Net Neutrality
|
|
|
|
|
We need unpaid
headline editors for
Eorupe, Buzzflash
our books
about us
contact us
News
today's news
most mailed
news archives
features archives
click for audio
Stop Bush
click for video
record
DINOs
defeat Nelson (D-Ne)
click for video
indictment
plame:stories
updated timeline
Timeline
Bush Watch
New York Times
Washington Post
click for video
Info
bush bio
cheney bio
bushlexia
impeach?
democrats
click for photos/ed
Opinion
brasch
clothier
christine
fisher
floyd
higgs
interviews
ireland
jenkins
mickey z
miller
ostroy
partridge
politex
pringle
smith
southard
stasi
uhler
van wey
weiner
guests
Senate
'Scripts Arts
politexts
our novel
toons
comedy
canada
garlic
songs
poems
demonology
texas politics
click image for essays
Special
words
lies
media
economy
nukes
theocons
neocons
u.s. id card
fascists
social security
votes
family timeline
anti-semitism
dyslexia
midland
drugs
dwi
abortion
awol
gossip
bush trivia
1st 100 weeks
need to know
go kyoto
Projected New Senate: 50 Democrats 50 Republicans
Projected New House: 227 Democrats 206 Republicans 2 Ties
Sports Poetry: Headline in Sunday's Sports Section, Austin American-Statesman Flustered Huskers
left to ponder
one that
slipped away.
Arts, Briefly: NBC Will Not Show Madonna’s Crucifixion Scene, Edward Wyatt
"NBC will edit a crucifixion scene from its broadcast of a Madonna concert next month, but will keep the song that includes the imagery, according to people close to the singer and the network. NBC drew protests last month from religious conservatives, who have echoed an uproar that has followed Madonna around the world on her most recent concert tour. As part of her performance of the song “Live to Tell,” Madonna, right, sings the first part while mounted on a cross, in imitation of the Crucifixion of Jesus. Madonna said in a statement last month that the scene “is not a mocking of the church” and “is neither anti-Christian, sacrilegious or blasphemous.” In a statement yesterday, NBC said, “The ‘Live to Tell’ song has been revised for NBC’s broadcast special.” People close to the situation confirmed that the network, which taped Madonna’s concerts last summer at Wembley Arena in London, will use images from other cameras while Madonna is on the cross, showing her only after she has come down from the cross to the stage. The concert is to be broadcast from 8 to 10 p.m. Eastern time on Nov. 22, during the network’s so-called sweeps period, when viewership is measured to determine advertising rates for the coming year." [In other news, religious conservatives protested the weather. Al Roker, NBC's weatherman, said he'd see what he could do. --Jerry Politex]Op-Eds: Weiner, Partridge, Eland, Baroud, and Uhler
Why Voting for Dems Is Required: Pre-Election Scenarios, Bernard Weiner Bush&Co. are staying-the-course in Iraq -- with scapegoats being prepared -- and moving on the attack-Iran front. Plus, how Rove could pull off yet another stolen election. Antidote to all this? A landslide defeat next Tuesday for the GOP....November 8: The Struggle Continues, Ernest Partridge
The struggle to restore our democracy and our liberties must continue unabated, whatever the outcome of next week’s election. If, should the Democrats reclaim the House or the Senate, the opponents to the Bush regime then quit the fight, they will have lost by winning. A GOP loss of the House of Representatives, and the consequent oversight investigations, are the greater danger to the Busheviks....Marketing Death: Filling the Spin Vacuum, Ivan Eland
President Bush and Karl Rove realize they are losing the pre-election public relations battle with the Democrats over the war in Iraq. Rove, the president’s political ace, didn’t think the American people could intellectually process more than three words. So he cleverly tried to define the president’s position on the war as “stay the course” and paint the Democrats as advocating a policy of “cut and run.”...To the president, this dangerous pre-election problem meant that it was time for change—not in Iraq policy (at least not before the election), but a change in how to spin the war....Marketing Death: American Voters Must Not Reward Failure, Ramzy Baroud
...I am still not sure why the situation [in Iraq] is critical now, as opposed to last March, for example. Is it a last resort change of strategy prior to the US legislative mid-term elections? The Republicans are trailing in the polls and a deciding factor in that is their botched Iraq strategy; maybe a more pragmatic president who appreciates the intensity of the crisis and is doing his outmost to face it is the best image that Bush’s advisors can conjure up at such short notice. It’s anything but one of Karl Rove’s other ‘genius’ ideas, but is certainly worth the effort. On November 7, however, only the American voter has the power to decide: whether to reward failure or to gracefully search for a way out....Letter to Pelosi: Please Reconsider Your Pledge to Take Impeachment "off the Table", Walter Uhler
As I will demonstrate below, the Bush administration's illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq requires a thorough investigation -- as a prelude to the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President. Congresswoman Pelosi, in your recent 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl you assured her that, if the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives and you become Speaker of the House, "impeachment is off the table" because making the Bush administration "lame ducks" was good enough for you. You made a similar pledge earlier this year....I can only marvel at your "bad idea." Please, you must reconsider. It is ill conceived and will prove to be counterproductive....
Dictator Bush: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law, Frank Morales
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
Full Text: H.R. 5122: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
Dictator Bush: Sen Leahy Protests DOD Bill’s Proposed Decisions On National Guard, Senate Press Office
...Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) – the co-chairs of the Senate’s National Guard Caucus – said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate. The conference report is also expected to drop a Senate-adopted provision authored by Bond and Leahy to elevate the status of the National Guard within the Pentagon....Also expected to be included in the conference report is a widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard. The conference committee has made changes the Insurrection Act, which governs when the President can call to action the National Guard without the consent of state governors to restore public order. Under the changes, the President would now be able to invoke the Act during such regular occurring events as a natural disaster. Because posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the military’s involvement in law enforcement do not apply when the Insurrection Act is invoked, the changes would nullify these long-standing laws....
