George Bush's Power Grab

In general, the Cato Institute and I don't really see eye to eye.  I'm sure it really slays them, but their staunch conservative rhetoric on many things from trade to political relationships rubs this here liberal raw in many places.

That being said, they do seem to have a backbone and have written article spelling out Dubya's dismal record vis-a-vis Constitutional rights.  As they say, it is ironic that a President who insists on strict Constitutionalist judges should have such a cavalier attitude towards the same document himself.

It has always stuck me as strange how Dubya is held in such high esteem by the very core group that he seems to have the most disdain for.  That the far right wing, espousing "values" like a hands-off government and no taxes, should still fall for the empty rhetoric of a group of power-mad politicos whose very core ideals are at such odds with this, is hard for me to comprehend. These supporters, who feared the sky falling in if a Democrat should get elected, just can't seem to see it is far worse under the current Republican regime.  I can't see how the Democrats could have been worse as far as an intrusive government than Dubya's minions.

And don't get me started on the tax thing.  The current cynics in office crow about an effective tax break, but of course it only applies to the very rich and is only been documented to have hurt the economy.  But in typical fashion, this regime and its blind, deaf and dumb supporters figure if they just keep saying the economy is getting better, and keep saying it louder, we're not only going to believe the lie, it will almost seem like the truth.

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush

Technorati Tags: george+bush cato+institute

A secular Constitution

Oh man, this is a classic quote! Follow the link for more:

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Here's a way to frame the conflict

Technorati Tags: secular pharyngula

Anti-religion Bumper Stickers

Some very funny bumper stickers. If I put bumper stickers on my car, these would be some of them:

" So Many Right-Wing Christians So Few Lions "
" God: A Make Believe Friend For Grown Ups "
" Evolution is a FACT God is just a theory "
" MILITANT AGNOSTIC I Don't Know And You Don't Either "
" Don't Pray In My School And I Won't Think In Your Church "
Check'em out!

Religion (Anti) Bumper Stickers

Technorati Tags: atheist bumperstickers

Cartoon Torture

A couple of very funny cartoons about Dick Cheney and the despicable habit of viewing torture as justified in any way:

Dick Cheney's Guide to Solving Problems with Torture
Anti-rape is for wussies

Technorati Tags: dickcheney politicalcartoons

Global Test

Technorati Tags: bushjoke globaltest

Latest Bush joke

The latest Bush joke that is making the email rounds:

FOUR GHOSTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE

One night, George W. Bush is tossing restlessly in his White House bed. He awakens to see George Washington standing right by him. Bush asks, "Hey Georgie, what's the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," Washington advises, and then fades away

The next night, Bush is astir again, and sees the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moving through the darkened bedroom. Bush calls out, "Yo Tom, please, what is the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Respect the Constitution, as I did," Jefferson advises, and dims from sight.

The third night sleep still does not come for Bush. He awakens to see the ghost of FDR hovering over his bed. Bush whispers, "Hey Franky Baby, what is the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Help the less fortunate, just as I did," FDR replies and fades into the mist.

Bush isn't sleeping well the fourth night when he sees another figure moving in the shadows. It is the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Bush pleads, "Hey Abe my man, what's the best thing I can do right now to help the country?"

Lincoln replies, "Go see a play."

Technorati Tags: bushjoke lincoln

Night before Fitzmas

THe Nightmare before Fitzmas

Technorati Tags: fitzmas plamegate

American Idiots

I'm sure most of you already read Pharyngula (if you don't you should!), but there's an excellent post on a column by Charlies Pierce, who writes a pretty mean column in the Sunday Boston Globe magazine too. This one is from Esquire, so you need to pay to read it, but PZ does a good job of extracting the essence of the dumbing down of America. We need to push back the borders of Enlightened America, taking all the lost territory back from Idiot America, where soundbites rule and facts only count if you have faith.

