I know it's early

But I'm happy:

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Israel and the Palestinians will announce a formal cease-fire to halt four years of bloodshed when their leaders meet for a landmark summit in Egypt on Tuesday, both sides said on Monday.

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are to meet in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for the highest-level meeting between the sides since a Palestinian uprising broke out in 2000.

[. . .]

The best I'll let myself hope for is that they stop killing each other. Things have taken an interesting turn since the Palestinian elections and it looks like Abbas is serious about keeping the factions under control. Let's hope Hamas actually does want what's best for their people as they've been saying for as long as I can remember.

Free Press

That's a laugh. From Matt Yglesias:

Yet another in a depressing continuing series. Josh Marshall notes that the Republican National Committee is now threatening legal action against media outlets and independent advocacy groups who criticize the president. The RNC, as I trust I needn't point out, is, at this point, rather intimately connected to the state apparatus of this fine nation of ours. Now to be fair, in Russia they prefer to silence critics with legal action unrelated to the substance of the criticism. Trying to make use of libel and slander laws to shield political leaders from criticism is more the sort of thing you see in Singapore or Jordan. Still, the basic point should, I think, be clear. But libertarians need no longer worry about President Bush -- after all, all of this is being done for the sake of gutting Social Security!

[. . .]

And you know there are judges out there who'll rule in favor of these idiots. Don't say I didn't warn ya. Repeat after me, "Deutschland űber Alles!"

Fuck. . . support the troops

NYT:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - President Bush's budget would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care, administration officials said Sunday.

[. . .]

Veterans groups attacked the proposals. Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, said: "The proposed increase in health spending is not sufficient at a time when the number of patients is increasing and there has been a huge increase in health care costs. It will not cover the need. The enrollment fee is a health care tax, designed to raise revenue and to discourage people from enrolling."

Mr. Fuller added that the budget would force veterans hospitals and clinics to limit services. "We are already seeing an increase in waiting lists, even for some Iraq veterans," he said.

[. . .]

That's Chimpy Inc.'s approach to everything. Use 'em up, throw 'em away.

...And You Get Your Own Humvee, Too!

No little flu bug is going to prevent me from bringing you the latest news that you can't live without. The NY Daily News has two stories on female G.I. mud wrestling in Iraq. Here and here.

In front of a cheering male audience, two young women wearing only bras and panties throw themselves into a mud-filled plastic kiddie pool and roll around in a wild wrestling match.

A young blond lifts her T-shirt to expose her breasts. A brunette turns her back to the camera and exposes her thong undies.

Photos of a wild Oct. 30 party at the camp show women soldiers baring their breasts to male onlookers, and other female G.I.s clad only in bras and panties wrestling and cavorting in a mud-filled plastic pool as men cheer, leer and snap pictures.

It looks like the Army is trying new ways to stimulate recruitment, nez pas?

Get well soon

Ol' Gord is under the weather with the flu. Hope you feel better soon, pardner.

Perceptions

Kevin Drum:

THE SOCIAL SECURITY CON GAME....If there's any single area where conservatives have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, it's in convincing the populace that government sucks. Sure, they got a great kickstart from Vietnam and Watergate, but it was decades of railing against waste and fraud and incompetence that finally won the day for them. [my emphasis]

[. . .]

Ain't it the truth. That's what I don't get about the average Joe Republican. He's one of those guys who's supposed to hate big government, hate deficit spending, hate nation-building. Yet, with all that, he voted for Bush and is proud of it. How the average Republican guy on the street (as opposed to the ones feeding at the government trough) can convince himself to look the other way as Chimpy runs up the deficit, increases the size of the federal government to record levels, and undertakes this nation-building folly in Iraq is incomprehensible to me. How can 51% of this country refuse to see the obvious? Quoting the Sister: . . .

More below the fold . . .

