to vote by a variety of strategies. As the Supreme Court struck down one device after another for disenfranchis-ing blacks as violating the Fifteenth Amendment, states replaced them with others, finally resorting to primaries limited to white people. These practices were reinforced by racial violence. Many local black leaders who were organizing people to vote were murdered by members of the Klan.
The barriers were largely effective. In Mississippi in 1960, fewer than 6 percent of eligible black citizens were registered to vote. After federal laws protecting blacks' voting rights in 1957 and 1960 proved too weak to be effective, the civil rights movements of the 1960s helped to produce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The new law contained special provisions allowing federal officials to take over the registration process if local officials continued to resist, and it called for a federal review of state laws that might limit black voting.


The 1965 Voting Rights Act brought about large gains in registration and voting by African-Americans. But they were still struggling with strategies designed to dilute the impact of their voting. This problem was compounded in 1980 by the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision, in Mobile v. Bolden, which upheld the election of members at large of the Mobile, Alabama, City Council rather than by district, even though it effectively prevented black voters from having representation on the council. Because blacks were entirely barred from voting in 1911, when Mobile had enacted the at-large plan, the Court reasoned that the plan had not been motivated by race. The current impact on race, the Court decided, was not sufficient to show a violation. Since the special provisions of the 1965 act were up for renewal in Congress in 1982, civil rights advocates were seeking a reversal of the Supreme Court's Mobile decision as well.
In the House in 1981 Republicans such as Henry Hyde of Illinois expressed their skepticism not only of the need to extend the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, but of reversing Mobile v. Bolden as well. Meanwhile the Reagan administration equivocated, with the Justice Department apparently split. Documents show that John Roberts was one of the leading lawyers in the Justice Department fighting against any improvements in the Voting Rights Act. But something unexpected happened. As Henry Hyde listened to the testimony of black witnesses from the South who were suffering discrimination, he decided that something had to be done. At the end of July 1981, the House Judiciary Committee sent to the floor a strong bill for debate, including a reversal of Mobile, by a 25–1 vote. In October, with the help of other conservatives, the bill passed the House by a vote of 389–24.
John Roberts, who had joined the Justice Department in August and begun working on voting rights, did not share the views of these House Republicans. In November, Attorney General Smith argued against the House bill to extend the Voting Rights Act. When it was reported that the President would be announcing his readiness to sign the bill, Smith went to the White House and succeeded in talking Reagan out of his position. He then testified in the Senate in January that the administration did not support the bills.
While civil rights groups worked with Bob Dole to produce a draft that was essentially the same as the bill the House had passed, Roberts prepared a lengthy memo for Attorney General Smith to give to the President. It read that the bill's
effects test would likely lead to federal courts throughout the nation striking down any electoral system that is not neatly tailored to achieve proportional representation along racial lines. In other words, the effects test in the Act could lead to a quota system in electoral politics.

Throughout April, Roberts continued his campaign. He drafted a letter that was sent to Senator Strom Thurmond urging his support for striking down the House bill. On June 18, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 85–8, with Thurmond joining the majority. Ten days later, Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law.
Nowhere in any of the memos that have been made available did John Roberts acknowledge the effect of the many years of disenfranchisement on black citizens. Instead his concern was about the effect of an imagined quota system on whites, a concern that twenty-five years later has proved to be groundless.
 

Roberts and the Poor
The indifference of John Roberts to people dealt a bad hand has not been limited to African-Americans. In 1982, the Supreme Court in Doe v. Plyler addressed the constitutionality of a Texas law that denied a free public education to school-age children who were not legally in the United States. The US did not participate in the case, in part because the argument did not include the claim that the statute could be considered an effort by Texas to help the federal government enforce its policy against illegal immigration. A divided court upheld the lower court rulings that struck down the Texas law. Justice Brennan wrote for the majority:
The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our nation.

The Court found that the Texas law did not further any substantial goal of the state. In a memorandum to the attorney general, written shortly after the decision was announced, Roberts lamented that the dissenters had not won the vote of Justice Lewis Powell. If the Justice Department had joined the Texas case, Roberts said, its arguments in favor of judicial restraint might have persuaded Powell and altered the outcome of the case. "This is a case," he said, "in which our supposed litigation program to encourage judicial restraint did not get off the ground and should have."
Roberts had also made clear his disagreement with Shapiro v. Thompson, a Supreme Court decision which struck down state residency requirements for welfare benefits, on the grounds that he was unable to find any right to travel in the Constitution. Presumably, he would have upheld a California law barring the entry of indigent Okies from the Dust Bowl, which the Supreme Court had invalidated in 1941 as an invasion of the constitutionally protected interest in allowing migration from state to state.
 

