Ralph Reed: Christian Activist, Bush Lieutenant...and Gambling Lobbyist
LiberalOasis
Shucks. He's just taking after his mentor, Pat Robertson, who never met a dollar he wouldn't chase.
Fahrenheit 9/11 #1 Movie in AmeIRAQ SOVEREIGNITY BESTOWED TWO DAYS EARLY
CNN.com
Now that couldn't have anything to do with the early transfer of power, could it? BushCo wouldn't have bumped the ceremony to knock Michael Moore off of the top story of the day...right?
Right?
(special thanks to GenTaggerd, who pointed this out over at SmirkingChimp.com)
Who's Paying for the Bush Tax Cuts?
Tax Policy Center
Check out this nice report from the Tax Policy Center: Distributional Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts and Their Financing.
It's not as wonkish as the title suggests. It considers two ways that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 could have been financed (besides the heavy borrowing of this Republican government, which will only delay and aggravate the effects of this analysis).
One is by assuming that every household pays an equal amount in lost benefits and/or other taxes to finance the tax cuts. The second assumes that all households pay an equal percentage of household income (2.6%) to finance the cuts.
The results? Far more households lose more than they gain from the Bush tax cuts. The "equal money" scenario is especially brutal to the poor and middle class households, but both clearly favor the richer households on the spectrum.
Bush's borrow-and-spend policies are masking the true effects of the ruinous effect of his tax cuts for America, but the piper will have to be paid one day. It's time to get some grownups back in charge in Washington.
Trickle-Down Democracy
U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership (washingtonpost.com)
Details are emerging of how sovereign Iraq will be on June 30. Bremer is making the rules and appointing his favorites to five-year terms.
So the people we installed are going to do things the way we say to do it, and that's a sovereign nation. Didn't you just know this is the way it was going to happen?
UPDATE: Doonesbury has another tidbit to chew on today. I don't know how long the link will be good for, though...
The Complete Saudi Primer
Center for American Progress
One-stop shopping for information about Bush family ties to the House of Saud. Moore's film could only scratch the surface.
We Had a Meeting and You're Kicked Out Of The Party
Democrat to speak at GOP convention
It's Zell, of course.
Senator Daschle: your nuts are calling. They want you to kick this idiot to the curb.
Fahrenheit 9/11
The biggest impression I got was how refreshing it was to hear real people talk about these issues. And I'm not talking about Michael Moore, and in a real sense, neither is he.
I'm talking about Lilly Libscomb, the woman who lost a son in Iraq.
It's an effect Moore means to acheive, and it's done easily. Moore simply rolls tape. Yes, the first half is a slick presentation of facts that you will never hear any interviewer of Michael Moore try to dispute. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know, and that's what a dedicated examination of the news online will do for you.
But then he gets to the heart of the matter. Our children and the innocent civilians of Iraq are dying in this war. They have stepped up to defend America, and the least they deserve is that we only send them into harm's way when it's absolutely necessary.
It will take a most dedicated Fox News viewer to maintain the Iraq war to be absolutely necessary after viewing Fahrenheit 9/11.
One of the things Moore relies on most is what the viewer brings to his film. There are no shots of the Twin Towers being struck or falling. Only the sounds of the day play while the screen remains black. The viewer can bring his own pictures of those events, because we all have them already. Finally he fades in shots of people watching the towers burn and the victims fall.
He doesn't painstakingly lay out the case against al-Qaeda. He understands that to be settled and moves on to his point - how is it that the bin Laden got a quick ride out of this country on 9/13 and then in Afghanistan, how did Osama get a two month headstart when we invaded?
People can rail about Moore's technique all they want. Facts are facts.
Bush is on tape talking to who he calls the "haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base." The knowing headshake of the woman behind him shows just how true this is.
While young men and women are being gladhanded by Marine recruiters at a destitute mall, cooperations hold conferences on how they can carve out a nice thick slice of that Iraqi money that the government will be spending.
Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia puffs a cigar in the Rose Garden while he watches the smoke rising from the Pentagon.
The White House censors the name of the pilot suspended on the same page as 1 Lt. George W. Bush. It's James Bath, a Bush family friend, who was later hired to invest bin Laden family money in America. Bath funded Bush's Arbusto oil company, and bailed him out of failed business a couple of times.