[I'm trying something here with the 'More below the fold' link. Part of my quest to make the Brain easier to read. I'm gonna try keep the size of the posts on the front page small, so readers can scan over more posts without having to scroll forever to get through the long posts to see what's below. I'm only gonna post the first paragraph of really long posts here and link to the rest. This is just in the testing phase. If it works out well, I'll get my partners in on it too. As always, comments are solicited. BTW comments to the posts will stay on this page - the F-man]

'Tort reform'

From DavidNYC blogging at Kos:

In a little-noticed move this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted, by a 13-5 margin, to approve the purposefully mis-named "Class Action Fairness Act" (PDF). (Three Democrats joined all ten Republicans.) What does this bill do, and why is it so harmful?

The CAFA requires that most class-action lawsuits be brought in federal, rather than state, court. On first blush, this might sound like a good idea: If you've got a truly national case with lots of plaintiffs from around the country, then your intuition might tell you the suit should proceed in federal court. And that's precisely what the bill's sponsors want you to believe.

The problem is this: The federal courts are already over-burdened and under-funded. This bill would force cases from fifty different state systems - which can better share the burden - into one jammed-up federal system. The delays for class actions would be enormous - long enough, quite probably, to serve as a deterrent to bringing worthy claims.

[. . .]

Yup, think 'Clear Skies', 'Healthy Forests', and 'No Child Left Behind'.

Oy gevult

Rummy's making the rounds of the talking heads this morning. Seen the war criminal on Little George and Russert. Now, I've known my share of bullshit artists, pretty good at it myself, but I have never seen anybody talk a line like he does. Yeesh.

Note: Watch MTP and sit through Rummy's shit for the first 30 minutes just to see the interview with Teddy Kennedy afterward. He's got some good ideas.

Update: 15:45:

Blondie dissects the war criminal.

So true

From the General:

[. . .]

It's amazing how much things have changed. Four years ago, a man couldn't admit to his love for violence. Now, we have pastors who tell us to watch gladiator movies because "God designed men to be dangerous," Marine generals who joyfully proclaim their love for shooting brown people, and sixteen-year old Christian columnists who defend them.

[. . .]

Now I'm a dangerous dude, fuck with me and find out, but I don't like throwing somebody a beating. Haven't done it in over 15 years, closer to 20. I don't like violence, I've seen too much of it. Unfortunately, those who get off on it are now in positions of power and it's fucking scary.

The Constitution

Another good one via Encino Man:

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years...

...and we're not using it anymore.

Weekend reading

Chapter 10 of Empires is up over at creativtiy . . . For those who are following, sorry for the delay.

Nostalgia

After listening to all of Chimpy's bullshit over the past few months since the election, I figured I'd take a nostagic look back to just before the 2000 election, when life was good. Did I find this all on my own? Sadly, No!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion." [my emphasis]

[. . .]

Okay, break's over, back to the fight.

Options and Alternatives

From the Center for American Progress.

If we're gonna beat the Repubs, we can't just say everything they do sucks (which it does). We're gonna have to give alternate options. There are some good ideas over at CAP.

Real Progress on National Savings and Generational Responsibility: The one thing nearly everyone in Social Security circles used to agree on was that as we moved closer to the baby boom retirement it was increasingly important to display generational responsibility – to make the tradeoffs to increase national savings now to ensure that we were putting our economy in a better place to deal with known challenges down the road. Indeed, the improvement in the federal fiscal picture in the 1990s – which was substantially driven by a commitment to fiscal discipline and saving surpluses for Social Security – was solely responsible for a doubling of national savings from 3.1 percent of GDP in 1992 to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2000. On the verge of the baby boom retirement, the Bush administration has abandoned the principle of generational responsibility and passed successive rounds of long-term tax cuts that have taken us giant steps backwards – contributing to an erosion of national savings to only 1.4 percent of GDP over the last seven quarters, the lowest level since 1934. Even in the wake of this deterioration, there is too little focus in policy discussions about Social Security on increasing savings now. Distressingly, the new gold standard for Social Security plans seems to be that they at best do no harm to national savings. With our national savings at historic lows and the baby boom retirement at our doorstep, it is absolutely essential that any Social Security reform plan move us back in the right direction by ensuring that we increase national savings now.

Saturday Cattle Dog Blogging

Keeping an eye on her Kingdom.

Forget 2052

This article by Everell Cummins in the Ess Eff Chronicle discusses predicting the future of Social Security.