Op-Eds: Clothier, Ostroy (2), Buzzflash, Velvel, Kane, Politex
Vote Democratic, Peter Clothier Paul Krugman had it right in [a recent] NY Times column, Bush. It's a one-letter election. "D" or "R". All that hogwash about "voting for the man (or woman) not the party" no longer applies. As Krugman writes, "It’s hard to think of an election in which the personal qualities of the people running in a given district or state have mattered less." If we could rely on politicians to be honest, to be open for real discussion of the issues, and to vote their conscience, it might be different. It's not that way any more. It's all about party. Look at the much-admired Senator John McCain, who seemed, for a moment, a couple of weeks ago, to be standing on principle for our constitution and for our humanity as a country; but who capitulated disgracefully days later to your pursuit of limitless executive power. It's all about party politics and you, Bush, and your Republicans have made it so. There's only one response to the knee-jerk party loyalty you have demanded, and that's knee-jerk party loyalty on the other side. And Krugman's not the only one to be speaking this truth....With Just Days to Go, Here's How You Can Help Democrats Win the House and Senate, Andy Ostroy
What we as Democrats can do to help our candidates, and our party, win next month is to send money. That's what these brave folks need most right now in order to effectively combat the onslaught of negative ads being produced by the Repugs (see "The Stakes"; Bob Corker's ads attacking Harold Ford Jr in Tennessee; Rick Santorum's Bob Casey ads; the stem-cell battle in Missouri; etc). In the final days of the 2006 campaign, it's all about money, money, money. In the Senate, Democrats need six seats to regain control. Here are the tightest races, and the candidates who need your money most (these Democrats either are ahead by just a a few percentage points, or are in dead heats):...Another Stolen Election Headed Our Way? We Talked with Mark Crispin Miller About What Voters Can Do to Prevent It, Andy Ostroy
While I firmly believe that part of the Repugs' strategy to win elections is to steal them, I don't profess to be an expert on voting fraud. There's plenty of very dedicated folks like Mark, Brad Friedman and Bobby Kennedy Jr. who've thankfully been carrying that torch, making the rest of us painfully aware that the problem exists and that if, unchecked, it can and will happen again. If you don't believe that, all you need to do is monitor the blatantly corrupt actions of people like Kenneth Blackwell--Ohio's Secretary of State, gubernatorial candidate and loyal Bushevik--to get a greater sense of the threat facing Democrats at the polls. So what I asked Mark was not to simply rehash the infuriating tales of fraud from the Gore/Bush and Bush/Kerry elections, but to clearly define for us what Americans can do to prevent a repeat in 2006 and 2008....At This Point, the Only Way the Republicans Can Maintain Control of the House is to Steal the Vote in Key Races, Buzzflash Editorial
After six years in office, reality has collided full force with the Disneyland/Goebbels vision of America scripted out of Hollywood by Rove, Luntz, and Mehlman and a cast of other screen writing credits. And as cautious as BuzzFlash has been over the years about Democratic victories, it looks as if the only way the GOP can hold the House of Representatives is to steal the election -- and you can be sure that this is the only reason Karl Rove is smiling, because they have the proven ability to do just that....Of The Conference On Presidential Powers, And Stealth Immunity For Bushman, Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
A true summary of the proceedings has to await the availability of DVDs of the proceedings or perhaps even the transcript of them. The possibility of a true summary is thus at least some weeks off. But it is possible even early on to list a few of the important ideas that surfaced, sometimes repeatedly. They would include:...Two Paradies Of "Mr. Ed", Mad Kane/Jerry Politex
“He Misled” Theme Song By Madeleine Begun Kane
Bush never said “stay the course,” of course.
And no one can challenge this ass of horse.
He lies, perforce, to change the course of election day ahead.
Go right to the source. He’ll lie of course.
Won’t give you an answer that you’ll endorse.
He’s never on a truthful course.
Lies you will be fed.
Pundits yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day.
And talking heads will rarely challenge the lies that the Bushies say.
George Dubya has no remorse, of course,
And Georgie will lie till his voice is hoarse.
He’d love to rule all the world by force.
But listen to this:
Happy days ahead!
Theme from "Mr. Bush"
No one can talk when they're hoarse, of course.
But I tell you today, 'Stay the course, of course."
That is, stay the course, unless I change course,
I'm the famous Mr. Bush.
Go right to the source, am I sounding hoarse?
I'll say whatever you'll endorse.
I'm always on a steady course.
Talk to me, I'm Mr. Bush.
I tell you today, "Stay the course, of course."
I'll continue to talk, though I'm getting hoarse
That is, stay the course, unless I change course,
I'm the famous Mr. Bush.
People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mister Bush will never speak unless he has something to say.
I gotta repeat, "Stay the course, of course."
And I'm gonna talk 'though my voice is hoarse.
You never heard me talking hoarse?
Well listen to this: Gaaag Awkkk Foxppp the course,
'Cause I am Mister Bush.
by Ray Evans and Jay Livingston, with Politex
(thanks for the idea, Mad)
Op-Eds: The Latest by Wokusch, Ross, Floyd, Weiner, and Partridge
How the Bush Family Makes a Killing from George’s Presidency, Heather Wokusch Halliburton scored almost $1.2 billion in revenue from contracts related to Iraq in the third quarter of 2006, leading one analyst to comment: "Iraq was better than expected... Overall, there is nothing really to question or be skeptical about. I think the results are very good." Very good indeed. An estimated 655,000 dead Iraqis, over 3,000 dead coalition troops, billions stolen from Iraq's coffers, a country battered by civil war - but Halliburton turned a profit, so the results are very good. Very good certainly for Vice President Dick Cheney, who resigned from Halliburton in 2000 with a $33.7 million retirement package (not bad for roughly four years of work). In a stunning conflict of interest, Cheney still holds more than 400,000 stock options in the company. Why pursue diplomacy when you can rake in a personal fortune from war? Yet Cheney isn't the only one who has benefited from the Bush administration's destructive policies. The Bush family has done quite nicely too. Just a few examples:...US contractors giving up on Iraq with goal unmet, Sherwood Ross
Four months after US forces rolled into Baghdad, US President George W. Bush declared his goal would be nothing less than to convert Iraq's infrastructure into "the best in the region" - yet US contractors today are readying to depart, leaving that goal unattained. Since Bush's comment of August 8, 2003, nearly $50 billion has been spent to create what the US Army calls a record of "historic and magnificent accomplishments," rebuilding a nation neglected by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and shattered by war.... Critics, however, have termed the reconstruction effort everything from only a modest success at best to "one of the greatest colonial rip offs in history."...Blood and Gravy II: The Jackal's Feast Goes On, Chris Floyd
The picture below (from the New York Times) speaks most eloquently on the essence of the Bush Regime's brutal, grubby Babylonian Conquest: fat mercenaries guarding the construction of yet another prison. The picture comes from a story on the "overhead costs" of reconstruction projects, based on a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, who found astonishing amounts of waste and cost overruns by the crony contractors who came to feast on the carcass that Bush killed for them. Two main points emerge from the report. First, that the IG's catalogue of gouging, feather-bedding and other profitable forms of war-profiteering is by no means complete, because "the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago." In fact, the IG's office was only able to examine only $1.3 billion of the contracts. In other words, as oft reported here (and here and here), much of that money has simply disappeared -- into corporate coffers, into copious baksheesh for the Bush-backed Iraqi government, into kickbacks for Congressional vultures, and doubtless into slush funds both for covert ops (including perhaps the Bushists' deliberate fomenting of terrorism and arming of militias) and domestic politics. We are most likely seeing the fruits of some of this blood money wash up on American screens at this very moment, as the GOP's last-ditch "Smear and Fear" campaign goes into hyperdrive. The second salient point is...Traveling the "National Security" Route to November 7th, Bernard Weiner
Searching for terrorists in the weirdest of places around the globe. What can we learn in a "national-security" world? Why are there toothpaste tubes all over the airport floor? Who took my passport and why?...Why Won't the Progressives Get Their Act Together?, Ernest Partridge
The regressive right has shown us how a determined, wealthy and privileged minority can gain political power and maintain it. They planned for a long haul, building institutions and media, and the last six years have been payoff time. The progressive (and in the authentic sense, the “conservative") majority has talent and resources. So where is the action? Where is the rebuttal to what David Brock calls “the Republican noise machine”? Why has Air America Radio been allowed to wither on the vine?...