James Baker is Bush's spokesman in Florida, during the failed attempt to recount the votes. Later, when the family members of 9/11 victims sue the Saudi royal family, Mr. Baker steps in as the Saudi's chief counsel.
The hits just keep on coming - though I knew all of this, I kept hearing startled gasps around the theater as each new revelation came to light. People knew it was bad, but they didn't know it was this bad.
And then Lilly started talking about the sacrifice of her son. Moore's narration fades completely away.
She reads the last letter he sent, a week before his Black Hawk went down. He shares his love, pleads as all soldiers do for the letters that break the monotony and the loneliness, and in one tragic paragraph, rails at the idiot Bush for the mess he has sent so many of our children into.
There's so much more to Lilly's story. But Michael Moore's argument in Fahrenheit 9/11 is simple.
We should only send our children to fight and kill and die when it's absolutely necessary.
The war in Iraq wasn't absolutely necessary.
So why the hell are we there?
Just got CNN...
...and my head may explode.
After three or four years of having "limited" basic cable (local channels, religious channels, and shopping networks), I've broken down and upgraded to regular basic cable. I wanted access to CNN et al. during the election season, especially C-SPAN. To be true, I could always go to C-SPAN's website and watch the different networks on streaming video, but my roommate wanted ESPN too, and she's paying half the bills. So the upgrade has occured.
So I'm watching CNN a hour or so ago, and Kyra Phillips is indignant that so far, no journalist has really taken Bill Clinton to task for his infidelity. Impeachment wasn't enough for this vulture? Did she miss the nineties, where every possible detail of Bill Clinton's sex life was displayed and analyzed and pondered on every news medium in existence? But Bill Clinton hasn't suffered enough for Kyra.
So I go get something to eat, grab some coffee, come back in to the tube, where Kyra is now talking to the Gallup Poll guy. And the Gallup Poll guy comes really close to busting the "Reagan is the most popular president ever" myth, but doesn't. He's showing Clinton's popularity rating over the eight years of his presidency. And he points out that "like Reagan" Clinton had a bad couple of years and then climbed out of the doldrums. Oddly enough to the Gallup guy, Clinton's popularity peaked and held strong around the time of the impeachment proceedings.
Why was this, Gallup Guy?
"We're still trying to figure that one out," says the Gallup Guy.
***insert sound of me striking my forehead with my hand***
Maybe the public saw the impeachment as the partisan witch hunt it was? Just a thought, Gallup Guy.
NIST Interim Report on World Trade Center Collapses
wtc.nist.gov
Sorry to have disappeared on you guys again - my ethernet cable bit the dust this time.
You may not be aware that I confound 9/11 conspiracy theorists with the truth over on Democratic Underground. I don't like to advertise that here much, because this is a different gig. But when something this big happens in this field, I'll let you know about it.
There are many crazy ideas floating around about the collapse of the Twin Towers, along with Building 7 that day. We're talking small-nukes-in-the-basement and substituted-Flight-175-with-missile-pod-installed-underneath-shooting-flamethrowing-missiles-one-third-of-a-second-before-impacting-the-South-Tower type of theories. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has almost completed a two year study on the collapses and released an interim report on Friday. It's very comprehensive and should help people with genuine questions.
Those members of the conspiracy-industrial complex, however, couldn't be more displeased with this scientific study of the collapses. For that reason alone, you should check it out. I'm certain that this study is going to get the highest honor that I personally can bestow on any human endeavor: the newly concieved Lawrence David Kusche Award for acheivement in human rationality. Kuschies for short.
The made-up-as-I-type award is named in honor of Lawrence David Kusche, who wrote an incredible book. It's called The Bermuda Triangle Mystery: Solved! I read this book as a kid, punch drunk on the amazing disappearances of boats and planes in the Bermuda Triangle. Kusche's methodical investigation into every story ever told about the Bermuda Triangle gave my brain an incredible jolt of reality. It seems that all those disappearences into broad daylight and calm seas? It turns out that 98% of them actually happened at night during storms!