Pharyngula::Idiot America

Technorati Tags: idiotamerica pharyngula

Completely Bereft Party

Very funny blog post about David Brooks' neo-con whining about how his very own right wingnutters can't seem to smell the crap they've gotten us into:

Bats Left Throws Right: Peter Pan Conservatism

Technorati Tags: davidbrooks tomdelay howarddean

Joke of the day

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the President his daily briefing.

He concludes by saying, "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers died in Iraq"

"Oh no" exclaimed the President. "That's terrible."

His staff are stunned by his display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits with his head in his hands.

Finally, Bush looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Technorati Tags: bushjoke

Climate pseudo-science

For some reason, the Senate committee looking into global warming decided that a lunatic writer (Michael Crichton) would make a good witness to talk to. The great climate science site Real Climate does a great job of debunking his crazy claims in his latest trashy paperback, State of Fear. In their latest post, they take apart, yet again, his bizarre "scientific" claims, although this time it happens to be in front of a Senate panel. It's a good article to combat anti-global warming deniers:

RealClimate » Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last!

Technorati Tags: globalwarming crichton realclimate

Endangered Species Evisceration Act

There's a stealth effort to gut the landmark, and incredibly important, Endangered Species Act. Begun by a typical California Republican, and couched in typically politico-speak terms, this modification of the Endangered Species Act threatens its very nature, to the point of making it a mere nuisance to be waved off by greedy developers and other corporate interests.

With "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005", a promise the conservatives have been making for awhile seems to be coming true. The Endangered Species Act has been an important straw man for these right wing fanatics, and now they have enough power to truly bow to their corporate handlers and reduce this important environmental safeguard to the dustbin of history.

That's the thing that really frosts me most about these rightwingnuts - they can't use rational and objective arguments, so they are reduced to using wishy-washy terms that can mean anything to anyone. They quote ridiculous "experts" who spout off in fields they know nothing about. They have an incestuous relationship, quoting each other's fabrications as if they are proven fact. Personally, I'd have alot more respect for them if they just came out and said "I want to pay back my corporate owners and reduce the ESA to ashes so they can pave over more wetlands" - if you really believe in something, then just say. Show some backbone and stand up for the corporate interests. "Recovery Act" indeed!

I feel isolated from alot of this political discussion. I'm sure none of my representatives would vote for something like this. Living in an overwhelming Democratic state like Massachusetts leaves me comfortable at the House and Senate level that my ideals are protected. So I'm not really sure what I can do to get rid of "Democrats" like Cardoza of California, who says this about the "Recovery Act":

"I am co-sponsoring the Endangered Species Recovery Act because I believe the ESA should be enhanced and refocused on its original goal - species recovery. Since the passage of the ESA over 30 years ago, it has been diverted from that goal, and is increasingly driven by litigation, not science. I am confident that this bill will strengthen the ability of ESA to recover species, while reducing the burden on local economies and landowners."

Give me a break! This act does nothing of the kind. It removes all backbone from the act and forces a snap judgment to happen. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

For more info on issue, be sure to see Orcinus. He gives more background and plenty of links. We need to stop this madness now!

Technorati Tags: esa endangedspeciesact

Right-wing female wingnuts

My first real foray into the reading blogosphere, especially using RSS, was when Michelle Malkin published her book, In Defense of Internment, wherein she tries to make the case that the vicious attack on Japanese-Americans during World War II, putting them into concentration camps, was somehow justified on national security grounds. I have no idea how I came upon this tempest that blew through the blogosphere, but it seemed to me to be a far-fetched and lame-brained idea and luckily there were many, far better informed, people who took up the cause.

The best analysis of Malkin's shoddy piece of work was done by the internment experts Eric Muller and Greg Robinson. It can be found here, at Eric Muller's IsThatLegal.org. It pretty much shreds any thread of correctness from Malkin's polemic, and she's been retreating ever since. Of course, right-wing nut jobs still quote it, and I'm sure there are plenty more books out there that use it as a primary source. Ann Coulter would be proud. Say anything, no matter how wrong or badly researched it might be, and someone, somewhere, will quote it as an authoritative source.

