After the ACLU and a senator got involved, the VA climbed down and apologized to her.
But, let’s pause for a moment at this claim that she “insulted” the government. That does take one’s breath away, doesn’t it? Has the cult of personality around right-wing leaders now spread out to the government itself as an entity that must be worshipped and its majesty not ‘insulted’ by pointing out that (the case Berg was making) that Katrina response was a big failure?
And has Mr. Hooker been fired? Disciplined? Apparently not. The VA says they’ve “moved on.” It should come as no surprise to anyone who’s ever worked in a large company that Hooker is in that totally misnamed “human resources” department.
And Berg’s characterization of the current junta in Washington as having “misplaced priorities” and suffering from “criminal negligence” is still true, isn’t it?
Number voting in the Democratic caucuses: 36,695
Number voting in the Republican caucuses: 19,133
The Democratic vote is 66% of the total.
In Kansas.
In 2004, Bush received 62% of the vote in Kansas.
In 2006, registration broke down this way:
Republican: 46%
Democratic: 26%
Unaffiliated: 26%
Other parties: 2%
But in the 2008 caucus, 66% of those showing up went to the Democratic caucuses.
The Kansas House of Representatives has 47 Democrats and 78 Republicans.
But in the 2008 caucus, 66% of those showing up went to the Democratic caucuses.
And the Republican caucuses were on a Saturday, the Democrats held theirs on a weeknight.
[After the 2006 election] many were optimistic that the new Congress would stop acting like a rubber stamp for the White House ... Unfortunately, it seems that our new leaders in the House and Senate didn’t get the message. ... The leaders of the 110th Congress have been so compliant, so silent and so intimidated by Bush administrant accusations that they are ‘soft on terrorism.’]]>Nearly a year into its first session, this Congress has failed to restore habeas corpus; failed to end torture and rendition; and failed to close the notorious detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.
Congress should be buy righting the wrongs of the past six years.
Since the 1950s, U.S. energy consumption, mainly driven by the transportation sector and fed by oil, has almost tripled.]]>...
Although the United States has managed to boost oil production from 5.9 million barrels per day in 1950 to 7.8 million barrels per day in 2005, this is not sufficient con¬sidering the daily need of 20.7 million barrels, two-thirds of which is consumed by the transportation sector.
...
Due to higher oil prices, energy imports add¬ed about $70 billion to the U.S. trade deficit in 2005 and $50 billion in 2006.25 They currently account for roughly one-third of the current trade imbalance.
...
Oil consumption accounts for about 40 percent of energy-related carbon di¬oxide emissions, which cause pollution, human health problems, and climate change.
Ms. Wolf tells us the road we're headed:
what is clear is that the State is habituating citizens to being moved around at gunpoint, physically intimidated or frightened by representatives of the government.]]>
What is interesting is WHY this has become a signature issue for the tinfoil brigade. They could easily take the view that global warming means more jobs because there will be different lands to plow and new houses to build on top of wildlife, and so on. Lots of business opportunities in global warming for people who already have money.
My best guess is that it is the same dynamic that leads conservatives to oppose energy efficiency. First, their view of manhood requires that you destroy and plow under and generally "conquer" nature, and both energy efficiency and changes to mitigate warming are imply that you will be listening and responding to the needs of the environment rather than bulldozing it.
Secondly, I think they suspect that concern about global warming is a stalking horse for an anti-capitalist view of the world. Global warming is a concern of people who have, in the past, also been concerned about animal rights, poor people, Palestinians, and the like; people who suggest that you can live happily on less rather than more, more, more and people who are unlikely to become day-traders. These are not people who like capitalism, or at the minimum, not people who worship capitalism. Thus, if THIS crowd supports concern about global warming, the wing nuts have to be against it.
Sorry, no sale. SurveyUSA reports the grim news. In Kansas Bush’s approval rating is a beautiful 38% against a disapproval of 60%. Among those over 55 it is 37%. Among self-identified moderates it is 28%
But here is the statistic that announces the doom of the entire Bush regime. Among Kansans who own a gun his approval is 48% against a disapproval of 50%. That’s right, Bush can’t even carry gun owners in Kansas. That’s sad. That’s the end.
So who does support Bush? Well he gets 64% among Republicans and 71% among those who think global warming is a hoax. No comment.
]]>I admit that I admire Rushing. From his first appearance in the movie Control Room through the last page of this book he is unfailingly calm, reasonable and even handed; not something we have a surplus of these days. His personal journey is compelling, but his mission: to break down barriers of misunderstanding between Americans and the world confident that most people everywhere want to live in peace is one I strongly believe in.
The book mirrors this. He recounts his personal story, his upbringing, his career in the Marines, his frustration with the political appointees who shaped relations with the media during the early days of the Iraq war and his transition out of the Marines due to their distaste with his appearance in Control Room. By the way, he explains that almost all of the film of him in that movie comes from one interview, and doesn’t really reflect an arc of growth over a period of time.
My only frustration with the book is that because he so calm, that he doesn’t provide many of the juicy details I was hoping for. Some are there, and my favorites are the stories of the arch-conservative spokespeople who orate against the evil of Al Jazera and then accept money from it for interviews. But even then he can’t bring himself to indulge in inflated rhetoric and violent denunciations. Probably a good thing.
Most of the book is given to him arguing his case for increased and open interaction with the Arab world and the key role that interacting with Al Jazera could play in that. He points out that, by one survey, Al Jazera is the number one media brand in the world. He defends the network against some common distortions (it has never, not once, shown a beheading, for example) and reminds readers that Al Jazera has been thrown out of most of the Arab world for its honest reporting.