Murder in Amsterdam, Part 3: Sex and The Single EU Muslim Male, Jerry Politex
According to Moroccan-Dutch psychiatrist Bellari Said, "the main problem among [my] patients were depression and schiophrenia: depression was especially common among women, and schizophrena among men. But schiophrenia did not seem to affect first-generation immigrants. The guest workers tended to become depressed, not schizophrenic. It was the second generation of Moroccans, born and educated in the Netherlands, that suffered from schizophrenia. A young Moroccan male of the second generation was ten times more likely to be schiophrenic than a native Dutchman from a similar ecomomic background." --quote and much of what follows from "Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance," Ian Buruma (Penguin Press, 2006)One evening in Amsterdam a few weeks ago, Christine and I were in a tram on Spuistraat, going to the Bimhuis, on the water behind Central Station, to catch a jazz concert. As the speeding tram shifted back and forth on its tracks, an unveiled Muslim woman, mid-twenties, ethnic clothing, grabbed onto a pole across the aisle and, holding on, was thrown sideways into an empty seat. She had a twinkle in her eye, and, both of us amused, smiled at each other. Like numerous angry young European Muslim men, Mohammed Bouyeri, the Moroccan murderer of Amsterdam activist Theo van Gogh, would not have been amused.
Ian Buruma reports that when a film made by four young Moroccan-Dutch women dealing with violence against women was screened in Amsterdam, a Moroccan-Dutch woman stood up during the discussion period and said, "[Muslim] culture and religion are used to justify violence. If a girl calls herself a victim, she is blamed. If she goes to the [Amsterdam] police or social workers, she is a traitor. All my Turkish and Moroccan girlfiends have had to cope with domestic violence." In a note by Bouyeri, knifed into the body of van Gogh, the youthful killer wrote that a Moroccan-Dutch woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was next on his death list. Hirsi Ali, a sexually attractive 37 year old Somilian-Dutch ex-Muslim who entered the Netherlands under a false name to escape a forced marriage, made "Submission," a film under the direction of van Gogh which questioned the status of women under Islamic law.
In a June legislative compromise, Hersi Ali was allowed to keep her Dutch citizenship, obtained with false documentation, but resigned from her seat in parliament and said she would move to the U.S. and work for the American-Enterprise Institute, a conservative economics think tank (Wikipedia). A few weeks ago in De Balie, a cafe off Leidesplein, a meeting place for artists and political activists, we talked with a young, attractive Dutch woman of European descent who is progressive, politically active, and a native of Amsterdam. She was of the opinion that van Gogh, a media celebrity who had his own TV show, had gone too far in his anti-Islamic invective, and she didn't appear particularly worked up over Hirsi Ali's resignation and plans to move to America. While in Amsterdam, the beautiful politician could only appear in public under heavy security, and if she's now in the U.S., she remains under cover.
Like many second-generation Moroccan men, Bouyeri, van Goghs's killer, had a problem with parental authority, Buruma reports. The lack of public respect shown to his dishwasher father, along with his father's inability to "control" his sister, Wardi in her quest for "sexual freedom," drove the young man up the wall. He was ill-prepared to take on the role of parent, but he must have felt he had no other choice if he wanted to retain the respect of others. "The fact that [Bouyeri] had a girlfriend himself was irrelevant, or perhaps not irrelevant but an example of faulty cognitive wiring. He was a man. Dutch women were easy, and therefore, in fact, disgusting," writes Buruma. Seventeen-year-old Wardi had a Moroccan boyfriend, and this was not permissable before marriage under Muslim law. Humiliated and feeling the need to restore the honor of the family, Bouyeri had several run-ins with the police over the boyfriend, the last one ending up with a twelve-week jail sentence after he tried to slash a policeman with a knife.
Moroccan-Dutch psychiatrist Bellari Said, quoted above, has a theory about youg men such as van Gogh's killer: Said "believes that the problem lies in the adaptation of a strictly regulated society to a freer, more open one. This can lead to disintegration of the personality. The pressure to assimilate is one of the risk factors for schizophrenia. Men suffer more than women because they have more freedom to interact with mainstream Western society. When the process of integration goes too fast, when the son of Moroccan villagers throws himself too quickly into the bewildering maelstrom of Western temptations, his "cognitive wiring" can go badly awry. The desire for strict religious rules is a form of nostalgia, as it were, a way to regain the one's parents, or what people think was the world of their parents. To remain sane, they long for the security of a paradise lost. Girls, or young women, have they opposite problem. They have to live with many traditional constraints; the old world still exists for many of them, and so they long for more freedom."
Op-Eds: The Latest by Binion, Miller, Floyd, Fisher, and Samples
Bush's Absolute Power Grab, Binion ...Except for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, few television news reporters have bothered to mention that the Military Commissions Act has changed the U.S. justice system and our approach to human rights. As Olbermann said of the new law on his October 17 Countdown program, the new act "does away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned." Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor, was Olbermann's guest. Olbermann asked him, "Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?"...
Corrode Your Conformity: Big Brother Doesn’t Practice Fraternal Love, Miller
Over two centuries ago, 25,000 intrepid souls sacrificed their lives to free the American Colonies from the clutches of a ruthless empire and to found a nation based on democratic principles. Tragically, on 10/17 the tattered remains of freedom for which American Revolutionary soldiers spilled crimson rivers were reduced to mere abstractions by a miniscule volume of ink. How ironic that in a nation obsessed with beating ploughshares into swords, a pen was the weapon used to finalize the subjugation of the masses. Lamentably, the American Revolution was not a final triumph for human rights and democracy. Gaining independence from Great Britain was merely one victory in the perpetual war between humanity’s “haves” and “have-nots”....
Tony Blair cannot hide the abomination in Iraq behind women's veils, Floyd
George W. Bush's hollow boasts about the "liberation" he has bestowed (by brute force) upon Iraq is bitter gall indeed to the women of the conquered land, who have been delivered into the hands of fierce sectarians whose violent misogynistic zeal would do the Taliban proud. Many of the worst extremist gangs have been directly empowered by the American occupation – indeed, in their guise as government "security forces" and police brigades, they have been armed and trained with millions of American taxpayer dollars. [I'll be writing more on this theme in this week's Moscow Times column.] A female Iraqi filmmaker has gone undercover – literally so, for there are now vast quadrants of Iraq where women who go unveiled are at grave risk of attack – to show the reality of women's lives under the Bush-imposed regime. As in so many other cases, a despairing consensus emerges: "It's worse than under Saddam." Think about that: worse than life under one of the worst regimes in modern history. That's what Bush has accomplished in Iraq. That is his true legacy....
More proactive lying: the most secretive president ever lauds...openness , Fisher
It has gone largely unreported, but President Bush's "stay the course" mantra has apparently taken a 180-degree turn.
I offer in evidence this recent quote from Mr. Bush:
We believe that the more we inform our American citizens, the better our government will be. We believe that the more transparency there is in the system, the better the system functions on behalf of the American people.
The president's remarks came at a signing ceremony for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which will establish a searchable online database of federal grants and contracts.
As reported by Steve Aftergood's Project on Government Secrecy, a White House fact sheet said the new law "is part of President Bush's ongoing commitment to improve transparency, accountability, and management across the Federal Government."
OK, so maybe it wasn't about Iraq or Afghanistan or the Global War on Terror. And maybe the timing of its revelation had just a tad to do with the mid-term elections. But it has to be seen as some kind of major epiphany anyway.
The reason is that this president has presided over arguably the most secretive government in US history. Consider the findings of a report issued a while ago by Congressman Henry Waxman of California...