I also began reading Orcinus, David Neiwert's blog. Neiwert is a free-lance reporter who's written extensively on the right-wing conspiracy and is one of the few blogs I've ever actually donated money too. He also does a pretty good job on Malkin in many spots. Malkin is probably second only to the despicable Coulter as far as "right-wing female pundits" go, and is equally shoddy in her journalism. I refuse to put a link to Malkin's site here, but I will link to Malkin(s)Watch, which keeps an eye on her more outrageous pronouncements. I wonder if there is something similar for that blowhard Coulter?

Another good spot for Malkin-watching is The Liberal Avenger. There you can find an expose of her and her spouse's subterfuge here?.

Ben Stein's Brain

There is a laughably inept article by Ben Stein (yes, that Ben Stein) in The American Spectator, entitled "Get Off His Back". In it, Stein leads the apologista charge, and scribbles a whole laundry list of ways we should let Little Georgie off the hook for being an incompetent boob. You can read it here, but be warned - you're going to need a strong gag reflex to get all the way through it.

As it trots out nearly every strawman the right-wing press has, I thought it might be kinda fun to look at it, point by point. Here goes:

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

I'm going to start off at the top, as it shows perfectly how the conservative press (which, despite claims to the contrary, nearly all news media is to one extent or another) starts by immediately going on the offensive. There is no black and white in their world, just absolute truths, which gives it a particular resonance to many people who don't want to be faced with gray areas. You're not allowed to respect any other viewpoint - my way or the highway in today's political arena.

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying.

Let's show our compassionate side! Glad to see you have one Ben, although many of the points later on will give lie to this sentiment. But by saying this, he lays ground for any retreat he may have to do later.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one.

It's also important to trot out truths that are incontrovertible, no matter how bleeding obvious they may be. By mixing in these kinds of truths, you can obscure other, more specious claims, making it much harder to parse. Of course, he maybe he's trying to be funny. Bad joke, then.

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born.

Not too many, though Ben. Really, not too many. Maybe his debt with the Devil to steal away the presidency is now being called in? But no, I guess we can let this one go too. It's important to these sorts of pieces to bring out the easy claims first, because the later ones are on much shakier ground. By bringing out claims that smash you in the mouth with their obviousness, it makes you think how "fair" the article is.

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery.

Ah, now we're getting so something we can disagree on. And the tactics change slightly. This is another important facet about conservative demagoguery - trot out speculations that are either completely, demonstrably false, or maybe ones that have some tenuous hold on facts and declare anyone who doesn't believe in it are fools, idiots and/or charlatans. Attack opponents viciously enough and they will decide the fight isn't worth it. There is some pretty solid global-warming evidence (as evidenced by the Union of Concerned Scientist paper, but the rest of the paragraph veers off like a wobbly hurricane.

Although he is couching it in terms that make it hard to specifically deny the claims, and again, he throws in the tedious claim that "George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane.", like anyone is out there saying it was him throwing the switch that sent Katrina slamming into the Gulf Coast. But he still on solid, logical, grounds by claiming (for the fourth point in a row) that GWB didn't cause the hurricane. Alright already, can we agree on that point and move along?

5.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.

Cold. That's all I can say - cold. Here's a guy with a car, in good health and is mobile (as for good sense, well, let's reserve that discussion for later) - easy to cast stones now, isn't it? I find the use of the word "neglected" to be particularly harsh. These types of people find it hard if not impossible to "travel a mile in someone else's shoes", and so he has to say they "neglected" to evacuate, not even leaving open the possibility that maybe they couldn't.