Limiting the Potentialof People with Disabilities
In 1982, during what appears to have been an extremely busy year, Roberts turned his attention to the claims of students with disabilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Amy Rowley was a deaf student with minimal residual hearing, who got by in school by virtue of excellent lip-reading skills and an FM hearing aid. Lower federal courts, finding that there was a considerable disparity between her achievement (which was described as about average) and her potential, held that under the act she was entitled to the classroom services of a sign-language interpreter. Reagan's solicitor general, Rex Lee, supported their view. Justice Rehnquist, writing for a divided Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley, reversed that decision, holding that all Miss Rowley was entitled to was an adequate education. The statute, he said, did not clearly require that "states maximize the potential of handicapped children commensurate with the opportunity provided to other children." Justice White in dissent pointed to provisions in the law supporting the guarantee of a "free and appropriate education," including the act's definition of special education as "specifically designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child."
After the decision, John Roberts wrote to Attorney General Smith expressing his disagreement with the solicitor general's office for supporting Ms. Rowley's claim in the Supreme Court. He described the statute as "vague, mandating only a 'free appropriate education.'" He referred to Justices Brennan and Marshall as "the activist duo" who used the government's brief to support "an activist role for the courts," adding that it took a conservative majority of the Supreme Court to turn back an "effort by activist lower court judges...."
Several things are worth mentioning about this memo. Roberts calls the disability statute vague, while previously, in supporting the court-stripping legislation, he was willing to describe busing in sweeping and inaccurate terms as a "failed experiment." He did not take on the nuanced questions that faced the Court in the Rowley case. How does one balance the value of translators in improving a deaf student's skills against their potentially high costs? On what basis does one conclude that a disabled student is entitled to aid to help her reach an arbitrary level of proficiency but no more? Roberts deflects all of this, and tends to rely on labels. The word "activist" appears three times in two sentences.
 

Women and Discrimination
Roberts's campaign against remedies for sex discrimination also began in 1982. The issue was how to interpret Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, which had become invaluable for fighting sex discrimination on America's college campuses. The basic precept of Title IX was the same as that of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred federal agencies from subsidizing racial discrimination. John Kennedy had stated the rationale eloquently:
Simple justice requires that public funds to which all races contribute not be spent in any fashion which encourages, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.

Title VI had been indispensable in providing the legal instrument for dismantling racial segregation in schools, colleges, and hospitals. So, too, when Title IX was adopted it gave hope to women denied faculty positions because of their gender, for example, and offered new opportunities to girls and women in athletics.
Pragmatists in Congress and in the executive branch recognized that there was no practical way to limit the impact of federal funds to the particular departments or offices that received those funds. Money was fungible and to the extent that discrimination existed anywhere in an institution, federal funds could facilitate that discrimination. So for years federal administrators treated the entire public university or school system as the recipient of the federal funds. These could be withdrawn if discrimination against women was shown. When after years of wide acceptance a lower federal court rejected that view in 1982, John Roberts urged that the decision not be appealed. "Under Title IX federal investigations cannot rummage wily-nily [sic] through institutions," Roberts wrote to Attorney General Smith,
but can only go so far as the federal funds go.... The women's groups pressuring us to appeal would have regulatory agencies usurp power denied to them by Congress to achieve an anti-discrimination goal.

Roberts's view ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court in Grove City v. Bell (1984). But Senator Ted Kennedy and other Democratic and Republican leaders, startled by the decision's crabbed interpretation of civil rights law, reinstituted the broader construction with the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, which had the effect of increasing the powers of the government to penalize discrimination against women. Roberts was not done, however, with initiatives to limit redress for victims of sex discrimination and returned to the issue when he joined the solicitor general's office.
 

The Solicitor General Years
After three and a half years in private practice, Roberts returned to the federal government in 1989 as principal deputy solicitor general, under Kenneth Starr. In this new capacity, while he supported civil rights claims in one case before the court, arguing that desegregation obligations be strengthened at colleges and universities in Mississippi, his work was mostly a resumption of his campaign against extending remedies for civil rights violations.
 

Damages for Sexual Harassment
In 1991 a case involving a student's claim against a school district for its failure to prevent or redress her having been sexually harassed by one of its teachers reached the Supreme Court. The question was whether the student should have a right to recover compensatory damages for the violation of Title IX. The federal government argued that although the statute created an implied right of action for victims of discrimination to sue, there could be no implied right to recover damages.
The solicitor general's brief, signed by Roberts and others, said that although the United States was not a party in the case, it had a strong "interest in assuring that private remedies do not unduly interfere with...programs [funded by Title IX]." Of course, Title IX was designed specifically to "interfere" with such programs if they involved discrimination.
A unanimous Court, including Justices Scalia and Thomas, upheld the student's claim. Roberts was thus defeated for the second time in his efforts to limit protections against instances of sex discrimination that were federally subsidized, the first time by Congress and then by a unanimous Court.
 

Ending School Desegregation Decrees
Roberts had better luck in two efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to allow school districts to bring to an end their obligations under Brown v. Board of Education to establish and maintain desegregated school systems. In a case from Oklahoma City, Solicitor General Starr, while acknowledging the Supreme Court's previous ruling that school segregation practices had helped produce racially segregated housing, suggested that the relationship was too tenuous to justify continued court supervision. In the second case, involving DeKalb County, a suburb of Atlanta, the question was whether a school district could be freed from its obligations piecemeal, that is, if it complied with some but not all of the elements of a desegregation decree. The solicitor general's brief answered affirmatively, following Roberts's previous approach that it was possible to consider civil rights violations individually. In both cases, a divided Supreme Court agreed with the solicitor general. Thus the school district could satisfy its obligation to hire both black and white teachers but could be released from that obligation even if the school district was not fully desegregated.
Justice Thurgood Marshall said in dissent that the desegregation order should not be lifted "so long as conditions likely to inflict the stigmatic injury in Brown I persist and there remain feasible methods of eliminating such conditions." Nowhere in the government's brief is there a recognition of these conditions—of the isolation, humiliation, and denial of opportunity that segregation inflicted or the need to take practical steps to remedy them.
Some have said that Roberts's views expressed in government briefs during his time in the solicitor general's office should not be held against him because he was "just a lawyer representing a client." While that view may be persuasive when it involves lawyers who were civil servants in that office and were bound to follow government policy if they wanted to hold on to their jobs, it is unconvincing in the case of John Roberts. He held the number two position in the office—principal deputy solicitor, popularly known as the "political deputy." He was a policy maker, not a policy follower.
There is another reason why Roberts should be held accountable for his actions in the solicitor general's office. That office, while part of the executive branch, has a unique responsibility to guide the Supreme Court to the "right" result in cases before them (a responsibility that has led some to dub the office "the tenth justice"). At least three times in the past, solicitors general have refused to participate in cases where they believed the policies they were directed to follow by the administration were wrong. That was not a dilemma faced by John Roberts. Indeed in several civil rights cases his briefs were merely extensions of policies he had advocated in his previous stints at the Justice Department and the White House. Indeed, in the unlikely event that Roberts had changed his mind on a policy, and the expressed views in the case were dictated by Solicitor General Starr, Roberts could simply have refrained from signing the briefs.