I've had to think hard about 2052 lately. The Congressional Budget Office has told us the Social Security Trust Fund will be used up by 2052 and, from then on, current income will provide only 81 percent of the money necessary to pay benefits. No ifs, ands or buts.

It must have been hard for them to think that far ahead. It certainly hurts my head, just trying to imagine 2052. Paris Hilton will be 70 then and she'll be furious. The Olson twins will be 65 and very much surprised to find the fund depleted. Brad Pitt will be 88 by then and will be shocked to go to his mailbox on check day and find only 81 percent of a check.

When we're in 2052 and look back, whom can we blame? Today the fund has $1.5 trillion and is still growing by $90 billion a year, so who blew it? It was the Baby Boomers. There were too many of them and they lived too long. They were born between 1946 and 1964, when the pill halted the boom. By 2052, the oldest of these folks, like Bill Clinton (born in 1946) will already be 106. The youngest, Brad Pitt and the others, will be 88. Paris and the twins will be very angry with Bill and Brad and all those in between.

So what went wrong? Back in 1981, Allan Greenspan headed a commission to look at Social Security long range. Recognizing they had to prepare for the Boomers when they began to retire in about 2011, they said, "Let's increase the payroll taxes now, well before the Boomers retire; maybe get the fund up to a trillion and a half or so with the interest the fund will earn. That ought to do it." They calculated the fund would last at least to 2056, 75 years in the future.

Well, they did get the fund up to a trillion and a half, so why does the Congressional Budget Office now think it's not enough? How did Greenspan figure it in 1981? How did the CBO figure it now? Did they use the same figures?

No, nobody uses the same figures. In fact, the Bush administration uses even more pessimistic estimates and tells us the fund will only last until 2042. Why don't they get together and decide how long Bill and Brad and the others are going to live? Four years longer than now? Six years longer than now? Ten years more than now?

Then there are a few other factors they have to figure. Will immigration continue to boost the workforce, or will we do better job of controlling the influx? The more workers we have paying Social Security taxes, the higher income to the fund. There are other variables, too: the birth rate; productivity; the marriage rate; the disability rate. They should be able to compute all that, shouldn't they?

Yes, the actuaries do figure out all of those variables -- and come out with different answers. A small variation in even one of the factors completely changes the outlook. Moreover, by changing several of the factors plausibly, you can predict almost anything you want as an outcome.

So you can see why I'm looking forward to 2052, at age 125, looking back to see how it all comes out.

Let's face it, nobody can confidently tell us now what the shape of Social Security financing will be in 2052, 2042 or any other date that far down the road. When human behavior and the march of history are involved, we can perhaps plan ahead plausibly 10 or 15 years in the future, but not 40 or 50.

Social Security long-range financing is working out pretty much as envisioned by the Greenspan commission in the early 1980s. So leave it alone. Concentrate on the 40 or 50 more urgent problems now facing our nation.

Everell Cummins is a retired executive of the Social Security Administration

Shit, if I knew what was going to happen tomorrow I'd have my life savings down at the Race & Sports Book.

Words of Wisdom on SSI

I know all I need to know about Bush's proposals to dismantle our social safety net and swindle folks out of their savings. In a nutshell, it's a pack of lies designed to enrich his Wall Street cronies in their retirement, and to Hell with American workers. More to the point, it's meant to impoverish the government so they won't be in any shape to help anyone other than the fat cats.

All the rest is commentary. Some of the best comes from Paul Krugman, economist and Professor of Economics at Princeton. He has been doing a series on Bush's Big Lie. He knows what he is talking about and doesn't pull his punches. In his Op-Ed in today's NYTimes:

A few weeks ago I tried to explain the logic of Bush-style Social Security privatization: it is, in effect, as if your financial adviser told you that you wouldn't have enough money when you retire - but you shouldn't save more. Instead, you should borrow a lot of money, buy stocks and hope for capital gains.

If you put part of your payroll taxes into a personal account, your future benefits will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount you would have had to repay if you had borrowed the money at a real interest rate of 3 percent.

Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution got it exactly right: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."