The same human instinct that created all of those stories about the Bermuda Triangle is busy at work around the events of 9/11. The most famous revisionist take on that tragic day is a denial that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon. Though this NIST report doesn't approach the Washington crash at all, it does a lot in quelling the growing cloud of chattering about the New York events.
Not that this will stop the CTers from babbling about missile pods and controlled demolitions, not at all! There's too much money to be made from too many fools. But it's nice to have a sensible place to point when someone with real questions wants some answers. The NIST study is one such place.
Bush's Crib Notes
Eschaton
Atrios has the picture. You can clearly read Bush's talking points and a list of reporter's names...
There's about six names. The first two names are Deb Reichmann from the AP, and David Morgan. Bush only took two questions. Guess which people he called on?
What a maroon.
Detainee Reportedly Was Lost in System
Washingtonpost.com
Okay. This is one more example of what freaking idiots we have in charge of our nation these days.
So Tenet and Rummy gets all Orwellian and decides to "disappear" a prisoner because Ashcroft's lawyers are telling him that he can.
Well, they disappear him so well, that they lose the mofo in the general population!
This is the first known case in which Tenet and Rumsfeld were said to be involved in such an arrangement. In October, the CIA general counsel's office told the agency it had to return the captive to Iraq. It was then that Tenet asked Rumsfeld not to give the prisoner a number and to hide him because the CIA wanted to further interrogate him, Whitman said.Let's see Steven Spielberg make a movie out of this!
The CIA forgot about the man until January, when CIA officers inquired of his whereabouts at Camp Cropper, where he was being held. Because he had not been assigned a number and no official records were kept, the military prison officials responded that they could not find him, intelligence officials said.
Twice after that, however, military prison officials began inquiring about the man's status. "When the request was made from the command in Iraq, it was not handled through the channels that could have resolved it," said Whitman, and the man languished for several more months. His status was first reported by U.S. News & World Report.
Childe Dubya to the Papal Throne Came
Talking Points Memo
Josh is musing quite pointedly on Bush's recent request of the Pope to encourage "more explicit activism" in pursuing common causes between the Church and the Republican agenda.
The question of whether pro-choice politicians (particularly Democrats, it would seem, and particularly one named John Kerry) should be denied communion has been roiling the country's Catholic bishops. And starting today, June 14th, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will gather in Englewood, Colorado and one key item on their agenda will be to arrive at some guidelines or uniform decision on this issue of denying communion to Catholic politicians.As Josh reminds us, though Bush would love a crackdown on issues like stem cell research and abortion, other Church positions on issues like war and the death penalty could open up Republican candidates to friendly fire.
So Deal Hudson, a principal Bush ally in the Catholic Church, has explained the best possible take: deny communion to Kerry alone.
Thank you, Josh. Friends and neighbors, this is why the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, erected a wall of separation between church and state in this country. It's a wall Bush has been yearning to tear down his entire tenure as President, and this naked appeal for the use of "the Euchrist as a political sancion" is fundamentally unamerican. What greater instrument of fear could Bush use than the specter of endangering his political opponent's relationship with his God?
It's precisely "kingmaker" moves like this that the First Amendment was enacted to prevent. And I can't understand the reason why Bush would do this - prostrating himself before the Pope isn't going to play well back at Bob Jones University.
George Walker Bush just doesn't understand how we do things here in America. You can't wrap yourself in the flag here in America and then piss on it in Vatican City. In a presidency full of autocratic assaults on our constitutional government, this moment stands head and shoulders above the rest. It's one of the most disgraceful moments I've ever witnessed in American politics.
I'm sensing the need for a new top ten list - George Bush's Most Shameless Acts as President. I'm afraid, though, that we don't know the half of what this man and his gang of incompetent criminals has done to America. The floor is open for nominations.
(By the way, the post is an oblique reference to the release of Stephen King's sixth Dark Tower novel. Just so ya know...)
InstaParody
Eschaton > Crooked Timbers
That's the trouble in constantly posting one to two word posts: parodies become a imitate-by-numbers affair.
Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
While not explicitly endorsing Sen. John F. Kerry for president, 26 former diplomats and military officials, including many who served in Republican administrations, have a signed a statement calling for the defeat of President Bush in November. Their names and some of the posts they have held are:Well, alrighty then. Coffinwatch is officially over.
Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs 1989-1991.
Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.
Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996
William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990.
Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79.
Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992.
William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.
Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981.
Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.
H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89.
Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84.
Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985.
Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95.
Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83.
Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations, 1979-1981.
Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.
George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91.
David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77
Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.
James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.
John E. Reinhardt — professor of political science, University of Vermont, 1987-91; ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75.
Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.
Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83.
Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76.
Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977-1981.
Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for Inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993.
Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change
This Is Why I Love Oprah
TV Barn Ticker: Thanks to Oprah, 'Anna Karenina' is #1
For the first time, Oprah picked a book she hadn't read first. I've read Anna at least twice, and I'm thinking that I'll read it again this summer. Right after I finish this incredible biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.
Something tells me a new movie version will be in the works. I'd love to see Julianne Moore as Anna, but I bet Meryl Streep would throw anybody in her way in front of a train to play the part. And I wouldn't complain a single bit...
No, no, who am I kidding? Susan Sarandon should play Anna. She's the perfect age right now.
I know, I know. They just did a version (actually two miniseries and a movie) of Anna recently. You don't see any remakes of The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter in production, do you?
Oh, well. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
General Intent v. Specific Intent
The Oregonian
The article is titled "Putting The Hoods Over The Heads Of Congress." Very good read about the continuing apples falling from the tree of Abu Ghraib, specifically the recent Wall Street Journal expose.
I'm looking at my copy of the Working Group Report (6 March 2003) which is at the heart of these new revelations.
On page eight (my copy - the report number is 9), the WGR is opining on the requirements of proving "specific intent" to torture. "General intent" is not enough - the defendant in a torture trial must be proven to have specific intent to torture.
The difference is illustrated by an case from the Supreme Court itself:
The Supreme Court has used the following example to illustrate the difference between these two mental states:Carter v. US is an interesting quote here. The defendant had robbed a bank, but had exerted no force or intimidation inside the bank (he had shoved an exiting customer back into the bank, who screamed - he then entered the bank, hopped over the counter unhindered, took the cash, and ran). He was tried under 2113(a) and had requested a jury instruction pretrial on the requirements of 2113(b), a lesser charge. It was denied because (b) was eventually held to not be a subset of (a).
[A] person entered a bank and took money from a teller at gunpoint, but deliberately failed to make a quick getaway from the bank in the hope of being arrested so that he would be returned to prison and treated for alcoholism. Though this defendant knowingly engaged in the acts of using force and taking money (satisfying "general intent"), he did not intend permanently to deprive the bank of its possession of the money (failing to satisfy "specific intent").
Carter, 530 US at 268 (citing I W. Lafave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.5 at 315 (1986).
This was because of three different elements in (b) not found in (a). The one we're concerned with is intent. Carter's eventual decision relied on the case US v. Lewis, which was the actual "I robbed the bank to get back into prison" case. The Lewis decision held that general intent was enough to convict under 2113(a) - no "specific" intent was required, as in (b). Therefore, (a) and (b) were two separate classes of crime and Carter was not deprived of due process when his jury wasn't instructed about (b).
So, back to the WRG. Since the statute under discussion (18 USC 2340) defines the act of torture with a requirement of specific intent, the WRG claims the following:
If the defendant acted knowing that severe pain or suffering was reasonably likely to result from his actions, but no more, he would have acted only with general intent...(general intent "usually takes the form of recklessness (involving actual awareness of a risk and the culpable taking of that risk) or negligence (involving blameworthy inadvertance)").You see? That guy under the hood with his genitals hooked to electrodes? The electrodes aren't actually hooked to anything, so we specifically know that severe physical pain isn't going to occur. No torture.
The document goes on to argue that even if you know a particular result is "certain to occur", theoretically you haven't demonstrated specific intent. For an act to become torture under this act, the act must be undertaken with the specific purpose of causing severe pain and suffering. But the interrogation uses blunt this: the specific intent is to obtain the information, not to cause the pain.
So, yeah, the man under the hood is suffering severe mental pain, but our intent is to get the information, not to cause the pain. Oh, those bad men who don't tell us what we want to know...you see what they made us do? This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you, ya know...
However, the report regretfully concludes that paragraph by noting that juries can and usually do conclude specific intent when certain knowledge of the outcome of the act is present. Boohoo for the poor Bushistas.