The record made by John Roberts in his decade of public service clearly documents his single-minded focus on limiting legal protections and opportunities for African-Americans, Latinos, alien children, people with disabilities, women, and others. How is one to account for his hostility to civil rights?
"Judicial restraint," the usual explanation conservatives give for opposing court decisions that expand rights or remedies, is a phrase rarely used by Roberts except when he makes a favorable passing reference to it in his memos. One will search in vain in his writings for a thoughtful discussion of the kind Justice Felix Frankfurter frequently engaged in, seeking to balance the need for restraint against assertions of important interests and rights. The omission is particularly glaring since Roberts has supported the actions of the Supreme Court in striking down acts of Congress that provided remedies for violence against women, and that barred the sale of handguns near public schools as exceeding congressional power under the commerce clause.
Worse still, if Roberts believed in the need for the protection of civil and constitutional rights but thought the courts were the wrong place to argue for them, he was in a position that enabled him to urge new legislative measures in Congress. But Roberts opposed a law that would prevent the dilution of newly won minority voting rights. And his record is bare of any other constructive suggestions to protect those rights. Indeed, in a brief opposing policies of the Federal Communications Commission to increase minority ownership of radio and broadcast stations, Roberts and his colleagues in the solicitor general's office said Congress could mandate such policies only if it met rigorous standards in setting forth the facts to justify the policies. This was not an issue that troubled him when he was arguing for court-stripping bills. While the solicitor general's brief did not find an adequate congressional basis for appealing the FCC policies, a divided Court did.
Nowhere is there a statement of the values that animate Roberts's apparent belief that government should play only the most limited part in helping or protecting people. From the record we have,[*] we can only conclude that there is not a large space in his thinking for Madison's concerns about the dangers of dominant majorities or the concerns in the Bill of Rights for the rights of minorities to speak, assemble, and practice their religion.
It is doubtful that Justice Roberts will be guided by Justice Harlan Stone's famous footnote in the Carolene Products case:
Prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes to be ordinarily relied upon to protect minorities and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judiciary inquiry.

It is possible of course to articulate a very different kind of vision of this country—one in which everyone fends for himself and government is limited to defending citizens against foreign enemies and crime. But that is not the vision contained in our founding documents or in our history over the past seventy-five years. To articulate such a vision, Roberts would have to find a persuasive response to an observation that Congressman Don Edwards made to Roberts's comrade-in-arms William Bradford Reynolds at a hearing in 1981:
You and I are white male attorneys. We come from families with some money and were educated in the right schools. Unless we behaved very stupidly, the family and institutional support systems guaranteed a place for us. We benefited from a racial spoils system.

One suspects that Roberts will avoid this portrayal during his confirmation hearings. But the question remains whether he can do so convincingly. Senator Arlen Specter said before the nomination that "it would be useful... to have somebody...who's been out in the world and has a more varied background" than just that of a career lawyer or jurist. Of course, there have been previous nominees who have led a fairly cloistered life and then turned out to be judges powerfully in touch with the world. Justice David Souter comes to mind.
David Broder noted of Judge Roberts, "You can search his record in vain for examples of his sensitivity to the impact of the law on people's lives." There can be no doubt that in the hearings Roberts will be a good advocate for himself as he has been for others. But in the end it is the record that counts, and the record is damning.

BUSH AND REFUGEES

"There's a debate here about refugees. Let me tell you my attitude and the attitude of people around this table: The people we're talking about are not refugees. They are Americans, and they need the help and love and compassion of our fellow citizens. And the people at this table are providing that help and compassion and love." I heard Bush's unctuous voice spew that out on the radio a couple days ago. It shocked me, although it shouldn't have, not with all we've learned about this man and how he thinks over the last 5 dreadful years. Apparently the "leader" of the United States and of the "Free World" (lol), has some underlying issues with refugees. Like the Republican Party in general, he seems to look at refugees as a form of "others" who are not "one of us" and, apparently, not deserving of our help, compassion and love. This, of course, would account for the niggardly response to Tony Blair's pleas to him to help Africa transform itself from a continent of refugees into something that more resembles the rest of the modern world.