And we finally get somewhere that I will disagree. It is George Bush's fault that the people running things didn't have a better plan. We'll get into specifics later, but a huge evacuation like this is not a city or state problem - it is a national problem, and needs to be dealt with at a national level. And if, as we might agree, it was important to evacuate more people, then he, as Commander In Chief, should have had the people in place who could come up with a plan to get everyone out of there, not just the mobile. You can read about how Cuba evacuated 1.5 million people in the face of Hurricane Ivan, to suffer no deaths, here. It seems to me that if you tell a population of nearly a million people to leave somewhere, and 80% of them do, then you are doing pretty well. For the rest, you need both transportation and, even more importantly, somewhere to go. Neither of which the Feds supplied.

6.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell.

Except that if he and/or his minions had done a better job all around, no-one would have been left there to do any of this. And if they had done a better job of getting in there, many of these vicious acts could have been prevented. Instead, he played guitar while New Orleans drowned.

7.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue.

Whoa, where did this come from? And exactly what proof does he have of this? Note again the attacking, aggressive posture. It is important to do this when you don't have a leg to stand on. Then you might defend against the attack, rather than against a totally specious, outrageous claim. Note also he doesn't say that George Bush isn't a racist - no, that's not enough. He needs to pull out the superlatives and postulate that he's the least racist President ever! Nice work!

Also note how Stein gradually segues from the pointless ("Georgie didn't cause the hurricane") to the arguable ("There is no such thing as global warming") to the totally outrageous ("Georgie is the least racist president ever"). You're lulled into thinking Stein is trying hard to be fair and then he slaps you upside the head with this whopper. And then has the unmitigated gall to say anyone who claims otherwise is being "scandalously untrue"! Again, a typical tactic of the right-wing press. Make whopping, unsubstantiated claims and then say you're an idiot, fool or worse if you have the temerity to disagree.

8.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. He is not a magician. It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization.

Of course, just a few points ago, he was saying that Georgie had nothing to do with the contingency plans and now he's saying he's doing everything to help out. Nice to have your cake and eat it too, isn't it? Of course, any level-minded person would wonder just why, a week after Katrina hit, that they are still "organizing" and just "starting to arrive". Nice emergency response. Of course, Louisiana isn't a Bush stronghold, unlike some other, hurricane ravaged states...

And you also might wonder about Georgie's state of mind. Obvious pictures like him playing the guitar while New Orleans drowned might lead someone to worry about his demeanor, but not the right-wing press. Georgie's attitude is much better skewered here.

For instance, Stein might want to read this story on CNN.com, to see if Bush and his cronies really are "rushing ... help .. as soon as he can": The big disconnect on New Orleans

9.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander.

Again, note the aggressive offensive attack - brook no quarter, realize no opposition. It's also important to use words that offer no gray area, like "not the slightest", "to say otherwise", etc. Again, there are plenty out there who would disagree, even if it is slanderous. Heck, he might even try reading The Wall Street Journal to see a differing "slanderous" opinion: Behind Poor Katrina Response, A Long Chain of Weak Links

10.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off.

Here's yet another tactic of the conservative apologists that are everywhere in the media these days. You take the high road by blaming someone for something that didn't happen and claim you are doing better. So he blames "the media" (presumably the "liberal" medai, which is, again, a false canard trotted out time and time again to explain Georgie's total failure of leadership), for something nobody is saying - that the President is responsible for the hurricane. But it is always important in these diatribes to lash out at the media, or it wouldn't count.

11.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day.

Now he's not even defending Georgie, Ben is just whining about how hard they are on the poor fellow. Again, note the double standard - he's a great leader, but don't blame him if things under his watch are going wrong. It always seems to be Somebody Else's Fault when things go completely wrong, but "You can count on me" if it goes right.

12.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care.

Here you have one more conservative bogeyman (or woman, in this case). It isn't a real "defense on the offense" right-wing article unless there is at least one shot at the Clintons, especially Hilary now. Note the hyperbole; the "callousness" is "breathtaking" - well, he's certainly right there. But he has to go and quantify it by saying "government officials at the ground level", whatever the hell that means. So, again, everything that went wrong is the "ground level"'s fault, but the "miracles" and "bravery" exhibited are all His Man's contributions.

As a famous rabbit once said: "What an ultra-maroon!"