He's B-a-a-a-a-c-k..., Samples
Much to the dismay of the Bush Crime Family and the Flying Monkey Right, their most fervent nemesis, talk-show host Mike Malloy, will return to progressive airwaves on Monday, Oct. 30 -- a whole week-and-one-day before the mid-term elections. When you consider the corruption and scandals oozing like slime from the right over just the past week-and-one-day, Malloy's return is not a moment too soon....
Say Anything: Liar Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’, Think Progress
During an interview [Sunday] on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’” Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’ Watch it:Bush is wrong:
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
Dictator Bush: The Democrats and the War on Civil Liberties, Joshua Frank
I'm still wondering where all the damn outrage is, and I'm not talking about the Foley scandal. On September 29, the Senate voted 100-0 in favor of the pork-swollen Pentagon Budget, which earmarked $70 billion for our ongoing military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no debate over the appropriations and not one Democrat voted against the egregious spending. On the same day, the Senate also overwhelmingly approved the dismantling of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". Twelve Democrats sided with the Republicans to allow the US government to detain people arbitrarily and indefinitely. We shouldn't be all that surprised the Democrats didn't filibuster the awful bill, which also expanded the definition of "enemy combatant" to include anybody who "has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Whatever that's supposed to mean. No, the Democrats have long been on the frontlines of the federal government's assault on our civil liberties. In fact, what we are seeing today is just a logical continuation of a foundation laid during the Clinton era....Arts, Briefly: NBC Will Not Show Madonna’s Crucifixion Scene, Edward Wyatt
"NBC will edit a crucifixion scene from its broadcast of a Madonna concert next month, but will keep the song that includes the imagery, according to people close to the singer and the network. NBC drew protests last month from religious conservatives, who have echoed an uproar that has followed Madonna around the world on her most recent concert tour. As part of her performance of the song “Live to Tell,” Madonna, right, sings the first part while mounted on a cross, in imitation of the Crucifixion of Jesus. Madonna said in a statement last month that the scene “is not a mocking of the church” and “is neither anti-Christian, sacrilegious or blasphemous.” In a statement yesterday, NBC said, “The ‘Live to Tell’ song has been revised for NBC’s broadcast special.” People close to the situation confirmed that the network, which taped Madonna’s concerts last summer at Wembley Arena in London, will use images from other cameras while Madonna is on the cross, showing her only after she has come down from the cross to the stage. The concert is to be broadcast from 8 to 10 p.m. Eastern time on Nov. 22, during the network’s so-called sweeps period, when viewership is measured to determine advertising rates for the coming year."[In other news, religious conservatives protested the weather. Al Roker, NBC's weatherman, said he'd see what he could do. --Jerry Politex]
Found Poetry: Headline in Sunday's Sports Section, Austin American-Statesman
Flustered Huskersleft to ponder
one that
slipped away.
2006 Election: One Last Chance for the Democratic Party, Christine Tomlinson
The pundits claim that turnout on November 7 will be everything. But will it? Well the New York Times for one is reporting on concerns of chaos at the polls on November 7.So on the evening of November 7 as the polls close across the country watch to see just how much conviction the Democratic party has as far as supporting American democracy. Remember the special election for Cunningham's house seat in San Diego county back in the spring? Whoever she was who was running as a Democratic candidate fell all over herself to concede before the results were in and it took Brad of bradblog.com to actually mount a challenge to the results. Before the election had even been certified in CA, Denny Hastert had already magically sworn in the republican candidate. Where was the Democratic party? It was a single election and not a peep out of the national party to even test their ability to respond to election irregularities.
This time starting with the closing of the polls there should be absolutely NO CONCESSIONS by any Democratic candidate unless:
1) all votes including provisional, absentee and overseas votes have been claimed by the relevant elections board to have been counted; and...
2) the results show that the Republican won by a margin of at least 5%; and...
3) no credible claims of fraud or caging and the like have surfaced
All legal procedures must be deployed to challenge any results that are closer. Even if these challenges are ultimately bound to lose they must be mounted to buy time for charges of irregularities to surface and be examined. Even if the legal maneuvers bankrupt every candidate and the national Democratic party they must be mounted. Remember that Karl Rove litigated an Alabama governors race in the 80s for a year in order to secure "victory" for his candidate. It took that long!
Concessions have been far too early by Democrats -- read Kerry -- who have assumed that the electoral system basically works, but there is ample evidence that it doesn't. Ask Jimmy Carter. Ask Bev Harrison. Ask Ion Sanchez. Even with the above a further step has to be taken. Democratic congress persons must absolutely refuse to allow Hastert and Frist to swear in or otherwise accept any Republican candidate for which the race has not be conceded by the Democratic candidate and for which the race has not be certified by the responsible election board.
The Democratic members of congress must be unified and absolutely prepared to SHUT DOWN the government. There is simply no point to pushing forward as though things will turn out O.K. in the future. There is now a TYRANNY by the current one-party three-branch government. The country can't take any more and remain anything resembling a modern democracy. If you understand this assertion then you must realize that there is no point in trying to conduct business or life as though American society still functions as it used to appear to.
So if you see a bunch of concession speeches and lack of spine in fighting after the polls close for every last vote that was cast whether it was Republican or Democratic then you will understand that the people in the Democratic party that claim to be leaders are in fact simply co-dependents in a dysfunctional tyranny.
IF the Democratic party manages to secure a majority in the House then among the many issues that require attention the absolutely single most important task is to institute real and genuine oversight hearings on all aspects of the past six years of the Bush regime. If, as many of us think, there is solid evidence of one or more high crimes and / or misdemeanors committed by Bush and Cheney then it the only order of business for the House is to impeach. The House cannot do anything else for the simple reason that if there is such evidence then it means that the affairs domestic and foreign of the United States may well be in the hands of an illegitimate regime and if that is true then it is more dangerous to the United States and the world at large to not impeach than it is to impeach.
The canard that the country can't take impeachment doesn't hold water since our Congress impeached and acquitted Clinton with little obvious damage to the country. Pelosi is correct to state that impeachment isn't the first action since it is necessary to actually develop evidence first that can sustain an impeachment; however, watch very closely to see if she and the party stand up to their obligations to the people of the country. It should be clear that if there have been high crimes and / or misdemeanors committed by Bush and Cheney then only by using the framework of the government as laid out in the constitution can the stability and integrity of the government be ensured and that means impeachment and conviction. No compromise is acceptable not for the sake of vengeance or retribution but for the sake of restoring the country to a government of laws rather than a government of men.
Dictator Bush: Does the Bush "Enabling Act" Only Apply to Non-Citizens?, Jerry Politex
According to a 10/19/06 NYT editorial, "the new law on military tribunals...does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents."However, a 09/28/06 NYT editorial dealing with a draft of the bill fails to make that distinction between "legal residents," which includes all American citizens, and "other" legal residents:
"Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of ''illegal enemy combatant'' in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted....All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial," the NYT editors write.
The final version of the bill, the version Bush signed, does not appear to change the NYT's 9/28/06 reading of the bill. Here are the key passages in the bill:
Section 3 of the bill contains an addition to the United States Code. This addition contains the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" as 948a(1). The definition does not exclude U.S. citizens from being declared "unlawful enemy combatant"s.