To the rich white men who run the Bush Regime, many of whom, like Bush, never put in an honest day of real working-for-a-living in their privileged lives, folks who find themselves in the dire straits like the refugees and displaced persons from New Orleans have no one but themselves to blame. Just listen with an open mind to the vicious racist hatred dribbling from the mouths of these monsters we have put over us. Two heartbeats from the presidency is the vile tub of lard installed by Tom DeLay as Speaker of the House whose first reaction to seeing the tragedy of New Orleans was to worry that rebuilding would cost too much and that the city should be bulldozed (along with L.A. and San Francisco). Or Louisiana Republican/Ku Klux Klan Congressman Richard Baker who is now defending his statement that "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." These Republicans have a very different God than the one Jesus was talking about. Theirs is a deity whose approval is on display for all to see by material success. According to the Republican religion, proof of God's love of the wealthy is their wealth itself. And everyone else is suspect-- or worse. I'm no BUY BULL scholar but I do remember Jesus saying "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Versions of this appear in Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25. According to these accounts, the occasion for Jesus' statement was meeting a rich young Republican who asked him what he needed to do in order to insure eternal life. Jesus replied that he should first, keep the commandments (he listed only those concerning duty to men), sell all his possessions, and give the money to the poor, and then to come, follow Jesus. Because of his great wealth, the young Republican was unwilling to do this. Jesus then turned to his disciples, and told them about the camel and the eye of the needle.

My friend Jim sent me a cartoon from Oliphant today that could also shed some light on how Bush and the horrible people around him view the situation and how they are reacting to it. Take a look at http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po050909.gif

BUSH'S CORRUPT & INCOMPETENT FEMA CHIEF FINALLY GIVEN THE BOOT!

The AP just reported that FEMA's reviled Director, Michael Brown, "is being removed from his role managing Hurricane Katrina relief efforts." AP claims "Brown is being sent back to Washington from Baton Rouge, where he was the primary official overseeing the federal government's response to the disaster, according to two federal officials who declined to be identified before the announcement.
Brown will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts. Brown has been under fire because of the administration's slow response to the magnitude of the hurricane. On Thursday, questions were raised about whether he padded his resume to highlight his previous emergency management background." Even as the Bush Regime positions Colin Powell to come in and save their asses from all the bungling and incompetence, Powell told 20/20 that "there was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. No enough was done."

Less than an hour before Brown's removal came to light, Bush's official spin-meister, Scotty McClellan said Brown had not resigned and the president had not asked for his resignation although, in his weasely way, Scotty refused to directly answer a question about whether the president had full confidence in Brown. "We appreciate all those who are working round the clock, and that's the way I would answer it," he said.

The Bush Regime were less appreciative of the WASHINGTON POST's expose on how BushCo destroyed the once effective/now moribund FEMA. An article by Spencer Hsu was published a few hours before BushCo finally decided to pull their man Michael "Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job" Brown out of Louisiana. The POST article:

LEADERS LACKING DISASTER EXPERIENCE
"BRAIN BRAIN" AT AGENCY CITED

Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.
Meanwhile, veterans such as U.S. hurricane specialist Eric Tolbert and World Trade Center disaster managers Laurence W. Zensinger and Bruce P. Baughman -- who led FEMA's offices of response, recovery and preparedness, respectively -- have left since 2003, taking jobs as consultants or state emergency managers, according to current and former officials.
Because of the turnover, three of the five FEMA chiefs for natural-disaster-related operations and nine of 10 regional directors are working in an acting capacity, agency officials said.
Patronage appointments to the crisis-response agency are nothing new to Washington administrations. But inexperience in FEMA's top ranks is emerging as a key concern of local, state and federal leaders as investigators begin to sift through what the government has admitted was a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.
"FEMA requires strong leadership and experience because state and local governments rely on them," said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association. "When you don't have trained, qualified people in those positions, the program suffers as a whole."
Last week's greatest foe was, of course, a storm of such magnitude that it "overwhelmed" all levels of government, according to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). And several top FEMA officials are well-regarded by state and private counterparts in disaster preparedness and response.
They include Edward G. Buikema, acting director of response since February, and Kenneth O. Burris, acting chief of operations, a career firefighter and former Marietta, Ga., fire chief.
But scorching criticism has been aimed at FEMA, and it starts at the top with Brown, who has admitted to errors in responding to Hurricane Katrina and the flooding in New Orleans. The Oklahoma native, 50, was hired to the agency after a rocky tenure as commissioner of a horse sporting group by former FEMA director Joe M. Allbaugh, the 2000 Bush campaign manager and a college friend of Brown's.
Rhode, Brown's chief of staff, is a former television reporter who came to Washington as advance deputy director for Bush's Austin-based 2000 campaign and then the White House. He joined FEMA in April 2003 after stints at the Commerce Department and the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Altshuler is a former presidential advance man. His predecessor, Scott Morris, was a media strategist for Bush with the Austin firm Maverick Media.
David I. Maurstad, who stepped down as Nebraska lieutenant governor in 2001 to join FEMA, has served as acting director for risk reduction and federal insurance administrator since June 2004. Daniel A. Craig, a onetime political fundraiser and campaign adviser, came to FEMA in 2001 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he directed the eastern regional office, after working as a lobbyist for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Brown has managed more than 160 natural disasters as FEMA general counsel and deputy director since 2001, "hands-on experience [that] cannot be understated. Other leadership at FEMA brings particular skill sets -- policy management leadership, for example."
The agency has a deep bench of career professionals, said FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews, including two dozen senior field coordinators and Gil Jamieson, director of the National Incident Management System. "Simply because folks who have left the agency have a disagreement with how it's being run doesn't necessarily indicate that there is a lack of experience leading it," she said.
Andrews said the "acting" designation for regional officials is a designation that signifies that they are FEMA civil servants -- not political appointees.
Touring the wrecked Gulf Coast with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff yesterday, Vice President Cheney also defended FEMA leaders, saying, "We're always trying to strike the right balance" between political appointees and "career professionals that fill the jobs underneath them."
But experts inside and out of government said a "brain drain" of experienced disaster hands throughout the agency, hastened in part by the appointment of leaders without backgrounds in emergency management, has weakened the agency's ability to respond to natural disasters. Some security experts and congressional critics say the exodus was fueled by a bureaucratic reshuffling in Washington in 2003, when FEMA was stripped of its independent Cabinet-level status and folded into the Department of Homeland Security.
Emergency preparedness has atrophied as a result, some analysts said, extending from Washington to localities.
FEMA "has gone downhill within the department, drained of resources and leadership," said I.M. "Mac" Destler, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. "The crippling of FEMA was one important reason why it failed."
Richard A. Andrews, former emergency services director for the state of California and a member of the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said state and local failures were critical in the Katrina response, but competence, funding and political will in Washington were also lacking.
"I do not think fundamentally this is an organizational issue," Andrews said. "You need people in there who have both experience and the confidence of the president, who are able to fight and articulate what FEMA's mission and role is, and who understand how emergency management works."
The agency's troubles are no secret. The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that promotes careers in federal government, ranked FEMA last of 28 agencies studied in 2003.
In its list of best places to work in the government, a 2004 survey by the American Federation of Government Employees found that of 84 career FEMA professionals who responded, only 10 people ranked agency leaders excellent or good.
An additional 28 said the leadership was fair and 33 called it poor.
More than 50 said they would move to another agency if they could remain at the same pay grade, and 67 ranked the agency as poorer since its merger into the Department of Homeland Security.