Experts usually tell people to plan for their retirement by investing in a mix of stocks and bonds. They disapprove strongly of speculation on margin: borrowing to buy stocks. Yet Mr. Bush wants tens of millions of Americans to do exactly that.

Do you believe that we should replace America's most successful government program with a system in which workers engage in speculation that no financial adviser would recommend? Do you believe that we should do this even though it will do nothing to improve the program's finances? If so, George Bush has a deal for you.

Please go read him. Mr. Krugman is an expert on this shit.

You may read previous articles in his series for the NYTimes by going to their Op-Ed Archive, or read his other stuff at his Web Page.

In a comment elsewhere, Fixer brings up the point, and I concur, that all Bush's talk about Social Security may be just a smokescreen to focus attention away from other goals of his agenda.

Unfit for command

Via David:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Haw haw haw haw haw! —cracker USMC Lt. Gen. James Mattis

Now, several times during my service in the military, I've had to dispatch another human being to the afterlife. I'm not proud of it, I don't talk about it because most folks don't understand, but it was them or me. When I'm faced with those options, well sorry, you lose. When I was in the combat arms, I had officers who'd talk about killing. At that time they were mostly Vietnam-era vets. Not a one of them ever said it was 'fun' to shoot someone. It's never fun to watch another human die in one of the most horrible ways possible. General Mattis should be relieved of duty. Killing is a necessity of conflict, but it should never be taken lightly or in 'fun'. This man is a sociopath and unfit to command Marines.

Update: 15:20:

And I can't believe I just heard Pat Buchanan (on MSNBC) standing up for this fucking guy. He's saying something like, the guy is a Marine, and to him fighting is fun, it's fun to shoot guys in war, especially those who slap their women around. I think, personally, that it would be fun to slap Pat Buchanan around.

Social Insecurity

Andrew Cassel of the Philadelphia Inquirer has deciphered the muck that is the Bush Social Insecurity plan and offers a good summary/commentary. Here's an excerpt:

There will be even more restrictions after you retire.

In contrast to all the rhetoric about owning "real wealth" that your kids can inherit, the plan
would convert those investment accounts into fixed, lifetime annuities. That means retirees in the future would receive their benefits in monthly installments, guaranteed to last as long as they live - and no longer.

Which is, of course, pretty much how Social Security works today.

At this juncture, you might be tempted to ask: So why all the hoo-hah?

If the government won't get out of the way; won't let you invest your retirement account as you choose; and won't even give you free access to it after you retire, what's the point?

Good question.

One thing we know is not the point: "saving" Social Security.

Even the Bush administration admits that personal accounts won't cure the retirement system's long-term funding shortfall. Although the President didn't mention this in his speech, an unnamed "White House official" acknowledged as much in a briefing for reporters.

Go New York

(New York City) A New York State court ruled Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

"This is a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers," said Susan Sommer, Supervising Attorney at Lambda Legal and the lead attorney on the case.

[. . .]

Via Atrios.

I'm always proud to be a New Yorker, but today especially. Good for Justice Cohan, and good for New York.

And to quote Maru: Blogger sucks wet monkey ass.

Happy Friday!

Thanks, Skippy.

Shakespeare

Encino Man (Mrs. F's cousin) sent me this:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind . . .

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. --- William Shakespeare

Advice For McCartney

Tim Carvell has some advice for Paul McCartney during his Super Bowl half-time show:

We like the simple shirt and slacks that you have chosen as your outfit. However, to prevent even the slightest possibility of a "wardrobe malfunction," we were wondering if you could maybe wear something extra over your outfit? Or maybe under it? Like an extra pair of underpants over your usual underpants? Or maybe a sweater, and a second pair of pants over your original pair of pants? Nothing too noticeable - just a little insurance. I'm sure you understand.

"Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da": Is there something you can say after "life goes on" that's not "bra"? The word still makes us a little nervous around here. Thanks.

"Blackbird": "Take these broken wings and learn to fly"? It's a lovely image, Paul, but: Children are going to be watching this. No parent wants to have to explain injured birds to their children, especially not on Super Sunday. Can you sing around it so the bird's wings aren't broken? Maybe the bird could take its "bucket o' wings" and learn to fly? KFC may pay for the product placement. Just a thought.