Section 7 "HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS" of the bill contains an ammendment to another part of the United States Code which deals with Habeas Corpus. This amendment denies the right to apply for writ of habeas corpus to "alien"s which are defined in Section 3 948a(3).
So it would appear that the MCA2006 actually doesn't deny the right to apply for writ of habeas corpus to U.S. citizens; however, the current description of the MCA2006 law at Wikipedia expresses many reservations regarding the practical implementation of the act. For example:
"I am a lawyer. ... I'm inclined to agree that a citizen detained as an unlawful enemy combatant is probably completely screwed, regardless of what the law says."
Here's the problem: According to MCA2006, you could be a U.S. citizen identified as an "unlawful enemy combatant," and you're arrested. You say you're a U.S. citizen, and the law does not apply to you. The authorities will say that under the new law you will not be told why you have been arrested, you don't have the right to an attorney, you're not allowed to communicate with anyone about your case, you will not have a trial, and you can be kept in prison under those conditions indefinitely. Given your knowledge of the history of the Bush Administration, for instance, its documented abuse of the Patriot Act, do you have faith that the above could not happen to you? Since it's up to Bush, and Bush alone, to decide who is an "unlawful enemy combatant," he has become the dictator that he once said he wanted to be.
As Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman writes, the legislation: "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Keith Olberman and legal scholar Jonathan Turley also assume (see videos aove) that the newly-signed Bush law MCA2006 applies to all U.S. citizens, anyone, not just a limited class of "other legal United States residents." The NYT editorial of 9/28/06 agrees.
Who Knew?: Who Killed JFK?, Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron
The following is excerpted from a Common Dreams story in yesterday's edition, JFK's Biggest Secret Revealed -- But Will Congress Keep History from Repeating Itself? --Jerry Politex
The US government has finally made available to the public the biggest secret of JFK's presidency: In November 1963, JFK was secretly working with the #3 official in Cuba -- Commander Juan Almeida, head of the Cuban Army -- to stage a "palace coup" against Fidel Castro. Even today, the CIA currently lists Almeida as the #3 official in Cuba, just behind Raul Castro. The fact that Almeida remained unexposed and high in the Cuban government for decades is a primary reason that over four million pages of JFK assassination files were kept secret until the late 1990s....
The JFK-Almeida coup plan (codenamed AMWORLD by the CIA) came about because of the failure to resolved the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. As JFK's Secretary of State Dean Rusk revealed to us -- and files later confirmed -- JFK's pledge not to invade Cuba never took effect because of Fidel's refusal to allow "UN inspections" for "weapons of mass destruction" that were part of JFK's deal with the Soviets to end the crisis. JFK, not Bush, was the first president to use those terms -- and to suffer tragic consequences because problems with such inspections led to an attempt to overthrow a foreign dictator.
The JFK-Almeida coup failed because it was infiltrated by three Mafia bosses targeted for prosecution by Attorney General Robert Kennedy (who played the leading role in managing the coup plan for his brother). The Mafia chiefs -- banned by the Kennedys from the coup plan, and from reopening their casinos in Cuba -- infiltrated the CIA's portion of the coup plan, and used parts of it to kill JFK in Dallas. This forced key US officials -- RFK, LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover -- into a cover-up to protect Almeida and prevent a possible nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, a cover-up which continued for decades.
The Mafia bosses infiltrated the JFK-Almeida coup plan using contacts established during Richard Nixon's first "October Surprise," in 1960. The CIA admits it was working with the Mafia chiefs at that time, in an attempt to assassinate Fidel just before the 1960 election between Nixon and JFK. Unknown to JFK, the CIA continued using the Mafia bosses in their own anti-Castro operations into October and November of 1963, giving the mobsters a way to infiltrate JFK's coup plan with Almeida.
Robert Kennedy knew who killed his brother, and even told associates about the leading role of New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello. But RFK couldn't tell the Warren Commission or the public -- or even allow a thorough investigation -- without endangering Almeida and risking World War III. The FBI finally got a detailed confession from Marcello in 1985 when he was in prison, thanks to a trusted FBI informant deemed credible by a Federal judge. But the FBI and the Reagan-Bush Justice Department withheld it from the public. They also refused to prosecute Marcello for numerous crimes the godfather confessed to on hundreds of hours of tapes generated by a court-authorized bug in his prison cell. This allowed Marcello to go free, after he was released from prison on a technicality. All of those 1985 tapes are still being withheld more than a decade after the godfather's death.
The JFK-Almeida coup plan -- and the Mafia's infiltration of it -- was withheld from the Warren Commission and at least six Congressional Committees, and some of those involved are still active in politics. Current Senator Arlen Specter was the Warren Commission attorney who dealt with two JFK aides who said they were pressured to alter their testimony about seeing shots from the grassy knoll "for the good of the country."...
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were key officials in the Ford Administration -- and George H. W. Bush was CIA Director -- when information about the Mafia's infiltration of the JFK-Almeida coup plan was withheld from the Senate Church Committee (including Gary Hart and Walter Mondale) and Congress's Pike Committee....
Because Almeida's family and his work for JFK have been officially declassified, we can now tell the full story of the JFK-Almeida coup -- and its penetration by Marcello -- in the new, updated trade paperback edition of our book Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK. As it details, there was not a large conspiracy that killed JFK -- none of those named in this article were involved, except Marcello -- but there was a big effort to protect Almeida and to cover-up information that could harm the reputations of agencies and key officials....
Letters and Responses: The Topic That Will Not Die: Should the Democratic Party Be Eradicated? Pat P., Pat S., and Politex
Politex, I have subscribed to Bush Watch from the beginning.... And it sickens me to see people tear down our only hope of getting the Republicans out of power.Now: I do recognize that Democrats are not perfect.
But: I also realize that when a minority of Democrats vote over with the Republicans, it is a SMEAR to tear down the MAJORITY of Democrats as being guilty of this too.
So you want to destroy the Democrat Party? This must mean (in today's environment)
(1) you are a fool who is unaware liberals only make up 20% of the population, and therefore cannot dictate their views in a democracy,
else,
(2) you are a secret operative for the Bush administration (or similar right wing organization) trying to keep the Republicans in power.
I really don't know which it is????
This sounds a lot like the Ralph Nader strategy... look how well that worked -- i.e. is everyone ready to vote for Ralph now. NO. Ralph put Bush in. Your strategy will work no differently.
Disgusted, Pat P.
Thanks for your comments, Pat.
Here's what I wrote, rather than what you say I wrote:
"Here at Bush Watch we believe that if the Democratic Party can't defend our basic Constitutional freedoms, it has no reason to exist. Not only have Senate Democrats refused to filibuster against this law that tears out the very heart of our democracy, 12 Democrats voted for it: Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Stabenow. According to the editors of the Washington Post, "Congress has allowed itself to be stampeded into a vote on hastily written but far-reaching legal provisions, in a preelection climate in which dissenters risk being labeled as soft on terrorism....Democrats...have been largely and cravenly absent from this month's debate..."
"Everyone has a breaking point, a point where one says, enough is enough. Have we reached that point? Clearly, it's not enough to attempt to defeat those 12 Democrats that voted to destroy our democracy, for others with the same un-American beliefs will rise in their places, be they Republicans or Democrats. Is it time to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the Democratic Party that, even though it's presently a minority party, we will not continue to allow it to sell off our country, one dictatorial bill after the other, to allow Democrats to remain in office and serve as a false opposition to the ongoing Republican destruction of our democracy? Is it time to stop voting Democratic, hoping for the best, and being disappointed? Is it time to eradicate the Democratic Party and abandon the illusion of choice? is it time to send the only message that politicians understand? Is it time to say "no" to every single Democratic Party politician in the nation? Is it time for a painful regeneration?
"If our present direction continues, eventually we could very well reach the time when the Democratic Party will have nothing to trade away, when the three branches of government no longer exist as a system of checks and balances, when the power of government is in the hands of a dictatorial president, when all Americans are judged under legislation applied to terrorists. Is now the time to act? Please let us know what you think."
Ok, now where do I write that I want to destroy the Democratic Party?
What I do write is this:
"Here at Bush Watch we believe that if the Democratic Party can't defend our basic Constitutional freedoms, it has no reason to exist."
Either you disagree with that statement or you're implying the Democratic Party CAN defend our basic Constitutional Freedoms, right?
Ok, so please answer the following four questions. When I receive your answers, I'll respond further.
1. What is your response to the Military Commissions Act?
2. What is your response to the Democratic Party's support of the Military Commissions Act by its deal with the GOP not to filibuster the legislation?
3. Once the Democratics take over Congress, do you think they will attempt to rescind the Military Commmissions Act?
4. Do you agree that any political party that can't defend our basic Constitutional Freedoms has no right to exist?
thanks and best, Jerry Politex
Politex, I've read some of the responses to your 'aboloshing the democratic party' article, as well as most of the aritcle itself and I have to say that it really sounds like you are trying to break up what little hope we have of putting the repubs back in their place.
I have Never believed that any politician is a "good" politician, but there has almost always been a "lesser of 2 evils" to choose from and that choice has almost always been a democrat.
I think that now - instead of trying to scatter the potential votes for democrates - we need to pull together people to vote democrat, even if some of them are worse choices than their republican counterparts, just so that the democrats can have a CHANCE at putting the Shrub Regime back in its place!
Please... stop trying to pull the democratic party apart... we NEED to come together and we NEED to do that NOW MORE THAN EVER!
Pat S.
Thanks for your note and your honesty, Pat.
Sorry you haven't had a chance to read the material you need to have read in order to reach an informed conclusion.
I'm afraid you're not alone, given the lack of response by the electorate to the fact that we have lost our rights as American citizens and Bush is now Dictator, rather than President. Few seem to take the time these days to learn the facts and reach informed opinions. This does not speak well for the future of our nation, does it?
But don't take my word for it. Click on the Olberman video images at the top of this home page and listen carefully to what he and others have to say on these subjects.
After reading the letters in response to the original editorial and thinking further, I responded to Demus in conclusion to the "Eradication" series, which is linked on our daily news page. You probably won't have a chance to read my conclusion so here it is re your topic of interest, the need to support the Democratic Party:
"While we can't be supportive of a party that no longer represents its own ideals, we can be supportive of the need to defeat Bush to prevent even worse unchecked actions that he would unleash upon the nation during his remaining two years. That's why we think there is little choice but to vote for DEM candidates in the 2006 federal House and Senate elections."
thanks and best, Jerry Politex
Op-Eds: The Latest From Floyd (2), Weiner, Partridge, and Wokusch.
Sentimental Education: Academia Signs Up for Tracking Down Dissent , Chris Floyd Why is the United States government spending millions of dollars to track down critics of George W. Bush in the press? And why have major American universities agreed to put this technology of tyranny into the state's hands? At the most basic level, of course, both questions are easily answered: 1) Power. 2) Money. The Bush administration wants to be able to root out - and counteract - any dissenting noises that might put a crimp in its ongoing crusade for "full spectrum dominance" of global affairs, while the august institutions of higher learning involved - the universities of Cornell, Pittsburgh and Utah - crave the federal green that keeps them in clover. But beyond these grubby realities, there are many other disturbing aspects of this new program - which is itself only part of a much broader penetration of American academia by the Department of Homeland Security....Why Bush Smiles: Victory is at Hand in Iraq , Chris Floyd
Despite George W. Bush's ostentatious bucking up of the Iraqi government yesterday, it is very likely that there will indeed be an American-engineered coup ousting Maliki and installing some sort of strongman-led "national unity government" in Baghdad soon, probably before the end of the year....What will likely bring on the coup is the December deadline for crafting a new oil law, which was imposed on Iraq by the International Monetary Fund, as part of the deal to write off some – but by no means all – of the nation's crushing debt. Given the current level of intense anti-American feeling in Iraq, and the overwhelming majority support among every sector of society for ending the occupation, and the overwhelming belief among Iraqis that the chief reason behind the invasion was to steal their oil, it is almost inconceivable that Maliki will be able to sign the new law, which essentially opens up Iraq's oil wealth to decades of despoliation by U.S. and European energy conglomerates. The Maliki government – already weak, incompetent and despised, as are all puppet regimes – could not possibly survive the political backlash that such a move would provoke....Munich Address: It's Even Worse, And Better, Than We Thought , Bernard Weiner
Two years ago, when we last met in this same building shortly after the debacle of the 2004 election, the situation in the U.S. was really bad, but not yet desperate. The question then was "how bad would it get under CheneyBush?" The short answer to that question now is "Very VERY bad." Consider:Today, things are so bad in the States for liberals, progressives, Democrats of all stripes that a kind of permanent political depression is the operative mode for so many of us laboring in the anti-Bush, pro-democracy fields.
So bad that many of my friends and colleagues, depending on what happens November 7, are seriously thinking about getting out while the getting is good, like those who emigrated in fear from late-'30s Germany.
So bad that one almost doesn't want to open the newspaper in the morning or listen to the news at night, for the latest Bush&Co. atrocity or policy-disasters -- and for how the mainstream, corporate media ignores them or takes the White House spin as its marching orders.
So bad that, at least on the fringes -- from the far Right and the far Left -- there is starting to be talk about the possible need for some kind of revolution, even if undefined.
So bad, that some liberals -- yes, liberals! -- are starting to float speculation about a military coup to overthrow the Bush Administration.
That's how far we've come in two years. ON THE OTHER HAND...
Reflections: On the Eve of Another Rigged Election , Ernest Partridge
The Bush administration can not allow the Democrats to take control of either house of Congress. And they are in a position to prevent it, regardless of the will of the American voters. These are the two controlling facts that make all other conditions of the coming election trivial in comparison, or even irrelevant. The failure of the media and even the Democratic Party to acknowledge and deal with these facts in no way diminishes their significance. Quite the contrary. And why can’t the Busheviks allow the loss of even one house of Congress to the Democrats? Such a loss might, of course, result in the halting and even some reversal of the Bush/GOP agenda. But that is the least of their concerns. Far more important would be the reestablishment of Congressional oversight -- of investigations, with the penalties of perjury and contempt of Congress, into vast array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Among these crimes are bribery, the disappearance of billions of dollars in Iraq, war crimes, the disregard of acts of Congress, lying to Congress, and fraudulent elections....The UN: Mr. Ban, Meet Mr. Bolton , Heather Wokusch
When Ban Ki-moon becomes the new Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) on January 1, he will face numerous unpleasant problems: corruption scandals, Security Council gridlock, geopolitical conflict and - John Bolton....Understandably, the world community was stunned and offended when Bush nominated the combative Bolton to be US Ambassador to the UN in March 2005. Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination after the White House refused to hand over classified documents about Bolton's having allegedly mishandled intelligence assessments about Syria. There were also concerns over reports Bolton had mistreated subordinates, and questions over his controversial statements regarding the United Nations, including:...
Dictator Bush: Fear of Tyranny Grips Many Americans , Sherwood Ross
Fear for their own personal security, so typical of people in a nation whose leaders are grasping for absolute power, has begun to grip broad segments of the American public. In church this past Sunday one man spoke up during the “concerns” portion of the service, beginning, “When the arrests begin I will probably be the first one picked up.” He then went on to tell of a woman he knew recently released from a mental institution in Texas where, he said, the Federal government had locked her up for a year after she tried to show officials “proof” Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had no WMD.I found this anecdote incredible until I recalled a recent reliable press account of a man arrested by the Secret Service merely for politely telling Vice President Cheney at a public appearance he disagreed with his policies. Whether the story of the woman tossed into an asylum is factual, there are growing numbers of people who fear retribution for exercising their right of free speech. People warn their friends: Better not say that in public. Better not put that in writing. After hearing the story of the woman’s arrest, a second congregation member stood up to warn dictatorships commit their dark deeds out of sight of the general public. He told of growing up in Argentina under the junta, oblivious to the fact the torture barracks was within a blocks of his home. Life, he said, went on normally even as people were murdered, and he prayed America would not suffer a like fate.
After the service, which was apolitical, still another church-goer circulated a petition opposing the Military Commissions Act, the one depriving arrested captives, according to Amnesty International, of “any opportunity for meaningful judicial review.” Signers were not just reaffirming the idea of the golden rule. Some were thinking what President Bush is doing to Guantanamo ’s captives might also be done to them one day. This fear is spurred by a growing mistrust of, and anger towards, the Bush White House. A majority of Americans, polls now tell us, think President Bush knew Iraq had no WMD when he made the war. In short, they regard the man as deceitful. And when people do not trust their leaders, they fear them and those they fear they also hate. Columnist Molly Ivins three years ago wrote in “The Progressive” her reasons for hating President Bush. That feeling is spreading. Automobile bumper strips declare “Enough Bushit.” People commonly refer to Bush in conversation as “King George.” One Website dubs him, “The Smirking Chimp.” (During the Civil War, when anti-Administration newspapers compared President Lincoln to an ape it was based on their view he was bungling the war rather than of any personal fear of the man.)
Among Democrats --- as among some conservative Republicans who feel their principles have been betrayed --- the fury toward the President is palpable. The New York Times reported Sunday, October 15th, “48 percent of Democrats say they are ‘more enthusiastic about voting than usual’” in the midterm elections. “Enthusiastic” isn’t the half of it. Many are enraged, reflected in the vitriolic mail piling up in Congress. Gays, singled out for punishment by the Bush White House, are among the more apprehensive. Their concern is heightened by GOP-sponsored referendums prohibiting gay marriage, such as the one on the Virginia ballot. They worry about being officially stigmatized as second-class citizens. Liberals are also apprehensive. Some right-wing radio talk personalities use the word “liberal” much as Hitler used the word “Jews.” Fear is also fueled by press reports about people being denied civil liberties, such as being kept from boarding an airliner without an explanation; of foreign scholars denied teaching opportunities here because of their views; of foreign students given no reason by State Department consuls for being denied the opportunity to study here. Fear also spreads when public officials who speak the truth are demoted or dismissed. People become upset when a general who disagrees on Iraq tactics is booted and a high Army Corps of Engineers official is demoted for charging contracts are being let without competitive bids. There is a spreading belief the president has a vindictive streak and will punish anyone who opposes him. This has a chilling impact on free expression.
My own recollection is fear of President Bush today is infinitely greater than fear during the era of Senator Joe McCarthy back in the Fifties. McCarthy whipped up anti-Communist sentiment to paranoid heights but he was only a Senator. He couldn’t start a war on his own or reach out and have people arrested under any Patriot Act. Now there is a president with virtual dictatorial powers who has deceitfully invaded Iraq , where reportedly 650,000 civilians have been killed for no good reason; who has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, who operates secret prisons around the world, and who implies his critics are unpatriotic. What’s his next step?
Yes, it is happening before our eyes: the nation that gave the world the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Four Freedoms, and played a large role in creating the UN Charter, is witnessing the evisceration of its civil liberties. Those who are beating the war drums about terror abroad may well be the first to unleash terror at home. Am I scared? You bet. Gangrene spreads.
(Sherwood Ross is an American reporter. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)
Next Month's Elections: It's All About Stopping Bush (excerpts) , Paul Krugman
The fact is that this is a one-letter election. D or R, that’s all that matters. It’s hard to think of an election in which the personal qualities of the people running in a given district or state have mattered less. Given the stakes, voters who answer “yes” to the question Mr. Lieberman claims not to have thought about should think hard about voting for any Republican, no matter how appealing. Conversely, those who answer “no” should think hard about supporting any Democrat, no matter how much they like him or her.There are two reasons why party control is everything in this election. The first, lesser reason is the demonstrated ability of Republican Congressional leaders to keep their members in line, even those members who cultivate a reputation as moderates or mavericks. G.O.P. politicians sometimes make a show of independence, as Senator John McCain did in seeming to stand up to President Bush on torture. But in the end, they always give the White House what it wants: after getting a lot of good press for his principled stand, Mr. McCain signed on to a torture bill that in effect gave Mr. Bush a completely free hand. And if the Republicans retain control of Congress, even if it’s by just one seat in each house, Mr. Bush will retain that free hand. If they lose control of either house, the G.O.P. juggernaut will come to a shuddering halt.
Yet that’s the less important reason this election is all about party control. The really important reason may be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Even if the Democrats take both houses, they won’t be able to accomplish much in the way of new legislation. They won’t have the votes to stop Republican filibusters in the Senate, let alone to override presidential vetoes. The only types of legislation the Democrats might be able to push through are overwhelmingly popular measures, such as an increase in the minimum wage, that Republicans don’t want but probably wouldn’t dare oppose in an open vote. But while the Democrats won’t gain the ability to pass laws, if they win they will gain the ability to carry out investigations, and the legal right to compel testimony.
The current Congress has shown no inclination to investigate the Bush administration. Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. If the Democrats take control, that will change — and voters should think very hard about whether they want that change. Those who think it’s a good idea to investigate, say, allegations of cronyism and corruption in Iraq contracting should be aware that any vote cast for a Republican makes Congressional investigations less likely. Those who believe that the administration should be left alone to do its job should be aware that any vote for a Democrat makes investigations more likely....
Amsterdam Diary: Borat Invades Amsterdam, Bush Hosts Dictator , Jerry Politex
Amsterdam is considered a pretty cool place, and everyone wants to sell their cultural wares there. Borat (aka Ali G) was in Amsterdam Thursday and we missed him. Every Wednesday AMSTERDAM WEEKLY, a free tabloid in English, is distributed in bookstores and other high traffic places in the Centrum, listing cultural events of interest for the seven days to come. For instance, we learned that the Michael Moore Jazz Quintet (alto, trumphet, piano, bass, and drums) was playing at the Bimhuis last Tuesday, so we went. Many top musicians think the the Bimhuis, a small auditorium with a cafe inside the Muziekgebouw, is the best there is. While we've not seen 'em all, we think its combination of comfort, design, and intimacy would be hard to beat. Not only that, but the Muziekgebouw, down at the harbor behind Central Station, is a marvelous and imposing modernist structure, and shouldn't be missed. (While you're in the neighborhood, the excellent modern wing of the Stedelijk Museum is temporarily in the old Post Office nearby, and NEMO, is next to it, looking like the prow of a ship.) The Moore group was excellent, in a SILENT WAY Miles way. Anyway, we missed the Weekly this past Wednesday, and we paid the price: no Barat for us.Here's how the Associated Press described the event:
"The comedian known as "Borat" appeared briefly in Amsterdam Thursday, praising the city's freewheeling nightlife and defending his portrayal of the central Asian country of Kazakhstan. Borat boasted of picking up a date at a popular Amsterdam bar known as a gay meeting place. "This woman reminded me of Kazakhi woman, she was more tall than me, with hair on arms, and some hair on face, and deep voice," he told the Dutch press. Borat Sagdiyev, played by British comic Sacha Baron Cohen, has been criticized as a homophobic, misogynistic, English-mangling caricature — the very traits that endear him to fans of his satire.
"Kazakhstan's government placed four-page advertising inserts in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune last month, countering Borat's portrayal of the ex-Soviet country as a backward place. Borat said Thursday the ads were placed by agents of neighboring Uzbekistan and threatened to "commence bombardment of their cities with our catapults," if they do not stop. In reality, Kazakhstan profiles itself as a forward-looking pro-Western nation, with double-digit economic growth and immense oil reserves. Last month, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev met with U.S. President George W. Bush to discuss economic ties. (*) Borat claimed that the true aim of Nazarbayev's trip was to promote Cohen's new film, 'Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.'"
(*) "Kazakhstan's political structure concentrates power in the presidency. Current President Nursultan Nazarbayev was elected to a 7 year term in a 2006 election that, many observers note, fell far short of international standards. The legislature and judiciary, as well as regional and local governments are not independent from executive control, and changes or amendments to the Constitution require presidential consent. No opposition parties are represented in the Lower House of Parliament. Corruption remains systemic. While civilian authorities maintained effective control of the security forces, members of the security forces are reported to have committed human rights abuses." --Wikipedia.
Editorial/Op-Eds: The Latest From Politex, Uhler, Hedges, Wokusch, Bell, and Brasch,
Unsigned: Bush, Hitler, and the the Military Commissions Act of 2006 , Jerry Politex Ronda Hauben recently pointed out that "unlike Hitler [re his Enabling Act], Bush didn't seek a constitutional amendment [to have the Military Comissions Act of 2006 passed]. Instead, he asked Congress to pass this fundamental change to the Constitution as a normal bill, and they complied." She clarifies: "In Germany, the Enabling Act required an amendment to the Constitution. In the U.S., the Military Commissions Act also requires a constitutional amendment, which requires that two-thirds of the Congress consider and approve the amendment and then a vote by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to approve the amendment. An alternative means for seeking an amendment is to have two-thirds of the states call a constitutional convention, approve the amendment, and then vote in favor of the change." None of this has happened, so legal scholars have noted that Bush's Military Comissions Act is unconstitutional.That may be so, but until the Supreme Court says so or a Judge suspends it on the basis of a challenge, the bill is in effect, making Bush dictator and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights moot. This is a tactic often used by Bush: he or members of his administration create a rule or get a bill passed, and until the rule or bill is stopped in a court, Bush uses it as though it were constitutional. Given this scenario, it's possible that the Military Commissions Act will be in effect through the rest of his normal term of office. For example, this is presently the case with Bush's wiretapping activities. But Keith Olberman has recently added a twist to this scenario: Bush has yet to sign the Military Commissions Act into law. Why? [Update: He's planning to sign it today: October 17, 2006.]
Because it's already in effect without Bush's signature. Among other things, not signing protects him from future charges that although he swore to uphold the Constitution in order to become President, he failed to do so by signing an act that is clearly unconstitutional, since its directives are specifically addressed as such in the Constitution. Here's how it works, according to C-SPAN's Congressional Glossary: "A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution. (The bill was passed on Sept. 29, 2006.) Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect. If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature." Congress is presently in session and 10 days have passed. [Update: Since Bush is signing the bill today, and since the bill already is in effect, the signing becomes a campaign photo-op for the coming elections. And/Or, perhaps the signing delay had something to do with Bush getting his constitutional ducks in a row at the Supreme Court. October 17, 2006] --Jerry Politex, October 13, 2006
Op-Eds: The Latest From Uhler, Hedges, Wokusch, Bell, and Brasch
North Korea: Warmongering and the "Pseudo-environment" of Warped American Exceptionalism , Walter C. Uhler Walter Lippmann got it right when observed the every individual inhabits a "pseudo-environment," not a real environment. Although direct, real-world experiences fill part of an individual's pseudo-environment, invariably such experiences are distorted by the subjective interpretations placed on them More problematic, however, are the ideas - often completely divorced from direct experience - which fill much of an individual's pseudo-environment. Such ideas come from second-hand stories, myths, information, images and news. As Lippmann observed: Man "is learning to see with his mind vast portions of the world that he could never see, touch, smell, hear or remember." [Public Opinion, p. 18] Moreover, as Lippmann famously asserted, truth and news are not the same thing. "The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts." [Ibid, p. xiv] Thus, given these limitations of the mind and the news media. Lippmann concluded that the world had become too complex for even the most educated men of integrity to fully comprehend. Unfortunately, what applies to individuals also applies to nations....War On Iran? Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse , Chris Hedges
The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it. War with Iran—a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East—is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as “the Axis of Evil.” They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions....N. Korea Nukes: Bush’s FUBAR Foreign Policy , Heather Wokusch
As had been threatened, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il reportedly conducted an underground nuclear test yesterday, a move which promotes a global nuclear arms race and nullifies non-proliferation agreements. Take it personally. How ironic that North Korea carried out its nuclear test as an armada of US warships heads to Iran, ostensibly in retaliation for Iran's alleged nuclear-development plan, which US intelligence agencies estimate would take over a decade to implement, if it exists at all. Different countries suffer different consequences for proliferation. If nothing else, North Korea's flamboyant tyrant, Kim Jong-Il, appears once again to have outfoxed the world community, and his nuclear test will play well domestically, with his people facing another hungry, harsh winter. Kim can also rely on the usual US response to his transgressions: harsh words, talk of UN sanctions, and then complete disinterest as fighting in the Middle East takes precedence. Kim Jong-Il knows full well that Bush's record on North Korea has been characterized by bravado and indifference....Nuke 'Toon: Bush Responds to N. Korean Bomb Test , Steve Bell
The Full List: Sex, Lies and Family Values , Walter Brasch Sanctimoniously proclaiming themselves piously religious and patriotic, [the GOP has] forsaken both the Bible and the Constitution. George W. Bush, when asked if he had consulted his father prior to the invasion of Iraq, devoutly declared that he had spoken to his "higher father." His actions prove that he has abandoned both his heavenly father and this nation's forefathers. So much for honoring thy father. The salacious "family values" Republicans have become the party of right-wing ri