LATE AFTERNOON UPDATE!

Associated Press is now reporting that "a beleaguered Mike Brown said Friday he doesn't know why he was removed from his onsite command of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts..." Meanwhile, although apparently unknown to Brown, Bush Regime officials have leaked something about Brown having planned to retire after hurricane season (next month). When reporters asked Brown why he was recalled from Louisiana to DC, he said "You'd have to ask Secretary Chertoff why he made that decision." Chertoff, responding in true Bush Regime Orwellian fashion said he decided to bring Brown back to Washington because the Gulf Coast efforts had entered a new phase and Brown might be needed to manage other potential disasters (giving every governor in the Union cause to pray extra hard that no disasters hit their states in the next month).

A TALE OF 2 KINDS OF LOOTING-- PEOPLE TRYING TO STAY ALIVE AND REPUBLICANS TRYING TO GET RICHER

This report, from a sociology section list, was passed along to me from a professor friend at U.C. in La Jolla. She got it from Phil Olson, of Univ of Missouri-Kansas City. Phil's an urban
sociologist of long-standing and former Head of Sociology at UMKC and President of the
Midwest Sociology Society. You've probably been reading and listening to lots of outrage about the Bush Regime's failures-- and Laura claiming that the criticism is "disgusting"-- but this first hand accounts by participants sounds a lot more compelling than the "reality show" playing out on CNN. As Karl Rove, Barbara and Laura Bush, Scotty McClennan and their allies in Congress and in the corporate media are in the highest spin mode possible, it's worth taking a look at this unspun report from on-the-scene witnesses and then to think about how "looting" is defined by Bush and his corporate allies, who are already licking their chops over the profits to be made. I've also included a Media Matters report on how right-wingers seek to redefine corporate price gouging as "not looting" and as something good and healthy.

The story about the guests at hotels in the French Quarter who ordered
buses only to have them commandeered by local law enforcement and who were
then turned out on the streets by the hotel owners was reported on the
national news during the week. The two people who wrote this were
apparently among that group. The urbanicide of New Orleans continues and the US now has some 250-500,00 DP's who are being scattered all over the country, perhaps many more who
have gone on their own and now are finding themselves running out of
resources and seeking refuge from family and friends. Is the New Orleans
story the Pompeii of the US -- only worse because Nature caused less
suffering than political, economic and social forces in a society
corrupted from top to bottom?

(This first hand report from New Orleans last week was received today from
a friend; it is so powerful and honest I think the members of this
listserv will want to know this. Phil Olson)

Sept 5, 2005
Fwd by Phil Gasper:

Two friends of mine--paramedics attending a conference--were trapped in
New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. This is their eyewitness report.  PG

Hurricane Katrina -- Our Experiences
by Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky

Two days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the Walgreen's store
at the corner of Royal and Iberville streets remained locked. The dairy
display case was clearly visible through the widows. It was now 48 hours
without electricity, running water, plumbing. The milk, yogurt, and
cheeses were beginning to spoil in the 90-degree heat. The owners and
managers had locked up the food, water, pampers, and prescriptions and
fled the City. Outside Walgreen's windows, residents and tourists grew
increasingly thirsty and hungry.
The much-promised federal, state and local aid never materialized and the
windows at Walgreen's gave way to the looters. There was an alternative.
The cops could have broken one small window and distributed the nuts,
fruit juices, and bottle water in an organized and systematic manner. But
they did not. Instead they spent hours playing cat and mouse, temporarily
chasing away the looters.
We were finally airlifted out of New Orleans two days ago and arrived home
yesterday (Saturday). We have yet to see any of the TV coverage or look at
a newspaper. We are willing to guess that there were no video images or
front-page pictures of European or affluent white tourists looting the
Walgreen's in the French Quarter.
We also suspect the media will have been inundated with "hero" images of
the National Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the
"victims" of the Hurricane. What you will not see, but what we witnessed,
were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the
working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift
to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and
kept the generators running. The electricians who improvised thick
extension cords stretching over blocks to share the little electricity we
had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses who took
over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually
forcing air into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive.
Doormen who rescued folks stuck in elevators.
Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, "stealing" boats to rescue
their neighbors clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who
helped hot-wire any car that could be found to ferry people out of the
City. And the food service workers who scoured the commercial kitchens
improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded. Most of these
workers had lost their homes, and had not heard from members of their
families, yet they stayed and provided the only infrastructure for the 20%
of New Orleans that was not under water.