Medford Primary results

Here are the results for the primary here in Medford. Probably not too surpringly, Medford as a whole went for the local guy. I have to admit, in previous local elections, I too would vote for the guy from Medford. I wonder if the candidates address should be on the ballot at all?

We are in District 2-2, which went for Callahan in a big way. We were number one in both number of votes and near the top at the very least in percentage. Only one district, 6-1, went to the eventual winner, Jehlen.

Medford Primary 2005 results (PDF)

(thanks to 'medfordjared' of the medfordmass yahoo group for the scan)

Make a stand on Sept. 24th

Fact-esque: On September 24th, Make History Where You Are

Speaking of politics

As a wise (and vastly underrated) man once said:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams

I was watching Tom Brokaw Reports: Deep Throat, The Inside Story last night on Sundance. It was about the Deep Throat, who he was and, in general, about the Watergate scandal, and, as Robert Redford mentions, it sure seems like we haven't made much progress as far as the President lying to the public, have we? Redford said that Nixon resigned for two reasons, really - getting caught in a big lie, and shame, whereas today the former doesn't lead to the latter, never mind resigning for it.

I was such a Watergate weenie as an early teen. I read everything I could on it, and wrote reports, etc. The movie was great. My favorite book at the time was one written by a consortium of British BBC reporters, but I forget now what the title was. I think I'll go back and read All the President's Men again (I have a remainder copy from long ago), given that it is just past the 41st 31^st anniversary of Nixon's resignation. It's an important lesson that I think is getting lost again...

Time To Vote

We have a very interesting primary here in the Second Middlesex District. Our state senator, Charlie Shannon (D), died in April due to cancer complications, so we are having the Democratic primary vote today. I'm not even sure there's a Republican candidate, although I'm sure there must be a sacrificial lamb, as this district is, like much of Massachusetts, heavily Democratic and this primary is also almost certainly choosing our state Senator.

It has been pretty heavily contested by all four candidates. Lots of leaflets, a couple of televised debates (see the latest one here) and plenty of discussion on the various mailing lists (medfordmass Yahoo list) and web sites (see esp. Blue Mass. Group). There's two pretty progressive candidates (Jehlen and Mackey), an entrenched Democrat (Callahan), and somewhat of a more conservative wildcard (Casey).

I think I'm going to be voting for Jehlen, although I was more impressed with Mackey in the debate. Both have very similar positions that match mine:

• Pro-marriage and against any sort of Constitutional or otherwise anti-same sex marriage proposals
• Anti-capital punishment
• For a women's right to privacy and choice
• Work hard for education
• Increase local aid from the state, instead of hoarding it for the Treasury in order to make a case for income tax reduction

But I'm going to go for Jehlen because I think her track record is more recent and solid, and because Robert Reich endorsed her. Mackey has been out of government for a bit, and I think Jehlen has worked more closely with the current members of the government to get stuff done.

I still weep for Massachusetts because we didn't elect Robert Reich as the governor, and instead went with a conservative religious fraud in Mitt Romney. Mr Reich didn't even win the primary, as entrenched Democratic interests went for the more centralist candidate, instead of going with a true liberal. I even worked for the Reich campaign, the only time I've ever gotten involved at that level. It wasn't much - I just helped out with some technical stuff, supported the web page, and held a sign up at the polling place (which impressed my girls to no end!). But I felt like Mr. Reich spoke for me, a true-blue liberal, without all this centralist waffling that Democrats try to do, even in a liberal state like mine. I can only imagine how much nicer it would have been to have Robert Reich as governor in these progressive times, and how he would have been front and center in supporting two people's right to marry, instead of trying to find every blockade and loophole to halt progress. But irregardless of your leanings, I sure hope you all get out to vote. I like to bring the girls when we go, as they get a real feel for the process and I hope we're turning out two more committed voters. Edit: Fixed formatting

Bush Joke

Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?

A: Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

Thanks to Joho the Blog: Harsh!!