"I Saw Her Standing There": "Well, she was just 17, you know what I mean"? I am fairly certain that I do not know what you mean, but I do know that she'd better be at least 18. Make that 21. Or 25. She was just 25. That works fine.

Just got back from a meeting with wardrobe, and they want me to ask: How would you feel about a suit of armor? As I understand it, you've been knighted, so you probably have one lying around, yes? If not, we can provide one for you. Just ask!

One little(?) nipple that no one even saw and it won't go away. Comedy writers will be cruisin' on that one for years. God should only forbid that sensitive football-fan ears should take offense from Beatles lyrics from forty years ago. Hey, Powell's out, let 'er buck I say! Go read.

They booed him

Good. From the Rude One:

[. . .]

And the Rude Pundit is sick of hearing how "bold" is every fucking thing Bush proposes. If George Bush took a shit in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Orrin Hatch would appear on Fox "News" to declare how bold a shit it was and how mighty a loaf was pinched out and how are the Democrats going to deal with a President who is unafraid to take a dump with a stone Lincoln staring at him. It is not "bold" to target gays for isolation and denigration in the Constitution; it is not "bold" to cut domestic programs that mainly help those in poverty so that massive tax cuts can be made "permanent;" it is not "bold" to say that you want to create a Social Security system that no longer guarantees a retirement benefit for seniors and that cuts benefits to others; it is not "bold" to hinder scientific developments under the veil of "protecting life;" it is not "bold" to declare that that we should make sure that people on death row are actually guilty; it is not "bold" to imply that you will use military force to impose your political will on other nations. If this is what passes for "bold" in this America, then, indeed, cowards should hold their heads high and declare that their pusillanimity is actually "bold" retreat. Or maybe such "bold" people will just ink their fingers purple in solidarity with Iraqi "voters." Or the truly "bold" will dress in purple (like Condi).

[. . .]

Inherit the Windbags

Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes sounds off about Evolution v. Creation, and Bush's other retrograde schemes. Go Read.

As with Iraq, President Bush has applied his doctrine of pre-emption on evolution, cutting it off before it can pose a threat to our well-being.

So much for the Tree of Knowledge. Mr. Bush gives us the Ficus of Faith.

I misunderestimated this ambitious president. His social engineering schemes in the Middle East and America are breathtakingly brazen.

He doesn't just want to dismantle the 60's. He wants to dismantle the whole century - from the Scopes trial to Social Security. He can shred one of the greatest achievements of the New Deal and then go after other big safety-net Democratic programs, reversing the prevailing philosophy of many decades that our tax and social welfare systems should equalize the distribution of wealth, just a little bit. Barry Goldwater wouldn't have had the brass to take a jackhammer to that edifice.

The White House seems to think Social Security was corrupt from the moment it was enacted in 1935. It wants to replace it with private accounts that will fatten the wallets of stockbrokers and put the savings of Americans who didn't inherit vast fortunes at risk.

Mr. Bush and his crew not only want to scrap the New Deal. By weakening environmental and safety protections and trying to flatten the progressive income tax, they're trying to eradicate not just one Roosevelt but two, going after the progressive legacy of Theodore.

With their brutal assault on history and their sanctimonious manner, they give a whole new meaning to Teddy's philosophy of the presidency. Bully pulpit, indeed.

A small-minded bully and his gang in a really big schoolyard.

Super Bowl Edsel Malfunction

In a highly unusual last-minute reversal, the Ford Motor Company withdrew a commercial from the game late yesterday in the face of complaints.

Ford canceled a spot for a new Lincoln truck, scheduled for the second quarter of Super Bowl XXXIX on Sunday, because of charges from an advocacy organization that it exploited the sex scandals embroiling the Catholic Church.

It hits a little too close to home for Protestants too, I think.

Go see a picture from the ad. What the fuck were they thinking? "Lincoln - No. 1 choice of child molesters"?