On Day 2, there were approximately 500 of us left in the hotels in the
French Quarter. We were a mix of foreign tourists, conference attendees
like ourselves, and locals who had checked into hotels for safety and
shelter from Katrina. Some of us had cell phone contact with family and
friends outside of New Orleans. We were repeatedly told that all sorts of
resources including the National Guard and scores of buses were pouring in
to the City. The buses and the other resources must have been invisible
because none of us had seen them.
We decided we had to save ourselves. So we pooled our money and came up
with $25,000 to have ten buses come and take us out of the City. Those who
did not have the requisite $45.00 for a ticket were subsidized by those
who did have extra money. We waited for 48 hours for the buses, spending
the last 12 hours standing outside, sharing the limited water, food, and
clothes we had. We created a priority boarding area for the sick, elderly
and new born babies. We waited late into the night for the "imminent"
arrival of the buses. The buses never arrived. We later learned that the
minute the arrived at the City limits, they were commandeered by the
military.
By day 4 our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was
dangerously abysmal. As the desperation and despair increased, street
crime as well as water levels began to rise. The hotels turned us out and
locked their doors, telling us that the "officials" told us to report to
the convention center to wait for more buses. As we entered the center of
the City, we finally encountered the National Guard. The Guards told us we
would not be allowed into the Superdome as the City's primary shelter had
descended into a humanitarian and health hellhole. The guards further told
us that the City's only other shelter, the Convention Center, was also
descending into chaos and squalor and that the police were not allowing
anyone else in. Quite naturally, we asked, "If we can't go to the only 2
shelters in the City, what was our alternative?" The guards told us that
that was our problem, and no they did not have extra water to give to us.
This would be the start of our numerous encounters with callous and
hostile "law enforcement".
We walked to the police command center at Harrah's on Canal Street and
were told the same thing, that we were on our own, and no they did not
have water to give us. We now numbered several hundred. We held a mass
meeting to decide a course of action. We agreed to camp outside the police
command post. We would be plainly visible to the media and would
constitute a highly visible embarrassment to the City officials. The
police told us that we could not stay. Regardless, we began to settle in
and set up camp. In short order, the police commander came across the
street to address our group. He told us he had a solution: we should walk
to the Pontchartrain Expressway and cross the greater New Orleans Bridge
where the police had buses lined up to take us out of the City. The crowd
cheered and began to move. We called everyone back and explained to the
commander that there had been lots of misinformation and wrong information
and was he sure that there were buses waiting for us. The commander turned
to the crowd and stated emphatically, "I swear to you that the buses are
there."
We organized ourselves and the 200 of us set off for the bridge with great
excitement and hope. As we marched past the convention center, many locals
saw our determined and optimistic group and asked where we were headed. We
told them about the great news. Families immediately grabbed their few
belongings and quickly our numbers doubled and then doubled again. Babies
in strollers now joined us, people using crutches, elderly clasping
walkers and others people in wheelchairs. We marched the 2-3 miles to the
freeway and up the steep incline to the Bridge. It now began to pour down
rain, but it did not dampen our enthusiasm.
As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across
the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began
firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in
various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us
inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation.
We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the
commander's assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses
waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.
We questioned why we couldn't cross the bridge anyway, especially as there
was little traffic on the 6-lane highway. They responded that the West
Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes
in their City. These were code words for if you are poor and black, you
are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New
Orleans.
Our small group retreated back down Highway 90 to seek shelter from the
rain under an overpass. We debated our options and in the end decided to
build an encampment in the middle of the Ponchartrain Expressway on the
center divide, between the O'Keefe and Tchoupitoulas exits. We reasoned we
would be visible to everyone, we would have some security being on an
elevated freeway and we could wait and watch for the arrival of the yet to
be seen buses.
All day long, we saw other families, individuals and groups make the same
trip up the incline in an attempt to cross the bridge, only to be turned
away. Some chased away with gunfire, others simply told no, others to be
verbally berated and humiliated. Thousands of New Orleaners were prevented
and prohibited from self-evacuating the City on foot.
Meanwhile, the only two City shelters sank further into squalor and
disrepair. The only way across the bridge was by vehicle. We saw workers
stealing trucks, buses, moving vans, semi-trucks and any car that could
be hotwired. All were packed with people trying to escape the misery New
Orleans had become.
Our little encampment began to blossom. Someone stole a water delivery
truck and brought it up to us. Let's hear it for looting! A mile or so
down the freeway, an army truck lost a couple of pallets of C-rations on a
tight turn. We ferried the food back to our camp in shopping carts. Now
secure with the two necessities, food and water; cooperation, community,
and creativity flowered. We organized a clean up and hung garbage bags
from the rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We
designated a storm drain as the bathroom and the kids built an elaborate
enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken umbrellas, and other scraps.
We even organized a food recycling system where individuals could swap out
parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!).
This was a process we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina.  When
individuals had to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for
yourself only. You had to do whatever it took to find water for your kids
or food for your parents. When these basic needs were met, people began to
look out for each other, working together and constructing a community.
If the relief organizations had saturated the City with food and water in
the first 2 or 3 days, the desperation, the frustration and the ugliness
would not have set in. Flush with the necessities, we offered food and
water to passing families and individuals. Many decided to stay and join
us. Our encampment grew to 80 or 90 people. From a woman with a battery
powered radio we learned that the media was talking about us. Up in full
view on the freeway, every relief and news organizations saw us on their
way into the City. Officials were being asked what they were going to do
about all those families living up on the freeway? The officials responded
they were going to take care of us. Some of us got a sinking feeling.
"Taking care of us" had an ominous tone to it.
Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was
correct. Just as dusk set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out
of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our faces, screaming, "Get off the
fucking freeway". A helicopter arrived and used the wind from its blades
to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up
his truck with our food and water. Once again, at gunpoint, we were forced
off the freeway. All the law enforcement agencies appeared threatened when
we congregated or congealed into groups of 20 or more. In every
congregation of "victims" they saw "mob" or "riot". We felt safety in
numbers. Our "we must stay together" was impossible because the agencies
would force us into small atomized groups.
In the pandemonium of having our camp raided and destroyed, we scattered
once again. Reduced to a small group of 8 people, in the dark, we sought
refuge in an abandoned school bus, under the freeway on Cilo Street. We
were hiding from possible criminal elements but equally and definitely, we
were hiding from the police and sheriffs with their martial law, curfew
and shoot-to-kill policies.
The next days, our group of 8 walked most of the day, made contact with
New Orleans Fire Department and were eventually airlifted out by an urban
search and rescue team. We were dropped off near the airport and managed
to catch a ride with the National Guard. The two young guardsmen
apologized for the limited response of the Louisiana guards. They
explained that a large section of their unit was in Iraq and that meant
they were shorthanded and were unable to complete all the tasks they were
assigned.
We arrived at the airport on the day a massive airlift had begun. The
airport had become another Superdome. We 8 were caught in a press of
humanity as flights were delayed for several hours while George Bush
landed briefly at the airport for a photo op. After being evacuated on a
coast guard cargo plane, we arrived in San Antonio, Texas.
There the humiliation and dehumanization of the official relief effort
continued. We were placed on buses and driven to a large field where we
were forced to sit for hours and hours. Some of the buses did not have
air-conditioners. In the dark, hundreds if us were forced to share two
filthy overflowing porta-potties. Those who managed to make it out with
any possessions (often a few belongings in tattered plastic bags) we were
subjected to two different dog-sniffing searches.
Most of us had not eaten all day because our C-rations had been
confiscated at the airport because the rations set off the metal
detectors. Yet, no food had been provided to the men, women, children,
elderly, disabled as they sat for hours waiting to be "medically screened"
to make sure we were not carrying any communicable diseases.
This official treatment was in sharp contrast to the warm, heart-felt
reception given to us by the ordinary Texans. We saw one airline worker
give her shoes to someone who was barefoot. Strangers on the street
offered us money and toiletries with words of welcome. Throughout, the
official relief effort was callous, inept, and racist. There was more
suffering than need be. Lives were lost that did not need to be lost.