One of the interesting ironies is that Israel is more open about interacting with Al Jazera than is American media. Israeli government spokespeople appear on the network regularly; American’s refuse.
Rushing’s vision of the world is hopeful and compelling. His tag line on the book is reflected on every page: “Build a bridge, seek the truth, change the world.”
]]>No, forget that. The New York Times reports (June 7, page c1) that auto execs have landed in Washington to oppose a proposal to make a 27% improvement in gas mileage over the next 13 years – which works out to about a 2% a year improvement. 2% a year would “gravely damage” the industry. 2%. And this after years of mileage actually going down – so it’s not is if this effort comes after some Herculean effort.
Gosh, I guess the US automakers must have the most incompetent engineering staffs in the entire world – if they haven’t laid them off already. They can’t manage 2% a year improvement.
No wonder the world is eating them for lunch.
]]>The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December.
As quoted in Crooks and Liars.
A few sites are mentioning this, but it’s not getting much play. The resolution may be vetoed.
A day after I posted the previous comment on the boarder patrol, this news item caught my eye in the May 16th Salt Lake City Standard Examiner
The face and fingerprint-matching technology that has been touted over the past decade as a sophisticated new way to stop terrorists and illegal immigrants from entering the country through Mexico has one major drawback: U.S. boarder inspectors almost never use it.
Some of it hasn’t been installed, using it would “create too big a backup at the border,” and besides what fun is this compared to tracking down people who used LSD 25 years ago? I mean, drugs are a threat, right?
Once again, the mind boggles. Mr. Feldmar has never been convicted for using drugs, the U.S. Border Patrol, evidently with a lot of time on its hands, ran a Goggle search (apparently) and discovered this fact.
And this exclusion was not an accident – it is policy that any use of drugs, no matter how long ago, no matter if no criminal action was taken – gets you banned from the US.
In what way is this man a threat to the US? Just how is it that people never convicted in a court can be regarded as felons?
]]> Some questions come to mind. Has any Hollywood star been banned from entering Canada, or any Canadian actor banned from the US? Not of course, to suggest that they might have used drugs. Well, we did keep Cat Stevens out, but that was because he converted to Islam and therefore must have become a terrorist.And what about writing in support of Mr. Feldmar – would that be “aiding and abetting”, or perhaps “conspiracy to commit” the same things that got him banned?
What about murders who have served their time? I couldn’t quickly lay hands on any documents that provide the rules for what can get you banned from the US. But it seems unlikely that we prohibit everyone with a felony conviction from entering.
Once again we spend resources on things that are not problems and therefore have no money to stop the real problems.
We generally have pretty low standards for our boarder patrol, one of the least intelligent departments of our government, but this seems a new low.
]]>He’s writing about Hezbollah and says:
On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah fighters directed by Nasrallah abducted two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others in an unprovoked attack across the Lebanon0Israel boardre, on the pretext of seeking a prisoner exchange.Yo, Tom: if he was “seeking a prisoner exchange” than that would tend to imply that Israel had Hezbollah prisoners which would tend to imply that Israel had engaged in some military activity against Hezbollah would tend to imply that ... Hezbollah’s raid was not “unprovoked.”
Let me know if any of the words I’m using are too big.
You can see that in the constantly vague pronouncements about an ever shifting objective for ending the war: “victory” (over what? who will surrender?) “staying the course” (what is the course?) and so on. Objectives that have no measurable component other than the useful quality of always being in the future.
But the clearest evidence for the stalling tactic is that now the “surge” is being spun out to last longer and longer. It was supposed to be over by summer, remember? Well, it turns out it hasn’t even really begun yet. Oh no, it will be months until we can begin to fairly assess how it works. Months that take us closer to the time bell running out the current administration.
The administration and its water-carriers have been effective in coming up with reasons for why criticism of the war is out of bounds. The cry of “treason” and of “defeat-o-crats” have been used, but now, with the surge, they have a whole new set of excuses. To criticize them now is “premature” – no, the four years of disaster are but prelude, this time its really going to work and you have to be quiet until it does. And of course, the surge has ‘changed everything’ so all the reasons and arguments you had about Iraq last year have to be discarded else you be accused of being out of date.
But lets call this strategy what it is: spineless, gutless, self-obsessed morally degenerate opportunism that thinks it better that a few hundred young American men and women and a few thousand Iraqi’s die than to have to face up to ending the war. In order to cling to temporary political survival, the Republicans think it just fine to go on blowing up a nation. There are few words equal to describing this immorality.
Bush and his minions have it figured out: a Democrat takes over in 2008, ends the war. In the short run, more chaos. Fellow travelers in the press suddenly take an interest in Iraq civilian casualties, a topic they have not much noted in the last four years. Many sad stories of abandoned Iraqi army units that were, amazingly, just on the verge of becoming effective. Republicans jump up and down yelling “cut and run.” Pundit hacks write gravely of the Democratic inability to possess the needed tough-mindedness to handle the adult decisions of national security.
And of course, all that aided and abetted by the ongoing inability of Democrats to formulate a coherent argument and an effective media campaign.
In other words, as bankrupt as the Bush strategy is for Iraq, it just might work for the Republicans.
]]>3/5 update:
A reader wrote the following:
It seems to me that all the leadership courage has been sucked out of the planet (through the ozone layer, perhaps?). I'm not seeing courage anywhere---in my work with organizations, nor certainly on the political horizon.
Yes, where is the courage, the leadership to express our outrage about the attempt to attack Iran?
]]>