That is not to say the men who compose the majority of the Super Bowl audience will be ignored. There will be 10 or so spots from Anheuser-Busch aimed at men for beer brands like Budweiser and Bud Light.

And a prescription drug that treats erectile dysfunction, Cialis, will return to the Super Bowl for a second consecutive year, with a spot by Grey set to the 1963 rock tune "Be My Baby."

"Be My Baby". Oh, swell. Pedophilia gets its shot after all.

I think the clergyman in the Ford ad may have partaken of the above. Well, we can easily see what appeals to football fans: Weak beer and chemical hard-ons. Only in America. Yeesh.

Personally, I think the only attraction of football is you get to see millionaires knock each other around. Super Bowl's a good time to go to the supermarket, unless you get there at half-time when every pissed-off wife in town has been sent for munchies and beer by a bunch of drunks.

You know, I couldn't make up shit like this. Thank you, Lord.

Less Devil Pups

From today's NYTimes:

For the first time in nearly a decade, the Marine Corps in January missed its monthly recruiting goal, in what military officials said was the latest troubling indicator of the Iraq war's impact on the armed services.

Even as the Marine Corps strains to meet its recruiting targets, the Air Force and Navy are flush with recruits and are actually shrinking their overall ranks. Military personnel experts say there are indications that young people interested in joining the military may be turning to the Air Force and Navy, which have suffered relatively few casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In contrast, the Marines make up about 21 percent of the fighting force in Iraq now but have suffered 31 percent of the military deaths there, according to Pentagon statistics.

"It's not surprising that the Navy and Air Force would be doing just fine," said Professor Kohn. "Kids getting a start in the military will migrate to the physically safer services, and it seems to them that they'll get more technical training there."

Whatever else they may be, these kids ain't stoopid, Perfesser. The Marine Corps has been described as the best invention ever for killing American youth.

If you didn't bother to read the article, the Corps shortfall was only 3% for January and they began the year with 52% of the recruiting goal for '05 already "in the bag" so to speak. I hope it's the start of a trend, though. Our youngsters should save themselves for a crisis that involves actually defending the United States. Bush's Imperial War ain't it.

Address commentary

I was asleep 2 minutes after writing the post below. This morning, I see a comment from the Sister:

F - You mentioned earlier you like a good rant? Well, I just went off on a doozy.

I seriously don't think I could be more annoyed without my head exploding.

Unlike our (p)resident Dicknose, she's telling the truth. Go read.

Note: I just heard the highlights of Harry and Nancy's Dem response. I didn't find Harry as boring as Sis said, but they were both a little stiff. I did like how Harry equated the 'personal' accounts as 'gambling' opposed to 'insurance'. We can only hope all of the Dems pick up this talking point and hammer the shit out of it.

I'm not watching Chimpy throw shit at the American people make his State of the Union Address. It's Law & Order reruns for me.

Wow, Deja Vu All Over again

If you are interested in Iraq/Vietnam comparisons, NightLight has a good one in rebuttal to Christopher Hitchens misbegotten attempt to dissociate the two.

In closing, Chris, even the "dead parrot" quotes don’t excuse this vituperative, illogical chicanery. A better Python analogue for this piece would be the “how to defend yourself against fresh fruit” routine. Remember? “But we’re not being attacked by fresh fruit,” the baffled students would reply when John Cleese brought out the banana, or apple, or orange. They would try to make him understand what the real dangers were, but he wouldn’t listen. Instead he’d attack them with increasing shrillness for their simple and reasonable act of objection. He kept getting more and more vicious, until in the end he was left alone in a room full of corpses.

But, Chris, that was just a comedy routine.

There's nothing funny about either Iraq or Vietnam. One possible future parallel I would draw is that Vietnam prospered as a nation, although not necessarily economically, after we quit trying to wreck the joint and left.

...But Nobody's Home

Stole this one from Travis:

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

Screw you

I love a good rant. Via David via PO'd Patricia:

[. . .]

Okay, you want God? Let’s talk about God. Your religion is bogus. Fundamentalism, the facile belief in the unexplained and un-researched, is something you born-agains (couldn’t get it right the first time, huh?) share with Al Qaeda, whose ideologues doggedly adhere to religious misinterpretations every bit as silly and dangerous as yours. Just like you, Muslim fundamentalists long to impose an unrealistic and intolerant pseudo-Calvinist morality on the world. In fact, America’s religious right has so much in common with the Shiah, it’s a wonder you guys don’t invite them to join the Rotary. Born-againsters look for the face of Christ in the wallpaper; fundamentalist Muslims hallucinate the voice of the 12th Imam; but aside from that (and extremely divergent attitudes toward pork), you both hate the same stuff — homosexuality, pacifism, Jews, education, uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap, tattoos, infidels ... (They also share your love of super-lethal weaponry.)

[. . .]

The Election Doesn't Change That

Arianna Huffington on the Iraqi election.

It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving mortar blasts to cast ballots; election workers counting votes by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional garb proudly holding up their purple-ink-stained fingers.

It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war — think Saddam Hussein's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" — this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions.

But this moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it. The triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment

Let's not forget that for all President Bush's rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, a free election was the administration's fallback position — more Plan D than guiding principle. We were initially going to install Ahmad Chalabi as our man in Baghdad, remember? And the White House consented to an open election only after Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani sent his followers into the streets to demand it — and chose an election date that came after our presidential campaign was done, just in case more suicide bombers than voters turned up at Iraqi polling places.

And the election doesn't change that.

And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998, when they urged President Clinton and Congress to take down Hussein "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" and a Hussein/Al Qaeda link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.

This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heartwarming as it was, doesn't change any of that.

She's absolutely right. We were still duped into a war for oil and empire by lies.

Elect an idiot, there goes the language

From Left I on the News:

So it seems that if you flunk English, but then get elected President, the language will come to you. Merriam-Webster now says in approving a new pronunciation for the word "nuclear":

"Though disapproved of by many, [the pronunciation "nuke-u-lar" has] been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president."

Giving entirely new meaning, and undoubtedly mangled pronunciation along with it, to "L'etat, c'est moi." Next up: Merriam-Webster redefines "truth" as "whatever George Bush says it is."

Oh fucking swell. So in order to be a good American, you not only have to think ignorant, now you have to talk ignorant as well? Phooey.

Speaking of Beer and Whores...

Go read Will Durst's State of the Union speech drinking game.

Whores

Gillard:

[. . .]

Owens should know better, because as long as the GOP campaigns on race, they will never gain more than that 15 percent of black voters, which means 85 percent still vote Democratic. Owens "proposing legislation" is pretty pointless. What they need to do is call these people out for what they are, bribe-seekers. They want that Bush money to run their churches.

[. . .]

The "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," to be unveiled today in Los Angeles, is designed to help African American churches gain influence in the Republican Party and promote socially conservative legislation. Highlights of the plan include:

Marriage: Focus on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

• Wealth creation: Private Social Security investment accounts and encouraging homeownership.

• Education: School vouchers, charter schools and boosting black enrollment in higher education.

• Prison reform: Including a "Second Chance Act," reentry programs and laws restoring the rights of felons.

• Africa: Intervention in Sudan and penalties against corporations that explore for oil in the region.

• Healthcare overhaul: Including programs to cover the poor.

[. . .]

Hell will become the new home of the NHL before the GOP does more than lip service on any of these issues. How dumb can you be? They just want some compliant negroes to push their agenda. Anyone with political savvy knows the GOP will never support most of this crap.

Yet there are some religious leaders in the black community on their knees, just waiting for their taste of Bush's choad.

mmmmm . . . Beer

Via WTF:

A Slovak man trapped in his car under an avalanche freed himself by drinking 60 bottles of beer and urinating on the snow to melt it.

Rescue teams found Richard Kral drunk and staggering along a mountain path four days after his Audi car was buried in the Slovak Tatra mountains.

[. . .]

Link.

What could I add?

Social Security reality

Krugman via David at 42:

[. . .]

Schemes for Social Security privatization, like the one described in the 2004 Economic Report of the President, invariably assume that investing in stocks will yield a high annual rate of return, 6.5 or 7 percent after inflation, for at least the next 75 years. Without that assumption, these schemes can't deliver on their promises. Yet a rate of return that high is mathematically impossible unless the economy grows much faster than anyone is now expecting. [my emphasis]

[. . .]