The whole document, then, is meant to help blunt the specific knowledge necessary for a conviction of torture to occur. It's cover for Bush, who is using it as such. And this is only looking at one page! It's an exercise in political obstifucation. They cloud their own minds so that they can do as they please.
That's the interesting thing - this is a group of prosecutors making criminal proscecutions for torture as difficult as possible for themselves. Isn't that proof enough of how nutty this WGR is?
This gang should hang.
Random iTunes - Special Reagan Funeral Edition
- Rocket Man - Elton John
- I Cover The Waterfront - Billie Holiday
- I Wanna Be Around - Tony Bennett
- Skating Away - Jethro Tull
- The Fletcher Memorial Home - Pink Floyd
- 3 AM - Matchbox 20
- The King Must Die - Elton John
- Fine and Mellow - Billie Holiday
- Death Letter - Cassandra Wilson
- One For My Baby - Etta James
Want to know what the guy was going to play?
Okay, here's the playlist for Friday;What a firebrand. Misanthrope, my heart goes out to you...here's one for the road.
I'm starting off with the dictated requiem, though it will be expressly stated as being played "in conjunction with our day of national observance," not "in mourning."
But here's what it is: A movement from "Memento Mori: An AIDS Requiem."
I'm following it up with Virgil Thomson's "The River" along with brief explanation of it's ecological themes.
Next is Duke Ellington's "Black, Brown & Beige Suite," a work designed to portray the history of Black Americans with a pride and elegance thereto for unseen.
Then Gershwin's "I Got Plenty o' Nuttin.'"
Which brings us to our next hour's commemorative selection, a dirge-like preBaroque piece from the Kronos Quartet entitled "Using the Apostate Tyrant as his Tool."
Then we have Erich Korngold's expanded work from the score of "Deception."
Then Richard Wagner's "Tannhauser Overture."
Then Leo Brouwer's "The Black Decameron."
We'll see what happens.
"The Flight Did Take Place"
Talking Points Memo > St. Petersburg Times
Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.Well, there's flip-flopping, and then there's out-and-out lying.
The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.
The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.
For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.
But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details.
Bush lied. The Saudis got a ride.
Great New Comic Strip
One Man Army
It's done by a long time Chimpster (person who frequents the Smirking Chimp website). Check it out...
Authority to Set Aside the Law is "Inherent In The President"
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."Marshall has a cogent take on Jefferson's musings about presidential prerogatives.
Bottom line: This gang should hang.
Blogger's Got A New Interface
Which is something you can't see here at my blog, which is too bad.
The new interface is blue and beige and a lot slicker than the old one. Yay, Blogger!
Please consider Blogger for all your introductory blogging needs. Thank you.
Microsoft Patents Double Clicking
New Scientist
This is absurd. For this, I'll break my silence.
By the way, I haven't been blogging because:
a) Bush is doing a fine job of cracking up on his own.
b) I haven't had much to say and little reason to note interesting items.
c) I got a job.
Of course, now that the job is moving along for better or worse (waiting tables at a startup restaurant here in Nashville - now it's basically established), maybe I can find the spare energy to keep pointing the odder parts of this thing called life.
Only under the Bush Administration could something so obtuse happen. Remember when President Clinton had Microsoft on the ropes in an anti-trust suit?
Now they just patented the double-click. Also, they got the long click and the short click. The idea and usage of any type of Click in your programming is now the intellectual property of Microsoft.
....
The Bully's Tantrum
Yahoo! News - Fox Threatens to Sue Co. Over Billboard
Are you aware that Fox News has been renting a billboard across the street from CNN's Atlanta headquarters for the past five years? Fox News has been using it for snarky little cuts at CNN the entire time - it featured Greta van Susteren's face when the anchor jumped ship.
The sign company that owns the sign refused to post the following message, however:
Now That CNN's Ratings are Gone With the Wind, Our Work on This Board Is Done. We Love You Atlanta. Brought to you by your friends at FOX News Channel.So Fox News is threatening to sue.
Sign Up with America's Newsroom! Forward resumes to resumes(at)foxnews.com.
Come home, Edward Murrow. We need you.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