And a story about a different kind of looting-- the kind of looting the Bush Family is all
about and the kind of looting the Bush Regime epitomizes. Media Matters posted this story
today. It's worth reading and worth thinking about in relation to the story above.

RIGHT WINGERS COME TO THE DEFENSE OF CORPORATE PRICE GOUGING


In his September 7 syndicated column, ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel defended price gougers, writing that by charging $20 for a bottle of water to a person whose baby needed it to live, "the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it." Stossel added: "It was the price gouger's 'exploitation' that saved your child." He justified this claim because price gougers -- people and companies that charge exorbitant prices for scarce and necessary resources (such as water or oil) -- "save lives" because they dependably provide those necessary goods or services to those who need them, motivated by their own self-interest to make money.

A September 7 Wall Street Journal editorial, titled "In Praise of 'Gouging,'" also defended high oil prices and criticized anti-gouging laws.

From Stossel's September 7 column:
"Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is going to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowner thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't charge you a dime more than he charged last week. But you can't buy water from him. It's sold out. You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the price gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an 'outrageous' price -- say $20. You pay it to survive the disaster. You resent the price gouger. But if he hadn't demanded $20, he'd have been out of water. It was the price gouger's 'exploitation' that saved your child. It saved her because people look out for their own interests. Before you got to the water seller, other people did. At $1 a bottle, they stocked up. At $20 a bottle, they bought more cautiously. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it. The people the softheaded politicians think are cruelest are doing the most to help. Assuming the demand for bottled water was going to go up, they bought a lot of it, planning to resell it at a steep profit. If they hadn't done that, that water would not have been available for the people who need it the most... It's the price 'gougers' who bring the water, ship the gasoline, fix the roof, and rebuild the cities. The price 'gougers' save lives."

And there you have it-- the George Bush Republican economic plans for how America ought to be run.

PICTURE/1000 WORDS...

Thursday, September 08, 2005

IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS?