If my investments performed at a guaranteed 6.5 to 7%, my ass would be retired by now.

Update: 18:00:

Josh Marshall:

Not a single Senate Democrat will support President Bush’s proposal to divert a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to personal investment accounts, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday.

If he is right, Bush’s plan will be dead on arrival in the Senate, where a supermajority of 60 votes will be needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents. Republicans have 55 seats.

I'm doing the Dance of Joy. How's that for Democratic unity? I didn't think we had it in us.

The Homeland Security State (Part II)

Nick Turse in TomDispatch. Via Working For Change. Our post on Part I is here. The articles detail the whole range of surveillance, intelligence-gathering methods, and laws that threaten and invade our privacy in many matters, as far as Mr. Turse knows them. The "War on Terror" seems to spreading out to include all of us. It's long, but go read.

Today, freedom -- to be spread abroad by force of arms -- is increasingly a privilege that can be rescinded at home when anyone acts a little too free. Today, America is just another area of operations for the Pentagon; while those who say the wrong things; congregate in the wrong places; wear the wrong t-shirts; display the wrong stickers; or just look the wrong way find themselves recast as "enemies" and put under the eye of, if not the care of, the state. Today, a growing Homeland Security complex of federal, local, and private partners is hard at work establishing turf rights, garnering budgetary increases, and ramping up a new security culture nationwide. And, unfortunately, the programs and abuses highlighted in this series are but the publicly known tip of the iceberg.

Imagine if this last program were integrated with any of the aforementioned ventures -- in our increasingly brave new (blurred) world. Yet, for all their secret doings, vaunted programs, futuristic technologies and their powerful urge to turn all American citizens into various kinds of tractable database material, our new Homeland Security managers require one critical element: us. They require our "Eagle Eyes," our assent, and -- if not our outright support -- then our ambivalence and acquiescence. They need us to be their dime-store spies; they need us to drive their tracking device-equipped cars; they need us to accede to their revisions of the first amendment.

That simple fact makes us powerful. If you don't dig the Homeland Security State, do your best to thwart it. Of course, such talk, let alone action, probably won't be popular -- but since when has anything worthwhile, from working for peace to fighting for civil rights, been easy? If everyone was for freedom, there would be no need to fight for it. The choice is yours.

Why is our government afraid of ordinary citizens exercising their constitutional rights? Most people never see it that way. They're just living their lives.

Look, if I see anyone doing something that I think might be a precursor to any act of terror, damn right I'll snitch 'em off. It's my civic duty. Same with a major crime (unless I did it, of course!).

When they come to ask (or tell) me to simply spy on my neighbors, I'm gonna tell 'em to get fucked. Or perhaps I'll signify agreement by snapping to rigid attention, clicking my heels, extending my arm straight out, and saying "Heil Bush!" Yeah, maybe when pigs fly.

Links

In the ultimate of hypocrisy, I direct you to some good bloglinks. A qualification, eponymous has a list of Iraqi blogs in the sidebar and I direct you there. Stay and check out the posts too, of course.

Is this still America?

Found this via Pam:

One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

[. . .]

Let that sink in a minute:

". . . newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing . . ."



Is Josef Goebbels writing the education syllabus in this country or maybe the old Soviet Politburo? Or is Jerry Falwell? WTF? When I went to school, my teachers impressed upon us, beat it into our heads, that once freedom of the press is curtailed, America goes down the tubes. That the only thing that separates us from tyranny is the transparency of government and the ability of the press to give us the Truth. If our kids think the press should be muzzled and censored, we've got BIG fucking problems in this country.

Update: 05:45:

The Ghost has this too. And I pilfered a comment from his post.

I blame the parents for that. So many kids are given everything they want, they do not value these freedoms. Of course, once they've been taken away and the kids have to fend for themselves, they will be kicking themselves. - old white lady

And just a thought before I head off to the shop. I never thought I'd see the day when Americans would be so nonchalant about giving up their rights.