My friend M, commenting a few minutes ago on Cheney, said "He's useless, like Gore. They all are." GOP propagandists would rather you believe that Cheney is one swell dude (or at least an in control, competent, reliable can-do realist, or whatever antidote for the light-weight Bush is was sold to us as). But that's wearing a little thin just about now and the same propagandists are happy with their second line of defense-- the one M fell for: "They all stink." This is a tried and true method for historical political parties on the Right (like today's Republicans) to hold down electoral participation, one of their specialties. But there is a difference between what the two parties stand for. Generally speaking the Republican Party represents the interests of corporations and the very wealthy and the Democratic Party represents the interests of consumers, workers and others who need an equalizer as an antidote to the unbridled power (fueled by unfettered greed) of Big Business. Earlier today I put up a piece called REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE FOR KATRINA'S AND BUSH'S VICTIMS about the bankruptcy bill. A lot of Democratic politicians-- too many-- voted for that anti-people, pro-credit card company legislation. But there was a difference between the politicians of the two parties. 100% of the Republicans voted for it in the Senate and they also voted down all the amendments Democrats offered to ameliorate some of the most burdensome effects (like for victims of natural catastrophes). Over half the Democrats voted against the bill. Politicians are rarely leaders; they're followers and most have their wet fingers up to the wind at all times.

I saw a story today that, in my mind at least, is a far more telling anecdote about the difference between the two parties. One of Bush's top 5 cronies and his first head of FEMA, Joe Allbaugh (the man who brought in the incompetent current FEMA head, Mike Brown) is now a "strategic consultant" for Halliburton. He's down in Louisiana now "helping his clients," according to the WASHINGTON POST, "get business from perhaps the worst natural disaster in the nation's history." Are Democrats ambulance-chasing sharks too? Sure, some. But Clinton's ex-head of FEMA, James Lee Witt is working as a consultant for Gov. Kathleen Blanco. According to THE HILL "for the first 45 to 60 days, Witt is working on a pro-bono basis for the state of Louisiana. After that, a contract will be negotiated." A small story but a very telling one.

21 MIND-NUMBINGLY STUPID QUOTES ABOUT KATRINA & ITS AFTERMATH

My friend Jerry sent me this piece today. It'll probably be all over the Internet within a day or two. (If you've been following this blog, you've seen about half of these quotes come up the day they were blurted out.) Enjoy!


1) "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." –President Bush, on "Good Morning America," Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina

2) "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them." –Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the Hurricane flood evacuees in the Houston Astrodome, Sept. 5, 2005

3) "It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level....It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed." –House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Aug. 31, 2005

4) "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do ... The good news is — and it's hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house — he's lost his entire house — there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) —President Bush, touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005


5) "Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well." —FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005


6) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." –President Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, while touring Hurricane-ravaged Mississippi, Sept. 2, 2005

7) "I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who don't have food and water." –Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, on NPR's "All Things Considered," Sept. 1, 2005

8) "Well, I think if you look at what actually happened, I remember on Tuesday morning picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, 'New Orleans Dodged the Bullet.' Because if you recall, the storm moved to the east and then continued on and appeared to pass with considerable damage but nothing worse." –Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, blaming media coverage for his failings, "Meet the Press," Sept. 4, 2005

9) "I mean, you have people who don't heed those warnings and then put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. There may be a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to ride it out and understand that there are consequences to not leaving.” –Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Sept. 6, 2005 )


10) "You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals...many of these people, almost all of them that we see are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold." —CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on New Orleans' hurricane evacuees, Sept. 1, 2005


11) "Louisiana is a city that is largely under water." —Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, news conference, Sept. 3, 2005

12) "It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." –President George W. Bush, turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005

13) "I believe the town where I used to come – from Houston, Texas, to enjoy myself, occasionally too much – will be that very same town, that it will be a better place to come to." –President George W. 

14) "Last night, we showed you the full force of a superpower government going to the rescue." –MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Sept. 1, 2005


15) "You know I talked to Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi yesterday because some people were saying, 'Well, if you hadn't sent your National Guard to Iraq, we here in Mississippi would be better off.' He told me 'I've been out in the field every single day, hour, for four days and no one, not one single mention of the word Iraq.' Now where does that come from? Where does that story come from if the governor is not picking up one word about it? I don't know. I can use my imagination.” –Former President George Bush, who can give his imagination a rest, interview with CNN’s Larry King, Sept. 5, 2005


16) "...those who are stranded, who chose not to evacuate, who chose not to leave the city..." –FEMA Director Michael Brown, on New Orleans residents who could not evacuate because they were too poor and lacked the means to leave, CNN interview, Sept. 1, 2005


17) "We just learned of the convention center – we being the federal government – today." –FEMA Director Michael Brown, to ABC's Ted Koppel, Sept. 1, 2005, to which Koppel responded " Don't you guys watch television? Don't you guys listen to the radio? Our reporters have been reporting on it for more than just today."


18) "I actually think the security is pretty darn good. There's some really bad people out there that are causing some problems, and it seems to me that every time a bad person wants to scream or cause a problem, there's somebody there with a camera to stick it in their face." –FEMA Director Michael Brown, CNN interview, Sept. 2, 2005


19) "I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans." –FEMA Director Michael Brown, arguing that the victims bear some responsibility, CNN interview, Sept. 1, 2005


20) "Thank President Clinton and former President Bush for their strong statements of support and comfort today. I thank all the leaders that are coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi and Alabama to our help and rescue. We are grateful for the military assets that are being brought to bear. I want to thank Senator Frist and Senator Reid for their extraordinary efforts. Anderson, tonight, I don't know if you've heard – maybe you all have announced it -- but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating." –Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), to CNN's Anderson Cooper, Aug. 31, 2005, to which Cooper responded:
"I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated. And when they hear politicians slap – you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there's not enough facilities to take her up. Do you get the anger that is out here?"

And an addition (Sept 9, 2005) from a far right KKK asshole Louisianans have been sending to Congress for too long:

21- "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." - Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA)